Tag: Benghazi

Obama’s IRS: Punishing Perceived Enemies…Secular and Evangelistic

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

taxesThe 2012 Presidential Election was, as are all National Elections, one of great importance. The election would decide rather former Community Organizer and one-term Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama, would get to continue radically changing the greatest country on the face of the Earth, into a socialist nation.

Buoyed by a wonderful showing in the 2010 Mid-term Elections, American Conservatives actually thought that we could defeat Obama, and stop the radical change, if the Republicans chose the right candidate.

The Republican Elite, instead of choosing a Conservative, chose one of their own, the Moderate Former Governor of Massachusetts, and Godfather of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, to face Obama in the General Election.

Begrudgingly, the majority of the Conservative Base, having gotten the shaft once again from the Republican Elite, dutifully went to the polls, and voted for Romney.

Romney lost, and Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime, once again.

Since then, it has been quite apparent that there was a lot of political chicanery at work behind the scene, during the 2012 Presidential Elections. However, noting could have prepared us for the scandals which have descended upon the Obama Administration in the last several days.

The massive scope of the actions of the Internal Revenue Service and their harassment of Conservative Groups seeking tax-exempt status, just keeps growing and growing.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Tuesday that the Justice Department and the FBI began the probe after the IRS acknowledged that it selected conservative groups with the words “tea party” and “patriot” in their names for special reviews.

“We are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations,” Holder said at a news conference.

Also Tuesday, a widely anticipated report by the IRS’s watchdog described the agency’s tax-exempt unit — where the screening of conservative groups occurred — as a bureaucratic mess, with some employees ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors and blind to the appearance of impropriety.

The report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration described in detail the use of “inappropriate criteria” to screen political advocacy groups. An IRS unit created a “lookout” list for organizations with keywords such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. Organizations faced months of delays in getting their applications approved.

President Obama on Tuesday called the report’s findings “intolerable and inexcusable,” adding that he has directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew “to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, and to make sure that each of the Inspector General’s recommendations are implemented quickly, so that such conduct never happens again.”

IRS officials told the inspector general that they had used the keywords as shorthand to efficiently manage a deluge of new political advocacy groups, but that explanation was rejected by the inspector general’s office.

“Developing and using criteria that focuses on organization names and policy positions instead of the activities . . . does not promote public confidence that tax-exempt laws are being adhered to impartially,” said the report, which Inspector General J. Russell George issued.

The report did not find evidence that the actions were motivated by partisan interests. IRS officials told investigators that they did not consult anyone outside the agency about the screening.

Think about this for a moment. The Internal Revenue Service, an agency of our nation’s Executive Branch, under the Department of the Treasury, acting as political watchdogs for a sitting administration, literally clearing a path to Barack Hussein Obama’s re-election in 2012.

Now…hold on to something. The IRS didn’t go after just secular perceived enemies of Obama. They went after the most famous Christian Evangelist on the face of God’s Green Earth:  Rev. Billy Graham.

Franklin Graham, the president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the family’s international humanitarian organization Samaritan’s Purse, said that the IRS notified the organizations in September that it was conducting a “review” of their activities for tax year 2010.

With the IRS admitting it gave extra scrutiny to conservative political organizations, Graham says he now believes that the review was part of an Obama administration effort of “targeting and attempting to intimidate us.”

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association urging of voters to back “candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel” during last year’s presidential race was the reason why IRS agents visited the North Carolina offices of both Graham groups, the letter accuses.

“While these audits not only wasted taxpayer money, they wasted money contributed by donors for ministry purposes as we had to spend precious resources servicing the IRS agents in our offices,” Graham wrote in the letter, which was shared with POLITICO. “I believe that someone in the administration was targeting and attempting to intimidate us. This is morally wrong and unethical – indeed some would call it ‘un-American.”

Graham said that “in light” of the IRS admission that it targeted tea party groups for added scrutiny, “I do not believe that the IRS audit of our two organizations last year is a coincidence – or justifiable.”

…The Graham organizations kept their federal income tax exemptions after the audit — but were not told they’d be able to until after the November election, he wrote.

Graham, who last week attended a White House meeting for religious leaders to discuss gun control, said the IRS story threatens to engulf all manner of non-profit organizations.

“Mr. President, the IRS has already publicly acknowledged it operated in a less than neutral and non-partisan way,” Graham wrote. “We also now know that the target of their improper actions was much wider than political or Tea Party organizations. Will you take some immediate action to reassure Americans we are not in a new chapter of American history – repressive government rule?”

Reverend Graham, sir, I would not hold my breath, waiting for Obama to respond. If he does, he will tell you that it is not his fault.

None of these scandals are his fault, if you ask the president. Benghazi, the IRS, the DOJ…if you ask him, he will either tell you that this is the first he is hearing of the matter, or, in the case of Benghazi, “There is no there, there.”

The problem with his reaction to these scandals is…He’s the President of the greatest nation on the face of the Earth. He is responsible for the safety of and security for millions of lives.

And, now, he is going to tell us that he does not know what is going on in the very United States Government he is supposed to be the President of?

He is either extremely incompetent, extremely stupid, or extremely lazy (Yeah, I said it.).

Or, he knew exactly what was going on…in all three scandals.

I believe that in all instances, the buck stops with the President of the United States.

Even if he does not want it to.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama 2.0: The Scandals Just Keep on Coming

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

ObamalyingJust when you think that the Obama Administration is slowly circling around the porcelain receptacle…something comes along to speed up its descent.

Yesterday afternoon, news broke that the Obama Administration through Attorney General Eric Holder, had secretly wiretapped editors and reporters, working for the Associated Press,  for two months, in April and May of 2012.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt called the wiretapping a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news. According to Pruitt, the Obama Administration sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. Furthermore, Pruitt has demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all the copies.

This is the third Obama Administration Scandal to break wide open since Thursday, when the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Darrel Issa, interviewed 3 whstleblowers about that tragic night of  September 11, 2012, when Muslim Terrorists murdered 4 brave Americans at the U.S. Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya.  The brave men, who testified last Thursday, spoke of an Administration who turned a dear ear to their cries for help that night. They also related the fact that the Youtube Video, which Obama and his Administration had blamed for the attack, was not the reason for the attack at all. In fact, it was virtually unknown in the Middle East.

The Republicans clearly won the day, with the Future Presidential Aspirations of Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, seemingly shot to Blazes.

On Friday, the second Obama Administration Scandal broke wide open, as it was revealed that the IRS had targeted Conservative Groups seeking non-profit status. Originally, it was claimed this abuse originated out of the Ohio Area.  Yesterday, it was revealed that, officials in Washington and at least two other offices were responsible for the targeting of those conservative groups.

The officials at the IRS’ Washington headquarters sent forms to be filled out to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea party-affiliated groups.

It was found out through interviews with those Conservative Groups, that the Cincinnati Office also told conservatives seeking the status of “social welfare” groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications.

When asked about the IRS’ actions at the joint Press Conference in the Rose Garden yesterday morning with Britain’s Prime Minister Cameron, Obama claimed that he knew nothing of the unconstitutional activities of the IRS until Friday.

Uh huh. And, I’m a 22 year old, blonde Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader named Buffy.

And, when asked about the Benghazi Scandal, Obama remarked that “There’s no there, there.”

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods would disagree…if they were still alive to disagree.

According to reports, Obama had a tear in his eye as he answered the reporters’ questions about these scandals.

Somewhere, a crocodile is missing a tear.

One of our Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams, said,

The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.

At the time of Adams’ quote, America was under the thumb of a tyrannical despot, who sought to restrict our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, and even, our freedom of thought.

Today, as the events of the last 4 days have shown us, in unmistakable clarity, we are once again facing tyrannical oppression.

Not from a foreign enemy, but a domestic one, who is supposed to be the leader of all of us.

As the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama is supposed to be a champion of Freedom. Not a destroyer of it.

The greatest United States of America President in my lifetime, and a true champion of Freedom, Ronald Wilson Reagan, once said,

The United States remains the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation. America is no stronger than its people — and that means you and me. Well, I believe in you, and I believe that if we work together, then one day we will say, “We fought the good fight. We finished the race. We kept the faith.” And to our children and our children’s children, we can say, “We did all what could be done in the brief time that was given us here on earth.

Americans can overcome this freedom-stifling situation we find ourselves in. Its time to put pressure on our Senators and Representatives, and remind them who put them in office and who pays their salaries.

The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch are supposed to be co-equal branches of our Government.

It’s time for the Legislative Branch to pull their weight.

This President and his Administration need to answer for their punitive actions, which have been directed at those whom they are supposed to be serving.

They seem to have forgotten who is supposed to be serving whom.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Benghazi, the White House and the Main Stream Media: the Ties That Bind

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

obamaMSMLast week, I wrote that the Main Stream Media should be ashamed over the way they have ignored the story of that horrible night at the Benghazi compound, and how they have been covering for this Administration.

According to one MSM Anchor, Benghazi is just one of the national stories they have gotten wrong.

CBS anchor Scott Pelley said at a speech at Quinnipiac University that journalists “are getting big stories wrong, over and over again.”

“Our house is on fire,” said Pelley.

“These have been a bad few months for journalism,” he added. “We’re getting the big stories wrong, over and over again.”

The CBS newsreader was quick to take at least partial blame. “Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It’s a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that’s what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here.”

And Pelley said the republic relies on the quality of the news business. “Democracies succeed or fail based on their journalism,” said Pelley. “America is strong because its journalism is strong. That’s how democracies work. They’re only as good as the quality of the information that the public possesses. And that is where we come in.”

The problem with this nation’s “Fourth Estate” is that they are no longer serving the public as reporters of current events, they are helping to shape them.

For instance, the presidents of ABC News and CBS News have a sister and brother working in the Obama administration and working on the Benghazi situation.

Last weekend, Political consultant Richard Grenell appeared on “Fox News Watch” explaining that these familial ties certainly explain why the new coverage of the murders of 4 Americans has been so lacking.

I think the media’s becoming the story, let’s face it, CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the (National Security Council) on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Rhodes’ brother, Ben, is employed as Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, and Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is Obama’s special assistant, according to Newsbusters.org.

Grenell also said that CNN deputy bureau chief Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides. He is the deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It’s a family matter for some of them.

ABC put out a report on Friday that Rhodes, brother of the CBS News president, was a key participant in the revision of the talking points that were issued after the attack and which are now subject of investigation by a House Committee.

You know what is equally as frustrating to me as a Former Collegiate Radio News Director?

The good reporters, who are still attempting to do their jobs, are under attack for “not towing the line”.

On Saturday, Patrick Howler, writing for dailycaller.com  reported that

CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.

“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”

Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.

“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.

But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.

That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

For years, the Main Stream Media has been in bed with politicians and business moguls. While, touting objectivity, they have often following way short of that goal.

The Media really came into its own during the 80’s, with the advent of Cable Television, the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and the ascension and election of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Their advocacy of all things Liberal became very apparent, as they attacked the greatest president of this generation, mercilessly, giving no quarter.

I believe that Reagan’s election was a wake up call to the MSM. They realized that, if let to their own devices, the American Public would elect a Conservative as president, every time. And, they just couldn’t have that. They were already in too deep to their Democratic, Progressive Masters.

So, America’s Media forsook their objectivity, choosing to help to shape current events, instead of just reporting on them, in an effort to produce outcomes which would be most beneficial to the Progressive Cause.

Now, in 2013, after propping up Barack Hussein Obama and getting him re-elected, their own hubris has given them an exaggerated sense of self-importance, as to their role in our society.

Their Achilles’ Heel , the before-mentioned hubris, blinded them to the potential of the New Media…and, that has been their undoing.

Principled reporters, such as the late Andrew Breitbart and Michelle Malkin, have turned up the heat on the MSM, by providing an alternative source through which Americans can receive news, unfiltered by those in the Halls of Power.

Hence, the flood of information coming out about Benghazi, the IRS, and other stories, which are beginning to signal (hopefully) the crumbling of The Lightbringer’s Administration

And, like the little Dutch Boy, the MSM does not know which hole to plug, in the leaking dam, first.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Benghazi

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

jay carney 2I was going to start today’s post with some sort of pithy quotation, like “The best-laid plans of mice and men…” or “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…”, but trite quotations seem woefully ineffective in describing what America witnessed yesterday, starting with “Good Morning, America” on ABC and culminating with a Daily Press Briefing which was an amazing spectacle in which the Liberal Main Street Media turned on the hand which fed them Talking Points.

Yesterday morning, Jonathan Karl reported for ABC News that,

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department. The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

…The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows. Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

If Fox news had reported this, it would have gone unnoticed by the MSM. However, since it was one of their own who broke the story, they were forced to actually begin to cover this Muslim Terrorist Attack, which they had assisted the Administration in covering up, for months.

Before the before-mentioned Daily Press Briefing, which was delayed until late Friday afternoon, the Administration held a “Deep Background” meeting with 14 selected members of the Press Corps.

“Deep Background” means that the info presented by those who brief the Press can be used in reporting but the briefers can’t be quoted.

Can you say “Talking Points”? Sure you can.

Well..that little confab didn’t seem to help Benghazi Jay a whole heck of a lot during the Press Briefing. The way the members of the Fourth Estate attacked him was reminiscent of a sick, old gnu being savaged by a pride of lions on the Serengeti Plains.

It was both brutal and fascinating at the same time.

The survival instincts of the reporters drove them to actually resemble professional journalists for the first time in many of their careers.

Benghazi Jay Carney ineffectively attempted to defend his boss and the rest of the Administration, seemingly recycling every single lie that Obama and his minions have ever told about that horrible night at the American Embassy Compound in Benghazi.

And, yesterday, he threw in some new ones, which made him appear to be holding a shovel in both hands, digging a hole in which to bury the Obama Administration…a hole of their own making.

The imbecilic excuse for a Presidential Press Secretary actually had the nerve to try and attack failed Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney, whom, he claimed “put out a press release to try and take political advantage of these deaths.”

Carney quickly corrected himself: “Of the attack in Benghazi.”

Carney also insisted, over and over again, that the CIA was solely responsible for the editing of those emails, which took out all references to al Queda and Muslim Terrorists.

And, of course, he blamed Republicans, over and over again, for  “politicizing” this “tragedy”.

Speaking of  “politicizing”…

On September 25, 2012, appearing before the United Nations General Assembly, United States of America President Barack Hussein Obama said,

In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims.

When he gave this speech, in front of representative of countries all over the world, Obama already knew that the murders of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods were committed by members of al Queda.

Let that sink in a moment.

The President of the United States intentionally lied about the murders of American citizens to further hia own Political/Religious Ideology and Political Machinations.

And, for this, both He and His Administration, who are supposed to be working for us, need to answer to us for their Dereliction of Duty and the sacrificing of 4 Brave Americans for Political Expediency.

Until He Comes,

KJ

.

Obama: Unvetted, Irresponsible, and AWOL

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Obama-Shrinks-2When Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) first announced his intentions to seek the Democratic Nomination for the job of President of the United States, Americans asked,

Who is this guy?

In January of 2007, future Vice-President Joe Biden, described him for us:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

After a speech by The Lightbringer, in June of 2008, MSNBC Host Chris Matthews made a fawning statement that would make him famous (in a pitifully sycophantic way),

I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

Even Republican pundits, like George Will, were slobbering over this unvetted Presidential Candidate. In June of 2008, Will wrote

Journalists consider themselves crusty, unsentimental creatures who, their battered fedoras shoved back on their heads, have slouched out of Ben Hecht’s 1928 play “The Front Page,” oozing skepticism from every pore. Actually, they are round-heeled romantics, such pushovers for a new swain that they did not laugh until their ribs squeaked when Barack Obama concluded his triumphal St. Paul, Minn., speech by proclaiming: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick …”

It is absolutely certain that generations from now someone will remember that even before that night in St. Paul, care was provided to the sick in America. Obama also asserted that future generations would say that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …” The man and the moment have met.

Obama’s words mesmerize a nation accustomed to leaders who routinely use words with antic indifference to their accuracy.

Hidden behind their fawning facades was the fact that even the old guard of the Democratic Party had reservations about this Manchurian Candidate (or, should I say “Kenyan”?).

Back in June of 2010, when Ben Smith was still reporting for politico.com, he wrote

I’ve finally gotten my hands on a copy of Game Change, in which John Heliemann and Mark Halperin report:

[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

Bubba, Rhodes Scholar that he is, may have unknowingly made a very cogent point, concerning The Lightbringer’s ability to handle the job of being the Leader of the Free World.

Now, one month in his second term as president (Lord, I hate having to say that…sigh…) an exclamation point has been written on his record of anti-American incompetency.

This week, as I’ve written before, hearings were held by the Senate on the massacre of our Libyan Ambassador, Chris Stephens, and 3 other Americans, by a barbaric horde of Muslim Terrorists.The Administration has blatantly engaged in a massive cover-up  since that horrible night, including blaming an unwatched Youtube video for ‘riling up” the barbarians, leading them to commit the atrocity.

During the hearings, a fact was revealed that should make every American livid with rage.

A revelation that is so bad, even that Liberal bastion of Left Wing Journalism, the Washington Post had to agree with the assessment of Conservative Talk Show Host Sean Hannity and admit that it is a troubling situation:

Sean Hannity reports that he was “stunned” upon hearing that President Obama had minimal interaction with his top defense official on the night of the Sept. 11 attack against the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. That revelation stemmed from an exchange in a Senate hearing between Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding the president’s communications that night. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey met with Obama about an hour after the attack began but didn’t have direct communication with him after that. Here’s how the exchange unfolded:

AYOTTE: Did you have any other further communications? Did he ever call you that night to say how are things going, what’s going on, where is the consulate?

PANETTA: No.

AYOTTE: Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?

PANETTA: No.

AYOTTE: No one else called you to say, what, how are things going?

PANETTA: No.

As predicted, Hannity seized on the exchange. “Now the most alarming news that came out of that testimony is that President Obama was virtually absent on the night that four Americans died, and according to Panetta, he and General Dempsey only spoke once that night to the commander-in-chief.”

On came Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to assist with the accountabilitizing:

Well, Mr. President, what did you do for eight hours? Who did you talk to? What kind of leadership did you exhibit? They made two movies about the Bin Laden raid and you deserve credit for that, but you’ve had no accounting for the Benghazi attack and you’re going to have an accounting.

I’m not going to stop until the American people know what their commander-in-chief did for eight hours and thus far, all we know is he had a 15-minute conversation.The revelations from Panetta weren’t the most-watched developments on Capitol Hill. That distinction belonged to a hearing in which John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser, was enduring a confirmation grilling for his appointment as CIA director.

…Ayotte & Co. managed to do with Panetta and Dempsey what a House and Senate panel had failed to do in January with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and that’s to produce some telling and consequential tidbits about Benghazi. Graham told Hannity that the White House has “delayed, denied, deceived and stonewalled” regarding the ordeal. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it has taken a good five months for this level of detail to emerge on contact among the key players.

I was going to use the Peter Principle to describe the Manchurian President. The Peter Principle is a theory that proposes that, as people rise in a hierarchy, they eventually rise to their level of incompetence.

However, that does not apply in the case of President Barack Hussein Obama (peace be upon him). He started out unvetted and incompetent.

Now, he’s become a disaster.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Obama and Clinton AWOL on 9/11/12…While Americans Were Murdered.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

BenghaziGate3Yesterday, outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, spoke before the Senate on the subject of that horrible night at the Benghazi Consulate, where 4 Americans, including our Ambassador, were savagely murdered.

The Weekly Standard reports

Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under seize, “up to us.”

In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Panetta said that, save their 5 o’clock prescheduled meeting with the president the day of September 11, Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that day. There were no calls about the what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.

Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, “In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?”

“We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton,” Panetta responded.

But, wait…there is even more gross incompetency…

             General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested “support” in Benghazi:

“Why didn’t you put forces in place to be ready to respond?,” Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, “Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we –”

McCain iterrupted, “You never heard of Ambassador Stevens’s repeated warnings?”

“I had, through General Ham,” responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. “But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces-”

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?”

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey responded.

“And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?” Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this.

Back on November 1, 2012, in a post titled, “BenghaziGate: A Matter of Transparency”, I reported that

On September 11, 2012, 4 brave Americans, including our Ambassador, were murdered on the grounds of the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As I wrote the other day, answers are still being sought , and America’s President “ain’t saying a mumblin’ word.”

Perhaps, that is because his present actions are in direct opposition to what he promised upon taking office.

From whitehouse.gov, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government”

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public…

As Americans have figured out by now, all of Obama’s promises come with expiration dates.

The Weekly Standard reports:

Seven weeks later, the White House still hasn’t explained what President Obama did and didn’t do during the seven hours of the attack on Benghazi on September 11. And there’s been no response from the White House to questions asked by senators or THE WEEKLY STANDARD or David Ignatius in the Washington Post.

We have, to be sure, heard from some government officials. But the information they’ve provided raises still more questions.

CIA director David Petraeus authorized a statement pointedly saying that “No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate”—which strongly suggests that Petraeus believes or knows that officials in other parts of the government may have told subordinates “not to help those in need.”

Those could have been officials in the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to suggest that was the case: “The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Yesterday, we found out why Obama would not say what he was doing during the murder of those Americans.

Like Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of the matter.

And, he, and his entire Administration are a bunch of liars, and are guilty of Dereliction of Duty, at best, and, Treason, at worst.

Period.

From the order given to “Stand Down” on that horrible night,  to the sending of Susan Rice out to the media sources to spread the blatant lie that an un-watched Youtube Video caused the murderous barbarians to attack on the 11th anniversary of the largest Muslim Terrorist attack ever perpetrated on American Soil, Obama and his minions did nothing but lie to the American people.

As I originally wrote on November 1, 2012,

This is not going away anytime soon.The American public wants some answers.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith remain unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Hillary Commits Political Seppuku…or Does She?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics8 Comments

On the eve of the Second Presidential Debate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both politically and symbolically, fell on her sword for her President, Barack Hussein Obama…or did she?

CNN.com broke the story:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

The attack on the night of September 11 killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the American consulate in Benghazi.

The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week’s vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. After the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.

Clinton said President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.

Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded. In the wake of an attack, there is always confusion, Clinton said. But the information has since changed, she said.

The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of the assault. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again, but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

“We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”

Mark Baisley wrote the following in an article on townhall.com, which was posted early yesterday, before Hillary’s announcement last evening:

I am imagining that Hillary Clinton is spending a great deal of time with close advisors and political strategists this week. She has been a very good soldier for Barack Obama for four years now. But there is no way that Hillary Clinton is going to allow her own presidential ambitions for 2016 to be spoiled so that Barack Obama can be re-elected in 2012.

An inevitable gunfight has been building between the Chicago Democratic machine and the Arkansas Democratic royalty for weeks now. And President Obama can thank his short-sighted Vice President for expediting the inevitable shootout to begin at the same time as early voting.

President Obama has escaped disaster time after time with scandals and cover-ups that would have taken down the cleanest Republican president. The abuse of the National Labor Relations Board in an attempt to force Boeing to place its 787 plant in union-controlled Washington State left no chinks in Obama’s armor. Bribing Lockheed Martin with covering of legal expenses if they will postpone required layoff notices until after the election does not seem to have raised a single liberal eyebrow. Even invoking Executive Privilege to withhold information from Congress regarding the murders of an American Border Patrol and hundreds of Mexican citizens has not shaken the President’s loyal following.

But while the yellow-tinted, main-stream media is blatantly positioned on the side of the Democratic Party, they did not count on having to choose sides between Barack and Hillary in the final days of the 2012 presidential election.

It all started innocently enough. The President and his Secretary of State set out on an international tour beginning in 2010, sharing enlightened American liberalism to a welcoming world. Cultures who once hated America would naturally embrace the new oneness with a Presidential bow.

The State Department’s mission now includes promoting the agenda of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community worldwide. Or, as Secretary Clinton put it, “So here at the State Department, we will continue to advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We are elevating our human rights dialogues with other governments and conducting public diplomacy to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons.” (See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/06/143517.htm)

We could certainly expect that asserting the LGBT acceptance message to other cultures, especially to muslim countries, would be the Obama Administration’sdaisy in the gun barrel milestone. To quote Secretary Clinton’s closing line in her address calling on every State Department bureau and every embassy to participate in the advancing of worldwide LGBT tolerance, this is “one of history’s great moments.”

Even Hollywood’s international ambassador, Madonna, did her part in carrying out the mission on an informal basis this summer. Last month, while entertaining a crowd in Washington, D.C., the pop star included this supportive mention of the President’s program, “Y’all better vote for f_ _ _ _ _ g Obama, OK? For better or for worse, alright? We have a black muslim in the White House. Now that is some s _ _ t. Some amazing s _ _ t. It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights. OK? So support the man, G_ _ _ _ _ mit!” This heartwarming message was delivered to an American audience shortly after returning to the U.S. from her tour in two decidedly Islamic countries, where she treated her muslim audience to a flash of her right mammilla during a concert in Istanbul.

After softening up the militantly modest sensibilities of Islam’s religious police through messaging, supported by Madonna’s indecent exposure tour, the Obama Administration got down to some thoughtful personnel deployments. In an apparent act of altruistic hope and change, the State Department dispatched a gay man as Ambassador to Libya. What could possibly go wrong?

…The Obama-Biden team seems very willing to let Hillary Clinton become the scapegoat for their poor handling of foreign affairs and for covering up the real story of a loyal American left shamefully vulnerable by a president who blows off intelligence briefings daily. Secretary Clinton will not take the fall for this president. And if Bill Clinton chooses to weigh in on behalf of his wife this month, Mitt Romney will walk across the finish line on November 6. In the worst timing for an administration up for re-election, a dithering media may actually choose to investigate the truth – out of not knowing what else to do.

Why would an Administration send an openly Gay man to be the Ambassador of a still-hotly contested, Fundamental Islamic country, where they hang people for simply being homosexual?

Was it to prove a political point, or is Obama and his Administration just that arrogantly and naively stupid?

And, why did Secretary of State Clinton take responsibility for the monumental screw-up in Libya, which cost four Americans their lives at the hands of Muslim Terrorists?

Consider how she intentionally timed her announcement to hit the eve of the Second Presidential Debate…

Is she protecting him in order to get Obama re-elected? Or, is she trying to expose him as inept and ineffective?

Another Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, famously said 

The Buck Stops Here!

Evidently, in Obama’s case, it doesn’t.

The VP Debate: Paul Ryan Vs. Joe Biden AND Martha Raddatz

On By kingsjesterIn Politics10 Comments

As I write this Blog, the Vice-Presidential debate is wrapping up.

I admire the stew out of Paul Ryan.

He just spent 90 minutes debating both the Vice-President of the United States and the Moderator, ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who has known Barack Hussein Obama since her ex-husband, the current Chairman of the FCC, and young Scooter were classmates at Harvard Law School.

The scales were tipped from the get-go. Crazy Uncle Joe kept interrupting Congressman Ryan, in an obvious strategy to a) torque him off and get him off his game plan, and b) shout him down so that his arguments could not be heard.

The so-called Moderator, Ms. Raddatz, faithfully did her duty…to the Democratic Party. Every time Ryan would speak, she would interrupt him as well, asking infinitely more questions of him than she did of Jar Jar Biden.

While Ryan kept his cool, as well as his professionalism, Biden appeared to be badly in need of some Prozac, and at times during the debate came across as maniacally desperate.

Several noted Liberals were on Twitter during the debate posting disparaging remarks concerning Crazy Uncle Joe’s smirking and condescending attitude.

Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway: “Joe Biden’s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?”

TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Not sure debate cameras have been light tested for Biden’s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.”

Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”

NBC’s David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: “So did Biden practice laughing at Ryan???”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: “Joe Biden needs to realize this isn’t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.”

Radio host Neal Boortz: “Looking like Biden’s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.”

Townhall.com’s Guy Benson: “Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?”

MSNBC’s S.E. Cupp: “Biden needs to laugh a little less through the Libya, Middle East, nuclear Iran segment.”

Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Ok. I have decided. I find the Biden smile slightly unsettling.”

PBS’ Jeff Greenfield: “Biden has always had a smile that at times is really, really inappropriate.”

Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard: “Can’t tell yet if Biden’s smirking, laughs, eye-rolling, head shaking, works for him or not against the oh-so-young looking eager Ryan.”

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: “Biden is at risk of having his laugh come across like Gore’s sighs. He should knock it off.”

The New York Times’ Ashley Parker: “Biden’s grin is Chesire Cat caliber.”

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean: “Biden laughing does not come off with the intended effect. It is actually hurting him. Looks very condescending.”

Movie critic Roger Ebert: “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

Washington Times’ Emily Miller: “Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.”

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin: “Biden’s laughing is losing the debate- obnoxious”

Comedy Central’s Indecision: “If this keeps up much longer, Joe Biden’s going to sprain his laugh muscles.”

And while Congressman Ryan was too much of a gentleman to do so, I wish he would have asked Ms. Raddatz last night, if she was a supposed to be a Broadcast Journalist or a Democratic Party Activist?

Foxnews.com summarizes the debate for us:

Vice President Biden and Paul Ryan came ready to rumble. And it showed.

The dueling running mates turned the lone vice presidential debate into an uncharacteristically feisty affair Thursday night, scrapping over everything from the economy to Libya to taxes.

The candidates interrupted each other. They talked over each other. Biden chuckled through many of Ryan’s responses. Ryan claimed his opponent was simply under “duress.”

The 90-minute session was a turnaround from last week’s opening presidential debate, a policy-focused bout in which President Obama was panned for his lackluster performance. On stage Thursday night in Kentucky, both vice presidential contenders aggressively challenged each other and came armed with a stack of talking points.

Ryan accused Obama of “projecting weakness” with his foreign policy, particularly in his response to the terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. At home, he accused the administration of presiding over a shoddy recovery.

“This is not what a real recovery looks like,” he said.

Biden went after the Romney/Ryan ticket with a directness that Obama did not a week ago in Denver. Notably, he hammered Romney over his secretly videotaped comment in which he said he doesn’t have to worry about the “47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes.

“These people are my mom and dad, the people I grew up with, my neighbors,” Biden said, adding he’s “had it up to here” with those kinds of comments.

Ryan shot back, in reference to Biden’s tendency to make gaffes: “As the vice president very well knows … sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

“But I always say what I mean,” Biden responded. “And so does Romney.”

Ryan opened the vice presidential debate with tough criticism of the Obama administration over its handling of the Libya terror attack.

“What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” Ryan said.

With the moderator, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, opening the debate with a question about the Libya strike, which happened a month ago Thursday, Ryan criticized the administration for waiting more than a week after the strike to call it a coordinated terror attack.

“This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they’re trying to blame the Romney/Ryan ticket for making this an issue,” he said. Ryan was referring to a claim by an Obama aide earlier Thursday that the only reason the attack had entered the political debate was because of Romney’s criticism – a claim Romney rejected.

Biden was quick to retort: “With all due respect, that’s just a bunch of malarkey,” he said, on the debate stage in Kentucky.

“This talk about this weakness, I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about,” he said.

Biden also criticized Romney for making a “political statement”on the night of the attack, a reference to Romney’s criticism of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo’s early response to protests there.

The face-off Thursday night was taking on outsized importance for a vice presidential debate.

After Obama’s debate performance last week, the pressure was on Biden to recapture the momentum – while equally on Ryan to prevent the Obama ticket from blunting Romney’s surge.

In a matter of days, Romney has picked up steam in both battleground and national polls. The latest Fox News national poll of likely voters showed Romney edging Obama, 46 percent to 45 percent.

Other polls show Romney with more of a lead.

Judging from what I saw and heard last night, I don’t think that last night’s cranky old man performance by Crazy Uncle Joe will make a bit of difference.

One last thought:

The spin from the Democrats immediately after the debate was that Joe is “A Happy Warrior”.  So is aged Professional Wrestler “Hacksaw” Jim Duggan. But, I don’t want him to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, either.

Did Budget Cuts Lead to Throats Being Cut?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Evidently, the money designated for Ambassador to Lybia Chris Stevens’ protection had to be used for something more important: like Michelle’s vay-cays or improving Obama’s Golf Game.

Fore!

The Washington Times reports that

Investigators looking for lessons from the fatal terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might want to start on Capitol Hill, where Congress slashed spending on diplomatic security and U.S. embassy construction over the past two years.

Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer.

Rep. Michael Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, made clear Wednesday that congressional staff will be looking into the attack, in addition to a probe by the State Department’s inspector general and another State Department investigation required by federal law.

The cuts to the embassy construction, security and maintenance budget was almost 10 percent of the entire appropriation for that account over those two years, said Scott Lilly, now a scholar at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“Anytime we cut that account back, we are putting people’s lives at risk, people who are serving the country” in dangerous places abroad, said Mr. Lilly.

The cuts mean that “a lot of places you’d intended to secure better, you don’t reach” this year, he added.

He said he did not know whether the cuts had impacted security at the Benghazi consulate that was stormed on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by heavily armed Islamic extremists, who burned down the building and killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

A State Department official told The Washington Times that there was no impact on security in Benghazi from the cuts.

Since 1999, the official said, the department has spent $13 billion on 94 new secure diplomatic facilities “and security upgrades to existing properties that have moved more than 27,000 people into safer, more secure facilities.”

The cuts were the latest in a series of squeezes on State Department spending. Congress has appropriated less money for the department than requested in every year since Fiscal 2007, according to budget figures.

“During both the latter years of the Bush presidency and throughout the Obama presidency, the administration has recommended boosting spending on foreign aid and [State Department] foreign operations, including security, and Congress has always cut it back,” said Philip J. Crowley, a former State Department spokesman.

“There is simply not a constituency on the Hill to increase spending on diplomacy and development. Resources do matter.” said Mr. Crowley, now a fellow at the George Washington University Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.

In a completely unrelated story (I’m sure), published on July 25, 2012, at AmericanThinker.com:…

…Walid Shoebat published this 37-page booklet entitled “Proof: Huma has Ties to Muslim Brotherhood — Countless Documents Surface” and this was followed up with Tuesday’s update that “Huma Abedin Served on Board with Al-Qaeda Godfather”. Shoebat states that the latest discoveries “include but are not limited to “[p]roof that Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin served on the Board of IMMA from at least 12/02/02 – 9/24/08” and that “Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef served on IMMA’s Advisory Board from at least 12/02/02 – 12/03/03.”

…Besides extensively citing all of Huma Abedin’s family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Sisterhood, Shoebat maintains that “[n]either Huma Abedin, Hillary’s aid [sic] or any major western media even mention what is common knowledge in the Arab circles regarding Hassan Abedin, [and] his connections or activities.” Hassan is Huma’s brother.

Why the virtual silence?

Abedin’s brother had a strong working relationship with Abdullah Omar Naseef and Yusuf Qaradawi. Naseef “chaired other entities considered major security concerns for the United States and ran a charity front for terror.” There is no “six degrees of separation” among these men as has been maintained by the mainstream media. Central to Shoebat’s investigation are the overlapping ties of Abdullah Omar Naseef to a number of Muslim Brotherhood offshoots. One such group WAMY or World Assembly of Muslim Youth maintains that “[t]he Jews are humanity’s enemies: they foment immorality in this world.”

Saleha Abedin, Huma’s mother, through the Sisterhood branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, works to advance the Brotherhood agendas against Western interests and policies. In his report, Shoebat shows the interlocking tentacles among various Muslim Brotherhood members which leave “no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is the author and the one setting policies and standards for the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which Saleha Abedin chairs. IICWC’s ‘official policies include marital rape, child marriage, female genital circumcision and polygamy.'”

In a 16 page letter, written last summer to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, Rep. Michele Bachmann wrote:

The concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position. For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Of course, nothing ever happened, except for President Obama defending Ms. Abedin, in front of his Muslim guests, at his annual Ramadan Dinner.

Given the fact that the Muslim Terrorists seem to know more about the timing of Administrative Initiatives and inner workings of our government than do most of our elected representatives up on Capitol Hill, as proven by the attack on the Benghazi Consulate, I would say that it may be time to actually investigate Ms. Abedin, and any other Muslims with questionable familial ties, in key Administrative positions in our Government, wouldn’t you?

Benghazi, Dhimmitude, and Liberal Intolerance

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Well, it looks like Obama, Hillary, and their entire Smart Power! team are reluctantly beginning to admit that the attack on the Benghazi, Libya Consulate, which led to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, was not the fault of that stupid Youtube Video that nobody has watched.

The New York Times reports that

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday suggested there was a link between the Al Qaeda franchise in North Africa and the attack at the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador and three others. She was the highest-ranking Obama administration official to publicly make the connection, and her comments intensified what is becoming a fiercely partisan fight over whether the attack could have been prevented.

Mrs. Clinton did not offer any new evidence of an Al Qaeda link, and officials later said the question would be officially settled only after the F.B.I. completed a criminal inquiry, which could take months. But they said they had not ruled out the involvement of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb — an affiliate of the international terrorist group with origins in Algeria — in an attack the administration initially described as a spontaneous protest turned violent.

Her remarks added to the administration’s evolving and at times muddled explanation of what happened on the evening of Sept. 11 and into the next morning. Republicans in Congress have accused President Obama of playing down possible terrorist involvement in the midst of a re-election campaign in which killing Osama bin Laden and crippling Al Qaeda are cited as major achievements.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks at a special United Nations meeting on the political and security crisis in the parts of North Africa known as the Maghreb and the Sahel, particularly in northern Mali, which has been overrun by Islamic extremists since a military coup helped lead to the division of that country this year. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb has long operated in the region, she said, and was now exploiting a haven in Mali to export extremism and terrorist violence to neighbors like Libya.

“Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions,” Mrs. Clinton told leaders assembled at the meeting, including President François Hollande of France and the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. “And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.”

And, even though the truth about the extreme adherents to the “religion of peace” has been revealed, that doesn’t mean that the Liberal Main Street Media are going to give up their dhimmitude easily.

 Newsbusters.org has the story:

The New York Post reported Egyptian-American columnist Mona Eltahawy has been arrested for defacing an anti-Muslim ad in the New York subway system. The video shows her spraying pink paint on the ad while a supporter of the ad tries to block her. She’s a journalist for censorship.

Eltahawy, a former Reuters correspondent, has been a recent favorite of CNN and MSNBC’s weekend morning shows to discuss Egypt, and she often smears together the Islamist “right wing” and the American right wing, as she did on Melissa Harris-Perry just 11 days ago :

ELTAHAWY: We [Egyptians] have a president who is trying to establish his position somewhere in the middle and we have a group that is trying to establish themselves on the right wing. And you`re having a similar situation in the U.S. We are coming up to elections now in less than two months. There is a right wing fringe there as well. So, you`ve got a right wing and a right wing. Both minorities, both trying to provoke people and a whole lot of people with very, very, sometimes legitimate grievances, but sometimes utterly senseless grievances, being caught in the middle.

Eltahawy was even featured on the September 15 NBC Nightly News decrying America’s long-term support for Egyptian dictators. Here’s how the New York Post characterized the subway fight:

“Mona, do you think you have the right to do this?” said Pamela Hall, holding a mounted camera as she tried to block the barrage of spray paint.

“I do actually,” Eltahawy calmly responded. “I think this is freedom of expression, just as this is freedom of expression.”

Hall then thrusts herself between Eltahawy’s spray paint and the poster.

Eltahawy — an activist who has appeared on MSNBC and CNN — engaged her in an odd cat-and-mouse dance, spraying pink every time she had an opening.

“What right do you have to violate free speech,” Hall pleaded.

“I’m not violating it. I’m making an expression on free speech,” an increasingly agitated Eltahawy shot back.

“You do not have the right!” Hall said.

“I do actually and I’m doing it right now and you should get out of the way! Do you want paint on yourself,” Eltahawy shot back.

As the poster defender bobbed and weaved to get in the paint’s way, Eltahawy mocked: “That’s right, defend racism.”

Eltahawy appeared in the typically long segments on the Harris-Perry show on April 28, July 1, and September 15, and also appeared on Up With Chris Hayes on June 24. Just in September, Eltahawy was featured in seven interviews about Egypt just from September 11 to 13, including two appearances on Anderson Cooper 360 (the seven interviews would not count replays).

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote

Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.

…civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the [true] religion of peace [Christianity] is usually the better armed.

The 44th President of the United States said in his speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

After observing the intentional dhimmitude of Ms. Eltahawy and President Obama, I’m reminded of two quotes, one famous , one not so famous:

Churchill, when speaking about the Nazis:

An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.

Me, about Liberals:

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us…are actually the least tolerant of all?