The Jackasses Won – Time For a Reality Break!

WOW, what a ride this past year!  I started this blog hoping to make a difference.  A difference for my grandchildren and my country.  I had no idea what I was up against.  Who could ever image a world where abortion, gay marriage, and legalized pot became more of an issue than jobs, economy, national security and our Constitution.  A world where the takers outnumber and outvote the makers – where free stuff is more important than freedom.  A world where the younger generation thinks more of themselves and their right to free contraception and abortion than the future of their parents, grandparents and children.  A world where the liberal media not only never challenged the liberal candidate but outright campaigned for him.

People asked if I thought Romney had a chance and I alway said he would win in a fair election.  Well, we all know now that this election wasn’t fair.  How sad that many precincts reported OVER 100% voter turnout and others reported flagrant abuse and, in some cases, illegal registration at the time of voting.  Chicago politics at its worst.  If this election is not a mandate for a national voter database and voter ID’s I don’t know what would be.  There are so many petitions for secession I can’t believe this is the outcome America really wanted.

President Obama has a lot ahead of him but I fear nothing will change. Taxes will be raised; Obamacare will suck the economy and life, literally, out of many of us; and we will be facing another fiscal crisis.  Benghazi will be stone-walled and the cover-ups will all continue.  Fast and Furious will take a back seat, temporarily, to the new Watergate.  What we do know is we have an incompetent administration that is lying to us at every turn, and they do not care who they toss under the bus.  I hope and pray Congress will NOT let the murder of four Americans go unpunished.

After being in total denial this past week, I am now disappointed, disillusioned and downright depressed at the idiocy of this country’s voting process and voting morons.  I am taking a short break from the real, and really screwed-up, world until after the holidays.  I thank you all for your support, loyalty and true patriotism.  Failure is NOT an option and I will continue the fight with my fellow bloggers, conservatives, freedom-fighters and patriots soon.

May GOD BLESS AMERICA!

 

VIDEO: Classified Cable Identified 10 Islamist/Al Qaeda Groups in Benghazi in August – Clinton and Obama Denied Pleas for Help!

An August 16th cable requested additional security and reported there were ten Islamist militias and Al Qaeda groups in Benghazi and they could not sustain an organized attack.  This information reportedly went directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Ambassador Stevens.  Stevens also informed Clinton that he feared an attack on the consulate would be next.

Fox News also reports: “It was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more  security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four  Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by  Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.”

 

 

As Catherine Herridge said, “This may be the smoking gun.”  I fervently hope it is enough evidence to fire and prosecute those in charge!

ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

By Gary Aldrich via The Washington Times

History of incompetence and dangerous decisions -

I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years  served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as  senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton  White House counsel’s office.

There was never a question that national security was a top priority for  George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious  and professional.

The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush  White House.

Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of  Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot  recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or  suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to  protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We  performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.

Contrast that with the mess that occurred when Bill Clinton and Hillary  Rodham Clinton took office. The administration, with few exceptions, did not  take national security seriously. National and White House security were not  priorities. We were shocked.

Because of an obvious disregard for security-related matters throughout the  executive branch, career professionals left the Clinton White House and their  respective agencies in droves. I knew many who did, and it was a sad day when  another one would greet us in the hallways of the Old Executive Office Building  with an announcement of retirement, transfer or outright resignation. I could  not blame them. I also approached my FBI managers with my own request for  reassignment.

Why did I want to leave one of the most unique assignments an FBI agent could  achieve? The bad attitude the Clintons had toward national security made it  impossible for us to perform our duties successfully. Their failure to properly  assess threat levels, along with their unwillingness to acknowledge that they  knew little about national security, was a recipe for disaster. We knew this  from experience.

Mrs. Clinton eventually was accused in congressional testimony of ordering  the hiring of Craig Livingstone — a former bar bouncer — to head the White House  security office. Mr. Livingtone also headed up liaison with the FBI. His was not  a serious appointment — he was a joke. Some of my security friends thought that  this was Mrs. Clinton’s way of showing us that she held no respect for us.

Lacking respect did not discourage Mrs. Clinton from using security agencies  as a hammer to attack and punish those who stood in her way. The FBI, the Secret  Service and the Internal Revenue Service hounded and then prosecuted seven  innocent men who worked for the White House travel office simply because they  were standing in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s political interests and ambitions.  She knew federal investigations would destroy those good men, but she wanted her  friends in those slots, and that was all that mattered.

No one could understand why Mrs. Clinton would want to insert herself into  security matters. She was neither elected nor appointed, and day-to-day security  issues were considered dry or boring. Security usually is not micromanaged by  the front office. Moreover, a good front office always staffs this important  function with the best candidates. One possible reason for Mrs. Clinton’s  unusual interest was that she and her husband had much to hide. There was no  statutory authority for her to be so involved, but that didn’t seem to matter,  either.

The Clintons left a wake of questionable activities behind them. Both had  come up from the same crowd — the anti-war left, where Saul Alinsky taught that  all truth was relative, a tool to be used to win. Having won the White House,  Mr. Clinton had little interest in staffing, as documented in articles and books  explaining the chaos, released after the fact.

Mrs. Clinton called on Arkansas Rose Law Firm associates to staff the Clinton  White House Counsel’s Office. Most memorable among these was Vince Foster, who  died in Fort Marcy Park of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Foster, a  seemingly decent man, was deputy counsel in charge of the overall security  program in the White House. He possessed no background or education for the job.  Foster’s deputy, William Kennedy, also a former co-worker of Mrs. Clinton,  supervised Craig Livingstone. FBI and Secret Service agents did their best to  work with this trio, but within days it was clear that there was not a dime’s  worth of experience between them regarding White House security or national  security. That didn’t seem to register in Washington, where perception trumps  logic and truth.

Soon the predictable happened, as the Clinton White House became a swamp of  scandal and chaos, eventually resulting in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. We were  lucky that nothing worse than the Monica Lewinsky scandal occurred. The Clinton  White House — with a security system conceived and overseen by Mrs. Clinton — was an exceptionally soft target for espionage and also for a deadly terrorist  attack.

Five House members recently raised questions about Huma Abedin, an aide in  Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, whose family has ties with terrorist  sympathizers. This aide should not be a candidate for close access. Only those  completely above suspicion should ever be given close access to a Cabinet  secretary’s daily business or schedule. Such a person would require the highest  clearance possible. Agendas, comings, goings, identities, plans, what the  president says and thinks — that is a virtual treasure trove of key data if a  potential spy can access an inner circle participant. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s  choice for a constant travel companion could be an innocent person, but if the  FBI director’s closest aide was the son of a Mafia boss, would that be deemed  acceptable?

On the heels of this national security background investigation mystery, now  there are four deaths — one of a U.S. ambassador — apparently because of other  lapses in national and embassy security procedures at Mrs. Clinton’s State  Department. She hired a former bar bouncer for White House security — who runs  the State Department’s security office?

Mrs. Clinton has a documented track record of interference and poor judgment  as she micromanaged the White House security program, sans credentials. In  recent days, she has said that what happened in Libya is her fault, and maybe  that’s the truth. The media ought to ask her some tough questions about State  Department security, and then seek to get some straight answers.

Read the rest here.

Is General Ham losing his job over Benghazi? Retirement announced!

UPDATE: General at center of Benghazi-gate controversy retiring

Maybe once General Ham retires we will learn the truth regarding the order to ‘Stand Down’ and the events that followed!

Via The Washington Times

Major General Carter F. Ham, US Army, Commandi...

Updated 10/29) Is an American General losing his job  for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest  potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012  terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a  coherent explanation.

 

 

On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an  otherwise unrelated briefing on “Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the  Force.” News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news  value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta  said, “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate  General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S.  Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only  been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well  regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the  ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later,  word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March  2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant  commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that  he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.

However on October 26, “Ambassador” posted  the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft):

I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust  entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in  the quote below.

quote:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way  without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about  what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not  having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that  area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put  forces at risk in that situation.”

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom  received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as  the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit  ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit  ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down.  His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to  a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended  General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his  command.

 

The story continues that now General Rodiguez  would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

 

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