Facebook Censors Navy SEALs

Facebook Censors Navy SEALs to Protect Obama on Benghazi-Gate

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate




FROM THE NEW YORK POST
Where is the Benghazi media feeding frenzy?

I don’t think there’s a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts. And, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal.

In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an “October surprise” attack on George W. Bush, revealing that 24 years earlier, he’d been arrested for drunken driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy.

“Is all the 24-hour coverage of Bush’s 24-year-old DUI arrest the product of a liberal media almost drunk on the idea of sinking him, or is it a legitimate, indeed unavoidable news story?” asked Howard Kurtz on his CNN show “Reliable Sources.” The consensus among the guests: It wasn’t a legitimate news story. But the media kept going with it.

One could go on and on. In September 2004, former CBS titan Dan Rather gambled his entire career on a story about Bush’s service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he didn’t thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were forgeries.

Oh, there have been conservative feeding frenzies: about Barack Obama’s pastor, John Kerry’s embellishments of his war record, etc. But the mainstream media usually tasks itself with debunking and dispelling such “hysteria.”

Last week, Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources on the ground in Libya say they pleaded for support during the attack on the Benghazi consulate that led to the deaths of four Americans. They were allegedly told twice to “stand down.” Worse, there are suggestions that significant military resources were available to counterattack, but requests for help were denied.

If true, the White House’s concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles, as do several other fraudulent claims. Yet, last Friday, the president boasted, “The minute I found out what was happening” in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel. That’s either untrue, or he’s being disobeyed on grave matters.

Yet Fox News is alone in treating the story like it’s a big deal. During the less significant Valerie Plame scandal, reporters camped out on the front lawns of Karl Rove and other Bush White House staff. Did Obama confiscate those journalists’ sleeping bags?

Of the five news shows last Sunday, only “Fox News Sunday” treated this as a major story. On the other four, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it. “Meet the Press” host David Gregory shushed a guest who tried to bring up the subject, saying, “Let’s get to Libya a little bit later.” He never did, but he saved plenty of time to dive deep into the question of what Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on abortion and rape mean for the Romney campaign.

I’m willing to believe that journalists like Gregory are sincere in their desire to play it straight. But among those who don’t share his instincts, it’s hard to distinguish between conspiracy and groupthink. Indeed, it’s hard to think why one should even bother trying to make that distinction at all.

JonahsColumn@aol.com

 

The Libya scandal

The Libya scandal: this is what we do know:

• The U.S. State Department knew security at the Libyan consulate was inadequate and had repeatedly turned down requests to beef it up.
• The U.S. State Department knew that other Western consulates and embassies had been subjected to terror threats and attacks.
• The events were observed in real time at the White House.
• Requests for assistance once the attack commenced were ignored or denied.
• CIA Director David Petraeus is not the one who denied the assistance.
• Obama may have watched the events unfold live.
• Within minutes of the attack, the Obama Administration knew there was no demonstration and there was no mob outside the consulate prior to the beginning of hostilities.
• Those attacking the consulate were armed and backed by U.S. operatives or operatives from other countries at the behest of the United States during the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi.

Some have said that the Libya scandal and cover-up should be the end of Obama’s Presidency. But the mainstream media seem to care not one whit about this President’s lies and/or his incompetence.

The mainstream media are whores pimping for the current lawless Administration. 
This President is shameless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwPIav-NwTM&feature=player_embedded

Liberals are either in denial or hopelessly stupid sometimes the latter seems more descriptive.  The idea that Obama was operating from some type of budget is ludicrous.  He and the Senate refused to pass a budget because to do so might constrain Obama's ability to spend money as he saw fit.  There was plenty of money to invest in charging stations and Chevy Volts for European consulates.  There was plenty of money for consulates in such threatening places as the Caribbean. Funding was NEVER an issue in providing security for the Benghazi consulate.  It was all about political correctness and a pathetically naive Arab-spring narrative.

Obama wantonly sacrificed the lives of four patriotic Americans on the altar of his election campaign.  The absence of character and integrity that has been so obvious to many of us for more than four years is only beginning to trickle into the larger American consciousness through the gradually unfolding scandal of Benghazi.  T truly hope and pray that Obama is resoundingly defeated on Tuesday, if not, then those brave men will have died in vain.

 

Looters arrested during storm.

Looters arrested during storm.   A lot like New Orleans.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/30/9-arrested-in-thefts-near-rockaways-amid-storm/

“FORWARD”

Obama slogan “FORWARD” has long ties to Marxism, socialism

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."

"The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward"). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).
Vladimir Lenin founded the publication "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward") in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as "Forward, Soviet" (though also and more literally as "Stride, Soviet").

Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama's history, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist.

JUST TO CLEAR THINGS UP

In case you are not clear what the major difference is between the typical Democrat and the typical Republican, this should make it perfectly clear. 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/michael-moore-moveon-org-video-features-dirty-mouthed-old-people-lambasting-republicans-romney/

DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN....

Do you remember when Obama said: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”? Try telling that to the 20 million people who will lose their health insurance if Obamacare goes through or the 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it. 

Do you remember when he said: “I guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won’t go up”?   Of the 21 tax increases in Obamacare, 12 of them hit the middle class.

Do you remember when he said: “health insurance premiums will go down $2,500 per family, per year”?   They’ve gone up $3,000, and they’re expected to go up another $2,400.

Do you remember when he said: “I promise by the end of my first term I’ll cut the deficit in half in four years”?   We’ve had four budgets, four trillion-dollar deficits.

Do you remember when he said: “If I don’t have the economy turned around in three years, then it’s a one term deal”?  

Do you remember when he said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent?  The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work.

Do you remember when he said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security because he pointed out they're on the road to bankruptcy? He hasn't even made a proposal on either one.

Do you remember when he said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges?   He never did even file a plan.

There are a lot of other promises he never kept, but you get the idea. 

Here is what I cannot understand: If he failed to keep all these promises in his first term, why in hell would anyone be so stupid as to believe he will keep the promises he is making for a second term.

Unfortunately we Republicans will only be voting once, unlike a lot of Democrats.

The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again.  He keeps saying, "Look, I've created 5 million jobs."  That's after losing 5 million jobs.  The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced at all in this country.  The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans.

There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.  How about food stamps?  When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps.  Today, 47 million people are on food stamps.  How about the growth of the economy?  It's growing more slowly this year than last year and more slowly last year than the year before.

WHO THE HELL IS VALERIE JARRETT

Everybody knows that Valerie Bowman Jarrett (born in Iran on November 14, 1956) is a Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs in the Obama administration.   But, just how much do you actually know about her?

I have done a little research and don’t like what I have found.   

Check out the following links.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/obamas_strange_dependence_on_valerie_jarrett.html

http://www.westernjournalism.com/an-open-letter-to-communist-valerie-jarrett/

http://patdollard.com/2012/09/obama-vetting-1979-newspaper-article-by-valerie-jarrett-father-in-law-reveals-start-of-arab-purchase-of-u-s-presidency/

New First-Hand Libya Account

New First-Hand Libya Account Destroys Obama's Lies

Dear Fellow Americans:

After more than a month of bogus stories from Obama and his liberal allies, a devastating new report from sources on the ground has confirmed what we suspected all along.

Obama's Administration not only knew what was going on, but they explicitly told security forces at the CIA compound and other military support to stand down when Ambassador Stevens' team asked for backup.

This damning new evidence is the final piece of the puzzle – and now that we have a clear view of what happened to our ambassador and our troops, it is a truly disturbing picture.

The supposedly "spontaneous" attack – which left our embassy aflame from rocket and mortar blows – lasted well beyond the time needed for air support and additional security forces to mitigate the damage. Yet for some reason, President Obama's higher-ups told them to stand down not once, not twice, but three times.

An AC-130U Gunship – a weapon more than powerful enough to avert the damage – was practically on-scene and could have halted the destruction, but the Obama Administration refused to let it fire.

They could have stopped the mortar attacks. But at least three times they chose to betray the safety of our people on the ground. And, according to some sources, they even had live feed of exactly what was happening to those risking their lives to protect the embassy.

At this point, there is no question that the President's team utterly failed in their duty.

There is also no question that the President's team knew precisely the type of attack they were facing and directly chose to lie to the American people.

Now that their farce about some "video-inspired protest" is clearly exposed, one would think that the Commander-in-Chief would accept responsibility for what happened. Or perhaps at least admit that they failed, and commit to changing their MO to prevent another similar situation. And one would hope they could give proper respect to the two ex-Navy SEALS who chose to put themselves in the line of fire – and make the ultimate sacrifice – to rectify Obama's mistakes.

But that's just not what the Obama Administration does. As far as they're concerned, they don't make mistakes, and their narrative doesn't need to change.

This new information shows us exactly how Barack Obama and his cronies view our heroes abroad and our families at home.

They will disregard great sacrifice – like the selfless deaths of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods and his teammate – to preserve their political agenda, offering the most tepid non-acknowledgement of Woods' heroic efforts.

They will stand in front of the American people and lie to us like we're fools for weeks, expecting us to buy their crock story about "video protests" while they sit on live footage showing a far different picture.

And as damning information comes out, they point fingers at the truth-seekers, calling our efforts to find out how our people really died from their mistakes "Monday morning quarterbacking."

Our presence abroad, our livelihood at home, and the foundation of the free world itself can't survive with the utter failure of leadership that is the Obama Administration. It's time to put the last four years in the wastebasket of history, and we're going to hold the front lines to make sure that happens.

Unfortunately, much of the MSM is still backing Obama despite his colossal ineptitude. We need your help to cut through their distraction techniques and show Americans across our nation what kind of "leadership" Barack Obama and his cronies are giving us. Will you stand with us and put an end to this disgrace with a donation of $25, $50, $100, $250, or more, today?

With your generous donation, we will work to hold Obama and his administration accountable for those brave Americans who perished in Libya.

Sincerely,

 

Larry Bailey
Captain (SEAL), USN (Retired)
Co-Founder, Special Operations Speaks

The Most Important Election in History

Every four years, politicos and pundits, both left and right, come together in a harmonious hymn of hyperbole: “This is the most important election in history!” they sing.   This time nobody’s exaggerating.  What happens on Nov. 6 really is of critical importance. America’s future really does hang in the balance.

On THIS November 6^th, those who vote will choose life or death for many of our freedoms in this land. This presidential election outcome will have huge consequences. We have two men with very different ideas about what America should be. The right man could provide the fuel to get our country back on track, and the wrong man could prove to be the final nail in her coffin.

Under President Obama, the reasons for this election’s unparalleled significance are piling up like pink slips in the private sector, like credit rating downgrades, like zeros on the national debt.

Not since the civil war has there been this great a difference in two major political parties in this country.  On the one hand we have the Democrats who believe the form of government in Cuba and Venezuela is the way our country should go.  http://www.democratichub.com/hugo-chavez.aspx?o=pv&gclid=CJfzr7HqprMCFe57QgodoEgAkQ   And on the other hand we have the Republicans who believe we need to get back to the constitutional principles on which this country was founded.

If re-elected, the only roadblock in Obama’s way will be the Supreme Court, and he will have the power to remove that roadblock.   To be sure, the next president will appoint at least one, maybe two, and maybe even three or four new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The average age of retirement for Supreme Court Justices is 78.7 years. Right now, the Court contains two conservative justices who are 76 years old, and one liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who is 79. Five justices have served a term of at least 18 years. The breakdown:

• Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 79, tenure 19 years, politically LIBERAL
• Antonin Scalia, age 76, tenure 25 years, politically CONSERVATIVE
• Anthony Kennedy, age 76, tenure 24 years, politically CONSERVATIVE
• Stephen Breyer, age 74, tenure 18 years, politically LIBERAL
• Clarence Thomas, age 64, tenure 20 years, politically CONSERVATIVE
• Samuel Alito, age 62, tenure 6 years, politically CONSERVATIVE
• Sonia Sotomayor, age 58, tenure 3 years, politically LIBERAL
• Chief Justice John Roberts, age 57, tenure 6 years, politically CONSERVATIVE
• Elena Kagan, age 52, tenure 2 years, politically LIBERAL 

As voters, this should be our most critical point of focus: ensuring an originalist, strict constructionist majority.  If Obama is re-elected and appoints just one more Ruth Bader Ginsburg, forget it. America, as our founders envisioned her, is gone and we will indeed be just like Cuba and Venezuela.

This is why, after the primary, I went from an outspoken Romney critic, to a cautiously optimistic Romney supporter, to an outspoken Romney supporter.   He has pledged: “I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary.”

President Obama has already shown who he’ll appoint.  In Justices Elena Kagan and Sonja Sotomayor, he has stacked the Court with two radical counter-constitutionalists who share his belief that the Constitution “is not a static, but living document and must be read in the context of an ever changing world.”

Naturally, if the Constitution is “ever changing,” the Constitution is meaningless.

But it gets worse. Obama has also called this – the very founding document upon which our laws, public policy, indeed our very freedoms rest – an “imperfect document,” a “living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture.”

Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, Obama lamented that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Let that sink in a moment.  In his own words, this man – a man solemnly sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution – has portrayed utter disdain for it.  He has, in essence, admitted that he views our most sacred founding document as a “constraint” against his thinly veiled efforts to “fundamentally transform” America into Greece.

Thank God our Founding Fathers predicted that men like Barack Obama would come and go.  And thank God they had the wisdom to plan accordingly.

Patrick Henry once said, “Liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”  Today, we have it exactly backward.  Four more years of Barack Obama, and government will be the direct end of your liberty.

If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, then I think you’re smokin’ something funky.  

A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama. 
Still thinking of sitting this one out? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4KGlBHyVeYU

 

WHICH LIE DO THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE?

The News Media in this country has a real problem.   Most of them lie about everything, but their lies contradict each other.  
It’s like if you discover a broken window and you question your kids about how it happened.  The first one says “The kid next door did it”, the second one says “the kid across the street did it, the third one says the dog did it.

I would just like to know, which lie they want us to believe.   This story from WORLD NET DAILY is a good example.

A just-released Associated Press account of the Benghazi attack contradicts a possibly false or misleading Reuter’s article claiming to quote a protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

The Reuters article claiming a popular protest against a Muhammad film is also contradicted by vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials describing how no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, the officials said.

Now the AP has assembled an account of the Benghazi attack based on first-person witnesses.
Reports the AP: “It began around nightfall on Sept. 11 with around 150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealing off the streets leading to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

“The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

“There was no sign of a spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. But a lawyer passing by the scene said he saw the militants gathering around 20 youths from nearby to chant against the film. Within an hour or so, the assault began, guns blazing as the militants blasted into the compound.”

That account contrasts sharply with a Reuters report from Sept. 13 – two days after the attack – describing a supposedly popular protest outside the U.S. mission and even claiming to quote a protester.

Reads the Sept. 13 Reuters report: “Accounts from Libyan and U.S. officials, and from locals who watched what began as a protest on Tuesday against a crudely made American film that insults the Prophet Mohammad spiral into violence and a military-style assault on U.S. troops, point to a series of unfortunate choices amid the confusion and fear.”

The article quotes one protester and only by his first name, described as “a 17-year-old student named Hamam, who spoke to Reuters at the devastated compound on Wednesday.”

Reuters quotes “Hamam” as saying, “When we had heard that there was a film that was insulting to the Prophet, we, as members of the public, and not as militia brigades, we came to the consulate here to protest and hold a small demonstration.”

“Hamam” further claimed that a rumor had spread that a protester had been wounded by firing from inside the U.S. mission, and so Hamam and many others went off to retrieve guns which, Reuters reported, like many Libyans, they keep at home for security.

WND reported on Friday the Reuters account is now seemingly contradicted by the news agency’s latest reporting.

On Wednesday, Reuters broke the story that officials at the White House and State Department were advised by emails two hours after the Benghazi assault that the Islamic terror group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit for the attack. The emails described an armed assault on the U.S. compound.

Reuters reportedly obtained three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email came 20-30 minutes after the attack. It carried the subject “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” That email said “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.
”
A third email carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The sections of the emails quoted by Reuters don’t mention any popular protests.

What really went on at Benghazi ‘consulate’
Like scores of news articles worldwide, the Reuters piece repeatedly referred to the attacked U.S. compound in Benghazi as a “consulate.”

However, as WND was first to report, the building was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one. Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.

Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.

U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.

In his remarks on the attack, Obama has referred to the Benghazi post as a “U.S. mission.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has similarly called the post a “mission.”

A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.

Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.

On Aug. 26, about two weeks before he was killed, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.

“I’m happy to announce that starting on Monday, August 27, we are ready to offer a full range of consular services to Libyans,” stated Stevens at the ceremony in Tripoli. “This means non-immigrant visas, as well as assistance to Americans residing in, or visiting, Libya.”

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.

Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.
The State Department website lists no consulate in Benghazi.

Last week, the State Department gave a vivid account of Stevens’ final day during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It was disclosed that about an hour before the attack began, Stevens concluded his final meeting of the day with a Turkish diplomat. Turkey has been leading the insurgency against Assad’s regime.

Last month, WND broke the story that Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed on Sept. 11 in an attack blamed on Islamists.
One witness to the mob scene in Libya said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.

The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.

Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels
As WND reported, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Moammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.

Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. Earlier this month, Obama announced $50 million more in aid to the Syrian rebels.

During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”
In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.

In August, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at least 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.

Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.

There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times.

WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.

The military official told WND that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:

• Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;

• Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;

• Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.

U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

Still Thinking About Voting for Obama? 

  WATCH THIS VIDEO!

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/20206-must-watch-video/?utm_source=EmailElec

OBAMA WINS

THIS PRETTY MUCH SAYS IT ALL

Eric Holder’s Radical Past Uncovered

Affiliation with violent Black Panthers while in college may explain the attorney General's  anti-white bias

 

By Pat Shannan

Attorney General Eric Holder’s reluctance to prosecute criminal behavior on the part of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election apparently has its roots in his own affiliation with the group as far back as 1970. While a freshman at Columbia University that year, Holder participated in a five-day, armed protest and occupation of the university’s Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) building organized by the “Black Students’ Organization” (BSO).

It has not been ascertained whether the AG was ever a card-carrying member of the Black Panthers. However, he was an active member on campus of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS) that released a statement supporting the efforts of 21 Black Panthers charged with plotting to blow up a police station, department stores, railroad tracks and the New York Botanical Gardens.

News stories from BSO’s defunct website show that it wasn’t the first time. Gloating over a 1968 confrontation with police the paper  reported:

“Armed with guns, the students took over Hamilton Hall, and locked the building from the inside. After some time the black students told the white sympathizers, many of whom were members of Students for a Democratic Society, to leave and contribute by taking over other buildings on campus. They did, effectively shutting down the university. The president of the university ordered the NYPD to smother the protest by force, aided by white athletes and members of the ROTC. Ironically it was the white students in other buildings who bore the brunt of the police storming. Had the police broken into Hamilton, they may have suffered casualties at the hands of the sisters and brothers inside.”

Two years later, Holder was among the leaders of the SAAS that were demanding the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge” in honor of the early Black Muslim leader who was assassinated in 1965.

Speaking to the 2009 graduating class at Columbia, America’s top lawman mistakenly remembered it as his “senior year,” and boasted of his participation in the movement during his college days. However, he deceitfully tempered his remarks by calling it a protest to “peacefully occupy one of the campus offices.”

The Justice Department has not responded to a query of what kind of weapon Holder himself was carrying at the time, but his friend, Steve Sims, told a mainstream newspaper it all did happen.

This may explain why Holder refused to prosecute Black Panther thugs, who were accused of intimidating voters with truncheons at the polls in Philadelphia in 2008.

$1.2 million to study people playing a video game

$19 Billion in Pure Government Waste this Year and Growing

“…these compulsive spenders charged more than $1 trillion to our national credit card, pushing us to a $16 trillion debt.” Sen. Tom Coburn

By Rachel Alexander l October 20, 2012

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican/AP

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) issued his annual report on government waste this week. Entitled “Wastebook 2012,” it compiles 100 of the most egregious ways taxpayers’ money is being squandered. Coburn awards Congress the “well-deserved but unwanted distinction as the biggest waste of taxpayer money in 2012.”

The frivolities that taxpayers’ money has been spent on are so silly they are easy to poke fun at. Coburn refers to NASA spending $1 million to develop a menu of food to eat on Mars as “Out-of-this-world Martian food tasting.” $325,000 for construction of a robotic squirrel for observing its interaction with snakes is described as, “When robot squirrels attack.”

The types of government waste are all over the spectrum. Nothing is too wasteful to exclude for this Congress. There is another bridge to nowhere, a sidewalk to nowhere, indirect subsidies to professional sports, and awarding of contracts to the highest bidders instead of the lowest bidders.

The massive abuse of food stamps is exposed. They are being used to purchase alcohol, Burger King, soap operas, Starbucks frappuccinos, cigarettes and cars. Some recipients received additional food stamps because they smoked marijuana. An exotic dancer who made $80,000 in tips annually, spending $9,000 on “cosmetic enhancements,” also collected $1,000 a month in food stamps. 2,000 dead people are still receiving food stamps.

“Let them eat cake.” Coburn exposes a $300,000 campaign by the USDA to encourage people to eat caviar, one of the world’s most expensive delicacies. At a time when many Americans can barely afford to put food on their tables, he is reminded of the callous remark about starving peasants made by a royal shortly before the French Revolution.

One project universally offensive to every political persuasion is a $30,000 grant given to researchers to study whether merely glancing at a person’s face can determine whether or not that person is gay. Other projects overtly promote a liberal agenda. The National Science Foundation awarded $697,000 to a theater company in New York to create a musical about biodiversity and climate change.

Coburn calls Congress to task for the waste. The Senate Budget Committee has failed to produce a budget in over 1,200 days, even though it is required to by law. Meanwhile, there has been no oversight since the last budget was passed, as Congress has added trillions more to the debt in spending. Congress is stalled, unable to decide whether to cut spending or increase taxes to address the fiscal crisis. Meanwhile, it easily manages to pass hundreds of pieces of offensive legislation, worsening the crisis as the nation approaches the fiscal cliff and begins to stare dizzily into the abyss completely oblivious of the consequences.

Congress is at its lowest approval rating ever since the Gallup polling organization began tracking it 40 years ago. 83% of Americans currently disapprove of Congress’ performance. More exposure than Coburn’s annual report needs to be given to this wasteful spending, which continues to increase every year.

“The Highway Trust Fund, which has been bailed out several times over the last five years, is a good example, as billions of dollars intended for transportation are wasted on questionable projects that do little to fix congestion or other transportation problems. An unused Ohio bridge – not even connected to a road or trail – received a half-a-million dollar makeover this year. An Oregon town will pay $388,000 for just five bus stops – enough to buy two houses in the same town! And in West Virginia, thousands of dollars were spent to reconstruct a historic streetscape…out of Legos. Would the dollars spent on these transportation projects not have been better spent to fix some of the 22,158 deficient bridges plaguing our national highway system?” asks Coburn.

Meanwhile, the Highway Trust Fund, reliant upon highway user fees (gas tax) languishes at a rate unchanged for over 20 years not keeping pace with inflation, has endured assault after assault from congressional earmarks, diversions and so-called enhancements. Congress’ response is to cater to the special interests by tolling already paid for Interstate Highways, selling our roads to foreign companies and incurring more debt schemes with elaborate federal loan programs to build even more roads to toll, while failing to properly maintain existing roads and bridges. Is it any wonder the public doesn’t trust Congress?

Here are just a few of the most outrageous expenditures listed in Coburn’s report:

• $516,000 to create a video game called “Prom Week” so people can relive their high school prom experiences;
• $15 million for recruiting scientists for Russia's weapons institutes;
• $505,000 to a pet shampoo company;
• $13,000 to paint a large mural of a carrot in order to deter obesity;
• $10,000 for talking urinal cakes to deter drunk driving;
• $1.5 million to vineyards;
• $700,000 to develop beef jerky at the Pentagon;
• $20,000 on circus classes;
• $666,905 to research people watching reruns on TV;
• Professional athletes overseas vacations;
• School tax credits for prisoners who did not attend school;
• Medicaid audit program costs more than it brings in, $30,000;
• $939,771 to research male fruit flies’ attraction to younger female fruit flies;
• $74 million for an electric vehicle tax credit that will not reduce emissions;
• $750,970 to a brewery in New Hampshire;
• $547,430 for a dancing robot named Shimi to serve as a disc jockey for smartphones;
• $24,995 grant to develop a course entitled, “Should we want to be happy?”
• $49,990 to a potato chip company for advertising;
• $25,000 to promote the Alabama Watermelon Queen around the state;
• $1.2 million to study older people playing the video game World of Warcraft;
• $99,000 to a new distillery that will produce vodka and other hard alcohols; and,
• $548,731 to study whether young people who drink alcohol feel immature

Coburn concludes, “These and the other examples of mismanagement, wasteful spending and special interest deals highlighted in this report represent missed opportunities to assist those in need and to shore up the nation’s finances….As you look at these examples, put your personal political persuasion aside and ask yourself: Would you agree with Washington that these represent national priorities, or would you conclude these reflect the out-of-touch and out-of-control spending threatening to bankrupt our nation’s future?”

Congress is to be responsible stewards of our hard-earned money. Yet, it has done the opposite of what the Founding Fathers proscribed about government spending. George Washington recognized that reducing the debt was more important than spending more money, “No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt.” Thomas Jefferson warned against putting the nation in debt, “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Abraham Lincoln warned, “You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.” If Congress will not cut the unaffordable spending, Americans need to send their Senators and Representatives a message and vote them out of office.

Navy SEAL leaks (video)

Navy SEAL leaks (video)

This is not politics, it is sabotage. The tape will or should cause you to

See who cares and who is looking after your General Welfare.

Good people are placing their lives and livelihood at risk so that

You and your children enjoy the opportunity of freedom...gy

This is an amazing video that needs to be carefully watched and the message understood by all who will receive it. Please pass it along to all of your email friends. Your future and the futures of all children is at stake!! The single most damning video against Barack Obama you will ever see. This video, made by the U.S. Navy Seals, will hopefully cost Obama his second term in office.   Its just incredible how effective this video is in convincing TRUE Americans that Obama is a clear and very serious traitor to this country.  History will judge him negatively for his terrible treasonous acts.  Just an incredibly powerful video!  Senior CIA, FBI, Military and many other U.S. Government intelligence officials describe for the viewer how Obama has compromised U.S. National secrets and the very serious consequence of those actions.  And what's worse, he did it all for political gain Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/v/X-Xfti7qtT0?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0

Jane Roe of ‘Roe v Wade’

Jane Roe of ‘Roe v Wade’ Airs Anti-Obama Ad

Nearly 40 years ago, as a young, pregnant woman, Norma McCorvey played an instrumental part in the Supreme Court decision that brought legal abortion to America. Now McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ in the Roe v. Wade case, has released an ad urging voters not to vote for Obama.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-airs-anti-obama-ad-in-florida-video/

McCorvey became a Christian in 1995 and has since repudiated her role in Roe v. Wade, campaigning for its reversal.

OBAMA FLIP FLOPS ON TAPE

There are more flip flops in Obama’s past than in a gymnastics school.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/obama-says-to-look-at-videotape-for-his-flip-flo

Bigger that Watergate, bigger than Iran-Contra

New information suggesting the Obama administration was fully aware of the terror attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, within two hours of the breakout of violence is being blasted as a cover-up of major proportions, with the help of national media who are ignoring the revelation.

“This dwarfs Watergate, weapons of mass destruction, whatever,” said radio host Rush Limbaugh Wednesday afternoon.

“This dwarfs Iran-Contra, about which the media spent three solid years trying to take out Ronald Reagan. The latest shoe to drop in the Benghazi disaster is the news that the State Department was e-mailing about the attack on the consulate and the terrorists who they thought were behind it within two hours, and the e-mails went to the Situation Room of the White House. Obama knew.”

For weeks after the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Obama and his surrogates proffered that the violence was merely an impromptu response to an anti-Muslim video.

But reports today from several agencies including Reuters and CBS News reveal the administration knew precisely what was going on almost immediately, courtesy of emails.

Sharyl Attkisson at CBS says: “At 4:05 p.m. Eastern time, on September 11, an alert from the State Department Operations Center was issued to a number government and intelligence agencies. Included were the White House Situation Room, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI.

“‘US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” — “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission/embassy) personnel are in the compound safe haven.’”

And Reuters reports the emails specifically mention the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

Limbaugh said for the administration to keep claiming it was reaction to a video was worse than misleading.

“They lied, folks. I don’t know how else to say it,” he said. “They knew exactly what happened and who was responsible for it and they knew what was happening. They knew it was not a video, they knew it was not a protest that had gotten out of hand … . It was a preplanned terror attack. There was real-time video of it.”

Limbaugh also scorched Obama for not sending in U.S. military to help the Americans at the consulate:
“The president may not have been aware that he had aircraft carriers in the region that planes land on and take off from and they go out and complete missions and they come back and they land. And we got these things they call submarines. They go under the water so the bad guys can’t see ‘em. They’re in the region, too. We got some naval assets in that region that could have been used.

“They could have been authorized to take action to save the lives of Americans. Remember: Four dead in a seven-hour attack, two of them died in the final hours. This government made not one move, with full knowledge of what was going on, to protect those Americans. We had hundreds of people watching in real time, folks, as 30 Americans were being attacked for seven hours. Nobody rode to their rescue.”

Limbaugh says most of the national media is now ignoring the revelations from the emails.

“What we’re watching here today is the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate,” he said. “The mainstream media is Woodward and Bernstein. Watergate is Benghazi. Except this time, Woodward and Bernstein are helping Nixon cover it up.”

“It’s just maddening,” he continued, “and to have the story basically ignored and covered up today is evidence to me of just how devastating it is. I think the regime is barely holding its campaign together. I think this campaign is leaking. Imagine a dike with all the holes in it, and the holes are the states, and the regime has got people plugging the holes with fingers and doing everything they can to stop the flow. I think they’re very close here to being swept away by a tidal wave. I think everybody involved knows it.”

He suggested several theories as to why the events have transpired as they have, including “gross, unbelievable, incalculable incompetence;” “bald-faced lying;” and a political calculation since Obama has been claiming al-Qaida terrorists have been decimated under his watch.

“There’s another possibility here,” added Limbaugh. “It could be very simple. Obama simply wasn’t engaged when this was going on. He wasn’t around. He didn’t want to be engaged. He didn’t want to be told. He didn’t want to have to do anything. And therefore, they were paralyzed. Nobody knew what to do because he didn’t care.”

Let's take a look at the timeline after the Libya attacks and what the Obama Administration told the American People:
Sep. 12 - Pres. Obama - "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." One day after the attack, Obama says it was an act of terror.

Sep. 12 - Hillary Clinton - "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Same day as Obama says act of terror, Hillary say it was a reaction to the YouTube video.

Sep. 13 - Jay Carney - "The protests we're seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States." Apparently the Administration has zero responsibility for this.

Sep. 13 - Senior U.S Official - "This was a clearly planned military-type attack."

Sep. 16 - Susan Rice - "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."

Sep. 18 - Jay Carney - "Our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere." The attack was because of the video...

Sep. 20 - Jay Carney - "It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." Now it is a terrorist attack...

Sep. 20 - Obama - ""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." Now it was the video...

Sep 21 - Hillary Clinton - "What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." Terrorist attack?

Sep 25 - Obama - "We're still doing an investigation." It's still unclear?

Sep 27 - U.S Senior Official - "From day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack."

Oct. 11 - Joe Biden - "But we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security there." On October 10th multiple State Department employees testified that there many requests for extra security were denied.

Oct. 12 - Jay Carney - "President Obama and Vice President Biden did not know about the extra security requests."