Category Archives: United Nations

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

Posted on by
1

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.

Related articles

Obama’s Taqqiya Unravels

Posted on by
1

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.

Related articles

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

Posted on by
1

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.

Related articles

Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Speech – How a President SHOULD Sound! (Video)

Posted on by
1

After four years of watching and listening to a President who has done nothing but apologize to our enemies for our exceptionalism, future President Mitt Romney nailed it!  And he gets it!  ”Unfortunately, this President’s policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership. And nowhere is this more evident than in the
Middle East.”  Listen to how a real President should and will sound:

 

 

Romney has laid out his plans for the United States, our allies and our enemies. Not only will he NOT lead from behind, he will lead by strength.  Romney repeated his initial comment that the violent attacks on our embassies and personnel, including the murder of Ambassador Stevens, was not due to a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.  “No, as the administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West.”   Unlike the Obama administration he actually used the term “extremists.”

“I want to be very clear: The blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and
the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those
who carried them out—no one else. But it is the responsibility of our President
to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving
our destiny at the mercy of events …. Al-Qaeda remains a strong force in Yemen and Somalia, in Libya and other parts of North Africa, in Iraq, and now in Syria. And other extremists have gained ground across the region.”

As Romney said, hope is not strategy and he gets it. It is time for a real leader, a real Commander-in-Chief, and a real President – one who will serve and protect America, not our enemies.

 

Related articles

FBI still refused access to Benghazi – Why? Instead of answering questions, Obama admin creating them…

Posted on by
Reply

It has been more than two weeks since the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the FBI is still unable to access the US Consulate. Why? There was inadequate or no security to protect Ambassador Stevens and other Americans. Why? The White House lied about the murders being an act of terrorism. Why?  And why is the FBI being denied access to the crime scene?  Instead of answering questions, the Obama administration is creating them.

The Obama administration has continually lied to us.  They have either outright lied or withheld information on the Ft. Hood shooting, the Arkansas recruiting center shooting, the shameless security leaks, Fast and Furious,  and now the Benghazi massacre.  Nixon was forced to resign for lying to us – so should Obama!  If he won’t resign (which we know the narcissist would never do), he needs to be fired - before he destroys us all.

In a CNN interview Former Bush advisor Fran Townsend tells us:

“They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They’ve now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi.”

FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.

“The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, ‘If we get there now, it’s not clear that it will be of any use to us,’” Townsend said.

The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the FBI’s request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in custody was denied.

 

And this from Hot Air:

Former CIA analyst Bob Baer also thinks the Libyans are being uncooperative, and says he can’t remember a case where the FBI’s been barred from the scene of an attack since Iran 1979. Why the Libyan government would refuse to let the feds in to look around, I have no idea, but it’s highly suspicious given that they’re potentially risking U.S. foreign aid by refusing the request. The alternative explanation, that they want to let the feds in but simply can’t reliably secure the area with so many militias running around, is actually worse because it underscores just how perilous the situation was for Chris Stevens and the consulate without a serious American security detail. That’s what ABC says is happening: Benghazi’s just too dangerous for a U.S. government agency to be picking through the rubble, even though CNN and other media have found ways to gain access to the site. And yet, apparently, Stevens’s superiors decided he’d be better off with less security, not more. Huh.

The coverup continues – worse than Watergate?  You decide – in November!  Your security, and that of your family and country depend on it.

Related articles

Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’.  In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

Shame on him!  A CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda
hit list. This was no isolated incident!

The PJ Tatler reported the US received threats earlier than that claimed by the administration:

Terrorists demanding the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman threatened the Cairo embassy on Sept 8. We posted an English translation of that threat on Sept 10. The jihadist threat to burn the US embassy in Cairo to the ground turned out to be very similar to what the jihadists in Benghazi actually did to the consulate there. That similarity points to a possible connection between the attacks.

One possible motivation for the administration to paint over the possible connection between the Cairo and Benghazi attacks, is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the Cairo attack. The Brotherhood was initially supportive of the “demonstration” and Egyptian President Morsi lent his personal support in the early going. The US embassy even caught the Brotherhood tweeting peace in English while exhorting the “demonstrators” in Arabic. If, it turns out, the Egyptian government had anything to do with the attack in Cairo, the probability that it had something to do with the attack in Benghazi as well has to be looked into. Our government might prefer to lie about that, though, than acknowledge that the new Egypt has perpetrated an act of war on the United States, on the anniversary        of 9-11.

Not only would the entire Arab Spring idea finally and deservedly unravel, but the administration would then have a major foreign policy crisis very much of its own making on its hands. The similarity between how Jimmy Carter lost Iran, and how Barack Obama would have lost Egypt, would be impossible to ignore.

Everyone in the administration seem to be tripping over their words and themselves.  According to Alexander Higgins:

From day one, the Obama administration was aware that the September 11 assault on the US consulate in Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack, despite offering up conflicting explanations in the weeks since.

  Unnamed officials confirm to Fox News that the White House knew that al-Qaeda-linked terrorists were behind the murder of four Americans in Libya, but only today did US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly acknowledge the truth.

Secretary Panetta now admits that the Pentagon knew within hours of the assault on America’s Benghazi consulate that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead that it was an act of terrorism.

The Obama administration has altered their explanation repeatedly in the weeks since Mr. Stevens and three others were killed on September 11, 2012 while on assignment in Libya. On Thursday, the Defense Department confirmed the attack as having been hatched by terrorists, despite earlier statements made by the White House that suggested an anti-American film produced in the US had triggered a spontaneous assault.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested earlier in the week that the attack in Benghazi may have been hatched by an al-Qaeda affiliate, yet another drastic change of heart from an Obama appointee this week.

In New York City on Wednesday, Secretary Clinton told attendees at a special United Nations meeting that the September 11 assault first thought by the White House to be a spontaneous response to an Anti-Islam film made in America could have been orchestrated by extremists in North Africa, specifically those subscribed to an off-shoot of al-Qaeda.

The Washington Post reported a timeline of the ever-changing lies and cover-up.  I have included a few of them:

“I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

— Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14

“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.  That report is false.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 14

“Based on the best information we have to date … it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent…. We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”

— Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16

“We had a substantial security presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

— Rice, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sept. 16

(Note: the U.S. post was not a consulate and its precise role is still a mystery.)

“The way these perpetrators acted and moved, and their choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, this leaves us with no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

— Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, president of Libya’s General National Congress, Sept. 16

“Well, you’re conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 17

Suddenly, a shift to a ‘terrorist attack’

“I would say yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy….The best information we have now, the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours at our embassy — our diplomatic post in Benghazi. It evolved and escalated over several hours.

“It appears that individuals who were certainly well-armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded that evening and into the — into the morning hours of September 12th. We do know that a number of militants in the area, as I mentioned, are well-armed and maintain those arms. What we don’t have at this point is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

“We are focused on who was responsible for this attack. At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly in the Benghazi area, as well. We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda’s affiliates; in particular, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

— Mathew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testimony before Congress, Sept. 19, after being asked a direct question.

CNN reports on Sept. 19 that Ambassador Christopher Stevens had been worried by the security threats in Benghazi. CNN later acknowledged the information came from Steven’s journal.

“It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self- evident. “He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 20

CBS News reports there never was anti-American protest.

“Witnesses tell CBS News that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead they say it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration’s account.”

— Margaret Brennan CBS News correspondent, CBS News report aired Sept. 20

But Obama resists saying the ‘t’ word…

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

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

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

“What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

— Clinton, statement at a  meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Sept. 21, 2012

Read the full timeline here.

Related articles

Allen West to UN: ‘The Angel of Death in the Form of an American Bald Eagle Will Visit You and Wreak Havoc’

Posted on by
1

Fox Nation:

In a Facebook  post made today, Rep. Allen West weighed in  on what his speech to the United Nations would’ve been like…

In his speech today to the United Nations,  President Obama stated six times that the attacks across the Islamic world are  attributed to a silly video. Furthermore, he refused to use the words terrorist  attack in referring to what occurred in Benghazi Libya at our US Consulate on  the 11th anniversary of 9-11. He continues to offer up apologies instead of  defending our hard earned First Amendment right to freedom of speech and  expression. There is no message to this silly video trailer, and it is beneath  the dignity and esteem of the Office of the President of the United States to  mention it at all. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural  suicide. I shall not be tolerant of the intolerant. I know about the UN  Resolution 1618 which would make any statement deemed by the Organization of  Islamic Countries (OIC) “offensive’ to Islam a crime…..NOT ON MY WATCH  FELLAS!

My statement to the United Nations  would have been, “The future does not belong to those who attack our Embassies  and Consulates and kill our Ambassadors. The Angel of Death in the form of an  American Bald Eagle will visit you and wreak havoc and destruction upon your  existence”

H/T Counter Jihad Report

Related articles

Leaders of Kansas City Muslim group petition Obama to limit free speech of American citizens

Posted on by
1

This is insanity!  Once our free speech and weapons are gone the United States of America as we now know it will be gone!  Please, please, please wake up folks!

“According to the ISGKC,  making a 14 minute movie trailer, and anything else that provoke Muslim rage, should be banned despite the First Amendment protections because it incites Muslim violence. But endorsing the death penalty for gays and lesbians, as well as anyone else guilty of capital crimes under Islamic law, is a view embraced by the same group.”

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

By Patrick Poole at PJMedia:

The leadership of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City have launched an online petition campaign for President Obama to back a bill to limit the free speech of American citizens they deem offensive.

The petition states:

The undersigned Board Of Directors and members of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) urges you to sponsor a bill that outlaws any action that may insult one’s religion.  We utterly disagree with the violence that has taken place and the death of United States Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and other members of the United States embassy staff in Libya.  We support the apprehension and conviction of those responsible for such acts.

We understand the First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and, as such, prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, etc., but when the allowance of “free” speech incites violence it should be banned.

The film behind the violence that is occurring in part of the Muslim world, “The Innocence of Muslims”, although it may be amateurish, its contents are very disturbing and insulting to the religion and has ignited an already volatile part of the world.  The film is repulsive to the sensibilities of Muslims and offends the religion of Islam in multiple ways; by denigrating the seriousness of Islam, our Prophet and the Muslims in general.  We believe that it would be in everyone’s interest to ban such actions from reoccurring.

Actions as such should not be tolerated as they are very offensive.  The violence that has taken place as a result of this film is very alarming.  As Muslims, violence of any sort is prohibited in our religion.  Those people who are carrying out these acts cannot possibly call themselves devout Muslims as they are acting out of pure rage and not out of religious duties.  We condemn the violence and feel that, in spite of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, action may be necessary to pass such a bill or, at least, censure such actions in order to calm the current situation as well as prevent future re-occurrences.

American Muslims are hard-working, law abiding, and tax paying citizens.  Everyone respects freedom of speech and the First Amendment in general, however, when freedom of speech results in defaming and insulting others and provokes the killing of innocent people, it should be outlawed.  In light of the recent situation, the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City hopes you may take up this cause and urge other representatives to do the same.  We appreciate your time and efforts.

ISGKC Board of Directors:

  • Board Member: Abdul Gafoor Akram
  • Board Member: Raqibul Huq
  • Board Member: Rushdy El-Ghussein
  • Board Member: Dr. Mohammed Kohia
  • Board Member: Russel Mohammad
  • Board Member: Ibrahim Morad

Lest anyone think that the ISGKC board has gone rogue, a link to the petition is featured prominently on the group’s website, stating:

ISGKC is sponsoring an online petition to establish a law against insulting one’s religion. Please click the link below and sign the petition. Thanks for your support.

The position of ISGKC is particularly curious, and outright hypocritical, since they have hosted internationally renowned hate sheikh Khalid Yasin. When Yasin started his 2010 Kansas City tour, he began at ISGKC:

Sh Khalid Yasin started the tour with a Khutbah at the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) Masjid on Friday followed by a lecture, “The Challenges facing the Muslim family and community in America” after Maghrib prayer at the Masjid. The attendance exceeded all expectations with about 350 people for the lecture. The Sheikh stressed on the importance of the Muslim community in the west and how to safeguard themselves against the social evils that the western world offers to Muslims especially our youth.

Among Yasin’s positions:

Read more at Counter Jihad Report

Related articles

The Blood on Obama’s Hands

Posted on by
3

By Judson Phillips via Tea Party Nation

Mark Halperin of Time shocked people this weekend by saying, “the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.”   The media has gone from simply being biased in favor of the liberal to being an outright media arm for the Democrat Party and the Obama Reelection campaign.

 

The media should be telling the story of the blood on the hands of Barack Obama.  They are not.  What is this shocking story the media is not telling us?

The blood on Obama’s hands comes from the American troops in Afghanistan.

Obama’s policy for American troops in Afghanistan can be summarized as, “Let them be targets.”

Obama has American troops in Afghanistan dying or being maimed for no good purpose.  He has no objectives here, other than not to lose Afghanistan before the election so it will not be blamed on him.

In the last eleven days, there have been nine attacks on American or NATO soldiers by Afghan soldiers or Taliban infiltrators posing as Afghan soldiers.  These are the so-called insider attacks.

What has been the response of the Obama Regime to more Americans coming home in flag-draped coffins?

They are pressuring Afghanistan to do more “screening” of recruits.  Gee, Afghanistan is a 7th Century nation.  How are they going to screen people?  There are no central records in Afghanistan.   How are they going to screen?  Unless there is a new way to start reading minds, screening in Afghanistan means nothing.

At least there is one sane military officer in Afghanistan.  General John Allen, the NATO commander in Afghanistan has now ordered all coalition military forces to carry loaded weapons with them at all times.

Afghanistan is a combat zone with the enemy carrying out unconventional attacks.  Which begs the obvious question: Why the hell weren’t our soldiers carrying loaded weapons all of the time before now?

This is the problem with Afghanistan.  We are treating it like a social welfare problem instead of a military campaign.

The first rule of war is you fight to win.   While George W. Bush deserves some of the blame for this, an overwhelming amount of the blame now goes to Barack Obama.  You do not send Americans to die in a war you have no intention of winning.

What is Barack Obama’s goal in Afghanistan?  It is to get out by 2014.  It is not to win.  It is simply to cut and run and have Afghanistan go down as another loss to America, much as Vietnam was lost.

Obama does have another strategy.  According to Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliot in their book, Fool Me Twice, Obama’s strategy is to reduce and remake the American military into an international social services agency.   Obama’s Afghan strategy not only destroys the morale of America’s military causing many patriotic Americans to leave the service instead of making it a career, it also destroys a lot of equipment that will never be replaced.

Obama has no clear-cut strategy in Afghanistan, other than to lose.

The Obama Regime has saddled our troops with rules of engagement that do not result in successful operations against the enemy and do result in casualties.  American soldiers are often forced to choose between violating those rules of engagement on the battlefield, surviving and risking a court martial or dying.

The real problem is Obama will not identify our enemy.   Islam is the enemy.  The Islamists hate us because we are not Muslims.

During World War 2, we pacified Germany after the war by de-Nazifying it.   We did the same to Italy.   We did the same to Japan.

Why aren’t we doing this to Afghanistan?

Instead of de-Islamifying Afghanistan, we bend over backwards to accommodate our enemies.  We are using taxpayer dollars to build Mosques where the Taliban then come and recruit new fighters to attack America.

Afghanistan is not worth one more American life.  Fortunately, six months from now we will have a new commander in chief.   Then the military will have a commander who supports them.

And not one who simply views them as political props.

Read more at Tea Party Nation.

Related articles

Israel said to be readying October attacks on Iranian nuclear sites

Posted on by
1

By  via The Washington Free Beacon

U.S. intelligence analysts watching for indicators of Israeli military action recently reported that there are signs the Jewish state plans an attack against Iran in October.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is preparing to provide logistical support for a military strike but is pressing Israel to delay any action until the administration’s policy of sanctions have had more time to work, and that any attack would be put off until after the November presidential election.

 

U.S. opposition to any pre-election strike was discussed during the recent visit to Israel by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon and a later visit by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, according to U.S. officials.

Panetta signaled possible U.S. military options for an Iran contingency during his press conference in Tel Aviv with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Aug. 1. Panetta said the United States and Israel are united in seeking to prevent Iran from ever having nuclear arms.

“We have been steadily applying more and more pressure against Tehran, focusing on diplomatic and economic sanctions, and I believe these steps are having an effect,” Panetta said.

He then added: “It’s my responsibility as secretary of defense to provide the president with a full range of options, including military options, should diplomacy fail. President Obama has made clear that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is a top national security priority by the United States and that all options — all options — are on the table.”

Any Israeli military attack is expected to be carried out with little or no warning, which has meant stepped up monitoring of Israel by U.S. intelligence agencies for all indicators of an impending attack.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, made a significant statement on Israel’s plans on July 25. Barak said during a graduation ceremony that if sanctions fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, an attack would be needed.

“I am well aware of the difficulties involved in thwarting Iran’s attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Barak was quoted as saying by Israel’s Ynet news agency.

“However, it is clear to me that without a doubt, dealing with the threat itself will be far more complicated, far more dangerous and far more costly in resources and human life,” he said, referring to a future nuclear-armed Iran.

Barak also said that sanctions and other diplomatic steps “are not enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program.”

U.S. officials said both Donilon and Panetta urged the Israelis to give sanctions a chance to work. New sanctions were imposed on Iranian financial institutions last week.

But the sanctions contain loopholes that critics say will limit their effect in influencing Iran’s Islamist regime from coming into compliance with international controls on its nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, contradicting standard U.S. intelligence analysis, stated recently that there are signs Iran engaged in nuclear arms development past 2003, when U.S. agencies said such work halted.

Some Israeli military leaders are said to be raising new concerns that Iran is positioning its forces for asymmetric counterattacks, specifically a new aggressive naval strategy of shutting down western oil supplies. Evidence of the new strategy was the recent dispatch of Iranian warships to the Mediterranean for the first time since 1979. The warships could be used to threaten shipping through the Red Sea and followed threats by Iranian officials to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a major portion of the world’s oil passes.

Other Israeli military and national security officials favor continuing the current campaign of covert action against Iran, including the assassination of key Iranian nuclear technicians and the use of aggressive cyber warfare attacks, like Stuxnet, Flame, and other viruses that have infected Iranian industrial control networks, including those engaged in nuclear development.

Intelligence analysts, in recent assessments, said an Israeli attack on Iran likely will trigger a global oil crisis involving Iranian counter-actions designed to disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to Asia, Europe and elsewhere. They include closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz and disrupting shipping lanes.

One element of leverage for the administration in dissuading Israel to attack was outlined in the recent meetings with Israeli officials who were told that a U.S.-supported strike against Iran possibly could involve advanced weaponry from the U.S. arsenal, including a new Air Force conventional bomb designed to blast deeply buried and hardened targets.

The Israeli strike plan against Iranian nuclear facilities is expected to include an air bombing campaign against two main nuclear plants at Natanz and Qom that are key elements in producing enriched uranium, which could be used to fuel nuclear bombs.

Military analysts also have said the Israelis are expected to launch “decapitation” bombing raids targeting key Iranian leaders — including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who publicly has called for destroying Israel — and other key Iranian military and political leaders.

One veteran Israeli journalist, Channel 2’s Ehud Yaari was quoted July 28 as saying he was told the most likely date for an Israeli military strike is October.

“I will give you an impression, and this is just an impression, but it is a strong impression, after conversations with the people one needs to talk with about this matter,” Yaari said.

“My impression is that the Americans are convinced that there is very high chance that Israel will decide to attack in Iran before the elections in the U.S.”

“The date that they are talking about — they say that the prime minister will have to make a decision around October,” he said. “They are getting ready for a possibility like that in the sense that they have to decide what they will do if there is one response or another by Iran, in the follow-up stage.”

Read more at The Washington Free Beacon

Related articles