Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Audio: Today's Show Podcast

Victory for First Amendment; Press gets administration to admit the truth about Benghazi

With all the talk about whether any speech against Islam should be criminalized, perhaps we should look at the upside of freedom of speech and possibly one of the reasons it rankles the Obama administration. That would be freedom of the press. For more than a week after the act of war committed against a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed - including our ambassador to that country - White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted that the attack was the result of a crudely made video in the United States.

Here is a montage of Carney's responses to questions about the attack. These excerpts take place between 9/12/12 - 9/19/12.

Via Right Newz:

Freedom of speech in general - and freedom of the press in particular - obviously dogged Carney and the administration. It helped force both to admit the truth.

That truth?

The attack on our consulate was a pre-planned terrorist attack. On Air Force One - at the end of the above video - Carney admitted to a press gaggle that very thing, saying it was "self evident". Even NBC news had to report that because it came straight from the administration's mouthpiece.

Without freedom of the press, the Obama administration could have continued to further the lie that the attacks were spawned by an anti-Muhammad video. That could lead to shifts in policy that actually serve to further an anti-free speech agenda, which many leaders in the Muslim world have. Egypt's Mohamed Mursi and Turkey's Foreign Minister seem to share in that agenda.

Can you imagine a press corps. challenging the likes of Mursi over such matters?

The Obama administration is likely quite roiled at the fact it has egg on its face as a result. Had it been allowed to let such a lie take root as fact, the first amendment to the Constitution they all took an oath to protect and defend would have been in even greater danger; the conditions for policies that could potentially criminalize criticism of Islam would become even more ripe.

The irony is that as frustrated as administration officials may be at the press for dragging them to the truth, in so doing, the press actually helped to protect the first amendment rights of those same administration officials.

Accountability is uncomfortable but that doesn't make it any less right.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Video: Univision report on Fast and Furious to focus on Mexican victims

Those familiar with Operation Fast and Furious often think of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, along with hundreds of Mexicans who were murder victims as well. At 7pm EST on Sunday, September 30th, Univision will be airing its explosive report on the scandal that is likely to humanize those hundreds of dead Mexicans.

It's... about... time.

After watching this report, ask yourself if the Obama administration cares about the Mexican people or Mexican votes.

Daily Caller has more.

Here is a preview of the Univision report, via ABC News:

Shocking 1979 column by Valerie Jarrett's Father-in-law; not good for Obama

This post should begin with a cast of characters because it's growing increasingly necessary when talking about the subject of Barack Obama's past. In this case, a man named Frank Miele at the Daily Inter Lake has unearthed an incredible find that could help close some loops, connect some dots, and put some pieces together. That find involves a 1979 column penned by Vernon Jarrett, the father-in-law of Barack Obama's closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

  • Frank Marshall Davis: Confirmed member of the Communist Party USA and writer. Worked in Chicago until he moved to Hawaii in 1946. Wrote for publication sympathetic to CPUSA known as the Chicago Defender. A heavy influence on Barack Obama's young life for several years.  CPUSA ID Number was 47544.
  • Vernon Jarrett: Began working at the Chicago Defender in 1946. Became a colleague of Davis and worked with him on at least one Communist cause in 1948.
  • Valerie Jarrett: Daughter in-law of Vernon and thought to be Barack Obama's closest and most trusted adviser. Born in Iran, where she lived until the age of five. Appears to have befriended the Obama family after hiring Michelle before the first lady married Barack.
  • Percy Sutton: Former attorney for Malcolm X who revealed during a television interview in 2008 that years earlier, he had been approached by a man named Khalid al-Mansour, a former Black Panther, and asked to use his influence to help get Barack Obama into Harvard. Sutton also divulged that al-Mansour represents one of the richest men in the world. This is believed to have been a reference to Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal.
  • Khalid al-Mansour: Formerly a Black Panther who carried the name Donald Warren. Converted to Islam and found a lucrative career advising members of the Saudi Royal family, in particular Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Videos of al-Mansour on YouTube indicate he is virulently anti-Semitic.
  • Prince Alwaleed bin Talal: Very wealthy Saudi Prince who has a strong business mind and extremely familiar with western culture. Second-largest shareholder of Newscorp., the parent company for Fox News. It is believed that his influence is responsible for Fox's overall weak coverage of radical Islamic individuals and groups.
Now, onto Miele's discovery. He writes about the discovery of Vernon Jarrett's 1979 column that appeared in the St. Petersburg Evening Independent. In the column, Jarrett quotes heavily from an interview he did with none other than Khalid al-Mansour. What were they talking about? Well, funneling Saudi money to black college students, of course:
So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.” 
Well, if anyone would know, it would have been this lawyer — Donald Warden, who had helped defend OPEC in an antitrust suit that year and had developed significant ties with the Saudi royal family since becoming a Muslim and taking the name Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour. 
Al-Mansour told Jarrett that he had presented the “proposed special aid program to OPEC Secretary-General Rene Ortiz” in September 1979, and that “the first indications of Arab help to American blacks may be announced in December.” Maybe so, but I looked high and wide in newspapers in 1979 and 1980 for any other stories about this aid package funded by OPEC and never found it verified. 
You would think that a program to spend “$20 million per year for 10 years to aid 10,000 minority students each year, including blacks, Arabs, Hispanics, Asians and native Americans” would be referred to somewhere other than one obscure 1979 column, but I haven’t found any other word of it.
Of course, what this means is that if Khalid al-Mansour, Percy Sutton, and Vernon Jarrett are all to be taken at their word, their accounts - which span over nearly 30 years - all make sense when taken together. The other thing it would mean is that Barack Obama is beholden to Saudi money in a very personal and substantial way. It will have meant the Saudis put him in the White House and such a deal doesn't come without steep payment.

The words of al-Mansour and Jarrett in 1979 - coupled with the words of Sutton in 2008 - also suggest that if a man so beholden to the Saudis ever became president, we might see the rise of fundamentalist Islam all over the Middle East and an administration hostile toward Israel.

Here is that Percy Sutton interview from 2008, in which he talks about having been contacted by Khalid al-Mansour circa 1988, only 9 years after al-Mansour told Vernon Jarrett about just such a plan:

Obama Administration and Muslim Brotherhood; why the same narrative about the movie?

In the days after the September 11th attacks of 2012, practically every senior member of the Obama administration insisted that the reason for the riots / attacks could be traced back to a 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible' video that the Muslim world found insulting. As they say, the dam has broken on that narrative.

Via CNS News:
As more senior administration officials use the word “terrorism” in describing the deadly September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s repeated insistence five days later that the incident was a “spontaneous reaction” to an obscure anti-Islam video continues to draw scrutiny and criticism.

Fox News reports that administration officials knew within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was terrorism.
Since we now know that President Barack Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and White House spokesman Jay Carney all lied about the crudely produced Innocence of Muslims video being responsible for riots, we deserve to know why.

Charles Krauthammer makes the very credible case that the reason for the deception had to do with the fact that five days prior to 9/11, at the Democratic National Convention, the President's party spiked the football repeatedly on the Obama administration's crowning achievement - the killing of bin Laden.

Consider another reason, whether exclusive or in conjunction with what Krauthammer charges. Does the administration embrace the idea of blaming the video for the same reason the leaders in the Muslim world do - to attack free speech? It's quite clear through a litany of examples that when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, this administration sees it as an obstacle and if there is one thing that is standing in its way, being called out on its lies is definitely front and center.

We already know why the Muslim world is blaming the video. The Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Mursi, told us while at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) this week.

It's about going after Americans' first amendment right of free speech.

So, the Obama administration lied about the video being responsible. By adopting that lie in the first place, it aligned itself with the likes of Mursi and the radical elements of the Muslim world.

Again, why would the Obama administration lie while taking the side of the Muslim Brotherhood in the commission of that lie?

One of the many elephants in the room here is Mursi's connection to the mother of Hillary Clinton's closest adviser, Huma Abedin. Mursi's wife (Najla Mahmoud) and Huma's mother (Saleha Abedin) represent two of the 63 leaders within the Muslim Sisterhood. This is relevant for at least two reasons. First, we know the administration - to include Hillary Clinton herself - lied about the video being responsible for the attacks. Second, it was the same lie being pushed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Again, in committing this egregious lie, the administration aligned itself with the Brotherhood on yet another issue.

Why, why, why?

Here is Mursi's not so subtle suggestion that Americans should not be allowed to exercise their freedom of speech when it comes to Islam.

Via GWP:

Friday, September 28, 2012

Video: Innocence of Muslims Producer denied bail

It appears that we may have more questions than answers. The man allegedly responsible for producing the anti-Muhammad film Innocence of Muslims, was arrested yesterday and told by a judge that he would be denied bail because he is a flight risk. The reason for his arrest? Violating the terms of his probation, which included not using an alias or a computer.

Via NBC 4 in Los Angeles:
The Cerritos man who many believe to be behind an anti-Muslim video that has inflamed the Islamic world was denied bail Thursday afternoon after a judge deemed him a flight risk.

Nakoula Besseley Nakoula remains in federal custody after being arrested hours earlier on suspicion of violating the terms of his parole, according to a spokesman for the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney's Office.

Nakoula's arrest was sought by officials of the United States Probation Office, spokesman Thom Mrozek said.
Here is where things get a little confusing. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was the man convicted in 2010 on charges related to a bank fraud scheme and violated the terms of his probation by using the internet and aliases.

Presumptively, that must necessarily mean that Nakoula was the guy who violated the terms of his probation, right? Well, in this news report, NBC 4 says his real name is Mark Bacile Yousef. Does that mean he gave an alias to the court back in 2010 or does it mean that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is not the guy who was arrested yesterday?

View more videos at:

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Innocence of Muslims producer arrested by the Feds

Folks, the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for violating his parole may seem like a victory for Muslim and leftist forces who want to squash our First Amendment right of free speech but, as they say, things aren't at all what they seem. Early indications are that his arrest is indeed a victory for the good guys.

Via the Smoking Gun:
The producer of the controversial anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” has been arrested for violating terms of his probation and is set for an appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, is scheduled for an initial appearance before Judge Christina Snyder, who sentenced him in June 2010 following a bank fraud conviction.

Investigators have not yet provided details about how Nakoula allegedly violated probation, but it seems clear that his involvement in the “Innocence of Muslim” production is central to the government's new charge.

Nakoula (seen above) was sentenced to 21 months in prison to be followed by six months in a halfway house. Upon completion of the custodial term, he was placed on probation for five years.

Included in his probation terms were prohibitions on his use of the Internet, unless he secured prior approval from his probation officer. Additionally, he was not to “use, for any purpose or in any manner, any name other than his/her true legal name or names without the prior written approval of the Probation Officer.”

While producing “Innocence of Muslims,” Nakoula repeatedly used the alias “Sam Bacile” (and other variants) in communications, online postings, and dealings with cast and crew working on the film.
Nakoula has a history of criminal behavior and has been on parole ever since he was convicted for his role in a bank fraud scheme back in 2010. That's why he was arrested, not because he made an anti-Muhammad film. The narrative being pushed by the mainstream media, in fact, has been that Nakoula is a Coptic Christian.

In reality, according to Shoebat, Nakoula gave an interview in Arabic in which he admitted that he is neither Christian nor Jew.

Moreover, the crimes he was found guilty of committing were done in conjunction with a man named Eiad Salameh, a Muslim fundamentalist who hates Christians and Jews.

In short, the arrest of Nakoula should be cheered by conservatives, Christians, and Jews. He broke the law and quite possibly scammed everyone who was even remotely involved in the production of the film.

Video: Obama gave me a PHONE!

Remember, according to the mainstream media, if you don't vote for Obama, you're stupid and just don't understand.

Does that mean this woman is smart?

Shoebat: Anti-Muslim Film made by Terrorists

The anti-Muhammad film Innocence of Muslims that was allegedly produced by a Coptic Christian and caused riots all over the Middle East appears to have been made by someone with ties to Muslim terrorists. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested in 2009 for his role in a bank fraud scheme. The ringleader of that scheme is a man named Eiad Salameh.

Salameh's first cousin is former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who knows a great deal about Eiad's allegiances. According to Shoebat, Eiad is a staunch Muslim who hates Christians and Jews. So why would he partner with an alleged Coptic Christian, who are known as being among the most orthodox of Christians?

From Shoebat, via Fox Nation:
When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media uses a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.

If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Paliwood are two cases in point showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.

So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction.

Court documents reveal that Nakoula Bacile Nakoula, producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.

Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.

He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards that include many nationalities. He then places these forms of identification into the hands of dubious characters that are not the real identity.

In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008 and the first reporting on the connection between Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14th, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which published court documents that prove these two were connected in 2009, as part of a major financial fraud scheme.

The narrative that circulates the media fails to address crucial questions about the mystery of this film.
For a much more detailed report, CLICK HERE.

Bachmann Five now the Bachmann Four on Huma Abedin

It appears that those five congressmen who sent five letters to five separate Inspectors General now have a significant fracture in their already small coalition. The most controversial aspect of all the letters was found early on in the letter to the State Department's Deputy IG. In it, Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin was identified as a possible "security concern".

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) now says Abedin's name shouldn't have been singled out.

Via TC Palm:
U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney said Tuesday it was a mistake to name Hillary Clinton's chief of staff in a letter as a potentially "serious security concern" when he and four lawmakers urged officials to study the Muslim Brotherhood's role in the federal government.

Led by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., legislators signed five letters in June beckoning federal departments to study how the Muslim Brotherhood can gain influence or intelligence. The letter sent to the Department of State singled out Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Clinton's chief of staff, while citing three of her family members' alleged ties to the Brotherhood.

The reference to Abedin struck a nerve the next month in the national media and in Congress, where criticisms came from as high up as House Speaker John Boehner and U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Bachmann, the Minnesota Republican who spearheaded the effort, didn't backtrack or apologize afterward.

Rooney, R-Tequesta, reiterated the investigation's importance Tuesday, specifically regarding Department of Defense issues and the tragedy at Fort Hood. Unlike Bachmann, however, he said the initiative was muddled by wrongly mentioning Abedin.

"With Mrs. Abedin, we made a mistake including her name in there," Rooney said. "What got lost was a legitimate question, for the sake of using Congressman (Anthony) Weiner's wife and Sec. Clinton's assistant's name specifically in a letter. It was unfortunate."
Yes, it's election season and maybe Rooney's polling shows he's losing as a result of some bad press over this issue but backtracking at this point will only disenfranchise voters who were behind him on the matter and give those who had a problem with it more reason to back his opponent.

Nowhere does Rooney explain why he thinks naming Abedin was a 'mistake'.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi speaks at Clinton Global Initiative

Yesterday, I posted about Mitt Romney's misguided decision to speak at Clinton Global Initiative annual conference. It appears that decision was more misguided than previously thought because in addition to Romney's speech, one was given by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Mursi. Here is the relevant excerpt Via GWP:
“Demonstrations and clashes recently broke out in a large number of Arab and Islamic countries in response to an incident in response to the defamation. We must acknowledge the importance of freedom of expression. We must also recognize that such freedom comes with responsibilities especially when it has serious implications for international peace.
Here's the video:

Again, need we be reminded that Mursi's wife and the mother of Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin are colleagues in their roles as two of 63 leaders of the Muslim Sisterhood?

Video: CNN Reporter's absurd interpretation of events in Benghazi

Though this is a rather lengthy CNN video report from correspondent Arwa Damon in Benghazi, the portion relevant to this post comes very early on. Pay attention beginning at the :20 mark. Note how Damon is interviewing a man who recorded the attack on his cell phone. Yes, it's legitimate to ask why he wasn't doing something a bit more productive but that's not the most bizarre portion of her report.

At the :40, Damon narrates over the video, reporting that the body of Ambassador Stevens is found and that he's alive, as you see men pulling him out of the consulate. Damon then actually said the crowd cheered (because Stevens was alive) and shouted 'God is great'.

The CNN reporter would have you believe that the attackers were all gone and that this was a mob of pro-American rescuers who were thrilled to find the U.S. Ambassador still alive.

No, really.

Via CNN:

**UPDATE** It appears I was a bit premature on this one. I have it on good authority that it is actually quite possible that the crowd was actually cheering because they thought Stevens was alive.

The Benghazi Stonewall at State Department: Senators want Ambassador's Cables

Three days after the Benghazi attacks in which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, the State Department attempted to hide behind the, 'we are not going to' talk about the ongoing investigation line. Since then, so much has been learned despite the attempts to stonewall that a couple of Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee are demanding access to Stevens' cables.

Via Foreign Policy:
"While we appreciate the sensitivities associated with this ongoing investigation, we must insist on more timely information regarding the attacks and the events leading up to the attacks," wrote Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isaakson (R-GA) in a letter to Clinton Tuesday.

They acknowledged that Clinton is in the process of setting up an Accountability Review Board, although its chairman former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering said Monday that the panel hasn't started it work yet. But the senators don't want to wait for the board to finish its report, which might not be transmitted to Congress until next spring.

"To that end, we request that you transmit to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee all communications between the U.S. Mission to Libya and the State Department relevant to the security situation in Benghazi in the period leading up to the attacks, including, but not limited to, cables sent from Ambassador Stevens," they wrote.
CNN may have played a significant role in all of this last week, when it reported that it had acquired Stevens' personal diary from the consulate. In it, Stevens wrote that he was concerned about being on an al-Qaeda hit list and a lack of security, which we now know was due to the State Department requesting and receiving a Security Waiver for the consulate.

Here is a short video report from Anderson Cooper talking about the diary last week:

In the days after the diary raised legitimate questions, Buzzfeed reported on a profanity-laden exchange via email from one of Clinton's closest aides - Philippe Reines - to a Buzzfeed reporter who had asked some of those legitimate questions. Some may find such an exchange reminiscent of what CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson encountered last year, when digging for answers in Operation Fast and Furious. As we now know, both the Department of Justice and the White House had something to hide there too. Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege in refusing to release Congressionally subpoenaed documents, as his Attorney General was being held in contempt for not doing it.

It would seem that based on the contents of Stevens' diary, the State Department's stonewalling, a Clinton aide's profane emails, and now the demands of two Senators that State turn over cables, we may be approaching a situation not all that dissimilar from how the administration handled Fast and Furious - by attempting to cover it up.

We'll know we're there when Obama asserts Executive Privilege over those cables.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

CNN: Benghazi Consulate was given 'Security Waiver'

We now know that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was concerned about al-Qaeda, Islamic extremism and security at his consulate in Benghazi, all because of a diary he kept, that wound up in the hands of CNN. Now, CNN is reporting that the Consulate was issued a 'Security Waiver' because it was a temporary, newly established facility the State Department deemed necessary as stability in the country after Gadhafi's fall was too important.

By leaving the Consulate open for business with a waiver, it essentially meant that no barriers were required, no safe room was needed, and multiple layers of security weren't necessary.

As you'll see in the video report below, it takes a significant amount of time to get a consulate up to snuff when it comes to security requirements. It would seem that while it might take quite a while to construct barriers and safe rooms, having multiple layers of security in the form of armed guards could have been done relatively quickly and might have compensated for the absence of other security measures.

That didn't happen and it's looking increasingly like Stevens was sent into a hornets nest without being protected.

Via Right Newz:

Audio: Newt rallies behind Todd Akin, rails against establishment

Newt Gingrich appeared on the Jamie Allman show in St. Louis on September 24th to make the case for Rep. Todd Akin against Claire McCaskill in a critical Senate race in that state. The former Speaker nailed it when he referred to six seconds of an interview Akin would like to have back compared to six years of 'destructive' votes from McCaskill sensible people wished never took place.

Akin is a conservative, tea party kinda guy. The establishment doesn't like him. Karl Rove joked about his murder at a fundraiser. Gingrich nailed him on it. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus continues to insist Akin will not get a dime of RNC support. Ditto John Cornyn, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). It would seem that as the Republican nominee for President, Romney should have a bit of influence on the RNC and the NRSC. If he does, it doesn't appear that he's using any of it to help Akin.

But you know what Romney IS doing? As Newt is in Missouri, campaigning for Akin, Romney will be speaking at Bill Clinton's Global Initiative, perhaps the former president's biggest pet project. Some would argue - myself included - that what Akin said is less distasteful that what Romney is doing by lending voice to the CGI, especially when better use of his time might be spent in Missouri, showing support for Akin.

Here is a screenshot taken from the list of CGI Speakers between September 23rd - 25th:

Once again, the establishment shows that it's not willing to do what it insists conservatives should do - hold their nose and support the Republican nominee.

Here's Newt - otherwise known as the man who should have gotten the nomination - with Jamie Allman.

h/t GWP

Monday, September 24, 2012

Video: White House pushing same false narrative as Sharia law proponents

The 9/11/12 attacks on our embassy in Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including our Ambassador, were coordinated and planned ahead of time. The narrative that the anti-Muhammad video was responsible is not just one that proponents of Sharia law wanted pushed after the fact. It is now obvious that it is a narrative the White House wanted to push as well. The Obama administration did so while knowing the narrative was false.

Why would it do so unless it agreed with the motivations of those Sharia law proponents, which include a usurpation of our first amendment rights?

Here is video of Catherine Herridge on Fox News explaining her find.

Via GWP:

Ambassador's Diary pitting CNN vs. Hillary Clinton?

The contents of a seven-page diary penned by Libyan Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens belies the narrative coming from the Obama administration, that the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack and that there was no intelligence to that effect beforehand. We know this because CNN came into possession of that diary and reported about its contents.

This has apparently caused a bit of a riff between Secretary of State Clinton and the liberal cable network.

Via Buzzfeed:
“Perhaps the real question here,” CNN responded to the State Department criticism, “Is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”

That is the real question, and State Department’s bizarre criticism of CNN gives clues to the answer. Foggy Bottom is now in full-on damage control mode, with the primary goal of keeping Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Libya — and in Washington — intact.
We're also looking at the possibility of Hillary taking the fall for the attack according to a former State Department official: reality, the fiasco appears to be largely — if not entirely — a State Department botch. It was the State Department that failed to provide its ambassador adequate security; it was the State Department that fled Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack, apparently failing to clear or secure the scene, leaving Stevens' diary behind; and it was State that had taken the lead on the ground after the Libya intervention.

“When it comes to specific critiques about the attack, if either [the White House or State] should be getting blamed, it seems to me the primary one to be getting blamed should be State itself more than the [White House],” says one former State Department official with extensive experience in the region. “I mean if you take away the 'buck stops here' parsing of this stuff, if Stevens was issuing warning or expressing concerns he was doing so primarily through his own chain of command. The security on the ground belongs to State.”
In light of these developments, isn't it about time to take another look at the letters from the Bachmann Five to various Inspectors General, including the one sent to the Deputy IG of the State Department that was the most controversial just a few months ago because it singled out Hillary's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin for the latter's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Bachmann Five gave that Deputy IG for State a 90-day deadline to respond with a report. That deadline came and went two days after the Benghazi attack.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Audio: Today's Show Podcast

Video: Newt hits Romney for not being tough with Obama

The Newt Gingrich presidential campaign peaked in South Carolina. In the days leading up to the primary, the former House Speaker was on offense. He was hitting Obama on Saul Alinsky, he was hitting CNN's John King on the debate floor, and he called out Juan Williams for the latter's obvious race-baiting. Gingrich was rewarded with a primary victory in that state.

Media outlets were reporting that candidates who win South Carolina almost always win the nomination. If Gingrich had proceeded to carry Florida one week later, he may have pulled away to victory. In the days after the South Carolina primary, the Romney campaign went to work, destroying Gingrich, who had a sizable lead in Florida shortly after that South Carolina victory only to see it eaten up by vicious Romney attack ads. It was essentially the end of Newt's campaign; he never recovered.

When it comes to destroying Obama, Romney has no interest and this fact is not lost on Newt who, during an appearance on Piers Morgan's show, called Romney out on it.

Good for Newt. He's right.

h/t Right Newz

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Video: Obama lies his face off; says Fast and Furious began under Bush Administration

Was this lie by Barack Obama intended to get people to ignore his bald-faced lies about what prompted the U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi on 9/11?

This is so over-the-top, it's the only thing I can come up with.

During his interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision this week, Obama said that Fast and Furious was started under the Bush administration. You'd be hard-pressed to find instances of me being a Bush-defender but come on.

Fast and Furious was completely and entirely implemented during the Obama administration.

Bald. Faced. Lie.

Via Oversight:

Now, let's take a short trip back in time, shall we? Here is an exchange between U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Attorney General Eric Holder on November 8, 2011. Note that Holder states clearly that Wide Receiver was started under the Bush administration while Fast and Furious was started under the Obama administration.

When boxed into a corner, Holder even says he has not 'tried to equate' Fast and Furious with Wide Receiver.

So did Barack Obama lie to Jorge Ramos or did Eric Holder commit perjury?

Anti-Muhammad film vs. 'Piss Christ'; Are you choking on the hypocrisy yet?

Barack Obama said Jeremiah Wright converted him to Christianity. Yet, when it comes to the 'Arab Spring' and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood all across the Middle East, it's Christians who are being ignored by this administration. Just contrast the lack of attention in the mainstream media (White House ventriloquist dummy) given to Egypt's Coptic Christians and compare it to the constant sympathy for the Syrian rebels, who resemble the Muslim Brotherhood more each day.

The latest example comes courtesy of the reaction of the Obama / Hillary tandem to the anti-Muhammad film vs. their non-reaction to the news that 'Piss Christ' will be on display in a New York Gallery next week.

First up, here is the video ad that includes both Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which both decry the anti-Muhammad film. Clinton, once again, goes out of her way to stress that the U.S. Government had "nothing to do" with the making of the film. American taxpayer dollars were used to air this ad throughout Pakistan. The ultimate irony here is that the hypocrisy itself proves what we all know to be true. It's not about the film; it's about the reaction to it. Otherwise, 'Piss Christ' would receive the same treatment.

As for 'Piss Christ', Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes has more:
“Piss Christ,” once branded as a “deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity,” will be displayed at the Edward Tyler Nahem Gallery in Manhattan on Thursday. The artwork features a “photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist’s urine.”

The artwork debuted in 1989 and was funded through prize money provided by the National Endowment for the Arts. The art gallery hosting the retrospective salute to Andres Serrano is privately owned.

Religious groups and some lawmakers have already started sounding off – and making comparisons to the controversy over a recent anti-Muslim film. The low budget movie “Innocence of Muslims” sparked violent and deadly clashes across the globe.

It also brought strong rebukes, condemnations and apologies from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a host of administration officials.

The administration tried to have the film removed from YouTube – but Google rebuffed their request. The State Dept. spent $70,000 on a Pakistani television advertisement rebuking the film. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff personally telephoned a Christian minister in Florida to ask him to withdraw his support of the film.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R, C-NY) wants to know why President Obama hasn’t denounced the exhibit and said he’s fed up with what he called the administration’s “religious hypocrisy.”

“The Obama administration’s hypocrisy and utter lack of respect for the religious beliefs of Americans has reached an all-time high,” Grimm told Fox News. “I call on President Obama to stand up for America’s values and beliefs and denounce the ‘Piss Christ’ that has offended Christians at home and abroad.”

So will the Obama Administration condemn the anti-Christian art display? Will they air a television ad denouncing the exhibit? Will the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask the gallery to cancel the exhibit? 
The White House did not return calls seeking comment. Neither did the Pentagon.
Does that mean that Serrano won't be receiving a phone call from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Martin Dempsey?

So taxpayer dollars were both used to decry an anti-Muslim film and subsidize an anti-Christian piece of art.

Video: Pamela Geller interview cut short when she discussed CAIR

I know this may be a day or so late but we had technical difficulties with the blog yesterday and thought this too important not to post (there is also a new development anyway).

People in the media business know the downsides and pitfalls of recorded interviews. They can be edited to distort or alter context or, in some cases, relevant material omitted altogether, which is what happened with an interview between CNN's Erin Burnett and Pamela Geller.

First of all, evidence of CNN running interference for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not new. They were caught red-handed in 2011 collaborating with CAIR according to a man who was the target of a CNN smear levied by Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin, a proven liar.

On the September 20th, the cable propaganda network aired an interview between Burnett and Geller that had been pre-recorded. The subject of the interview was a judge's ruling to allow Geller's anti-Jihad ads to be posted in the New York City subways. The full-length interview was somewhere between 12 - 14 minutes. However, CNN only aired the first nine minutes of the interview. One might be inclined to say it was for the sake of time and that a programming decision was made to allow for the airing of other content.

That might seem legitimate to some but it was indeed interesting that the interview that aired was cut off at precisely the time when Geller referred to CAIR and the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation trial - CAIR's biggest soft spot. The other red flag is the degree to which Burnett is willing to take the opposing view. There is a clear line between playing devil's advocate and being in the tank. Burnett crossed it in this interview.

Geller posted a YouTube on 9/21 that included the entire interview. After the point when CNN cut off what aired live, you only hear the audio, which was recorded by a separate source.

Via Atlas Shrugs:

Later on the 21st, as Geller points out, CNN did post the entire interview.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Think Progress: 'Huma Abedin is not part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot'

The George Soros-funded Think Progress has seen fit to refute a charge made by David Horowitz during the latter's appearance on Fox News channel. While talking to Megyn Kelly about the controversy surrounding the anti-Muhammad film, Horowitz referred to Huma Abedin as a 'Muslim Brotherhood operative'. Kelly actually seemed quite adamant that the subject not be discussed.

In light of Fox's virtual embargo on the topic - unless they're covering pro-Abedin stances - Kelly's insistence that a State Department official's irrefutable connections to the Muslim Brotherhood not be brought up is more than just a little curious.

Perhaps more telling is Think Progress going out of its way to say that Huma Abedin is not part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot. Doing so actually hurts their cause and, again, adds to the already disturbing profile of her defenders.

When was the last time you saw Think Progress critical of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

DOJ Inspector General Report on Fast and Furious: Holder Incompetent but Innocent of wrongdoing

After reading the Executive Summary of the Inspector General's Report on Operation Fast and Furious, I'm struck by one thing. The biggest indictment of Attorney General Eric Holder may just be that he still has a job as Attorney General after these findings, not because the conclusions call for his removal but because Holder shouldn't be able to look himself in the mirror before going to work. Any real leader would literally step aside in utter disgrace or, at best, fall on the sword for his subordinates. If Holder does neither, he shouldn't have the trust of any subordinates.

Yes, Holder was found innocent of wrongdoing but the degree to which others close to him were found culpable makes him look like anything other than a leader.

As it was during the hearings and investigation, a huge stickling point for Holder is that now infamous February 4, 2011 letter in which the DOJ assured Senator Chuck Grassley that no gun-walking was taking place. DOJ didn't rescind that letter until December of 2011. It's clear, apparently even to IG Horowitz, that while the letter itself should not have been written, there is no way it should have taken ten months to rescind it.

From the Executive Summary via AZ Central:
The OIG concluded, as did the Department, that its February 4, 2011, response letter to Senator Grassley contained inaccuracies, particularly its assertion that ATF "makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."

However, the OIG also found that, by March or April 2011, senior Department officials knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons that [had] been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations and therefore the February 4 letter contained inaccuracies.
Ok, so the IG says "senior Department officials" should have known the February 4th letter was bogus within one to two months of it being signed (not ten months afterward). Once you're talking about "senior Department officials", you're talking about Holder's inner circle. We're left to conclude that members of Holder's inner circle are culpable when it comes to not identifying the February 4th letter for what it was.

As such, shouldn't Holder by culpable as well? In fact, he should step aside before those identified by IG Horowitz do; it would be the most honorable thing to do.

Then again, the only thing Holder and honor have in common is that they both start with the letter "h".

As for the IG's analysis of how the February 4th letter got written...
The OIG found that a poorly executed information gathering and drafting process, as well as questionable judgments by Department officials, contributed to the Department's inclusion of inaccurate information in its February 4 response letter to Senator Grassley.

In preparing this letter, Department officials relied on information provided by senior component officials that was not accurate, primarily from U.S. Attorney Burke, ATF Acting Director Melson, and ATF Deputy Director Hoover. These officials failed to exercise appropriate oversight of the investigation, and to some extent were themselves receiving incorrect or incomplete information from their subordinates about it.
Once again, Holder's direct subordinates are guilty of "questionable judgments" and relying on information that was "not accurate". Horowitz then says theses "officials (Holder's immediate subordinates) failed to exercise appropriate oversight".

This next excerpt indicates a lack of leadership on the part of Holder, not by name, but based on what his immediate subordinates (plural) viewed as a correct course of action:
The OIG further concluded that the Department officials who had a role in drafting the February 4 letter should have done more to inform themselves about the allegations in Sen. Grassley's letter and should not have relied solely on the assurances of senior officials at ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office that the allegations were false.
Again, Holder's direct subordinates are fingered by Horowitz as being incompetent. Yet, Holder was whistling in blissful and ignorant solitude somewhere while his underlings - whom he hired - were making all of these bone-headed decisions?!

Perhaps most damning was an admission by Horowitz that the DOJ should have corrected the assertions in its February 4, 2011 letter in its May 2, 2011 letter in response to Grassley:
The OIG further concluded that, by the date of its May 2 response letter, senior Department officials responsible for drafting the letter also knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations, and that the Department's February 4 letter contained inaccuracies and could no longer be defended in its entirety.
Rep. Darrell Issa's team has been very quick in sending out emails in response to this report. Here is an excerpt from a mass email I received from Frederick R. Hill, Director of Communications for the Oversight Committee:
IG Report’s Findings on why Attorney General Holder was not aware of Crucial Information about Operation Fast and Furious and Other Gunwalking (p. 453):

“We concluded that the Attorney General’s Deputy Chief of Staff, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, and the leadership of the Criminal Division failed to alert the Attorney General to significant information about or flaws in those investigations.”
Shouldn't Attorney General Holder be held accountable for the incompetence of multiple direct reports?

If Holder remains on as Attorney General, it will actually (and paradoxically) be the biggest indictment of him, based on the incompetence of the people who he is directly responsible for.

Hillary won't explain her Mormon/Muslim double standard but Lawrence O'Donnell did

One could argue that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has directed more anger at the anti-Muhammad film that the administration has pointed to for rioting and murder in the Middle East, than toward the rioters and murderers of the Middle East. In fact, Clinton called the film "disgusting and reprehensible" but seemed to give the rioters a parental-like scolding.

So the standard is set, right? Criticizing religion is reprehensible and disgusting in the eyes of Hillary Clinton.

Uh, not so much.

The Wall Street Journal reported on her appearance last year at a Broadway musical that essentially shredded a different religion - Mormonism:
'Hasa Diga Eebowai" is the hit number in Broadway's hit musical "The Book of Mormon," which won nine Tony awards last year. What does the phrase mean? I can't tell you, because it's unprintable in a family newspaper.

On the other hand, if you can afford to shell out several hundred bucks for a seat, then you can watch a Mormon missionary get his holy book stuffed—well, I can't tell you about that, either. Let's just say it has New York City audiences roaring with laughter.

The "Book of Mormon"—a performance of which Hillary Clinton attended last year, without registering a complaint—comes to mind as the administration falls over itself denouncing "Innocence of Muslims." This is a film that may or may not exist; whose makers are likely not who they say they are; whose actors claim to have known neither the plot nor purpose of the film; and which has never been seen by any member of the public except as a video clip on the Internet.
Ok, so why the double standard? Don't hold your breath waiting for Hillary to tell you. She has an entire historical slew of things she can't explain - and doesn't attempt to.

However, perhaps MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell can tell us. Actually, he did just that during a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt in 2007. Here is a transcript of the relevant exchange via NewsBusters (audio follows):
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: I don’t think he [Mitt Romney] believes everything in the Book of Mormon. I think he’s lying about that. It’s an insane document produced by a madman who was a criminal and a rapist. [...]

HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.

HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.

O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HEWITT: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

O’DONNELL: I agree.

HEWITT: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.
CLICK HERE and fast forward to the 18:00 mark to hear the exchange.

By the way, O'Donnell's admission that he would like to criticize Islam but won't might be perceived by Muslims as 'hate thought'.

On a semi-related note, it would appear that we have another in a long line of opportunities for Mitt Romney to take the gloves off but... we also have a long line of squandered opportunities by Mitt to do so because, well, he's so concerned about those 5%-10% of independents who don't know what they want.

Obama on man behind anti-Muhammad film: 'Shadowy character'

First Amendment champions were taken aback when they saw the producer of that anti-Muhammad film - Nakoula Basseley Nakoula - being taken in for questioning by police. Most came to his defense. In recent days, however, questions have arisen about his conviction on charges related to bank fraud. It may be time to do a little digging on this guy.

He is likely not what he seems.

Besides, Barack Obama says he's 'shadowy'.

Via the AP:
President Barack Obama says the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East is a "shadowy character."

U.S. officials blame the film in part for the violence in Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. The White House says the matter still is under investigation and that assessment could change.
If Nakoula is so 'shadowy', perhaps we should learn more about him.

h/t WZ

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

My problem with Romney's "47%" Video

Much is being made of Mitt Romney's speech at a private fundraiser during which he said that he will never convince the 47% of people who pay no federal income tax to vote for him because they are going to vote for Obama. You can argue all you want about whether that figure is accurate or whether there are segments of it that pay no income tax because they're living on social security.

Fine. That's not my problem with it. My problem is what Romney says at the end of this clip and what he necessarily implies without saying.

Here's the quote that gets my dander up:
"I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."
Implicit in that statement is that Romney believes the 43% - 48% of voters to the right of those independents don't have to be sold; they're already all-in; they've drunk the kool-aid. In my mind, it's this mentality on Romney's part that is preventing him from pulling away. By not fighting for that 43% - 48%, he's losing more than he thinks he's gaining by going after those fickle independents who might just jump on board if Romney exhibited some passion and showed a little fight. That kind of thing is contagious anyway.

Maybe if conservatives stopped drinking the Romney-aid, he'd actually have to fight for their votes by moving to the right. The independents can come along if they want to and they just might if they see a candidate with conviction instead of one beset on all sides by the political contrivances of campaign strategists.

Let's face it, Mitt Romney does not inspire people and he does not energize them. That is obviously the result of both his personality and his campaign strategy.

In any case, both are flaws at a time like this.

To illustrate my point, here is a Jerry Maguire metaphor. Cuba Gooding, Jr. represents the conservative base that Tom Cruise wants to just get off the phone because he thinks Gooding's character is a player he has in the bag and can get to later. All of those incoming calls represent the independents that ultimately didn't make Maguire successful.

Do you remember who did? Yes, the guy he had on the phone.

h/t Hot Air

Monday, September 17, 2012

Saudi Grand Mufti reveals what Embassy attacks really all about

The U.S. Embassy attacks were not about a film; they were about an attack on one of the most basic rights guaranteed to Americans - the freedom to criticize with speech. It would appear that the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has all but confirmed that.

Via CNS News:
Six months after declaring that all churches in the Arabian peninsula should be destroyed, Saudi Arabia’s top cleric called at the weekend for a global ban on insults targeting all religious “prophets and messengers,” a category that, from a Muslim perspective, includes Jesus Christ.

Saturday’s demand by Saudi grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh came on the same day that another of Sunni Islam’s most prominent figures, Egypt’s Al-Azhar University grand imam Ahmed el-Tayyeb, made a similar appeal.

Both men were reacting to an amateur video satirizing Mohammed, whose emergence on the Internet has been blamed for protests targeting American diplomatic missions across the Islamic world. According to wire services at least 12 deaths have been linked to the protests since Thursday, with deaths reported in Tunisia, Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Egypt.

The two clerics’ calls are a new salvo in an unremitting campaign by Islamic political and religious leaders, spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to pressure non-Muslims to treat Islam with deference.
It would seem that this Mufti has told us the reason for the attacks.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Is there a Huma Abedin connection to Hillary Clinton's celebration of Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11?

There were two people introduced by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inside the Ben Franklin room at a Muslim Eid dinner on September 13th, two days after Muslims attacked two U.S. Embassies and killed four Americans. One of the two people Hillary celebrated Eid with was Libya's Ambassador to the U.S., Ali Sulaiman Aujali.

The other was an individual who is the focus of this post - Farah Pandith. Clinton introduced Pandith at the 9/13/12 Eid dinner at around the 15:00 mark of this video.

On September 15, 2009 Pandith was sworn in as the U.S. Representative to Muslim Communities in a ceremony over which Clinton presided. Pay close attention to a couple of things. One, take note of the portrait of Thomas Jefferson behind the podium. Two, pay attention starting at the 8:15 mark as Hillary announces that Pandith will be getting sworn in with one hand on the Qur'an:


Before swearing Pandith in, Clinton seemed fixated on creating and establishing dialogue with Muslims all across the world that would focus on "what all of us have in common". Three years earlier, in 2006, Pandith seemed to demonstrate that she had some things "in common" with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ms. Pandith was one of the organizers of a March 2006 conference in Belgium called “Muslim Communities Participating in Society: A Belgian-U.S. Dialogue.” The conference brought together the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood with its Belgian/European counterparts and the participating American organizations included all of the major U.S. Brotherhood organizations- the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the Muslim Students Association of the US and Canada (MSA).
Hours after Pandith's swearing in, she spoke at the White House iftar dinner on 9/15/09. Below is video of her speech. At about the 3:00 mark, Pandith makes reference to Huma Abedin while explaining that this particular iftar dinner was the 13th "shared" by both Abedin and Hillary. She later pointed to Hillary Clinton as being responsible for breaking new ground by beginning iftar / Eid celebrations starting in 1999. Hillary later corrected Pandith, saying the practice started in 1996, the same year that Huma Abedin began working with Clinton:

Within the next year, Pandith would meet with some individuals who should have raised some red flags. For example, on October 31, 2009 Pandith was in Saudi Arabia, where she met with the mother of Huma Abedin - Saleha Abedin - at Dar el-Hekma college, where Saleha served as a vice dean after having helped found the college.

Here is a photo of Pandith with Saleha, one of 63 leaders in the Muslim Sisterhood and close friend of Egypt's first lady Najla Mahmoud, on 10/31/09:

A few months later, Hillary and Huma would visit Dar el-Hekma as well.

Shortly after Hillary's visit with Saleha in Saudi Arabia, Pandith, by her own admission, traveled to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) where she met with OCIS "Fellows" according to her own twitter feed:

Via the GMBDR:
The Oxford Centere has numerous ties to Saudi Arabia and the global Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Oxford Centre is Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held important positions in Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and was Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. In addition to his role as Oxford Centre Board Chairman, Dr. Naseef has also been associated with other UK Islamist organizations including the Islamic Foundation and the Markfield Institute for Advanced Studies.
Of course, one of the individuals who was a Fellow at OCIS at the time was the brother of Huma Abedin - Hassan Abedin. Moreover, the Chairman of the Board was Abdullah Omar Naseef, the same man who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). IMMA still lists Hassan and Saleha as members of the Editorial Board.

Last month, at the White House iftar dinner, President Barack Obama singled out Huma Abedin so that he could defend her against questions about her background. Also present at the iftar dinner was Farah Pandith, who posted this photo of herself with Huma and and Zeenat Rahman on her facebook page.

She referred to Huma as her "colleague" (Huma on far left, Pandith on far right):

Based on what we know about Huma Abedin's familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, coupled with what we know about Farah Pandith's willingness to both refer to her as a "colleague" and visit with "Fellows" of the OCIS, which included Naseef, Huma's brother, and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - at the time, a look into Pandith's background (Form 86) might be in order as well.

Did I mention she was sworn while placing one hand on the Qur'an?

Audio: Today's Podcast available

If you're a Hillary Clinton fan and have to fight high blood pressure, I recommend you don't listen.

Obama Administration pushed 'Religious Intolerance' Resolution

Those attacks on U.S. embassies are not only looking more like a Middle Eastern nudge toward suppression of free speech but also an attempt to make the Obama administration follow through on a U.N. Resolution it supported last year. In a sane world, this might be considered an unintended consequence but under Obama, very few consequences are unintended.

Via CNS News from December of 2011:
The U.N. General Assembly on Monday adopted a resolution condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion, and urging countries to take effective steps “to address and combat such incidents.”

No member state called for a recorded vote on the text, which was as a result adopted “by consensus.”

The resolution, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), is based on one passed by the U.N.’s Human Rights Council in Geneva last spring. The State Department last week hosted a meeting to discuss ways of “implementing” it.

Every year since 1999 the OIC has steered through the U.N.’s human rights apparatus a resolution condemning the “defamation of religion,” which for the bloc of 56 Muslim states covered incidents ranging from satirizing Mohammed in a newspaper cartoon to criticism of shari’a and post-9/11 security check profiling.

Critics regard the measure as an attempt to outlaw valid and critical scrutiny of Islamic teachings, as some OIC states do through controversial blasphemy laws at home.
Gee, I wonder how many figures in the Muslim world decided to try to "implement" the resolution by attacking U.S. Embassies on 9/11.

h/t GWP

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Is it time to learn from Flight 93's Passengers yet?

The United States is being held hostage. In the wake of the attacks on our embassies, an anti-Muhammad video has been identified not just by the Muslim world, but by our own Government as the reason for those attacks. The real reason - enunciated in Arabic - is to use the video as a tool to get nations all over the globe to criminalize criticism of anything Islam.

In essence, Americans are supposed to surrender a right so sacrosanct to their country's founding principles that our forefathers, in crafting the Bill of Rights, made it a central component of the very first Amendment.

When people are taken hostage in bank robberies - or anywhere else for that matter - what is a common phrase that is universal to all hostage takers?
"Do what we say and no one will get hurt."
It's a phrase that's part of evil's DNA.

In the case of 9/11/01, the hijackers of the first three planes neutralized their passengers by using variations of that phrase. Here is the leader of the 19 hijackers - Mohamed Atta - telling people onboard American Flight 11 to be quiet and everything will be alright:

That leads to another strain embedded in evil's DNA; it lies and it deceives. It will tell you that as long as you do what it wants, you will be ok. Evil has no intention whatsoever of leaving you "ok" when you do what it wants. The flames of hate are fed by the pheromones of fear.

The 9/11 Commission determined that the hijackers of United Flight 175 subdued passengers, based on the accounts of eyewitnesses, by sending people to the back of the plane and telling them that compliance would keep them from being harmed.

Indications were that American Flight 77, which flew into the Pentagon, suffered the same fate; passengers were told to get to the back of the plane.

United Flight 93 was a different story because its passengers knew they weren't going to be ok if they did as they were told; news of what happened to the other planes gave them two options - die or fight.

They were told by hijacker Ziad Jarrah to be quiet until their "demands" were met. Fortunately for our White House and Capitol and, by extension, our president and congressmen, that didn't happen - thanks to those courageous Americans who represent all of us.

Here is what Jarrah told the passengers:

Perhaps the sickest irony of all is that Flight 93's passengers prevented the hijackers from attacking either the U.S. Capitol or the White House, two structures that house the leadership which should be doggedly protecting not only Americans themselves but every single aspect of the first amendment the people who agree with the 9/11 hijackers want to take away. Instead, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - Martin Dempsey - called a small Florida pastor to talk him out of exercising his first amendment rights so no one gets hurt.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress seem to want to bow to Sharia law and most Republicans are reticent to stand up to it. The message from the White House is that the 9/11/12 attacks are not against the United States but a response to an exercise of free speech (isn't that the same thing?).

Question: If the 9/11/12 attackers are burning the President of the United States in effigy while collectively invoking the name of Osama bin Laden, does that mean the attacks of 9/11/01 were not against the United States either, despite our financial center and Pentagon being primary targets?

The passengers who prevented Flight 93 from reaching its target represent the same Americans who are being told that a video is responsible for the Muslim riots in the Middle East.

Instead of the Obama administration and Congress doing all it can to defend - with all its might - the Constitution it swore an oath to defend, they appear to be on the brink of complying with the demands of those who attacked us on 9/11/12.
"Give up your right of free speech and no one will get hurt."
There comes a point at which storming the cockpit is better than the alternative. Losing the right of free speech will be one of those times.

2006 Flashback: Stuck Mojo's 'Open Season'

Rock band Stuck Mojo recorded quite a controversial song / video back in 2006.

In light of the attacks on sovereign U.S. territory on the anniversary of 9/11, I found this appropriate.


Friday, September 14, 2012

Hillary Clinton wastes no time... Celebrates Muslim Holiday two days after 9/11 Attacks with man who supported Scotland's release of Lockerbie Bomber

Two days after an act of war was committed against the United States in both Egypt and Libya, on sovereign American territory, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the Ben Franklin Room in Washington, D.C., celebrating the end of Ramadan (Eid Mubarak). With her was Ali Sulaiman Aujali, Libya's Ambassador to the United States, who resigned from that position under Gadhafi in early 2011 but became Libya's Ambassador to the U.S. again in August of that year.

Here is how Clinton began her speech, via the State Department website:
Good evening, and although I am many weeks overdue in saying it: Eid Mubarak. No matter how belated we are honoring Eid and the end of Ramadan, this is a cherished tradition here at the State Department. And I would like to thank all of you for being here, including the many members of the Diplomatic Corps.

Tonight, our gathering is more somber than any of us would like. This comes during sad and difficult days for the State Department family. We lost four Americans. They were good and brave men. They were committed to the cause of building a brighter future for the people of Libya. And we condemn the violence in the strongest terms, the violence against our posts in Benghazi, in Egypt, and now in Yemen.

The Libyan ambassador is with us tonight, and I want to take a moment to thank him for the support that his government and the Libyan people have shown to the United States in this tragedy, particularly the outpouring of feelings of grief and loss because of the killing of our ambassador.

Ambassador Aujali, would you mind saying a few words?
Before we get to the words of Aujali, perhaps we should take a look at his previous positions as well as his willingness to associate with Muslim Brotherhood-connected groups. AllGov reported in February of 2011 that Aujali was a supporter of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing:
In September 2009, he defended the transfer of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi from Scotland to Libya by explaining that most Libyans thought Megrahi was falsely convicted.
Question: What did al-Megrahi and the perpetrators of the 9/11/12 attacks have in common?

Answer: The blood of dead Americans on their hands.

In July of 2011, one month before he became ambassador again, Aujali spoke at the annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention. Not only that but he was introduced by none other than Council on American Islamic Relations Chicago (CAIR-Chicago) Executive Director Ahmed Rehab.

How many times must it be said that both the ISNA and CAIR were unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in the United States? The ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood group (by a Muslim Brotherhood document) that seeks the destruction of the United States from within.

One day after the recent 9/11 attacks, Aujali appeared alongside ISNA President Mohamed Magid and Haris Tarin, the director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Two other individuals present are case studies in how Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. provide politically correct cover for themselves by forming 'interfaith' coalitions, which are made up of useful dupes or complicit deceivers. In this instance, those two men are Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Welton Gaddy.

Incidentally, Tarin, Magid, and Saperstein each have something in common when it comes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's closest advisor. They all have either defended her or, in Magid's case, sat with her at the White House iftar dinner last month, at which Barack Obama spoke in support of Abedin.

Of course, Aujali, at both the event on September 12th with Magid, Tarin, et. al. and at the Eid dinner on the 13th, expressed sympathy for the victims of the 9/11/12 attacks.

Indications are that the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Cairo, at least, had the backing of the Salafist Nour Party. It's important to understand that Salafism is essentially the Muslim Brotherhood without the mask. An example might be the contrast between the most recognized cleric in Great Britain - Salafist Anjem Choudary - and Ground Zero mosque Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf. Both men seem to seek similar ends but through different means.

When Salafists - who seem to have no trouble waving al-Qaeda flags - commit acts of violence and murder, as was committed in the 9/11 attacks of both 2001 and 2012, Brotherhood entities and individuals necessarily must distance themselves from such things, especially in the United States.

(If you remember, CAIR went out of its way to align with George W. Bush after 9/11/01)

Secretary of State Clinton then spoke again after Aujali was finished. When Clinton herself was done speaking, she introduced an interesting individual to the podium. Said Clinton:
Let me now call to the stage someone who has been a tremendous assistance to me in these efforts. Farah Pandith is the Department’s first Special Representative to Muslim Communities. And from the beginning, she has made reaching out to young people and civil society her top priority. Farah will introduce you to three young leaders who I am very proud of.
In 2010, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR) wrote about Pandith's visit to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS). Pandith communicated that she had lunch with OCIS fellows, which she divulged via twitter. GMBDR had the following to say about the OCIS fellows:
The Oxford Centere has numerous ties to Saudi Arabia and the global Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Oxford Centre is Abdullah Omar Naseef who has held important positions in Saudi Arabia including serving as Vice-President of the Kingdom’s Shura Council, President of King Abdul Aziz University, and was Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) from 1983-1993. In addition to his role as Oxford Centre Board Chairman, Dr. Naseef has also been associated with other UK Islamist organizations including the Islamic Foundation and the Markfield Institute for Advanced Studies. Other Oxford Centre Trustees of note include:
  • Prince Turki Al-Faisal (former head of Saudi intelligence and former Saudi ambassador to the US)
  • Abdullah Gul (Prime Minister of Turkey, recently awarded the King Faisal International Prize in Jeddah)
  • Ali A Mazrui (US scholar with connections to the US Muslim Brotherhood)

  • Until 2006, global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi also served as an Oxford Centre Trustee.
    Abdullah Omar Naseef is the same man behind the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, the Institute at which none other than Huma Abedin worked for 12 years, before taking her current position with Hillary Clinton.

    Thursday, September 13, 2012

    Video: Appearance on Focus Today with Perry Atkinson

    Today, I had the opportunity to sit down with Perry Atkinson of Focus Today, of The Dove TV. Among other things, we talked about the 9/11 attacks of 2012 on U.S. Embassies. We also got to talk about Unsung Davids.

    Via The Dove:

    Aren't our Generals supposed to DEFEND the Constitution?

    I realize that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey is to follow the orders of his Commander-in-Chief but whether he picked up the phone and called Florida pastor Terry Jones to chill first amendment rights on his own or at the behest of the President makes little difference. Not only isn't it Dempsey's place to do so but his first priority is to defend the rights of all Americans NOT to have their rights chilled at all.

    That apparently didn't stop him from picking up the phone and calling Jones.

    Via Al Arabiya News:
    The U.S. military’s top officer has urged a controversial Christian pastor to disavow a film that has ignited violent protests over its portrayal of the Islamic faith, a spokesman said Wednesday.

    A day after a deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi possibly sparked by the movie, General Martin Dempsey made a direct appeal to Pastor Terry Jones to reject the film to defuse tensions.

    “In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause,” his spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said in an email.

    “He asked Mr Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the film,” he said.
    What kind of message does this send to the Arab world? Note the news source that ran this story.

    Moreover, apparently taking a cue from the actions of Dempsey is USA Today writer, Anthea Butler, who is actually siding with Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi by calling for the arrest of the man responsible for making the film that has allegedly so enflamed the Arab world. While doing so, Butler cites Dempsey.

    Via USA Today:
    My initial tweet about Bacile, the person said to be responsible for the film mocking the prophet Mohammed, was not because I am against the First Amendment. My tweets reflected my exasperation that as a religion professor, it is difficult to teach the facts when movies such as Bacile's Innocence of Muslims are taken as both truth and propaganda, and used against innocent Americans.

    If there is anyone who values free speech, it is a tenured professor!

    So why did I tweet that Bacile should be in jail? The "free speech" in Bacile's film is not about expressing a personal opinion about Islam. It denigrates the religion by depicting the faith's founder in several ludicrous and historically inaccurate scenes to incite and inflame viewers. Even the film's actors say they were duped.
    Butler then argues that the difference between Bacile's film and The Last Temptation of Christ, which was insulting to Christianity is that Muslims reacted differently than Christians did. Therefore, Bacile should be responsible.


    Here is where we get to the realm of unintended consequences on Dempsey's part; Butler uses his actions to attempt to make her case:
    Bacile's movie does not excuse the rioting in Libya and Egypt, or the murder of Americans. That is deplorable. Unfortunately, people like Bacile and Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who provoked international controversy by burning copies of the Quran, have a tremendous impact on religious tolerance and U.S. foreign policy.

    Case in point: Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Jones on Wednesday to ask him to stop promoting Bacile's film. Clearly, the military considers the film a serious threat to national security. If the military takes it seriously, there should be consequences for putting American lives at risk.
    Essentially, Butler is saying Islam's problem with our freedom of speech should become our problem.

    That's like saying players who lose a championship game should be held to account for the angry fans rioting in the streets.

    Accuracy in Media
    American Spectator
    American Thinker
    Big Government
    Big Journalism
    Doug Ross
    Flopping Aces
    Fox Nation
    Fox News
    Free Republic
    The Hill
    Hope for America
    Hot Air
    Hot Air Pundit
    Jawa Report
    Jihad Watch
    Michelle Malkin
    Naked Emperor News
    National Review
    New Zeal Blog
    News Real
    Pajamas Media
    Red State
    Right Wing News
    Say Anything
    Stop Islamization of America
    Verum Serum
    Wall Street Journal
    Washington Times
    Watts Up With That
    Web Today
    Weekly Standard
    World Net Daily

    Blog Archive