Must-See: Fired-Up Megyn Kelly Just Did To Hillary What Other Media Wouldn’t

Citizens watching various newscasts to get a firm take on the testimony of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before the House Committee on Benghazi are realizing that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly is reporting crucial evidence not being reported elsewhere.

The evidence, which includes Clinton emails to other government leaders and her family, shows she lied from the beginning of her public statements that the attack was prompted by an offensive anti-Muslim video.

Kelly said, in discussing the evidence with Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen, that government officials’ lies are destroying citizens’ trust.

“This is what drives people crazy. It drives them crazy. You know, why not just come out and lay it out. This is what makes people distrust not just these politicians, but Washington, but the administration, but anybody who even raises their hand and testifies under oath, believing you’re not being straight with me,” she ranted on her show The Kelly File.

However, if someone was watching or reading news on the committee hearing from other media outlets such as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or The Washington Post, they would see a totally different story.

Writers for the Washington Post’s Daily 202 stated Clinton “emerged not just unscathed but stronger.” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Calif., told MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews that “we’ve learned absolutely nothing new” from the proceedings.

Kelly went into detail about Clinton’s private emails, brought to light during her Oct. 22 testimony, that revealed she knew within hours of the 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi that it was a terrorist attack. Yet, days and weeks after the attack, Clinton, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, Press Secretary Jay Carney and even President Barack Obama maintained the claim that the event which left four Americans dead was a “spontaneous reaction” to protests in Cairo and related to a video produced by a man in California.

“And today, for the first time,” Kelly said on her show, “we hear Mrs. Clinton’s thoughts, at least in the hours right after the attack, what she really believed as she told the public a video was to blame.

“The truth is that what Mrs. Clinton said publicly is very different from what she claimed privately she knew– that this attack had nothing to do with a video nor a protest – that it was a pre-planned attack and she said she knew it.”

Kelly pointed out that Clinton and other administration officials, including Rice and Obama, talked to family members of the deceased U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty at the casket ceremony, and told them the video prompted a spontaneous protest that ended in the attack.

Kelly also pointed to emails sent to Egypt’s prime minister and her family the night of the attack that said, without any wavering, that the attack was a planned attack conducted by terrorists and had nothing to do with the video.

“We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest,” Clinton’s email to the Egyptian prime minister stated.

An email to her family said the same thing, that the attack was terrorism. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, demanded answers of Clinton during the committee hearing.

“State experts knew the truth. You knew the truth, but that’s not what the American people got. Again, the American people want to know why,” Jordan said during the hearing.

Obama’s Own Adviser Just Admitted Something About Iran Deal He NEVER Wanted Public

When the Obama administration has a self-serving story it wants to sell to the American public, it often trots out Susan Rice, the president’s national security adviser and generally dependable lockstep lieutenant. Yes, that Susan Rice — the Obama mouthpiece who infamously claimed on a handful of TV talk shows that the deadly Benghazi attack was prompted by an amateurish YouTube video. The same Susan Rice who stunningly declared that accused Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl served his country with “honor and distinction.”

So, here now comes Ms. Rice with her latest attempt at a spin-to-win media appearance — this one in defense of President Obama’s Iran deal that’s drawing so much bipartisan fire. However, the Obama surrogate may have stepped in it while talking to Wolf Blitzer and his CNN viewers about the tens of billions of dollars Iran is slated to receive as a result of sanctions being lifted.

Breitbart News reports that Rice admitted the Islamic regime in Iran may well spend some of the freed-up cash on beefing up its military and supporting terrorist operations in the Middle East. Rice, though, used the euphemism “bad behavior” instead of terrorism; just as her boss, Obama, has refused to utter the phrase “Islamic terrorism.”

“National Security Adviser Susan Rice said ‘we should expect’ that some of the money Iran gets under sanctions relief as a result of the nuclear deal ‘would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region’ on Wednesday’s ‘Situation Room’ on CNN,” says Breitbart.

Experts have estimated that some $100-150 billion in Iranian assets have been frozen in the international banking system and are expected to be thawed under the terms of the deal for which the Obama administration continues to take a protracted victory lap. In her interview with CNN, Rice essentially said “so what” about the potential use of those funds to help Iran militarily:

…yes, it is real, it is possible, and, in fact, we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now. But the goal here, Wolf, was never, and was not designed to prevent them from engaging in bad behavior in region.

Did you catch that? Did you see that one of President Obama’s top advisers said the lengthy, difficult negotiations with one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East were never intended “to prevent them from engaging in bad behavior in the region?”

When considering how this admission fits into the big-picture scenario the Obama administration is trying to paint regarding the potential dangers of Iran getting its hands on those billions in unfrozen assets, one must take into account what John Kerry just said. Does what Rice told CNN square with what the secretary of state told the international press on Tuesday?

As CNS News has reported, Kerry “played down concerns that Iran will use the windfall from sanctions relief under the nuclear agreement to boost sponsorship for terrorists, suggesting that groups like Hezbollah do not benefit all that much from Iranian financial support in the first place.”

The CNS article also notes that many in Congress, as well as a number of America’s Mideast allies, have expressed serious concern regarding the potential for Iran to strengthen its conventional military and traditional terror ties; but “[t]he White House firmly opposed efforts by Republican lawmakers to link Iran’s support for terrorism to the nuclear negotiations which have now been finalized.”

A vocal opponent of Obama’s Iran deal, GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, says it is naive and foolish to believe Iran will use the unfrozen funds just to improve its hobbled economy.

Business Insider reports: “Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), one of the most rabid opponents of the deal, characterized it as a ‘signing bonus’ that Iran’s leaders could use to fund overseas terrorism and other attacks on U.S. interests.”

Congress has an opportunity to debate the deal and give it an up or down vote. If lawmakers pass legislation blocking the pact, Obama has threatened a veto.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Calls For Obama’s Impeachment Could Well Grow Louder With Army’s Decision To Charge Bergdahl

Images Credit: Twitter

When President Obama agreed in mid-2014 to exchange five top Taliban leaders in U.S. custody for an American soldier held by a terror group in Afghanistan, prominent critics of the deal charged that the commander-in-chief had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be impeached.

At the heart of those early calls for impeachment were claims that Obama had broken federal law against supporting terrorists. A June 2014 post on WND quoted Fox News’ Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano:

“’We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization. It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, include human assets,’ [Napolitano] said.”

Colonel Allen West, a former member of Congress, called on Capitol Hill lawmakers “to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America.”

Joining in the stinging criticism of Obama’s questionable “Taliban Five” trade deal was the former assistant U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted Islamic radicals behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

Andrew McCarthy argued that “transferring the five terrorists to Qatar in exchange for the release of Bergdahl ‘violates the law against material support to terrorism.’”

Commentator Matt Barber (whose columns frequently appear on Western Journalism) added his voice to the chorus calling for impeachment. Via CNS News:

Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he is, ‘adhering to [America’s] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,’ is without question.

Those calls for Obama’s impeachment came after controversial details of the deal were made public last summer, but long before the Army’s investigation of the Bergdahl case was complete…and longer still before today’s announcement that the military is charging Bowe Bergdahl with desertion.

When President Obama formally and proudly announced Bergdahl’s release after five years in captivity, there was a high-profile Rose Garden celebration of sorts featuring Bergdahl’s parents. Fox News reminds us:

“Bob Bergdahl, who had studied Islam during his son’s captivity appeared with a full beard and read a Muslim prayer, while Bergdahl’s mother Jani embraced the president.”

Then the administration set about trumpeting its triumphant accomplishment in the media.

Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice — known for her adamant assertion that the Benghazi attack was caused by an Internet video — went so far as to praise Bergdahl on national television, hailing the newly freed soldier as having “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

Rice’s declaration that the release of this “honorable” soldier marked a “joyous day” seems all the more removed from reality now that the Army has determined to prosecute Bergdahl for willfully leaving his post in Afghanistan.

Appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor” close to two months ago, retired Army officer, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, claimed the Pentagon had determined to charge Bergdahl; but the White House was desperately trying to keep that fact from going public because it would embarrass Obama.

Some of Bergdahl’s platoon-mates in recent months have been outspoken in their claims that Bowe Bergdahl voluntarily walked away from his unit and put his fellow soldiers lives at risk when they conducted dangerous missions to try to locate him.

At a Wednesday afternoon briefing about the Bergdahl case, an Army spokesman said there are two charges being lodged: “desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty” and “misbevaior before the enemy” that endangered his fellow soldiers.

The next step in the case is for the Army to hold a preliminary hearing at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. If taken to a court martial and found guilty, Bowe Bergdahl could face life in prison.

The consequences for Barack Obama, beyond potential embarrassment and renewed political grief, are yet to be determined.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Woodward: Military Mad That Obama Crony Susan Rice Is Telling Generals How To Fight

Bob Woodward

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward joined Chris Wallace on Fox News’ Fox News Sunday and told the host that people in the military are complaining the Obama administration is handcuffing and “micromanaging” military coordination. He said the administration doesn’t have a plan to defeat ISIS and that National Security Advisor Susan Rice is controlling the military generals.

“They [the Obama administration] have not sat down and said, ‘This is where we want to go and this is how we want to do it,’” Woodward said. “And the measure of that, when you get in the weeds here – people from the White House are micromanaging the tactical situation on a daily and weekly basis.”

“That’s not their job…” he added.

Wallace interjected and asked Woodward if he thought Rice was ordering and commanding the generals.

“They’ve got all these people in the White House – you talk to people in the military who were there and they say, ‘We are being micromanaged, and we’re not given a real plan to say what are we going to do here,’” Woodward said. “It’s not the way to run a war or try to win a war.”

h/t: TPNN

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

National Security, You’d Better Start Worrying: Your Life Depends On It!


When it comes to problems and threats facing the United States, as a former special operator and Air Force pilot, my heart lies with national security.  The destruction of our country from within is definitely happening, but will take time.  In today’s world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, a threat to our national security can manifest itself with devastating consequences in a very short period of time.  So who is minding the national security store and advising our Dear Leader?

Let’s start with the National Security Advisor, Dr. Susan Rice, who conveniently is married to an ABC News producer.  She served in various diplomatic posts during the Clinton presidency but State Department veteran Richard Holbrooke considered her “incompetent.”  She was instrumental in preventing the United States from dealing with the Sudan government when they offered to provide the U.S. intelligence on Osama Bin Laden’s location in the late 1990s.  But she is most famous for blatantly lying to the American people regarding the cause of the killing of a United States ambassador and four others in Benghazi, Libya.  Hopefully, Congressman Trey Gowdy’s investigation into this matter will finally provide the facts to the American people on what really happened that night.

Next comes the Director of National Intelligence led by former Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper.  This man can claim a distinguished career as a military and civilian intelligence professional.  However, as the old saying goes: one ah s**t can destroy a whole bunch of atta boys.  Clapper also blatantly lied to the American people while under oath to Congress regarding the United States government collecting intelligence on its own citizens.  When asked by Congress if the NSA stored data on U.S. citizens, he responded, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”  Do you see a pattern here with these people?  When it comes to telling the truth to the American people, Obama’s people seem to be truth challenged.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, although a Republican, is most famous for his anti-war views and scathing criticism of the actions of the Bush administration.  He is also on record against the American focus on Israel in the Middle East.  “Our relationship with Israel is special and historic… But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice,” Hagel said. Hmmm… I wonder what he thinks now as the Islamic State is being stood up and rockets are raining down on the Jewish State?  Regarding the surge in Iraq by Bush that stabilized the country, Hagel called it, “The most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.”  I wonder if he accepts any blame for the situation now in Iraq.  It also should be mentioned that many Republican Senators came out against Hagel’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s anti-American activities are well documented upon his return from Vietnam.  The bravery behind his medals awarded in Vietnam were questioned by his fellow SEALs during the Swiftboat controversy during his presidential campaign.  Recently he is quoted as saying, “I get always a little uptight when I hear politicians say how exceptional we are.”

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom