Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

Bad, Bad, BAD News: Harry Reid To Run For Sixth Term In 2016...


C'mon, Harry, you idiot... it's time to retire and spend your few remaining years reading cowboy poetry.


Via The Hill:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he'll run for a sixth term in the Senate in 2016 — though it doesn't sound like he's given the bid much thought at this point.

"Sure, why not?" he responded when asked by a Nevada reporter if he'll run again.

Reid, who won a hard-fought reelection battle in 2010, will be 76 by 2016.

[Warph]

No Transparency: Americans Who Survived Bloody 9/11 Benghazi Massacre
Have Been Silenced by Obama Administration

Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on February 20, 2013

There is one single reason why none of the survivors of the bloody September 11th Islamic massacre of the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, attacked by Muslim terrorists with a rocket launcher, have spoken out about what happened that horrible day.

They've been silenced by "the most transparent administration ever."

Kerry Picket at Big Peace reports:

Many continue to ask why the media and lawmakers have not spoken to or brought forth those who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi last September. The truth of the matter is the Americans who survived that attack cannot legally reveal to members of the press or most lawmakers that they were even witnesses to the attack in Benghazi.

According to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, immediately following the attack, the FBI, as part of the agency's investigation, interviewed survivors of the Benghazi attack.

Bill Bransford, a Washington, D.C. attorney at Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. who specializes in federal employment law told Breitbart News on Tuesday, "First of all, I'm assuming that most of these people who witnessed the attack, except for the State Department folks, would be intelligence people, and they are not covered by the whistle blower protection laws."

Bransford added, "They are covered by whatever policies their agency has. An executive order that President Obama issued in the late fall in which he ordered the intelligence community to come up with a more effective whistle blower protection system, which has not yet been developed."

However, as federal employees, State Department personnel must sign non-disclosure agreements. Bransford stressed, "If somebody violates one of these non-disclosure agreements, the consequences could include: interfering with a criminal investigation, obstruction of justice, criminal charges for releasing classified information, and those are pretty serious."

Serious indeed. The Obama administration's Justice Department has prosecuted more federal employees for leaking information to the press under the 1917 Espionage Act than all other administrations combined.


Where Was Obama during Benghazi attack?

LeonPenetta:  
'Obama Was Absent on Night of Benghazi'

The dead body of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens after he was brutally
assassinated by al Qaeda terrorists in Benghazi on September 11, 2012



'We Did Not Have Any Conversations with Secretary Clinton'

Specific questions which Clinton and other Obama administration officials haven't answered, but should, include:

What did you know, and when did you know about the standoff occurring in Benghazi?

Why did President Obama declare publicly in initial comments only hours following the Benghazi attack that it indeed was a terrorist attack but later in a CBS interview backtracked by saying that it was too early to determine whether it was a terrorist attack?

What were events that led to him backtracking on his initial assessment in which he clearly had been advised initially that it was a terrorist attack and there reportedly were live feeds from overhead drones showing the attack?

Were Obama and Clinton informed at the time the attack was unfolding? If so, what orders did Clinton give to seek to secure the facility?

Was Clinton in direct contact at any time with the Secretary of Defense to determine what Special Forces were available to lend assistance? Was she also in contact with the director of the Central Intelligence Agency to ascertain whether he had any assets in the area to rush to the assistance of the beleaguered facility?

If she had not been informed at the time of the attack, at what level in the Department of State were officials informed and what action, if any, was ordered and with whom in the Defense Department and at CIA were they in contact?

Who were the State Department officials aware of the pre-911 security requests from Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya?

What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi without his usual security detail, especially since he had written earlier to the State Department on the poor security at the facility, considering the already dangerous environment of Libya?

Why were his repeated requests for security either ignored, or turned down?

Since warnings are issued by the State Department on every anniversary of 9/11 to all posts to heighten security, why wasn't it done at Benghazi, especially since the ambassador was traveling to the facility on a mission known by the State Department and CIA?

At the time of the attack, there reportedly were overhead drones providing live feeds on the attack of the consulate. Why weren't U.S. forces then alerted and sent to the facility? There have been reports that the State Department was waiting for a response from the Libyan government, but there also is a duty, given the live feeds of the attack, to bring in U.S. forces to protect U.S. lives and property. Why wasn't that done?

Why weren't U.S. forces directed to be sent in, in light of a statement by the U.S. commander for Africa, Gen. Carter Ham, that he had the capabilities and was ready to go but never directed to go. Why is that?

Why was a U.S. Marine fast action team out of Rota, Spain, told to take off their uniforms before going in to rescue the ambassador and the other three Americans? Why did the military conclude that the military couldn't do anything? Why didn't the accountability board even look at that? Why did CIA have such a large detail at the safe house location?

Why did Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy withdraw from Libya's capital a 16-member special operations forces detachment that was assisting with security, a decision which was made two weeks prior to the Benghazi attack?

What was the rationale for Kennedy's decision in light of frequent appeals by Ambassador Stevens for enhanced security, as he expressed increasing concern about the deteriorating security environment in Libya and the fact that the Libyan government itself was not in a position to provide adequate security at the U.S. embassy or consulate in Benghazi?

Considering the increasing volatility in Benghazi and the fact that the consulate there was in an isolated position, why did the State Department and the CIA keep it open?

There were reports that the two former SEALs – Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty – killed in attempting to protect the ambassador and the consulate were contractors for CIA and their main purpose was to work out of a safe house not far from the consulate, ostensibly to inventory various weapons, some of which separate reporting says were then transferred to the opposition forces in Syria. In light of this prospect, why wasn't more security in place to protect the few CIA contractors who were there?

In such a high-risk security environment, why was security for the consulate provided by Libyans? Did they stick around to provide security for the consulate once the attack began?

Since they may not have, there also are indications that some of those providing security at the consulate either tipped off the terrorists or somehow pinpointed where in the consulate to attack, as well as identify the location of the safe houses where U.S. personnel escaped once the attack began. What has the State Department investigation revealed as to collusion with the terrorists by local Libyans charged with providing security for the consulate?

Why was the FBI barred for 24 days from going to the consulate to secure evidence when reporters were given ready access and had obtained sensitive information which was later turned over to U.S. authorities?

We were told that four State Department officials involved in the decision-making process on security were removed or resigned. We now learn that isn't true. Why did the State Department lie about the status of those in State Department management responsible for this security debacle?

In light of the Benghazi experience, has there been any effort by the Obama administration in close coordination with the Defense Department and CIA to revise operational procedures to ensure that quick-reaction armed resources are available much sooner in future instances of impending or actual attack on U.S. facilities abroad?

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/benghazi-gate-the-questions-that-havent-been-answered/#yGkvU8g7ivkqPulS.99

[Warph]

Then again, they're just holding the spot for Elizabeth Warren.

Via National Journal:


These days you can't swing an NPR tote bag in the upper chamber without hitting a liberal senator. This year, the Senate saw the additions of Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine, and Chris Murphy. They will surely fit in with the likes of Sens. Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, and Dick Durbin. It wouldn't have been a surprise if any of these big names won the title of "Most Liberal Senator."

That title did not, however, end up going to a particularly visible member. Instead, it was split by two relatively new and relatively unknown members: Tom Udall of New Mexico and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

To learn how the vote rankings are calculated, click here:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-the-vote-ratings-are-calculated-20130219

[Diane Amberg]

My goodness, I didn't think Chris Coons had been in DC long enough to have a reputation yet.That's funny.

[Warph]

                           


This week, POTUS gathered together a group of African American leaders to brainstorm economic solutions for America's blacks.

Pres. Obama included one economics advisory panel member who owes the IRS $2.6 million in income tax and nearly $900,000 in state tax. And whose National Action Network owes more than $880,000 in unpaid federal payroll taxes, interest and penalties. But that's not all — this tax-dodging economic panel member also owes $28,000 in back rent for office space in Washington, DC. Welching on paying taxes, welching on owed rent... and a millionaire.

That economic panel member is none other than MSNBC's ultra-liberal talking head and tax dodger Rev. Al "Resist We Much" Sharpton. Celebrity Net Worth has put MSNBC's Rev. Al's net worth at $5 million.
Coming soon... an Obama weight-loss coalition headed by Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell!

Reported by The Weekly Standard, Obama Gets Economic Advice from Al Sharpton, Other 'African American Leaders':


Barack Obama met with Al Sharpton and other "African American leaders" to discuss the president's "plan to strengthen the economy for the middle class and continue to build ladders of opportunity for those striving to get there," according to the White House.

Participants in the meeting included:

• Melanie Campbell, President, National Coalition of Black Civic Participation
• Ralph Everett, President, Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies
• Wade Henderson, President, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
• Ben Jealous, President, National Association of the Advancement of Colored People
• Avis Jones-DeWeever, Executive Director, National Council of Negro Women
• Sharon J. Lettman-Hicks, Executive Director, National Black Justice Coalition
• Al Sharpton, Founder and President of National Action Network
• Rev Derrick Harkins, 19th Street Baptist Church
• Judith Browne Dianis, Co-Director, Advancement Project

[Warph]

Finally a Republican Talks Back — KS Rep. Pompeo Shows How

By Wlady Pleszczynski on 2.26.13 @ 6:39PM


The President Travels Everywhere but Harry Reid's Office.

Earlier today, aboard Air Force One, Obama press secretary Jay Carney called out Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo in these terms, regarding the pending sequester:

MR. CARNEY: ... Unfortunately, on the other side of the ledger, we've seen comments, as we did from Congressman Pompeo, a Republican Congressman, that suggests a different course of action. He said it would be a home run politically for Republicans to see sequester implemented. I wonder if he would say that to the 90,000 Defense Department workers in Virginia who would see their pay cut because of furloughs, or the thousands of Virginians who would lose their jobs because of sequester if it were allowed to be implemented. We certainly don't think that's a home run for ordinary Americans, even if that Congressman thinks it would be for him politically.

Here's the response Rep. Pompeo's office has sent out:

What Rep. Pompeo Would Say To Government Workers Facing Furlough

Congressman Pompeo Responds to Today's Misguided White House Attacks

Washington—Today, White House Spokesman Jay Carney asked during a press briefing what Congressman Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, would say to defense workers facing furlough because of the President's sequester plan. The following is his statement:

"Mr. Carney doesn't understand that not every public official is willing to play games with lives of hard-working Americans for political gain like his boss, President Obama. I said that the sequester is a home run not because it is good politics, but because it begins to put America back on the right fiscal track.

"I would welcome the opportunity to tell the 90,000 furloughed workers, the ones President Obama is choosing to let go of, that they need to know several things:

"First, the sequester does not have to mean furloughs. The President is choosing to make this minor reduction in spending painful—by furloughing people—in order to pursue his twin goals of raising taxes and increasing the size of the federal government. The President wasted $1 trillion dollars of stimulus money that did nothing to grow our economy and create jobs. Now, he is needlessly using a decrease in federal spending amounting to less than a few percent to harm even more American workers and their families.

"Second, there are fewer Americans working in America today than when the President took office. I find it bizarre that Mr. Carney would ask me about talking to furloughed workers. I've been talking to and representing thousands of furloughed and laid-off workers in Kansas who have lost their livelihood because of this President's failed economic policies and his consistent attacks on the general aviation industry. Before President Obama's wreckless deficits, general aviation was a robust manufacturing jewel providing high-paying jobs in the Air Capital of the World. Today, he continues to cause it pain.

"Third, Mr. Carney says that this isn't a home-run for average Americans. He is wrong. While there will surely be dislocations, the President's $6 trillion in new federal debt have been a strikeout for our country. Most Americans understand the need to stop year-on-year trillion dollar deficits. For them, we should have done even more to reduce the size of our federal government. The sequester is a solid first step. Growing American prosperity will require us to hit a grand slam on reducing spending, taxation, and regulation. I look forward to being part of making that happen.

"Finally, the President proposed, signed, and threatened to veto changes to, the sequester. It was his plan. Not once, but twice, Congressional Republicans have provided alternatives. We have seen nothing from Carney's boss. If it is really that bad, why has he not sent a different set of cuts? The President's actions—claiming to be upset about the sequester and traveling to Virginia to confuse workers there—are at best disingenuous and at worst just plain mean."

It is time that he quit playing games and insulting our intelligence by blaming Republicans for the sequestration he authored and for allegedly refusing to compromise when they are the ones who have compromised. They have done so on taxes, whereas he has refused to compromise on spending and entitlements. You make a deal with Obama, and he moves the goal posts.

                     

It is time that the Prince Of Fools quits playing games and insulting our intelligence by blaming Republicans for the sequestration he authored and for allegedly refusing to compromise when the Replubicans are the ones who have compromised.  They have done so on (gulp) taxes, whereas he has refused to compromise on spending and entitlements.  You make a deal with Obama, and he moves the goal posts.

Seriously, how long can Obuma continue this charade and the lies that go with it, with a straight face?  How long will the taxpayer tolerate it?  Or a better question... when will the taxpayer realize what is going on here!

...Warph

[Warph]

Poll: Number Of Americans Who Say Economy Will Be Stronger In One Year Hits New Low, 25%...



It's almost like the American public has no faith in Dear
Leader's economic plans.  Gee, I wonder WHY?


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/march_2013/new_low_25_say_u_s_economy_will_be_stronger_in_one_year

Like long-term economic confidence a month ago, short-term confidence in ther why? U.S. economy is now at a new low.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of American Adults now think the economy will be stronger a year from today. Nearly twice as many (48%) believe it will be weaker in a year's time. Eighteen percent (18%) expect it to be about the same.