BENGHAZIGATE: oBAMA'S SECRET GUN-RUNNING PROGRAM

By Katie Kieffer

Liberals don’t want honest Americans like you to have guns. Liberals just want to arm foreign rebels in crapshoot attempts to “end global violence.” But liberals feign ignorance when the rebels they arm end up being criminals who kill innocent Americans like the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

Why did Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans die in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012? We now know that President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus were likely behind a mishandled gun-trafficking program that ended up arming the radical jihadist rebels who stormed the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on that fateful day.

Our CIA is still playing the role of vetting which Syrian rebel groups will obtain arms including machine guns, ammunition, and rocket-propelled grenades. While Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are directly purchasing the weaponry, the Obama administration is aiding the Arab governments in shopping for these arms and transferring them from Libya, to Turkey, and finally into Syria.

Unfortunately the CIA has “vetted” shady intermediaries (including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood) and shady recipients of thousands of tons worth of military equipment and millions of rounds of ammo. Consequently, weapons have fallen into the wrong hands. In the case of Benghazi, anti-tank weapons appear to have landed in the hands of terrorists.

Now, Clinton is denying even knowing about the program, although the evidence indicates it was largely her idea. Of course everything happened under Obama’s watch and the buck stops with him. The story of Obama’s gun-running program in Benghazi is long and multifarious, so I will break down the timeline for you:

May 26, 2012: Stevens arrives in Tripoli, the capitol city of Libya and sets up camp at the U.S. embassy.

Last summer, Clinton first proposed a plan to then-CIA Director David Petraeus to partner on a gun-trafficking program to arm the Syrian resistance and “vet the rebel groups, and train fighters who would be supplied with weapons,” according to The New York Times.

June of 2012: The New York Times reports that the CIA is operating a secret arms transfer program that sounds exactly like the plan Clinton developed with Petraeus. Suddenly, there is: “…an influx of weapons and ammunition to the rebels.”

September 5, 2012: A Libyan ship called Al Entisar (“The Victory”) docks in the Turkish port of Iskenderun, carrying 400 tons of cargo including many weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) destined for Syrian rebels 35 miles away from Iskenderun. The ship’s captain told the Times of London that the Muslim Brotherhood and the free Syrian Army broke into a fight over the arms.

September 10, 2012: Stevens arrives in Benghazi, Libya, the location of the U.S. consulate. About a mile away from the consulate, is the CIA annex. Stevens planned to stay at the consulate for five days. His visit was supposed to be secret, but Libya-based extremists somehow learned of his arrival.

September 11, 2012: Stevens has an unusual meeting with Turkish diplomat Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Fox News reported that the meeting was “…to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham confirmed on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report with Bret Baier” that Stevens was in Libya to specifically control a situation: “…where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that were flowing freely in Libya…”

9:40 p.m. (Libya time): Libyan rebels launched and organized an armed attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

10:04 p.m. CIA base chief at the nearby CIA annex calls for help including 50-caliber machine guns and vehicles from the Libyan intelligence, the 17 February Brigade and other Libyan militias. After 24 minutes of calls and no response, the CIA base chief takes a small team of seven people to the consulate. They were too late to save Stevens, but were able to save some State Department personnel.

11:56 p.m. CIA officers and the State Department members are seeking safety back at the CIA annex. There, rebels attack them with rocket-propelled grenades. Fighting continues on until 5:26 a.m.

6:00 a.m. Libyan forces suddenly arrive to “aid” the American team with 50 vehicles.

It is odd that the annex was attacked with same sort of weapons on the Libyan ship and that Stevens was reportedly in Benghazi to manage some sort of arms transfer.

Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio: “First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it’s important [to determine more about the apparent gun-running program] because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this [attack]; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attaché, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it’s very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the [Chairman of the] Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America…enemies of Israel… enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria...sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists.”

Here’s my concern: Obama’s gun-running program failed to properly vet the rebels. Clinton most likely launched the gun program, expected Stevens to oversee it and then her weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans. This is a tragic failure of foreign policy and diplomacy under Obama’s watch.

BENGHAZI: ARE WE A NATION RUN BY FOOLS?

By Susan Stamper Brown

It seems like only yesterday when President Obama stood in front of an electrified audience at the 2012 Democratic National Convention just days before the deadly September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reminding supporters, "al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead."

Days later, on September 14, a somber-faced Obama and his sullen-faced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood in front of four flag draped coffins at Andrews Air Force Base, assuring the small group of grieving family members their loved ones did not die in vain. Their ill-informed message suggested these patriots weren't killed by terrorists; they died because of protests about a YouTube video.

Since then, the administration has done its best to dodge questions and distance itself from the events of September 11, and acquired a convenient case of amnesia along the way. Nine months-in and Americans still have no clue why initial talking points from top officials' claiming the attacks were most likely executed by al Qaeda-linked terrorists were reduced to "a YouTube video." Did they fear acknowledging such a claim so close to the 2012 presidential election? Or did they actually believe the video story?

Hopefully, some of these questions were answered by way of three courageous State Department whistle-blowers scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee May 8. Pre-hearing interviews from one of the whistleblowers, Gregory Hicks, the second highest diplomat in Libya at the time of the attacks, were released to the press. Hicks claimed a Special Forces team, which could have saved lives and protected evidence, was ordered to "stand down" despite multiple pleas for help. Contrary to the administration's claims, Hicks also said, "...everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack" from the beginning.

Hicks' statements seem to fit in with the timeline obtained by the Weekly Standard from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Weekly Standard article "The Benghazi Talking Points," describes how "senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened" and made "substantive revisions" to the "CIA's talking points" six weeks outside the 2012 presidential election.

So where's your thirst for truth, America? Why aren't we outraged? Maybe because, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, "Benghazi happened a long time ago." Maybe Carney should ask grieving family members wanting answers and longing for closure how long it's been since their loved ones lost their lives in Benghazi. Or maybe we are at a point in this country where a politician's political aspirations trump everything else.

The last time something of this magnitude happened, a U.S. president stepped down. But that was during a time when good men who made bad choices still had the intestinal fortitude to accept personal responsibility for their actions. It was also a time when journalists were principled enough to set aside politics to do their job and make politicians accountable.
Some in the mainstream media are reluctantly pulling their heads out of the ground. On May 5, CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer acknowledged the possibility the administration might have been involved in a "cover-up." Others are unenthusiastically following suit because they have no choice. Of course, the illegitimate diehards will remain with their heads in the sand until the storm passes.

As the pieces of this puzzle come together, one thing is certain: Full and honest disclosure is always the best policy. Regardless of how Benghazi pans out, we will discover that either the Obama administration was involved in a cover-up and played us as fools, or our government is run by fools who actually believed the Benghazi attacks were in response to an uprising over an amateurish anti-Islam video by a man now serving jail time for a separate issue. Either way, we lose.

Susan Stamper Brown's weekly column is nationally syndicated. She can be reached at writestamper@gmail.com or via her website at susan@susanstamperbrown.com. Her Facebook page can be found here. 

 

IT'S HARVEST TIME IN WASHINGTON

By Susan Stamper Brown

Not even Barack Obama can defy the laws of physics.

Certain things are absolute. As Newton said, what goes up must come down. The wrinkles you see staring back at you in the mirror validate the second law of thermodynamics: eventually things fall apart. And, as any farmer will tell you, if you plant cucumbers in the spring, no matter how hard you try, you will never reap watermelons in the summer.

It’s the same with deeds; good and bad, we reap what we sow. From the onset, the Obama administration has woven a web of fabrications so thick it is hard to see where reality ends and make-believe begins. Over time, Obama has woven that web tighter by installing a gang of Chicago allies, confidants, tongue-biters and tale-tellers as a “shadow government” answerable only to him. There was safety in this tight-knit crew of like-minded associates, or so they thought, until recently when parts of Obama’s web began to unravel.

As the old time pastor R.G. Lee once said, “Nature keeps books pitilessly. Man’s credit with her is good. But Nature collects.” And now it seems Nature has come knocking on the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

It all began with Benghazi. We now know celebrating in the end zone about bin Laden’s death made for good re-election bumper stickers and water cooler conversation but had little impact on America’s security or the security of the grossly under protected consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Farfetched stories about a video spun by a circle of close confidants desperately desiring four more years of power fell apart during recent testimonies. We reap what we sow.

Now we hear the IRS was party to Soviet-style scare tactics in the inappropriate targeting of conservative groups prior to the 2012 election. The Washington Post reports the tentacles of this scandal reach beyond the supposed few rogue agents in Cincinnati to Washington. Doing what they do best, Progressives deflected the blame to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision – purporting had it not been for it, there would be no need for the IRS’s intrusion into the private lives of conservatives. Had the IRS targeted liberal groups, Democrats would have blamed it on a Republican plot to steal the election. And of course, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney remains steadfast: the administration is beyond reproach. Sure.

So, how about a sprinkle of invasion of privacy to go with that healthy those of scare tactics? The Associated Press (AP) discovered Attorney General Holder’s Department of Justice secretly seized two months of reporters’ phone records, including both work and personal numbers; something the AP called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering. While the jury’s still out regarding motives, it should be noted this was not the first time for this administration. As originally reported by Breitbart.com, former Holder spokesperson Tracy Schmaler colluded with the far-left group Media Matters for America to “smear media figures, whistleblowers, and members of Congress.” Transparency? Not.

Scandal by scandal, the president remains resolute and does his sanctimonious best to remain blameless. The dominoes are dropping it is harvest time for this corrupt administration which believes justice is due for everyone but itself and will do everything in its power to avoid reaping the consequences for which it has sown.

Susan Stamper Brown's weekly column is nationally syndicated. She can be reached at writestamper@gmail.com or via her website at susan@susanstamperbrown.com. Her Facebook page can be found here

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS NO RESPECT FOR FREEDOM

 By Terence P. Jeffrey

CNSNews.com

 

 

The Associated Press learned abruptly this week what the tea party and American Catholics learned many months ago. The Obama administration has no respect for freedom.

The AP reported Monday that the Justice Department seized records that "listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers" of AP reporters using more than 20 separate telephone lines in April and May of last year.

Justice did not tell AP why it sought these records. But Attorney General Eric Holder made a statement on Tuesday that seemed to confirm that the department did it as part of an investigation into who leaked to AP some details of a 2012 CIA operation that targeted an al-Qaida plot to blow up an airliner.

Even that, however, would not explain why Justice indiscriminately targeted so many phones used by so many reporters.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," AP President Gary Pruitt said in a letter to Holder. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."

Justice, which is supposed to protect the rights of Americans, trampled on them here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," says the First Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," says the Fourth Amendment, "and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

When and how did the administration establish there was probable cause to seize the records of more than 20 different work and personal phone numbers used by AP reporters? How can such a bold assault on the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches not also be an assault on the First Amendment right to freedom of the press?

Freedom of the press is and ought to be a check on government power. Good reporters keep people in government honest by exposing things that people in government are doing that they don't want the public to know about. If the government can covertly seize the phone records of one of the nation's largest and most influential news organizations, how can that not have an intimidating effect on those honest people still in government who want to tell the truth to the taxpayers who pay their salaries by delivering facts to diligent reporters?

Or was that the very purpose of the Justice Department's move on The Associated Press? People who paid close attention to this administration knew from the outset it did not respect freedom of the press.

When the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission first came before the Supreme Court in 2009, then-Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued that if a corporation published a book in an election year that included an argument for voting against a particular candidate, "we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds."

When the administration went back to argue the case in the court a second time, then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the administration had now decided it could not ban "full-length books."

"What about a pamphlet?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked his future colleague.

"I think a pamphlet would be different," said Kagan.

Then, Roberts stood on the side of liberty. "The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech," he wrote in a concurring opinion. "It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."

Days before the AP reported the Justice Department had seized its phone records, Lois Lerner, head of the Internal Revenue Services Exempt Organizations division, admitted that the IRS had specifically targeted for heightened scrutiny groups that used the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax exempt status.

Tea party groups had publicly complained more than a year earlier about the IRS harassment, and Mark Levin's Landmark Legal Foundation had written to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, asking for an investigation. Lerner's admission only came as TIGTA was preparing to release a report on the matter.

Obama ended last week issuing a proclamation for "National Women's Health Week." Here he took credit for the "preventive services" regulation his administration issued under Obamacare that will force virtually all health care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

He did this even though dozens of Catholic and Evangelical Christian schools, nonprofits and business owners are suing the administration, arguing the regulation forces them to act against their faith and thus violates their right to free exercise of religion.

He did it even though America's Catholic bishops unanimously declared the regulation unjust and illegal — and many have boldly said they cannot and will not obey it.

Would an administration where the IRS targets tea party groups, and where the Justice Department sweepingly seizes the phone records of The Associated Press, put Catholic bishops in jail for holding true to the ancient and unchangeable teachings of their faith?

Maybe even The Associated Press will now think about pressing that question with our president.

 

 

COVER UP

By Oliver North

Washington, DC – We all know about the notorious Obama “Kill List.” CIA Director John Brennan proudly told us about that last year when he described how the O-Team decides which Americans should be executed by Hellfire Missile fired from remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs). Why hasn’t the White House used this capability to “take out” those who killed our diplomats in Benghazi, Libya last year?

Clip and save this column. Herein are some important events, names, places – facts your children and grandchildren will need to know about these perilous times:

Tuesday, September 11, 2012, Benghazi, Libya. The U.S. consulate and a diplomatic annex in this city on the Mediterranean coast are assaulted and destroyed by radical Islamic terrorists. Four American citizens: U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, are killed during two attacks over a seven-hour period. Officials in Washington take no action to stop the attacks or save lives. 

Wednesday, September 12, 2012. The President, standing beside Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, describes what happened in Benghazi as “an outrageous attack” and promises, “We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” For weeks thereafter, White House officials, the Secretary of State and lesser government functionaries, reiterate Obama’s claim the attack was fomented by a crude anti-Muslim video posted on the Internet. It’s not true.

Thursday, October 4, 2012. Thirty-two days before the presidential election, and desperate to preserve the fiction that “al Qaeda is on the ropes” because “Osama bin Laden is dead,” the State Department announces formation of an “Accountability Review Board” (ARB) headed by former U.S. Ambassador Tom Pickering and a recently retired Joint Chiefs Chairman. Though the Reagan White House provided Pickering with extraordinary additional security when he was threatened by terrorists in El Salvador, the ARB report, delivered on December 20, 2012, found “mid-level State Department officials” were responsible for security lapses in Benghazi. 

Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In response to questions posed by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) about who attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi and why, she explodes: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Wednesday, May 8, 2013, three brave men testify before the House Government Reform Committee about the lies, misfeasance, and incompetence in the Obama administration’s handling of the jihadist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, the highest-ranking American diplomat in the country during the attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former U.S. Marine and operations coordinator for the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, formerly the senior diplomatic security officer in Libya, all testify about what really happened on 9-11-12. To avail themselves of legal protections against retribution, all three claim status as “whistleblowers.” 

Their testimony indicts the President, the Secretary of State and Administration minions of incompetence and lying to the public about what happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks. Supporters of the Obama regime describe the three as “politically motivated” and claim there is “nothing new” in what they said. That’s not true either. Herewith, a few important facts we now know thanks to the courage of these three men: 

Though radical Islamists routinely use “anniversaries” to motivate adherents to violence, the Obama administration did absolutely nothing to anticipate such a possibility by pre-positioning quick-reaction military forces in the Middle East prior to the 9-11-12 attacks. Worse, instead of granting Ambassador Stevens’ repeated requests for additional security assets, the O-Team actually reduced U.S. security personnel in Libya. This abysmal failure reflects, inter alia, a near total deficit of human intelligence (HUMINT). The Ambassador and three other Americans paid for this misfeasance with their lives.

In the midst of the deadly attacks in Benghazi, bureaucratic inertia and infighting in Washington prevented any response which might have saved lives. In the aftermath, the Obama administration insulted the Libyan government by refuting their assertion that the perpetrators were radical Islamists. The result: more than two weeks before FBI agents could visit “the scene of the crime.” 

Since 9-11-12, the Benghazi terror attack has been probed by five separate committees of Congress. The State Department’s ARB is at best a whitewash. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and more than 140 of his colleagues have called for a bi-partisan select committee of both houses to fully investigate the matter. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham support the proposal. It’s time – unless Congress wants to participate in a cover up.

BENGHAZI DIPLOMAT RIPS WHITE HOUSE

By GERRY SHIELDS & GEOFF EARLE

WASHINGTON — The US diplomat who was second in command in Libya during the fatal attack on the Benghazi consulate fought back tears yesterday when he told lawmakers about his colleagues’ final moments — and said he was “stunned” by administration claims it was sparked by a spontaneous protest.

Gregory Hicks, the first person to testify to Congress who was on the ground in Libya during the fateful night of the Sept. 11, 2012 siege, told a House committee that he was incredulous just five days later when UN Ambassador Susan Rice said on Sunday talk shows that the assault was not a terrorist attack.

“My jaw dropped,” Hicks said. “I was embarrassed.”

Hicks riveted the audience in a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing room as he recalled the night.

“Shortly after we arrived at the annex, the mortars came in,” Hicks said. “The first was long. It landed actually among the Libyans that escorted our people. They took casualties for us that night.”

“The next three landed on the roof, killing Glen [Doherty] and Tyrone [Woods],” Hicks said, referring to the security operators who died in the attack. “They didn’t know whether any more mortars were going to come in, the accuracy was terribly precise.”

A career State Department diplomat, Hicks also told the panel yesterday that he was warned by upper agency officials not to talk to a congressman investigating the consulate assault — fueling GOP charges that politics were behind the administration’s response.

The order came after he began questioning Obama administration claims that the incident was not a terrorist attack, he said. Hicks got a call from Beth Jones, an acting assistant secretary to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to stop questioning Washington’s stance that the attack was spurred by a protest, he said.

“I asked her why the ambassador said there was a demonstration when the embassy reported there was an attack,” Hicks said. “The sense I got is that I needed to stop my line of questioning.”

Hicks received another call from Clinton’s counselor and chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, angry that he met with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Mills asked for a full report.

“She was very upset with me,” said Hicks, who said he was eventually demoted after the controversy.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called Hicks’ testimony evidence that Clinton was involved in trying to suppress information.

“This goes right to the person next to Secretary Clinton,” Jordan said.

Former State Department spokesman Philippe Reines yesterday called the allegation untrue.
“Nobody was told to keep Chaffetz from speaking with anyone,” Reines told NBC News.

 “That’s completely at odds with the cooperative approach the department has taken with Congress.”

Hicks was one of the last people Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed, talked to in a call reporting the attack. Hicks somberly recalled learning about Stevens’ death.

“It was the saddest phone call I’ve ever received in my life,” Hicks said, pausing to hold back his emotions.

Hicks joined Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary of state for counterterrorism, in telling lawmakers that efforts to get military help to the consulate were rebuffed. Special forces in Tripoli wanting to help were furious, Hicks said.

Democrats ripped into the witnesses, accusing committee Republicans of conducting a “highly partisan” political attack on the Obama administration.

“There is no place or no time that the American military wouldn’t be there to protect American lives if they possibly could get there,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said.

Eric Nordstrom, the third whistle-blower to testify, was the diplomatic security officer and former regional security office in Libya. He blamed the administration for ignoring calls for more security in the country.

“It matters to the American public for whom we served and most importantly, it matters to the friends and family of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Wood, who were murdered on Sept. 11,” Nordstrom said.

gshields@nypost.com

 

WHY THE BENGHAZI COVER-UP IS NOT THE NEXT WATERGATE

By Neal Boortz

Here we go. The House Oversight Committee hearings on Benghazi begin today, and do you know what we’re going to learn? We’re going to learn that 0bama and Hillary Clinton were informed almost immediately that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was being waged by Islamic jihadists connected to al Qaeda. Then we’re going to learn that 0bama and Hillary immediately went into protective mode … protecting 0bama’s reelection efforts and Hillary’s chances for 2016. 

0bama had a narrative to protect. His diplomatic efforts in the Middle East had brought about a new era of cooperation and peace, right? Al Qaeda was on the run and all but decimated, right? 

Hillary? She had incompetence to cover up. Almost immediately she came to understand that this consulate had requested additional security and protection, and that her chain of command had said no. Now she had four dead Americans, including one dead Ambassador to deal with. The 3:00 am phone call came, and her phone was turned off.

There was one current and one future presidency to be saved here, so a narrative had to be developed and presented to the American people that would clear 0bama and Hillary of any culpability. So not only did they come up with this phony YouTube video lie, they actually used the police power of the Executive branch of government to take an American citizen, an unknown video producer from California, and jam him in jail on spurious (at best) charges in order to support their phony and entirely contrived YouTube video narrative.

Now, as the hearings begin, we have luminaries such as Senator Lindsey Graham, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and my friend Mike Huckabee all predicting, to one degree or another, dreadful times ahead for 0bama. The predictions range from a Watergate-style scandal to outright impeachment.

Forget it. Ain’t going to happen. You’re dreaming.

Only a minority of Americans give a flying widget about any 0bama cover-up of the Benghazi matter. They are more likely to buy into White House Spokesman Jay Carney’s “That was a long time ago” narrative, or Hillary’s “What difference does it make” rant than they are to actually care about a deliberate, lying cover-up of the reasons behind the death of four Americans.

Watergate? Gimme a big league break here. There’s a HUGE difference between 0bama’s problems with Benghazi and Nixon’s Watergate mess. When the Watergate scandal broke we had a New York and D.C. press corps with a burning desire to destroy Richard Nixon. With 0bama and the Benghazi scandal we have the very same press corps ready to do anything it can reasonably expect to get away with to protect their God-like hero and preserve his presidency. “But people died in Benghazi!” you say? And you think that’s enough to stop the 0bama hero-worship among the Fourth Estate?

But what about the American people? Really? Think about that for a few moments. Now … you’re not telling me that the same people who put this colossal failure back into the White House for four more years is going to get worked up over Benghazi, are you? 

Let me tell you what the American people are concerned with right now – and we’re talking about those who aren’t gunched up with 24/7 discussions about college football recruiting and gay NBA players. In a nutshell (and thank goodness for the few exceptions we DO have) the majority of the American people are more worried right now about acquiring and keeping their monthly checks from the government than they are about 0bama’s lies or foreign policy failures. They think a Benghazi is a small yappy dog.

These people are more concerned about next Winter’s home heating assistance checks than they are about dead ambassadors. They’re worrying about getting more federal dollars for child care to help them take care of the next tricycle motor they’re fixin’ to download without the benefit of a husband. They’re wondering who is going to pay their medical bills, and how they can get their hands on one of those great Section 8 housing vouchers. Some are looking to upgrade their 0bamaPhones.

How many people do we have on Social Security disability right now? The figure is nearing 12 million Americans. These 12 million are principally worried about how to keep those checks coming, while another 12 million (at least) are wondering how to get on this bandwagon as well. After all, their backs hurt and you surely can’t expect them to get out there and work for a living, can you? (Apologies to those of you with actual disabilities, but we could probably cram every one of you into a Jai Alai Fronton somewhere in Miami if we had to.)

Then there’s millions more who’s main concern is making sure their unemployment benefits don’t run out (Me? Get a job?) and others who are waiting for 0bama to make their boss pay them more than they’re actually worth on their jobs. 

Benghazi 0bama’s Watergate? For that to happen you need concerned citizens who actually care and a media that will do it’s job objectively. Both ingredients are in short supply.

It’s going to be a great show, to be sure. But in the end it adds up to nothing.