Obama’s narcissism a danger to America, and the world

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

By

I must confess that, in 2008, I was impressed by Barack Obama. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared confident and was as smooth as a rock star. He commanded the stage and screen. I was really confident that this man, being black and having a possible semi-Muslim upbringing, was the perfect candidate to make lasting peace in the Middle East. I was sure that Israel was going to see a much-needed peace with the Palestinians, and my visits to eat great humus in Tulkarem — a small Palestinian town near Netanya — would one day soon be possible again.

But I was put off very soon after President Obama took office. The first time I began to look more closely at him was when I watched his speech in Cairo. I listened in awe and disbelief, but I thought that this may be a ploy to embrace the Muslim world and develop a mutual respect with the Arabs. Perhaps, I thought, this was a great tactic in showing friendship and commitment to the Muslim masses.

All too soon, my hopes started to fade. As I began watching President Obama’s body language and listened more closely to his tone of voice, I noticed a shallowness and an air of haughtiness that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his words. It stunned me to watch his speeches, which were filled with such “religious” inflection that it struck me in a why it no doubt did for so many others.

I watched and watched and saw how things in this volatile region of heated debate and steady but almost controlled violence started spiraling way out of control. What I thought were going to be U.S. accomplishments in this historic and religious global epicenter turned out to be deadly failures with long-term consequences.

I went back to watch the Cairo speech, watching over and over again, and I noticed that President Obama is really not an ordinary man. Hischaracter is indeed unique in that he has the ability to impress or frustrate. Even though I felt that at times he was quite ignorant to the most important subjects relating to Israel, like the 1967 borders, he never really spoke like a lawyer or politician but rather someone who was out to prove that he was the epicenter and not the problem.

Obama’s language, posture and demeanor seemed wrong to me. This was supposed to be a president who gave hope to so many, who was supposed to implement change in a positive way for all. It was as if President Obama was projecting a grandiose posture that was not his. He looked out of place and suddenly was not the presidential figure representing the free world.

It seemed that he created a sort of personality cult around himself, elevating his admirers blindly, presenting a somewhat false trust of enthusiasm that led followers to believe that no matter what he said in his speeches, he was free to do as he wished, unaccountable at all times. These admirers would follow at any cost, blindly as if in a daze or hypnotized. He promised the moon but delivered doom, and people were missing the real-life threats taking place, unfolding as an optical illusion of a beautiful spring dubbed “the Arab Spring.”

In searching for answers to find out what Obama’s real agenda on Israel was, I became swamped with irrelevant accusations, doctored pictures and cartoons. The mainstream media was promoting Obama, pushing him forward into the sphere that he sought to be. They, too, were blinded. I found an interesting observation by chance when I came across the behavioral patterns of narcissism. This disorder was common in the likes of other world leaders, but more so in dictators and power-seekers, those who wanted control as if it meant everything.

I am by no means a professional psychologist, nor have I ever had any training other than simple body language classes and perhaps a more in-depth profiling education based on the work I carried out as an Israeli police officer. Having said this, I started noticing alarming signs that perhaps indicate a slight narcissistic trend in President Obama. I base this assumption on the president’s speeches and statements, both on and off the record.

Obama’s imposing personality overwhelms those around him. He charms with his charisma. He shapes those around him and reduces others in his own inverted image (as we saw with his snubbing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).

I drew from my readings that narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power and control.

All other issues are meaningless to them, and they do not like to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention (remember President Obama’s recent comments when he snubbed Netanyahu’s request for action on the Iranian nuclear weapons program?).

Take a look at his attitude while serving in the U.S. Senate. If an issue was raised in the Senate that did not help Obama in one way or another, he had no interest in it. “Present” was a safe vote. No one could criticize him if things went wrong. Those issues were unworthy by their very nature because they were not about him.

A study by a leading psychologist found that Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected, and at the end, the project evolved into his own autobiography. Instead of a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama it seems could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He titled the book, “Dreams from My Father.”

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is perhaps evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother, who lives in poverty. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because his brother cannot be used in his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

There is no doubt this election has been like no other in the history of America. The main issues are really insignificant compared to what is at stake in the form of lives being spared and countries disappearing and, yes, the global economy. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality, as the leader of the free world?

Read the rest here.

Beyond Impeachment: Obama Treasonous over Benghazi

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

PJ Media:

By Roger L Simon

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell [2] noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends [3] at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

Rumors abound. According to Admiral Lyons writing in the Washington Times [4],

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein [5] states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

Lyons adds, citing a Clare Lopez [6] article at RadicalIslam.org,

…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time.

None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field.

Many questions remain to be answered — some of which are listed here [7]. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong.

Los Angeles-based Roger L. Simon is the author of ten novels, including the prize-winning Moses Wine detective series, and six screenplays, including Enemies: A Love Story for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. He served as president of the West Coast branch of PEN and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America. Mr. Simon was on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the Yale School of Drama. In February 2009, he published his first non-fiction book – Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown. Mr. Simon is the co-founder and CEO of PJ Media.

Obama’s Taqqiya Unravels

Barack Hussein Obama at the UN: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  No, Mr. President, the future must not belong to jihadists who want to kill us nor to those who continue to lie to us about ‘the religion of peace’!

 

 

By Nonie Darwish Via The American Thinker

I  have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he  was a socialist. But Obama’s behavior over the last four years regarding Islam  has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview — a  combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.

Having  been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed  socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially  amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have  managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to  full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including  the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One  major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while  socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such  as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard  government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by  God and not by government or the code of Sharia.

Both  Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and  socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was  a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to  fit the goals of both creeds.

Obama  became the One, the savior of both Islam and socialists. To do that,  Obama had to deny who he really was, which explains why his actions and words  have never added up. At the recent Alfred E. Smith Catholic Charity dinner  speech, Obama did not seem to be just kidding when he said that Romney uses his  middle name Mitt and “I wish I could use my middle name.” Obama was referring,  of course, to his Islamic middle name of Hussein. In Obama’s mind, he was not  ashamed for having deceived America — he blamed America for putting him in the  position of having to deny his true pride in his middle name.

That  brings us to an important discovery by WND in an article by Jerome Corsi titled:  “Obama’s Ring: ‘There is no God But  Allah’.” The article featured close-up photos of a ring  still worn by Obama today in the White House, one that he has worn since his  visit to Pakistan as a young man. The ring, which later also became his wedding  ring, has very tiny and discrete Arabic calligraphy that means nothing to  Americans, but to Arabic-speaking people like myself and Dr. Mark Gabriel, means  quite a lot. Such Islamic calligraphy is commonly found throughout the gold markets of the Muslim world. I am not a  writing expert, but I can clearly see on the ring the word ‘La Ilaha IllaAllah.  (“There is no god but god.”)’ Such a sentence in Arabic has a lot of the letters  A and L which in Arabic are simply a straight line like the number  one.

The  only explanation for Obama’s exciting ring secret is that he is a closet Muslim  and feels that he can serve Islam best if he denies his being a Muslim for the  purpose of a higher aspiration to serve the Muslim world from the White House,  in Islamic terms the “higher jihad.” Obama has no problem whatsoever in lying  for the sake of “Hope and Change” since lying about being a Muslim in a majority  non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam. Lying for the purpose of jihad (known  as “taqqiya”) is not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of and even  serves as a reason to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Sharia law  states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Muslim clerics have  no problem in lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim  masses, since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims  together in harmony and friendship.

That  brings us to the current debacle in Libya, which can only be understood if we  grasp Obama’s worldviews as regards the “Muslim World.” Like the so-called  ‘moderate’ Muslims, Obama insists Islam in and of itself has nothing to do with  terrorism and blames previous American foreign policy (along with Israel), for  Islamic anger. Obama narrowed down the problem of Islamism to Al Qaeda while  embracing other Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as moderate. In  the process, Obama dismissed the Brotherhood’s long history of terror, which in  fact gave birth to Al Qaeda and hundreds of other terror groups. Nothing in  Obama’s world is the fault of Islam, which is why he ordered the Fort Hood  massacre to be classified as “workplace  violence” and not Islamic terrorism.

Obama  believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring about a  new era of peace with Islam, at least during his administration. There are  strong rumors in Egypt that when Obama met with the Egyptian foreign minister,  he confided in him that he was a Muslim and that he would assist the Islamic  cause in America after he passes the Health Care Bill.

But  as president of the United States, Obama was caught in a quagmire between  protecting American lives and appearing loyal to Islam. Placing American Marines  at US consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries created the  possibility of a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists.  That would discredit Obama’s attempt to separate Islam from terrorism. Also, if Obama confronted  militant Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his entire claim to opening a  new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart. He would then be no  different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That  explains why the demands for American security by U.S. ambassador Stevens went  unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American  Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers in order to save American  lives.

According to Sharia, it is a capital crime for  a Muslim individual or leader to shoot at fellow Muslims — even Islamists –  for the purpose of protecting Americans. That would make Obama a violator of  Sharia and an apostate. If Obama considers himself a Muslim and wears an Islamic  ring, then he must have had a very hard time deciding on how to protect the  consulate without killing Muslim attackers. His solution? Settling for the  lesser of two evils: getting Muslims, in the form of Libyan security, to guard  the property and in this way, forcing Muslims to shoot other Muslims in order to  defend the consulate. But that plan was useless because even the Muslim guards  had to follow Sharia, and ran away and left the Americans to be killed rather  than violate Sharia themselves by killing other Muslims. Obama gambled with the  lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and left them as sacrificial  lambs rather than violate the dictates of sharia.

Read the rest here.

Bombshell: Claim Says Obama WATCHED Benghazi Attack Happen

Via The Blaze

Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

 

 

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.

Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.

Read the rest at The Blaze

BENGHAZI—WAS THIS A UNITED STATES GUNRUNNING OPERATION TO AL QAEDA JIHADIS?

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

Former 20 year CIA veteran, Clare Lopez: “Jordan is targeted! Saudi Arabia is targeted!”

Questions:

■Could the Obama Administration’s Fast and Furious gunrunning operation to the Mexican drug cartels be simply a dress rehearsal for a much larger gunrunning operation to al Qaeda-linked and other Jihadist groups in Libya and, more ominously, Syria?
■Is the Obama Administration running guns into other Jihadist hot spots?
■Does the United States of America have troops in Jordan?
■Was Ambassador Stevens our operational officer in a gunrunning operation to al Qaeda linked groups that had “gone wrong?”
■Did the Obama Administration set Stevens up and leave him (with former Navy Seals, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods and computer expert, Sean Smith) to die?
■Did President, Secretary Clinton, General Petraeus and others have fore-knowledge?
■Others?
■Who else knows now?
■Does Governor Romney know now?

These and other questions and more were raised yesterday in a conversation between Glen Beck and former CIA agent Clair Lopez.

Beck: “Why is the media not asking these questions?” And, “What happens if we let the President off and nobody pursues this?”

Lopez: “Then we have failed in our duty—as citizens, as journalists. This has to be brought up this has to be made known to the public that this is going on and that our Administration not only was working with the bad guys—was working with al Qaeda linked militias and Jihadis to overthrow Assad in Syria. But that they let out mission go down, they let our Ambassador and others die—in real time, watching it happen and they didn’t do anything about it.”

. . . . Beck, “While this was going down—the President went to bed!”

The 13 minute interview is in two segments on You Tube. It is so full of explosive information, I strongly urge you to watch it all at least twice. Here is part I followed part II:

Glenn Beck uses his signature visual aides to sort it all out:

And Frank Gaffney speaks: Obama’s Middle East Fast & Furious?

Eric Allen Bell Courageously Moving Forward with Documentary on Islam

H/T The Counter Jihad Report

 

This is good news! Eric Allen Bell is proving to be a very effective spokesperson for the counter jihad  movement. With his multimedia background and compelling personal journey he is uniquely positioned to help move the public toward that “critical mass” of “Islamorealism” necessary to effect social and political change. Here is his announcement:

 

 

American Infidel

EXPOSING POLITICAL ISLAM IN AMERICA

A Documentary Feature by Eric Allen Bell

“When you look into the abyss,

the abyss also looks into you” – Nietzsche

In the Summer of 2010 I began production on a documentary called, “Not Welcome” about the backlash against contstruction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque, in the heart of the American Bible Belt.  At first I was interested in examing the question, “Why can’t we just coexist?”  In retrospect, the question seems innocent and somewhat naive.  I am reminded of the famous quote by Nietzche which says that, “When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you”.

It did not take long for me, (a well-meaning Liberal at the time) to shift the focus of my documentary to become an expose on “Islamophobia” in America – as seen through the events that were playing out in this small town in Middle Tennessee.  I shot over 300+ hours of footage.  I edited together a 25 minute promo, went back home to Hollywood and raised the capital I needed to complete the film.

And then I was mugged by reality.  (If you scroll down, you will see video of a talk I gave called “Islamophobia or Islamo-reality, which explains in detail how this transformation occured).  But in short, what happened was that I came face to face with the brutal, sadistic, and tyrannical reality of Islam.  And in the process I discovered that “Islamophobia” was nothing more than a myth – a myth which was being kept alive by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) a Hamas front group.

 

 

I gave the money back to my backers.  And I started writing.  Having been a Liberal blogger, for the progressive Daily Kos, a blog which gets about a million hits a day, I tried to expose the truth about Islam.  After my third article (I’d written over a hundred pieces for DKOS before getting on this subject) I was banned for being an “Islamophobe”.  And that’s when I became even more determined.

Since then I have written numerous articles, appeared on dozens of radio shows, news shows, sat on panels and given public talks.  I have become a committed Counter Jihadist.  And along the way, I’ve made my share of enemies – including but not limited to, the Council on American Islamic Relations, Loonwatch.com and the terror-tied Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, TN.

When riots broke out, in over 20 Islamic countries, over the YouTube Islamo-comedy “The Innocence of Muslims” someone used that opportunity to plant a story that I was the director of that film.  I am not.  I do not know anyone who was involved with that movie.  But that has not stopped 4 Pakistani newspapers from printing that I was the filmmaker and that I must be punished.

I have received countless death threats, a bounty was placed on my head, and I have had to go underground in order to protect my safety.  And it was then that I realized – I might as well go ahead and finish my documentary.  In fact, I must.  Not only am I now living my life as if I had directed a movie, about Muhammad, which offended Muslims so badly that they were calling for my assasination – but if this is how badly the Islamic world wants to keep the truth about Islam a secret – then this is how badly the secret needs to be exposed.

So here is the plan…

I have decided to use my 300+ hours of footage, go back into editing mode, and finish my documentary.  This will be a personal story, of setting out to expose “Islamophobia” and ending up risking everything to tell the truth about Islam.  I will be calling this documentary “American Infidel”.  And I would like for you to help me in telling that story.

It costs money to raise money.  I can complete this picture for about $200,000.  In my career in Hollywood, I have raised millions of dollars for film projects thus far.  I have no doubt that a backer exists out there somewhere who will finance this project.  But to get the ball rolling, I need access to resources.  There are legal fees, equipment costs, security and other needs. What “American Infidel” needs now, today, is your contribution – to bridge the gap – until a backer is secured.

And here is another interesting possibility – if enough people are willing to contribute on average $25 per month, for six months, then I don’t need a big backer at all.  We can finance this film together.  And in the information age, I don’t need a Hollywood distributor to reach over a million people or more.  It is now cheaper and easier to distribute a documentary than ever before.

Let’s face it, most people do not read books or blogs or do much reading at all these days.  But my entire career has trained me to tell a story, on the screen, in a way that holds people’s attention, moves them emotionally, and often changes their perspective.

Something like this, the vision I have for “American Infidel”, has never been done before.  This movie experience will not be academic or boring.  The world does not need yet another one of those.  “American Infidel” will be exciting, emotionally movinig and most of all it will be truthful. “American Infidel” will expose the truth about what I believe to be THE defining issue of our time – Political Islam in America.

Please, if you feel connected to this project and want to be involved in a movie which can in time become a movement, use one of the PayPal buttons and pitch in.  This cause needs you!

Thank you,

Eric Allen Bell

To learn more about Eric and to make a contribution for the documentary go to:

http://www.americaninfidelthemovie.com/

Obama Administration Leaks News of a Retaliatory Attack But Doesn’t Know on Who or Where?

Via White House 2012

Administration officials have stated that the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa in advance of  a an attempt to strike back at the al-Qaeda connected terrorists who killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three Americans assigned to his detail in Benghazi, Libya last month.   Strangely, reports indicate that Administration officials stipulate that the retaliatory attack will occur only if US investigators can find the al-Qaeda-linked group responsible for the Benghazi terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate.

The odd stipulation seems to indicate that the Obama Administration is acting more on the intelligence coming from the Obama reelection campaign than it is on any actionable intelligence from Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI or NSA.

Under normal circumstances, no responsible Administration would warn their military target that they are about to be blown up by drones or slaughtered by members of the Special Forces by transmitting to the public that such attacks are be prepared for.  Furthermore; no responsible Administration would see any logic in claiming they were about to launch an attack and then essentially state but they don’t who the attack is against or will it take place.  But such is what the Obama Administration communicated to the world when  they admitted that US investigators have not yet found out who our target is or where they are.

This advanced warning from the Administration about the use of military muscle regarding the terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya is nothing more than an attempt by the Obama reelection campaign to change the current narrative surrounding the Benghazi attacks.  That narrative is one which continues to point to an Administration which was incompetent and irresponsible in the days leading up to the Benghazi terrorist attack and in the days following the attack.

Since the attacks took place on September 11, 2012, the Administration has been offering what are at best misleading statements surrounding the attacks and in  the days after the attack, the Administration has acted in a way which has signaled an attempted coverup of the facts.  Some of the biggest questions still going unanswered includes, why the Administration failed to heighten security at our consulate on September 11th, a day which traditionally does bring the need for additional security?  Another question is why pleas for additional security from Ambassador Chris Stevens were not fulfilled?

Now as this tragic incident slowly boils up in to a political scandal, the Administration suddenly makes it clear that they are preparing for a retaliatory attack on  the people behind the act of terrorism on Americans in Libya but at the same time admit they have no knowledge of who they retaliate against.

Furthermore; according to the Associated Press officials say the Administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile up other governments in the region.

So the question becomes why did members of the Obama Administration leak this information about a pending retaliatory attack?  If there is no target and no action for it, obviously it is not about to happen?

The conclusion is this.  The Obama Administration which is trying to deny it had intelligence information regarding the threats on our consulate or regarding what was behind the attack, is now allowing the the Obama campaign to drive their foreign policy and national security agenda.  Only this time, the Administration is openly admitting that they have no intelligence regarding the actions they are saying they are preparing for.  Makes sense right?  Not really.

Read the rest here.

The Poisonous Presidency

By Alan Caruba via Canada Free Press

When the leaders of the United States, the President, his Vice President, his Secretary of State and others deliberately lie to its citizens, knowing full well that the facts about the tragic killing of an American ambassador and three of his staff are widely known, the nation has reached a point where it is paramount that he be removed from office.

The forthcoming election is the instrument and current indicators are that President Obama will be defeated. It is to be hoped that power in the Senate will be returned to the Republican Party and retainedl in the House of Representatives. This is the only way steps can be taken to avoid the financial collapse that faces the nation and achieve the repeal of Obamacare that Mitt Romney has promised if elected.

What worries me most, however, is the utter disdain for the truth that has marked the presidency of Barack Obama. It has been nearly four years of sustained lies about the steps that were taken to respond to the financial crisis facing the nation when he took office. The so-called “stimulus” wasted billions, becoming little more than a slush fund for Democratic fund-raisers, unions, and other connected parties to the administration. Instead the administration literally seized control of General Motors and Chrysler, then in the normal process of bankruptcy, claiming to save the jobs of auto workers. What they did was shunt aside the legitimate creditors and investors in GM. They arbitrarily discontinued its often long relationship with several hundred auto dealerships, adding their employees to the unemployment lines. They then insisted that GM invest millions in the creation of an electric car that cost $47,000 to purchase and ended up purchasing them for government use with taxpayer’s money.

Obamacare, more than 2,700 pages in length and incorporating more than twenty new taxes, was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress with little evidence that any of those who voted for it had even read it. Arguing initially that he was not a tax, when challenged in the Supreme Court, the administration then said it was a tax. For some inexplicable reason, the Court permitted it to stand despite its clear over-ride of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that forbids the government from requiring a citizen to purchase anything.

Under Obama, the foreign policy of the nation has now seriously weakened its position in the world and combined with cuts to defense spending, put its ability to protect the homeland and project power abroad at risk. The administration failed to negotiate an agreement with Iraq that would permit U.S. troops to remain in place, as they do at the invitation of many nations around the world, leaving Iraq vulnerable to al Qaeda. Setting a date for withdrawal from Afghanistan only emboldened the Taliban.

The so-called Arab Spring has mutated, not into the establishment of democratic institutions in nations like Egypt or Libya, but an opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood to at least ascend to positions of power in opposition to America’s interests in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

We now know that President Obama skipped some sixty percent of the daily CIA briefings that presidents long have made a part of their duties and this no doubt led to its ignorance of the impending tragedy in Libya, but the fault lies, too, with the State Department that ignored the slain ambassador’s pleas for increased security for the embassy and consulate. This is a president who has been missing in action as the Islamic jihad began to heat up across the face of the globe.

The hostility of President Obama’s administration to the vital energy sector of the nation has denied access to oil extraction on the vast acreage of federal lands. It has denied permits for offshore drilling to a far larger degree than previous administrations. It has mercilessly attacked the coal industry, responsible for nearly fifty percent of all electricity generation in the nation. Plants for electricity have closed down under the pressure of costly EPA regulations. Only the natural gas sector has grown, thanks to the technology of fracking, but both oil and gas is being extracted mostly on private land.

Read the rest here.

Rep. Allen West blasts cover-up attempts as White House defends evolving Benghazi attack accounts

While the White House is denying the events and cover-up of the Benghazi attack, Rep. Allen West denounces their pathetic attempts to shuffle the blame.  When asked whether or not he thought someone should be fired over this debacle, West responded “I think on 6 November that person will be fired”!

 

 

 

Watch his interview with Fox News here.

 

And if you want to know what West thinks of Ambassador Susan Rice (“Asinine, Naive, Inept, Incompetent and Borderline Ignorant”), watch the following video.