Posts Tagged ‘terrorist attack’

Worst Mass Shooting In U.S. History A Terrorist Attack. And Consider How Obama Dismantled America To Bring This Hell Here.

June 12, 2016

As we listen to Obama’s absolute drivel as he pathetically tries to explain away how we got into this hell-hole we are now in where we USED to be safe but clearly no longer are, let’s check in with the warning that George Bush offered and see the contrast:

“Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. al-Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, “Yes, once again, we’ve driven the great soft America out of a part of the region.” It will cause them to be able to recruit more; it will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

And I’m going to keep talking about it. That’s my job as the president, is to tell people the threats we face and what we’re doing about it. They’re dangerous, and I can’t put it any more plainly to the American people, and to them, we will stay on the offense. It’s better to fight them there than here.” — President George W. Bush, May 24, 2007

We WON the Iraq War, as I shall proceed to document; Barack Obama lost it AFTER our soldiers won it and secured it and pulled all our troops out over all of our generals’ warnings of catastrophe if he did so.  And from that point, everything that Bush said would happened proceeded to happen: the SAME thing happened that happened when Bill Clinton gave us Osama bin Laden’s “Americans are paper tigers” speech after Clinton cut-and-ran from Somalia in 1993 that resulted ultimately in the 9/11 attack in 2001.   Terrorists not only received a “safe haven” from Obama; they actually created the caliphate that was Osama bin Laden’s DREAM.  They have not only been able to recruit more, but FAR MORE, more than anyone could have possibly imagined before the Turd-in-Chief took office.

It is a fascinating thing.  Because President Bill Clinton left America both weak – by disassembling our military – and blind – by disassembling our entire intelligence establishment and even erecting the walls that prevented communication between intelligence and law enforcement – the United States was viciously hit with the worst terrorist attack in history on 9/11/2001 in an attack that had been planned for years while Clinton did nothing and struck us less than eight months into Bush’s presidency.  It was because of Bill Clinton’s cowardly policies in Somalia that a would-be-terrorist named Osama bin Laden first began to call America a “paper tiger” and dreamed of attacking the United States.  And as a result of that attack, President Bush rebuilt our military and made it powerful again, rebuilt our intelligence capability and broke down the walls that kept our various intelligence agencies from sharing information, and fought the terrorists over there so they wouldn’t be able to come over here.

And it worked.  Even the war that Democrats treasonously did EVERYTHING to turn into a defeat was won by Bush.  The terrorist enemy in Iraq themselves communicated their defeat in their own transmissions saying, “We are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.”

There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO QUESTION we won the war in Iraq.  Even Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged it: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  And Barack Obama himself acknowledged in February 2009 that he had been handed victory rather than defeat: ““This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.”

But Obama proceeded to ignore EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS GENERALS and made a terrible, terrifying, and frankly treasonous mistake that is documented in a 2009 article that proves that everything that Obama has said since about his decision to unilateral cut-and-run from Iraq the abject lie that it always was:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.

Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.

The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.

The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.

The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.

The assertion that Obama’s withdrawal policy threatens the gains allegedly won by the Bush surge and Petraeus’s strategy in Iraq will apparently be the theme of the campaign that military opponents are now planning.

Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff from 1999 to 2003, has ties to a network of active and retired four-star Army generals, and since Obama’s Jan. 21 order on the 16-month withdrawal plan, some of the retired four-star generals in that network have begun discussing a campaign to blame Obama’s troop withdrawal from Iraq for the ultimate collapse of the political “stability” that they expect to follow U.S. withdrawal, according to a military source familiar with the network’s plans.

The source says the network, which includes senior active duty officers in the Pentagon, will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama’s withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. […]

It is impossible for anyone who either has a functioning brain cell or who is NOT demon-possessed to rationally argue that what President George W. Bush predicted on July 12, 2007 would happen if a future fool like Obama got his way is not EXACTLY what happened JUST AS ALL OUR GENERALS ALSO PREDICTED WOULD HAPPEN:

“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.

He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early.

“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.

“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.

“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

First Obama COMPLETELY and UNILATERALLY ABANDONED Iraq.  It had NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with Obama’s bogus pile of lies about a “status of forces” agreement.  As I just documented above, Bush had a strategy to remain in Iraq and all of his generals understood the various ways that U.S. forces would be able to remain in Iraq.  It is a simple fact of history that Obama wanted out of Iraq and he got us out of Iraq.  And the terrible and tragic consequences of his incredibly foolish and frankly immoral decision have been hell for us ever since.  Because only a truly wicked leader walks away from all that his own soldiers had died fighting for years to secure.

Just as Obama handed the terrorists Iraq back AFTER our soldiers had fought and given their own blood to liberate, Obama also gave away Syria.  Obama’s utter failure as a leader to follow through with his “red line” was a shocking signal of American weakness to both our friends and our enemies alike.  John Kerry admitted that Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Obama’s Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.  Every single one of those people is an Obama appointee and even THEY admit that Obama’s foreign policy was beyond foolish.

A terrorist group that essentially did not even EXIST when George W. Bush was president – and if you doubt me show me ONE MAJOR NEWS MEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT ISIS/ISIL prior to Bush’s leaving office because there was nothing to report – has under Barack Obama first flowered and then flourished into the caliphate that it is today.  ISIS was a disgruntled offshoot of al Qaeda, and they were disgruntled because Bush DEFEATED al Qaeda.  And that group that had fewer than fifty disgruntled and defeated terrorists when Bush was president found refuge in Syria and leveraged that territory into the Iraq that Obama abandoned.  And hell on earth was the price to pay for Obama’s wicked foolishness.

Every single thing George W. Bush said if America didn’t stay the course on a war that it didn’t start but had to fight has come to pass.

But here is the most significant prediction and today is the time to remember it.  President Bush said:

 “It’s better to fight them there than here.”

Say what you want; George W. Bush kept America SAFE.  We were massively HIT and then WE HIT BACK HARDER.  And our soldiers went to war and fought heroically quoting their commander-in-chief.

Compare that record to what Barack Obama has compiled since he dismantled our military and dismantled every single aspect of our war against terror and thereby allowed terror to terrorize us at home.

There is absolutely NO QUESTION that this was a terrorist attack: the terrorist murderer was heard by numerous witnesses screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as he executed fifty people and wounded 53 others.  Not that reality matters to Obama and demon-possessed Democrats who support him: the terrorist murderer who murdered thirteen and wounded nineteen in Fort Hood in 2009.  He too screamed “Allahu Akbar!”  But Obama dishonestly and wickedly claimed it was “workplace violence” rather than a terrorist attack.  The same thing happened when another Muslim who gloried in terrorist websites beheaded one woman and tried to behead another, similarly screaming about Allah: workplace violence, Obama dishonestly and wickedly claimed.

You have to realize that Obama would have been desperate to lie to the American people whom he’s lied to so many times before yet again.  Only he can’t lie his way out of this one: Now we’re finding out that this TERRORIST who had SWORN ALLEGIANCE TO ISIS had been on the FBI’s terrorism radar for at least three years.  We’re finding that the terrorist shooter pledged allegiance to Islamic State prior to the attack.  We’re finding out that Islamic State itself is affirming responsibility.  Obama once again utterly failed and his utter failure has resulted in THE worst mass shooting in ALL of American HISTORY.

We’ve come a long way, baby.  We’ve come full circle in the last sixteen years: it began with a massive terrorist attack that transformed George W. Bush into a true wartime president.  And as a true wartime president of the United States, Bush successfully waged that war and won.  And handed peace to a fool named Barack Obama who managed to piss away that peace and not only restore terrorism to what it was on 9/11, BUT ACTUALLY “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM” IT AN EVEN WORSE THREAT.  And that according to Obama’s own administration officials.

Obama created a CULTURE of terrorism both within and without the United States.  Go back to 2009 and Obama had already so contaminated the military with his political correctness poison that officers were terrified to confront Major Nidal Hasan with his obvious terrorist leaningsYou couldn’t dare speak about about a Muslim military officer being a terrorist in Obama’s Army.  That is just a factBefore his murderous terrorist rampage, Hassan had given a PowerPoint lecture to stunned fellow military officers – who were terrified into silence.  And after the fact Obama still denied the obvious terrorism even after it was revealed that the terrorist major had been in email contact with al Qaeda, had business cards identifying himself as a “Soldier of Allah,” etc.

Then we get to the more recent San Bernardino terrorist rampage – which incredibly Obama also initially tried to deny was terrorism and proceeded to transform the tragedy into one of gun violence rather than of yet another Obama fail to keep America safe from THE ISLAMIC TERRORISM HE REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN EXISTS.  Again, people saw bizarre, crazy stuff that would make any reasonable person’s suspicion radar go off the charts – especially given the fact that the person doing all the bizarre, crazy stuff is a Muslim – but they were cowed into silence over fear that Obama and his leftist roaches would label them “racist.”

Obama has not only failed in keeping us safe from terrorism, but he is simultaneously doing everything he possibly can to disarm the law-abiding American people so only criminals and terrorists will even be able to get their hands on guns.  He can’t and won’t keep us safe and he won’t allow us to keep OURSELVES safe.

The problem with criminalizing guns or bullets is that from that moment on, criminals are the ONLY people who can have them.  And it is by now beyond obvious in places like Chicago that outlawing guns doesn’t do one damn thing to prevent the OUTLAWS FROM GETTING THEM.  There were 2,986 shootings in gun-controlled Chicago.  And it isn’t just Chicago: homicide rates are SKYROCKETING in all the major cities controlled by institutional Democrat power with all the gun control laws to go with it.  The ONLY thing that Democrats guarantee with their fascist and frankly treasonous attack on the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is that law-abiding people cannot shoot back when vicious thugs and terrorists shoot at them.  And if Democrats can’t ban guns from America, they can at least create “gun-free zones” where Americans are helpless.  And so since 1950, it is an empirical fact that all but TWO of all the two-hundred mass-shootings in America where more than three people were killed occurred in officially designated Democrat gun-free zones.

And yes, the gay nightclub in Orlando was – you guessed it – a designated gun free zone.  Which means the only people who get to have guns are criminals and terrorists and everybody else can cower and beg not to die until the police finally show up.

We have a right to protect ourselves in this country.  At least until Obama is finished dismantling our Constitution.

Obama has utterly failed to protect America or the American people.  Obama stupidly thought he could unilaterally end the war on terror by refusing to fight back and keeping us distracted as first the world exploded into terrorist violence and then America exploded into terrorist violence.  All Obama can do now is try to demonize and blame the guns that have been part of this country since the founding fathers used them to defeat their British oppressors in 1775.

You want to ban guns?  Good!  First ban every single gram of cocaine, heroine, LSD, and ban every single illegal immigrant in the United States such that absolutely no one or NOTHING can get into this country against our laws.  And then you’d at least have the right to politely suggest gun control.  But until then, shut the hell up because the ONLY people who are denied guns when guns are criminalized are law-abiding people who follow the law.  As long as illegal immigrants have free access to America because our borders are wide open and because Democrats aren’t competent enough to check on these people flooding in to our country, we can KNOW FOR A FACT that millions of guns would continue to pour in.

Further, you listen to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton use this opportunity as a political-cheap shot to demonize guns as if the things had never been invented before Obama took office and neither had hate.  Believe me, fools, we had both a’plenty.  What we didn’t have is a pathological fool who has literally created defeat out of victory, who literally spawned the most vicious and virulent terrorist army in the history of the world with his incompetent neglect, and who has created a climate of incredible rage with his massively divisive brand of politics.

We had lots of guns and we had lots of ideologies; what we didn’t have is OBAMA.  He and his party’s depraved folly is the toxic poison that has exploded the world.

It really is amazing: the terrorist who shot up that nightclub IS A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT and it is somehow apparently Republicans’ fault that a member of Obama’s despicable Democrat Party all-too easily avoided any meaningful investigation by Obama’s incredibly incompetent Democrat Party administration.  The Islamic terrorist with long-suspected terrorist ties was able to get his hands on guns not because guns are evil but because Democrats are incompetent to keep Americans safe.

Because of Democrats and Obama and their utterly insane policies, we are so awash in Muslims as it is that there is absolutely no way right now to track all the jihadists with Islamic State sympathies.  And Obama and Hillary Clinton want to let tens of thousands more of them in to make an impossible situation even MORE impossible!!!

Barack Obama is a liar.  And we have to hold this liar responsible as we hold the liar he’s picked to replace him responsible.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The State Of The Union Is TERROR. Obama Has Failed The World And Is Determined To Bring Terrorism Into America.

March 23, 2016

A terror attack in Brussels ought to terrorize the United States and the American people: at least nine of the victims are Americans.

A scripture passage from Mark chapter 12 is highly illustrative when it comes to why Obama will NOT fight terror or even acknowledge that it is a real thing that needs to BE fought:

22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and[a] mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,[b] the ruler of the demons.”

25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

Obama won’t fight evil because the man himself IS evil.  And evil will not fight evil, because a house divided cannot stand.

You know, the way Obama has divided America and put us at each other’s throats.  Obama has created a spirit of rage and hate and distrust and contempt for both parties and for all government: that’s why we not only have Donald Trump, but Bernie Sanders.  The only reason the Democrat Party isn’t melting down with Sanders taking 71% of all Democrats under 30 years old is because it has an intrinsically and pathologically fascist “super delegate” category in which the Party has lock-step control of the election rather than any genuine “democracy” or “vote.”

You want to talk about Donald Trump?  Okay, let’s.  I PREDICTED that a Donald Trump would arise because of Obama’s spirit of divisive hate in which he broke America into groups and pitted one group against another: race against race, gender against gender, income level against income level, religion against contempt of religion.  And dividing, he conquered by a fifty-plus-one margin that left the rest of the nation seething with increasing rage as he imposed his ideology like a tyrant emperor.  And then Obama set out to break the Republican Party by issuing sweeping executive orders that split the Republican Party as they scrambled and divided in their attempt to react to and deal with naked fascism.  My words on June 18, 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

I told you it would happen and I told you it would happen because of Obama’s hate.  And it happened just as I told you.  Which is why my prediction now stands as a naked FACT as to WHO divided America.

So America is now hopelessly divided because of Obama.  Our allies are weak and won’t support us because they cannot trust our strong commitment.  Because of Obama.  And our worst, most mortal enemies are emboldened and united like they’ve never been.  Because of Obama.

Obama has broken America’s faith; we are severed from GOD because of this wicked man who claimed that “As a Christian, I believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.”  But wicked man the liar is, he wickedly LIED out of the most craven, most cynical, political reasons.  Obama’s “Christianity” stands for and means less than one of my dog’s poops in the backyard stands for and means.  It is utterly worthless and means nothing and stands for less than nothing.  And now our “religion” is no different whatsoever than the agenda wishlist of the atheist American Civil Liberties Union whose founder once declared, “Communism is the goal.”

“God DAMN America,” Obama’s spiritual leader and mentor said:

Mission accomplished.  Obama is celebrating because those words “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America.  God DAMN America!” are now his “fundamental transformation of America.”  God has always held nations accountable for the wickedness of their kings.  And we actually VOTED for this wicked king.

If you are a Democrat, it is because you have a radical hatred and contempt for God.  And good luck experiencing all the fun promised in the soon-to-be-fulfilled Book of Revelation when you finally get that antichrist you have dreamed of for all your roach lives.

It is an amazing thing the way Bush got blamed for the wars but Obama cut and ran AFTER BUSH WON HIS WAR and now the terrorists as a direct result of Obama’s stupidity are far stronger than they EVER were when Bush was president.  This is an easy thesis to document:

  1. Obama HIMSELF announced we were victorious: “Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Hussein Obama, February 27, 2009
  2. Vice President Biden went further and called Iraq “one of the great achievements of this administration.”  You explain to me how he could say that in 2010 and Bush be to blame now.  Because if Bush had ruined the world in 2008, what is Biden doing calling it a “great achievement” in 2010???  No, rather, Bush handed Obama a peaceful, stable Iraq that Obama proceeded to flush down the toilet with his idiotic stupidity as he failed to listen to his own generals and foreign policy experts and ruined the world.  Here’s Biden’s quote: “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  — Vice President Joe Biden, 2010
  3. Our enemy in Iraq announced themselves that they were defeated (until Obama gave them life with his treason): “By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters.” — General Jack Keane
  4. Obama ignored all of his generals and advisors in pulling out of Iraq:US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
    By Gareth PorterWASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.Obama decided against making any public reference to his order to the military to draft a detailed 16-month combat troop withdrawal policy, apparently so that he can announce his decision only after consulting with his field commanders and the Pentagon.The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was “open to alternatives”.

    The Times reported that Odierno had “developed a plan that would move slower than Mr. Obama’s campaign timetable” and had suggested in an interview “it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly”.

    The opening argument by the Petraeus-Odierno faction against Obama’s withdrawal policy was revealed the evening of the Jan. 21 meeting when retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, one of the authors of the Bush troop surge policy and a close political ally and mentor of Gen. Petraeus, appeared on the Lehrer News Hour to comment on Obama’s pledge on Iraq combat troop withdrawal.

    Keane, who had certainly been briefed by Petraeus on the outcome of the Oval Office meeting, argued that implementing such a withdrawal of combat troops would “increase the risk rather dramatically over the 16 months”. He asserted that it would jeopardise the “stable political situation in Iraq” and called that risk “not acceptable”.

  5. In fact Obama has ALWAYS ignored all military advice.  Obama in fact has never ONCE listened to a single decent expert who knew what the hell he was doing.  Because he is a demon-possessed FOOL par excellence.  Obama’s own leaders as well as the military advised him what he needed to do; Obama ignored their wisdom.  And the very hell those generals and leaders predicted came to pass just as they predicted it.  It is a stupid, pathetic, trivial and demonic mind that blames Bush for that.
  6. Furthermore, Bush was RIGHT and Obama was demonically WRONG:  George W. Bush predicted EXACTLY what would happen if we listened to Great Satan Obama:Bush, as discussed on “The Kelly File,” made the remarks in the White House briefing room on July 12, 2007, as he argued against those who sought an immediate troop withdrawal.“To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States,” Bush cautioned.He then ticked off a string of predictions about what would happen if the U.S. left too early:“It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda [Bush could not conceive that Obama would give birth to an even MORE vicious monster Islamic State that made al Qaeda look, well, “JayVee” in comparison].“It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale [Yep, that sure happened thanks to Obama].“It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan [Yep, check again: for the first time in the history of the world we have a true terrorist army that has created its own giant CALIPHATE.  Never saw anything like that when George W. Bush was president.  That is simply a fact].“It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”  [Check yet again.  And since Obama stupidly gave Russia hegemony over the region, it would mean risking World War III.  All because Barack Hussein Obama is the worst fool who ever lived].
  7. Now add to that unmitigated disaster, that totally unforced error, Obama’s red line fiasco in Syria.  John Kerry said Obama “altered perceptions” of both our friends and our enemies when he declared a red line in Syria and then backed away from his red line and even outright lied about having given it; both Obama’s Secretaries of Defense Robert Gates and Leon Panetta declared it destroyed American credibility; Chuck Hagel said the same, adding that Obama micromanaged the Defense Department with arrogant know-nothing idiots and tried to destroy him when he decided he had to do what was right for America.  The president of the foremost foreign policy think tank in the world – the Council on Foreign Relations – said American credibility took a major hit after Obama’s red line fiasco.  As a result of Barack Obama, our enemies have been rabidly emboldened and know for a fact that the United States WILL NOT act in its interests or protect its allies against tyranny and even hostile attacks (think Ukraine, think Egypt); and our historic allies are dismayed, uncertain and looking anywhere other than America for a strong power who will support them.
  8. Both military leaders, civilian leaders of the military and national security and foreign policy, and numerous conservatives such as MYSELF stated that Obama’s idiotic plan to pull out of Iraq would lead to disaster.  In any valid scientific laboratory, we were verified to be 100 percent scientifically proven RIGHT and Obama and every fool who believes in Obama was proven to be a demoniac jackass who hates the United States of America and is plotting its destruction.  In August 2008, I predicted, and I quote: “A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for forfeiting Iraq, and then having to come back in a few years to do it all over again – this time against a determined Iranian insurgency.”  You tell me I was wrong, you demon-possessed Nazicrat Party liars, because all you have is a demonic delusion in your fool minds and I have all the actual facts.
  9. And as a result, I have with all those facts and evidence and history itself behind me written articles like this one: ‘The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East and Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat.
  10. And therefore Iraq has been in meltdown, Syria is a shambles, Libya is a shambles, Yemen is a shambles (and CONSIDER the debacle in Yemen given what Obama stupidly said), Egypt is a shambles, etc. etc.  Obama guaranteed Iran would have nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them to us and so terrorize us from acting in the region.  Russia and Iran are now without any question have hegemony over the Middle East.  And Israel is isolated and abandoned.  Which is why Israelis say Obama is the WORST American president in history.  And as I document three paragraphs below, Obama has cursed the world with more refugees than it has ever seen in all of human history.

So let’s refresh ourselves with what we just learned.  Both Obama and his vice president were both on record taking credit for Iraq AFTER Bush handed off a stable, peaceful Iraq having broken the terrorist army.  All Obama had to do was remain in Iraq with a relatively small force, just as we have done in Japan and Germany and in South Korea.  Obama’s military leaders were adamant that he stay, having told him in advance what would happen if he didn’t: namely, that the terrorists who had been defeated would be able to establish another stronghold in the vacuum Obama was stupidly leaving open.  Obama ignored them and the result was chaos just as they had correctly predicted it would be.  Barack Obama literally lost a war that had already been won.  Combine that with Obama’s depraved stupidity in countries like Syria and Libya, and you had a recipe for total disaster.  Again, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, Obama’s own top people, declared that Obama’s foreign policy had collapsed.  And now we are facing hell.  And it is a hell of Obama’s invention.

Case factually proven.  No one but an abject ideologue who is a complete fool and a total liar would say anything different.  And what do demonic Democrats do?  Blame Bush and blame Benjamin Netanyahu.  Because Bush could operate a pristine china shop, Obama could race through and knock down and break every single piece and blame it on Bush and Democrats would say that Bush destroyed the China.

Because of Barack Hussein Obama – and because to be a Democrat is to be a pathologically wicked liar and fool who will one day spend all eternity screaming in agony in hell and will NEVER be able to pay for the hell on earth you unleashed – there are now more refugees than there have EVER been in the ENTIRE history of the human race.

And so as a result the number of terrorist groups have exploded under Obama causing the number of terrorist attacks to have skyrocketed which caused the number of deaths caused by terrorist attacks have QUADRUPLED under Obama.

But if you’re a Democrat, you are too evil to understand or comprehend reality, you are too hell bent bending over for homosexual sodomy and too murderous in slaughtering our babies by the tens of millions to see anything but the blood covering your fangs and faces and eyes.

Obama blathers utterly meaningless, hollow, trivial speeches in flat tones, saying “we can and will defeat those who threaten our security.”  Which of course is a passive declaration of what is possible (we can defeat cancer) and future tenses (and one day we’ll actually DO it).  Because we very certainly ARE not actively defeating them.  Bush unleashed more firepower in EIGHT DAYS in Iraq than Obama has in SEVEN YEARS of his whatever-he-calls-what-he’s-doing.  And I earlier this morning heard a military expert say the Pentagon is releasing bombing details that wouldn’t have made it out of the lowest-level squadron briefing room because they are so trivial.  But that’s ALL Obama has to show he’s doing anything.

Obama has exploded the world into bloodshed by delivering us all into the terrorists hands.  And if a president is responsible for fighting a war he shouldn’t have fought, A LEADER IS EVERY BIT AS RESPONSIBLE FOR REFUSING TO RIGHT A WAR HE DESPERATELY NEEDED TO FIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF ALL HUMANITY.

How many attacks have we seen from Islamic State that are described in terms of “the worst death toll since World War II”?  That’s what Brussels just said.  It’s what France recently said after they got nailed a few months ago.  Russia said it when Islamic State brought down one of their passenger jets.  Hundreds have been slaughtered.  And if you go to Africa, THOUSANDS have been slaughtered.  Because for the Democrat Party “Black Lives DON’T Matter.”

Obama becomes like the cuckhold husband who has a gang of thugs break into his house and rape, torture and murder his entire family and then burn his house down.  And oh, Obama was holding a loaded gun the entire damn time but was too afraid to aim it at the thugs and pull the trigger.  That’s what we literally have here.

Barack Obama has failed the world.  And the consequences are going to get so ugly it is beyond UNREAL.

Brussels just got nailed.  At least two suicide bombers in a crowded airport terminal.  At least one other bomb found.  Dozens killed and over a hundred injured.  Because Brussels is screwed along with France and the rest of Europe and frankly the rest of the world as Obama’s unprecedented-in-all-of-human-history crisis refugee situation metasticizes into one terror attack after another.

Or let me put it this way: to coin a phrase Obama made possible, unless you are a “card-carrying soldier of Allah,” Obama has put you – and frankly every decent person on EARTH as Muslims who will most assuredly be subject to being RADICALIZED in the future – in harm’s way.

They already know and are reporting that was Islamic State that pulled it off.  And unlike our own wicked government, they don’t have an Obama to pressure the counter-terror authorities to report it as “workplace violence” or “gun crimes.”

It is an amazing thing, how we utterly failed to stop the San Bernardino terror attack that Obama and his roaches blamed on “gun violence.”  For example,  ABC News reported on a “secret U.S. policy” that blocked immigration officials from looking at the social media posts of visa applicants.  It is frankly remarkable.  Even worse, the female terrorist who came to curse us from Pakistan by way of Saudi Arabia, used a false address in her application to obtain a K-1 visa to come here.  Quoting the Los Angeles Times, “Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday that the FBI has determined “they were radicalized before they started courting or dating each other online, and as early as the end of 2013 were talking to each other about jihad and martyrdom.”  The left wants to say, “Ha!  You got it wrong!  Terror bride Tashfeen Malik did NOT use a fake address.  And they cite a report that “Local residents say the version of the address provided is not precise, but the family does own a house in the neighborhood.”  DUMBASSES!  If I give you my NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR’S ADDRESS, let alone cite some address somewhere in the dang neighborhood where I live, I gave a false address, okay?  And since such information is highly specific, ANY false address would be equally misleading and equally bad.

Then you have Obama’s interference:

Report: Obama Told NSC And FBI To ‘Downplay’ Terrorist Angle Of San Bernardino
Jonah Bennett Reporter
4:52 PM 12/10/2015

The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.

A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism. The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification.

This source added that as soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy.

“A public relations strategy.”  NOT a counter terrorism strategy.  Not a plan to bomb Islamic State into the stone age.  “A public relations strategy.”

Was there ANY question in HELL that this was a terrorist attack???  The liberal Atlantic puts it this way:

During a press conference in San Bernardino on Thursday, law-enforcement officials noted that the two dead suspects in Wednesday’s massacre had stockpiled an enormous arsenal: thousands of rounds of ammunition, 12 pipe bombs, and material to build more. They said that the couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, seemed to be preparing for more carnage in separate attacks. They noted “international travel,” and said that “if you look at the amount of obvious preplanning … there was obviously a mission here.” Anonymous officials told various news organizations that they believed the couple was in touch with suspected terrorists.

But when a reporter asked David Bowdich, who heads the Los Angeles field office of the FBI, whether the attack was terrorism, he was careful not to make a ruling.

And we know why that is, of course.  Because Barack Obama is an evil liar with an agenda to “degrade and ultimately destroy the United States of America.”

By the time they acknowledge it was what it was, it is too late to make it anything more than “it is what it is.”  You have to MOVE on these things.  You have to have something Obama does not have and does not want: the TRUTH.

Rather, Obama wants to play games in which he hides – to put it in Clintonesque terms – behind what “the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  So they quibble and quibble and quibble rather than just acknowledge the damn, literally BLOODY obvious and then DO something about REALITY.

That is the spirit of Obama, the spirit of the Democrat Party.

It is the spirit of lies and deception for the very worst and very most cynical political reasons.

There will be MANY MORE terror attacks.  Because we were fool enough to elect Obama as our king and evil enough to RE-ELECT him.  And unless this wicked nation gets right before God and repents of those evils, we who once called upon the LORD will go down harder than every other nation that ever existed combined.

Obama has demanded that we BRING IN tens of thousands of Muslims who are MOSTLY MEN and whom we cannot possibly vet because either they have no documentation whatsoever or because Islamic State has captured the machines and the blank forms to create their own passports.  Why is this significant?  Listen to what the security officials are saying in Brussels:

A Belgian counterterrorism official put it bluntly in an interview with BuzzFeed just last week.

“We just don’t have the people to watch anything else and, frankly, we don’t have the infrastructure to properly investigate or monitor hundreds of individuals suspected of terror links, as well as pursue the hundreds of open files and investigations we have,” the official said.

He added: “It’s literally an impossible situation and, honestly, it’s very grave.”

And guess what?  WE DON’T HAVE THE PEOPLE EITHER!!!  The FBI has repeatedly said that it is overextended, that they can’t possibly watch all the terrorist suspects (in all fifty states!!!) that are flooding into America.  I pointed out the following when the Muslim refugee crisis that Obama created first boiled over and Obama demanded we take in tens of thousands and Republicans said no freaking WAY:

We already have Islamic State having infiltrated ALL FIFTY STATES IN AMEICA, according to the Director of the FBI.

There are already 1,000 active investigations into Islamic State presence inside America, according to the FBI.

It requires thirty agents to mount a round-the-clock surveillance of a suspect.  The FBI has testified that they do not have the resources to do more than sixty to seventy of these surveillances at one time maximum.  There is simply no possible way we can surveil the terror suspects we’ve already got in our country, let alone the potentially thousands more Obama and the Democrat Party want to let in.

WE ARE BRUSSELS NOW.  Or at least we’re about to be and we definitely will be if we elect another Democrat.

Democrats want American to be more Europe and that’s exactly what’s going to happen.  Obama has decreed it and is making it happen.

Obama’s foolish and wicked policies have guaranteed that America will get hit for YEARS.  Because he’s literally IMPORTED terrorists from overseas.

Because “No, no, no, NOT God bless America, GOD DAMN AMERICA” – Obama’s spiritual guru for 23 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, speaking as a prophet

The Ultimate Hero In the San Bernardino Terrorist Massacre Was Very Likely One Christian Man Who Called Out Islam For What It Is

December 4, 2015

From all I have watched and read, the experts in counter-terrorism were flat-out puzzled from the very outset as to why the terrorist couple would select the target they attacked, fire a couple of magazines, and then simply leave.  Because what we have previously seen in Islamist terror attacks is the terrorist shoot their way in and then stay until every single victim is murdered and they themselves are gunned down screaming “Allahu Akbar!”

It didn’t happen.  Instead, we’ve got a pair of terrorists entering a building, targeting only one specific room in that building, and then leaving.

Even before they were identified and killed, the experts were scratching their heads.  Something just didn’t fit.

Then, to make it even crazier, the authorities entered the home of the terrorist couple and literally found a giant bomb-making factory.  Bombs that were ready to use.  Bombs that were strapped to remote-controlled cars that they could drive to various targets (such as into crowds of cowering people) and then remotely detonate.

Everyone now agrees they had a far larger, and far deadlier, attack planned.  Which was their REAL target.

So the question becomes, what led them to go after that one small target and ultimately defeat the far larger and far deadlier attack they were clearly prepared to launch?

One fact that we now know may contain the answer:

San Bernardino shooting update: Friend of victim says heated exchange on Islam took place before rampage
KPCC staff
December 03, 03:06 PM

A friend of a man who was killed during Wednesday’s attack said she witnessed a fight between him and one of the attackers over religion.

Kuuleme Stephens told the Associated Press she overheard Farook and coworker Nicholas Thalasinos arguing over Islam when she called two weeks before the attack.

Thalasinos’ wife Jennifer Thalasinos told KPCC her husband was outspoken about radical Islam. She said her husband “did have a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment.”

“But again, he did get along with the person who caused all of this. He had friends who were Muslim,” she said. “He was very outspoken about how he felt. … He was anti-Muslim in the whole scheme of things just because everything has been so out of control with ISIS and Al-Qaeda and their anti-Semitic sentiment and with my husband being a Messianic Jew, that was a big issue with him.”

The Associated Press reports:

Kuuleme Stephens says she happened to call 52-year-old Nicholas Thalasinos while he was at work and having a discussion with Syed Farook.

Thalasinos identified Farook by name and told her Farook believed Islam was a peaceful religion.

She added that Farook said Americans don’t understand Islam.

Stephens says both men worked as county restaurant inspectors and regularly discussed politics and religion. Thalasinos identified as a Messianic Jew and was passionate about pro-Israel causes.

AP cautioned that it’s not yet clear if the argument had anything to do with the attack, but at a press conference Thursday, San Bernardino Police Chief Burguan confirmed that at least one witness said Farook had left the holiday gathering upset after some kind of dispute. Investigators have also been clear that they have found no motive yet for the attack.

I am just going to put it this way: I believe that Christian – and specifically that glorious Messianic Jew who had accepted the TRUE Messiah of Israel as his Savior and Lord – ultimately broke up that far bigger, far deadlier attack by confronting the vicious terrorist murderer who had hate and murder in his heart over the real nature of his false religion.

From what I am hearing now, it is at least quite possible that they were doing reconnaissance on a theatre in preparation for what would have been a far deadlier attack employing all of their massive explosive arsenal that would have likely killed HUNDREDS.

In a way, you almost have to laugh: a terrorist who is planning to unleash a vicious, murderous attack and kill as many innocent victims as possible, is actually arguing with somebody over whether or not the religion he is about to murder and massacre in the name of is “peaceful.”  When he literally embodies the fact that no, it is NOT peaceful!!!

Let’s acknowledge that there are obviously Muslims who would never do such a vicious thing.  And they may very well understand their religion – which means “submission” and NOT “peace”, for the record – does not permit such a vicious act in the name of Allah.  But let’s put those Muslims aside for the moment and focus on this one particular Muslim man who DID clearly believe that Islam permitted and even DEMANDED such acts of violence from true followers of Islam.

Syed Farook’s father said this of his terrorist son after he gunned down fourteen people and tried to murder something like twenty-one others:

“He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

There is absolutely no question that Syed Farook WAS a Muslim.  THE MAN MEMORIZED THE ENTIRE KORAN.  HE WENT TO MOSQUE TO PRAY TWICE A DAY.  Frankly, anybody who claims that Syed Farook was not a Muslim is NOT making a statement about Syed Farook or Islam; he or she is making a statement about his/her own incredible abject moral idiocy.  You are simply stating that you are absolutely pathologically incapable of perceiving reality no matter how obvious that reality is.

Okay, so this guy, Syed Farook, has a passionate argument with a Christian over the nature of Islam.  The Christian says Islam is NOT a religion of peace, but rather a religion of violence and hate.  Meanwhile, Syed Farook is actively plotting a violent, hateful act at the very time they’re having this argument.

But what does Syed Farook claim in his argument?  That the Christian who is clearly VERY right is wrong, and that the Islam Syed Farook is preparing to massacre in the name of is in fact actually a religion of peace.

It’s actually beyond insane.  It’s a demonic degree of blindness.

Just as the Christian Scriptures say:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Just as the Christian Scriptures in the very Person of Jesus Himself says in relation to the character of those who are so blinded and therefore ultimately so sold out to Satan:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. — John 8:44

I’m just going to flat-out state it for the factual historic record: you have a combination of blindness and deception.  Unbelief results in self-deception, which leads to spiritual blindness, which leads to the willingness to live a deceived and deceiving life.

Is Islam a religion of peace?  Not hardly.  Muhammad was a man of violence who had been in more than three dozen military campaigns as he killed his way to victory after victory.  And he had another three dozen planned at the time of his death.  One of those attacks that he had planned was ultimately carried out nearly a century after his death, when a giant Islamic invasion of Christian Europe was finally stopped all the way across the continent as Charles “the Hammer” Martel stopped and drove back Islam at the Battle of Tours in France.  Muhammad committed all manners of atrocities.  He committed genocide.  He enslaved people.  He commanded that people who did not believe in Islam be killed.

What many people simply fail to understand because the liberal education system refuses to teach them the truth is that there are basically TWO Korans: the Koran that Muhammad wrote when he was the underdog in Mecca and the Koran that Muhammad wrote AFTER Mecca when he was the superior military power in Medina.  As the underdog inferior power in Mecca, Muhammad preached tolerance and peace. But he was agitating all along, and was ultimately forced to flee. And then the moment he gained the upper hand, in Medina, he became a brutal butcher.

You need to understand – and the leftist academia system will never teach it to you – that Islam has a doctrine called “abrogation,” in which the LATER commands nullify and void the previous ones.  And the later verses call for WAR and VIOLENT JIHAD.  The Koran is an inherently self-refuting book that contradicts itself.  And that is because the Koran is largely a series of “convenient suras” in which Muhammad kept arbitrarily altering his religion whenever it suited his political or personal ambitions or desires.  He would invoke God to get whatever the hell he wanted.  And then he would invoke God again to nullify the previous invocation once he’d got what he wanted.  And without “abrogation” it is absolutely impossible to make any sense whatsoever out of the Koran.

Christians publish chronological Bibles that are presented in the historical order of when they were written and the periods they cover; I would LOVE to see somebody do that with the Koran.  It would be a rather shocking thing to see Muhammad turn on a dime to go from being an apostle of peace when it was convenient to a minister of war when it was convenient.  And I dare say the only fitting ink for such a book would be BLOOD, because genuine historical Islam is bathed in that fluid.

Liberals who rabidly despise God and the Bible might tell us that Christians practice “abrogation,” also.  I mean, the Old Testament both commands and condones acts of violence.  But here’s the thing: in the case of the Bible, the “abrogation” very clearly works the opposite direction of the Koran; the Bible goes from war to peace and ends with PEACE whereas the Koran goes from peace to war and ends with WAR.  Period.

Jesus died saying “Father, forgive them” and Muhammad died screaming for the blood of his enemies.

Muhammad’s final chapter was one of war, of violent jihad, of genocide, of hate.  And the doctrine of “abrogation” ABROGATES any notion of Islam as a “religion of peace.”

Except in the vacuous minds of deluded fools.  Which is why the Christian Scriptures warn us:

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. — Colossians 2:8

We have numerous “intellectuals” who believe NOTHING BUT empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.  Belief in empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense is the zeitgeist of this age, more than any age that has ever come before it.

And that is made abundantly obvious when you consider the liberal view of “Islam” as “the religion of peace.”

I was leaving as a pair of attorneys for the TERRORIST Farook family took to the microphones and began to claim that the murderous San Bernardino terrorist attack had nothing to do with Islam.  They actually blamed the CHRISTIAN for the attack for basically inciting the Muslim by claiming that Islam isn’t a peaceful religion.  But, of course, on their distorted view, the Muslim who acted murderously because he felt his religion was being insulted somehow didn’t kill in the name of the religion he was “defending”???  Hello?  “Empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense.”  They told us we’d be wrong to associate Muslims with terrorism and then proceeded to do what they said was so wrong by repeatedly attempting to link Christians with terrorism.  It’s really pretty amazing, the level of pure hypocrisy liberals are capable of.  They’ll keep dredging up two or three attacks and compare them to the hundreds of THOUSANDS of Islam-inspired attacks like there’s some kind of equivalence.  I actually wish there WAS: THAT would mean that the dollar I had in my pocket was just like the BILLION dollars in Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket!!!  That’s the level of asininity of these people.  And then to make it worse, when you consider their “Christian terrorists,” such as Robert Lewis Dear who recently shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic, WHY THE HELL WOULD ANYONE CLAIM THESE GUYS ARE CHRISTIANS???  Dear NEVER went to any Christian church, never spoke about Jesus or God or religion.  Basically, what the left is saying is that the ONLY people who have any love in their hearts for children and AREN’T brutally indifferent to liberals’ selling baby parts like meat in a deli clearly have to be “Christian.”

In the same way, the left branded Timothy McVeigh a “Christian.” Again, employing twisted “logic” that would guarantee that Barack Obama truly IS a MUSLIM if the same standard were applied (which the pathologically hypocritical left would NEVER ever do).

So again, you’ve got this trivial handful of terror attacks that even the damn hateful LEFT can call “Christian,” versus hundreds of THOUSANDS of terror attacks committed by people who very proudly screamed out their “Allahu akbars!”  But again, we are employing the “logic” that a dollar is just the same as a billion dollars, so I guess there’s equivalence if you’re just nuts enough.

A “Christian,” just like a “Muslim,” is a particular thing.  We are talking about people who read their holy book, attend religious service and try to model their life after the example of their paradigm.  In the case of Christianity, the paradigm is Jesus; in the case of Islam, the paradigm is Muhammad.

And therein lies the problem for Muslims.  Because Christianity IS a religion of peace because Jesus is the Prince of Peace who told His followers to put away their swords and love your enemies.  Whereas Muhammad was a warmongering psychopath who told his people to pick up the sword and kill with it until all the enemies of Islam were defeated or dead.

Prior to the beginning of the “infamous” Crusades in 1095, Muslims had long-since attacked and tried to kill or forcibly convert to Islam every Christian in Northern Africa, in Egypt and in Spain.  That death spree began right away.  Muslims attacked the city of Hippo Regius made famous by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.  Christians were killed or forcibly converted.  In Africa, El Cid stopped Muslims from taking Spain.  Then in 1095, the Pope, responding to the pleas of the Christian emperor of Byzantine, whose empire was under siege by Muslims, called for the Crusades.

Muslims never stopped attacking until they marginalized themselves into an inferior power.  But history is rife with examples that whenever Muslims believe they rise up in violence, they have risen up in violence.

Frankly, it is a blasphemy of HISTORY to blame Christians for the Crusades.  But we are seeing that same “blindness” and that same “not holding to the truth” emanating from Obama and the spirit of liberalism that Obama embodies today.  Academia today is FILLED with devout liars who are simply the worst kind of fools.

Is Islam the religion of peace or war?  It’s a religion of WAR.  The answer is rather bloodily obvious to anyone who would just open up a damn Koran and READ.

It took more than blindness for this devout Muslim who was preparing to murder and massacre in the name of Allah to become enraged at the concept that the religion that he was preparing to murder over might not be such a religion of peace; it took a demonic spiritual force.

And it is that SAME demonic spiritual force that owns and governs liberals, that owns and governs the Democrat Party and the Satan machine that drives the Democrat Party.

I marvel at the left: they STILL can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that the attack on the Christmas Party yesterday by a Muslim fanatic was a “terrorist attack” committed “in the name of Islam.”  But you known damn well what they would have called it if a publicly confessing Christian such as myself went on a murderous rampage of a large group celebrating Ramadan.

And that is because they have the same demonic spirit of hate for the truth and corresponding blindness to reality that Syed Farook died embodying: such a rabid denial of reality that he became enraged by someone claiming that Islam is not a religion of peace that he decided to murder that man and everyone with him.

Ultimately, it was a Christian, specifically a Messianic Jew who rightly believed his Messiah Yeshua, whose words provoked the demons in Farook’s possessed mind to enrage him into abandoning his more deadly and better planned attack for the one that he launched.  Anybody who believes that the Christian somehow caused the terrorist attack by confronting the scheming murder with his own hate is a fool.  Because he was already planning that far-more vicious attack and he and his wife clearly had the will to carry it out.

How many lives did Nicholas Thalasinos  save?  We’ll never know this side of eternity.

But Nicholas Thalasinos confronted Syed Farook with the truth.  And Farook responded to the truth the same way the mob responded to Jesus when HE presented the truth: with the spirit of hate and murder (see John 15:18-20 and compare to John 19:4-6.

That’s the spirit we see today from the heart of the left.  They mock, “God isn’t fixing this!” to anyone who would pray to the God of the Bible, to anyone who would actually stand up for the truth about “the religion of peace” the left keeps assuring us that Islam is.

Barack Obama embodies the spirit of the left.  He assured us that Islam was a religion of peace, and that by refusing to fight he would bring peace.  He is a fool and he is wrong: the exact OPPOSITE happened.  The number of terrorist attacks increased by more than 150 PERCENT during his failed watch between 2009 and 2014.  And this year terrorism has TRULY exploded under the worldview of liberalism and the failed presidency of Barack Obama, terrorism has EXPLODED BY 80 PERCENT this year from last year (2014).

There’s that Dr. Phil question: “How’s that working out for you?” to the people living wildly failed lives.

Under this failed presidency of Obama, and under the failed worldview of liberalism that nevertheless like the FOOLS they are continue to mock and undermine those who have been RIGHT and told the TRUTH all along, we now have the worse refugee crisis in ALL of human history.

The Democrat Party and Obama and Hillary Clinton are directly and personally responsible for the worst suffering in all of history.  They are literally co-conspirators with violent jihadists, in the sense that they are like Sinn Fein which served as the political wing of the terrorist Irish Republican Army.  Obama and Clinton and the Democrat Party give political cover to the MUSLIM TERRORISTS; they appease and serve as apologists and PREVENT anything substantial from being done.  Even as they mock and undermine and attack those who rightly call them out for what they are.

I remember this quote very vividly from the CIA officer who interrogated the terrorist mastermind who is responsible for the Twin Towers coming down in ruins and nearly 3,000 Americans being murdered:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told me personally, ‘Your country will turn on you, the liberal media will turn on you, the people will grow tired of this, they will turn on you, and when they do, you are going to be abandoned.’”

The interrogator said K.S.M. was “immensely arrogant” and “disdainful.”  Because he was no fool; he KNEW an Obama would come along and undo all the progress and help the terrorists defeat the “paper tiger” that has become America.

And that’s exactly what happened, of course.  Because the spirit of the Democrat Party is the spirit of cowardice and treason and nihilism.  And therefore Democrats treasonously side WITH the terrorists and sided WITH Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who murdered 3,000 Americans.  And therefore the next 9/11 attack is guaranteed.  And just as before, the country will ultimately traitorously turn on those who fought to save it.  Because we live in a time when the only thing Democrats are good at is treasonously undermining those who fight for the United States of America and its Constitution and its way of life enshrined by our Christian founding fathers.

And so Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party completely agrees with terrorist murderer Syed Farook, that Islam is a religion of peace.  Because Satan completely owns their souls and has completely and totally blinded them and deluded them and because they want to serve their god of this world by hating the truth and undermining it with their steadfast lies.

 

 

 

Vicious Mass Death Terrorist Attack BY MUSLIMS In San Bernardino – And Lying Obama Wants To Bait And Switch Subject To Gun Control

December 3, 2015

Updated, December 4: I think it’s official now: the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, pledged ALLEGIANCE to Islamic State prior to the attack, according to authorities.  We are also learning that she and her likewise TERRORIST-husband had numerous contacts with individuals on the FBI’s watch listThey watched numerous Islamic State videos online to entertain and motivate themselves.  So at this point, everyone but Obama and the fools appointed by Obama to undermine America now know that we just suffered a very major terrorist attack.

We are also therefore beginning to see the major intelligence failures in the mindset that has resulted in Obama’s indifference and denials.  End update.

This one hits REAL close to home.  This marks the first time in my lifetime where there has ever been a TERRORIST ATTACK on a location that I drive by on average at least twice a month.

Terrorism has hit home.

You read my blog and read all the articles about “terrorism” and you will see a very common theme: Obama dismissing it, ignoring it, doing nothing about it, OUTRIGHT APPEASING IT, and my prediction year after year that the boiling cauldron of Islam will explode all over the world and then come to kill us like chickens right here at home.

And yep, it’s happening.

Obama wants to declare this workplace violence.  You’ve got to know he’s putting all the pressure he can muster on the FBI to do that and you know his partisan lawthug Attorney General is doing the same damn thing.  But let me just ask you a damn question: WHO gets upset at a work party and then goes home and collects his wife and mother of their six month old child, suits up into an arsenal of combat gear and loads up a buttload of weapons they’d clearly amassed over a prolonged period of time, in addition they loads up their SUV with pipe bombs as well as remote-control cars loaded with I.E.D.s à la al Qaeda, and then initiated a carefully planned TERRORIST ATTACK?  And let’s point out for the record that the husband was a “devoutly religious Muslim” who went to Saudi Arabia to pick up his devoutly religious Muslim wife.

Syed Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia and when he came back he grew out his beard and began acting a WHOLE LOT more Muslim.  The early story was that he went to Saudi Arabia to marry, but there is growing evidence that he had known this woman and even been married to her BEFORE travelling to Saudi Arabia.  And apparently on his honeymoon he learned to make improvised explosive devices instead of doing what most couples do on their honeymoons.

The wife was very clearly radicalized – and many experts believe she was the one with the training and bomb-making expertise who looked for a “husband-candidate” whom she could enter America through and in turn radicalize to her ideology – but she sailed right through Obama’s background checks.  Maybe we can agree there are some giant gaping holes in our visa system.  But that’s okay.  Let’s allow tens of thousands of Syrian refugees after Islamic State boasted they would infiltrate these refugees and then actually pulled off that very thing in Paris, France to the shocked horror of that country.  And don’t worry; Obama says he will keep you safe.

And if Obama allows tens of thousands of Tashfeen Maliks into America, have no fear: Obama will exploit your murder to call for more bans on the Constitution.  Your otherwise insignificant death can be exploited by your messiah-in-chief!!!  Praise Allah!!!

Tim Reid of Reuters reports that in the six months before the attack, Syed Farook memorized the Koran.  And the AP reports that his friends and co-workers called him “a devout Muslim.”  He went to mosque twice a day, every day.  Not that he actually has anything whatsoever to do with Islam.  At least, not until Obama – who after all is clearly the Ultimate Authority – says so.

We know that these are mass murderers who are Muslim, and we know that they recently returned from Saudi Arabia.  And we know that the assault had been clearly planned for some period of time.
Oh, and Islamic State has already responded to the attack.  You know, the TERRORIST attack that Obama wants you to believe was “workplace violence” so no one – most especially himself – will be held responsible and so nothing will need to be done to stop the next terrorist attack which will also be labeled as workplace violence.

When you tell me that you even SUSPECT at this point that this murderous planned terrorist attack was “workplace violence,” I tell you I suspect you of being DEMON-POSSESSED.  Because you are simply too astonishingly stupid not to be under the influence of a powerful demonic spiritual force that has owned your mind.

A woman who lived nearby saw all the bizarre preparations for this attack as the “devoutly religious Muslims” feverishly worked in their garage, but Obama had cowed her out of speaking because she was more terrified of being accused of “racial profiling” than she was of enabling a vicious terror attack.  I mean, keep in mind, in this age of Obama, you can’t even say anything about a Muslim kid who brings something that looks absolutely identical to a damn BOMB to school.  So you’d better damn well keep your mouth shut or Democrats and liberals are going to come howling after you.

This was a TERRORIST ATTACK, just as it was a TERRORIST ATTACK in Oklahoma when a Muslim who had posted all kinds of radical Islamist postings on the internet, who tried to forcibly convert his co-workers to Islam, and then cut the head off of one woman and then tried to cut the head off another woman – just like Islamic States was doing at that very time – all the while screaming “Praise Allahu!”  was a TERRORIST ATTACK rather than “workplace violence.”

It’s amazing that I have to keep saying it; but that is actually the level of stupefied asininity that has overtaken our nation in the person of President Brainrot Obama.

Obama just promised the American people that he was on top of terrorism and he would keep us safe.  And then a pair of TERRORISTS MUSLIMS massacre their victims at a CHRISTMAS PARTY.

And Obama wants to bring MILLIONS MORE MUSLIMS into America and he is doing everything he possibly can to demonize Republicans who are saying hey, maybe we ought to think about that.  Praise Allah.  Allahu Akbar.

What we see above comes right out of the depraved, wicked heart of our first president named for a damn terrorist himself: a rabid commitment to a deceived worldview that makes people who ought to be intelligent too damn stupid to comprehend reality, plus a fear of doing the right thing such that perverted evil is triumphant time and again.

I watch Obama in amazement.  We had Obama going all over the country crowing about how he had decimated al Qaeda and how terrorists were on the run.  And then we had a massive terrorist attack against US soil in Benghazi, Libya where the first American ambassador since 1979 was MURDERED.  And Obama and Hillary Clinton falsely blamed a Youtube video made by an American citizen exercising his 1st Amendment right as the cause of the attack and actually arrested that man.  And we now KNOW from Hillary Clinton’s emails that they KNEW it was a TERRORIST ATTACK AND NOT A VIDEO. Hillary Clinton’s exact words: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.”

Then we come to find that a whopping number of intelligence analysts were shouting about the fact that Obama-appointed senior administration officials were ALTERING their intelligence as they kept screaming that terrorists and particularly that Islamic State was a giant spreading crisis threat.  But as the general who commanded the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time now testifies, that information “didn’t meet the narrative” of the White House.  General Flynn called it “the politicization of the intelligence community” and labeled it “dangerous.”  We learned that “authors of such [intelligence] reports said they understood that their conclusions should fall within a certain spectrum. As a result, they self-censored their own views, they said, because they felt pressure to not reach conclusions far outside what those above them apparently believed.”  In other words, Obama pressured them to make their reports conform to his politics and his political narrative.  And now we’ve got Obama on the record saying something that was an outright LIE, that he had “contained” Islamic State.  When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff specifically just testified that we have NOT contained Islamic State.  And General Flynn is saying that he had been trying desperately to report that fact to Obama all along.

So in other words you have an outright, proven LIE from Obama in 2010 over his false narrative before and after Benghazi.  Where Obama TREASONOUSLY ignored our national security for his sacred politics.  Then in the middle, like the meat in a sandwich, you have fifty top intelligence analysts testifying that basically Obama altered their intelligence reports and changed their conclusions to suit Obama’s false political narrative.  And now you’ve got Obama caught red-handed AGAIN publicly saying LIES that are refuted by our intelligence.  So on the one hand Obama is hell-bent on trying for force intelligence community to alter their reports to suit his deceitful narrative, and flat-out ignoring any honest assessments that manage to emerge from Obama’s enormous thick blanket of lies.

This is the same Obama who keeps claiming that terrorist attacks inside America are the result of “workplace violence” while steadfastly refusing like the steadfast FOOL that he is to acknowledge that these terrorists are MUSLIMS who are using ISLAMIC THEOLOGY as their primary recruiting basis.

Obama is a pathologically wicked, demon-possessed man who is immune from reality and seeks to impose the devil’s false version of reality.

Obama actually has the cockroach testicles to make this massive failure in his policies and in his duty to keep us safe about GUNS.  He literally gave a statement earlier today and described guns as “the broader problem.”  It doesn’t matter if we just saw a MASSIVE TERRORIST ATTACK in a Paris France that has one of THE most restrictive gun laws in the world.  Mexico has incredibly restrictive gun laws.  Just ask that poor Marine that Obama refused to lift a finger to help about Mexico’s incredibly restrictive gun laws.  But tell that to the cartels that massacre thousands of people because they have the ONLY guns around.  And California is like Paris in having highly restrictive gun laws.  But tell that to the terrorists.  For some mysterious reason apparently too complex for liberals to understand, GUN LAWS DON’T MATTER TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T OBEY THE DAMN LAW.  The ONLY people who won’t have guns under Democrats are law-abiding citizens.  Obama literally believes that the only people who should be armed in America are terrorists, criminals and his own fascist police state thugs who would actually HELP radical Muslims wage jihad against CHRISTIANS.  Just ask the Christian county clerk, the Christian wedding photographer, the Christian baker and the Christian Little Sisters of the Poor about that jihad Obama has been waging.

For one thing, I’m not going to turn over any guns to a fascist dictator-thug president who has a disgusting habit of selectively and arbitrarily “following” the law.  He goes after Arizona for trying to enforce laws against illegal immigration but refuses to enforce the same federal law he cited against Arizona as he protects the thousands of “sanctuary cities” in this country.  He proudly states that he is NOT going to follow the Defense of Marriage Act LAW but is now rabidly following every law on the books to attack Christians who rightly believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Obama told America at least TWENTY-TWO TIMES that he did NOT have the authority to impose executive action on immigration. And then did what he told us he’d be violating the Constitution and literally would be an EMPEROR if he did.

So – and I’m being deadly serious here – I frankly don’t give a dang how many people have to die in gun violence given that the clear alternative is a fascist Obama imposing his leftist tyranny on me and on my family.

I’ve just got to mock liberals.  Another gun free zone, another mass shooting.  At this point you can literally justifiably argue, “Guns don’t kill people, liberal gun-free zones kill people.”  Nearly every single mass shooting in America has occurred in a gun free zone where the murderers knew that liberals had ensured that everyone would be utterly helpless victims with no means to defend themselves.  Which I submit is a beautiful metaphor for liberalism.  Because as I pointed out recently, the difference between liberals and conservatives boils down to this: conservatives are people who would rather die fighting; liberals are people whose dream is to perish as whining VICTIMS on their knees.  I mean, think about it: liberals invariably do absolutely everything they can to make themselves victims of someone or something: liberal blacks claim they’re victims of whites; liberal women claim they’re victims of men; liberal gays claim they’re victims of straights, etc.  It’s just what they are: they’re pathological VICTIMS.  And so the gun-free zone is a place where liberals can be the ultimate helpless victims of their stupid cowardice and perish just like the cringing little whining cowards that they are.  The only problem is that they demand that everyone else be a victim just like THEY are.

In USA Today, Trevor Hughes wrote a column titled, “USA has actually accepted gun violence.”  And that’s true.  Just as “USA has actually accepted traffic accidents.”  As much as liberals despise our founding fathers and despise the Constitution that they enshrined, America is a FREE society that non only cherishes freedom and liberty, but enshrines the means to PROTECT that freedom and liberty.  And they want to do away with our 2nd Amendment right to defend our freedom and our liberty so they can take away our freedom and liberty.  Just as the Nazis did with THEIR “Democrat Party” gun laws; just as the Soviet Union did with THEIR “Democrat Party” gun laws.

Right now, as we speak, the left is rabidly agitating against police departments – and the funny thing is nearly ALL of these departments are under Democrat control in Democrat cities – because their goal is to do away with “local police departments” so they can end up with an NKVD-style (i.e., the Soviet “People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs”) federal police force that an Obama or a Clinton can use the same way Obama used the IRS as his “Internal Revenge Service” against conservatives.

Obama has oft-demonized the right of American citizens to have “weapons of war.”  Frankly, he ought to resign then.  BECAUSE OBAMA HIMSELF IS THE ULTIMATE WEAPON OF WAR.  Obama EXPLODED terrorism: terrorist attacks skyrocketed 150% in the first five years of his failed presidency and we aint seen NOTHIN’ yet as they surged ANOTHER 81% this year from last. So WHO is the damn “weapon of war,” Obama???  YOU ARE.  He has emboldened our very worst enemies on earth – be they the surging numbers of radical jihadist terrorists or be they Russia or China or Iran – while at the same time giving birth to a “black lives matter” movement that is inciting racial violence all across America.  And at the same time he has broken the Republican Party and ENRAGED a growing faction of it because of his Führer-style tactics.  Obama LIED and falsely promised that he would transcend the political divide and instead he is THE most divisive leader in the entire history of the world’s oldest republic bar none.  As I document with the above link, I pointed that fact out in 2009 and there is so much more abundant evidence of that FACT now that it’s beyond dispute.  Four years ago I wrote a long, massively-documented article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  And Obama has only proven that he is ten TIMES the fascist thug that he was in 2011.

Obama has enraged and divided America beyond the breaking point.  He has literally released “the mystery of lawlessness” that the Bible prophesied would be unleashed in the last days just before the coming Antichrist.  And he did that by using “the law” as a political weapon rather than upholding the law as he swore to do as president.

And so, yeah, Barack Hussein Obama is the living EMBODIMENT of why the founding fathers enshrined the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Because they foresaw his stench and the fascist stink of the modern Democrat Party and they wanted to give the American people some means to defend themselves from it.

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama’s REAL enemy continues to be the American people rather than Islamic terrorists who are murdering decent people all over the world, my own region of America included.  Why do I say that?  Because when you go to war with an enemy, what do you do?  You take away their ability to resist, you attack them until they are helpless.  Well, by going to war with what our Constitution guarantees as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” who are you rendering powerless?  What the American Declaration of Independence calls “We the people,” that’s who.

As a final statement to this article, I simply NEED to point out that there are four components to this war of Islamic-inspired terrorism.  There is a military component.  There is an economic component.  There is a political component.  That’s true.  But most important of all, THERE IS A RELIGIOUS COMPONENT.  It is this religious component that is the SOURCE of terrorism’s power.  It is through the RELIGIOUS component of Islam that the terrorists are able to recruit what has under Obama become a vast terrorist army controlling the world’s very first terrorist caliphate.

If it weren’t for Islam, the terrorists would have virtually NOTHING.  But they are citing ISLAM and the RELIGIOUS CLAIM that it is Allah’s will and that if they kill others and die trying to kill others, that they will go to PARADISE.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton REFUSE to acknowledge that REALITY.

As a result of the Obama-Clinton “narrative” on terrorism, the Muslim nations have no reason whatsoever to fight terrorism.  After all, it is NOT their problem or their war, is it?  It’s ONLY their problem and their war if it is THEIR religion that’s responsible for this violence.  And that is why they are sitting on their hands.  Because we’ve taken their religion off the table when it ought to be damn near the only thing ON the table.

I mean, just THINK about it: if Obama says, “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam,” then why the hell should Muslims fight to stop terrorism?  It’s not their fight because Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party SAY it’s NOT THEIR FIGHT.

During the Cold War, the left mocked the concept of “mutually assured destruction,” the doctrine that any attack on the United States would result in such a massive response that whoever dared to launch one would surely be destroyed themselves.  Because the left actually preferred to be destroyed rather than fight back.  Well, mutually assured destruction worked, because the Soviets believed in American resolve back then and they didn’t want to be destroyed.  Well, times have changed but liberals are as stupid as ever; now we are dealing with an enemy who because of their religion are literally willing to DIE to achieve mutually assured destruction.  They yearn for it.

And again, the American left would rather perish than actually fight back.

And the last thing the American left wants is for YOU to have the right to fight back.  Hence their unrelenting war on the 2nd Amendment.  Where even a massive Obama FAIL to protect America is cited as grounds to give the left the Nazi-gun-control-policies they have been fighting to implement/impose for decades.

Meanwhile, terrorists motivated by Islam have declared war on America, while Obama has declared war on America’s Constitution.  That’s why there aren’t anywhere NEAR enough FBI agents to investigate the giant and growing list of Islamic State terrorist suspects in America as Obama has massively stockpiled IRS agents whom he is using as his personal Internal Revenge Service and a weapon to enforce his ObamaCare.  And that is similarly why Obama has gone to war with police agencies and “demilitarized” them from being able to possess the VERY ARMORED CARS THAT WERE SO ESSENTIAL IN ENDING YESTERDAY’S TERRORIST ATTACK.

It comes down to this: in the moments immediately before the police confronted the terrorists, officers on the scene were heard on the radio repeatedly screaming for a BearCat (a military armored car).  Obama would have denied their request, just as he is currently refusing to allow other departments that don’t already have one to be able to get one and in fact is taking back ones that have already been issued.

How many more people would have died if the San Bernardino police didn’t have the equipment that Obama is doing everything he can to keep police agencies from possessing???  And the answer is it doesn’t matter.  Not to Obama, anyway.  He truly doesn’t care; he sees leftist ideology and nothing else.

Like I said, Obama’s enemy is NOT terrorists or terrorism, it is the American people and their means to protect themselves and safeguard their freedom and liberty from people – including liberals – who want to take that freedom and liberty away from us.

That’s the one-two punch that knocks out America.  And when we’re down they’re going to cut our head off.

Watching The World Go To Hell Under Obama And Demonic Democrat Policies. Enter The Antichrist.

November 16, 2015

There’s a Bible passage that ought to haunt you in terms of our current administration’s dishonesty and false policies.  The prophet Isaiah says, “You boast, we have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave.  The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”  Isaiah 28:15

I want to talk to you about Bible prophecy.  I want to talk about prophecy as DIRECTLY RELATING to the real world, to the world of today’s news and events and policies.  I want to talk about those vicious Islamic State attacks in Paris, France yesterday in which some hundred people were murdered one-by-one execution style in a theatre, with 129 total murdered and more than 350 shot.

Jesus taught us that the last days would be uniquely characterized by “wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24:6).  The French president yesterday called the attack “an act of war that was committed by a terrorist army.”  But does ANYONE believe France will actually launch a massive ground invasion of Syria and the Islamic State caliphate?  No, they’ll fly a few planes and accomplish nothing because the history of warfare proves that aerial bombing alone accomplishes NOTHING.  It’s not a war; it’s just a bunch of empty words that pretend to mean something.  Just as Obama’s own phantom campaign where he says he’s fighting Islamic State but is doing nearly NOTHING as he creates the ILLUSION that he’s doing something.  Just days before Obama’s “we have contained them” blathering, a Russian passenger jet was destroyed by Obama’s “contained” Islamic State with 224 murdered in the worst aviation disaster in Russian history.  “Wars and rumors of wars” are all around us in a way never before seen in all of history.  The United States hasn’t actually DECLARED a war since World War II!!!

Let me point out a couple of facts that lead to a conclusion: the United States hasn’t declared a war since 1945.  Israel became a nation in miraculous fulfillment of Bible prophecy in 1948.  Jesus described “wars and rumors of wars” characterizing the last days that were inaugurated when Israel was regathered as a nation (see the last days prophecies promising this very thing).  And since then America has never declared a single actual WAR according to its own Constitution.  And now was it a “war,” or a “conflict” (Korea, Vietnam) or a “police action,” or an “authorization to use military force,” or WHAT?

And it’s not just America; few nations have actually declared “war” since WWII and more particularly since Israel was regathered as a nation in May, 1948.

Now let me talk about the deceit and dishonesty that manifestly describes Barack Obama’s “foreign policy.”  Consider the ocean of outright lies and manufactured “facts” that have characterized everything that has emanated from the White House, from Obama’s mocking words to Mitt Romney in 2011 – The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” Versus Obama’s own nominee for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who would say “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.”  Barack Obama proved that he was either a liar without shame or an incompetent fool – to Obama’s outright deceit in Benghazi where he deliberately lied to the American people about the terrorist attack there that he dishonestly claimed was a video and NOT a terrorist attack.

Understand this Liar-in-Chief created an entire machine to simply pump out lies no matter what the actual truth was.

Article: “U.S. Spies Are Revealing How Obama Administration Falsified Intelligence Reports About ISIS”:

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

We can go back to all the utterly fallacious statements that were flowing out of the White House as well as out of the next Democrat president-wannabe’s mouth and we can see these people for the abject Isaiah 28:15-style deceiving LIARS that they are.

What do you call the worst migration crisis since World War II that in turn produced the worst violence in France since World War II which immediately followed the worst Russian aviation disaster in that country’s history as more Christians are slaughtered than at any time in 2,000 years as Christianity is now less than a decade away from extermination in the Middle East?  While terror attacks overall have skyrocketed under Obama’s presidency?  Obama has a name for it: “containment.”

It’s ALL about politics and deceiving people into believing they have “peace, peace when there IS no peace.”   Jeremiah 6:14: “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”  Ezekiel 13:10: “It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash…  And don’t forget Isaiah 28:15The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.

The United States created an illusion of action when they boasted of a $500 million program to train and equip moderate Syrian fighters to fight our war against Islamic State for us.  Obama claimed he would send 15,000 anti-ISIS fighters; but that half billion dollars only trained 54 fighters – and only “four or five” are still alive now.  Wars and rumors of wars.

Obama boasts that his “coalition” has flown nearly 7,000 sorties since the start of his infamous “red line warning” fiasco three years ago.  Do you know what a joke that is???  Let me put it into perspective: we flew more than 8,000 sorties IN THE FIRST FIVE DAYS of Operation Desert Storm. We averaged 1,100 sorties PER DAY in 1991 when we attacked Iraq.  Compared to six or seven sorties a day now.  But how about this one: 75% of those jets Obama is claiming to send to fight Islamic State are returning to base without having fired a bomb or a shot due to incredibly restrictive rules of engagement.  So we’re not actually talking about 7,000; we’re actually talking about 1,750 – one or two actual strikes per day.  Wars and rumors of wars.  Like nothing we’ve ever seen.

Does anyone think Obama’s plan to send in “fewer than fifty” special forces guys are going to turn the tide for us?  Especially given that one of these guns gets killed by gunfire and the Obama Administration with amazing quibbling rhetoric actually denied he was killed in “combat”???

Russia and China have BOTH openly threatened the United States with war; and our response has been to back down.  America used to speak softly and carry a great big giant stick; now we talk incessantly, do nothing, and carry a tube of lipstick.  Victor Davis Hanson wrote an incredibly prophetic article in August of 2008 about what would happen if the United States quit acting like a true superpower and stopped serving as the world’s policeman.

I truly believe that the United States was – past tense – God’s stopgap against the end-of-days and the coming beast because it protected Israel and DID serve the world by preventing evil from overwhelming good.  But now that is truly over, Israel is isolated and bereft of true support, and Israel WILL therefore make a seven year covenant with the coming Antichrist that will start the Tribulation (Daniel 9:27) as a result of our refusal to lead.

Wars and rumors of wars.  A strong refuge made of lies and deception.  A Band-Aid over a gaping wound as we claim peace when there IS no peace.

If our enemies weren’t exterminating Christians like nothing EVER BEFORE SEEN in all of history, it would be a joke.  But the extermination of Christianity that is taking place as we sit here is not funny.

I want to point something out as we begin this class: we all ought to become very familiar with the Old Testament.  Why?  Because WE ARE BACK IN THE OLD TESTAMENT TIMES when it comes to the sheer viciousness that we are seeing unfold in this world.  You go back to the Assyrian Empire.

A scholarly article I came across begins:

“Assyrian national history, as it has been preserved for us in inscriptions and pictures, consists almost solely of military campaigns and battles. It is as gory and bloodcurdling a history as we know.

Assyria emerged as a territorial state in the 14th century B.C. Its territory covered approximately the northern part of modern Iraq. The first capital of Assyria was Assur, located about 150 miles north of modern Baghdad on the west bank of the Tigris River. The city was named for its national god, Assur, from which the name Assyria is also derived.

From the outset, Assyria projected itself as a strong military power bent on conquest. Countries and peoples that opposed Assyrian rule were punished by the destruction of their cities and the devastation of their fields and orchards.”

I submit to you that the Old Testament days are back in business in the form of the sheer barbaric viciousness of Islamic State – which has similarly named itself for ITS god.  Under the leadership of President Obama, and under the cowardice of the Western world that will not only not truly take them on, but won’t even call them the MUSLIMS that they are, they have seized a caliphate IN THE VERY SAME REGION THAT ASSYRIA USED TO RULE OVER.  And the vicious terrorist Army is using the same vicious tactics that the Assyrians used before them:

The Assyrians decapitated their helpless conquered victims and made giant piles of their heads or hung heads on all the surrounding trees.  They impaled their naked victims on stakes.  They flayed their victims alive and piled their skins over the conquered city’s walls.  They litarally painted the surrounding hills red with the blood of their victims.  They burned their victims alive.  They cut off arms, legs, noses, ears and gentiles of their screaming victims.  They routinely gouged out the eyes of their victims and a favorite sport was to gouge out the eyes of a father’s children so he would know they were blind before they gouged out the father’s eyes.

We have their words preserved, such as in the words of the famous Old Testament Assyrian king Sennacherib:

“I cut their throats like lambs. I cut off their precious lives (as one cuts) a string. Like the many waters of a storm, I made (the contents of) their gullets and entrails run down upon the wide earth. My prancing steeds harnessed for my riding, plunged into the streams of their blood as (into) a river. The wheels of my war chariot, which brings low the wicked and the evil, were bespattered with blood and filth. With the bodies of their warriors I filled the plain, like grass. (Their) testicles I cut off, and tore out their privates like the seeds of cucumbers.” †

I simply point out for the factual and historical record that Islamic State is doing all these things today and worse.  They’re burning people alive.  They’re crucifying people by the thousands.  They’re murdering Christian children as if they were chickens or farm animals in a slaughtering pen.  Aid groups are predicting that Christianity will end in the Middle East within a decade at the pace they are being either martyred, forced to convert, or flee.  And aside from meaningless words, the world has done NOTHING to help them.

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party demonized George Bush and Republicans in 2008.  According to the liberal narrative, 9/11 was basically just some kind of fluke and Bush caused all these wars that only happened because the Muslim world was responding to Bush’s bullying and Bush had infuriated and radicalized these people who somehow did all their terrorist attacks in the name of Islam but weren’t actually “Muslims.”  It doesn’t matter if these terrorists are following the literal teachings of Muhammad – who himself was a murderer and a terrorist – and the Qu’ran FAR more closely than any other “Muslims” today.  If liberals say they’re not Muslims then they’re not Muslims, and to put it in terms of the line from the famous Seinfeld program, “No soup for you!”  In contrast to fighting them, Obama promised he would restore peace in the world by reaching out to the Muslim world where these non-Muslims came from.  President Obama even tried to redefine whether or not they were “terrorists,” at first insisting their terror attacks were NOT terror attacks but “man-caused disasters.”  Whereas to use the word “terror” was “the politics of fear.”  Remember that?  Numerous domestic terrorist attacks – including one in which a Muslim man cut the head off of a victim while shouting “Praise Allah!” – were designated as “workplace violence.”  Obama preened as the president who would END wars, never start them.

As Dr. Phil famously asked, “How’s that working out for you?”

Obama is demanding that the U.S. accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees.  Given that at least ONE of the terrorists from the Paris attack yesterday are “Syrian refugees,” and given that Islamic State declared that they were going to use the crisis wave of migration that Obama’s failed policies produced to infiltrate us?  does that seriously sound like a good idea to you?  I listened to the Democrat debates and was amazed to hear that even AFTER these attacks Hillary Clinton and the other Democrat candidates actually want 65,000 potential terrorists to come into America.  Don’t worry: “we have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave.  The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”

The same President Obama who told us that Islamic State was “JayVee” – and then lied about having said it – and nothing to be taken seriously said THE DAY OF THE ATTACK IN FRANCE that: “I don’t think they’re gaining strength.  What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them.”  That AFTER Islamic State brought down that Russian jet in Russia’s worst aviating disaster in history just days ago.  If Islamic State is “contained” after having launched two massive terrorist-mass-bloodbaths against major nations within the span of about a week, what would it look like if they weren’t “contained”?  Have you ever heard the term “stuck on stupid”?  Obama is a fool who cannot acknowledge that his policies have totally failed.

He has been lying from the START about why he completely and totally pulled out of Iraq, claiming it was a “status of forces agreement” negotiated by George Bush as everything first started to go to hell because terrorists were taking over a country where we had defeated terrorists, where the White House had previously declared that Iraq was going to be “one of the great achievements of this administration,” where Obama himself boasted, “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.”   It’s an outright LIE that Obama couldn’t keep troops in Iraq to secure what American warriors had painstakingly won.  Here’s proof:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorizing large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Gates and Mullen had discussed the relabeling scheme with Obama as part of the Petraeus-Odierno plan for withdrawal they had presented to him in mid-December, according to a Dec. 18 New York Times story.

Syria has beent he main haven for ISIS and Bush had nothing to DO with Syria.  And it was OBAMA who pulled all our troops that would have secured Iraq from Islamic State, just as it was OBAMA who foolishly uttered his “red line warning” in the Syria that is Islamic State’s prime haven and then backed down and did NOTHING – which emboldened both our Russian and our terrorist enemies to keep fighting because America was led by a weak, dishonest fool whose sole “strategy” was to govern according to Isaiah 28:15.

Obama is actually doubling DOWN on his foolish and wicked stupidity.  So yesterday he announces that he is going to let five more senior terrorists go free from Gitmo so he can replenish the ranks of the terrorist leadership.  But don’t worry: “we have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave.  The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”

Now, I’ve been railing against Obama.  But let me say this: if politics ever WAS the answer for us, it is certainly not the answer any longer.  The world has spun wildly out of human control.  What if we elected Republicans?  Does anybody think Islamic State would stop fighting us?  Does anybody think the spirit of terrorism that now virtually defines the Middle East and Islam would stop?  When will one billion Muslims quit?  At this point, they are either going to fight us because we are refusing to fight them and they are emboldened or they are going to fight us because we are fighting them and they are retaliating.

ISIS is consciously and deliberately trying to bring about the end of days:

In broad strokes, al-Qaeda acts like an underground political movement, with worldly goals in sight at all times—the expulsion of non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula, the abolishment of the state of Israel, the end of support for dictatorships in Muslim lands. The Islamic State has its share of worldly concerns (including, in the places it controls, collecting garbage and keeping the water running), but the End of Days is a leitmotif of its propaganda. Bin Laden rarely mentioned the apocalypse, and when he did, he seemed to presume that he would be long dead when the glorious moment of divine comeuppance finally arrived. “Bin Laden and Zawahiri are from elite Sunni families who look down on this kind of speculation and think it’s something the masses engage in,” says Will McCants of the Brookings Institution, who is writing a book about the Islamic State’s apocalyptic thought.

During the last years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Islamic State’s immediate founding fathers, by contrast, saw signs of the end times everywhere. They were anticipating, within a year, the arrival of the Mahdi—a messianic figure destined to lead the Muslims to victory before the end of the world. McCants says a prominent Islamist in Iraq approached bin Laden in 2008 to warn him that the group was being led by millenarians who were “talking all the time about the Mahdi and making strategic decisions” based on when they thought the Mahdi was going to arrive. “Al-Qaeda had to write to [these leaders] to say ‘Cut it out.’ ” [Atlantic, What ISIS Really Wants”]

I had already written an article describing that last-days mindset and one side gearing up for an ultimate take-all-or-die war while we have nothing to fight for and literally a determination not to fight at all even as they slaughter us.

And now it is al Qaeda that has been “cut out” – finished off largely by the stunning successes of Islamic State rather than by us – and Islamic State reigns supreme.  And which terrorist do you like better?  Bush’s elitist al Qaeda or Obama’s vicious Islamic State end-of-days blood-drenchers???  Seriously, al Qaeda was like the “good old days” of FRIENDLY terrorism compared to the horror we are witnessing now.

This is a war of civilizations and worldviews and ONE is going to win and the other is going to be utterly destroyed.  One combatant cannot even acknowledge that the other combatant is MUSLIM and that ISLAM provides the ideological power and the recruiting field for the vicious murderers who have already repeatedly murdered the other combatant while screaming “Allah Akbar!”  It boils down to this: the conservatives are people who would rather go down and fighting; the liberals are people who prefer to die helplessly on their knees pleading like victims because they’ve enshrined VICTIMHOOD as their most cherished members (having whined at us that blacks are victims of whites, gays are victims of straights, women are victims of men, the poor are victims of the rich, and students are victims of whatever).

At least unless and until the Antichrist comes to power.  That is just around the horizon now.  I can hear the hoofbeats of the horsemen riding like hell to lead us to the Apocalypse.

In VERY recent articles I’ve documented how Obama has literally set up the prophesied War of Gog and Magog by allowing – even ENCOURAGING – the two powers that the Bible said would lead that war to come to Syria right above Israel where they will eventually attack for the very first time in all of history.  You tell me when both Russia and Iran have ever both been here before, either by Russia or Scythia or Iran or Persia or any other name.  I’ve recorded how Israel has been and feels abandoned by the United States as we set up a “deal” with Iran for purely political posturing that absolutely GUARANTEES that Iran will be able to first develop the ballistic missiles they need to make a nuclear bomb useful and then develop a nuclear weapon without having to fear military attack or economic sanctions.  Obama literally gave Iran the ability to monitor it’s own nuclear program!!!

Come,” they say, “let us wipe out Israel as a nation. We will destroy the very memory of its existence.”  Barack Obama has set up the fulfillment of that prophecy.  Every single nation has taken it’s side against Israel.  And Obama has joined those nations.  Israel is now bereft and WILL make a covenant with the Antichrist in fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

So what is the point I want you to comprehend as we consider the affairs of the world today in light of what the Bible described the world climate in the last days?

1st we should radically trust God.  Because the God of Creation and History Who can unveil for us the affairs of the world and then bring those affairs to pass 2,000 years later, 2,600 years later, and beyond – is obviously worthy of radical trust.  A parent might be able to so order the life of one child, just for the sake of argument, but that parent clearly can’t order the whole world.  But amazingly, we tend to believe God is sovereign over history, but somehow NOT sovereign over our own individual lives.  There’s this warped way of thinking when it comes to God: we believe He can direct the whole universe, but He somehow can’t direct our own lives.  NO!  If He can run the world, He can run my life.  How could God order the history of the whole world but be incapable of ordering your life?  We need to radically consider the sovereign God over all history and radically trust Him as sovereign over our own lives.

2nd is a radical comprehension that we are now living in a time when God has prophetically told us that things aren’t going to go well for us in these last days.  The mystery of lawlessness is upon us (2nd Thess 2:7-12).  He prophetically told us about the characteristic of deception that we see in this age of media brainwashing and propaganda (vv. 9-11).  God told us what the final, terminal generation would look like as we are seeing to our growing horror today (2 Tim 3:1-7).  God told us about the ascendance of utterly godless “intellectuals” who would be “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” (v. 7).  The mystery of lawlessness, the ascendance of evil, as the righteous look around in stunned horror unable to do anything to stop it or even slow it down.  The antichrist is coming; we’re seeing it unfold exactly as God told us it would happen.  We’ve got gay marriage in blatant defiance of Romans chapter one.  We’ve got the Obama regime forcing public schools to allow incredibly sexually-troubled boys to be allowed with their penises full-access into girl’s locker rooms.  It’s an amazing thing to see as Christian wedding photographers and bakers and county clerks are put in jail or financially ruined by lawsuits.  And we should be aware that a time of growing persecution is at hand culminating in Revelation 13:10.  And just understand in a way we never have before that the world isn’t fair.  But also understand that ultimately understand that God will ultimately restore the balance of every scale, right every wrong, that God is a God of justice.  Ultimately the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked will be punished.

3rd  is a radical commitment to Christ.  When you realize that the last days are at hand, the universe is winding down, and very soon we’re going to be in the presence of Christ before His Bema Seat (2 Cor 5:10), that should inspire us to a renewed commitment to Him.  At this point, no human can save us, whether it be a he or a she or a Republican or a Democrat.  Christ alone is Sovereign Master over our lives.  He alone is our King.  We live in a time when the steadfast FOOS who say, “There is no God” are striving with every fiber of their beings to make human Government God.  But Christ is the Rock of Daniel 2(v. 34) who will smash every human government.  He alone is the One who is returning as King of kings and Lord of lords to ultimately rule over our lives.

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.

CIA Begged For Help THREE TIMES And Were Denied Help THREE TIMES By Obama Administration As Terrorists Murdered Americans In Benghazi, Libya

October 27, 2012

This story gets worse and worse and proves Obama is more and more despicable every single day.

BREAKING: CIA Requested Help During Benghazi Battle, Were Denied Three Times (Updated)
by Bryan Preston
October 26, 2012 – 8:29 am

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin deserves a Pulitzer for the work she is doing to uncover what really happened during and after the assault at Benghazi. In her latest blockbuster, she reports on how American personnel were left without aid during the battle.

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were part of a small team who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When they heard the shots fired, they radioed to inform their higher-ups to tell them what they were hearing. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. An hour later, they called again to headquarters and were again told to “stand down.”

Who gave those stand-down orders? Was the CIA director, Gen. David Petraeus, aware of them? Did he approve them? Who specifically took any part on this decision?

A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

“There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said Thursday. “But the basic principle here … is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

“Monday morning quarterbacking”? They had a laser on the target. An F-18 could have reached the scene from Sigonella in about an hour and destroyed it.

The denial of aid is criminal. Whoever gave those multiple stand-down orders may be an accomplice to manslaughter, at least.

The notion that there was nothing they could have done is absurd. The military has binders and binders — note that word — of contingency plans to deal with breaking security issues and attacks. But our troops, according to Sen. John McCain, were not even put on alert, and field operators on the scene were ordered to stand down.

More: When the 3 AM crisis phone call came in, Barack Obama hatched a plot to attack American free speech rights. And then he went to bed.

Update from Bob Owens: There was an AC-130U gunship on the scene in Benghazi, but it was not allowed to fire.

Update: The CIA denies Fox’s report.

Clearly we need hearings with the president and his relevant cabinet officials either testifying or submitting comments, before the election.

You need to keep understand that the CIA denying this report is bad for Obama, because what we find out is that the CIA denies the report (that officials in the CIA chain of command ordered a stand-down with Americans being murdered by terrorists in Benghazi).  And we find out that CIA Director David Petraeus states, No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”  Given that we further learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had asked for more security in Benghazi prior to the attack but the request was denied.  The obvious question becomes, “Then who the hell DID order that stand-down?  Who DID deny that request for more security?”

And there is one and ONLY one answer: Barry Hussein, the first demon-possessed president.  The Predator drone video of the attack – that went on for seven damn hours – was shown to the White House.  There is VERY good reason to believe that Obama himself saw it; he certainly would have been notified that an American installation was under direct attack.  You have to ask yourself: how many people are authorized to go into a foreign country shooting that we are not at war with?  The president and who the hell else???  That is a crucial question because only somebody who had the authority to make that decision could have made that decision.  The White House is asserting that Obama didn’t make that decision not to send help to Americans under fire who desperately needed help.  Okay, then who the hell DID make that decison???  Who the hell ELSE apart from Obama was even authorized to make that call to send in the cavlary to start shooting Libyans in Libya???  Furthermore, CIA personnel had already wisely repositioned assets to make it as quick and easy as possible for Obama to give the order to rescue the Americans trapped in Benghazi and have that rescue effort be successful.  But no order was given.  Nothing was done.  And had it not been for the heroism of Tyrone Woods, the death toll would have been thirty rather than four.

Remember how much credit Obama gave himself for being in the White House Situation Room when the previously-supersecret-until-Obama-blabbermouthed-their-official-existence SEAL Team Six went in to kill Osama bin Laden???  Where the hell was THAT Obama???  Because he for damn sure won’t admit he was in that room when it mattered the most now.

From the very beginning, this White House, this administration, this president and this president’s stooges, have lied to the American people about a terrorist attack on American soil that resulted in the murders of four Americans including the first ambassador to be killed since 1979 when Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe.

Amazingly, Obama began to lie and instructed his top officials to lie immediately and concoct a “spontaneous protest” in place of a planned and well-executed terrorist attack and a stupid video in place of a completely failed president completely failing to listen to repeated warnings that the situation in Libya was massively deteriorating.  Obama – who has been campaigning the last four years – rarely ever bothered to attend his daily intelligence briefings and frankly couldn’t be bothered with anything that didn’t directly help him get re-elected.

Obama lied and lied and lied.

With all due respect to the truth, conservatives such as myself and such as John McCain immediately came out and pointed out what the attack was: a TERRORIST attack by al Qaeda.

Then the questions started to flow: why did Obama make Valerie Jarrett the first adviser to have a full secret service security detail even on her vacation to Martha’s Vineyard while the United States Ambassador in Libya was denied a Marine contingent???

We found out that there were 230 security incidents in Libya prior to the attack that resulted in our ambassador being murdered and the United States being humiliated.  We find that Britain wasn’t stupid and closed their embassy after repeated warnings that the situation was spiralling out of control.  We found out that before he was murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens BEGGED for increased security but was repeatedly denied.  We found out that on the very day that he was murdered Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security.  But rather than give him the security he needed, OBAMA ACTUALLY CUT THE POOR SECURITY AMBASSADOR STEVENS HAD.

We found out that the denials of increased security in Libya were completely unrelated to budget considerations:

Though Democratic members of the committee blamed Republicans throughout the hearing for cutting security State Department security spending, Lamb clarified for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who was invited to sit on the committee for the hearing, that the staffing denial was not linked to budget shortages, just the result of evaluating conditions on the ground.

And we know that Obama did all this because he was trying to deceive the American people with a completely bogus narrative that, by killing Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama had won the war on terror and shattered al Qaeda:

8:21PM EDT October 19. 2012 – The Obama administration rejected requests for more security in Benghazi amid growing signs of terror threats because it wanted to portray Libya as a calm country and foreign policy success, according to leaders of the House Oversight Committee.

The administration “made a policy decision to put Libya into a ‘normalized’ country status as quickly as possible,” starting in November, stated a letter to President Obama from Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and National Security Subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz.

The apparent aim of this policy was to convey the impression that the situation in Libya “was getting better and not worse,” states the letter released Friday.

That policy was why State withdrew security personnel and resources from Benghazi, including a DC-3 aircraft, the letter says, citing an email from Miki Rankin, a State Department post management officer for Libya and Saudi Arabia.

The policy of “normalization” was described to committee members by Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs. And late last year, a State Department diplomat issued an “action memo” on why the Benghazi consulate should remain in place.

Then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman wrote Dec. 27 that the U.S. presence in Benghazi was having “a salutary and calming effect” on people in Eastern Libya.

The normalization policy was being pursued at a time when al-Qaeda affiliated militias were becoming increasingly active in and around Benghazi, according to Issa and Chaffetz.

The committee members said the normalization policy trumped security concerns expressed by professional security officials working for State.

Obama lied and Americans died.  The attack on the US Consulate compound in Benghazi went on for seven agonizing hours.  Had the United States acted quickly and decisively, this horrifying and shocking disgrace to America would have been defeated.

If this had happened under George Bush’s watch, and there emerged the kind of evidence tying a cynical political policy to an abject national security and foreign policy disgrace and disaster, you can bet that the mainstream media would have been crawling all over it.  You can bet that EVERY SINGLE TIME Bush did an interview with ANYBODY this would have been the ONLY subject he was asked about.  You can bet that all the late night talk shows would have mocked Bush for this oh, the way they mocked Bush for Abu Ghraib.  You can bet that the networks would have figured out ways to include the shocking failure and debacle in Libya in their popular television dramas.  Like they did with Abu Ghraib.  And like they DIDN’T do with “Abu Ghraib moment” after “Abu Ghraib moment” when those moments were OBAMA MOMENTS.  It would have been the goal of the mainstream media and the networks that every single American be repeatedly told that George Bush had failed America, much the same way that virtually every single American had repeatedly heard the George H.W. Bush words, “Read my lips, no new taxes” in order to guarantee Bill Clinton’s election.

Instead it’s Obama, and so when Obama says the election has “nothing to do” with the Americans murdered in Libya, the mainstream media politely drops the subject rather than embarrass their messiah.

Charles Woods, the father of heroic former SEAL Tyrone Woods – the one who was making those requests for help that Obama repeatedly denied – had this to say about the Disgrace-in-Chief:

The grieving father also described his brief encounter with President Obama during the ceremony for the Libya victims.

“When he finally came over to where we were, I could tell that he was rather conflicted, a person who was not at peace with himself,” Woods said. “Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.”

“I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

Tyrone Woods is a hero who ignored Obama’s orders to basically let the thirty Americans in the US Consulate in Benghazi die.  He heard the gunfire and he sacrificed his own life so that other Americans could live. 

This disaster – and the cover-up of this disaster that has followed – is so much worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down Nixon it isn’t even funny.

The American people have a chance to hold Barack Obama responsible and accountable for this disgrace on November 6.

An Ambassador And Three Americans Died, Obama Lied

October 24, 2012

There is simply no longer any question that Barack Obama personally and the entire Obama administration are DOCUMENTED LIARS over their cover-up attempt to hide their debacle at Benghazi.

The first three sentences alone prove that Barack Hussein Obama is a liar.  Two weeks AFTER the attack he was trying to claim that we didn’t know what happened and we’re investigating.  YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, YOU LIAR:

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:11pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president’s secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

It was not known what other messages were received by agencies in Washington from Libya that day about who might have been behind the attacks.

Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.

By the morning of September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, Reuters reported that there were indications that members of both Ansar al-Sharia, a militia based in the Benghazi area, and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the North African affiliate of al Qaeda’s faltering central command, may have been involved in organizing the attacks.

One U.S. intelligence official said that during the first classified briefing about Benghazi given to members of Congress, officials “carefully laid out the full range of sparsely available information, relying on the best analysis available at the time.”

The official added, however, that the initial analysis of the attack that was presented to legislators was mixed.

“Briefers said extremists were involved in attacks that appeared spontaneous, there may have been a variety of motivating factors, and possible links to groups such as (al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar al-Sharia) were being looked at closely,” the official said.

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; Editing by Mary Milliken and Jim Loney)

It is now official testimony from the State Department: THERE WAS NO VIDEO PROTEST OUTSIDE THE CONSULATE PRIOR TO THE ATTACK.  And yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney and Susan Rice lied lied lied lied lied like the weasels they are for days and even for weeks.

You’ve got to understand: Republicans like Senator John McCain – and of course like MITT ROMNEY – were saying that this was a giant lie from about hour one of day one.

We also know that Obama was notified when he still very possibly had time to act to to save Ambassador Stevens’ and the other three Americans’ lives AND REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING.

Meanwhile the entire Obama administration foreign policy that was based on the utter foolish dumbass lie that killing one man (bin Laden) somehow won the war on terror is melting down all over the world.

It’s time to get a new president.  And then put the last one along with most of his entire damn administration in prison the way he tried to put the CIA heroes who successfully interrogated the al Qaeda terrorists.

Documents Continue To Prove What Lying Weasels Obama And His Toxic Administration Are In The Libya Attack

October 20, 2012

Barack Obama claimed that he referred to the Libya attack as an “act of terror” in a short speech he gave at the Rose Garden just before he flew off to do a fundraiser in Las Vegas.  It’s bullcrap, of course (and if memory serves, George W. Bush did NOT run off to do a fundraiser the day after the previous 9/11 attack), and as I document here, Obama HIMSELF – not to mention his entire administration – proves that he did NOT call the Libya attack a terrorist attack.

But just for the sake of argument, let’s say Obama DID call the worst terrorist attack on American soil since that last devastating 9/11 attack that the more recent one was timed to mock “an act of terror.”  You know, just before jetting off to do a fundraiser.  Let’s say that Obama DID call it an act of terror.  Then the jackass-in-chief instructed his Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice to go to all five major network political programs and repeatedly say the exact opposite.  And then Obama sent out his press secretary Jay Carney to say the exact opposite.  And then he sent out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say the exact opposite.  And then two weeks later after being asked on both The View and on Univision whether it was a terrorist attack Obama refused to answer the question that Obama now says he’d actually already answered and instead said, “We’re still investigating.”  As bizarre and as dishonest as that is, let’s say that Obama actually DID call the attack on sovereign US territory in Libya an “act of terror.”

How in the hell would that excuse him for his abject failure of leadership that resulted in the murder of the first United States ambassador since Jimmy Carter was screwing up the universe way back in 1979?  And just why the hell is it that two of the last three Democrat presidents have killed US ambassadors versus ZERO of the last three Republican presidents, anyway???

We now know for a fact that not only did murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens ask for more security – only to have the inadequate security that he had CUT by Obama – but we now that in fact Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security at least forty days before his murder.  And in fact for SEVEN MONTHS prior to this attack security professionals were telling Obama there was a very big problem in Benghazi:

Documents show Stevens worried about Libya security threats, Al Qaeda before consulate attack
By James Rosen
Published October 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

Across 166 pages of internal State Department documents — released Friday by  a pair of Republican congressmen pressing the Obama administration for more  answers on the Benghazi terrorist attack — slain U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris  Stevens and the security officers assigned to protect him repeatedly sounded  alarms to their superiors in Washington about the intensifying lawlessness and  violence in Eastern Libya, where Stevens ultimately died.

On Sept. 11 — the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed — the  ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted  “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the  part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces.  These  forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier  with local militia commanders.  These men boasted to Stevens of exercising  “control” over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed  candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya’s internal political  jockeying, “they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi.”

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled  “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.”  Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time,  “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent  incidents has dominated the political landscape.” He added, “The individual  incidents have been organized,” a function of “the security vacuum that a  diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative  impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of  opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on  the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until  authorities are at least as capable.”

By Sept. 4, Stevens’ aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong  Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the  Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies  about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against  western interests.” “Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively  deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely  to continue and worsen.”

After the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised  explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that  an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing, had  “described the attack as targeting the Christians supervising the management of  the consulate.”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the  ambassador wrote, adding that “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times  flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

The documents also contain evidence that the State Department’s denials of  requests for enhanced security in Benghazi in the months leading up to the  attack may have contributed to the ability of the attackers to plan their  assault on the consulate and annex grounds without being detected.

“I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot,” said Eric A. Nordstrom, the  regional security officer who testified before a House hearing last week, in a  Feb. 12 email to a colleague, “when the ambassador (Gene Cretz, at that time)  that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD (a mobile security  detachment) there and been advised that DS (Diplomatic Security) isn’t going to  provide more than 3 agents over the long term.”

“DS is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this  has severely hampered operations in Benghazi,” wrote Karen Keshap, a State  Department manager, to main State in Washington the day before. “That often  means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS (Department  of State) personnel present.  That often also means that outreach and  reporting is non-existent.”

Earlier that day, Feb. 11, a colleague of Keshap’s, Shawn P. Crowley, had  apologized to her and other officials in an email for “being a broken record” on  the subject of inadequate security in Benghazi.  Crowley added: “(T)omorrow  Benghazi will be down to two (DS) agents. … This will leave us unable to do  any outreach to Libyan nationals … and we will be extremely limited in the  ability to obtain any useful information for reporting.”

These exchanges followed a dire report to top DS officials a few days earlier  from Nordstom.  In a Feb. 1 memorandum, the officer warned that “Al-Qaida  affiliated groups, including Al-Qaida In the Islamic Magreb (AQIM), and other  violent extremist groups are likely to take advantage of the ongoing political  turmoil in Libya.  The U.S. Government remains concerned that such  individuals and groups … may use Libya as a platform from which to conduct  attacks in the region.”

By Feb. 20, Nordstrom was noting the easy access that neighborhood militias  enjoyed to “military grade weapons, such as RPGs and vehicle mounted,  crew-served machine guns or AA weapons (23mm),” as well as “AK-47s, heavy  weapons, and vehicle mounted weapons.”

In the days leading up to Sept. 11, warnings came even from people outside  the State Department.  A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis,  confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since  the revolution, I am scared.”

The documents were released by two lawmakers who have been active in probing  the Benghazi case, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.   In a letter to President Obama, dated Oct. 19 and accompanied by the  documents, the lawmakers faulted the administration both for providing  inadequate security before Sept. 11, and for allegedly obfuscating the nature of  the events on Sept. 11.

“Multiple warnings about security threats were contained in Ambassador  Stevens’ own words in multiple cables sent to Washington, D.C., and were  manifested by two prior bombings of the Benghazi compound and an assassination  attempt on the British ambassador,” the congressmen wrote.  “For this  administration to assume that terrorists were not involved in the 9/11  anniversary attack would have required a willing suspension of disbelief.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, in response to the latest  documents: “An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault  on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board’s comprehensive account of what  happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters.”

At the State Department briefing Friday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland declined  to comment on published reports alleging that an official working for the  Central Intelligence Agency had informed the Obama administration on Sept. 12  that the Benghazi murders were an act of terrorism.

Oh, yeah, that statement from the CIA station chief in Libya WITHIN HOURS OF THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE that it was IN FACT A TERRORIST ATTACK.  Keep in mind that Obama had instructed his administration to blame US intelligence for his administration’s lying to the American people for more than two weeks.  Note that the VERY FIRST SENTENCE utterly refutes the White House lies that were told to the American people over and over and over again:

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.

You had to be a brain-dead dumbass (i.e., even DUMBER than a regular garden variety dumbass) not to immediately conclude that an murderous attack from three sides utilizing heavy weapons on the anniversary of 9/11 was NOT a planned terrorist attack.  And there is absolutely zero question that the White House did not want to acknowledge the disaster that they had just presided over, which is why they lied their asses off and are STILL lying their asses off.

The Watergate cover-up led to President Nixon resigning from office.  And this is so much worse than Watergate it isn’t even funny.

I am preserving here another report from ABC on the damning Stevens memos that indict and convict Barack Obama and his entire administration:

Oct 19, 2012 3:22pm
Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi
By Jake Tapper

Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have released new documents backing up claims by security personnel previously station in Libya that there was a shortage of security personnel in Benghazi.

The documents contain previously unreleased cables from Ambassador Stevens and his staff reflecting concerns about safety in the country.

The U.S. State Department did not have an immediate comment.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

A Libyan government national security official told Stevens “that the attacks were the work of extremists who are opposed to western influence in Libya. A number of local contacts agreed, noting that Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya and that the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities in Derna,” a village to the east in Benghazi. Other contacts disagreed with that assessment, however.

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Stevens wrote that the people of Benghazi want a security apparatus but “inherently fear abuse by the same authorities. This debate, playing out daily in Benghazi, has created the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

This would seem to suggest that Undersecretary Kennedy had approved a plan for five permanent security agents in Benghazi, but that never happened. It should be noted that there were ultimately a total of five Diplomatic Security Agents in Benghazi that night since there were two stationed at the Benghazi compound, and three escorted Ambassador Chris Stevens to the compound.

In a letter to President Obama, House Oversight Committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, note the Obama administration response that “two extra DS agents would have made no difference. This misses the point. These agents would have provided the added cover to fully evacuate all personnel from the compound – not just those who survived.”

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Nordstrom adds at 9:00 pm: “the last time we had only 2 agents at post, suspending outside movements for approximately 10 days.”

Meanwhile, security on the ground became increasingly precarious.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

The committee also released some photographs of the Benghazi compound, before and after the attack.

Issa and Chaffetz say they’ve “been told repeatedly” that the Obama administration not only “repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels,” and did so “to effectuate a policy of ‘normalization’ in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war.”

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

-Jake Tapper

.

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.