Over the past few days there has been a new mantra that is being heard ringing from the podium of the press room at the White House. The refrain was uttered by Jay Carney as well as Barry Soetoro (the fake POTUS) as they both gave the refrain about phony scandals. Now it is being reported that when Jay Carney was being pushed as to what is meant by a phony scandal, the response was Benghazi and the IRS. Really Jay???? Really Soerbarkh?
If ever there was evidence that Soerbakh is afraid of these particular issues and what could end up coming out, it has to be the fact that he is now singing the mantra of “phony scandal”.
It sounds to me like the Congressional inquiry into the IRS is getting very close to the mark. First let me deal with the IRS scandal that happens to be deepening every day. Lois Lerner seems to be the lynchpin for this scandal because she is the lynchpin between the FEC and the IRS. It looks like she is responsible for the leaking of private information to the FEC and others. The role of Holly Paz is less clear, however, it is to be noted that when the IG interviewed workers in Cincinnati, Holly Paz was present at those interviews. The focus had shifted to Carter Hull, but it seems that Mr. Hull was in fact a good guy, and as soon as he retired he spilled the beans. We now know, thanks to Carter Hull, that the whole thing was being handled from Washington. What we also know is that an appointee of the present White House Administration oversaw the whole thing and advised on the letters that were to be sent.
However, the revelation of the involvement of this White House employee has made certain people within the White House want to defecate themselves everywhere. This appointee is a direct link to none other than Soerbakh because Wilkins was the man who was responsible for helping the fraudulent “rev” White jump through the IRS hoops when they were investigated because of a possible violation of those same laws because of the links to Soerbakh.
Now I am about to do a little bit of speculation. What I am about to say is not true, that is I have not seen any hint that it is a possibility, but I am going to speculate anyway.
Here is what I am beginning to think: there is more than one reason as to why the conservative groups were the target of the IRS. It is dirty politics at its worst in my opinion. What stands out in this whole narrative, as we get at the truth, is that the not so reverend White from the fake church, Trinity United, is a very close ally of Soerbakh aka Barry Soetoro. Think about this for a moment, if one’s ally is being investigated because of a breach of IRS law, would that not make a certain man by the name of Barry Soetoro angry? The man who helped the not so reverend Wright to navigate through the questions being asked is then appointed by the same Barry Soetoro to head the IRS legal team. That can only leave one conclusion, and that is: Lois Lerner was complicit with Wilkins and others in the scheme that was concocted to target the IRS. Lois Lerner had a past record for targeting conservative groups via the FEC. Whilst Lerner is the lynchpin between the IRS and the FEC, Wilkins is the lynchpin between the IRS and the Oval Office.
If I am in any way correct with making these surmises, then this is a very big scandal and it is bigger than all of the other scandals put together because it would be proof positive of the targeting of people with conservative values (Republic and Democrat conservatives). So l will wait to see what happens next.
The second scandal proclaimed to be phony relates to Benghazi. Since this scandal has been named in this manner, and Soerbakh is using the disdainful approach, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Congress has been getting some really hot information. Soerbakh thinks that he can swat all of this away simply by calling the terror attack on the Benghazi Consulate a phony scandal. Ding, Ding, Ding…. wrong answer Barry.
There are several aspects to the Benghazi scandal and each aspect is a scandal within itself. First of all, there are questions to be asked as to why no one sent in the counter-terrorism squad to deal with the attackers. So far I have not seen a response that adequately addresses this issue. Second, there are questions about what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi that day… and I might add here, a more important question – why was Ambassador Stevens meeting with the Turkish diplomat that evening? Third, the stories surrounding the actual attack and the lack of proper security is very much a scandal.
My fourth point revolves around the c-grade documentary because it created an uproar in more than one place. The fact that these angry men did not even see the documentary in question, is evidence that this was ginned up outrage. It also places some focus on the fact that the c-grade documentary was used as a cover. I have a series of questions regarding those events:
1. Who paid for the making of the c-grade documentary?
2. How did the White House, specifically Hillary Clinton find out about the existence of a trailer for the documentary on Youtube?
3. When did Clinton and Soerbakh concoct their story that this c-grade documentary had anything to do with the attack? Was it before or during the attack?
4. Where is the evidence of any kind of demonstration outside of the consulate?
5. Why did Hillary refuse to consent to increased security at the consulate that she wanted to be a permanent post?
6. Who translated what was said in the trailer to Arabic? Did that person change the words in order to inflame a population that is easily stirred up to commit acts of outrage?
Here is what I think might have happened. The attack on the consulate was planned over a period of time. It is not clear to me who is exactly behind the attack. The people closest to what happened state that it was an Al Qaeda attack and the leader was an Egyptian who had been released from prison during the Muburak overthrow. However, I do think that Al Qaeda is responsible for the attack. I am not willing to accept things like “Morsi sent me” at this stage, because right now that seems to me to be unsupportable.
A new claim that I have seen, and after reading what this person stated, I saw a lot of errors in his comments, is that the attack was the work of Assad. I disagree and again, there was no proof provided and a lot of errors made in the statement. For the record, Muslim Brotherhood is Shia and Al Qaeda is Sunni, although I do believe that Al Qaeda is in fact an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood (they divided on radical ideological grounds at the time Al Qaeda was formed). The missing link here is that there was no mention of the Ba’ath Party, which is in fact Sunni. For this reason, I dismiss comments being made by a certain Mark Christian since he seems to be all over the place.
I do think that these inquiries within the Congress must be on to something quite big, otherwise Soerbakh would not be constantly sitting on the toilet defecating. His whole “phony scandal” schtick is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from the truth.