News

Benghazi whistle-blower: assets to protect the embassy were available

2 Comments

Here’s a report from one of the whistle-blowers who is shedding light on the Benghazi cover-up.

Excerpt:

A military special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded last September told Fox News the U.S. had highly trained forces just a few hours away, and said he and others feel the government betrayed the four men who died in the attack.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, and appearing in a Fox News Channel interview with his face and voice disguised, the special operator contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that said there wasn’t enough time for U.S. military forces to have intervened in the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, an embassy employee and two former Navy SEALs working as private security contractors were killed.

“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the operator told Fox News’ Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”

The C-110 is a 40-man Special Ops force capable of rapid response and deployment specifically trained for incidents like last year’s attack in Benghazi. During the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya, the C-110 were training in Croatia, just 3 ½ hours away.

“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours…four to six hours.”

Being so close, C-110s would have been able to respond had there been a second attack, the source added.

Will this testimony come to light at a hearing, or will it be covered up by the Obama administration?

Fox News reports that the Obama administration is threatening whistle-blowers.

Excerpt:

At least four career officials at the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have retained lawyers or are in the process of doing so, as they prepare to provide sensitive information about the Benghazi attacks to Congress, Fox News has learned.

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and Republican counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, is now representing one of the State Department employees. She told Fox News her client and some of the others, who consider themselves whistle-blowers, have been threatened by unnamed Obama administration officials.

“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi – that people have been threatened,” Toensing said in an interview Monday. “And not just the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Toensing declined to name her client. She also refused to say whether the individual was on the ground in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist attacks on two U.S. installations in the Libyan city killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

However, Toensing disclosed that her client has pertinent information on all three time periods investigators consider relevant to the attacks: the months that led up to the attack, when pleas by the ambassador and his staff for enhanced security in Benghazi were mostly rejected by senior officers at the State Department; the eight-hour time frame in which the attacks unfolded, and the eight-day period that followed the attacks, when Obama administration officials incorrectly described them as the result of a spontaneous protest over a video.

“It’s frightening, and they’re doing some very despicable threats to people,” she said. “Not ‘we’re going to kill you,’ or not ‘we’re going to prosecute you tomorrow,’ but they’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over [if they cooperate with congressional investigators].”

In general, Democrats are not strong on foreign policy, because they blame America for everything and praise our enemies when they attack us. You won’t get much security from that attitude. When things go wrong, they will try to cover it up. They will even resort to outright lies in order to avoid the blame they deserve for opening us up to terrorist attacks.

Related posts

News

Can the worldview of naturalism rationally ground mind, meaning and morality?

3 Comments

J. Warner Wallace, author of “Cold Case Christianity”, explains why it can’t.

Here’s just one of the three troubles with naturalism:

Morality

If naturalism is true, morality is nothing more than a matter of opinion. All of us, as humans, have simply come to embrace those cultural or personal mores that best promote the survival of the species. There is no transcendent, objective moral truth. Instead, cultures merely embrace the values and moral principles that “work” for them and have resulted in the flourishing of their particular people group. If this is the case, one group of evolved humans has no business trying to tell another evolved group what is truly right or wrong from a moral perspective. After all, each group has successfully arrived at their particular level of development by embracing their own accepted moral standards. Arguments over which moral truths provide for greater human flourishing are simply subjective disagreements; there is no transcendent, objective standard that can adjudicate such disagreements from a naturalistic perspective.

Click the link to read the other two!

It is fun to put naturalists on the defensive. I think that the most odd thing about naturalism is that they think that all moral statements are true or false depending on personal preferences. For example, slavery. Whether to own slaves or not is really the slave owner’s choice, on naturalism. Some societies in some places and times allow it, and others don’t. Naturalism has nothing at all to say about which view is correct, because there is no design for humans on naturalism – no way we ought to be. Every view is as good as any other, because there is no one to decide.

The justification for moral values and duties is important because the justification is what helps us to do the right thing when it involves self-sacrifice and self-denial. Anybody can be good when it’s easy. Being good when it’s hard takes rationality, and naturalists don’t have that in their worldview. When a naturalists says “I’m a good person without God”, you have to understand that they are making that statement as a statement of preference. On their view, there is nothing right or wrong with anything, as a matter of fact. They have determined themselves what counts as good, and they are in compliance with their own arbitrary preferences. That’s what they mean by “I’m good”.

News

Feminist Nancy Pelosi pushes national daycare program

Leave a comment

CNS News reports on it.

Excerpt:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a gathering in Cleveland that childcare for all should be the next “pillar” of American government and “the president comes close in his budget when he says ‘preschool for all’ because we have a situation of children learning, parents earning.”

[…]“What we have to do and not necessarily as, shall we say, as transformative as Social Security and Medicare and the Affordable Care Act for everybody– but I think very important to our country is to have affordable quality childcare for all of America’s children. If we are going to unleash all that women have to offer we have to really get to this point.”

[…]“Now, the president comes close in his budget when he says ‘preschool for all’ because we have a situation of children learning, parents earning.”

With respect to children, the goals are feminism are simple. Force women to act like men. Women have to be encouraged not to marry and then raise their young children. Or, if they do have children, then the children must be taken away so that they keep working and paying taxes to the smart people in government. The one thing that is not permitted by the ideology of feminism is for a man to go to work and for a woman to stay home and attend to her young children. Having a mother stay home with the children is better for them,  according to science, but it’s not something that feminists like Nancy Pelosi support.

I think another one of the reasons why they don’t support it is that they don’t like the idea that some women make the choice to get married to a man who can protect and provide, and some don’t. They think “how can I make those women equal, so that no one is honored or shamed for choosing wisely?” And the solution is to have the government raise all the children. The woman who chose wisely has a husband who works for $80,000 in income. The government takes half of it and gives it to the single mother who didn’t bother to choose a good man. Both sets of children end up in government-run day care, and everyone is equal. Isn’t that a good idea? To make it easier for women to not have to care about finding and keeping a good man? Well, people on the left do think it’s a good idea.