Muslim Expresses Islam by Beheading a Brit in London

ISLAM ON THE MARCH IN LONDON! Pick your story!

Islamist in London makes a Muslim statement for Allah!

http://www.realclear.com/world/2013/05/22/shocking_beheading_in_england_1517.html

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you!” Muslim devotee announces after beheading of British lad.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-respond-to–serious-incident–after-reports-of-assault-in-woolwich–south-london-150210708.html?vp=1#T0gTEdX

The Gruesome Details of London’s Horrifying Machete Attack

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/05/london-machete-attack/65504/

videos from realclearpolitics

Will Barack Hussein Obama make a statement explaining the warmth and richness of modern Islam?

Democrats Happy over Obama’s Ability to Escape Answering Anything

Should anyone be surprised? The public has collapsed into the tribal state of the more primitive past. Knowledge and its benefits have been trumped by the ‘rise’ of the banal and carnal since the female of the animal has entered politics. Thinking and behaving at the lemur level have been found much more profitable among leftwing business and political operatives.

Obamaling Democrats have championed aggressiveness far beyond truth since before the foreigner entered the White House.

The following article is from the Hill……generally a left swing of information:

Dem lawmakers buoyed by Obama response to trio of controversies

by Mike Lillis

House Democrats left Washington on Friday insisting they’re not worried about political fallout after one of the most difficult weeks the Obama administration has endured.

Democrats know their fate in the 2014 elections hinges to a large degree on Obama’s popularity, and they say the president has responded appropriately to a trio of controversies involving the IRS, the Justice Department and the terrorist attack last year in Benghazi, Libya.

The Democrats are also cheering the aggressive approach Obama used in the latter half of the week, saying the feistiness has quelled criticisms that the president is steering from the back seat of his own administration.

“The president’s done a good job of stabilizing the situation, working to try and get ahead of the curve so that we can focus on jobs and the economy,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Friday. “When it comes right down to it, those are the issues of the most concern to people.”

Still, Democrats already have an uphill climb to regain the House, needing 17 seats in the midterm elections to win back the Speaker’s gavel – no easy task in a cycle when, historically, the party of second-term incumbent presidents fares poorly at the polls.

And the last week will not help make 2014 an anomaly.

Obama has come under heavy fire after it was revealed that the Internal Revenue Service focused special attention on conservative groups and the Justice Department swept up telephone records from the Associated Press, unbeknownst to the news organization.

Combined with the ongoing probe into the State Department’s handling of the deadly, Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the episodes have only fueled charges – long-lodged by conservatives on and off Capitol Hill – that the administration habitually tramples the Constitution at the expense of civil liberties.

“We now have focused the attention of everyone, including all of you, on the lengths to which the administration’s willing to go to quiet the voices of its critics,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters this week.

Yet while Republicans have pounced on the controversies with charges of ineptitude, arrogance – even criminality – within the administration, the Democrats are treating those criticisms as partisan musings that won’t resonate beyond the Beltway.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), vice-chairman of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee, said his constituents are simply more concerned about jobs, immigration reform and other issues that hit much closer to home than executive-branch scandals.

“The national media seems to be focused on this, and I can understand. But back in the district, I mean, I got some interviews, and none of them were on this issue,” Cuellar said Friday. “Literally, once you land and the the door opens, it’s a different environment.”

Rep. Charles Rangel (D), a member of the Ways and Means Committee that began investigating the IRS saga Friday, agreed. The 22-term New Yorker said the trio of controversies, far from being a Democratic liability in 2014, will be forgotten within a few months.

“I don’t see this playing out in November ’13,” Rangel said, emphasizing the “13″ as coming a full year before the midterms. “The American people are going to get exhausted with everything being negative – no jobs program, no tax reform, no alternative to the health plan [and] no immigration bill.”

After several days working behind the scenes, Obama emerged Wednesday with a series of aggressive moves that seem to have helped his cause as it relates to the controversies.

First, the White House released more than 100 pages of emails related to drafting of Benghazi talking points by the CIA, the State Department and the White House.

The emails threw into doubt earlier charges from Republicans that the White House was involved in scrubbing the mention of specific terrorist groups from the final version sent to lawmakers.

Later the same day, the president held a press conference in which he announced the firing of the acting commissioner of the IRS.

On Thursday, Obama went a step further, appointing a new IRS chief in Daniel Werfel, a senior official in the Office of Management and Budget, and staging a press conference from the Rose Garden in which he testily refuted the charges that he’s not in charge.

The president’s tone has angered Republicans, but Democrats heading home for the weekend said they’re spirited by his pluck.

“He’s being very engaged now, he’s being very proactive and that’s what you need to do in a crisis like this,” Cuellar said. “You just can’t wait and let everything define you, so I think he’s trying to move ahead and trying to define the issues before he gets defined.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) echoed that message.

“He’s shown a genuine concern and genuine outrage,” Castro said Friday, “and he’s doing what he needs to do.”

Obama on Friday sought to change the subject altogether. Even as Republicans were grilling the newly-fired head of the IRS on Capitol Hill, the president was at a manufacturing plant in Baltimore urging Congress to return its gaze on the economy.

“Sometimes our leadership isn’t focused where it needs to be focused,” Obama said, referring to the string of controversies without mentioning them. “We’ve been able to clear away the rubble of the crisis … but our work is not done. Our focus cannot drift.”

With Republicans vowing the investigations have only begun, however, that’s likely a message of wishful thinking.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/300551-dem-lawmakers-buoyed-by-obama-response-to-worrisome-scandals#ixzz2ThJ1dhGW
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Emails stirred by Benghazi crisis, 100 pages of them, are ‘released’ by the White House

RELEASE OF EMAILS SHOW JOSTLING ON LIBYA TALKING POINTS

by Michale D. Shear and Mark Landler at the New York Times

WASHINGTON — One hundred pages of e-mails released by the White House on Wednesday reveal intensive jostling among top intelligence and diplomatic officials over the government’s “talking points” in the aftermath of last September’s attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.

The documents suggest that the top two officials at the C.I.A. disagreed about how many details the administration should disclose about the agency’s view of who carried out the attacks and its earlier warnings about terrorist threats in the region.

In a copy of a draft memo released by the White House, Michael J. Morrell, the agency’s deputy director, crossed out five sentences from the talking points that described the agency’s warnings about threats from Islamic extremists. State Department officials also strongly urged that the warnings be left out, according to the e-mails.

The C.I.A. director at the time, David H. Petraeus, evidently disagreed with his deputy and believed that the warnings should be made public. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then …” Mr. Petraeus wrote in an e-mail to colleagues, referring to a version of the talking points that excluded the warnings.

The version the administration used in the days after the attacks, primarily by Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, did not include suspicions about the involvement of a Libyan militant group with ties to Al Qaeda. State Department officials objected to the inclusion of that information.

The administration has since acknowledged the involvement of Ansar al-Shariah, an extremist group with Qaeda ties. The White House released the e-mails to reporters after Republicans seized on snippets of the correspondence that became public last Friday to suggest that President Obama’s White House staff had taken an active role in altering the talking points.

In releasing them, White House officials were hoping to show that intelligence officials, not political advisers, drove the debate over the talking points.

It remained unclear why Mr. Morrell objected to the inclusion of the warnings and whether his objections or the State Department’s played the dominant role in having them removed.

After the release, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, criticized what he called the “political nature” of the State Department’s requested changes.

“This release is long overdue, and there are relevant documents the administration has still refused to produce,” Mr. Buck said. “We hope, however, that this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come.”

Democrats — including some of Mr. Obama’s former top aides — said Wednesday morning that the administration would have to release all of the e-mails in an effort to prove that the president had nothing to hide.

“I think they would benefit from getting all these e-mails out in public,” David Axelrod, a former senior adviser, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

During a brief news conference on Monday, Mr. Obama dismissed the Republican inquiry into the Benghazi aftermath as a “sideshow” and said there was nothing to the accusations of a cover-up.

“Suddenly, three days ago,” the president told reporters, “this gets spun up as if there’s something new to the story. There’s no ‘there’ there.”

Comment: We’ll see where the “there” is…..eventually. Barack Obama is not an honest man devoted to integrity. He certainly is no Christian and has never ever acted or spoken as one. He cannot advertise his personal infatuation with Islam and its drive to the top of international political issues.

It could be that is religion is indeed Marxism. He has no other drive as occupier in the White House as powerful. Truth has no value in Marxism. What is said and repeated often enough is Truth enough. Jostler Obama is at his best as a liar…..and a Marxist one at that. He jostles truth so smoothly, so cleverly he is envied and admired by educators, entertainers, journalists, Democrats, Marxists, Blacks, Gays, childless females, and leaders of great corporations.

Doctor: Guy who BEHEADED and ATE Fellow Bus Passanger in 2008 Should be Able to Go to the Beach!

LEFTY MANITOBA IS LOONIER THAN EVEN GOPHERLAND DEMOCRATS…..LIFE HAS BECOME VERY, VERY CHEAP UNDER THE LEFTISTS REGIMES WHETHER CANADIAN OR AMERICAN!

Canadian bureaucracy determined to set cannibal-murderer free!!

Minnesota is these days weirdo, folks, but I don’t think this doctor’s advice on behalf of his patient who beheaded (without any provocation, by the way) and ate portions of a fellow bus passenger in 2008, should be allowed to fancy at any beach anytime soon, would fly very far even among the lowlife lefty politicians in St. Paul. In Obamaland, however, who really knows?

WINNIPEG — A man who beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba is likely to get more privileges in the coming weeks — something his victim’s mother says should never happen.

Vince Li, 45, has stopped having hallucinations, has been a model patient at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre and is ready for more escorted passes into the community, his psychiatrist said Monday.

“I believe that, primarily, Mr. Li is invested in co-operating with and working with the treatment team,” Dr. Steven Kremer told the Criminal Code Review Board, which examines Li’s condition annually.

Li has made “excellent improvement” since the 2008 attack, Kremer said.

Related
Christie Blatchford: The long delay in getting to trial has lost its charm
‘The system is sick’: Canada’s courts are choking on an increase in evidence
.Li was found not criminally responsible for killing Tim McLean — an attack Crown attorney Susan Helechilde called “perhaps the most macabre crime ever committed in Manitoba.”

Li was an undiagnosed schizophrenic at the time, but has continually taken his medication, has had no problems with staff or other patients and realizes he needs to stick to his treatment, Kremer said.

Dressed in a black pinstripe suit and sneakers, Li kept his head bowed for most of the hearing and focused on the table in front of him. He smiled at the end of the one-hour hearing and shook his lawyer’s hand.

Li was initially confined to a locked wing of the hospital, but in 2010 was granted the right to escorted walks on hospital grounds. Last year, he was given the right to escorted daytime trips into Selkirk. He had to be accompanied at all times by a security guard and a staff member.

Kremer and other members of Li’s treatment team suggested Monday that Li be given more trips. They said he should be allowed to go to Winnipeg under the same supervision. He should also be allowed to go to Selkirk, Lockport and nearby beaches under more relaxed, group supervision, they suggested.

The team also said Li is ready for unescorted walks on hospital grounds.

The Crown did not oppose the proposal’s main points, but asked that staff be required to have cellphones at all times.

The review board said it would make its decision within a week.

The annual hearings are an unpleasant experience for the victim’s mother, Carol DeDelley. She said Li should remain locked up for the rest of his life, but the mental health system seems intent on eventually freeing him.

“I just believe that (Li) ought to remain where he can get the care and treatment he requires and we can all feel safe,” DeDelley told reporters after the hearing.

“The fact of the matter is, they don’t know (what Li will do). Vince Li is an experiment at this point. They’re just going to test and see, give him a little bit more freedom, a little bit more freedom and see what happens.”

Li’s attack on McLean was completely unprovoked.

The two men were strangers in July 2008 when Li sat down next to McLean, a 22-year-old carnival worker who was riding a bus from Edmonton to Winnipeg. McLean had his eyes closed and was listening to music on his headphones when Li suddenly stood up and started stabbing him.

The bus stopped and horrified passengers fled as Li carved up McLean’s body and ate portions of it.

Further comment:……Perhaps the looniest of this Canadian event are the passengers who fled the eatings. What a disgusting bunch of animals……..Why aren’t thy prosecuted for dereliction of adult duties to save human lives?

Regarding the doctor’s experiment….Unless Mr. Li murders and eats portions of the doctor when at the beach, but attacks another for his fancies, the doctor should be executed by the same manner in which Mr. Li committed his second murder, eaten or not.

A Note and Request from John Bolton former Ambassador to the United Nations

Friend,

As an Under Secretary of State during the September 11, 2001, attacks, and later as Ambassador to the UN, I saw very closely what a terrorist event looks like.

Therefore I’m also familiar with how an administration handles such an attack. What’s happened with Benghazi is not how it’s supposed to be handled and I think it could be a hinge point for the Obama administration.

Last week’s hearing, convened by House Republicans to get to the bottom of what happened, revealed a wealth of information.

The three witnesses who testified at the Oversight & Government Reform Committee are not bystanders. These are not people who are going to report on hearsay. These are people who were directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack.

Here are three highlights from the last 24 hours:

High-level staffers removed vital pieces of information tying terrorist organizations to attacks. They knew early on that radical Islamic terrorists participated in the attack.
The former Deputy Chief of Mission to Libya, Gregory Hicks, said in the hearing, “none of us should ever again experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi on 9/11/2012.” He went on to say he had personally told former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at 2 a.m. the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.
Gregory Hicks also testified that Secretary Clinton’s claiming the attack was incited by a YouTube video caused Libyan officials to hinder the FBI’s arrival to the scene.
House Republicans are committed to finding the truth about what the Obama Administration knows about the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

They won’t stop until they get answers.

Will you give $5 to support the NRCC in their goal to hold the administration accountable for Benghazi?

Your $5 will go a long way. Americans deserve an explanation – please help out.

Thank you,

John Bolton
Former Ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush

Note: I do not know, nor pretend to know, John Bolton personally…..only from afar as any of you readers might remember him, or still see him as a source of information and experience on Fox News.

Upon his name as one I deeply respect, I pass on to you, dear readers, his note and request….and hope that you will make the proper response in the best way possible. ghr

Kirsten Powers: Obama Involved in “Repeated Lies” on Benghazi

Comment: In other words Kirsten Powers believes Barack Hussein Obama lied frequently regarding the disaster at Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

It should be the first priority of every adult American of any Party, of any Religion, of any Neighborhood if they are truly a person devoted to the survival of the American dream of a popular government with personal liberties and respect for others, is to rely on honesty in its purest form to save ones soul, in the short run, but more importantly, in the long run of the human life.

“What a strange web we weave when we first practice to deceive”, was a reminder told to me when I was very young to older aged, first repeated by my mother and then by my own self to my self and others long before her death.

The maxim beats temptation time after time after time. I could never escape my God, I was warned, for God know all things. I was so Blessed to have been raised “Godfearing”.
Furthermore Life Owed Me Nothing, not even Life Itself. I was supposed to learn to decide matters; seek opportunities as I thought applied to me. I was to find whereever I might ‘fit’…..”God willing.”

We live in an ugly, a morally collapsing society which values cunning, rebellion, the slick, bizarre and profane, and are taught how much we are owed by simply breathing and pooping as long as we go to college to become a Marxist, a new religion which tells us how much we are owed for breathing and pooping if we vote for Obama and Obamalings.

Mr. Obama is a habitual liar. Benghazi isn’t his only Waterloo. He is a persuasive speaker; a con-artist who has an agenda sympathetic to Marxism and Islam and has the support of nearly all of the nation’s major institutions of persuasion. He didn’t really fool anyone if anyone would have personally bothered to listen and had amassed knowledge including those exposing Obama habits.

He used to advertise CHANGE….and for those who bothered to listen, who had some history background, who reviewed Mr. Obama’s personal background, especially his education and family life, honest people would have discovered he had an entirely different formula for America’s future than one depending on respect for others, freedom of expression, citizen rights, and a moral code based on truth, classic good, and personal responsibility.

Mr. Obama was never raised in a community devoted to those values. You read his background: who raised him, who educated him, who came to interest him, preach to him, educate him as a young adult.

He once “taught” Constitutional Law, I have read. Unbelievable for a person leading a political party which disdains the American Constitution as a white racist, out-of-date piece of paper with out-of-date ‘rules’ which we no longer need to pay attention to, as president or president’s administration……Hence, we have Obama arrogance, contempt, deceit, and efforts at dictatorship to develop a Marxist government beholden to the governing, not the people.

So, are you…..should anyone be, surprised that the Obama adminstration is so blatantly corrupt, blazingly antiAmerican in its respect for Constitutional Law, State Law, the Bill of Rights, anything beyond the change according to “ObamaLaw”?

I find Kirsten Powers a true patriot. I am a conservative….she is a female, probably has no male children, so she is a lefty…..but an honest one, an American one, a very, very rare breed these days among those who call themselves liberal and/or Democrat.

Powers: Obama Involved In “Repeated Lies” On Benghazi

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/14/powers_obama_involved_in_repeated_lies_on_benghazi.html

KIRSTEN POWERS: What I don’t understand about what the president is doing is, to a certain extent, you could argue that he wasn’t really involved in a lot of this stuff. But he is so centrally involving himself with these repeated lies. And, I’m just going to call them lies because they’re lies. They’re on tape. Nobody thought that he called it a terrorist attack. Last night I went and I looked up at The New York Times how they reported it the day after. They never reference that we’ve had a terrorist attack against the United States. On September 20th, however, they run a story that says, “Libya envoy’s killing was a terrorist attack.” And they say, “Until now White House officials have not used that language in describing the assault.” That is September 20th. That is The New York Times. Now, at what point are people going to get tired of the president coming out over and over saying things like, “Don’t believe your lying eyes”?

A View of the Hands of Barack Hussein Obama Protecting Islamists

The Bloody Hands of Barack Obama
By Stella Paul article sent by Lisa Rich:

The Three Whistleblowers at the Benghazi hearing spoke softly, but with the emotional wallop of The Three Tenors. They told the truth, and it blasted like thunder through Obama’s tissue palace of lies.

Listening to these strong, solemn men, I heard the sound of old America: a place of hardworking people who love their country and believe in something bigger than their own power.

The America of Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson, and Eric Nordstrom won World War II, walked on the moon, and defeated Communism. But today, their America is forced to serve a different god: a cold, smiling man with a hollow heart and hands that get bloodier by the day.

Obama stands center stage in this tragic opera of America’s downfall, cheapening, endangering, and destroying the lives of the best among us. The pile of corpses grows ever higher, and the lies more noxious.

Let’s pay tribute to some of his many victims, and vow to honor their memory by holding him to account.

BENGHAZI: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods.
Obama failed to attend a single intelligence briefing in the week before September 11, 2012. As the Libyan consulate in Benghazi came under attack that day, he disappeared for the evening, then jetted off the next day for a Las Vegas fundraiser.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Stevens was raped, murdered, and dragged through the streets by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, while three brave Americans died trying to defend him.

Having ignored Ambassador Stevens’s previous reports of a “security vacuum” in Libya, Obama allowed the abortion of two rescue missions ready to fly to Benghazi. Regional security officer Eric Nordstrom testified that “… whether or not you’re sitting off at a post, requesting resources, preparing for testimony before this committee, or standing on a building surrounding by an armed mob attacking you, the message is the same: ‘You’re on your own.’”

BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING: Martin Richard (age 8), Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, and Sean Collier.
The Russians and the Saudis both say they warned Obama’s security team about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two jihad-crazed brothers who set off fatal bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line and then killed police officer Sean Collier. The FBI interviewed Tamerlan, found nothing, and failed to inform the Boston police of Russia’s multiple warnings. The Tsarnaev brothers were free to pursue their murderous plot, while living the high life on taxpayer welfare.

After the city of Boston was put on lockdown, surviving brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured and began to talk about his schemes. But this potential life-saving information (reportedly, the brothers planned to attack New York) was squelched when Obama’s Department of Justice rushed to charge him with a crime and read him his Miranda rights. Dzhokhar immediately shut up.

The feds refuse to let the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth release Dzhokhar’s college records, claiming it would violate federal privacy law. Meanwhile, two illegal aliens have been arrested as accomplices; Obama’s Department of Homeland Security allowed one of them to re-enter the U.S. in January without a valid student visa.

OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS: Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of unnamed Mexicans.
Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, conducted a secret gun-running operation that supplied thousands of assault weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata were both murdered with Fast and Furious guns. Their families have filed wrongful death lawsuits against the federal government.

The Terry lawsuit claims that the federal officials “created, organized, implemented and/or participated in a plan – code named ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ – to facilitate the distribution of dangerous firearms to violent criminals” and that they “knew or should have known that their actions would cause substantial injuries, significant harm, and even death to Mexican and American civilians and law enforcement, but were recklessly indifferent to the consequence of their actions.”

Eric Holder has been found in contempt of Congress for refusing to release requested documented to congressional investigators, and he appears to have committed perjury in his testimony.

FORT HOOD: Juanita Warman, Libardo Caraveo, John P. Gaffaney, Russell Seager, Justin Decrow, Amy Krueger, Jason Hunt, Frederick Greene, Aaron Nemelka, Michael Pearson, Kham Xiong, Francheska Velez (and unborn child, and Michael G. Cahill.
On November 5, 2009, Army Major Nidal Hasan opened fire on a group of soldiers preparing to deploy to Iraq, killing 13 and wounding 32. Associates raised repeated questions about his strange behavior but were squashed by what they call the Pentagon’s “political correctness.” A devout Muslim, Hasan was in extensive communication with al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, printed up business cards that read “Soldier of Allah,” dressed in Islamic martyrdom garb, and handed out korans the morning of the attack. He screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire.

Nevertheless, Obama refuses to deem the largest attack on a U.S. military installation in history a terrorist assault, insisting that it be classified “workplace violence.” Hasan’s victims have been denied Purple Hearts. Fort Hood hero Kimberly Munley told ABC News that Obama “betrayed” her and the other victims. “Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of,” she said. “In fact, they’ve been neglected.”

NAVY SEAL TEAM VI HELICOPTER CRASH IN AFGHANISTAN, AUGUST 2011: Jonas B. Kelsall, Louis J. Langlais, Thomas A. Ratzlaff, Kraig M. Vickers, Brian R. Bill, John W. Faas, Kevin A. Houston, Matthew D. Mason, Stephen M. Mills, Nicholas H. Null, Robert J. Reeves, Heath M. Robinson, Darrik C. Benson, Christopher G. Campbell, Jared W. Day, John Douangdara, Michael J. Strange, Jon T. Tumilson, Aaron C. Vaughn, Jason R. Workman, Jesse D. Pittman, Nicholas P. Spehar, David R. Carter, Bryan J. Nichols, Patrick D. Hamburger, Alexander J. Bennett, Spencer C. Duncan, John W. Brown, Andrew W. Harvell, and Daniel L. Zerbe.
On May 2, 2011, members of SEAL Team VI invaded Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani compound and killed him. Three months later, 30 American troops, most of them members of SEAL Team VI, were shot down by the Taliban over Afghanistan.

On May 9, 2013, families of the fallen held a press conference to accuse Barack Obama of complicity in their deaths. They charged Obama with endangering SEAL Team VI by breaking protocol and revealing its identity as bin Laden’s killers.

They also revealed that their sons were sent to battle with inadequate equipment and air support and denied requested pre-assault fire.

The families played a video of their sons’ military funeral. No mention of the Judeo-Christian God was allowed, but the Pentagon invited a Muslim cleric to speak, who cursed their sons in Arabic as infidels condemned to hell.

Karen Vaughn, mother of fallen SEAL Aaron Vaughn, said, “Why was there no pre-assault fire? We were told as families because pre-assault fire damages our efforts to win the hearts and mind of our enemy. In other words, the hearts and mind of our enemy are more valuable to this government than my son’s blood.”

Alas, I have no room to name all the troops killed by Obama’s crippling Rules of Engagement. “American troops are needlessly exposed to increased enemy attack, suffer unnecessary casualties, cannot secure or control the indigenous population and are not allowed to deny freedom of movement or maneuver to the Taliban,” according to a tactical commander in Afghanistan. As a result, more than twice as many American soldiers have died in Afghanistan under four years of Obama than in eight years under Bush.

Nor do I have room to list all the Americans murdered and maimed by the illegal aliens to whom Obama shows such special devotion. This week, Chris Crane, president of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers union, said Obama has “attempted to shut down” border enforcement and “absolutely” tied law enforcement’s hands. Recently, Obama released 5,000 criminal aliens from jail, blaming sequestration cuts, and created special protections against deportation for illegal aliens with “serious mental disorders.”

In the White House lives the man with the blood-red hands. The screams and sobs of his victims grow louder by the day.

Weekly Standard: THE BENGHAZI SCANDAL GROWS

by Stephen Hayes:

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points.

The CIA’s talking points, the ones that went out that Friday evening, were distributed via email to a group of top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia.

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” She did not specify whom she meant by State Department “building leadership.” Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​—​including State, Defense, and the CIA​—​as well as senior White House national security staffers.

The Deputies Committee convened the next morning, Saturday the 15th. Some participants met in person, while others joined via a Secure Video Teleconference System (abbreviated SVTS and pronounced “siv-its”).

The proceedings were summarized in an email to U.N. ambassador Rice shortly after the meeting ended. The subject line read: “SVTS on Movie/Protests/violence.” The name of the sender is redacted, but whoever it was had an email address suggesting a job working for the United States at the United Nations.

According to the email, several officials in the meeting shared the concern of Nuland, who was not part of the deliberations, that the CIA’s talking points might lead to criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA’s warning about an attack. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, agreed to work with Jake Sullivan and Rhodes to edit the talking points. At the time, Sullivan was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s director of policy planning; he is now the top national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. Denis McDonough, then a top national security adviser to Obama and now his chief of staff, deferred on Rhodes’s behalf to Sullivan.

The email to Rice reported that Sullivan would work with a small group of individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the talking points on Saturday before sending them on to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which had originated the request for talking points.

The sender of the email spoke with Sullivan after the meeting, reminding him that Rice would be doing the Sunday morning shows and needed to receive the final talking points. Sullivan committed to making sure Rice was updated before the Sunday shows. The sender told Sullivan the name of the staffer (redacted in the email) who would be running Rice’s prep session and encouraged the team to keep Rice in the loop.

At 2:44 p.m., the author of the email to Rice followed up directly with Sullivan, asking for a copy of the talking points to help with Rice’s preparation for TV. Sullivan promised to provide them.

A senior Obama administration official did not challenge the accuracy of the email to Rice, but disputed any implication that Sullivan was responsible for rewriting the talking points. “The CIA circulated revised talking points to the interagency after the Deputies Committee meeting and Jake Sullivan did not comment substantively on those points.”

This official pointed to Jay Carney’s comments this week. “What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points.”

But Carney’s claim raises an obvious question: Why would intelligence community officials want to redraft talking points they’d already finalized?

The major substantive changes came Friday evening, after a State Department official expressed concerns about criticism from members of Congress, and Saturday morning, following the Deputies Committee meeting, where, according to internal Obama administration emails, officials further revised the talking points.

What’s clear is that the final version did not reflect the views of the top intelligence official on the ground in Benghazi, who had reported days earlier that the assault had been a terrorist attack conducted by jihadists with links to al Qaeda, or the top U.S. diplomat in Libya, Gregory Hicks.

Hicks testified last week that he was not consulted on the talking points and was surprised when he saw Rice make a case that had little to do with what had happened in Benghazi. “I was stunned,” he said. “My jaw dropped.”

The hearings last week produced fresh details on virtually every aspect of the Benghazi controversy and raised new questions. By the end of some six hours of testimony, several Democrats on the committee had joined their Republican colleagues in calling for more hearings, additional witnesses, and the release of unclassified documents related to the attacks in Benghazi.

On May 9, House speaker John Boehner echoed the calls for those unclassified Benghazi documents to be made public. He had two specific requests. First, Boehner called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her colleagues to describe a conversation she’d had with Libya’s ambassador to the United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him. “When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists.” Among those copied on the email: Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff and longtime confidante.

Second, Boehner asked the White House to release the 100 pages of internal administration emails related to the drafting and editing of the talking points. Sources tell The Weekly Standard that House Republicans will subpoena them if the administration does not turn them over voluntarily.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was time to “move on” from Benghazi. More recently, Jay Carney suggested the same thing, explaining that Benghazi had happened “a long time ago.”

But it’s increasingly clear that congressional Republicans, and many Americans, will not move on until the outstanding questions about Benghazi are answered.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

Mark Steyn on Obama’s Benghazi Story: “LYING IN STATE”

Lying in State
By Mark Steyn

My take on Benghazi developments can be found here, but there are any number of other pieces an informed person should take a gander at. I’d like to suggest reading the ABC News story and Steve Hayes’ Weekly Standard piece on the State-scrubbed talking-points in conjunction with Andy McCarthy’s column on the Libyan president Mohammed Magarief.

Victoria Nuland and the State Department vacuumed any real “intelligence” out of the CIA talking-points like Dr Kermit Gosnell suctioning the brains out of Philadelphia babies. Why would they do this? The nearest thing to any genuine rationale that was offered was this:
The CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Once again, Nuland objected to naming the terrorist groups because “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

In response, an NSC staffer coordinating the review of the talking points wrote back to Nuland, “The FBI did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions…”

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

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

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
So Ms Nuland got her way, ostensibly in the interests of not “undermining” the FBI investigation. And, because she got her way, the FBI investigation was severely undermined. As Andy writes in his column, the Libyan president had publicly condemned the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and was therefore stunned to switch on CNN International and find Susan Rice insisting that it was all to do with a movie protest – in other words, the US Government was lying to its own citizenry as shamelessly as the Gaddafi or Assad regime would. What would you do in President Magarief’s shoes? He knows the YouTube story is false, and he knows that Washington knows it’s false, and knew it on the very night of the Benghazi assault. And, quite reasonably enough, he has never trusted the Americans since.

One very immediate consequence of this is that the FBI were prevented from getting into Libya – again entirely reasonably: Magarief knows Obama, Clinton and Rice are peddling a fraud with no basis in reality, so it would seem prudent to assume that any US agents he lets in are not there to find out the truth but to prop up the fraud. So he kept them well away from Benghazi, for weeks.

The changes the State Department demanded in order not to undermine the FBI investigation wound up undermining it (and US/Libyan relations) profoundly.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. Constitutional Law Professor my ass.

Why have we not heard Dianne Feinstein or Ed Schultz go addresses the Pico-Union area of Los Angeles and forcibly insist MS-13 members hand over their guns?

article sent by Lisa Rich

Stunning News: The New Yorker Writes Obama’s Benghazi Coverup WELL!

I have never enjoyed reading a magazine as much as the New Yorker during and throughout thirty years or so of my married life. Eventually it became just another piece of Lefty wording on Lefty topics of concern…..losing its cunning for outstanding topics, sense of humor, and remarkable ability of writing pithy, informative, reliably honest reviews of events and people, mostly those in politics.

Even though “New York” the magazine was my and my wife’s kind of American magazine for good American reading, good humor, and much dependable information.

Our America was a far less ugly America then……and I and my wife were Democrats.

I was shocked when I came across its recent article on the Benghazi coverup. The mainstream Obama press has poo-pooed the crisis, spending much energy protecting their Marxist Lord Fauntleroy in the Oval Office.

The following article from the New Yorker is titled, SPINNING BENGHAZI:

It’s a cliché, of course, but it really is true: in Washington, every scandal has a crime and a coverup. The ongoing debate about the attack on the United States facility in Benghazi where four Americans were killed, and the Obama Administration’s response to it, is no exception. For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.

On Friday, ABC News’s Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.’s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It’s striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans’ criticism of the Administration’s public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.

From the very beginning of the editing process, the talking points contained the erroneous assertion that the attack was “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved.” That’s an important fact, because the right has always criticized the Administration based on the suggestion that the C.I.A. and the State Department, contrary to what they said, knew that the attack was not spontaneous and not an outgrowth of a demonstration. But everything else about the changes that were made is problematic. The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions “at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi” before the one in which four Americans were killed. That’s not in the final version. Nor is this: “[W]e do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” That was replaced by the more tepid “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.” (Even if we accept the argument that State wanted to be sure that extremists were involved, and that they could be linked to Al Qaeda, before saying so with any level of certainty—which is reasonable and supported by evidence from Karl’s reporting—that doesn’t fully explain these changes away.)

Democrats will argue that the editing process wasn’t motivated by a desire to protect Obama’s record on fighting Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 2012 election. They have a point; based on what we’ve seen from Karl’s report, the process that went into creating and then changing the talking points seems to have been driven in large measure by two parts of the government—C.I.A. and State—trying to make sure the blame for the attacks and the failure to protect American personnel in Benghazi fell on the other guy.

But the mere existence of the edits—whatever the motivation for them—seriously undermines the White House’s credibility on this issue. This past November (after Election Day), White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

Remarkably, Carney is sticking with that line even now. In his regular press briefing on Friday afternoon (a briefing that was delayed several times, presumably in part so the White House could get its spin in order, but also so that it could hold a secretive pre-briefing briefing with select members of the White House press corps), he said:

The only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”… it was a matter of non-substantive factual correction. But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this and is always appropriate.
This is an incredible thing for Carney to be saying. He’s playing semantic games, telling a roomful of journalists that the definition of editing we’ve all been using is wrong, that the only thing that matters is who’s actually working the keyboard. It’s not quite re-defining the word “is,” or the phrase “sexual relations,” but it’s not all that far off, either.

Click below for New York Times article: BENGHAZI E-MAILS PUT WHITE HOUSE ON DEFENSIVE

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/us/politics/benghazi-e-mails-put-white-house-on-the-defensive.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0