Thirteen Hours and Why the Truth Has Not Been Told

The opening of Thirteen Hours, a story of the Benghazi attack from the point of view of three CIA contract soldiers, is a compelling film that raises many questions about what happened and the State Department's  failure to send help when the Annex was under attack. Was it a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video? Apparently not. Secretary Clinton knew it was an attack and said so the next day to the Prime Minister of Egypt and her daughter Chelsea. From the night of the attack the Obama Administration, including The President, Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice and others continued to insist it was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video. They even said it to the families of the men killed when their bodies were returned to the U.S. Obama even repeated it in his UN Speech almost two months later.

After several Congressional investigations, hundreds, even thousands of hours of testimony, we know the facts: It was a planned attack, everyone involved knew it and tried to keep it hidden and some Americans died unnecessarily. But all of this never gets to the WHY? And the why is the reason for all the confusion, deception and deflection. It may take years to come out but in the end it will be said Benghazi, was not about Obama's re-election, it was a weapons deal gone bad. America was secretly selling weapons to what they thought was a group of "moderate Syrian rebels." Ambassador Stevens and his team discovered that the buyers they thought were Syrian Rebels, were in fact Taliban. The Ambassador attempted to cancel the deal and he was killed, as were all those who failed to get out of the Annex. The Annex was allowed to burn and the men inside were allowed to die to make sure this would not be discovered. I will leave the bickering of what people did say and didn't say about Benghazi but the circumstantial evidence for a weapons deal is pretty strong. 

Less than two weeks before the attack a Turkish freighter loaded with weapons reportedly headed for Gaza to arm Palestinians was conveniently diverted to Libya. Just a coincidence? The Administration was heavily involved in trying to arm Syrian Rebels in Obama's effort to depose Bashar Assad. Unable to organize the opposition in Syria he did the next best thing he could think of. Contact was made with a group in Libya claiming to be Syrian Rebels. Obama was anxious to take out Assad as he had done to Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi. It just so happens that Ambassador Stevens was a friend of Hilary Clinton and she knew he could be depended on to negotiate the deal quietly. However, when the Ambassador learned they were Taliban and tried to call it off he was captured and killed, along with his team. The annex was burned to ground and left unguarded so the evidence that remained could be contaminated or stolen by locals. It was completely vandalized before FBI investigators arrived weeks later.. 

The plan to provide arms to this group was done with the approval of the White House, the State Department, The Defense Department and the Intelligence Directorate, which also means some members of Congress knew about it as well. The investigation into exposing the truth was compromised from the start. Benghazi demonstrates a level of corruption and obstruction by an administration and a go-along, get-along Congress, whose reckless foreign policy set the Middle East on fire starting with Arab Spring, the isolation of Israel, the overthrow of Gaddafi and finally the deal with Iran. Benghazi is the lynchpin in this whole mess. The truth will not come out until well after Obama leaves office.because the corruption involves the Executive Branch, The Congress, The Military and Intelligence. 

To Refugee or Not to Refugee

It is quite amazing to find the majority of Democrat politicians and their media lackeys in support of Obama's plan to import 10,000 Syrians a year under the guise of refugees escaping from the war-torn country; a situation created by the President's own policy. The President referred to the refugees as women and 3-year old orphans. Mica Brzezinski and Juan Williams claimed most of the refugees were women, children and old men.  Of course all three claims are false. As New York Congressman Peter King said to Mica: You are 1000 percent wrong. In fact in Europe most of the refugees fleeing are men of fighting age. People may lie about it, but the video tells the truth. Despite the effort by media to emphasize video of women and children, video tape tells you what you need to know. Look into the crowds-what do you see. Men, men and more men. Some dragging children along. Once in a while you see a women in a Hijab, but mostly it's men. Young men who could be and should be in uniform fighting except Jihadis have no uniforms. They kill and murder indiscriminately. Some of these men have already been caught with forged Syrian passports in Turkey and Hondouras. The Federal claim of a strong vetting process that takes up to two years does not explain where this process takes place. Where do these refugees live while the process is ongoing? Answer: They will be living here. In our cities and towns with freedom to move and inflict heavy damage if they choose. Do not let yourself be lead to the slaughter by rhetoric that says most of the refugees are women and children. As Warner Wolf would say "Roll the video tape."

Republicans: If You Want To Win Pay Attention

There is little doubt that immigration, whether you call it illegal, undocumented, reform or whatever adjective you choose,  will be a major issue in 2016. If Republicans want to win the argument they must change the liberal premise that Republicans want to deport 11 million illegal Mexicans and break up their families. Unless Republcans dispel and nullify this notion with policy prescriptions  that deal with illegal immigration and does not target Mexicans they are giving a great advantage to Hilary Clinton and the Democrat Party. The immigration issued should be framed as enforcing the current law on those who have overstayed their visas. After all that is the largest group of people here illegally. It should also include deporting convicted felons when their sentences are served. And, finally the focus should be on all of our borders, which includes securing our physical borders as well as our ports of entry. Reforms to the immigration system, in addition to enforcement, should include a targeted work program, a streamlined citizenship program and reform of the often abused political asylum system. When the media frames the issue as deporting 11 million Mexcans they should be corrected. Democrats and special interest groups have successfully framed the issue this way and 90 percent of journalists and analysts who vote Democrat willingly carry the strawman argument. Republicans must reframe it and make the argument about illegal aliens from all countries. They must memorize and repeat every time the issue is brought up, after all that is how the Democrats made it about Mexicans.  This seems like such an obvious solution to what has been a vexing problem for the Republican Party. Quite frankly I am surprised they haven't figured it out yet. I'm not sure any of smart guys will take my advice; It will be mistake to ignore it.

I'm Baaaacccckkkkk and just in time.

After a long hiatus due to a severe illness and the double-lung transplant that followed I intend to once again make my voice heard. There is very little disagreement that the nation is in terrible shape. Even those that are responsible seem to agree. Except for the spinners very few people think we are better off as a nation. The economy is still idle, race relations are at their lowest level since the 1960's, our conduct on foreign soil is superfluous and poorly chosen.  Our nation seems to be on the wrong side almost every time. Instead of stabilizing the Middle East and North Africa our feckless and wrong-headed foreign policy has put a match to the oil under its sand. President Obama's and Hilary Clinton's action in these areas has caused the greatest refugee crisis of this century so far, and it's still early.  We are so fed up with our politics (both Republicans and Democrats)  that we are willing to take an outsider over insiders who have proven they can accomplish very little. The Republicans can't decide on a Speaker or how to fight Obama on the budget, the debt ceiling, spending, executive overreach, not to mention illegal action via regulation in many departments and choosing which laws to prosecute and which to ignore. Meanwhile Democrats are willing to give their nomination to a woman who had failed as Secretary of State, failed as Senator of New York and is under investigation for divulging National Security. We are becoming the country our Founding Fathers feared.

Things I heard that bug me.

Donald a Trump is not qualified to be President: Ari Fleischer, most conservative pundits, Republican politicians, almost all Democrats. Trump meets all the qualifications to run. He says what he means. He probably means what he says. The attacks from all sides come from the fear he could win and make the political class earn their pay. Now wouldn't that be novel.

The Mexican Goverment doesn't do anything to help illegal aliens cross our southern borders; Larry Kudlow, financial analyst. Wrong Larry. The Mexican govt permitted the distribution of booklets that told illegals how to cross the border, what to say if they were caught and how to avoid arrest.

Mitt Romney and other conservatives now say take the Confederate Flag off the South Carolina Capitol. Unfortunately they fail to point out a Democrat passed the law that put it there. They also fail to point out that the legacy of slavery, segregation , Jim Crow and the Confederate Flag throughout the southern states belongs lock, stock and barrel to the Democrats who fought integration until Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society to subjugate African Americans, destroy their families and secure their vote.

New Jersey Democrats are demanding Chris Christie resign because he's running for President. Can you ever recall Democrats asking a Democrat candidate to resign because he or she ran for President? In case you don't know the answer is no.

Why Infrastructure Spending Doesn't Work

This is the second time I have written on this subject at The New Narrative. However as an editor of the now defunct New York Construction News and publisher of The Infrastructure Pipeline and Juvenile Justice Magazine I have had many opportunities to explore the issue. The main reason infrastructure spending cannot provide an immediate stimulus is because it takes years of planning to build or repair even the simplest of roads or bridges. Add to that the actual length of physical time it takes to do the work and you have projects that require many years to develop, implement and complete. In fact, most states have to spread their infrastructure plans over several years because many projects simply take years to build. Anyone who does serious driving will tell you there is road and bridge construction in almost every state. Many of these projects have been ongoing for several years. Infrastructure does provide jobs, but in most cases those jobs already exist and most of those people are already working on another project. Most government financed infrastructure goes to government employees or firms that already do business with government and are familiar with bidding systems. Perhaps that is why fours years into Obama's first infrastructure stimulus he remarked "the jobs weren't as shovel ready as we thought;" And the truth is they won't be this time either. Federal and State governments fund their Highway Trusts from a variety of sources including the gas tax, highway use tax, etc. They do it every year so a close look will tell you they already have billions to spend but can't do it because infrastructure spending has to be developed and planned before it can be put in the pipeline. The effect can never be immediate. When a politician tell you otherwise he is lying.

Will Benghazi be Obama's Iran-Contra?

On the 11th Anniversary of 911 the State Department consulate in Benghazi was attacked by rebel forces that turned out to include al-Qaeda fighters. There were persistent rumors at the time that the Obama Administration through the CIA and State Department were trying to provide arms to Syrian rebels, which many think was the purpose of Ambassador Christopher Stevens' trip to Benghazi. Some people think that Stevens came to the realization that al-Qaeda fighters were among those buying the weapons and tried to cancel the deal, which lead directly to his death and the deaths of the others. Perhaps that is why we did not run to the sound of the guns and left our men to die in the desert. After two years of investigating by Congress and stonewalling by the Obama Administration a Select Committee has been formed to get the answers that the families of the four dead victims deserve, as well as to give America a clear picture of what took place. For example, if the goal was to provide Syrian rebels with weapons was it legal to do so? It wasn't for Ronald Reagan. Americans deserve an answer.