Posts Tagged ‘Susan Rice’

What Barack Obama And His Thug Regime Did Were Felonies And It’s Time To Start Filling Our Prison Cells With These Fascists

April 5, 2017

Susan Rice was behind some of THE most appalling and egregious Obama scandals in the conflation of naked partisan politics and foreign policy, and it should be no surprise that when it came time for Obama to do some truly vile and despicable work he would turn to his top liar.

In the aftermath of the debacle at Benghazi, Obama blabbermouth Susan Rice fasely claimed five times that it was a “spontaneous attack” rather than a planned, coordinated, premeditated terrorist attack and that a Youtube video was to blame even though we now have it documented that the “video” theory did NOT come from the intelligence community but was fabricated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a phone call shortly before Hillary invented the video (created by an American citizen) as being responsible for the terrorist attack rather than a “broader failure of policy.”  Which even top Democrats have publicly admitted.  In that Benghazi attack, which was ENTIRELY preventable, the first American ambassador since the nadir of the failed Carter years was murdered by terrorists who “spontaneously” showed up complete with a heavy mortar, the highly skilled team that knew how to use that mortar, and precise coordinates for the US compound.  And according to Susan Rice, it all just “spontaneously” happened.

Susan Rice assured the American people – with complete and total and beyond disgraceful dishonesty – that an American traitor whom Obama traded five major terrorist generals for had “served his country with honor and distinction.”  Because according to Obama slandering the United States of America, slandering our American warriors, and then abandoning his fellow warriors and deserting to seek his new friends – you know, the ENEMY – was “serving with honor and distinction.”

Whenever there was a need to conflate or masquerade partisan politics as “national security,” Susan Rice was there.

And so here we had this White House staffer who was supposed to be planning US policy rather than conducting investigations into her boss’ political opponents’ intelligence dossiers, but somehow the woman who said for naked political reasons that a terrorist attack was not a terrorist attack and that a traitor had actually served with honor and distinction is now behind this clear and present danger to everything America stands for in that she is the face behind Obama’s “fundamentally transforming” our national security apparatus into a political weapon against the rival party of a sitting president.

To wit, if Susan Rice and everyone who had anything whatsoever to do with this disgrace don’t go to prison and do hard time, then President Trump should expand this tactic to include surveilling every single Democrat in America and allowing any embarrassing or incriminating information to be leaked.

And if you don’t like that idea, Democrat, then you had damn well better join me in calling for Susan Rice’s liver to be carved out of her screaming body and served with some fava beans and a nice chianti.  She needs to be broken or every single Democrat voter in America needs to be exposed and destroyed by the same process Obama created and cynically utilized against American citizens for the crime of belonging to the political party running against his favored candidate.

Let’s examine what we are learning:

Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell,  former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.
In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.” 
Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.
“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.
Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director.
Joining Rice in the alleged White House operations was her deputy Ben Rhodes, according to Fox.
Critics of the atmosphere prevailing throughout the Obama administration’s last year in office point to former Obama Deputy Defense Secretary Evelyn Farkas who admitted in a March 2 television interview on MSNBC that she “was urging my former colleagues,” to “get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Farkas sought to walk back her comments in the weeks following: “I didn’t give anybody anything except advice.”
Col. (Ret.) James Waurishuk, an NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command, told TheDCNF that many hands had to be involved throughout the Obama administration to launch such a political spying program.
“The surveillance initially is the responsibility of the National Security Agency,” Waurishuk said. “They have to abide by this guidance when one of the other agencies says, ‘we’re looking at this particular person which we would like to unmask.’”
“The lawyers and counsel at the NSA surely would be talking to the lawyers and members of counsel at CIA, or at the National Security Council or at the Director of National Intelligence or at the FBI,” he said. “It’s unbelievable of the level and degree of the administration to look for information on Donald Trump and his associates, his campaign team and his transition team. This is really, really serious stuff.”
Michael Doran, former NSC senior director, told TheDCNF Monday that “somebody blew a hole in the wall between national security secrets and partisan politics.” This “was a stream of information that was supposed to be hermetically sealed from politics and the Obama administration found a way to blow a hole in that wall,” he said.
Doran charged that potential serious crimes were undertaken because “this is a leaking of signal intelligence.”
“That’s a felony,” he told TheDCNF. “And you can get 10 years for that. It is a tremendous abuse of the system. We’re not supposed to be monitoring American citizens. Bigger than the crime, is the breach of public trust.”
Waurishuk said he was most dismayed that “this is now using national intelligence assets and capabilities to spy on the elected, yet-to-be-seated president.”
“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

NSC veteran and former deputy director for intelligence at the U.S. Central Command James Waurishuk also said:

“We’re looking at a potential constitutional crisis from the standpoint that we used an extremely strong capability that’s supposed to be used to safeguard and protect the country,” he said. “And we used it for political purposes by a sitting president. That takes on a new precedent.”

I am sitting here in amazement that the Los Angeles Times is in the middle of their probably never-ending editorial board sliming of President Trump.  Today’s story is about the allegedly fascist way President Trump is handling the media.  Conveniently forgotten about is any mention of how President Obama did stuff that Nixon NEVER did by falsely and dishonestly and yes, criminally labeling a Fox News journalist as a “co-conspirator” in order to place him and his parents under surveillance which including monitoring their phone records, his movements and his emails.  And Obama did this to Fox News journalists after repeatedly publicly demonizing them.

The LA Times is so outraged about “fake news” but somehow all the fake news that came out about Benghazi and Bergdhal and ObamaCare and the Iran deal and about 20 trillion other things somehow never made it to their level of concern.  And now if Donald Trump fails to dot an “i” they’re denouncing it as the worst lie imaginable.

When Obama was pumping out “fake news” about our victories in what he refused to call the war on terror because he had dismissed it as an “overseas contingency operation,” he broke the world.  In 2014 we had the worst terrorist outbreak IN DECADES under his failed watchIn 2015 no human being on earth was more responsible for the giant surge of terrorism than the Los Angeles Times’ favorite Messiah, Obama.  And by the time Obama’s record is fully revealed, he will have been responsible for a one-thousand, nine-hundred percent skyrocketing of death by terrorism.

The Los Angeles Times proved once and for all that they are a “fake news” outlet when they covered up rather than reported actual NEWS they had of the intimate link between Obama and a terrorist named Rashid Khalidi.  They’re nothing but a bunch of Joseph Goebbels propagandists who refused to allow video of Hitler’s trembling and diseased left hand from being seen by the German people.  And they are nothing more than that.

Barack Obama is a criminal who belongs in prison.  Or Donald Trump should pursue Obama’s tactics like a rabid dog.  Or we should completely dismantle a security apparatus that is now clearly and demonstrably unworthy of trust because it exists as a political weapon to target half of the American people and their political leaders.

We now know exactly what happened: the Obama administration, as Michael Doran put it, blew a hole in the wall between national security and the most nakedly partisan politics.  They created a system whereby they could request the most classified information from our most classified sources, and because they had so radically expanded the process of who that information would be shared with, they intentionally guaranteed that anything they wanted leaked would GET leaked even if the top Obama White House thugs didn’t specifically leak it themselves.  And we now know that they were even compiling dossiers on their political enemies in and throughout a presidential election year.

We know two things from this:

  1. If anything, Vladimir Putin saved America, because Barack Obama now stands revealed as the most nakedly un-American and anti-American leader in the history of this republic.  And if Putin is a demon, Obama is Satan himself.
  2. The whole “Russian hacking” scandal is manufactured by the very traitorous criminals that Susan Rice served.

This was an interesting read on the whole “Russian hacking” crap that the mainstream media is so rabidly slobbering over while studiously ignoring the fact that the Obama administration committed the most heinous and egregious betrayal of our entire American way of life imaginable:

There can be little doubt that the whole Russian hacking narrative was invented by the Deep State, and then massaged and leaked by top Obama officials including Rice, Brennan and numerous others for one purpose alone that had nothing to do with national security.
That is, to prevent the election of an impetuous, strong-willed anti-globalist that the establishment deeply disapproved and then to re-litigate the election once the unthinkable happened on November 8th.
So not only is the whole hacking story essentially a glorified piece of opposition research peddled by the DNC and its affiliates, whatever “forensic evidence”  that may exist was undoubtedly manufactured by the Deep State itself.
That’s right. Owing to the latest Wikileaks disclosures of March 2017 via a trove of leaked CIA documents it calls “Vault 7,” it now appears that all of the other dubious intelligence community’s claims and “assessments” about Russian hacking have been ash-canned.
That is, Vault 7 suggests the CIA has the ability to manufacture and deposit electronic trails to “misdirect attribution” by leaving false cyber fingerprints.
Using a library of foreign malware and hacking tools, the CIA can plant Russian, Chinese, Iranian or other hackers’ fingerprints to make the hackers appear to be from one of those countries — even as they do the job from the comfort of their offices in Langley, VA.
Needless to say, that explains how the alleged Russian hackers could be so “clumsy” as to leave obvious and damning fingerprints on their work.
So it is probable that the Russians were “clumsy” because they weren’t actually “Russians”. They were undoubtedly CIA operatives from the Center for Cyber Intelligence.

There is no “Russian hacking” story.  Obama tried to hack the Israeli election and force Benjamin Netanyahu out of office and used US taxpayer money to fund his hacking operation.  Put Obama in jail for that or shut the hell up.  But what there IS is proof that Obama “fundamentally transformed” our national government AND our intelligence system that we have trusted to protect Americans into enemies of the American people.

This is the largest step toward a totalitarian regime this nation has ever seen.  This is naked fascism.  This is Stalinist.

And these people need to be put in prison for it.

Advertisements

Impeach This Disgrace Or Burn In Hell: Most Treasonous White House EVER Assured Us Traitor Bergdahl ‘Served The United States With Honor And Distinction’

March 26, 2015

 

Bowe Bergdahl and Iran have something in common.  Several things, actually, but this one comes first: when Bowe Bergdahl faces his court martial for desertion and for misbehavior before the enemy, he will be able to call to the stand his commander in chief and play for the record his National Security Advisor stating that the traitor on trial “served the United States with honor and distinction.”  Just like when Iran is criticized, the same regime that screams “Death to America!” can argue that it is no longer a terror threat because the same treasonous commander in chief took them off the terror list.

It’s biblical.  Just as we have in the Islamic State a return to Old Testament times, with the same type of people in the same exact region act the same exact way as the kingdom of terror otherwise known as “the Assyrian Empire” has come alive, so also we have the cancer of a presidency according to whom cowardice is courage and evil is good.  I come back to these passages again and again, because they nail the cancerous essence of Obama, of the progressive liberal worldview and of the Democrat Party:

A wise man’s heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him toward the left. — Ecclesiastes 10:2

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. — Proverbs 14:12

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

And so, yes, under the moral cockroach otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama, a deserter who aided and abetted the enemy is a courageous hero of his “fundamentally transformed United States of America” and he served his fundamentally transformed America with honor and distinction.

Here is YOUR White House, Democrat:

Networks Ignore Susan Rice Praising Bergdahl in 2014 for Serving ‘with Honor and Distinction’
By Curtis Houck | March 25, 2015 | 9:39 PM EDT

In their coverage of desertion charges filed against U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the major broadcast networks on Wednesday night failed to mention that National Security Advisor Susan Rice had praised Bergdahl for serving “with honor and distinction.”

Standing in sharp contrast to this glaring omission by the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC, the clip of Rice’s claim on the June 1, 2014 broadcast of ABC’s This Week was shown on numerous cable news shows, including CNN’s The Situation Room and Erin Burnett OutFront as well as FNC’s Special Report and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.

While discussing the prisoner swap on ABC’s Sunday morning political talk show on June 1, Rice said this to host George Stephanopoulos when asked about the possibility of Bergdahl facing any discipline for leaving his post:

That is really not the point. The point is that he’s back. He’s going to be safely reunited with his family. He served the United States with honor and distinction and we’ll have the opportunity, eventually, to learn what has transpired in the past years, but what’s most important now is his health and well-being. That he has the opportunity to recover in peace and security and be reunited with his family, which is why this is such a joyous day.

Meanwhile, as for what the networks did mention about this story, all three networks mentioned the “controversial” nature of the prisoner swap with ABC and NBC including soundbites from Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers.

On ABC’s World News Tonight, chief foreign affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz reported that “the celebrating was short-lived” upon his arrival in the United States as he “did not want to see his parents, and his fellow soldiers began to go public with their disgust.”

A soundbite from former roommate and retired Army SPC Cody Full followed as Full stated his belief that Bergdahl “knew what he was doing when he deserted us.”

Near the end of the show’s segment, anchor David Muir joined CNN’s Brooke Baldwin in wondering about the length of any possible sentence Bergdahl may receive: “But if Bergdahl is found guilty, Martha, would the Army take into account he was a prisoner of the Taliban all those years?”

Over on the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley, Pentagon correspondent David Martin’s report featured no clips from those condemning Bergdahl’s actions, but instead allowed a clip of Bergdahl’s attorney to play in which he criticized the entire situation: “The case has been politicalized in the sense that some people in our democracy have seen this case as a way of hammering the President of the United States for any reason and every reason.” 

NBC Nightly News not only featured a soundbite from one of Bergdahl’s fellow soliders, but also mentioned the fact that one of the Taliban commanders has since tried to re-engage in terrorism and included a clip from the mother of a solider who died looking for Bergdahl in Afghanistan expressing her disapproval of Bergdahl.

When it came to their coverage when the swap was initially announced on May 31, 2014, the networks spent a whopping 18 minutes and 52 seconds of airtime on their evening newscasts, but devoted only 26 seconds to questions about his conduct as a solider prior to his capture.

Question: what does “served the United States with honor and distinction” look like if you are Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, or any moral cockroach otherwise known as a “Democrat”???  It means having this attitude:

“I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools,” he concluded. “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”

If you are a genuine traitor and/or hater of America, the Democrat Party is the political party for you.

Democrats are trying to argue that Bergdahl suffered enough and served his time.  I’d say tell that to the families of the six men in his unit who died trying to find his worthless hide, but it comes down to this: Bowe Bergdahl crawled off his post like the vile little serpent he is to find his own kind.  And when he found the enemy he was looking for, he was surprised that they did not like the little traitor or find the whiny little puke to be anything other than the source of profound contempt that every progressive liberal Democrat truly is.  So he tried to crawl someplace else and his masters put him in a damn cage like the little rodent he is.

He’s ashamed to be an American, spits at American soldiers who defend the United States, thinks America is disgusting and actually being American is horrifying.

I wonder if the most rabid Iranian mullah would disagree with any of those positions.

But there is an even WORSE comparison between traitor Bowe Bergdahl, traitor Barack Hussein Obama and Obama’s “Death to America!” ally Iran – and that is that the same moral cockroach Obama who very clearly BROKE the law (here’s top Democrat Dianne Feinsten who acknowledged that and here’s our foremost legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin acknowledging that and here’s a government report that acknowledges that) and VIOLATED the Constitution of the United States by negotiating with terrorists and trading five terrorist generals for this traitorous piece of filth Bergdahl.  And Barack Hussein Obama is rabidly pursuing the EXACT same cockroach strategy with Iran that he pursued with Bergdahl.

It is a matter of official record that three of the five terrorist generals are already actively serving the terrorist cause of jihad.  And anyone who thinks the other two won’t join and that all five of Obama’s terrorist generals won’t serve the cause of terror are either fools or worse yet – Democrats.

Do you remember when the Obama official labeled the soldiers who DID serve with honor and distinction alongside the Obama coward deserter Bowe Bergdahl as “psychopaths”??? 

An Obama administration official apologized Thursday after suggesting on Twitter that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon might have been filled with “psychopaths” – in an apparent attempt to defend Bergdahl against criticism from his fellow soldiers.

Brandon Friedman, deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, sent out a series of tweets Wednesday night questioning those soldiers trying to “smear” Bergdahl for abandoning his post in 2009.

The first said: “Here’s the thing about Bergdahl and the Jump-to-Conclusions mats: What if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?”

He went on to argue that Bergdahl might have grown “disillusioned” with leadership and walked off – and that this might give those who served with him “reason to smear him publicly now.”

The tweets quickly caught attention in the media, as others in the administration also have taken swipes at the soldiers who have questioned Bergdahl’s conduct.

The Obama acolyte who said those words is STILL serving Obama, just like Susan Rice is.  And they are serving because treason and disgrace are at the very beating heart of the wicked Obama.  I mean, understand that Barack Obama personally met with the family of traitor Bowe Bergdahl; where was Obama when it came time to meet with the families of the six dead heroes who sacrificed their lives searching for Bergdahl after he deserted and began betraying them to the enemy?

It’s OBAMA who is the “psychopath.”  He rabidly hates this country and has documented it in so many ways it’s ridiculous.

It is JUST as much a lie to claim that “Iran served the United States with honor and distinction” as it was to say that Bergdahl did.  And the same traitors who did the latter are implicitly doing the former right now.

And so right now Democrats continue to defend Obama as he pursues an act of treason with Iran.

It is a fact that because of Barack Obama’s demonic deal with Iran, we WILL see a mad race to nuclear weapons in the craziest region in the history of the world.  Saudi Arabia and MANY other Arab countries are saying they cannot live in a world where Iran has nuclear weapons and they don’t.  That is a FACT.  And so you need to understand that Saudi Arabia DEEPLY OPPOSES OBAMA’S DEAL WITH IRAN EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS ISRAEL DOES.  And they WILL therefore begin to develop their own nuclear program.  It’s hard not to conclude that Obama doesn’t WANT Armageddon as his foreign policy goal.

Our former allies in the Arab world know that Obama has abandoned them.  And that they are now on their own much like Israel knows that it is on its own with Obama as our Disgrace-in-Chief.

Right now, as we speak, Obama’s Yemen “model for success” is collapsing.  And Obama is like a Stalin who refuses to budge in his wicked foolishness that his strategy is working just GREAT:

As this administration has entered its waning days, it seems to have long ago gave up on appealing to the political sensibilities of average Americans. It is easy to let oneself believe that the White House has simply lost touch with reality. But there is a difference between being out of touch and simply exhibiting such childlike petulance that you refuse to accept unpleasant truths. Obama’s administration has adopted the latter approach to bad news.

For anyone in the West who has been following the collapse of the Yemeni government since a January coup by Shiite-dominated Houthi rebels toppled the regime in Sanaa, there has been precious little good news. In a nation that the president claimed represented a model of the success of his approach to counterterrorism as recently as September, the collapse of the security situation has been a startling blow to geological stability and to Barack Obama’s domestic political standing.

But the administration seems to think that the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Yemen will go away if they’re ignored. According to White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest, Yemen remains a feather in the White House’s distinctly featherless cap (Hat tip to Real Clear Politics):

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: I know you’re asked this every time something terrible happens in Yemen, but now that we have essentially complete chaos in Yemen, does the White House still believe that Yemen is the model for a counter-terrorism strategy?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Jon, the White House does continue to believe that a successful counter-terrorism strategy is one that will build up the capacity of the central government to have local fighters on the ground to take the fight to extremists in their own country…

KARL: That’s astounding. You’re saying that you still see Yemen as the model, that building up the central government which has now collapsed, a president who has apparently fled the country, Saudi troops have amassed on one border, the Iranians supporting the rebels. You consider this as a model for counter-terrorism?

EARNEST: Again, Jon, what the United States considers to be our strategy when confronting the effort to try to mitigate the threat that is posed by extremists is to prevent them from establishing a safe haven. And certainly in a chaotic, dangerous situation like in Yemen, what the United States will do and has done is work to try to support the central government, build up the capacity of local fighters, and use our own technological and military capabilities to apply pressure on the extremists there.

And, yes, it IS astounding.  The betrayal of American foreign policy by the President of the United States HIMSELF is “astounding.”  This is beyond belief.  Again, Obama’s wickedness is BIBLICAL, as the God of the Bible foreknew what the attitude of the fool leaders who would immediately precede the Antichrist would be:

They offer superficial treatments for My people’s mortal wound. They give assurances of peace when there is no peace. — Jeremiah 6:14

Obama is building a highway to Armageddon and paving it with American gold as we speak while he claims he’s leading us to peace.

We are going down so hard and when it happens it will come so fast and it will be so incredibly painful and horrifying that it is unreal.  AND AMERICA VOTED FOR IT.

Every Democrat voted for this statement when they voted for the man who spent 23 years in the pew of the man who screamed it:

“NO, NO, NO!  NOT GOD BLESS AMERICA!  GOD DAMN AMERICA!”

The Bible records with the prophetic certainty of God that the whole world will worship the beast.  Which means that one day, soon, every American will swear allegiance to the most wicked man who ever lived.  And we’re watching the pathway to that otherwise impossible event unfold before our very eyes.  There was actually a time in the late 1970s/early 1980s when my major stumbling block to Bible prophecy was that I simply could not believe that “the whole world” would worship the beast, because that meant America would worship him and I simply couldn’t believe it.  Now that situation has so grossly and perversely deteriorated that in fact it will be the United States of America that LEADS the rest of the world in worshiping the beast and taking his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads in order to give the Antichrist the total control over the economy and over society that Democrats have been seeking to give Government in place of God for DECADES.

It is an amazing thing to watch this dishonest disgrace continue to dismantle every shred of American legitimacy and credibility and prestige and honor and power and influence as if he had a damn chainsaw in his hand with the support and even adulation of his political party that is now nine times more worthy of eternal damnation than the Nazi Party was.  Adolf Hitler denied the humanity of six million Jews and murdered them in the gas chambers; ever single Democrat shares in the denial that sixty MILLION babies had humanity and murdered them in the abortion mills.  You add to that that every single Democrat shares in the eternal wrath of God according to Romans chapter one and you add to that the fact that every single Democrat now shares in Obama’s betrayal and abandonment of Israel.  When Israel signs the seven year covenant with Antichrist that the Bible declared would happen 2500 years ago, every Democrat will have helped make that evil day happen and every Democrat will be held accountable by God for that wicked sin.  You literally TWICE voted for the wrath of God, Democrat.  And I know that I can turn these wicked people over to God and count on His eternal justice as they suffer forever and ever screaming in hell for their despicable wickedness.

I was in a hospital room yesterday with a young man who had had back surgery following a drunk-driving accident in which he thankfully crashed into a tree rather than a car filled with somebody’s children.  He was sobbing in pain because his pain medication wasn’t helping him; and his medication wasn’t helping him because he had spent YEARS medicating himself with drugs.  He was crying that if he had a gun he would shoot himself because the pain was so bad as he cried for the doctors to put him to sleep until the pain went away.  And I told him that God was giving him a blessing by warning him that if he didn’t repent and declare Jesus as his Lord rather than the current favorite Democrat drug of choice marijuana (along with the booze he’d also filled himself with) that he would suffer far more in hell and that suffering would never, ever end.

But all he could do was cry for more of his god, for more drugs.

I know: some bedside manner I have.  But I care more about this kid’s soul than I do his comfort.  And right now this kid is on his way to hell.  He was raised by a single mother who did the best she could, but could not give him a father’s disciple.  And that godly mother begged me to come and confront her son as she could not.

Pain is God’s megaphone to him that something is terribly wrong in his life and far worse pain is to come if he doesn’t bow down before his God.  But who or what will he turn to?

There’s a haunting passage for those who will one day very soon vote for the coming Antichrist who will inherit Obama’s demonic throne.  As they face the wrath of God because of their wicked vote, this:

I watched as the Lamb broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake. The sun became as dark as black cloth, and the moon became as red as blood.  Then the stars of the sky fell to the earth like green figs falling from a tree shaken by a strong wind.  The sky was rolled up like a scroll, and all of the mountains and islands were moved from their places.  Then everyone–the kings of the earth, the rulers, the generals, the wealthy, the powerful, and every slave and free person–all hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains.  And they cried to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. — Revelation 6:12-16 NLT

What I see in this passage is the spirit of wicked unbelief.  Even when God ultimately reveals Himself in power and wrath, the kind of people who vote Democrat today will one day refuse to repent of their wickedness and bow down before God.  They will turn to ANYTHING rather than to God.  Because it is their nature to be wicked and it is therefore their nature to be objects of divine wrath.

You have a chance right now before you to repent, Democrat.  But you won’t.  Rather, you will keep mocking God and His ways and usurping His ways with your own wicked ways that you hold to be so superior to God’s ways until the very and very bitter end.

So I can safely declare right now that you WON’T impeach Obama, you will defend him.  Just as you will even more loyally defend Obama’s successor the Antichrist to the end and to your doom.

 

 

New Revelations About THE Most Dishonest White House EVER: Treasury Sec Geithner Reveals He Was Instructed To Lie To The American People

May 13, 2014

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the IRS scandal.  Or in the Benghazi scandal.  Etcetera.

Obama has lied to the American people about their health care.  That is a documented fact.  He has lied to the American people about their economy – as has now been revealed by his former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a documented fact.  And he has lied to the American people about their national security when he covered up what happened at Benghazi and then attempted to cover up his cover-up.

If you DON’T believe the same first paragraph wouldn’t read, “The White House wanted Ambassador Susan Rice to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Benghazi played in demonstrating Obama’s broad failure of policy against terrorism,” you are a rabid ideologue.  The evidence is so overwhelming it is beyond unreal.  Obama’s White House is THE most viscerally dishonest, zombie ideological and rabidly partisan administration in the entire history of the republic.

White House wanted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to LIE to the public about social security being behind the deficit
In his memoir, out today, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House wanted him to mislead Americans about the long term costs of Social Security
 ‘I objected when  Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ Geithner writes
By Francesca Chambers
Published: 09:20 EST, 12 May 2014  | Updated: 17:45 EST, 12 May 2014

The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.

Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.

‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’

Geithner’s book release comes amidst allegations that the White House changed the Sunday show talking points of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya for political reasons.

Days after the White House claims it knew what happened in Benghazi was ‘an act of terror,’ Rice wrongly blamed an anti-Muslim internet video for the deadly assault in a string of high-profile interviews on network news stations.

The White House has forcefully denied that it made anything other than minor changes to Rice’s talking points. Recently released e-mails between deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and White House communications staff calls the veracity of the Obama administration’s claims into question.

The emails show that Rice was instructed to claim the attack was ‘spontaneously inspired ‘ and ‘to ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.’

Geithner’s anecdote about White House communications staff trying pressure him into misleading Americans about the country’s ability to meet its future financial obligations once again casts a shadow on the Obama administration’s willingness to tell the truth when the truth is politically unappealing.

He writes that Pfeiffer, who is now Obama’s senior communications adviser, often let party politics come into play when discussing how the administration should respond to fiscal issues.

During a discussion on spending cuts, Geithner says that Pfieffer argued that ‘we couldn’t afford to alienate our base and split a weakened Democratic Party in pursuit of an imaginary compromise with Republicans who didn’t want to compromise.’

Early reviews of Geithner’s book indicate that the former Treasury Secretary, who now works at a private equity firm, does not appear to have an axe to grind with Obama, giving greater weight to his recollections.

Geithner mostly uses the memoir to provide context for actions he took as Treasury Secretary from 2009 to 2013 to get the nation back on track after the financial crisis of 2008.

The only other seemingly negative remark Geithner makes about the White House is about President Obama, whom he says, ‘Sometimes I thought he wore his frustration too openly.’

‘He harbored the overly optimistic belief that since his motives and values were good, since his team was thoughtful and well-intentioned, we deserved to be perceived that way,’ Geithner says in the book, according to a review in the New York Times.

Hmmm, something about that.  What does Geithner say?

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows

It reminds me of ANOTHER White House prep session before – heck, FIVE Sunday talk shows in which Obama blabbermouth Susan Rice claimed five times that it was a “spontaneous attack” rather than a planned, coordinated terrorist attack and that a Youtube video was to blame even though we now have it documented that the “video” theory did NOT come from the intelligence community but was fabricated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a phone call shortly before Hillary invented the video (created by an American citizen) as being responsible for the terrorist attack rather than a “broader failure of policy.”

Barack Obama is a documented liar without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity and without decency.  He has proven more than ANY HUMAN BEING who EVER LIVED that he is wiling to look his people in the eye and lie to them right to their face – as he did at LEAST 37 times when he kept emphatically promising something he KNEW full damn well was an outright lieNBC documenting that Obama knew for at least THREE YEARS he was lying – and which even the Clintons dating back 20 YEARS AGO knew was a lie:

Three days before the 1994 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton’s advisers fretted about including a line promising that participants in the still-viable Hillarycare insurance overhaul would be allowed to keep their favored doctors and health care plans, a concern that would come back years later when President Barack Obama promised the same thing.

The line, which made it into the final speech in a slightly different form – Clinton told Americans they would have ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ – was the subject of controversy because his aides knew it was untrue.

‘We have a line on p. 10 that says “You’ll pick the health plan and the doctor of your choice,”‘ an internal memo read.

‘I know that it’s just what people want to hear. But can we get away with it?’ he asked. ‘I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver.’

The Clintons' first term in the White House was marred by the failure of 'Hillarycare,' an earlier proposed version of what would later become law as the Affordable Care Act

'Over-promising': A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

‘Over-promising’: A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

In his 1994 State of the Union address, Bill Clinton promised Americans 'the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor' -- 13 years before Barack Obama made nearly identical pledges

The memo was part of more than 4,000 pages of documents released by the Bill Clinton Presdiential Library, and offers new insights into the development – and ‘sale’ to Congress – of the ill-fated Hillarycare program that represented a major public embarrassment for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

‘Isn’t the whole thrust of our health plan to steer people toward cheaper, HMO-style providers?’ wrote the memo’s author, identified only as Todd.

‘It’s one thing to say we’ll preserve your option to pick the doctor of your choice (recognizing that this will cost more), it’s quite another to appear to promise the nation that everyone will get to pick the doctor of his or her choice,’ he added. ‘And that’s exactly what this line does.’

We are seeing breathtaking dishonesty all across the board.  Barack Obama is a rabid cancer upon America.

And his Democrat Party has circled their wagons and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent so much as QUESTIONS being asked about it.

And the ONLY reason they think they can get away with it is because the mainstream media are more propagandist today – and frankly more sophisticated about the art and science of propaganda – than Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin’s TASS were sixty years ago.

We live in an age of deception just before the coming of the Antichrist who was prophesied in Scripture to come to a worshiping world in the very last days.  And we are watching with our eyes a Democrat Party that has officially announced that they are ready to take the Mark of the Beast.

If you believe Obama didn’t instruct Susan Rice to lie through his political thugs on those five Sunday Talk shows where she told outright lies that everyone KNOWS were outright lies, and if you don’t think the GOP should investigate something that frankly should lead to Obama being IMPEACHED for official corruption as he covered up the truth to maintain a lie that he had succeeded in “decimating” al Qaeda when that narrative was proven false by Benghazi – and then covered up his cover up by withholding the proof that the White House substituted its “Youtube video” talking points for “planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization”, you have already demonstrated that you will surely believe the Antichrist’s lies and take his mark.  And burn in hell for it.

I’m speaking with the full authority of God’s Word behind me: you’re going to get yours, you baby-murdering (55 MILLION!!!), homosexual sodomy-loving, government-worshiping Democrat.  Obama – you know, the Obama who demonized Bush for a $9 trillion debt – has jacked up that debt to over $17.5 trillion.  Consider this to see yet again how viscerally and rabidly dishonest and hypocritical your false messiah truly has been.  Well, let me assure you, in 17.5 trillion years you will STILL be screaming in the agony of being burned alive forever and ever and EVER for what you did on this earth, Democrat.

You still have time to repent.  But your day is coming.

Why Would Anybody Consider Hillary Clinton For President? From Benghazi To Her Role In Keeping Boko Haram Safe

May 9, 2014

Democrats are amazing in their determination to be utterly hostile to the truth and to simple decency.

The world has been outraged at the incredible hate and contempt displayed in the Muslim group Boko Haram’s abduction (and I have no doubt gang-raping) of nearly 300 innocent girls (some of whom escaped on their own, thank God) whose crime was 1) being Christians and 2) trying to go to school.

The leader of Boko Haram (Abubakar Shekau) released this message:

“I abducted your girls…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women.”

Who do we have to blame for this outrage?

Start with Hillary Rodham Clinton, future Democrat candidate for president:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
Josh Rogin
05.07.14
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.

The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”

“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.

In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”

Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)

“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.

The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.

“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we’re actively exploring—in partnership with Nigeria and others—broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions.”

Representatives for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The media is asking a few questions (but don’t worry, in a few months it will all blow over and the media will yawn over this and every other outrage of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence or personal viciousness).  CNN had this:

Washington (CNN) — Hindsight is 20/20, they say, but some people may need backwards-looking glasses in debating whether the State Department under Hillary Clinton erred two years ago by not designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.

The question arose Thursday as part of the international focus on last month’s abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by the jihadist group in northeast Nigeria that threatens to sell them into slavery

The CNN piece becomes more of a cover-up than an objective piece.  It lists all the reasons Hillary was loathe to add Boko Haram to the FTO list.  But it very quickly gleans over the fact that Republicans were demanding that the organization be added to the list as early as 2010 after a SERIES of terrorist attacks:

A few months later, amid increasing violence by Boko Haram, the top Republicans on the panel wrote Clinton to urge its immediate terrorist designation.

In a letter to the secretary, Reps. Peter King of New York and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania cited support by the Department of Justice and military intelligence for such a step.

State Department officials opposed the move, as did 24 academics with expertise in African affairs.

You have to guess that in spite of a major effort to get Boko Haram designated as a terrorist organization, Hillary dithered and did NOTHING.

“Hindsight is 20/20,” CNN tells as us they introduce their piece.  So please don’t blame the Clinton News Network’s pick for president in 2016.

But yeah, BLAME her.  Had she did what was right and called a terrorist a terrorist when she and Obama were calling terrorism an “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disasters” this outrage could have and likely would have been avoided.

Who kept Boko Haram off the terrorist list so they could be free to unleash all the Islamist evil in their hearts?  Just remember:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

There is a statement in the above-quoted article that directly links the present U.S. failure with Boko Haram to the gross failure of Benghazi:

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

It was the same mindset based on the same dishonest Obama political narrative: we’ve got al Qaeda on the run.  And any facts that prove otherwise are to be ignored out of sheer cynical political expediency as Obama runs for re-election and Hillary awaits her turn four years later.

So let’s talk about Hillary and Benghazi:

When the murdered ambassador and the other victims were pleading for help in the weeks leading up to the fatal attack in Benghazi, where was Hillary Clinton?

A New Smoking Gun In Benghazi Terrorist Attack Fiasco Proves That Obama Had THREE WEEKS WARNING Prior To Actual Attack – And Did NOTHING.

When every other Western nation removed their diplomatic outposts from Benghazi prior to the fatal terrorist attack against our compound, where was Hillary Clinton?

Others, like the British government and the International Red Cross, were aware how dangerous Benghazi was and pulled their personnel out, but Clinton insisted on pursuing a diplomatic U.S. presence in Benghazi, but left them practically undefended

When a terrorist attack took NINE HOURS to unfold and American warriors were orderered to “stand down” and violate the American tradition to leave no man behind, where was Hillary Clinton?

All we know is that when it was time to offer up a pure LIE as an excuse for criminal incompetence in an obvious political cover-up, we DO know where Hillary Clinton was: right in front saying “Blame the video!”

We know that Hillary Called Barack Obama minutes prior to releasing a statement that turns out to be nearly identical to the one White House staffer Ben Rhodes crafted for Obama’s own dishonest deception campaign two months before his re-election.

We don’t know where Obama was during the nine-hour-long attack either.  All we know is that he NEVER SHOWED UP at the situation room that night.  But that he was quickly whoring for campaign money the very next day.  I actually believe Obama’s whereabouts during the attack are still unknown because Obama was fundraising AS THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE.

Here’s a good summary of what happened in Benghazi.  And it is frankly stunning how the media has yawned because it proves a DEMOCRAT to be corrupt and dishonest rather than the Republican they would have rabidly torn into.

We now know for a FACT that the Youtube video story had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what happened in Benghazi.  We now know for a FACT that the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department knew this for a fact within MINUTES of the attackWe know the Libyan president said that from the moment he first heard the ridiculous suggestion.  And we now know for a FACT that Obama and Clinton teamed up to pass off THE most cynical political cover-up in the entire history of this republic.  The result was, when Hillary Clinton should have gone on those five political Sunday shows, Obama sent Susan Rice (who had nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with a terrorist attack) to claim that there had been no pre-planned terrorist attack, but rather nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration over a video made by a U.S. citizen that got out of hand.  We know that what Susan Rice said FIVE TIMES was manifestly untrue.  We now know that the White House TOLD her to pass off this lie.  Even though they KNEW that was a pure lie.

These are desperately wicked people who do not have as much as a “scintilla” (to quote Obama over his next cover-up of his ordering his IRS to persecute conservative organizations AND their donors) of integrity, decency, virtue, or honor of any kind.

And neither do those who vote for these people.

According To Mike Morell Testimony In Obama Admin, Professionals On Ground Useless While Analysts 1000s Of Miles Away Make Up ‘Facts’ In Vacuum

April 2, 2014

Why should professionals risk their lives out in the field to gather accurate information when analysts in offices thousands of miles away are going to completely ignore them anyway?

If you’re going to believe the testimony of the Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack, the answer is they shouldn’t bother.

You need to understand this: at this point, it is obvious to EVERYONE that when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and a host of other Obama types came out and said that the Benghazi attack that murdered the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter debacle in 1979 along with three other Americans was the result of a protest over a video rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, that they were NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Everyone on the ground, along with the CIA station chief’s report from the region (Tripoli), proclaims that the attack had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any video or any protest, and in fact explicitly denies that any protest was going on at the time of the attack.

So why the bogus talking points?

The House asked the man who prepared them.

It should be noted that this man who prepared them, former Deputy Director of CIA Mike Morell, has played a game of revolving chairs.  While Obama put one of his own damned LAWYERS into the job that Morell left, Morell suddenly joined Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  Oh, and took a cushy job with the mainstream media that has pathologically refused to ever once be fair or objective.  He was rewarded well for misleading and in fact betraying America, I assure you.

IF you believe that Morell was telling the truth and he did NOT cook the books in the form of the talking points that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney et al cited when they said over and over again that the Benghazi attack resulted from a protest over a video (even though it wasn’t), this is what you HAVE to now believe about the way Obama makes decisions about foreign policy: he makes them ENTIRELY based on what analysts sitting at desks thousands of miles away from what is happening write about.  He does NOT pay any attention to what the people on the ground say.  If the people on the ground at the scene say the opposite of what the analysts say, well, who cares?

Let me wrap this in a bow for you: as Deputy Director of the CIA, Morell had ALL the intelligence available to him.  That is why his office is charged with preparing the White House talking points memo to begin with.  Mike Morell KNEW what the CIA and military people on the ground watching the attack unfold were saying.

Again, that’s what you HAVE to conclude if Morell didn’t alter the talking points for political reasons.  He acknowledged that the professionals on the ground were screaming that the attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with any stupid video.  But he pointed out that none of that mattered because what mattered was what the analysts said and the analysts said that it was a video protest and so that’s what the Deputy Director of Obama’s CIA went with.  And it was nothing beyond a random coincidence that the bogus output of the analysts was exactly what the political aspirations of Obama needed.

Obama had been saying he’d decimated and wiped out al Qaeda.  He had been saying the war on terror was over and he’d won it.  He did NOT want to have to explain a terrorist attack against the United States and one of its ambassadors.

And so he didn’t.

Sadly, for Obama not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of making his personal politics trump national security, what we are instead being told is that Obama blatantly ignores the facts on the ground and instead trusts to the spin of theorists in Washington.

If that makes you liberals feel good about Obama, fine.  It makes me sick to my stomach either way.

What do I believe Morell did?  I believe he deliberately chose to ignore the facts being screamed from the ground and influenced his analysts to cook the books the way Obama wanted instead.

With Obama having gutted our military we are truly week.  With Obama ignoring the experts on the ground who are seeing the events unfold, we are truly blind.  And under Obama, the CIA is no more “independent” than his thug IRS.  Both agencies and numerous others are merely political wings of the Obama political machine rewarding Obama’s friends and punishing Obama’s enemies.

Obama’s Benghazi Cover-Up Scandal Far, FAR Worse Than Nixon’s Watergate Cover-Up EVER Was.

May 13, 2013

First of all, do you know what the Watergate cover-up was about?

You probably don’t.

Most people – misinformed as they are by a mainstream media propaganda operation that is second only to the Nazi’s Ministry of Propaganda – believe that Nixon’s infamous “Plumbers” Unit was sent into the Watergate Hotel to look for information that would help his re-election campaign.  That is simply false.

So what were Nixon’s “Plumbers” looking for?

 
President Nixon authorizes the creation of a “special investigations unit,” later nicknamed the “Plumbers,” to root out and seal media leaks. The first target is Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press (see June 13, 1971); the team will burglarize the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, in hopes of securing information that the White House can use to smear Ellsberg’s character and undermine his credibility (see September 9, 1971). Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who supervises the “Plumbers,” will later say that the Ellsberg burglary is “the seminal Watergate episode.” Author Barry Werth will later write, “[L]ike all original sins, it held the complete DNA of subsequent misdeeds.” During the upcoming court battle over the documents, Nixon tells his aide Charles Colson: “We’ve got a countergovernment here and we’ve got to fight it. I don’t give a damn how it’s done. Do whatever has to be done to stop those leaks.… I don’t want to be told why it can’t be done.” Whatever damaging information the “Plumbers” can find on Ellsberg will be itself leaked to the press, Nixon says. “Don’t worry about his trial [referring to Ellsberg’s arrest on conspiracy and espionage charges (see June 28, 1971) ]. Just get everything out. Try him in the press… leak it out.” [Werth, 2006, pp. 84-87]

The Plumbers were looking for dirt to smear Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Here’s the thing: what did the Pentagon Papers reveal?  Who – or perhaps it is more appropriate to ask, which administration – did the Pentagon Papers indict?  The boldfaced type provides the answer:

Daniel Ellsberg is a former U.S. Marine and military analyst who precipitated a constitutional crisis in 1971 when he released the “Pentagon Papers.” The papers comprised the U.S. military’s account of theater activities during the Vietnam War. Ellsberg released top secret documents to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the Vietnam War. A succession of related events, including Watergate, eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation.

The Pentagon Papers were mostly an indictment of the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson, but they fed the Nixon administration’s preoccupation with finding information and document leakers. They eventually led to the secret White House “Plumbers” group and then to Watergate. In its turn, Watergate led to the first resignation of an American president, Richard M. Nixon. The Pentagon Papers contained plans to invade Vietnam, even though President Johnson had told the public that he had no intention to stage an invasion.

The simple fact of history – despite all the lies that the liberal ideologues have told masquerading as “journalists” – is that Richard Nixon was watching a liberal media campaign based on anonymous leaks erode and undermine U.S. foreign policy that had been approved by successive DEMOCRAT administrations (i.e., both the Kennedy and the Johnson administrations).  Barack Obama notwithstanding, American presidents have the duty to GOVERN and LEAD based on actual REALITY.  Both Republican and DEMOCRAT presidents who had sat in the Oval Office had made the tough calls based on the best intelligence ANY American will ever have access to.  And Nixon was watching the mainstream media communist fascists undermine that policy with a campaign of illegal leaks to selectively embarrass and ultimately undermine and cause the military defeat of the United States of America.

The Pentagon Papers documented that the DEMOCRAT LBJ administration had done some despicable things in their conduct of carrying out the Vietnam War.  They did NOT indict the Nixon administration:

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States‘ political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971

The Nixon presidency did not begin until 1969.

It’s amazing how history damns Democrats again and again and again.  The Civil War was waged against the United States by DEMOCRATS.  The Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the DEMOCRAT Party.  Prior to the Vietnam War – which had “DEMOCRAT” written all over it – Harry Truman’s incompetence and stupidity literally caused the Korean War in which nearly 60,000 Americans miserably perished.  History reveals that Harry Truman first refused to give weapons to the South Korean government, which emboldened the communist North which was armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated Soviet and Chinese weaponry:

Both Rhee and Kim Il Sung wanted to unite the Korean peninsula under their respective governments, but the United States refused to give South Korea any heavy weapons in order to ensure that its military could only be used for preserving internal order and self-defense. By contrast, Pyongyang was well-equipped with Soviet aircraft and tanks.

History reveals that Harry Truman then proceeded to massively screw up by failing to list South Korea in their zone of protection which gave North Korea, the USSR and China the green light to attack the South:

But just because he did not include South Korea as part of his “defensive perimeter,” it was said later on that such omission had served to give the communists “the green light” to try to overrun Korea.

Emboldened by the exclusion of South Korea from the American defense line in the Pacific zone in the so-called Acheson Declaration, Kim Il-sung decided to launch an outright invasion of the South

Just as history also reveals that Harry Truman – in a pattern that has characterized Democrat administrations for decade after decade – disarmed and weakened America so that we were in no shape to fight anybody anywhere which further emboldened our enemies.

All that the Democrat fiasco in Vietnam was was a longstanding continuation of Democrat fiascos that ultimately included Bill Clinton disarming America and inviting the 9/11 attacks before Bush prior to Obama baring America’s throat to terrorist attacks after Bush.

As much as you want to dump your hate on Richard Nixon, his crime was that he was trying to protect a Democrat administration in order to protect American foreign policy.  And he was trying to expose a dishonest and corrupt media propaganda operation.  And he himself used corrupt and dishonest tactics to accomplish those goals.  And he got busted.  By the very liberal communist fascist rat bastard pseudo-“journalists” who were selectively illegally leaking classified government documents in order to bring about America’s defeat in the Vietnam War.

We now know that Barack Obama is the kind of Chicago thug who criminally used the IRS to target his political opponents.  The word “Nixonian” doesn’t begin to do Obama’s thug tactics justice.  You have to call it “Obamian.”  And if the crap that Obama is pulling doesn’t qualify as “enemies list” garbage, then NOTHING does.

We also know that Obama has his lapdog Kathleen Sabelius ILLEGALLY shaking down businesses to coerce them to give money for ObamaCare (see also here).  It is specifically illegal for someone in such an official capacity to strongarm businesses that you are regulating and asking them for money.  Democrats were besides themselves with frothing rage when Reagan did something like this to get around specific Congressional refusal to fund a program during Iran-Contra.  And they passed a law to criminalize it.  Just as they passed laws criminalizing the Watergate crap that Obama just pulled.  Again, this is Obamaian – because it goes beyond “Nixonian.”

This thug Obama is a demon-possessed criminal who has contaminated the White House beyond repair.  He is the epitome of what his cockroach pastor for 23 years railed when he said, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!”

But let’s get back to Benghazi.  We now know that the Obama administration engaged in a cover-up.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, incompetent failure before the 9/11 (2012) attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  We know that they tried to cover-up their abysmal, cowardly failure during the attack to bring any U.S. assets to bear to help the Americans – including the first U.S. Ambassador to be killed in the line of duty since the failed Carter years – who ultimately perished during the attack.  And we most certainly know that they tried to cover-up the crystal-clear connection to terrorists and al Qaeda.

Obama claims that he called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the next day.  Bullcrap.

Obama supporters (read, “dishonest lying weasels”) claim that Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after the attack. Right. And I called Obama an honest man and a good leader. Obama had just referred to the 9/11/2001 attacks – which even Obama would call “acts of terror” – immediately prior to his statement that “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” There is absolutely NO reason – grammatical or logical – to believe that Obama was referring to the attack against the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi with that reference. And Obama went on to PROVE that he wasn’t referring to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” by going out and repeatedly claiming that it was NOT an act of terror, but a mob protest gone bad over a Youtube video. Which it was NOT.

Here’s the thing: the very same NIGHT that Obama gave that speech above – at an event memorializing the 9/11/2001 attacks – he gave an interview to 60 minutes.  Let’s look at a snippet from that interview:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.

KROFT: It’s been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades, that doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

OBAMA: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened, I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But your right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is there are folks involved in this. Who were looking to target Americans from the start. So we’re gonna make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure our embassies are secured around the world and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.

So CBS stated as a FACT that Obama “went out of his way to avoid the use of the word terrorism” and Obama clearly continued to avoid using the word “terrorism.”  And if “it was still too early to tell” if it was an act of terror” the night AFTER he gave the speech in which he now claims that he claimed that it WAS an act of terror, well, you see the pretzel Obama twisted the truth in.  Which pretty much proves that when Obama later said he DID call it “terrorism” was a lie.  A lie from a serial liar.  And what we have had was a cover-up by the Obama administration from the very start. 

And why did Obama attempt this cover-up?  Was it for the sake of the previous Republican administration the way Nixon tried to protect the previous Democrat administration?  Nope.  Obama has demonstrated that he is a vicious partisan ideologue who would NEVER lift a finger to ever do anything but demonize and slander the Bush administration.  Was it to protect U.S. foreign policy?  Nope.  Obama was two months from an election and the only thing he was trying to protect was his own scrawny political neck.

Republicans pointed out the TRUTH from the outset. They said the very DAY that Susan Rice went out on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly lied to the American people that “Most people don’t bring rocket-propelled grenades and heavy weapons to a demonstration.”  Which was obvious to anyone who wasn’t a demon-possessed Obama ideologue.

But as a whole, we know that the Chicago thug Obama administration and the mainstream media thug propaganda were on the same damn page.

The funny thing is that the Chicago thug Obama administration, the Democrat Party propaganda machine and the mainstream media cockroaches are all frantically claiming that there’s nothing to see in any Benghazi investigation because the Republicans are trying to politicize it.  Here’s the thing: these Democrat roaches have just been caught RED-HANDED “politicizing” Benghazi from the very first moments:

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a “stylistic” change to the intelligence agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland’s email said such revelations “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (central intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

Which is to say that the Obama State Department falsified the truth and engaged in the very FIRST act of “politicizing.”  They literally admit here to altering the facts so their opponents won’t be able to point out that they were incompetent fools.  Which the facts now prove that they very clearly were.

Obama had a completely bogus narrative that, because he had been the president when we got Osama bin Laden, that somehow he had decimated al Qaeda and the War on Terror was over.  Obama stated that as a fact again and again and again prior to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi planned and carried out to correspond with the anniversary of the 9/11 attack against America in 2001.

The official liar of the Obama Administration, Press Secretary Jay Carney, had told the American people this:

The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” Mr. Carney said on Nov. 28.

We now know that like everything ELSE the most dishonest administration in American history has claimed, that this was a pure lie.  We now know that the talking points went through a DOZEN revisions in order to falsely scrub any connection to al Qaeda or terrorism in order to “support” the Obama lie that the attack was a protest over a video gone bad.  We now know that CIA director (and war hero) David Petraeus was “frustrated” and “surprised” by Obama’s whitewash and distortion of the Benghazi talking points.  Just as the number two man in Libya who clearly KNEW what had actually happened said “my jaw hit the floor” when he heard Susan Rice repeatedly report the Obama lie again and again and again and again and again five days after the attack.

We now know that – contrary to the Barack Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton State Department official lies – that the intelligence IMMEDIATELY claimed that the Benghazi attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group.  And we now know that Obama and Clinton deliberately falsified the intelligence and lied to the American people to cover their own incompetence and their own political aspirations.

Obama lied, Americans died.  Clinton lied, Americans died.  Unlike anything that happened during Watergate. Pat Smith, whose son Sean was murdered, is furious because Hillary Clinton looked her right in the eye and lied to her.  She now says, “She has her child.  I don’t have mine because of her.”  Americans died for Obama’s and Clinton’s sins.

But let’s forget all about Pat Smith’s pain.  After all, as Jay Carney claimed, “It happened a long time ago” (after eight months of delay and cover-ups).  And of course Hillary Clinton exlaimed, “What difference at this point does it make?” 

Susan Rice and Jay Carney need to go to prison – along with these IRS thugs – for their official lies and participation in an obvious cover-up.  Barack Obama needs to be impeached for his high crimes.  And Hillary Clinton needs to never show her face in public again.

Race Is Rising Against Race Just As Jesus Said It Would In These Last Days. Democrats Say ‘Amen’ Unable To See That Jesus Said It As A BAD Thing.

November 21, 2012

Jesus’ warning in Luke 21:10 in its original Greek:

Τότε ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ἐγερθήσεται ἔθνος ἐπ’ ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν

It’s that word “ἔθνος” that stands out.  The direct English translation is “ethnic group” or “race”: race shall rise against race and kingdom against kingdom.

You can see this race hatred developing all over the world; surely the Holocaust of the Jews in the 1940s was a form of “race rising against race.”  During the Clinton years we saw two incredibly ugly examples: in Bosnia with its “ethnic cleansing” and of course in Rwanda and Burundi in Africa as the Hutu race murdered some 1 million Tutsis in an ogre of blood and violence.  We know that through the 1980s and 1990s Saddam Hussein was using genocide against the Kurds.  God only knows how many have perished in Darfur.  And we see it today all across the world in example after example.

It’s always easier to see these genocides in hindsight because the international community always throws a smokescreen over genocides while they are being committed.  As an example in Rwanda, the United Nations tortured the English language to avoid using the term “genocide” no matter how obviously genocidal the murder campaign was.  Why?  Because if the U.N. had used the word “genocide” it would have been compelled by its charter to involve itself.  And they wanted to stay as far away from actually DOING anything as they possibly could.  Because the United Nations has degenerated into a force for evil rather than a force for good in the world.

But I don’t want to talk about race rising against race in the world.  I want to talk about what is going on in America.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we had this description of Obama’s promise from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

I cited that back in 2009 when I was pointing out THE BRUTE FACT that Barack Obama was a cynical liar and demagogue right from the very start of his presidency.

As I document, Obama never once EVER tried to live up to his cynical lies.  He never tried to reach out or reconcile and he certainly never made any successful attempt to EVER accomplish any bipartisan legislation.  Rather, he demagogued and demonized and slandered his opponents.

Obama raged to an audience of Hispanics that they should “punish your enemies” – referring to white people and Republicans.  Because that’s the way Obama views the world.

During the campaign Obama sent his vice president out to threaten blacks that if they didn’t vote for him Mitt Romney and Republicans would “put y’all back in chains.”

Obama’s successful message: race, race race.  Rise up.  Punish your enemies.  And if you DON’T vote race white people will put you back in the chains of slavery.

Many have pointed out that Obama had a unique opportunity after his election in 2008 to actually try to do what he promised.  But he never once so much as TRIED.  And many have said that Obama would have an opportunity now to soften his race-baiting, class-warfare, war against women, fearmongering style of endless campaigning in the name of governance.  But you can already pretty clearly see that he won’t do any such thing any more than he did after falsely promising it in 2008.

What we’re seeing used against critics of UN Ambassador Susan Rice – who went on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly said something that was obviously factually untrue the day she said itis telling:

As Republicans criticize U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, some members of Congress are suggesting that racism and sexism may be behind the attack.

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., says that the attacks on Rice have gone beyond her job performance. When asked about Rice on CNN’s Starting Point on Tuesday, Clyburn said that words like “lazy” and “incompetent,” which have been used to describe black members of the administration, including Rice and President Obama himself, are reminiscent of language used to undermine minorities in decades past.

“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”

A Republican was the first to appoint African-Americans to the office of secretary of State — the highest-ranking appointed position in a presidential administration. President George W. Bush named Colin Powell to the job, followed by Condoleezza Rice.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have attacked Rice in recent weeks for her Sunday show appearances in the days  following the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans,  criticizing her for not going further to label the assault a terrorist act. On Monday, 97 House  Republicans sent a letter to President Obama saying that Rice is unfit to  succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The administration has said that Rice was simply using talking points supplied by the intelligence community during her television appearances.

Last week, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the new chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also suggested that the attacks on Rice go beyond her job performance.

“It is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. I have a real issue with that,” Fudge said. “For you who are haters, as the young people say, your hate is going nowhere. Just go on and hate on, but look in the mirror and hate yourself, not the people that do this work.”

I want you to notice that Republicans were IMMEDIATELY FULLY AWARE that what Susan Rice said was simply factually untrue.  I certainly was – as I documented by the link to my own article above.  But a lie was her line and it was Obama’s line.  It was already obvious that she was saying things that were lies the moment she said them.  Conservatives erupted the very moment she spoke and they were right and she and those who took the Obama position were wrong.

We now know that the CIA issued a report IMMEDIATELY that documented that what Susan Rice would come out days later was a lie.  And we know that some Obama-appointed political operative altered that report in order to perpetuate the lie that Obama had killed bin Laden and by extension had therefore mortally wounded al Qaeda so he could get reelected.

We know that Susan Rice participated in that lie.  If she willingly participated, she is morally unfit for ANY job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.  If she unwillingly was duped, then we can similarly know that her judgment is so piss poor that she is unqualified for any job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.

But Obama and his thugs have a “narrative”: if you criticize a black person for any reason under the sun, YOU ARE A RACIST.  If you criticize a woman for any reason under the sun, no matter how much documentation you have to support your criticism, you are a misogynist.  And of course if said woman happens to be black, you are a racist misogynist, aren’t you?  And it frankly doesn’t matter that the last Republicans to hold executive power appointed the first black person to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State and the first black woman as the Secretary of State.  And it frankly doesn’t matter how many black people Republicans appoint; they will ALWAYS be racist by definition because Obama WANTS them to be racist by definition and that is how he operates through his race-baiting thugs.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Barack Obama and James Clyburn have Martin Luther King’s words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” embossed in gold lettering on their urinals.  Because they piss on those words every single day.

It is impossible to offer any criticism of the content of a black person’s character today.  Why?  Because of the color of their skin.  THAT’S all that matters to the Obamas and the Clyburns of the world and the content of character be damned.

Obama won politically with that garbage, just as the Antichrist will win politically one day very soon and just as Adolf Hitler won politically.  Like Obama in the present, the Antichrist of the future and the Hitler of the past win politically because they were skilled at exploiting lies and concealing truth.

We’re going to see America collapse.  We’re going to see that within a very few years from now.  And we will immediately see racial violence in the streets of America unlike anything that we have ever seen before.  Why will that happen?  because black people will believe Obama’s lies that they must “punish their enemies” lest said “enemies” put them back in chains; and because whites will realize that neither right nor reason have anything to do with political debate anymore, and they must fight and kill to save the lives of their children.  And if they depend on reason they will be destroyed by rhetoric in a world that is very clearly dead-set on worshiping the coming beast.

Jesus’ last days prophecy is going to come to pass.  Just as Jesus said.  And all you have to do is see the rhetoric that is being applied today to understand how America will melt down tomorrow.

The beast is coming.

What I want you to be able to understand is that the very-soon-to-be-history presented in Bible prophecy is directly related to what we are shaping TODAY.  The leader that the American people have chosen is sowing the wind and he will reap the whirlwind to the mass suffering of the people who put him in power.

CIA Station Chief In Libya Reported Within HOURS That US Consulate Attack Was A TERRORIST Attack. So Why The Weeks Of LIES???

October 19, 2012

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.

The Obama administration trotted out the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to ALL FIVE major network political programs and had her tell what we now know to be an outright lie over and over and over again (see here for another link with more):

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.”

Republicans called her dishonesty out from the moment she came out and so ridiculously lied that even Nancy Pelosi agreed that the Obama administration was completely full of crap.

An ad is pretty damning, as it packages up the lies told throughout the Obama administration rather concisely:

In hindsight, there can be absolutely no question that the Libyan president who called the attack what it was is far more trustworthy than the Obama administration.

We now know that there NEVER WAS a spontaneous protest in Libya prior to the terrorist attack.  And that Susan Rice directly lied to the American people.  We now know that murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens was BEGGING for more security for well over a month prior to the attack that was timed to commemorate the 9/11 attack anniversary.  We now know that there were ZERO Marines in Libya when we have Marines “guarding” many of the very safest and most secure embassies in the world instead.  We now have emails of the Obama administration via the State Department specifically rejecting those pleas for more security.  We now know that contrary to the deceitful Obama claims al Qaeda was GROWING rather than “being on the run.”  And we know now that when the Obama White House blamed faulty intelligence for their disastrous weeks of saying something that is now well-known to be a documented lie it was just another lie.

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:

CIA Found Militant Links A Day After Libya Attack
By Kimberly Dozier – Associated Press     Friday, October 19, 2012

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 NOT the 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.

No, Obama DIDN’T Call The Benghazi, Libya Terrorist Act Even An ‘Act of Terror,’ Let Alone A Terrorist Attack. But If You Say He Did HE’S STILL A LIAR!!!

October 18, 2012

Did Obama call the September 11 attack on the US Consulate In Libya a terrorist act or not?

The answer is “NOT,” since this is the speech he claims he did:

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
For Immediate Release September 12, 2012

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack [Me: what KIND of attack?  A coordinated terrorist attack or a spontaneous unplanned attack by an angry mob as the Obama administration kept claiming for DAYS after the attack?] on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks [Me: ah, yes, the 9/11 attack which even Barack Hussein Obama would agree would be “an act of terror.”].  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation [Me: is Obama claiming that the Libya attack he mentioned nine paragraphs earlier was the “act of terror,” or was he referring to the 9/11 attack  that he had just referred to 2 paragraphs previously], alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

So you can see that there is NO logical reason to believe Obama was calling the attack on the US Consulate in Libya a “terrorist attack.”  He had just been talking about the 9/11 attack which even OBAMA thinks is a terrorist attack.  And in what universe is referring to “acts of terror” the same as calling something “a terrorist attack”?  Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Barack Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and most particularly US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice were correct, and the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi WAS a “spontaneous act” by a protest mob enraged by a stupid Youtube video: would that NOT be “an act of terror”???  What else would you call it if a bunch of religious fanatics who hated you and broadcasted that hatred because of their warped religion had gone nuts and murdered your whole family?  “An act of happiness”?

And keep in mind, for more than two weeks after what intelligence was calling “a terrorist attack” within hours, this is the VERY STRONGEST STATEMENT Obama can now point to to claim he promptly damned as at least “terror” (but not “terrorist”).

Here’s the other thing: let’s say for the sake of argument that Barack Obama was actually calling what everyone now knows (no thanks to Obama or his administration) was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  Then WHY did Obama order his army of cockroach demon minions to repeatedly lie and say the exact opposite thing:

See the problem?  Obama now says that he officially declared that the attack on the US Consulate was in fact a terrorist attack, but then he sent out high-ranking administration official after high-ranking administration official to lie for the next two weeks.

And what about Obama himself lying after his own incredibly brief moment of “truth-telling” when he supposedly said that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya was in fact a terrorist attack.

On September 20 – more than a week after Obama now says he referred to the attack as a terrorist attack – Obama said this to Univision:

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

On September 25 – and this is now two weeks after the attack that Obama now says he called a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech – Obama responded to a direct question with the following answer:

QUESTION: “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So if you want to believe Barack Obama and that disgrace-to-journalism Candy Crowley, Obama told the American people the truth concealed in a weak statement on September 12 and then proceeded to personally repeatedly lie after that brief moment of weakly telling the truth.

And this after a parade of lies that included Obama appointee UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly specifically denying that it was a terrorist attack and repeatedly asserting something which we now know to have been a complete fabrication.  Which was it?

Either way you want to slice it, Barack Obama is a documented liar (again!) and he is the president of an administration of liars who have been doing everything they could to cover-up a terrorist attack that occurred on sovereign United States territory which resulted in the deaths of four Americans including a United States Ambassador.

And the fact that Obama would falsely assert that he called something “terror” that not only that very speech he referenced but the following two weeks AFTER that speech rather conclusively proves he didn’t is just another of a massive series of proofs just how willing Obama is to deceive.

The Incompetence, Reckless Disregard For National Security And Post-Terrorist-Attack Cover-Up By The Obama Administration Is Coming To Light.

October 9, 2012

We now know that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya that resulted in an American ambassador and three other Americans was a terrorist attack.  But the administration chose to cover-up that knowledge by repeatedly pointing to a video and a “spontaneous uprising” in which people protesting the video brought heavy weapons, broke into three attack elements, coordinated their attacks with one another, and, oh, never bothered to actually even HAVE a demonstration before their “spontaneous demonstration” actually became a terrorist attack.

Fully FIVE DAYS AFTER the attack on the US Consulate and at least FOUR DAYS AFTER the administration KNEW it was in fact a terrorist attack, the Obama administration sent out US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to specifically LIE on all five major network Sunday morning political talk shows.  Again and again, on every single major network, the Obama appointee specifically and factually lied to the American people.

There is absolutely no question that the Obama administration lied and attempted a cover-up to avoid acknowledging a terrorist attack had occurred on American soil.  The only question is WHY did they lie and attempt such an idiotic cover-up?

The new developments that prove that the Obama administration was incompetent and reckless beyond belief may be a major part of this cover-up.  For instance (Note that Jake Tapper at ABC wrote a similar story):

Bombshell: US Security Teams Removed From Libya Prior to Attack, Over Stevens’ Objections
Guy Benson, Political Editor, Townhall.com
Oct 08, 2012 01:10 PM EST

In case this recent development wasn’t egregious enough, another shoe has dropped in the Benghazi scandal — adding more fuel to the speculative fire about why the administration seemed so motivated to coordinate a dishonest cover-up (read that link) after the fact.  CBS News takes the lead on this outrageous story:

[See video from CBS News embedded at sight here]

The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

“They asked if we were safe,” he told Attkisson. “They asked… what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they’re working on it – they’ll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that.” Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security. “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

ABC News has more:

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens wanted a Security Support Team, made up of 16 special operations soldiers, to stay with him in Libya after their deployment was scheduled to end in August, the commander of that security team told ABC News. The embassy staff’s “first choice was for us to stay,” Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, 55, told ABC News in an interview. “That would have been the choice of the embassy people in Tripoli.” But a senior State Department official told ABC News that the embassy’s Regional Security Officer never specifically requested that the SST’s tour be extended past August, and the official maintained there was no net loss of security personnel

When confronted with this damning report, a State Department official blames the lack of security on insufficient paperwork (security preferences were never “specifically requested”) and suggests that Washington believed there would be no “net” security loss on the ground.  If you believe either of those excuses, re-watch the CBS News interview above — or read this story from ABC News, which obtained a memo showing State rejecting specific security requests in Libya.  Essentially, the administration told our diplomats to do more with less and trust Libyan forces to replace the elite American security personnel.  Reporting from Newsweek’s Eli Lake highlights the problems with this strategy, which Amb. Stevens recognized and addressed in a diplomatic cable sent the very day he was assassinated:

Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.  The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.  The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister. Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back into further uncertainty. The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault.

Americans must ask themselves how these appalling failures were allowed to occur, and who is responsible.  The administration peddled several false tales to the public for many days after the attack, even though intelligence reports indicate that they knew better from day one.  Why?  Not only were requests for reinforcements declined, existing defenses were scaled back, in spite of numerous threats and attacks leading up to the 9/11 massacre.  Why? I’ve pondered whether the White House wanted to maintain a “light footprint” perception in Libya at all costs, rooted in political considerations.  If so, those costs were quite high, indeed.  I’ll leave you with a devastating video of the cover-up timeline, produced by Heritage.  This is slowly growing into a national scandal, but here’s why it should already be A1, above the fold every day:

UPDATE – In his wide-ranging foreign policy address in Virginia late this morning, Mitt Romney criticized the Obama administration for their serial opacity and misdirection regarding the Benghazi raid:

Last month, our nation was attacked again.  A U.S. Ambassador and three of our fellow Americans are dead—murdered in Benghazi, Libya.  Among the dead were three veterans.  All of them were fine men, on a mission of peace and friendship to a nation that dearly longs for both.  President Obama has said that Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues represented the best of America.  And he is right.  We all mourn their loss. The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident.  They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia.  Our embassies have been attacked.  Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do.  These are the right questions.  And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.  The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts.  They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century.  And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself. The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.

This is some of Romney’s strongest rhetoric yet on this subject.  One wonders if he’ll challenge the president even more forcefully during the final foreign policy themed presidential debate.  More on Romney’s speech later.

There are now so many examples of Obama completely screwing up prior to the murder of an American ambassador on US soil that it just makes you want to barf.

But aside from his criminal incompetence, there is yet another reason why Obama chose to cover-up this terrible terrorist attack:

Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
BY: Bill Gertz
October 5, 2012 5:00 am

Weeks before the presidential election, President Barack Obama’s administration faces mounting opposition from within the ranks of U.S. intelligence agencies over what careerofficers say is a “cover up” of intelligence information about terrorism in North Africa.

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

“The Iranian strategy is two-fold: upping the ante for the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against Iran and perceived cyber operations against Iran’s nuclear weapons program by conducting terror attacks on soft U.S. targets and cyber attacks against U.S. financial interests,” said one official, speaking confidentially.

The Iranian effort also seeks to take the international community’s spotlight off Iran’s support for its Syrian ally.

Two House Republicans, Reps. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) and Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), stated in a letter sent this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that officials “with direct knowledge of events in Libya” revealed that the Benghazi attack was part of a string of terror attacks and not a spontaneous uprising against an anti-Muslim video produced in the U.S. The lawmakers have scheduled congressional hearings for Oct. 10.

Susan Phalen, spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), said the panel is “reviewing all relevant intelligence and the actions of the [intelligence community], as would be expected of the oversight committee.”

But she noted: “At this point in time it does not appear that there was an intelligence failure.”

Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration’s apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that “in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.”

Officials say the ODNI’s false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Among the obvious signs of terrorism was the arms used by the attackers, who were equipped with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles.

A U.S. intelligence official who disputes the idea of an Obama administration coverup said: “Intelligence professionals follow the information wherever it leads.”

“When there isn’t definitive information, it makes sense to be cautious,” the official said. “There has never been a dogmatic approach to analyzing what happened in Benghazi. Staying open to alternative explanations—and continually refining assessments as new and credible information surfaces—is part of the intelligence business.”

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi.

Yet the Obama administration sought to keep the information from becoming public to avoid exposing what the officials say is a Middle East policy failure by Obama.

Officials said that the administration appeared to engage in a disinformation campaign aimed at distancing the president personally during the peak of the presidential election campaign from the disaster in Benghazi, where numerous warning of an attack were ignored, resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other officials.

The first part of the apparent campaign, officials said, was the false information provided to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who appeared on Sunday television shows after the attack to say the event was a “spontaneous” response to an anti-Muslim video trailer posted online.

Officials said Rice was given the false information to use in media appearances in order to promote the excuse that the obscure video was the cause of the attack, and not the Islamic concept of jihad.

Rice’s claims provoked concern inside the U.S. intelligence community that intelligence about what was going on in Libya and the region was being suppressed, and led to a series of news disclosures about what would later be confirmed as an al Qaeda attack using the group Ansar al Sharia.

After Rice’s incorrect statements, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated the false assessment of the Benghazi attack.

The final element of the campaign involved comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the first to give a partial explanation of the intelligence when she said al Qaeda terrorists operating from Mali were possible culprits in the Benghazi attack.

“What she failed to mention was the cooperation of Iran and Egypt in supporting jihadists in Libya,” the official said, who added the events would be investigated in an apparent effort to stave off internal critics in government.

That has led to delays in getting FBI and other U.S. investigators into Benghazi, raising concerns that some in the White House wanted to delay the FBI’s efforts to uncover evidence about the attack.

The FBI did not reach Benghazi until Thursday, ostensibly over concerns about the lack of security to protect them.

“The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention” said the official.

The president said during his nomination acceptance speech that “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat,” an assertion contradicted by the group’s rise in the region.

The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Egypt was among the locations of Obama’s 2009 so-called “apology” tour, when the president criticized past U.S. policies based on what he said was “fear and anger” that prompted actions “contrary to our ideals.” He also promised “a new beginning” for the U.S. and the world’s Muslims and a radical shift in U.S. policy.

The rise of Islamists in the region instead has produced a surge in anti-American protests and riots, culminating in the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate.

Recent intelligence reports show that Egypt’s Al-Azhar University in Cairo is emerging as a covert base for al Qaeda organizational and training activities for a jihadi network consisting of many nationalities.

The Morsi government has turned a blind eye to both the increased jihadist activity and Iran’s support for it in the region, particularly in Libya and Syria.

However, the administration is keeping the intelligence under wraps to avoid highlighting Obama’s culpability for the democratic aspirations of the Arab Spring being hijacked by Islamists sympathetic to al Qaeda’s terrorist ideology.

Intelligence officials said in Egypt—currently ruled by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood—one of the key al Qaeda organizers has been identified as Muhammad al-Zawahiri, brother of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Muhammad al-Zawahiri was released by Morsi in Marchafter having been sentenced to death for terrorist acts in Egypt.

In recent months Egypt-based al Qaeda terrorists were dispatched to Libya and Syria, where they have been covertly infiltrating Libyan militia groups and Syrian opposition forces opposing the Bashar al Assad regime.

In addition to Egyptian government backing, intelligence from the region has revealed that operatives from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the main spy service, and from Iran’s Quds Force paramilitary group and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are also facilitating al Qaeda terrorists based in Egypt that are preparing to conduct operations to increase instability throughout the region.

The intelligence revealing that al Qaeda is growing in Egypt is said by officials to be one of the reasons behind Obama’s decision to cancel a meeting in New York with Morsi during the U.N. General Assembly meeting last month.

Other news outlets in recent days have revealed new internal U.S. government information that contrasts sharply or contradicts official Obama administration statements that appear designed to minimize the rise of Egyptian-origin terrorism.

The Daily Beast reported Sept. 28 that intercepted communications revealed terrorists belonging to the group Ansar al Sharia were in contact with the group Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb regarding the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and others.

Communications intercepts revealed that the terrorists in Benghazi bragged about the attack, the news outlet reported.

A group called Ansar al Sharia in Egypt was formed in April 2011 and advocates violent jihad and support for al Qaeda.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that terrorists linked to a former Guantanamo prison inmate, Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, was one of the individuals who attacked diplomatic facilities in Libya on Sept. 11, and that intelligence reports showed some of the terrorists in the attack may have been trained in Libyan desert camps.

So we know that Obama lied and attempted a cover-up, and we pretty much know WHY Obama lied and attempted a cover-up.  The reason was basically to try to hide Obama’s incredible incompetence and the failure of his entire Middle East policy in general.

The thing we DON’T know yet is whether the American people, along with the Democrat Party, are so despicable that they frankly don’t care about the lies and frankly the treason that we have seen accompanying the incredible incompetence that resulted in the death of America’s top official in Libya and the abject humiliation of the United States as a result of the attacks against America from Muslim countries across the world.

Update, October 9, 2012: Let me add a P.S. here.

Remember Lara Logan, the CBS journalist who was raped and beaten in Egypt?  Well, they define neo-conservatives as those who have been “mugged by reality.”  Lara was raped by the reality that Muslim fundamentalists are godawful evil people.  Yeah, she just came out and said that absolutely EVERY SINGLE THING Obama is saying about foreign policy is a complete lie:

CBS’ Lara Logan Slams US Government And Says The Taliban Is As Strong As EverTiffany Gabbay, The Blaze

Blaze readers are likely familiar with CBS correspondent, Lara Logan, the wartime journalist who endured a horrific ordeal in Egypt last  summer when she was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob of angry  Egyptian men during their Arab Spring “celebrations.” Now, Logan has a  message for the public: “they” (the Taliban and other Islamic  operatives) are as strong as ever.

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some 1,100 movers in government, politics,  media, and the legal and corporate arenas. She explained that the  Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and are in fact  re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd  that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a  major lie being propagated…” Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S.  military has tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two  years,” Logan began. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,“ who  claim ”they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban.”

“It’s such nonsense!”

The Sun Times continues:

Logan stepped way out of the “objective,” journalistic role. The  audience was riveted as she told of plowing through reams of documents,  and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan;  Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by  al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are teaming up and recruiting new  terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports. […] She made a  passionate case that our government is downplaying the strength of our  enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.

Logan went on to say that people have been duped into believing that  the threat of radical Islam is merely a thing of the past, saying:

“You’re not listening to what the people who are fighting you say  about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script.”

The CBS foreign correspondent, who broke with her traditional  journalist’s role and actually shared her personal opinion with the  group, also called for retribution for the slaying of U.S. Ambassador  Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALs and one additional U.S. civil  servant in Libya.

According to the Sun Times, Logan hopes America will “exact revenge  and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on  its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the  United States will not stand by and do nothing about it.”

While the Sun Times article appeared to question Logan for delving  into opinion and “being” the story rather than “reporting” the story, it is difficult to imagine that someone who experienced atrocities in the  Middle East first hand and was in fact physically assaulted could  refrain from speaking from personal experience. After all, who better  than one who lived it is qualified to judge?

We’re now learning that Obama betrayed the Americans in Libya who were screaming for more security and begging for fortifications to protect their buildings.  And instead Obama gave them LESS security.  And why?  Because Obama wanted to create the false impression that he was normalizing relations with Libya so he could claim credit for it politically.  He’s done the same thing in Afghanistan with the Taliban, deliberately creating the false dichotomy between good Taliban and bad Taliban so he could negotiate with the good Taliban and then cut and run from Afghanistan.  And decent Americans and particularly Americans who have suffered the results of Obama’s stupidity won’t have any of it.

If Obama had represented himself honestly and told the truth, he NEVER would have been elected in 2008.  And in the same manner, the only way he stands to be reelected now is to lie and lie outrageously to the American people.