STUNNING=> Susan Rice Ordered NSC Officials To ‘STAND DOWN’ Amid Russian Hacking Fears

1 Comment

H/T The Gateway Pundit.

The Russian Collusion is by the DemocRats and not President Donald J Trump.

Left-leaning Mother Jones reported Friday that President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, ordered officials to ‘stand down’ as Russia allegedly attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. 

Daily Caller via Mother Jones reports:

NSC officials were reportedly alarmed by Russia’s attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, including the hacking of Democratic National Committee officials’ emails, and those belonging to Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Michael Daniel, an NSC official responsible for the Russia portfolio, told to the book’s authors of multiple plans to strike fear in Russian President Vladimir Putin with the aim of ending Russia’s election meddling. These plans included surreptitiously releasing personal information about Putin’s family, which revealed corruption in Putin’s political party, and even crafting a large cybersecurity exercise as a public threat to Russia.

 Daniel additionally told the authors that when Rice caught wind of his planning, she called him and berated him.

One day in late August, national security adviser Susan Rice called Daniel into her office and demanded he cease and desist from working on the cyber options he was developing. “Don’t get ahead of us,” she warned him. The White House was not prepared to endorse any of these ideas. Daniel and his team in the White House cyber response group were given strict orders: “Stand down.” She told Daniel to “knock it off,” he recalled.

Recently, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley uncovered an unusual email Rice sent herself on January 20th, 2017– the same day as Trump’s inauguration.

The email comprised of notes concerning a January 5th meeting she had with outgoing President Barack Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, outgoing Vice President Joe Biden and Justice Department official Sally Yates, to discuss alleged ‘Russian interference’.

Rice’s lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, told Congress that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss potential risks of sharing classified intelligence with incoming National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn.

“President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,” Ruemmler wrote.



Flash: Susan Rice Blames the Russian Invasion of Ukraine on Internet Video

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Make An Effort.

It has come to light that the Invasion of Ukraine by a Disorganized Mob of Russian Demonstrators is in response to an Internet Video.

The Video was purportedly criticizing the overuse of Sour Cream in the Russian Diet.  It also, reportedly, implied that Beets shouldn’t be considered a Food.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice has been scheduled to make several appearances on Sunday News Shows to fully explain the circumstances of this unfortunate event.

She has also issued a statement clarifying why there has been no United States response:  “We simply didn’t have any resources in the area capable of responding in time.”

Secretary of State John Kerry commented; “What, at this point, does it matter?”  It should be noted that Kerry made the statement in what some considered a “strange high-pitched kind of shouting, almost through his nose.”  At this time we’re not sure if he was mocking someone or simply showing something resembling emotion and intonation, both out of character for Secretary Kerry.

Yesterday President Obama issued a warning that there would be “Costs” associated with the Invasion of Ukraine.

President Obama has canceled his taxpayer-funded Vacation Plans to the Ukraine in response to the Invasion.

In a press release President Obama said: “My response is proportional to the outrage.  This should go a long way in teaching The Ukrainians to be mean to Ethnic Russians.”

Blah, Blah, Racist, Blah, Blah, Racist, Blah, Blah, Blah, Racist

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

The charge of racism has lost its meaning.

The left sees a racist behind every tree and under every tree.

The left is like the boy who cried wolf no one takes them serious any more.


love white meat, and if you love white meat, you’re most likely reacting to some inner anti-dark worldview, because, according to Ron Rosenbaum at Slate, “Dark meat represents slime and viscosity. Dark meat embodies all the menace of dissolution into the nothingness that is the slimy ground of being itself!” What he’s trying to say, if you like white (white meat and white bread), you’re not right. Rosenbaum’s high brow but sad piece is the end-point of how liberals think these days. They find a narrative that resonates with their constituency groups and blast its sound 24/7 from the highest media outposts. The sad thing is, it works.

When you can’t win an argument by challenging someone’s operating assumptions or marshalling of the facts, pull the ad hominem card. To argue ad hominem (“against the man”) means to attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. Ad hominem reasoning is an informal fallacy of irrelevance. A person making an argument can hold to horrible opinions and live a scandalously immoral life but still make a valid and sound case for or against a position. That is, he can like white meat and white bread and not be a racist.

Usually ad hominem arguments are arguments of last resort when logic and facts are not on the attacker’s side.

The attacks made against someone can be either true or false. The goal is to delegitimize an argument by calling into question the character of the person making the argument or manufacturing a charge in order to obscure the truth or falsity of an argument. If you’re a white-meat eater, there are really dark thoughts in your soul (if you even have one).

Liberals are skillful in the use of the ad hominem attack. “How can we take this man’s criticism seriously when it’s obvious that he’s a racist? Look how white he is!” It doesn’t matter if the charge is true; the goal is to divert attention away from the weakness of the argument being made by the person who makes the ad hominem allegation.

Throughout the 2012 presidential campaign, any criticism of President Obama’s policy was said to be wrapped up in a thin veneer of racism. A similar tactic was employed when conservatives objected to using tax payers’ money to pay for contraceptives. This was seen as a “war on women.” We’ve seen the combination of the racism and war on women charges when Republicans wanted to question Susan Rice, the current Ambassador to the United Nations, and the way she explained the Benghazi attacks. Sure enough, even to question anything she said or did was anti-woman and racist. What else could it be?

Now Ken Burns has joined the “it-must-be-about-racism” crowd. Burns is best known, and maybe only known, for his many documentaries. He first gained notoriety for his documentary The Civil War (1990), and then went on to direct and produce documentaries on baseball (1994), jazz (2001), the national parks (2009), war (2011), and the dust bowl.

While appearing on a Meet the Press panel to discuss Steven Spielberg’s new film LincolnBurns asked the guests, “Do you think we’d have a secession movement in Texas and in other places … if this president wasn’t African American?” Secession + white meat + white bread = racism. The math is easy when you know how to do it. Who knows what Rosenbaum would think if you sleep on white sheets.

If it’s always been about racism, then why wasn’t there a call for secession after Obama won in 2008?

Burns even brought up the Tea Party in his racism charge. Why did the Tea Party get behind Ted Cruz, who is Hispanic, in his Senate race in Texas if the Tea Party is all about “vitriol” and “racism”? There were Republicans Mia Love in Utah and Allen West in Florida, both black, that Democrats would not vote for.

It’s the Democrats who keep making race an issue. They are the ones who have to drag it into every conversation. The reason for their preoccupation with race is that they do not want to talk about the issues.

Read more:


Rice to meet with top GOP senators after their objections to her replacing Clinton

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News.

Mark my words McCain and Graham will get weak kneed and vote for Rice.

They talk the talk but can not walk the walk.

They are afraid the New York (T)Slimes or Washington ComPost will not like them.

Never mind what is right but what makes them look good.

It is time for the people of Arizona and South Carolina to fire these clowns.


Three top Republican senators are scheduled to meet Tuesday with Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, as Rice continues to be discussed as one of the top candidates to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when Clinton steps down next year.

Rice, after facing intense Republican scrutiny and criticism for her initial comments on the deadly attack in September on a U.S. consulate in Libya, is expected to meet with Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

McCain and Ayotte told Fox News that Rice had requested the meeting.

Ayotte said she isn’t sure if the discussion will stick to Libya, but she thinks this could help her reassess her reservations about Rice as President Obama’s potential secretary of state nominee.

Clinton has said she will step down as soon as her replacement is ready. Rice and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., have been the top names discussed for the job.

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has demanded Rice be held accountable for her public explanation of events following the fatal Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. He wouldn’t say Monday whether she could allay his concerns.

“I’m not going to go into the whole tick tock, but it’s clear what my concerns are,” he told Fox News. “She told the American people things that were patently untrue … As I said at the time people don’t go to demonstrations with mortars and rocket propelled grenades.”

Rice, while making the rounds on five Sunday show appearances Sept. 16, five days after the attacks, said they were “spontaneous” violence that seemed to grow out of a protest of an anti-Islamic video. But further scrutiny revealed no evidence of a protest outside the consulate on the night of the attacks, and U.S. intelligence officials later said it appeared to be a pre-planned terrorist attack.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. A local Libyan extremist group that sympathizes with Al Qaeda is suspected of carrying out the attack, though it remains unclear how much planning was involved and how much the anti-Islam video served as a motivating factor.

Rice has said only that she was working off talking points given to her.

She said on Wednesday that she had “great respect” for McCain and his service to the country and that she looks forward to discussing with him the entire issue, including some “unfounded” statements he made about her.

McCain, who vowed to block any attempt to appoint Rice as the next secretary of state, hinted Sunday that he might be moving away from his hard-line approach.

“She deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “She’s not the problem. The problem is the president.”

Read more:


House Dems Call McCain Racist, Sexist and Say He ‘Battered’ Susan Rice

1 Comment

This is from CNSNews.

The DemocRats have added to the tired old race card.

Now  they have add the sexist label to the race card.

Sadly they will keep using the same old tired charges.

Even more sadly they will work with so many people.

John McCain is a RINO but not a racist or sexist.


( – Several House Democrats on Friday attacked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) as a racist, a sexist, and said that his criticism of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice amounted to mugging and battering.

“There is a clear, a clear in my opinion, sexism and racism that goes with these comments that are being made by – unfortunately – Senator McCain and others,” Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman Rep. Marsha Fudge (D-Ohio.) said in a press conference Friday on Capitol Hill.

“And I strongly stand by that statement.”

Fudge said that Republican critics of Rice including McCain had never called a man “unqualified” or “not bright”, referring to comments he made on CBS’ This Morning program Thursday.

“All of the things that they have disliked about things that have gone on in this administration they have never called a male unqualified, not bright, not trustworthy. I don’t recall it ever happening,” Fudge said.

During the same press conference, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said that McCain and other “men” should not be allowed to “attack” or “batter this woman” Rice.

“What unmitigated gall for these men to attack the permanent representative to the United Nations Susan E. Rice,” Moore said.

“We all understand that all of us have been disappointed in one way or another about the results of the election – but to batter this woman because they don’t feel they have had the ability to batter President Obama is something that we, the women, are not going to stand by and watch.”

Moore said that because of his criticism of Rice, she no longer considered McCain a “gentleman.”

“There was a time when I regarded Mr. McCain in particular as a gentleman. I am sad that this is not one of those moments,” she said.

Ambassador Rice is reportedly on the short list to be nominated to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State, and on Wednesday, McCain said that he “will do everything in my power to block her (Rice) from being the United States secretary of state.”

Rice stirred up controversy when she told a series of Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16 that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, five days earlier had been a “spontaneous reaction” to an online video clip denigrating the Prophet Mohammed.

U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which was subsequently dubbed a terrorist attack.

McCain told Fox News: “Susan Rice should have known better and if she didn’t know better, she is not qualified. She should have known better.”

Referring to Rice on “CBS This Morning,” McCain said the ambassador was, at the least, guilty of “not being very bright, because it was obvious that this was not a ‘flash mob’ and there was additional information by the time she went on every news show in America.”

Graham, on CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday, had said of Rice: “I think Susan Rice would have an incredibly difficult time getting through the Senate. I would not vote for her unless there’s a tremendous opening up of information explaining herself [on Benghazi] in a way she has not yet done.”

At a White House press conference on Wednesday, President Obama said if members of Congress have a problem with the way his administration handled the aftermath of the terror attacks – blaming them on an obscure video — they should take their complaints to him:

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them,” Obama said.

“But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation, is outrageous,” he said.

In response, Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted: “Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for #Benghazi.”


The Media Forgot that We Aren’t Stupid

1 Comment

This is from Political Outcast.

The media is living in a fantasy world where are the only news source.

The media thinks when the say something about an issue it is the final word.

The media is a lap-dog for Obama and the DemocRats.

They are disgraceful.


Congressional hearings are looking into the atrocity that took place in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department, in an unheard-of turnabout, refused to go quietly under the bus. Not only did they confirm that the incident was part of a coordinated attack, but they stoutly insisted that the tale told by the administration, that the “riot” was caused by rage generated by a three month-old video trailer, was not information they had and that this pretext was “not the conclusion we came to.”

Despite the best efforts of the president, Mrs. Clinton, and a complicit media, the State Department doesn’t seem to want to take this one for the “team.” Yes, unhappily for the members of the administration, try as they might, they are meeting some stubborn resistance. So, if not the State Department, where does this story come from? Why is this appalling cover-up still not being reported as such by a unified press?

There is no question that some of the media rats appear to be deserting the sinking ship Obama as fast as their little legs will carry them. Television pundits, in particular, are expressing “outrage” over the lies they have been broadcasting to the nation for weeks. And they are acting surprised and indignant. Ironically, it seems that the radio arm of network broadcast and the mainstream print media haven’t gotten the memo yet.

After Rush Limbaugh spent the first hour of his program going into the importance of this story on Wednesday, WABC radio news led off with this life and death account:

“Police are called to a fight that took place between Lindsay Lohan and her mother; there was no information about what the fight was about.”

Mr. Limbaugh suggests that the media are infuriated that they have been lied to. He questioned “how stupid do they have to be” to have bought it in the first place. That may be the wrong question. Clearly, the information was available had the press done its job instead of being enthusiastic stenographers for the administration. Their “indignation” just doesn’t ring true. So, the real question is not how stupid do they have to be; it’s “how stupid does the media think we are?”

FOX news broke the story of the real cause of the attacks weeks ago. Less than 24 hours after the attacks took place, in fact. Authorities up to and including the president of Libya confirmed that there were no demonstrations before the attack and no one in Libya had ever heard of the video that was reputed by our president to have caused the violence. On Wednesday, in front of Congress, Susan Lamb of the State Department admitted that multiple requests for protection by Mr. Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, were denied prior to the physical attack. The reasons for the denial? Mr. Stevens apparently didn’t make a good enough case for his request. Ms. Lamb also said that the state department had “sufficient” assets in place. That must be a very hard sell to Mr. Stevens’ family and the families of the other three Americans who lost their lives that night.

The State Department claims the video, insulting to Islam, was not their story. Yet the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, affirmed that the video was the cause of “copycat” violence in Libya. She was plastered all the Sunday morning television shows, peddling the president’s take on the event, to anyone who would give her the time. Everyone in the mainstream media gave her the time. The president addressed the United Nations to perpetuate what had already been exposed as a lie, blaming the video and its “disgusting” message, claiming that United States policy had nothing to do with it.

So, again, where did the video trailer canard come from? It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that the president had nothing to do with it. Never mind that the culpable video had been posted on You Tube since June and was never noticed by anyone, anywhere. The president spent seventy thousand taxpayer dollars on an apology commercial, to run in Pakistan, forcing his pretext that the anti-Islamic video was the catalyst for brutality and he was not responsible for it.

The president is still hawking the absurd video yarn, apologizing, and still lying. Don’t take my word for it; ask the mother of one of the Benghazi dead, interviewed on CNN last night. Even the media, willing to confront the story, are now calling it a cover-up. The president has, since the uprisings in the Middle East and even as far as Asia, excused the terrorists because their “rage” is understandable. Understandable? The Muslim world understands that President Obama is weak and apologetic for America. This makes us vulnerable to more attacks.

Read more:


Peter King Calls for Susan Rice’s Resignation

Leave a comment


This is from News Max.

Susan Rice like her boss Barack Obama is incompetent.

The rule of law does not apply to anyone in Obama’s administration.

So Susan Rice will not step down as Ambassador to the United nations.

One more reason to elect Romney/Ryan in November.


Rep. Peter King, the New York Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, has demanded the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice in the wake of the Benghazi  attack.

King said on CNN Friday that Rice’s explanation on the talk shows was “such a failure of foreign policy message and leadership” and “such a misstatement of facts” that “I believe she should resign.”

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney also accused the administration of being dishonest.

“I think it’s pretty clear that they haven’t wanted to level with the American people. We expect candor from the president and transparency,” Romney told Fox News this week. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials sought to explain Friday why the Obama administration‘s understanding of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is “evolving.”

Facing a barrage of Republican criticism about what the administration knew and when about the attack, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a statement Friday that laid out how officials came to understand the assault that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. At the same time, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations issued a statement explaining her early descriptions of the attack.

In the days immediately after the attack, the administration said it believed it was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video that ridiculed Islam’s Prophet Muhammad and ignited mob protests on U.S. embassies around the Middle East and in North Africa. Now, the administration has begun to call it a terrorist attack carried out by al-Qaida-linked militants and explain that it was a planned attack distinct from the mob protests in the region.

Republicans have seized on the Obama administration’s changing narrative, saying the administration was too slow to label it a terrorist attack because, they said, the White House did not want to admit its policies had failed to defeat al-Qaida, and quell anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.

“Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving,” DNI spokesman Shawn Turner’s statement said.

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qaida,” he said.

At the same time, a spokeswoman for Rice also sought to explain comments that Rice made early in the investigation saying there was no evidence the Benghazi attack was premeditated.

“During her appearances on the Sunday talk shows Sept. 16, 2012, Ambassador Rice’s comments were prefaced at every turn with a clear statement that an FBI investigation was under way that would provide the definitive accounting of the events that took place in Benghazi,” said Erin Pelton, spokeswoman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. “At every turn Ambassador Rice provided — and said she was providing — the best information and the best assessment that the administration had at the time, based on what was provided to Ambassador Rice and other senior U.S. officials by the U.S. intelligence community.”

Further intelligence may be slow to arrive. The FBI team that arrived in Libya last week to investigate the incident can’t get to the scene of the attack because it is too dangerous, according to two law enforcement officials. The officials requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing investigation.

Republicans have seen the Libya attack as an opportunity to attack President Barack Obama on one of his strengths, foreign policy.

Recent intelligence reports indicated a force of more than 50 heavily armed extremists attacked the consulate, using gun trucks for added firepower, and establishing a perimeter to limit access to the compound and catch any Americans who might try to escape. A first wave of attacks set fire to the main building, forcing the Americans to flee to a fallback building a half mile away, where a second group of extremists attacked with mortar fire. Stevens died of apparent smoke inhalation when he was caught inside the main consulate building, becoming separated from the other fleeing diplomats.

Intelligence officials have focused their attention on Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan militant group led by a former detainee at the U.S. military-run prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that there has been a “thread of intelligence reporting” about groups in eastern Libya trying to coalesce but no specific threat to the consulate.

Read more on Peter King Calls for Susan Rice’s Resignation
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama‘s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


%d bloggers like this: