Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
I want you to first read about something that Bush said once – in an incredibly oblique reference that may not have even intended Obama and CERTAINLY did not name him – and the Obama campaign’s and the Democrat Party’s reaction to that incredibly oblique reference. And then I want to contrast that with the vile demonization that Barack Obama is using to poison the world against D0nald Trump and THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IF IT ELECTS TRUMP as he takes his campaign of hate overseas.
On May 16, 2008 the New York Times – hardly a partial, objective source friendly to Bush or to Republicans – printed this article:
JERUSALEM — President Bush used a speech to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday to denounce those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals” — a remark that was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, who has argued that the United States should talk directly with countries like Iran and Syria.
Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name, and the White House said his remarks were not aimed at the senator, though they created a political firestorm in Washington nonetheless.
In a lengthy speech intended to promote the strong alliance between the United States and Israel, the president invoked the emotionally volatile imagery of World War II to make the case that talking to extremists was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said. “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
The president was alluding to Senator William E. Borah, an Idaho Republican noted for his powers of oratory and his isolationist views. In 1938, when Hitler was gobbling up parts of Europe, Borah expressed admiration for him, and in 1939 he did indeed lament that he had not been able to talk to Hitler before the Nazi invasion of Poland.
The Obama campaign issued an angry response to Mr. Bush’s statement. In an e-mail statement to reporters, the senator denounced Mr. Bush for using the 60th anniversary of Israel to “launch a false political attack,” adding, “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
Other Democrats leapt to Mr. Obama’s defense, among them Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, who accused Mr. Bush of taking politics overseas.
“The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge,” Mr. Emanuel said in a statement. “President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head.”
The White House press secretary, Dana Perino, said the comment was not a reference to Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush was simply reiterating his own longstanding views.
“I understand when you’re running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you — that is not always true and it is not true in this case,” Ms. Perino told reporters here.
[…]
I read through the entire article, and found no other reference that even Bush’s harshest critiques attributed to an attack against Obama on foreign soil that the Democrats claim would be evil beyond the pale and no president worthy of the office would engage in such behavior.
Now, while I would argue that “if the damn shoe fits, put it on your demon-clawed feet and WEAR them, but otherwise shut up” applies here. Even the New York SLIMES admits that “Mr. Bush did not mention Mr. Obama by name.” And it is such an oblique mention at best it is impossible for anyone to prove that Bush actually intended Obama.
Mind you, in spite of Obama’s outright lies to the contrary, history now proves that Obama actually DID negotiate with terrorists and radicals and do every damn thing he said there was no way he would do.
So in any event, we have from the Democrat Party and from Obama an acknowledgement that any president who criticizes an opposition candidate for president while overseas is worse than a piece of roach poop.
So let us now see what our “Whatever-is-worse-than-roach-poop-in-Chief has said about Donald Trump:
May 26, 2016: Nothing stops politics this election season — not even the water’s edge.While traveling overseas on official business Thursday, President Obama couldn’t resist wading into political matters back home, sparking controversy by saying foreign leaders are “rattled” by the rise of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.Obama, saying leaders have “good reason” to feel that way, made the remarks on the sidelines of a Group of Seven economic summit in Japan.“They are rattled by it — and for good reason,” Obama said. “Because a lot of the proposals he has made display either ignorance of world affairs, or a cavalier attitude, or an interest in getting tweets and headlines.” […]
Obama, meanwhile, was criticized for his remarks by other Republicans, with one calling them “incredibly irresponsible” given the context.
“When the president of the United States goes overseas he’s representing the country,” Josh Holmes, former chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said on Fox News. “It is remarkably irresponsible and remarkably unpresidential for him to weigh in on a domestic political battle and effectively undermine one of the candidates who could replace him next January.”
“In front of the world community and effectively in front of all the world leaders, saying someone is essentially unfit for office is an incredibly irresponsible move for the president of the United States,” Holmes said.
What Obama did was reckless and unpresidential. It was wrong – and it was wrong by Obama’s very own words. But not only did he not quit doing it, he ESCALATED his vicious and unpresidential behavior. Witness what he just did today while standing right next to the Prime Minister of Singapore addressing a supposedly overseas and international agreement (TPP):
August 2, 2016: Singapore’s prime minister visited the White House today to pitch the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and discuss other issues, but his appearance was overshadowed by Donald Trump.Prime Minister Lee and President Obama appeared before media as part of an official state visit to Washington, D.C. by the Singaporean leader. He cited economics, security, and political stability in the Asia-Pacific region all as reasons why the United States should pass TPP as soon as possible.Lee spoke specifically about the strategic interests that the United States maintains and indirectly referenced the balancing of power that America must maintain with China. He also expressed his neutral stance on the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.
Obama also pitched the deal but did not stay neutral on the election.
“The Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president,” Obama said, adding, “The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge of critical issues in Europe, the Middle East, in Asia, means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job.”
Obama was referring to Trump’s ongoing feud with Khizr Khan, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention about his son, a muslim and a U.S. soldier who lost his life in combat. He may also have been referring to Trump’s recent confusion over the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Many headlines coming out of the press conference focused on these comments, and not the TPP.
The ONLY individual who has now PROVEN he is “unfit to be the president” is the abject disgrace who is currently holding the damn job.
I want you to understand something, Democrat: if the American people elect Donald Trump for president, Barack Obama just personally flushed you and your entire country down the toilet. This is slash-and-burn at its WORST.
Given the way our Traitor-in-Chief just characterized what may be President Donald Trump, how would Russia and China not be within their rights to attack the United States citing Obama’s own words that Trump is unstable and a direct threat to world peace???
Barack Obama just stated, “If Donald Trump is elected, I want America wiped out in World War III.” Because that is how much that wicked fool truly despises this country. He is all but calling for every other nation to do everything it can to exploit Donald Trump, to boycott him, to weaken him, to destroy him – and the nation that elected him and the people who live here in the process.
“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”
That is EXACTLY the wicked spirit that Barack Obama is pursuing. Let me paraphrase:
“If the American people are not decent enough and are not sufficiently intelligent to offer Hillary Clinton for its own existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”
Barack Obama just invited the world to wipe America out if the American people choose Trump.
He is a wicked man. And Hillary Clinton has promised to be even MORE wicked in trying to replace him.
Hillary attacked Donald Trump for his sarcastic reference regarding Russia and her more than thirty thousand illegally purged emails. The claim is that Donald Trump is cozy with Russia and with Putin. But the last I heard, It was HILLARY CLINTON and her vile criminal front otherwise known as the Clinton Foundation that sold America’s uranium (weakening our nuclear arsenal while strengthening Russia’s) to our enemy.
I know that if Donald Trump is elected president and ANY nation does ANYTHING, it will be because Barack Obama went out to “community organize” against him and against the American people and the nation that elected him because Obama is nothing more than a butthurt malignant narcissist failure.
And this ontological FOOL actually has the tiny little cockroach testicles to claim that somebody ELSE is “unfit” to be president.
Personally, for me, the best argument that Donald Trump will be a great president actually comes in the form of the fact that the very worst president in American history, who just proved he passionately hates this country and everyone who lives in it, says that Trump will be a bad president. Because every single THING Barack Obama believes is profoundly WRONG.
Saw the Cleveland police chief on a video statement noting that there were often 20 protesters with 80 media trying to pimp the protest to create that sought-after propaganda narrative of unrest.
Prior to the RNC, I recall the frenzy of leftwing media speculation that the open-carry laws that Ohio has with guns would turn the convention into a massacre zone. But at the moment this is where it stands:
Ohio’s open-carry provision had raised concerns that large numbers of armed activists might roam the streets, but only a handful have materialized at the main protest sites.
When asked what he thought of the Cleveland Police’s efforts to date for the convention Williams said, “Right now, I think so far, so good,” but agreed that the significant number of reporters at the convention had made the job of police “a lot more difficult.”
“We have more media than protesters,” Williams concluded.
As always, the problem isn’t guns; it’s the leftist propaganda that demonizes guns. It isn’t guns that commit acts of mayhem anymore than it was a truck that committed that terrorist attack in Nice (where the terrorist managed to get a gun in spite of the toughest gun control laws in the world).
Let’s ban trucks. Cars, too, just to be safe. And I’m sure a kid riding a tricycle fast enough could kill an elderly person. Better ban them.
Have you heard any “mea culpas” from the media about how WRONG they were about the hysteria on the open-carry laws and how they DID NOT RESULT IN THE VIOLENCE THEY PREDICTED???
The crickets are chirping.
But I just want a record of how the media is pimping every scintilla of anything negative they can.
“Our jobs’ a lot more difficult, yes, yes. Sorry, I mean, most of the time when we get there, we have 20 protestors; we probably have 80 people from the media there. And we’re tyring to separate out and get a handle on what’s going on, and we have more media than protestors.”
Just so desperate to get the dirt on Republicans and create their horrible image of the RNC that “reporters” are like hungry goldfish greedily swarming to eat bratty children’s spit at a pond in front of a family restaurant.
Let’s see if the media covers the 20 protesters at the DNC with those kinds of swarms and that kind of coverage. I’ll just tell you in advance that they won’t.
Because to be a “reporter” today is to be a biased, leftwing ideologue propagandist.
And again, the same police that these same vile vermin target are on the job protecting these people from their own moral idiocy:
“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!” a Cleveland officer shouted at a protester while firing the extinguishing spray.
That’s why Democrats are so incredibly dangerous: all the stupidity of monkeys without the fear of fire and the corresponding instinct for self-preservation.
Again, like the way the media swarmed those 20 protesters with 80 media, you just watch how the hysterical, hateful, anti-Trump rhetoric gets covered at the Democratic National Convention next week. Because rest assured, IT WON’T BE.
I’m just stating as a simple fact that the mainstay speeches of this RNC convention have been from Donald Trump’s family. And they have been VERY MUCH “for Trump.” But the media simply ignore that.
ALL these propagandists will focus on at the RNC is the negative, because as ideologue rodents dishonestly masquerading as reporters, these people cannot and will not notice anything positive about the Republican Party. It’s just not in their shriveled little roach souls.
Apparently, Michelle Obama invented “hard work” and the phrase that “your word is your bond” the way Al Gore invented the internet.
It would have been nice had “journalists” put Melania Trump’s “plagiarism” in a historical context. You know, point out that both the Democrat president and vice president did far WORSE, and that Melania, after all, is just the WIFE of a candidate, and NOT THE CANDIDATE.
Just remember the slanted way they covered the RNC and then watch how suddenly everything that was so awful suddenly becomes so wonderful when the same reporters get to the DNC.
The one thing you can ALWAYS count on from the media is to be unfair and dishonest in absolutely every single thing they do and say.
There are a whole host of reasons we shouldn’t, beginning with the fact that Syria has virtually nothing to do with America’s national interest. In using chemical weapons against their own people, they did nothing that would threaten American security. If that isn’t enough, let’s point out the fact that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep referring to “international norms.” There’s a reason they do that; namely, because there is actually no violation of “international LAW.” No nation that signed the treaty on chemical weapons is required to take military action against violators. And Syria did not sign that treaty anyway. Third, do you know which country WOULD be violating international law if Obama got his way? That’s right – the United States of America. The Secretary General of the United Nations has already stated categorically that our bombing of Syria would be illegal under international law.
Now, having stated those three problems for bombing Syria, let me continue pointing out still MORE problems with bombing Syria. What is our specific goal? None has been clearly (or actually even rather vaguely) stated. A limited attack that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power would do nothing to dissuade him and would be just as emboldening to him as if we did nothing. If he was still in power the day after the attack – and Obama has repeatedly assured the world Assad would still be in power – Assad would take to the airwaves and boast that he had withstood everything America could throw at him and he still remained to defy them. The act of American imperialist aggression might literally even HELP Assad by rallying Arabs against the Great Satan. Vietnam should survive as a lesson for us: if we’re going to go to war, “limited” is a bad word. Either we need to utterly overwhelm with no restrictions and nothing off-limits, or we need to shut up and stay home. But there’s more: what if our strike actually DID topple Assad? Who would take over the country? Al Qaeda, that’s who. We can argue what percentage of fighters are radical al Qaeda soldiers, but the bottom line – that we have already learned the hard way in Egypt – is that the al Qaeda-types are better organized and would swiftly take over in any power vacuum the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood did. Do you remember Obama assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood could NOT take over in Egypt? Well, he did (as I documented here):
Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.
“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.
And he was wrong then and he would be every bit as wrong now. Toppling Assad almost definitely equals installing al Qaeda in his place and going from awful to even worse than awful. We simply cannot afford more of Obama’s terrible mistakes that persistently derive from his ignorance and his failed world view.
If that isn’t enough, we face a Gulf of Tonkin moment all over again here. What happens if Obama attacks Syria and Syria responds by using one or more of their Russian-provided state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship??? That’s right, thanks to Russia, Syria has state-of-the-art missiles that could easily sink one of our warships and drag us into a war that will cost us everything and benefit us nothing. Would Obama just crawl away, or would we be in an endless Vietnam all over again? If you’re going to tell me, “Syria wouldn’t DARE fight back while we were bombing them!”, well, you’re just nuts.
If you study Vietnam, what you learn is that LBJ kept setting “red lines” hoping that the North Vietnamese wouldn’t cross them, and they kept crossing them. And every time they crossed one of those lines, LBJ felt compelled to crawl deeper into Vietnam.
It is frankly amazing to me that the same liberals who were the most frantic in their opposition to that war and other wars since are now the most loyal to Obama out of nothing short of fascist messiah-following loyalty.
Just in case you think that’s just some random token Democrat, try House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Think of her utterly reprehensible actions back in 2007 in the new light of today:
DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country. […]
“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. […]
Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.
Bush voices criticism
Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.
“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”
Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.
Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.
Now this googly-eyed moral idiot is singing a different tune, of course. And of course now she’s siding with her messiah-Führer and agreeing that it wasn’t Obama who set any red lines, but “humanity.” You see, Obama’s lips were only mouthing what the entire human race collectively said all at the same time. It was beautiful, actually, Obama speaking for us all.
Nancy Pelosi is morally insane. There is no other way to put it. Bush knew Assad for the monster he was; but not the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nope, complete moral idiot.
Notice that Barack Obama handpicked two terrorist mass-murderer-loving radical extremists to be his Secretaries of State. What are the odds that BOTH of Obama’s Secretaries of State – his highest foreign policy officials – would speak so kindly and well and fawn so deeply over a monster??? I’d say about 100 percent, when you understand what an America-hating radical Obama truly is.
Here’s the bottom line: Obama has been pushing for this strike against Syria for no other reason than he gave his “red line” statement and Syria crossed it (FOURTEEN TIMES!!!). And Obama looks weak because he stuck his foot in his mouth all the way up to where his brain was supposed to be. Nobody seriously doubts that. Had Obama NOT given his “red line,” he would not be pushing the world, Congress, and literally invoking the world in an effort to attack Syria any more than he was when they were murdering the other 119,000 of their own people that have perished these last two years. And no, I don’t believe we should go to war to defend Obama’s shattered credibility.
– is nothing short of pure rhetorical bovine feces. Because, no, Obama, YOU DID set a red line. And you specifically said:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Your calculus. Your equation. YOUR RED LINE.
Again, THE WORLD DID NOT SET ANY RED LINES. The international treaties do NOT call for signatories to attack countries that use chemical weapons; nor did Syria even SIGN any treaties regarding chemical weapons. The only “international criminals” would be Obama and the America he dragged into war.
Now the Obama who first blamed Bush for everything until Republicans took over the House when he started blaming THEM for everything is literally blaming the WORLD for everything. So now “earth” knows what it’s like to be the victim of Obama’s demagoguery where he blames his own failures on everybody but himself.
If all that isn’t enough, it appears unlikely that Obama’s Syria strike will make it through Congress. As of last count, only 23 Senators had declared themselves in favor of such an action. And it looks like even LONGER odds in the House. And if Obama ignores this vote and strikes anyway, he will be inviting a true constitutional crisis. I hope Obama isn’t that stupid, but as with all things Obama, “hope” is pretty much all you’ve got.
Okay. I think I’ve made my point about bombing Syria being a stupid idea on just about every imaginable level.
He shouldn’t bomb Syria; but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ready to bomb somebody.
No, Obama should bomb IRAN. And blast their nuclear capability into ashes. THAT’S what he ought to do.
Iran is Syria’s patron-state. Syria matters only because Iran wants Syria to matter. Iran has been Syria’s puppet master all along, and Iran is the reason that Assad is still in power after two years of vicious revolution against him. Iran has been “all in” on Syria.
If we attack Iran’s nuclear program like the giant, jackbooted-foot of Allah, believe me, Obama would be off the hook for doing nothing against Syria’s use of chemical weapons. And at the same time, Syria would get the most crystal-clear message imaginable.
People like me would be forced to say, “Obama was a truly TERRIBLE president. Until he took out Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.”
Call it “Operation Go For The Jugular.” Rather than “Operation Enduring Confusion” as a strike on Syria would be.
And by the way, Mister president: DON’Tgo to Congress. Follow Nike’s advice and “Just Do It.” Make it a complete surprise. Hit them hard and keep hitting them until it will take Iran another hundred years to build a nuke.
The day that Iran – which already has enough nuclear material to make several bombs – arrives at the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons as they have been feverishly working and making successes to achieve, it will truly “change the calculus” for world peace. Iran would be IMMUNE from attack even as Iran would be emboldened to carry out a war of jihad as it saw fit. And if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices spiraling into the stratosphere, what would we do about it given that any attack would result in Armageddon? Because “mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work very well with a country like Iran that believes in 72 virgins awaiting them for being psychotic jihadist martyrs.
The problem with attacking Syria is that Syria simply doesn’t matter to us. Iran’s nuclear threat matters to us a great deal. If we’re going to go to war, let’s fight where it matters. Destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program is worth fighting for. And unlike what Obama faces regarding Syria – with cricket’s chirping as he cries for allies – we would have Israel ready to join us in such a strike with everything they have.
We’re going to need to do this sooner or later. Any fool ought to know that. And sooner is far better than later, especially after Putin’s threat.
So how about it, Obama? Will you stop thinking petty and start thinking right?
“I really believe, having read it, that it is the smoking gun warning here. You’ve got this emergency meeting in Benghazi, less than a month before the attack. At that briefing, the people are told that there are ten, ten, Islamic militias and al-Qaeda groups in Benghazi. The consulate can not sustain a coordinated attack and they need extra help. This information goes directly to the office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So, again, you have the culpability of the State Department. This is a very specific warning that they’re in trouble, they need help and they see an attack on the horizon,” FOX News’ Catherine Herridge reported on FOX News’ “On the Record” Wednesday night.
Smoking gun. This story amounts to a HUGE smoking gun. Liberals looked and looked for evidence that George Bush knew or should have known about the original 9/11 attack but did nothing to prevent it. They never found it because it never existed; and the fact is that Osama bin Laden declared America a “weak … paper tiger” and vowed to attack America as a result of Bill Clinton’s policies and COMPLETELY under Clinton’s watch, planned the 9/11 attack entirely under Clinton’s watch,brought in all the terrorists who attacked us entirely under Clinton’s watch, financed the operation entirely under Clinton’s watch, and completed virtually ALL of the necessary training for the attack under Bill Clinton’s watch. It was never anything but vile to blame the attack on George Bush – whose only crime was being blindsided by the extent of the failure of the Clinton national security shambles that he left behind for Bush to inherit.
But we now have the same smoking gun proving that Obama either knew or should have known about this NEW9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that occurred on United States soil and that resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador since 1979:
The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.
Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.
“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.
According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.
The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.
In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”
As for specific threats against the U.S., the cable warned the intelligence was not clear on the issue, cautioning that the militias in Benghazi were not concerned with any significant retaliation from the Libyan government, which had apparently lost control in Benghazi. A briefer explained that they “did not have information suggesting that these entities were targeting Americans but did caveat that (there was not) a complete picture of their intentions yet. RSO (Regional Security Officer) noted that the Benghazi militias have become more brazen in their actions and have little fear of reprisal from the (government of Libya.)”
While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.
In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”
Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.
The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.
“An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi,” Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner said in written statement. “Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”
We most certainly know that there was NO “spontaneous protest” prior to the well-coordinated and preplanned terrorist attack that featured multiple phases/waves as well as both direct AND indirect fire, and that all Obama did for the first three full weeks PLUS was offer nothing but deceitful fabrications intended to stave off scrutiny until AFTER Obama was elected and there was no longer any way to throw his weasel ass out of office.
We now know that Obama had to have been briefed on the deteriorating conditions and potential 9/11 attacks at least the day before the attack. And given that we KNOW that Obama knew this, and given that we KNOW that Obama repeatedly brought up “spontaneous protests” and “the video” when he KNEW FOR A FACT that he was lying to the American people and to the entire world. There is NO question that Obama fabricated a linkage to a protest that never even happened and to a video that had nothing to do with the attack. And he cynically and deceitfully lied and slandered our First Amendment freedoms to give himself political cover to try to conceal his massive failure to govern and to lead. And what has been unfolding ever since was an incompetent cover-up to try to obfuscate incompetent presidential leadership.
And yes, now we know that the Obama administration had three weeks of credible and specific warning describing exactly who was going to attack the consulate and exactly how they were going to do it. And Obama decided to go campaign instead of dealing with it both before and immediately after the disaster.
Obama has now thoroughly demonstrated that he will NOT come clean with the facts. Because he knows the American people would vote him out if they knew just how terribly and despicably he had failed.
The best way to judge Obama is to judge him by his own party’s attacks against George W. Bush. And Obama fails wildly by that metric in a way that Bush did not.
You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya. A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack. Here’s why:
Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades. I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime. And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.
What did Obama want to do? How did he want to posture? He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda. “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over. As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion. And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.
But it didn’t. Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership. We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world. We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives. In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate. We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.
As bad as these things are, it gets worse. Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal. And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself. In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered. But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.
Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first. Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up. And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”
Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:
WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts.
The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”
The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.
Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd,” and it took until the following week to figure that out.
But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.
“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”
“The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions” after such events in the future.
“The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don’t know,” he said. “That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.”
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA’s early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.
Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.
But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.
Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.
Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.
How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs? How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?
This was NOTthe result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy. Period. The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed. No. You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.
I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media. If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.
What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah. Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean. And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago. And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.
The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged. And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.
The Obama administration’s claim that the murderous Benghazi attack was a unpredictable byproduct of a spontaneous protest gives White House officials a short-term way to fend off media questions.
Any investigation may create a damaging pre-election scandal for the president, who touted his ability in 2008 to build peace between the United States and conflict-prone Muslim countries.
But accumulating media reports — and Libyans’ statements — suggest the administration severely underestimated the danger of jihadis in Libya, many of whom have seized weapons from the armory of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. (RELATED: Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations: ‘We’re quite popular in Libya’)
It is frankly amazing that no matter how much information has come flooding out that proves the White House and the State Department completely wrong and in fact flat-out lying, they are holding to that same story nevertheless. White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney had this to say:
JAKE TAPPER: [unintelligible] that the anniversary of 9-11 would be a time when you would want to have extra security around diplomats and military posts?
JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.
“This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.”
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
The facts scream that these people and the administration itself are simply LIARS.
There were NOdemonstrations going on prior to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya, as Obama’s “cover story” demands you believe. Rather, the attack was a pre-planned and coordinated terrorist attack that displayed command and control, coordinated movement, direct and indirect fire, all in a multi-pronged and well executed attack. Oh, an attack that by “coincidence” just happened to occur on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.
“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”
The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.
The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.
“There wasn’t a single ant outside,” the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.
These details appear to conflict with accounts from the Obama administration that the attack spawned from an out-of-control protest. The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.
U.S. officials, in response to the claim that there was no demonstration at the time of the attack, told Fox News there was a small protest earlier in the day — but they did not dispute that there was no significant or sizeable demonstration at the time.
But a senior Obama administration official told Fox News on Monday morning that the Libyan president’s comments are not consistent with “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community,” which has been investigating the incident, and are accordingly not credible.
“He doesn’t have the information we have,” the U.S. official said of Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif. “”He doesn’t have the (data) collection potential that we have.”
The Libyan leader told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the government in Tripoli harbors “no doubt” that the Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was “preplanned, predetermined.” That assessment conflicted directly with the preliminary conclusion offered on Sunday by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows.
There, Rice maintained that the Benghazi incident “was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo, as a consequence of the video,” and that after the protest outside the U.S. consulate gathered steam, “those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”
Asked if the timing of the Benghazi incident – the eleventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks — was simply a coincidence, the senior U.S. official said on Monday: “It is coincidental. All evidence we have points to this video being the spark of these events. In all of the intel and traffic, there was no one out there saying, ‘Oh, it’s September 11th, we must avenge…'”
The senior U.S. official added that this is “the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community at this point,” and that Rice “was not out there volunteering her own opinions.”
The official also discounted as “not accurate” reports that staff at U.S. embassy in Egypt warned the State Department — in a cable purportedly sent on the afternoon of Sept. 10 — about the effect the anti-Islam video was having, and the likelihood of violent protests in Cairo, but received no response from Washington.
“There was cable traffic, involving discussion of the video and the potential for protests, the Embassy was aware,” the U.S. official told Fox News. “There were discussions about protests between the relevant agencies — intel and State — but the idea that there was no response from State is false.”
Officials at the State Department and the White House continue to express satisfaction with the cooperation they are receiving from foreign governments in the protection of American diplomats and their families. This is said to be especially the case in those instances where President Obama has reached out to foreign heads of state, namely Egypt, Yemen and Libya.
Still, the State Department over the weekend — in a shift of plans that occurred sometime after Friday evening — announced the evacuation of diplomats’ family members and “non-essential” personnel from U.S. Embassies in Tunisia and Sudan, sites of some of the most violent scenes on Friday.
Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, James Rosen and Pamela Browne contributed to this report.
The president of Libya – who as president of his country would probably be surprised to learn that he has nowhere near the knowledge of what is happening in his own country than the CIA has – couldn’t have been much more clear:
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.
Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.
On Sunday, Libya’s president refuted the White House’s claim that the Benghazi attack was a simple anti-video protest that went berserk.
“We firmly believe that this was a pre-calculated, pre-planned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. Consulate,” el-Megarif said.
There are now anti-American protests going on in 33 different Muslim countries.
It would be inappropriate for me to suggest that all Obama did while the Middle East burned was to watch football games and tweet about Beyonce and Jay-Z. He did more than that.
I’d say that Jay Carney is about as documented a liar as you can get with his “not to U.S. policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people.” And both he and Susan Rice are just so full of crap and so dishonest when it comes to declaring that an obviously preplanned attack was “spontaneous” that it is beyond unreal.
The mainstream media have a plan, though: cover for their failed messiah at all costs and make sure to demonize Mitt Romney at every single opportunity.
What I reported about Barack Obama = Jimmy Carter STANDS:
I’m trying to remember if anything like this ever happened before: our embassy being attacked and overran, our economy in the toilet, and a pathetic failed Democrat president doing nothing. Does that bring back any memories? Hmmm:
The timeline is astonishing. Notice the pathetic weakness of initial responses by the Embassy – which is under the control of the White House – and then by the White House itself. Notice also that Mitt Romney denounced those responses and that AFTER THAT the White House issues an “us too” walkback of the previous statements. Notice also the initial statements condemned the free speech of an American citizen far more than they denounced the acts of violence which resulted in the murder of four Americans including a US Ambassador:
Here is a timeline of the news reports, official statements and Twitter posts regarding the attacks on the Cairo, Egypt, embassy and Benghazi, Libya, consulate. All times are EDT.
Tuesday midday: Hours before protests escalated at embassies in Cairo and Benghazi, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement that appeared to condemn an anti-Islam movie promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones, whose previous burning of Qurans sparked deadly protests. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,” it said in part.
Tuesday afternoon: The Cairo embassy stands by its original statement. “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy,” it posts on Twitter. That post has since been deleted but has been preserved on sites including Buzzfeed and Twitchy.
Tuesday 4:29 p.m.: After the Cairo embassy’s Twitter account acknowledged that “protestors breached our wall and took down flag,” it posted this string of Twitter posts: “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry. An example:
Shortly before 7 p.m. ET Tuesday: Wire services report that one American official was killed in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Shortly after 10 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms that a U.S. official was killed in Libya.
Tuesday 10:10 p.m.:Mitt Romney’s campaign emails reporters a statement, embargoed for midnight. “I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
10:25 p.m.: Romney campaign lifts embargo on the statement.
11:04 p.m.: The White House distances itself from the Cairo embassy’s original statement, telling ABC News, “no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.”
Wednesday 12:11 a.m.: President Barack Obama’s campaign spokesman emails reporters: “We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.”
Around 5:30 a.m.: Wire services report that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed Tuesday in a mob attack. In all, four Americans are reported dead in the attack, which is later confirmed by the State Department.
Around 7:22 a.m.: White House emails out statement from the president on the attack in Benghazi. It reads in part: “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”
10:20 a.m.: In televised remarks, Mr. Romney stands by his criticism of the White House’s handling of the administration, noting that U.S. embassies are part of the administration.
10:44 a.m.: In Rose Garden remarks, Mr. Obama, with Mrs. Clinton at his side, condemns Libya attacks in “strongest terms.”
If you don’t see how convoluted and weak the U.S. response to this was, you are plainly and simply a moral and an intellectual idiot.
I pointed MONTHS AGO that Barack Obama 1) took credit for the ouster of Mubarak – who happened to be the strongest ally of the U.S. and of Israel in the entire Middle East:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, gentlemen, I’m a little bit jubilant right now, a little bit frisky so I’ll say something that will bother people. But if you have, a lot of the people in this country think the President of the United States is Muslim, which he’s not, he’s Christian. They think he’s foreign born, which he’s not, he’s American born. But they have this attitude about him, the people on the right a lot of them, right? And here he is, and he comes into office, and this jubilant situation in Eqypt, with the first time in our lives we get to see people from the Arab world in a very positive democratic setting. Not as terrorists or not as people fighting Israel, or whatever. Not mouthing epithets against the West, but people like us.
DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Right, celebrating.
MATTHEWS: In a way it’s like it took Obama to have this happen, or it’s just so serendipitous.
“It took Obama to have this happen.” Praise him! Worship him! Our blessed messiah! Of course, a lot of people – like Israelis – were arguing from the outset that “this” actually wasn’t a good thing. At all. Conservatives like Sean Hannity predicted from the very outset that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists were going to take control of Egypt – just as they did.
But who cares about reality? Praise Obama! Praise him! Worship him!
Honk if you think that Chris Matthews is going to point out that what is happening now is the result of Obama the way he was claiming glorious credit for Obama for the same damn terrorist regimes taking over above. And honk twice if you think that the pathological liberal hypocrite liar somehow won’t bother to mention Obama being responsible.
But Obama didn’t just take credit for Mubarack being gone. He did much more.
Obama also 2) assured the American people that the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood was going to be a force for peace and that what was going on in Egypt would turn out swell for America:
Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.
“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.
Though the current upheavals in the Middle East were not initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist parties in Egypt, as in Tunisia and Libya, have been the chief beneficiaries of the collapse of long-standing authoritarian repressive regimes across North Africa.
In Egypt itself, the two largest Islamist groups, the Brotherhood and the Salafists, won about three-quarters of the ballots in the second round of legislative elections held in December 2011, while the secular and the liberal forces took a battering.
The Brotherhood, an organization founded by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan el Banna back in 1928, has never deviated from its founder’s central axiom:
“Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
It is this radical vision, which animates all those in the region who seek a fully Islamic society and way of life.
The Muslim Brotherhood has always been deeply anti-Western, viscerally hostile to Israel and openly anti-Semitic — points usually downplayed in Western commentary on the “Arab Spring.”
First of all, do you remember the justifications for going to war over Libya, which also aint working out that great? We were told that “Barack Obama’s war in Libya bears the intellectual imprint of Samantha Power.” And what was that “intellectual imprint”? This:
“She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”
Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government. […]
The Egyptian government knew the time of the demonstration and the participants — it was all publicly announced — yet Egyptian security forces did not protect the embassy. And so the demonstrators scaled the wall, entered the compound, tore up the American flag, and put up the historic revolutionary flag of Islam (the eighth century black one, not the seventh century green one) in its stead. Why didn’t Egyptian security forces stop them? It was a deliberate decision no doubt taken at the highest level.
For over nine hours after the fecal matter hit the rotary oscillator, the ONLYstatement from the Obama administration was that initial statement from the embassy apologizing for and expressing regret that the United States is a nation that allows free speech.
Syria has continued to degenerate to an astonishing degree under this Obama turd administration. Over 31,000 civilians are now DEAD in Syria. And what has the “Arab Spring” president who took so much credit for the destruction of the Egyptian pro-Western and pro-Israeli government and the end of the Libyan regime done about it? Where is Samantha Powers and her “liberal, even radical, values” now???
Now, let me address Mitt Romney getting demonized by the Obama administration and by the Obama propaganda mainstream media machine. First of all, OBAMA HIMSELFultimately drove the bus over the very same statements that Romney had attacked. So the media getting all sanctimonious about Romney being the FIRSTguy who wants to be president in 2013 SHOWING LEADERSHIPis a sick joke. Four Americans, including a US ambassador, are murdered as two US embassies are attacked. Our flag is torn down and desecrated. We apologize and that apology is the only thing that the United States officially says for half a day. And Romney isn’t supposed to decry that??? To make that sick joke even sicker, though, find just ONEarea that Barack Obama didn’t demonize about the Bush presidency policies when it was OBAMA who was running for president.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
The official Obama administration policy: “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.” Because white people should be second-class citizens to pay for what they did, you know.
A white girl – who may or may not have been transgender – was beaten for an incredibly long time until she was lying near a trash can convulsing in seizure while numerous black McDonald’s employees and patrons did virtually nothing to stop the savage attack that just went on and on.
The attackers were two black girls who repeatedly kicked the victim in the head and at one point smashed her head against a wall.
I actually did, because the McDonald’s employee who posted it lyingly claimed that the victim was a transvestite wearing a wig. And I didn’t want to post this if it ended up being something other than what it very clearly is: a hate crime race beating against a white girl. One of the ways I know that scumbag (and anyone who didn’t punch those two vicious criminal girls in the face to stop their attack is a scumbag) is lying because one of the attackers actually dragged the girl across the floor by her hair. Some wig. [Updated 4/24: I leave my exact words but strike them in order to provide clarification. I was not trying to claim here the victim was NOT a transgender. I had already stated that as possibly being the case twice prior to this sentence (and then did so again after this sentence). And the reason I used the term “girl” was that I also could not be certain at the time I wrote this that “she” wasn’t a girl. The details emerged the day after I published what was known at the time. I am stating here that the employee who videotaped this savage incident while laughing about it (and who has been fired by McDonald’s) clearly lied about certain points, such as the “wig” which very clearly wasn’t a wig.
The other point I would make in this clarification is that if you’re a black person who doesn’t like my immediately jumping to the conclusion that the beating was a racially motivated “hate crime,” then please stop assuming that WHITE people are racists whenever there’s the slightest reason to come to that conclusion. I say more about the stupidity behind “hate crimes” in my subsequent comment on this article here].
PIX11 NEWSROOM
8:35 p.m. EDT, April 22, 2011
BALTIMORE (PIX11)—
Two women are charged after a video showing a brutal attack on a teenage girl at a Baltimore-area McDonald’s restaurant surfaced on the internet Friday.
According to the Baltimore Sun, police have charged a 14-year-old girl as a juvenile, and charges are pending for her 18-year-old accomplice. The attack reportedly occurred April 18 at the 6300 Kenwood McDonald’s location.
The Sun is also reporting that State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger says that the assault may be classified as a hate crime because the attackers were both black, and the victim white.
The video, which was uploaded to LiveLeak.com, shows two black females kicking, punching and slapping a white female who at one point starts to have a seizure. Restaurant employees could be seen watching the fight and adding their own splash of commentary to the shocking scene, but only once half-heartedly trying to help the victim. One employee is even heard laughing.
A man who appears to be the manager at the fast food eatery, interjects between the victim and attackers about two times but ultimately gives up on separating the young women.
At first, the attackers appear to walk away from the battered victim with one of them uttering “she’s bleeding, yo.” The pair, however, emerge for a brutal second round where they drag the victim by her hair across the restaurant.
Finally a customer, an elderly white woman, attempts to rescue the victim but is pushed aside by the aggressive girls.
The video ends as the suspects flee the restaurant after having been told by restaurant employees that the police were on their way.
“Ya gotta go before the police come yo!” the worker is heard telling one of the girls.
The helpless victim is left on the floor where she is seen rolling around in convulsions as a result of what appears to be a seizure.
It wasn’t immediately clear when the incident took place or if the suspects were apprehended and charged. The condition of the victim is also unknown.
The identities of the women are also unknown.
Late Friday, the McDonald’s corporation issued a statement on the incident, expressing shock and outrage.
“We are shocked by the video from a Baltimore franchised restaurant showing an assault. This incident is unacceptable, disturbing and troubling. McDonald’s strives to be a safe, welcoming environment for everyone who visits.”
“Nothing is more important to us than the safety of customers and employees in our restaurants. We are working with the franchisee and the local authorities to investigate this matter.”
If McDonald’s thinks it is “welcoming,” they seriously need to rethink their slogan. Unless maybe it’s “Welcome to hell, I’ll be your beater, can I smash your skull open please.”
The first thing McDonald’s needs to do if it wants my business ever again is to fire every employee from the manager on down who allowed a woman to be beaten nearly to death in their restaurant.
But I’m not just pissed off at McDonald’s – as loathsomely as they acted (and I hope the chain loses a gazillion dollar lawsuit for not protecting that girl whether “she’s” a real girl or not) – as much as I’m pissed off at the fact that we now live in a society where our highest law enforcement officials say “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”
This vicious attack may end up getting filed as a hate crime. But if it does, it’s only because the victim who was beaten nearly to death in public with about a dozen people doing nothing to stop it was homosexual.
To put it in O.J. trial terms, “If whitey aint gay, black attackers don’t pay.”
The moral of the story is this: if you are white, and you get the crap kicked out of you by black people, you tell the authorities and the media and everybody else that you are as queer as a three-dollar bill. Because otherwise your “hate crime” case will get round filed.
I suppose I have a better understanding of how black people used to feel: an oppressive illegitimate criminal thug justice system that didn’t do a damn thing to help victims because of the color of their skin. We’re still a ways off from the point where you’ll start seeing white people lynched on a public tree. That’s the kind of thing that would be more likely during Obama’s and Holder’s second term.
On the bright side, eventually white people actually might get to use the “white rage” defense when we they go postal and commit a spree of racist hate crimes.
At least us whiteys have the “gay thing” to fall back on. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have helped a black victim back in the 50s, you know. Nowadays, even Obama’s and Eric Holder’s policy of official racism can’t beat the hell out of THAT sacred cow.
Whether that victim is a transgender, or transvestite, or whatever, I’m praying for you to pull through and then hit the legal jackpot against that McDonald’s. I’m truly sorry there was no one there to help you except a little old white lady. Racism is an evil thing, even when it’s black people kicking the hell out of a white person while a whole bunch of black people stand around and laugh about it.
I’m going to say this, and a lot of black people aren’t going to like it. 200 years of white racism, and black people don’t get to call themselves “victims” anymore. Because what we see in this “Never bring a lawsuit against a black,” and the black Attorney General talking about “my people,” and a white woman viciously attacked by black girls while a bunch of black people stand around laughing, is that YOU WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME EXACT CRAP HAD THE ROLES BEEN REVERSED.
Congratulations. You’re just as bad as “racist whitey.” And the only difference is that you haven’t got the power to unleash the evil that’s in your souls. At least not quite yet.
One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we’ve got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.
The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.
Vice President Joe Biden stoked a firestorm of liberal discontent with President Barack Obama on Monday – demanding that the Democratic base “stop whining” and start fighting Republicans instead of the White House.
Biden, speaking at a frozen yogurt plant in New Hampshire, said he wanted to “remind our base constituency to stop whining and get out there and look at the alternatives. This President has done an incredible job. He’s kept his promises.”
The comments echo Obama’s own recent calls to demobilized Democrats to slough off their apathy – and their disappointment in him – and gear up ahead of the midterms, when Democrats are facing devastating losses.
A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.
“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday.
Conservative political blogger William Jacobson, who writes Legal Insurrection, immediately pounced on Kerry’s comments, saying that attitude is why voters are looking to shake up Capitol Hill by electing upstart candidates such as U.S. Sen. Scott Brown.
“It just continues the Democrats’ theme that the reason people are upset is because they don’t understand. They’re not smart enough. That sort of rhetoric just gets people even more upset,” said Jacobson.
So, let us wrap up Democrats, in the words of those who know them best: they are irresponsible, whiny, and ignorant people.
At one time or another, President Obama has attacked Wall Street for its greed, doctors for their greed and insurance companies for theirs.
He has never stopped attacking the Bush administration. He has attacked the Tea Party movement and the Republican leadership. None of this seems to have worked very well, with the president’s poll ratings at new lows and even such liberals as Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold hesitant to appear with him.
So now the president and his allies are trying something new — they are attacking their own voters.
At the end of that Rolling Stone interview, mentioned earlier, the president came back into the room and spoke, the magazine said, with intensity and passion. He said: “It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election.” The apathy among Democrats, he said, is “irresponsible.”
Meanwhile, of course, Vice President Biden was telling Democrats to “stop whining.” And Senator Kerry lamented that “we have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on.”
Mr. Obama and his allies are certainly not the first politicians to think the voters insufficiently appreciative of their wondrous achievements. But they may be the first to attack their supporters publicly for being irresponsible, whiny and ignorant.
Just remember, Democrats. It’s YOUR fault you suck. Don’t you DARE blame Obama; he’s like a god to you, and you’re like little tiny wingless insects to him.
The fact is that Barack Obama is at his quintessential core a demagogue. Yes, as Brit Hume pointed out, he has as a matter of routine viciously attacked his political opponents. But whenever he has been criticized, the most thin-skinned demagogue ever to occupy the White House has lashed out – even at his closest allies. Remember his administration’s angry unloading upon the “professional left”?
Obama is awesome. You must not only say he is awesome; you must believe in your subconscious. Or “he will bury you.”
Obama is better than Jeezus. And if you think he’s done anything wrong, it just goes to prove that you’re stupid. And it just further proves that you need a giant government nanny state to oversee every detail of your miserable, useless, pathetic life.
How dare you criticize your messiah when you should be on your face worshiping his stimulus, his health care plan, and his cap-and-trade system.
Obama can do no wrong, and so criticizing him is as close to blasphemy as you can get.
Now please look back at the image of Emmanuel Goldstein I mean George Bush and return to your two minutes’ I mean two years’ hate.
US Embassy Cairo
Start Thinking Right 