Tag: Obama

The most divisive president in U.S. History.

The 3rd Presidential Debate: The Petulant President Vs. the Grown-Up Contender

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Going into last night’s debate, all you heard from the MSM, and all the Obama sycophants (but, I repeat myself) was that Obama was just cotton-picking brilliant in the area of Foreign Policy

Of course, I’m sure that Ambassador Chris Stevens would have a different opinion.

Foxnews.com describes the opening of the debate:

Mitt Romney ripped President Obama’s foreign policy at the start of Monday night’s debate, claiming the president’s strategy has not quelled the Al Qaeda threat.

“It’s certainly not on the run. It’s certainly not in hiding,” Romney said. “This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries.”

Obama, though, countered that “Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated.”

And he sought to portray Romney as someone who would be an unsteady leader on the world stage. He accused Romney of having a strategy that is “all over the map.”

Obama was tough on Romney from the outset, accusing him of having poor judgment and antiquated views on the world stage.

“I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaeda,” Obama said. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Obama went on to say that, on foreign policy, “every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.”

Romney fired back, “attacking me is not an agenda.” He accused Obama of looking at countries like Russia through “rose-colored glasses.”

Per businessweek.com:

President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney accused each other of failing to have clear foreign policy visions as the two met for their third and final debate.

“I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama said tonight at the faceoff in Boca Raton, Florida. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, has put forth strategies that are “all over the map,” Obama said.

Romney began the debate by criticizing Obama for what he described as growing threats in Syria, Libya, Mali, Egypt and Iran. While he congratulated Obama for the raid that killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, he said, “we must have a comprehensive strategy” to reject extremism.

“We can’t kill our way out of this mess,” Romney said. Later, he said, “nowhere in the world is America’s influence in the world greater than it was four years ago.”

Obama stressed his commander-in-chief credentials while trying to paint Romney as out of his depth. He criticized Romney for once saying Russia was the biggest geopolitical foe facing the U.S.

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said.

Later, Obama told Romney that a complaint he frequently makes on the campaign trail about lower U.S. navy ship levels was misplaced because the military has changed.

“We also have fewer horses and bayonets” than in the past because of differing national security demands, Obama said.

And that’s the way the evening went.

Mitt was acting mature and presidential, and Obama was petulant and rambling like a six year-old, who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

As I alluded to earlier, if you look at all the usual suspects this morning, CBS, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post, USA Today, et al, you would think that President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) was absolutely brilliant.

If he is, then, so was Neville Chamberlain.

Investigativeproject.org reports:

A year-long investigation by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has found that scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to the Obama White House, meeting with top administration officials.

Court documents and other records have identified many of these visitors as belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other Islamic militant organizations.

The IPT made the discovery combing through millions of White House visitor log entries. IPT compared the visitors’ names with lists of known radical Islamists. Among the visitors were officials representing groups which have:

Been designated by the Department of Justice as unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist trials; Extolled Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas and Hizballah;

Obstructed terrorist investigations by instructing their followers not to cooperate with law enforcement;

Promoted the incendiary conspiratorial allegation that the United States is engaged in a “war against Islam”— a leading tool in recruiting Muslims to carry out acts of terror;

Repeatedly claimed that many of the Islamic terrorists convicted since 9-11 were framed by the U.S government as part of an anti-Muslim profiling campaign.

Individuals from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) visited the White House at least 20 times starting in 2009. In 2008, CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist money laundering case in U.S. history – the trial of the Holy Land Foundation in which five HLF officials were convicted of funneling money to Hamas.

U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis later ruled that, “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the association” of CAIR to Hamas, upholding their designations as unindicted co-conspirators. In 2008, the FBI formally ended all contact with CAIR because of its ties to Hamas.

As I reported Sunday, Obama appointed a Jihadist to the OCSE, the UN Committee, who has been invited by someone (with no sense whatsoever) to monitor our National Election on November 6th. To remind you,

Salam Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Los Angeles-based Islamic advocacy group that defends Muslim extremist violence. MPAC has condemned the anti-terrorism measures of both the U.S. and Israel, and has called for a repeal of the Patriot Act.

This is Smart Power?

Obama’s Domestic and Foreign Policies both stink on ice. We cannot afford 4 more years of the Manchurian President. 

I know how I’m going to vote on November 6th. How about you?

The Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy: Another Time For Choosing

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney will square off for the final Presidential Debate, which will be on Foreign Policy.

According to the New York Times:

When President Obama and Mitt Romney sit down Monday night for the last of their three debates, two things should be immediately evident: there should be no pacing the stage or candidates’ getting into each other’s space, and there should be no veering into arguments over taxes.

This debate is about how America deals with the world — and how it should.

If the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has his way, it will be the most substantive of the debates. He has outlined several topics: America’s role in the world, the continuing war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear crisis with Iran and the resultant tensions with Israel, and how to deal with rise of China.

The most time, Mr. Schieffer has said, will be spent on the Arab uprisings, their aftermath and how the terrorist threat has changed since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. No doubt the two candidates will spar again, as they did in the second debate, about whether the Obama administration was ready for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans. Mr. Romney was widely judged to not have had his most effective critique ready, and this time, presumably, he will be out to correct that.

The early line is that this is an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shine, and to repair the damage from the first debate. (He was already telling jokes the other night, at a dinner in New York, about his frequent mention of Osama bin Laden’s demise.)

I’ve heard Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who is also Mitt Romney’s Foreign  Policy Adviser, state that Romney’s approach to Foreign Affairs with be like that of President Reagan: “Peace Through Strength”.

Amb. Bolton explained that concept further in an interview he did in September with The Washington Times:

It is central to successful U.S. foreign policy that we achieve the overwhelming preponderance of our key objectives diplomatically, without the use of force. But as the Romans said, si vis pacem, para bellum: If you want peace, prepare for war. George Washington used the maxim in his first State of the Union address, and in our day, Ronald Reagan characterized his policy as “peace through strength.” The point is clear.

Unfortunately, too many mistake resolve for belligerence. President Obama, for example, acts as if American strength is provocative, that we are too much in the world, and that a lesser U.S. profile would make other nations better disposed toward us. This is exactly backwards. It is not our strength that is provocative, but our weakness, which simply emboldens our adversaries to take advantage of what they see as decline and retreat.

…When our opponents sense a weak, inattentive U.S. administration, they are obviously motivated to seize the opening before a Reagan-like president appears. So, when Mr. Obama pleads with Russian President Medvedev to give him “space” before our election so Obama can be more “flexible” afterward, our adversaries take careful note. And when China’s official news agency scoffed last week that, “U.S. power is declining and it hasn’t enough economic strength or resources to dominate the Asia-Pacific region,” China’s neighbors shudder.

The perception of U.S. weakness can certainly be reversed, as Reagan did, but the costs are inevitably high. Today, debilitating cuts in the national-defense budget, with more to come if the sequestration provisions kick in, only make the task of rebuilding harder. International leadership is undeniably a burden, and many other countries benefit as free riders, but we cannot forget we are not leading out of altruism but because of the sustained economic and political benefits that accrue to America. We cannot have one without the other.

…George H.W. Bush correctly assessed his 1988 opponent Michael Dukakis by saying, “He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.” This is essentially Mr. Obama’s view, that of a self-described “citizen of the world.” It rests on two elements. One is “moral equivalency,” seeing all nations as fungible, no one having a higher claim than another, including our own. Iran, North Korea, America — it’s just too parochial to treat them differently. The other is “mirror imaging,” the fallacy of seeing other nations as operating according to our same incentives and disincentives, our rationality and our same ranking of outcomes. While we can overcome these failures, we must first be aware how pervasive they are within the American Establishment.

…Beyond question, our gravest threat comes from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the means to deliver them, including ballistic missiles. Whether in the hands of terrorists, rogue states or increasingly from a re-surging Russia and a rapidly advancing China, the WMD threat is growing. It has been so long since nuclear testing, above or below ground, that I worry too many Americans have lost sight of the power of nuclear weapons, seeing them as something from grainy black-and-white films from 1940s testing in Pacific atolls.

The consequences, however, are terrifying, whether we contemplate the loss of even one American city held hostage to nuclear blackmail by terrorists, or the prospect of Israel vaporizing in a nuclear holocaust. There is more to defending the United States than just the military assets we deploy. More fundamental is our basic attitude: Do we acknowledge, or not, the possibility — even the likelihood — that there are ideologies, religions or nations that wish us ill, even to the point of our destruction?

Amazingly, having just concluded a century where vicious ideologies like Nazism and Communism caused slaughter and torment beyond description, we find many political leaders — like President Obama (“the tide of war is receding”) — essentially prepared to declare “peace in our time.” No war on terror, no radical Islam, no geopolitical competitors, no nothing. This is a prescription not for peace ahead, but for imminent danger.

…Contrary to what its critics, including many in this country, say, American exceptionalism simply recognizes the reality of our distinct history. After all, a Frenchman, Alexis de Toqueville, first characterized us as “exceptional,” and he didn’t mean it entirely as a compliment! Mr. Obama once compared U.S. exceptionalism to Britain and Greece, and he easily could have listed the other 190 United Nations members. If everyone is exceptional, no one is, leading almost inexorably to believe that the United States has no special role to play internationally, even on its own behalf. It leads to a “come home, America” approach that inevitably weakens the United States, its friends and allies, and the values and interests we should be advancing.

Tonight, as you watch this last, and possibly, most important of the Presidential Debates, the question you need to decide for yourself is very simple: 

Which Foreign Policy will keep Americans safer from our enemies?

A return to Peace Through Strength and American Exceptionalism?

or

A continuance of the naive acquiescence, the alienating of our allies and embracing of our enemies,  that got Ambassador Chris Stevens murdered by Islamic Terrorists?

UN Representatives to Monitor OUR Presidential Election

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

A group from the UN, whose representative from the US, appointed by President Obama, is a jihadist, will be at the polls, monitoring our Presidential Election.

Thehill.com reports

United Nations-affiliated election monitors from Europe and central Asia will be at polling places around the U.S. looking for voter suppression activities by conservative groups, a concern raised by civil rights groups during a meeting this week. The intervention has drawn criticism from a prominent conservative-leaning group combating election fraud.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a United Nations partner on democratization and human rights projects, will deploy 44 observers around the county on Election Day to monitor an array of activities, including potential disputes at polling places.

Liberal-leaning civil rights groups met with representatives from the OSCE this week to raise their fears about what they say are systematic efforts to suppress minority voters likely to vote for President Obama.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU, among other groups, warned this month in a letter to Daan Everts, a senior official with OSCE, of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans — particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

The request for foreign monitoring of election sites drew a strong rebuke from Catherine Engelbrecht, founder and president of True the Vote, a conservative-leaning group seeking to crack down on election fraud.

“These activist groups sought assistance not from American sources, but from the United Nations,” she said in a statement to The Hill. “The United Nations has no jurisdiction over American elections.”

The observers, from countries such as Germany, France, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, will observe voting at polling places and other political activity.

“They [will] observe the overall election process, not just the ballot casting,” said Giovanna Maiola, spokeswoman for OSCE. “They are focusing on a number of areas on the state level, including the legal system, election administration, the campaign, the campaign financing [and] new voting technologies used in the different states.”

In a follow-up e-mail, Maiola noted that it is a limited election-observation mission. She said “the OSCE has regularly been invited to observe elections in the United States, in line with OSCE commitments.”

Access of international observers during voting is explicitly allowed in some states such as Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Mexico.

“State law does not generally provide for international observers,” Maiola said. “However, through our contacts at state and county level in certain states, we managed to secure invitations at local level and we have taken up the offer to observe. Where this is not possible, we will respect the state regulation on this matter and will not observe in precincts on Election Day.”

International observers will follow up on the concerns raised by civil rights groups.

“We attended their meeting, we took note of the issued they raised and we asked our observers in the field to follow up on them,” said Maiola.

Per the OSCE Handbook:

Election observation enhances accountability and transparency, thereby boosting both domestic and international confidence in the process. The mere presence of international observers alone, however, should not be viewed as adding legitimacy or credibility to an election process. Although the presence of observers may indicate that the process merits observation, it is the observers’ conclusions about the process, based on the ODIHR’s methodology, that will form the ODIHR’s opinion on the election.

Through my anger, I researched the OSCE further, because somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind,  the name rang a bell.  I soon discovered why:

Jewish leaders expressed outrage Friday over the State Department’s praise for, and defense of, a controversial Muslim leader who has defended terrorist groups and suggested that Israel may have been responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).

Al-Marayati’s well-known anti-Israel bona fides prompted Jewish leaders and others to express outrage over the Obama administration’s selection.

“It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views—even with a lackluster apology—is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to the Free Beacon.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”

“With terrorism continuing to roil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is ‘highly credible’?”

So, who is this guy, whom Obama chose as our country’s representative to this group that is monitoring the most important Presidential Election in our lifetime?

According to discoverthenetworks.org:

Salam Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Los Angeles-based Islamic advocacy group that defends Muslim extremist violence. MPAC has condemned the anti-terrorism measures of both the U.S. and Israel, and has called for a repeal of the Patriot Act.

On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, Al-Marayati used a Los Angeles talk radio program as a forum in which to accuse the Israelis of responsibility for that morning’s attacks on New York and Washington. Al-Marayati has also called for the U.S. government to unfreeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Global Relief Foundation and the Holy Land Foundation, that were shut down by the government because of funding they had given to terrorist organizations.

Al-Marayati refuses to call Hezbollah a terrorist group. “I don’t think any group should be judged 100% this or that,” he says. “I think every group is going to have . . . its claim of liberation and resistance.” He has similarly justified Hamas’ existence as a political entity that promotes social programs and “educational operations.” “Yesterday’s terrorists in the Middle East are today’s leaders,” he says. “The PLO is the number one example of this . . . The PLO 35 years ago was considered a terrorist organization, nobody should deal with them . . . But they became the people in authority, in Palestine, today. So Hamas today, the way it’s being viewed, is exactly how the PLO was viewed 30 years ago. And in fact, even Hamas in terms of its social and educational operations is doing exactly what the PLO was doing 35 years ago, as well as its quote unquote military operations.”

During a 1997 speech he delivered at the University of Pennsylvania, Al-Marayati equated the concept of jihad to the statements of the eighteenth-century American statesman Patrick Henry. Said Al-Marayat, “[T]he person who we think in America would epitomize jihad would be Patrick Henry, who said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death.’ That is a way of looking at the term jihad from an American perspective.”

Excuse me, sir, but, I beg to differ. Patrick Henry was an American Christian Leader, not a supporter of merciless Islamic Terrorism.

And, Americans certainly do not need you, nor the United Nations, involved in our elections. We are a Sovereign Nation. Men like Patrick Henry pledged their lives and sacred honor to give us the right to vote as we see fit.

And, neither you, the OCSE, nor the United Nations, is going to be able to do a darn thing about it.

Very soon, you will be joining your buddy and boss, Barack Hussein Obama, on the Unemployment Line.

We’ll see you on November 6th.

That’s Not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Yesterday, the 44th President of the United States of America, spoke to a crowd of college students at George Mason University.

Perhaps  in an effort to find a new profession in preparation for November 6th, when he gets booted out of office, the president tried out his D.L. Hughley imitation:

President Barack Obama has a diagnosis for what he considers rival Mitt Romney’s shifting positions: Call it a case of “Romnesia.”

Making a direct gender-pitch in hotly contested Virginia, Obama tells a college crowd that when it comes to issues important to women’s health and jobs, Romney has conveniently overlooked his past stands.

“He’s forgetting what his own positions are — and he’s betting that you will too,” Obama told an audience of 9,000 at George Mason University. “I mean he’s changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping. We’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through. I think it’s called Romnesia.”

Obama, a broad grin on his face, borrowed heavily from the style of comedian Jeff Foxworthy, known for his “you might be a redneck” standup routines.

“If you say you’ll protect a woman’s right to choose, but you stand up at a primary debate and said that you’d be ‘delighted’ to sign a law outlawing that right to choose in all cases, man, you’ve definitely got Romnesia,” he said.

Riffing as if he was still delivering one liners at Thursday night’s Catholic charity dinner in New York, Obama said he had good news for anyone who suffers from Romnesia. “Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions,” he bellowed. “We can fix you up. We’ve got a cure! We can make you well, Virginia.”

Obama renewed his criticism of Romney’s economic plan, quoting a line in a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman. “There’s no jobs plan. There’s just a snow job on the American people.”

Obama added, “If he offered you that deal when he was in corporate finance, you wouldn’t give him a dime.” So why, Obama asked, would voters cast their ballots for him.

Obama’s message was aimed at suburban women who form a formidable voting bloc in northern Virginia. The president raised once more Romney’s comment during the second debate that he received “binders full of women” when he sought to diversify his cabinet as Massachusetts governor. “You don’t want somebody who needs to ask for binders full of women. You don’t want that guy,” Obama said

So, while scores of Americans are trying to figure out how to pay their bills and put food on their tables, the President is out cracking jokes.

In the spirit of Barack Hussein Obama’s jocularity in front of those young minds full of mush yesterday, I’ve decided to do a little stand-up (while sitting down) myself.

Just keep reading. You’ll catch on.

If you refer to babies as a punishment, instead of a blessing…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you expect American taxpayers to pay $3,000 a year for a 30 year old professional student’s, who can’t keep her legs together, contraception…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If gas was $1.79 when you became president, and now, it’s $4.00 a gallon …that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you pass a Stimulus Bill, shortly after becoming president, that actually costs $3.27 Trillion, or $10,000 per American family, which winds up being nothing but pork-barrel spending…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you campaigned on promoting bi-partisanship, and you foster a four-year long fight between America’s Political Parties…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If Welfare jumps 32% during your presidency…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If about 11-12 million Americans will be subject to the individual mandate’s penalties under the “Affordable Care Act” you shoved down Americans’ throats — and half will simply opt to pay the tax…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If your Smart Power! Foreign Policy entails alienating our Allies and embracing our enemies…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you refer to the murder of four Americans by Muslim Terrorists as “not optimal”…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you run off to a Las Vegas Campaign Fundraiser, instead of handling your presidential duties during the siege of an American Consulate in Libya…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you stand in front of the UN General Assembly and blame the murder of four Americans at the US Consulate in Libya on a stupid Youtube video, which no one has even seen, when you know that al Qaeda murdered them…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you remark, regarding a teen-age thug, who was killed by a neighborhood watch member that was having the back of his head slammed repeatably against the sidewalk, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.”…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If  you describe Americans, living in rural Pennsylvania, as “bitterly clinging” to their guns and Bibles…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If your wife, the First Wookie, err…Lady, decides she knows better than parents and grandparents what their schoolchildren should eat for lunch…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If your wife takes lavish vacations , in-country and out, for four years, on the taxpayers’ dime, totaling over $1,000,000…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

If you proclaim after taking office that, “America is no longer just a Christian Nation.”, knowing that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and to this day, contains a population that is 78% Christian…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

And, finally…if you do your best, through a combination of arrogance, naivety, pomposity, bad manners, aloofness, and pure and total b.s., to turn the greatest nation of God’s green Earth into a Third-World Socialist country…that’s not Rhomnesia. That’s an Obamanation.

…And, on November 6th, we’re not going to give you a second chance.

Obama: The Murder of 4 Americans “Not Optimal”, #BenghaziGate Continues

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

Our nation’s Commander-in-Chief made a pompous, callous remark last night, regarding the death of 4 Americans, including a United States Ambassador, at the hands of Muslim Terrorists in Libya, while making a Campaign Appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on Comedy Central.

The Daily Mail has the details:

President Barack Obama, during an interview to be shown on Comedy Central, has responded to a question about his administration’s confused communication after the Benghazi attack, by saying: ‘If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

Obama was speaking to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for a programme to be broadcast tonight.

Stewart, a liberal whose young audience is full of potential voters prized by the Obama campaign, asked the president about his handling of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.

Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith and security men and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 – an attack that the White House initially blamed on a spontaneous protest about an anti-Islam movie made in California.

Stewart asked: ‘Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? ‘Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within.

‘Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page.’

Obama responded: ‘Here’s what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.’

He continued: ‘We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up.

‘Whatever else I have done throughout the course of my presidency the one thing that I’ve been absolutely clear about is that America’s security comes, and the American people need to know exactly how I make decisions when it comes to war, peace, security, and protecting Americans.

‘And they will continue to get that over the next four years of my presidency.’

The word ‘optimal’ was first used by Stewart in the question. But Obama’s use of it, in a sound bite that could be used to portray him as somewhat casual about the deaths, lit up conservatives on Twitter after it was first reported in a White House pool report by Mike Memoli of the ‘Los Angeles Times’.

Obama’s slip could help Mitt Romney recover from an awkward moment in the presidential debate in Long Island, New York on Tuesday when he challenged Obama over whether he had initially characterised the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

Unfortunately for our dhimmi President, it was Islamic Terrorism.

According to Fox News, the barbarians in Libya did not exactly appreciate us being over there:

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi may have been part of a broader campaign to drive the U.S. and western presence — and particularly a growing CIA contingent — out of eastern Libya, two military sources told Fox News.

The Sept. 11 attack was preceded by hundreds of security incidents in Libya over the past year. Several of them involved western targets in the Benghazi area, which could indicate a pattern.

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in June 6 with an improvised explosive device, planted in the ledge of the perimeter wall, was described as a probing attack to measure the response. This incident, coupled with attacks on the International Red Cross and an RPG attack on the British ambassador’s convoy — after which the British withdrew — suggest a pattern to drive western influence from the region.

Further, it fits with a broader effort by the Al Qaeda affiliate and the militant group Ansar al-Sharia to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya. The New York Times reported Thursday that Libyan officials have named Ansar al-Sharia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala as the commander of the attack.

Those militants are also capitalizing on the proliferation of weapons, including portable surface-to-air missiles called MANPADS, since the fall of the Qaddafi regime.

Former CIA Director Porter Goss said the idea that militants were trying to achieve the expulsion of western forces and diplomats from the region “is a very accurate assessment.”

He said they likely “are trying to create more sanctuary areas by pushing us out — our diplomats, our military.”

A representative with the CIA declined to comment for this report.

During the Second Presidential Debate, President Barack Hussein Obama looked into the camera and said,

The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.

And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.

Isn’t referring to the murder by Islamic Terrorists of 4 Americans as being “not optimal” while appearing on a show on Comedy Central in the last couple of weeks of a Presidential Re-election Bid, “playing politics”, Mr. President?

That seems to be all you do.

Lord knows, you wouldn’t want to upset “our Muslim allies”.

The Aftermath of Presidential Debate #2: Second Verse, Same As the First

On By kingsjesterIn Politics6 Comments

In the aftermath and interminable spin of Tuesday night’s Second Presidential Debate, I thought I would look back at another Second Presidential Debate, which occurred in 1980, featuring incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter against Republican Challenger Ronald Reagan:

The temperamental contrast between the two men was at the center of what may have been the campaign’s decisive moment: the Reagan-Carter debate of October 28, a week before the election. Both candidates held their own on substantive issues—indeed, many observers thought Carter was the better of the two, but Reagan was more relaxed and confident. When Carter accurately pointed out Reagan’s record of opposition to the Medicare program in the hopes of portraying his opponent an extremist, Reagan ignored the charge and softly replied, “There you go again,” a line he had rehearsed in debate practice. He wound up the debate with an effective iteration of his basic campaign theme asking Americans to make their decision on the basis of the Carter administration’s record: “Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was?” For voters who answered “no” to these questions, Reagan was the clear alternative.

Reagan widened his lead in the polls in the week after the debate. The Reagan team had earlier worried that Carter might pull off an “October surprise” by winning freedom of the Americans held hostage in Iran, but after the debate they doubted that even this would rescue the President. On election day, Reagan overwhelmed Carter, winning 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent. Anderson had less than 7 percent of the vote but siphoned support from Carter in states such as New York and Massachusetts, enabling Reagan to carry these states and win an electoral landslide. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49.

Carter’s showing was the worst for any incumbent President who sought reelection since Herbert Hoover in 1932. This was largely because the frustrations with Carter outweighed the reservations about Reagan among undecided voters, who broke heavily against the President. Reagan did well among Catholic voters and made inroads among working-class Democrats and union families. He also did well in the South, which was Carter’s base. And the country as a whole was in the mood for change. The Republicans picked up fifty-three seats in the House of Representatives and twelve in the Senate, giving them a majority for the first time in the Senate since 1954.

While I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan, I am saying that I am experiencing a bit of Deja Vu, and evidently, so are the Democrats, as reported by the Washington Post:

Mitt Romney has taken a six-point lead over President Obama in the latest Gallup national tracking poll — his biggest lead to date and the first time he has led outside the margin of error.

The latest seven-day tracking poll of likely voters shows Romney at 51 percent and Obama at 45 percent, up from 50-46 on Tuesday and 49-47 on Monday.

Romney has steadily gained in the Gallup poll in recent weeks, turning what had been a growing deficit in September into a growing lead since his strong first debate performance. And when Gallup shifted its voter model from registered voters to likely voters last week, Romney’s numbers improved even more (among registered voters, the race is at Romney 48, Obama 46).

The new numbers, of course, don’t include much or any data collected after Tuesday night’s debate. It will take days to determine what effect that might have had.

Gallup continues to show a better picture for Romney than most other pollsters. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday showed Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 46 percent, while a Politico-George Washington University poll showed Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 48 percent.

In addition, Democrats have cast doubt on Gallup’s likely-voter model, with the Obama campaign releasing an entire memo on it earlier this week when Gallup showed Romney opening up a similar lead in the 12 most competitive states in the country.

But, hey, the First Mooch, err, Lady isn’t worried, per The Weekly Standard:

At a fundraiser today in New York, First Lady Michelle Obama expressed confidence in her husband’s chances for reelection. “On Nov. 7 we’re going to party hard,” she said. Election Day this year is November 6.

From the pool report:

“After hearing my husband talk about his values and his vision at the debate last night, I’m pretty fired up,” she said. “Let me tell you, I am so glad last night was such an awesome, awesome event,” she said. She mention[ed] her recent anniversary on Oct 3, the night of first debate.

“We got a quick little dinner. That’s about it,” she said. “But it’s okay. On Nov. 7 we’re going to party hard.”

Her biggest applause lines were about Obama’s policies on women – notably the Lily Ledbetter Act and women’s control of their bodies. She also won applause by talking about passage of the Affordable Care Act.

The way it looks now, Michelle, you won’t have the time, nor be in the mood to par-tay on November 7th. You’ll be too busy reserving a Moving Van and stealing…err, packing up the White House China.

I’m lovin’ it.

Presidential Debate #2: The Prizefight

On By kingsjesterIn Politics4 Comments

Americans tuned into a Townhall Debate and a fight broke out.

The second Presidential Debate between Republican Challenger Mitt Romney and incumbent Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) resembled Ali vs. Frazier.

Romney answered the questions as a CEO addressing his Board of Investors….straight ahead, look ’em in the eyes, and hit ’em with the facts.

Obama got himself whipped up to the point of almost pleading, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright must have when it was time to preach on Tithing. He appeared desperate.

As her predecessors did before her, the Moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley,  injected herself into the debate, choosing questions that had not really come up in the campaign so far, and cutting Romney off more than she did Obama.

The president really did not seem to handle being challenged very well. While Mitt was answering questions, Scooter was over in the corner, sitting on his little stool, pouting like a petulant child…until he decided he had to interrupt Mitt, in order to save his own backside.

Yes, Obama was more aggressive, but he had no answers to back up his aggression.

All hat. No cattle.

John Nolte, posting at Breitbart.com, makes a great point:

We’re done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete set up to rehabilitate Barack Obama. If these are truly undecided voters, they’re apparently undecided between Obama and Green Party. Moreover, as I write this, Obama’s already enjoyed four more minutes of speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that’s a big deal.

The lowest and most dishonest part Crowley’s disgraceful “moderation” was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama’s side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover, he claimed he had called the attack a “terrorist attack” on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.

Romney correctly disputed that.

Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama’s side and the crowd exploded.

Here’s what Obama said that day:

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.

Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this “act of terror” to … a mob action over a YouTube video — not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again.

Let’s not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror.

And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this debate has only begun.

Indeed. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Crowley inserted herself into the debate, rather forcibly. The Washington Times agrees:

Another debate, another debacle for America’s media.

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a “fly on the wall” as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open “let me give the president a chance here.”

More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She even chose this question, directed to both men: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a “ticket death wish,” asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to “give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions.”

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: “Let me get a more immediate answer” — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: “We have all these folks here.” In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley’s silent approval. “Here’s what happened,” he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: “It’ doesn’t quite work like that.”

When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama’s assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: “Before we get into a vast array….” she said before asking a completely different question.

The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor “feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.”

For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.

And, that’s the way it went last night…on and on, ad infinitum.

Obama needed a third round knockout last night.

Considering all the lies Obama told last night, which the pundits on both sides will be rehashing today, I would say that, even though he was definitely more animated than his comatose performance in the first debate, Romney still won last night…by TKO.

Debate Prep for Obama: “Everybody’s So Serious.”

On By kingsjesterIn Politics3 Comments

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) and Republican Challenger Mitt Romney will be participating in a Townhall Debate tomorrow night.

Supposedly, Obama’s handlers are rigorously preparing the suuuper genius, so that he won’t get his clocked cleaned by Romney…again.

The Wall Street Journal has the story.

President Barack Obama is developing a bit of debate prep repetition, publicly at least.

Mr. Obama took a break Sunday from studying and engaging in mock sessions with his staff at a five-star waterfront resort here to deliver pizzas to one of his nearby campaign offices and make a couple phone calls to supporters, just as he did while preparing for his first debate in Henderson, Nev., two weeks ago.

“If you’re not on the phone take a break,” Mr. Obama said quietly as he entered a room where campaign staffers were making phone calls.

He then took a seat between two women and picked up the phone. “I’m gonna do my work,” he said, adding: “Everybody’s so serious!”

Mr. Obama arrived in Willliamsburg Saturday for three days of intense preparations for his second debate against Republican rival Mitt Romney. The stakes couldn’t be higher for Tuesday’s faceoff in Hempstead, N.Y., after his listless performance in the candidates’ first debate disappointed supporters, and cost him his comfortable edge over Mr. Romney in the polls.

The president began prep sessions Sunday at 10 a.m. and in between has strolled along the grounds of the resort, which is set along James River and features a golf course and a spa. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) was seen tooling around the resort on a golf cart, and Mr. Obama’s top aides are on hand to assist, including former White House communications director Anita Dunn who is playing the moderator of Tuesday’s debate, CNN anchor Candy Crowley.

Mr. Obama called two supporters from the campaign office while reporters and photographers were in the room. He thanked them for their help with his re-election effort and asked one woman to keep him in her prayers.

The president also gave a campaign staffer a lesson in using an old-fashioned phone.”Like this” he told her, pushing a button to show her how to dial. “We actually still have old style phones at the White House,” he said. “I don’t believe it,” the woman replied.

Everybody’s so serious?

Yeah, Scooter. The entire Democratic Hierarchy is a little bit anxious. You see, their meal ticket bombed bigger than Hiroshima in his first debate against Republican Challenger Mitt Romney.

In fact, Scooter, you acted like you did not even want to be there. As if, you don’t want the job anymore.

And that would be just peachy with the majority of Americans.

However, after being threatened by your handlers, and further decimated by your Vice-President’s idiotic performance in his debate, along with the daily revelations concerning how badly you’ve screwed up America’s Foreign Policy, culminating in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, by a bunch of Muslim Terrorists, you’ve decided that you’re going to “bring it” tomorrow night.

In fact, two of your most loyal henchman are promising that you’ll actually act like you want the job, this time:

“Nobody’s a harsher critic than the president is of himself and he viewed the [debate] tape,” Axelrod said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think he’s going to make some adjustments on Tuesday.”

Axelrod would not detail any strategic changes that the president might be making, but said he’s “going to be aggressive in making the case for his view of where we should go as a country.”

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” senior Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said the president was “disappointed” in his performance in Denver.

“He didn’t meet his own expectations,” he said. “He knew when he walked off that stage, and he also knew as he’s watched the tape of that debate, that he’s got to be more energetic. I think you’ll see somebody who is very passionate about the choice that our country faces, and putting that choice in front of voters.”

Expect the president to continue to attack Romney for his changing positions. In the two weeks since the first debate, the president’s campaign has tried to cast the GOP nominee as an extreme conservative trying to reinvent himself as a moderate in the run-up to the election.

Gibbs described Romney’s performance at the first debate as “magical and theatrical” because “for 90 minutes he walked away from a campaign he’d been running for more than six years previous to that.”

“We saw Governor Romney, sort of, serially walk away from his own proposals and certainly the president is going to be willing to challenge him on it as we saw the vice president challenge Paul Ryan,” Axelrod said.

So, the President’s going to attack Romney on his changing positions? 

Fine. That’s history, and very well known.

The question is: What’s Scooter going to do when Romney attacks his horrible performance as President?

Steven Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, said in a recent interview about Scooter:

“I’m afraid of the president,” said Wynn. “I have no idea what goofy idea, what crazy, anti-business program this administration will come up. I have no idea. And I have to tell you, Jon, that every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks.”

The hotel tycoon claimed that President Obama had attempted to put himself between him and his employees by resorting to class warfare, and said he cannot stand being the target of demagoguery from someone who doesn’t understand the economy or “hasn’t created any jobs.”

“The president is trying to put himself between me and my employees,” said Wynn. “By class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money ‘billionaires and millionaires who don’t pay their share.’ I gave 120 percent of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years.”

He continued: “I can’t stand the idea of being demagogued, that is, put down by a president who has never created any jobs and who doesn’t even understand how the economy works.”

So, even though Obama’s policies have hurt us in both the foreign and domestic area, he expects to brag on his failures, and be aggressive toward Romney in front of a live audience Tuesday night in a Townhall Format, where he will be answering the audience’s questions, and where Candy Crowley, the Moderator, will not be able to tag team Romney with him ?

Well, I hope he knows how to sing, dance, or tell some funny jokes…because he sure won’t be able to brag about his sterling record as president.

Unless he’s being sarcastic.

November 6, 2012: A Time for Discernment

On By kingsjesterIn Christianity, Politics3 Comments

As I publish this post, we are 25 days away from the most important Presidential Election of our Generation.  I tweeted yesterday,

26 days until Americans decide whether we return to the Shining City on the Hill or become the Proletariat. Pray for Americans’ discernment.

So, what is discernment?

Paula Marolewski, writing for ezinearticles.com, came up with a good description:

Hebrews 5:14 notes that discernment is the ability to recognize good and evil: “Solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” But you might say that recognizing good and evil is the end product of discernment. What about the actual process of discernment: how do we get to the point of recognizing good from evil? How do we gain that ability? What is involved in discernment? If we know the process, we will get the product.

The process begins with establishing a solid definition. The American Heritage Dictionary defines discernment as: “To detect or perceive with the eye or the mind; to perceive the distinctions of [which can be considered “to define”]; to discriminate.”

To detect. To define. To discriminate. Three “D’s” that define “discernment.”

Per Gallup, 78% of Americans proclaim Jesus Christ as their Savior. 92% profess a belief in God.

As we enter the home stretch to Election Day 2012, let’s look at the present Occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC, through the three “D’s” Ms. Marolewski described.

1. To Detect – In 2007, Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) made a very telling comment, as CBN, explains:

Obama believes that religious conservatives need to accept the fact that America has evolved and government policies need to encompass all faiths because the country is no longer just a Christian nation.

“I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.”

In a speech last month to a church convention, Senator Obama told the audience, “Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”

2. To Define – In an article written last March, David Barton, noted historian and the force behind wallbuilders.com, wrote an article titled “America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U.S. President”, in which he said,

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

3.  To Discriminate – This is where the rubber meets the road.  Take a look at what happened at the coronation of Obama as the Democratic party’s Presidential Candidate.

Someone was not originally invited to the Democratic Party’s party, as Sally Quinn reported in the Washington Post:

Look what happened at the Democratic convention Wednesday. The 2008 platform had included the word God. Not this year. The original 2012 platform said, in part, “in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Not a word about God. It didn’t take long for major outcries from both parties. Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan weighed in immediately.

“The (Democratic) party is veering further and further away into an extreme wing that Americans don’t recognize,” said Romney.

Connie Mackay, head of the Family Research Council’s political action committee, said, “It was easy to remove God from their platform given their support of issues such as abortion on demand and same-sex marriage go against what God’s word says on these issues.”

President Obama, seeing the gathering storm clouds insisted that God be restored. According to his deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, “They were a mistake and he said we’ve got to fix it. President Obama didn’t agree with the platform. He sought to change it.”

Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, an ordained United Methodist minister who chaired the platform drafting committee quickly rallied to reinstate the old language because, as he said, “our belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform.”

Not so fast. There were three voice votes on the language to put God back in the platform language, presented by Los Angeles Mayor and Democratic Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, which were not conclusive. There were many loud “No’s” and quite a few “boo’s” prompting right-wing media outlets and religious blogs to proclaim, “Democrats Boo God” and “God Booed by Democrats at Convention! Incredible!”

After a very ugly struggle language was changed to read “We need a government that. … gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

They actually booed God!!! Can you imagine?

George Washington said in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim that tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.

The greatest President in my lifetime, Ronald Wilson Reagan, said,

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

He also said,

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

I pray that God grants all Americans a spirit of Discernment, so that we will not forget that we are one nation under God on November 6th.

Amen.

BenghaziGate: Oh, What a Tangled Web We Weave…

On By kingsjesterIn Politics5 Comments

 New revelations are coming to light every day, concerning the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans at the hands of Muslim Terrorists.

The White House has thrown the entire U.S. Intelligence Community under the bus with their latest excuse:

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. “In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST [Site Security Team] extension.’ I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway.”

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department’s reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

“We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met,” testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

Issa released the unclassified cables containing those requests.

At Thursday night’s debate, Rep. Paul Ryan seemed to suggest that the requests were for Marines to go to Libya, which was not the case. The requests were to extend the tours of a Mobile Security Detachments [MSD] and the Site Security Team [SST] at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, which are teams of military personnel, not Marines, who can help protect an embassy and its personnel.

“What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security,” Ryan said. “There were requests for extra security. Those requests were not honored.”

In his prepared testimony, Nordstrom said that “because of Libyan political sensitivities, armed private security companies were not allowed to operate in Libya.” Instead, the Benghazi mission, through a British company, hired unarmed Libyan guards to work inside the compound and a local Libyan militia patrolled the exterior of the compound.

Ryan also erred when he criticized the State Department for assigning Marines to protect the ambassador in France but not Amb. Chris Stevens, who died in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

“Our ambassador in Paris has a marine detachment guarding him, shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi?,” Ryan said.

According to the U.S. Embassy Paris website, there is a Marine Security Guard Detachment in the embassy, but they are there primarily to protect classified information and are not part of the ambassador’s personal security detail.

Let’s go back to the Vice-Presidential Debate, where the folllowing statements were made by the one, the only Jar Jar Biden:

MS. RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on for weeks?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Because that’s exactly what we were told —

MS. RADDATZ: By who?

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: — by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat in the — from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. But —

MS. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That’s why I said, we will get to the bottom of this.

You know, usually when there’s a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That’s not presidential leadership.

On October 3rd, Yahoo News (Reuters) ran the following story:

Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.

Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.

It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”

The existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration’s public messaging about the attack as it seeks to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.

“What we’re seeing now is the picture starting to develop that it wasn’t a problem with the intelligence that was given, it’s what they did with the intelligence that they were given,” Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, said in an interview on Tuesday.

“This picture is still a little fuzzy but it is starting to come into focus and it appears that there were, very early on, some indications that there was jihadist participation in the event,” he said.

The Obama administration has strongly defended its public accounts of what happened in Benghazi, and said its understanding has evolved as additional information came in.

“At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information, they updated Congress and the American people on it,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

Some officials said U.S. spy agencies tried to avoid drawing premature conclusions about how the violence began and who organized it.

“Unless you have very good reports that strongly suggest who was behind the attack for sure, it is prudent to be careful, because placing emphasis publicly, even tentatively, on any one group or groups too soon can lead everyone down the wrong path,” said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

So, which is it, Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Company?

Were you kept in the dark by your Intelligence Agencies (which I highly doubt, since you sign their paychecks) or was telling the truth about the Muslim Terrorist attack in Benghazi so abhorrent to you that, instead of allowing it to sabotage your mission of support for the  burgeoning “Muslim Democracies” (a contradiction in terms) brought about by the barbaric violence of “Arab Spring”, you flat out-and-out lied to the American Public and the United Nations about the nature of the murder of Ambassador Stevens and the other 4 Americans at the hands of those bloody barbarians?

If, as I, and the majority of the rest of Americans suspect, it’s the later, you should be impeached…and ridden out of town on a rail.

Well, at least we can accomplish the “ridden out of town” part on November 6th.