Benghazi Gate – Senator Graham: White House Is “Stonewalling” Over Benghazi

Posted on January 8, 2013 by BC
Source:  I'm 41

Great Video Comment: “Four months into this and still not one word as to what Obama and Clinton were doing for seven hours while the state department watched ambassador get killed. And apart from FOX zero media coverage. Amazing.”

"Killing Stevens" - The Obama Scandal

MORE EXPLOSIVE INTEL ABOUT THE BENGHAZI ATTACK!. THE PLOT IS DEEPER AND WIDER AND IS THE WORST "SECRET" IN THE INTEL WORLD. OUR CONGRESSMEN ARE BEING LIED TO AND THEY ARE CHUMPS FOR JUST WHINING ABOUT IT.

The hidden real truth about Benghazi: GET THESE DETAILS OUT SO THE BLIND CAN SEE THE LIGHT AND THE IGNORANT CAN SEE THE TRUTH!
>>CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMEN<<<<<
All 111th Congress Fax Numbers in one file:Excel or Ascii csv

http://www.conservativeusa.org/links/complete-email-fax-list/?%2Fmega-cong.htm

A mosaic of lies

Here are some of the facts... the MEDIA IS NOT TELLING YOU ABOUT....

According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.

Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”

First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.

Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
The Turkish warning

According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?

It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.

The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
A Nation/State sponsored attack?

While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?

Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “...the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?

Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.

Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.

As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?

As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
Fallout

From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.

Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.

It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.

To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”

INFO FROM : Douglas Hagmann

Please contact the brave Congressman Jason Chaffetz and ask him to look at this story. I have posted there already. He is Investigating the Benghazi murders!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jason-Chaffetz/212373730233

BEE'S NOTE"

"Killing Stevens" was reported on Facebook by John Gaultier.  The information provided has a few details I have not posted previously on this blog.  However, John's report does raise questions that should be answered and I do suggest that you contact Congressman Jason Cheffetz to let him know that the American citizens have not forgotten Benghazi, or the deaths of our four men serving our nation, and we do expect the truth to be revealed - sooner, rather than later.  As for the "media", except for one news station, the media has willingly gone along with the lies promoted from the White House and Susan Rice's first reports.  I hear Hillary is "back to work" and yet we're told she may testify in "3 weeks".  Are you kidding?!  Hasn't the State Department stalled long enough?  Why 3 more weeks?!  

Americans will not forget 9/11 Benghazi attacks; nor will we rest until the truth behind Benghazi is fully revealed in an open hearing - no more closed doors!

The Region: Is Israel losing support? - by Barry Rubin

(Photo: Mohamad Torokman/Reuters)

THE JERUSALEM POST

The Region: Is Israel losing support?

By BARRY RUBIN

01/06/2013 21:53

This isn’t really about Israel, it’s about the liberal Democratic intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) upper middle class milieu claiming Israel is wantonly throwing away support by acting irrationally.

US President Barack Obama Photo: Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

There’s been a strange phenomenon building in the past few weeks that’s been puzzling me. But I’ve just figured it out. Various people – there are many examples so you can insert your own – have been writing that Israel is making some big mistake. It is losing support, especially liberal and American Jewish support, they explain, because of the way it’s been behaving.

What’s puzzling about this is that nothing has actually happened to imply that any great opportunity is being missed that might justify this attitude. There has been no recent turn toward peace by the Palestinian Authority; no great new idea promising a breakthrough; no change in personalities that offers some shocking new opportunity.

The regional picture has been getting worse for reasons having nothing to do with Israel, Hamas has been getting stronger and the PA remaining intransigent.

Equally, Israel hasn’t done anything new or startling. The most important thing that can be said about Jewish settlements is that Israel hasn’t created any new ones in almost 20 years. True, there has been construction in existing settlements, but that’s been going on since 1993 on a fairly regular basis. If anything, I think it has declined in pace and mostly in Jerusalem rather than farther out in the West Bank. And, of course, all the settlements in the Gaza Strip have been dismantled.

ONE FACTOR that might be mentioned is that the critics are far out of date. They describe the situation as it existed, say, in the 1980s, when many Israelis believed a negotiated deal with the PLO was possible and claimed that rightists were blocking this great opportunity because they were so suspicious of the Palestinians and so fond of settlements.

Since then, that proposition was tested and found wanting in the 1993-2000 peace process era. Yet many American Jews and others simply haven’t noticed that things didn’t turn out the way the doves had hoped. To their credit, many of them (and I might as well say “us”) rethought their assumptions.

Yet that was a dozen years ago. The behavior of the PA since then and the rise of revolutionary Islamism, among other factors, have underlined the skepticism engendered by the terrible peace process experience. If you claim the right to determine Israel’s fate and put its people’s lives at risk, you might be expected to go to the trouble of doing a little research and putting some serious thought into these matters.

So what is the great urgency here, the dramatic change, the Palestinian moderation that offers a real chance for peace, or the Israeli misbehavior that throws away a great opportunity to achieve it? Other than pure perversity, ideological nastiness, panic derived from mass-media antagonism toward Israel, or the sharp Obama-era turn to the Left, the claim that Israel is doing something reckless which is antagonizing would-be supporters doesn’t make sense.

And then it hit me.

THERE HAS just been yet another in a long series of polls about what Americans think of Israel and the Palestinians. These polls have been broadly consistent. In 2012, about 71 percent of Americans say they side with Israel – as high as that number has ever been in all of history. And that’s compared to only 20% who say they side with the Palestinians, a figure that has been stable now for three years.

But here’s the point: apparently, Democratic and liberal support for Israel has gone down. The idea of supporting Israel’s control over Jerusalem was at first left out of the Democratic platform, then booed and opposed by a majority of the delegates voting (though undemocratically added anyway by the leadership). Of course, they did the same regarding the mentioning of God, so Israel is, as has so often been the case historically, in good company.

The point, however, is that this isn’t really about Israel, it’s about the liberal Democratic intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) upper middle class milieu claiming Israel is wantonly throwing away support by acting irrationally.

After all, these people have a choice regarding how to respond to the situation:

Option 1: Israel is at fault for losing the Obama cult crowd and a small but vocal increasingly left-wing sector of Americans (many of whom aren’t that thrilled with the United States either) because of something that it has done.

If only Israel would show itself ready to take risks for peace, elect a prime minister who was ready to recognize a Palestinian state and give up almost all of the territory captured in 1967, show the Palestinians that Israelis aren’t horrible monsters, let Palestinians rule the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, help them get billions of dollars in aid and let them create the own armed force to stop the real extremists, then peace is possible! Oh, wait a minute, that already happened.

And there were three such prime ministers: Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak.

Option 2: Given an increasingly left-wing ideology that’s based on faulty assumptions and neglects the dangerous radicalism of Islamist forces and other enemies of America, it is the dominant worldview in the mass media, academia and ruling circles in America that is to blame for turning away from Israel.

Understand this well: Option 1 requires Israel to change; Option 2 requires the people voicing such complaints about Israel to change.

Well, these people don’t want to examine their assumptions and change their views.

They’d end up suffering for their support of Israel, they’d be out of step with the mob, they might have to – shudder! – step away from what’s popular and “in.” My goodness, they might even have to question Obama’s brilliance and policies! No contest.

So it’s not surprising that Option 1 wins out. And the exact same point would apply if you substitute the word America for Israel and revised as required the details.

Hey, do what you have to do to avoid admitting you’re wrong and paying some price for telling the truth. But don’t blame us.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, and editor of The Middle East Review of International Affairs(MERIA) journal. His latest book is The Truth About Syria(Palgrave-Macmillan). www.gloria-center.org

Obama, Hagel, and Iran

THE WEEKLY STANDARD
12:00 AM, JAN 8, 2013 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

What should the United States do about Iran? 

This has been among the most important and urgent questions on U.S. national security over the past four years. Barack Obama began his presidency with a series of conciliatory gestures, nearly all of which were rejected (or mocked) by the Iranian regime. The president’s rather accommodating approach has given way to a slightly more assertive U.S. posture, albeit one driven more by the international community and the U.S. Congress than the White House. And over the last four years, the one consistent message from the Obama administration to the Iranian regime has been unmistakable: We don’t want a war.

That message reflects a basic truism. Nobody, of course, wants a war with Iran. But the surest way to avoid a war is to make clear to Iranian leaders that their provocations – on nuclear weapons, terrorism, regional troublemaking – will produce one.

With the selection of Chuck Hagel as his nominee to be secretary of defense, President Obama is amplifying the message of his first term. Hagel, as others have noted, has taken a rather soft line on Iran over the years, even ruling out a military response to the Iranian threat, arguing that it is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” As Phillip Klein notes, "if Iran doesn’t think America would act, the deterrent value in saying all options are on the table erodes.” 

Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has vast combat experience, no doubt comes by his views honestly. And nobody thinks war should be the first answer. But a look at Hagel’s record during his second term in the Senate suggests a policymaker who not only possesses a healthy skepticism of war but an eagerness to disregard information that might make that last of all possible choices the only one.

In 2007, Hagel voted against an important amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization. The role of the IRGC in providing weapons, training, and financing to those killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan was not seriously in doubt. And in the months leading up to that vote, the evidence of a consistent campaign against U.S. troops was indisputable and well documented. In a lengthy and detailed briefing in July 2007, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner laid out the case against Iran and the IRGC’s Qods Force in aiding these “special groups.”

“Funding and training of the special groups started in 2004. The Qods Force supplies special groups with EFPs, machine guns, rockets, sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and IEDs. Iraqi special groups are trained in one of three training camps inside Iran and ore operated by the Qods Force and supported by Lebanese Hezbollah operatives.”

These were not the rogue activities of an autonomous group. “Our intelligence reveals that senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity,” Bergner reported.

And yet when the IRGC amendment came before the Senate on September 26, 2007, Hagel was one of two Republicans who opposed it. One month later, Hagel urged the Bush administration to pursue “direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.”

Not quite a year later, in remarks at the Brookings Institution on June 26, 2008, Hagel went further, suggesting that it would be in the interest of the United States to establish an “interest section” in Tehran. What had Iran done to earn such diplomatic recognition and respect? Had the regime there cut off its support for the terrorists and “special groups” killing Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Hardly. A month before Hagel proposed such rapprochement, then-CIA director Michael Hayden was unequivocal about the Iranian targeting of U.S. troops. “It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.”

In July, on a trip he took to the region with then-senator Barack Obama, Hagel heard about the Iranian threat directly from Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai. According to a leaked State Departmentcable dated July 24, 200.

Obama and Hagel solicited Karzai’s opinion of Afghanistan’s western neighbor. Karzai began his reply by saying we try to engage them, talk to them; however, the current Iranian regime ‘suspects our relationship with you.’ Obama asked if the Iranians had caused problems for Afghanistan. “Yes,” Karzai repled, “we’ve confirmed reports they supplied weapons to the Taliban. National Directorate for Security (NDS) chief Saleh added that three weeks ago, NDS had arrested “an agent of the Iranian consulate in Kandahar” who had been training the Taliban in the use of landmines.

Hagel’s views on Iran put him to Obama’s left. Although the president has made clear that he doesn’t want war with Iran, and that’s he is open to direct talks, he has never ruled out the military option, as his Defense nominee has. And while Obama was an enthusiastic supporter of direct talks with Iran, he never went so far as propose a U.S. “interest section” in Tehran as a way to advance our interests.

Iran is closer to the bomb. The regime has continued its support for terrorists targeting Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian government, according to the Obama administration, has a secret agreement with al Qaeda to allow the shipment of money and fighters on Iranian territory – what one official called the “core pipeline” for al Qaeda.

Does Hagel still believe the military option should be off the table? Does he think the United States ought to open an interest section in Tehran to advance our interests?

What, if anything, does Chuck Hagel think the United States should do about Iran?

Who is funding the "campaign" of Chuck Negel?

FRESNO ZIONISM

Benter’s back

January 7th, 2013

Billionaire mathematician Bill Benter and wife Vivian

It shouldn’t come to any of us as a surprise that, like any political campaign, getting yourself confirmed as Secretary of Defense takes big bucks for advertising, lobbying, PR, etc.

So who is funding the ‘campaign’ of Chuck Hagel, whom Jennifer Rubin called “the most anti-Israel nominee in recent memory (in either party)?”

Josh Rogin tells us:

…without White House assistance before Monday’s official nomination and without a staff of his own, Hagel was ill-equipped to fight the onslaught of negative publicity coming from his many critics, and his critics were able to set the initial frame and tone of the coming confirmation debate.
But over the last two weeks, Hagel’s friends in the Democratic political world have come to his aid, principally by rounding up senior former officials to write supportive op-eds and funding an advertising effort to spread the world that Hagel does in fact have bipartisan support.
The Cable has learned that a large chunk of that pro-Hagel money is coming from one Democratic donor, gambling legend Bill Benter, who is working with the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm, to support pro-Hagel advertising.

Benter is the shadowy mathematician with CIA and Arab connections who figured out how to beat the odds at Hong Kong’s Happy Valley race track, and funneled more than $800,000 through an ‘associate’,the even shadowier Connie Esdicul, into the up-and coming J Street organization in 2010.

J Street, if you have forgotten, is the fake “pro-Israel” lobbying groupwhich has consistently worked against Israel’s interests in Washington — also with Arab connections — all the while claiming that they are doing it for Israel’s own good.

Just like, er, Chuck Hagel. In fact J Street supports Hagel, and its positions on Iranian sanctions, Hamas, etc., almost precisely agree with his. Which, surprisingly enough, are the same as those of George Soros, another big J Street funder, and of President Barack Obama.

This is one of those times that I wish the anti-semites were right, and that there was actually a semi-covert, powerful and well-funded Jewish lobby forcing the captive US (“Zionist-occupied”) government to do its bidding.

Instead, there is a Jewish community sharply divided on many political issues — and a large part of that community has decided that if it comes down to a choice between Israel and what it calls ‘progressive values’, they’ll choose the latter.

And this is alongside a semi-covert, powerful and well-funded anti-Israel lobby, which is not at all divided about what it wants.

BEE'S NOTE:

SEE: 

The Approaching Hagel Storm

http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-approaching-hagel-storm.html

Term Limitations - Fiddling with the Constitution

Fiddling With The Constitution To Eviscerate Term Limitations On The Presidency…Why?? 

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on January 7, 2013

Those who prefer to keep their head in the sand will pooh pooh any proposition the U.S. is heading towards a tyranny. In fact, the notion is so painful that they dismiss it out of hand. Fantastical on its face.

And while this American-Israeli patriot would rather it be untrue, she knows better. This is one of the reasons why her blog is dedicated to Conservative ethos (as well as Zionist ideals), understanding full well the intrinsic place the Constitution has in America’s way of life and its future well being. Western civilization’s too.

That being said, it has never been an exercise in Presidential bashing to tar the Commander-in-Chief with this moniker or that. Quite the opposite. He has earned his stripes all on his own, and his surrogates deserve their comeuppance. All in due time.

It would take too many pages to re-support said thesis, yet these links should provide its basis. Follow them carefully.

For authentic revolutionaries do what they do best; they grab all power centers to amass total control –  adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/07/when-authentic-revolutionaries-hold-the-reins-of-american-power-centers-via-the-most-radical-regime-in-u-s-history-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ . Nothing new under the sun.

But to bring the point home, look no further than to those who support Barack HUSSEIN Obama – vile creatures who are similarly imbued -  adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/22/world-leaders-openly-endorsing-the-radical-in-chief-are-the-most-vile-dregs-in-the-international-arena-why-are-they-simpatico-to-dear-leader-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.

And pay rapt attention to what DHS does, in tandem with Valerie Jarrett, - adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/27/dhs-americas-planned-deconstruction-via-valerie-jarrett-domestically-foreign-policy-wise-addendum-to-barack-hussein-obamas-deconstruction-plans-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ .. but ignore what they say. Tyrants never tell the truth.

Alas, trust your “lying eyes” -  adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/05/if-it-looks-like-a-socialistmarxistcommunist-plan-it-is-peekingpeeling-back-into-obamas-looking-glass-his-surrogates-too-their-bomblets-waiting-to-explode-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ ….if it looks like a socialist/Marxist/communist plan, gosh darn, it is!

Sit down for this one…don’t want to be responsible for anyone keeling over.

H.J. Res. 15 -”Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.113th Congress (2013-2014)

Overview: House Joint Resolution

SPONSOR:	Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-15] (Introduced 01/04/2013)
COSPONSORS:	0
LATEST ACTION:	01/04/2013 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
MAJOR RECORDED VOTES:	There are no Roll Call votes for this bill

STATUS OF LEGISLATION:

This bill has the status {.Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

1. Introduced
2. Passed House
3. Passed Senate
4. To President
5. Became Law

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2013

   Mr. Serrano introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the 
limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States is hereby repealed.''.

 beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-joint-resolution/15/text

Harping on the regimes’s push towards TOTAL control has not been an exercise in futility, nor one of hyperbole. For at the same time that they attempt to create a putsch, through unlimited Presidential reign of power, they are grabbing for America’s legal guns. Why would they do this, other than to eviscerate the Second Amendment, in expectation of repealing the twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution. A + B…1 + 2…..

‘White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings’

BY PHILIP RUCKER, PUBLISHED: JANUARY 5

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.

“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”

The gun-control push is just one part of an ambitious political agenda that Obama has pledged to pursue after his decisive reelection victory in November, including comprehensive immigration reform, climate-change legislation and long-term deficit reduction. Obama also faces a reshuffling of his Cabinet, and a looming debate over the nation’s debt ceiling that will compete for his time and attention in the coming months.

Seeking expansive mandate

In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Simply coming up with one or two aspects of it really falls short of the magnitude of the gun issue in the country,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.

Wexler was among a dozen law enforcement leaders who met with Biden and other administration leaders in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The Dec. 20 summit, which stretched an hour beyond an allotted one hour, included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Biden “wanted to talk to us about the assault-weapons ban, automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines,” said Hennepin County (Minn.) Sheriff Richard Stanek, president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Association.

The vice president said the White House group would consider a variety of proposals — from requiring background checks for all gun buyers to creating a new database that would allow the ATF to track all gun sales, according to participants.

Stanek said the meeting also included significant discussion of mental-health issues, violence in video games and movies, and the poor quality of information contained in databases used to conduct criminal background checks before issuing gun permits.

Some of the options the administration is considering may not ultimately be included in Obama’s package. A White House spokesman said Biden’s group was in the midst of its review and has made no decisions on its final recommendations.

The White House is also developing strategies to navigate the rocky and emotionally fraught terrain of gun politics once final policy decisions are made. The administration is quietly talking with a diverse array of interest groups, including religious leaders, mental-health professionals and hunters, to build as broad a coalition as possible, those involved in the discussions said.

The president is expected to face fierce opposition from the NRA and its allies in Congress, including most Republicans and some Democrats.

But Biden signaled to those involved in the policy discussions that the White House is not afraid of taking on the NRA, the nation’s largest gun rights group. At the Dec. 20 meeting, according to Stanek, when one law enforcement leader suggested focusing on only the most popular proposals, Biden responded: “Look, what I’m asking you for is your candid opinion and ideas about extreme gun violence. Leave the politics to the president. That’s our job with Congress.”

NRA officials declined a request for comment. In response to the shooting in Newtown, Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice president, called for installing armed police officers in every school.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” LaPierre said at a news conference Dec. 21.

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.

For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

Timing is imperative

Obama’s advisers have calculated that the longer they wait, the more distance there is from the Newtown massacre and the greater the risk that the bipartisan political will to tackle gun violence will dissipate.

“This is not something that I will be putting off,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview broadcast last Sunday.

At the White House meeting, Stanek said, “the vice president indicated that there was a very short timeline for him to get back to the president with his recommendations because the American public has a short memory.”

Already, three weeks after the Newtown shooting, gun-control advocates are growing impatient with a legislative process that is just beginning.

“As we get involved in these ad nauseam debates over the Second Amendment, our children are still at risk,” said Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “Debating is not the action verb we need to protect our children.”

With the start of the 113th Congress last week, several lawmakers filed bills to address gun violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who co-wrote a 1994 assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, plans to introduce legislation this month that would ban the sale or manufacture of about 120 firearms, including semiautomatic rifles and military-style handguns, as well as ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

The expired federal assault-weapons ban prohibited the manufacturing of 19 models of semiautomatic guns classified as assault weapons, including certain rifles and shot guns. The law also banned ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. But it did not ban the sale of previously manufactured assault weapons or high-capacity magazines.

Since the law’s sunset, efforts in Congress over the past decade to reinstate the ban have faced stiff opposition from the NRA and the firearms industry and have never passed.

Adler, who has submitted recommendations to Biden’s group, said he has told administration officials that they need to pursue multiple measures to increase their chances of success.

“We can’t put all our protection-effort eggs in one basket with one piece of legislation,” he said. “We’ve got to do more than that.”

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html 

Dear readers, do you really think harping on the Radical-in-Chief’s (and his surrogates) grab for tyranny is non-supportable and conspiracy-laden?

Didn’t think so.

http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/07/fiddling-with-the-constitution-to-eviscerate-term-limitations-on-the-presidency-why-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Share this: