So, after the Senate Intelligence Committee viewed emails, it's now apparent that Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - was involved in altering the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on September 16th. When taken together with the book written by a former Navy SEAL who was best friends with Glen Doherty and a former Green Beret, it would make sense that Brennan wouldn't want the truth to come out... assuming the charges made by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are accurate.
Again, they allege that Brennan was covertly ordering weapons raids in the region and that the 9/11/12 attacks were in retaliation for those raids. If that's true, the administration would indeed have a motive to push the narrative that the attacks were retaliation for a video, not Brennan's operation.
“Brennan was involved,” Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said after the briefing. “It's pretty obvious what happened.”
“At the end of the day it should have been pretty easy to determine who made the changes and what changes were made.”
He described an “extensive, bureaucratic and frankly unnecessary process” that led to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations publicly linking the attack to a peaceful protest gone awry. Republicans have accused the White House of twisting the talking points to avoid harming Obama's national security reputation ahead of the November elections.
Despite this revelation, the media narrative - even in conservative circles - is that the emails don't show an effort to avoid pinning the attacks on terrorists. The apathy and lack of consideration for the work of Webb and Murphy is a bit stunning, really.
One source familiar with the briefing indicated that they did not believe the emails shed any new light on anything that was not already known and said the messages did not demonstrate an effort by the administration to deliberately downplay the role of “al Qai’da” or “terrorists.”
Emails I obtained in October made it clear that the State Department said very early on that the attacks were driven by an al Qai’da affiliated group.
That last statement from Greta Wire's Chad Pergram is a bit curious, considering that Hillary Clinton herself released a statement as the 9/11/12 attacks were taking place, before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were murdered, in which she seemed to sow the seeds for the narrative Rice would enunciate five days later on five separate talk shows. Clinton made several subsequent statements between that one and Rice's Sunday show appearances in which she at least implied that same thing. Now we know that Brennan was involved in the process that allowed the furtherance of that narrative.
It truly is amazing that people who sit on school boards like the one this woman completely shredded, can be as intellectually vacant as they are when it comes to understanding the history of gun control.
Nonetheless, retired New Jersey substitute teacher Carole Moore issued a thorough public spanking of her school board.
Caveat necessary. The video below does not consist of House Speaker John Boehner saying that Obama's balls are made out of marshmellows. However, it does include a man named John Mauldin who claims to have been present when Boehner said it and it's not at all likely that someone like Mauldin would falsely attribute those words to Boehner.
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Boehner actually said it. According to Mauldin, the House Speaker made the charge during the debt ceiling debate, which took place in the summer of 2011. In a word, the charge meant that Obama lacked 'audacity', which is defined as:
boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
Yep, that pretty much describes Obama. It's also the opposite of Boehner's assessment.
If we include the debt ceiling debate and every battle Boehner has been involved in with Obama since then, how many has Boehner actually won?
Uh, can't think of any.
When it comes to the most powerful Republican in elected office (Boehner) and the most powerful Democrat in elected office (Obama), there have been two kinds of battles.
Battles fought
Battles not fought
As for the battles fought...
The debt ceiling
The 2012 elections
Fiscal cliff
Tax cuts
Spending cuts
Sequestration
Continuing Resolution
Healthcare Debate
Deficit / Debt Reduction
In all of the battles fought, it's hard to find one instance in which Obama has lost since the 2010 elections, which were actually won by the same Tea Party Boehner doesn't seem to have much regard for.
The debt continues to grow, despite the fact that the House is responsible for the purse strings; the 2012 elections were a major embarrassment for the Republican Party in general, to include Boehner as the House's gavel-holder. His lack of fight after the 2010 elections contributed to the base staying home in 2012. Boehner bemoaned making mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks by saying he shouldn't have negotiated with Obama and that he was 'full of regret' over how he handled it. Spending cuts? What spending cuts? Sequestration? Well, despite it being Obama's idea, Boehner is proving woefully inadequate when it comes to making the president own it.The continuing resolution debate will heat up in March. If the government is not allowed to shut down, Boehner will lose another round to Obama. Healthcare debate? Obama definitely didn't lack fortitude / audacity there.
As for debt / deficit reduction... Obama loves runaway debt and deficits. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Boehner wants to stem / reverse the tide. After the Republicans were swept into office in great numbers in the 2010 elections, Boehner had momentum (and the gavel). When it comes to the national debt / annual deficits, nothing has changed.
Advantage: 'Marshmellow' balls.
As for the battles not fought, two come to mind:
Fast and Furious
Benghazi Investigation
How about the battles not fought? Boehner REFUSED to make an issue of Fast and Furious; the Obama administration was wobbly in the knees for several months. Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa was essentially on his own. It was obvious Boehner wanted to avoid getting to the bottom of a scandal that demanded justice.
Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?
How about the investigation into Benghazi? Boehner has been all but silent. Rep. Frank Wolf has twice formally asked the Speaker to form a House Select Committee to help get to the bottom of that scandal, which involves dead Americans and likely criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration.
Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?
Really?! I believe Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had but to accuse him of having 'balls' of 'marshmellows' is rather audacious in light of your track record when it comes to fighting him.
Boehner's behavior smacks of projection. His entire record over the last two years reveals a man who is afraid to fight and is getting beaten like a drum. Yet, the guy who beats him is the coward? Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, the accusation you allegedly made about Obama 18 months ago appears to be an accusation you should be levying at yourself. Instead, you appear to be employing a psychological defense mechanism that is preventing you from making that admission.
Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.
If Boehner is uncomfortable accepting the reality that it is he who lacks courage, he very well could be projecting that lack of courage onto Obama. The question that needs to be asked of Boehner is a simple one:
If Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows' Mr. Speaker, how come he keeps beating you?
There's really no reason to doubt the authenticity of what Mauldin attributed to Boehner as having said but it is truly unbelievable that Boehner - of all people - would be the one to say it:
In an interview with CBN, U.S. Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz said two very significant things that resonate with true conservatives. One was that Barack Obama is the 'most radical' president we've ever seen. The other is that by failing to stand on principles, many Republicans should share some blame for that 'most radical' president being elected in the first place (ain't that the truth!).
The biggest frustration among conservatives is an unwillingness (cowardice) to fight on the part of Republicans. It's early but Cruz is showing signs of galvanizing such conservatives. A consequence of that - as we found out with Sarah Palin - is relentless media attacks. The good news? Cruz's effectiveness will rise in direct proportion to how much he is attacked in the media.
Here is the perfect example to demonstrate how best to deal with the media (pay attention, Boehner). After the mainstream media dredged up what they thought would be considered outrageous comments by Cruz years ago - that the Harvard faculty is rife with Marxists - the Senator from Texas did not go on defense; he went on offense with a super-appropriate tweet.
Juan Williams is a bit of a conundrum; he makes ridiculous left-wing arguments that make you want to scream but he somehow maintains a characteristic of likability and gets along quite well with those whom he disagrees with. At some point, one would think he would wake up and free himself from the grips of left-wing ideology. Perhaps the best case in point was when he was fired by NPR for expressing an opinion about how he felt with sharing a plane with passengers that consisted of men in Muslim garb.
That leads to this very interesting interview between Williams and Ginni Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas). As I watched Williams in this interview, I found myself asking one simple question:
How is it that you can have this perspective and yet still be liberal?
For some reason, Juan has identified and acknowledged the groupthink dynamic in the liberal media while not seeing the corresponding flaws in all of liberalism's premises. He doesn't seem to understand that the reason groupthink exists is because liberalism can't exist without it.
One interesting takeaway from the interview happens at the beginning when Williams makes an Archie Bunker reference, admitting that he used to believe that character represented conservatives. As an example of Williams not connecting one more dot, the man who created Archie Bunker's character (Norman Lear) is a hardcore liberal, which makes Bunker a caricature (not just a character) of the right, created with left-wing bias and preconceptions.
It would seem that Williams isn't far from an awakening. Then again, I thought the same thing after he was fired by NPR.
Stonewall: to block, stall, or resist intentionally
In the game of cricket, the term stonewall means to:
play a defensive game, as by persistently blocking the ball instead of batting it for distance and runs.
When it comes to getting the truth about the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration has lied - for two weeks, the administration blamed the attacks on a video - and it has stonewalled in the face of countless unanswered questions. In fact, when it became apparent that there were so many breakdowns on so many levels, Republicans from both Houses of Congress requested that select committees be formed.
In the Senate, Republicans are in the minority and Harry Reid has predictably stonewalled these requests because select committees that are formed to investigate scandals that could reach the president's office are much more effective than existent committees. Select committees would be made up of A-listers from various committees that would leverage their own individual areas of expertise. Reid is not going to put that kind of heat on a Democratic president.
Neither is Boehner; the Speaker of the House - a Republican - is stonewalling as well.
Check out what Boehner said last November, via Kerry Picket at Breitbart:
Both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), along with other Democrats, rebuffed the idea of a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.
“At this point, I think that the standing committees of the House, whether they be the (State Department) oversight committee or the intelligence committee, are working diligently on these issues,” Boehner said shortly after his Senate colleagues floated the idea in November.
Some may see a bicameral committee (one that consists of both Representatives and Senators) as the best option, the absence of Senators does not preclude a select House committee from being formed. In fact, Rep. Frank Wolf wrote to Boehner in November and asked for that very thing. Boehner stonewalled the request then and is doing so now.
Writes Picket:
Speaker Boehner did not heed Wolf’s call for a select committee in the last Congress. In late January, Wolf refiled the resolution to establish a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Boehner has yet to comment or act upon the resolution.
Breitbart News sent an inquiry to Speaker Boehner's office on Thursday afternoon that has gone unanswered.
When it comes to the details about what happened or didn't happen in Benghazi, the administration is preventing the truth from coming out. That is stonewalling. In Boehner's case, he is preventing the assembly of the best team possible to help reveal the truth. That too is stonewalling.
Are these two forms of stonewalling apples and oranges or are they distinctions without differences?
The answer is the latter. As the Speaker of the House - regardless of Party affiliation - Boehner should be spearheading any attempt to get to the truth about what happened on 9/11/12 in Benghazi. He is doing the opposite; he is doing what Harry Reid is doing.
John Boehner is stonewalling an investigation into Benghazi and when it comes to Boehner, this type of behavior is very predictable; he did the best he could to minimize the impact of the Fast and Furious investigation as well. That it went as far as it did is a testament to the likes of House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They pushed in spite of Boehner, not with his assistance. That was very clear.
In fact, Boehner scheduled the House vote on whether to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not relinquishing documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee, on the same day that the Supreme Court rendered its Obamacare decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, on the day of the contempt vote, Obama did what Nixon did in Watergate; he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent the release of those documents.
Boehner protected the President. Period.
Some have suggested that the reason for doing so had to do with not wanting to harm Romney's chances in the 2012 election. Yeah? How'd that work out? The answer should be obvious. Romney lost the election and Republicans, in general, had their clocks cleaned because they chose not to fight. Fast and Furious is the quintessential example of something that warranted a high profile fight, if for no other reason than justice for the victims and their families, regardless of the election. Nonetheless, Boehner chose not to fight and his party lost big.
Benghazi is not all that dissimilar from Fast and Furious. Both involve guns (it's looking increasingly like Benghazi even involved gun running); both involved dead Americans; both involve an administration that is stonewalling the truth; and both apparently involve a House Speaker that prefers to sweep the carnage under the rug.
Imagine a House Select Committee that included members from the following Committees:
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
Judiciary
Oversight
Intelligence
Such a Committee would be formed to investigate the truth about Benghazi from every angle. It would include members who've demonstrated incredible political courage in the Fast and Furious investigation, chaired by the man who was at the tip of that spear:
Chairman: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) Members:
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
There may be other Republicans worthy of consideration but the aforementioned list consists of those who have proven their mettle. As for Democrats, who cares? They'll be Obama's pawns. They can have whomever they like.
The Benghazi attack / coverup along with Fast and Furious are the Obama administration's two biggest scandals. Both involve dead Americans; one also involves hundreds of dead Mexicans. House Speaker John Boehner fought House Republicans at every turn when they wanted to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious. It was obvious to even the casual observer that Boehner wanted that story to go away.
The main objective of the Democratic Party is to win back the House in 2014. Benghazi is playing out in this election cycle in much the same way that Fast and Furious did in the last one. It could be argued that Republicans lost in 2012 - in large part - because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth in the gun-walking scandal. If the Democrats win the House in 2014, it could very well be because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth about Benghazi.
The maddening double standard relative to the Obama administration's push for control, coupled with its silence when it comes to the off-the-chart recklessness of its own ATF just continues unabated, in large part because no one of real consequence is calling them on it. If you remember the story about the ATF's keystone cops exercise in Milwaukee a few months ago, one of the several deadly circus acts involved a machine gun being stolen from an ATF vehicle.
Various congressmen - including Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - has been attempting to get answers. Unlike the administration's non-stop verbal exploitation of Sandy Hook, answers about the ATF operation in Milwaukee (Fast and Furious too, for that matter) are nowhere to be found.
Several members of Congress, from both parties, have demanded answers from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives regarding a series of foul-ups in an undercover ATF sting in Milwaukee, exposed in a Journal Sentinel investigation.
So far they have not heard much. In a letter, the congressional members set a deadline for response for Thursday, Feb. 14. A check with several of the congressional offices indicated no response was provided, other than for the agency to acknowledge the letter was received and they are working on it.
The ATF is conducting a "top to bottom" review of the operation, an agency spokesman said last week. ATF did not respond to a call for comment Thursday.
Here is a link to that letter, which required a response by February 14th.
One day before that deadline, Sensenbrenner published an op-ed that said, in part (commentary on what I have bolded and underlined to follow):
Beyond "Fast and Furious" and the recent Milwaukee sting, ATF has had a rocky history. In 2006, ATF Director Carl Truscott resigned due to lavish spending, ethical violations, and questionable treatment of employees. The ATF needs an accountable, Senate-confirmed head just like the other law enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice.
The Obama Administration wants to pass new gun laws and give new responsibilities to the ATF, but the agency has been inept at enforcing the laws that we already have. The agency should have rigorous oversight of their operations, but the recent reports indicate the opposite is true. I look forward to hearing back from the ATF. We need to get answers on the botched Milwaukee operation with the goal of preventing other debacles in the future.
Identifying Fast and Furious as being part of a 'rocky history' is quite pathetic. Fast and Furious was a murderous operation intended to create the climate for gun control in the same way that Sandy Hook has been exploited by the administration.
The second part there is particularly weak on Sensenbrenner's part. Instead of talking about ATF's ineptitude with respect to enforcing existing gun laws, the congressman should be pointing out the blood on its hands as a result of Fast and Furious while contrasting the administration's gun control push based on the actions of a lone gunman in Connecticut.
No wonder the ATF doesn't feel like it has to answer Sensenbrenner. He doesn't seem too interested in going to the mat with them.
Despite revelations shortly before the 2012 election, that Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) had become so mentally unstable that he believed he was a reincarnated chariot driver, he was still overwhelmingly elected with more than 60% of the vote. Now, just a few months later, he's going to serve significant jail time for using campaign contributions to enrich himself.
Enter Paul McKinley, a Republican who is running for Jackson's old seat. Watch McKinley explain how the Chicago Machine works in less than three minutes.
This guy understands what's going on better than more than a super majority of Congress (both houses):
There is an old adage that says the best jokes are the ones rooted in truth. If they weren't, they wouldn't make sense and therefore, wouldn't be funny. During his opening monologue, comedian Jay Leno cracked a joke about Barack Obama's inability to understand economics. The joke resonated with the audience which laughed and applauded. Following the old adage, it stands to reason that Obama truly does have a problem understanding economics.
Now, consider the words of Larry Grathwohl who, in 1969 became the only man to successfully infiltrate the Weather Underground for the FBI. He moved in those circles for nearly a year and knew what Bill Ayers truly believed and thought. In perhaps the most haunting account of the Weather Underground, Grathwohl explained what he heard at a meeting which included Ayers.
Since Obama's 2008 campaign revealed a relationship he had with Ayers, the president has attempted to distance himself from that relationship. Grathwohl was either ignored or smeared. The truth is that the relationship between Obama and Ayers was much closer than he wanted anyone to know; that is an irrefutable fact and Leno may have inadvertently contributed to demonstrating it.
I have posted the video from 1982 below before but pay attention to what Grathwohl says beginning at the :20 mark:
"I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government. You know, we, we become responsible then for administrating you know, 250 million people. And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics - how are you going to clothe and feed these people?"
No thought to economics - something else Obama and Ayers share in common.
Former Green Beret Jack Murphy and Former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb have co-authored a book that makes some explosive charges about Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan. Perhaps the most explosive is that Brennan was ordering weapons raids in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi and that he did so without the knowledge of then CIA Director David Petraeus or Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
According to the Daily Mail, Webb was the best friend of Glen Doherty, one of the two Navy SEALs who was murdered at the CIA Annex on September 11th.
Webb and Murphy appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss their charges and connect some very important dots.
The Mexican government is now officially in on it, folks. Yes, suspicions were raised over that government's relative silence about Operation Fast and Furious as the scandal unfolded for nearly two years but now that Mexican politicians are lobbying the U.S. Senate to create a gun registry in states that border Mexico, it's confirmed.
In this local news report from a CBS affiliate in Arizona, citizens who were interviewed about this attempt by Mexican lawmakers to create a gun registry in the U.S. brought up Fast and Furious when asked for their take.
The mask is off Mexico's leaders, whether we're talking about those who didn't stand up when Fast and Furious was exposed or those who are now getting behind Obama's gun control / registration / confiscation push.
In Fast and Furious, the ATF instructed gun store owners in 'border states' - despite the objections of those gun store owners - to sell high powered rifles (AK-47's and .50 Cal.) to straw purchasers who they knew would walk those thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were used - and continue to be used - in the commission of countless murders. The Mexican government was all but silent as a dastardly plan by high ranking members of the Obama administration was implemented in an attempt to create the climate for gun control.
It didn't work and Sandy Hook is Plan B but it's not just the Obama administration who is implementing it. The Mexican government is playing along.
Let's go back to March 24, 2009. A lot happened on that day. First, here is Obama at a news conference telling the press that the situation with regard to guns from the U.S. going to Mexican drug cartels is 'out of control'. What would transpire over the next several months involved an agency under the purview of Obama's Justice Department intentionally making that situation much worse:
Also on March 24, 2009... Deputy Attorney General David Ogden expounds on the same subject and even made reference to 'Project Gunrunner', the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious:
Oh, and let's not forget DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 24, 2009 talking about the same subject. Notice how she talks about 'prosecuting' gun dealers who sell to bad guys. If Fast and Furious hadn't blown up in the administration's face, would the DOJ have prosecuted gun dealers who objected but who were told by the ATF to sell anyway? Napolitano starts around the 2:00 mark:
Here is Obama in April of 2009, shortly after Fast and Furious was put into motion. Notice the message. Innocent Mexicans were being murdered at the hands of guns purchased in the U.S. and something had to be done. Little did we know that the something involved the ATF accelerating the practice of sending guns to Mexico. Why? Well, to create the climate for gun control that would involve things like gun registries in border states:
Two years later, on March 3, 2011 - during a joint press conference at the White House with Obama and Mexico's president Felipe Calderon - the subject of gun violence in Mexico was discussed. Remember, the Obama administration was on defense at the time because of Fast and Furious so there was no aggressive push for gun control. All the two men could do was nibble around the edges. Here is a quote from Calderon, which takes place around the 32:00 mark:
"...with respect to the actions foreign agents in the Mexican land. The law does not allow agents of the United States or any other country to take part in tasks involving justice enforcement in our territory. As a result, they cannot carry weapons or undertake operational tasks. Their functions in line with our treaties are limited to the exchange of information and technical assistance to support Mexican authorities in these tasks... it's very clear for me as well that we must find a way of enhancing the level of protection of any and all agents who are acting within the framework of the law against crime and of course we are deeply analyzing alternatives for this and in dialogue with the Mexican Congress, who is the party who has the final say on this matter."
One of the things we learned in the wake of Fast and Furious is that the ATF was essentially sending high powered weapons to drug cartels without the Mexican government's knowledge. Yet, the Obama administration seemed to get a pass with the Mexican government while the American people are NOT getting a pass from the Mexican government, relative to something they had nothing to do with - Sandy Hook.
At that same March 3, 2011 press conference - shortly after Calderon's aforementioned statement - a liberal, sycophantic, hispanic reporter stuck his nose firmly in Obama's... never mind and asked him why he didn't have the power to 'veto' the second amendment. Obama then proceeded to lie his face off in light of what we now know happened with Fast and Furious. He then laughably says his administration has 'seen progress' with respect to catching straw purchasers.
As the operation blew up in the face of the administration, Mexican leaders were all but silent and the Obama administration stonewalled. Now that Sandy Hook is replacing Fast and Furious as the trigger for gun control, Mexican officials are teaming up with the Obama administration in an attempt to do what Fast and Furious failed to do.
In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.
Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.
Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.
A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:
In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.
There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.
There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.
In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.
These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.
That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.
Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.
Why?
Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.
In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.
For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.
Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.
Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?
If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.
In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.
The first part of this clip has seemingly nothing to do with the headline of the post but stick with it. This ABC News White House ventriloquist dummy Report starts out with another shameless exploitation of a shooting victim. The report plays an ad that features the mother of a young lady who was gunned down. The purpose of the ad is to push for universal background checks. The anchor then kicks it out to Reena Ninan who says that the gun control whackos think that background checks are something they can get through congress. Chuck Schumer calls that the 'sweet spot'.
Where was this push for gun control when Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face and where are gun rights activists when it comes to pointing this out?
But I digress...
If, as the authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' allege, that John Brennan led an effort from the White House to ship weapons out of Libya to 'start another conflict' (presumably to arm Muslim Brotherhood / al-Qaeda rebels in Syria), it could mean that the administration is simultaneously attempting to disarm American citizens while arming her enemies (watch the video at the bottom of this post that will demonstrate how registration leads to confiscation).
Now, at about the 1:20 mark of the ventriloquist dummy report, the discussion turns to Hillary's plans to run in 2016. According to a Washington 'insider', it's all but a done deal. If true, what are the plans for Huma Abedin? Will Hillary appoint her to the same position currently held by David Axelrod or Valerie Jarrett?
Based on Abedin's irrefutable familial connections to the Brotherhood, do you think she's on board with a policy that would disarm Americans and arm the Brotherhood?
Yes, that is a somewhat rhetorical question at this point.
One more thing that happens at the end of this report worth mentioning. Ninan makes reference to who could be Hillary's Republican challenger and mentions Chris Christie by name. Every presidential election cycle, the mainstream media pushes a Republican candidate. Invariably, that candidate is someone who either doesn't have a chance against the liberal Democrat of choice or would be the best alternative for the liberal establishment (Romney, McCain, and Dole are prime examples).
Whenever the media pushes for a Republican nominee, rest assured, it's the worst possible Republican nominee. As for Christie specifically, he is rather Muslim Brotherhood-friendly.
Here is why any attempt at universal background checks are all about universal gun registration, which ultimately leads to confiscation because, once again, nameless, unelected bureaucrats will be empowered to decide who gets what and who doesn't.
This is really a sight to behold - on so many levels. For starters, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is rightfully opposing the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Barack Obama's next Secretary of Defense. The more time that goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hagel is anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Something else that is becoming more apparent is that the more we learn about Hagel, the more we seem to confirm about the Ron Paul crowd.
When you even hint that the Pauliens oppose Israel, they do what so many on the left do - they twist themselves into knots by making some obscure argument that we should allow Israel to protect itself because that is in Israel's best interest. The thinking apparently goes that isolationism is good for everyone, including a small tract of land at the center of multiple countries who have an unfathomable hate for everyone on that tract of land.
Consider the 2011 statement by Eric Dondero, a former senior aid for Ron Paul. He made it quite clear during the last presidential campaign that Rand's father was anti-Israel.
Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
The Pauliens know that agreeing with this outwardly is a loser, so they dismiss Dondero's claims while denouncing Rand's opposition to Hagel, despite the latter apparently lining up almost exactly with the Ron Paul that Dondero describes.
That leads to the Pauliens' problem with Rand, via the Daily Caller:
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s vote to temporarily block Chuck Hagel’s nomination for secretary of defense elicited blowback from an unlikely source: antiwar conservatives and libertarians, many of them supporters of his father’s GOP presidential campaign.
Paul, the son of former Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, joined all but four Republican senators Thursday in voting against a motion to end debate over Hagel’s nomination. GOP leaders are saying that they will not filibuster Hagel indefinitely, but instead want to delay a vote until they have more information about his speeches and finances.
“That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,” Paul said in a statement. “I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.”
That explanation wasn’t good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. “It’s time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott,” Raimondo tweeted. “No $$, no support, and start calling him Paul the Lesser.”
It appears the longer Hagel is scrutinized, the more the Pauliens show their true, anti-Israel colors as well.
"...If I was insensitive to the families, I offer them my condolences, but.." - Marc LaMont Hill on the O'Reilly Factor 2/14/13
The reason Columbia professor Marc LaMont Hill appeared on the O'Reilly Factor was because of his comments during a panel discussion on CNN a day earlier. During that discussion, Hill seemed to heap praise on cop killer, Christopher Dorner while making reference to Django Unchained and calling the comparison 'exciting'.
First, check out the short clip of Hill on CNN that led to his appearance on the O'Reilly Factor:
A day later, Hill appeared on O'Reilly's show. The host was right to confront Hill and didn't go easy on him but he did miss a huge opportunity to expose Hill for who the Columbia professor really is. While Dorner murdered several people, he was also a cop killer. Hill knows another cop killer quite well. In fact, quite well. His name is Mumia Abu Jamal, sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing police officer Daniel Faulkner.
In 2009, Hill allowed Jamal to write a weekly column for the former's website and introduced the cop killer thusly, via NewsReal:
I am thrilled to announce that Mumia Abu-Jamal has joined the Barbershop as a weekly contributor!! His column, Live From Death Row, will appear every Wednesday starting next week.
Mumia Abu-Jamal is one of the world's most celebrated journalists, freedom fighters, and political prisoners. Since his early days in Philadelphia, Mumia was an active member of the Black freedom sruggle. From his award-winning journalism to his involvement with the Black Panther Party, Mumia has devoted his life to Black liberation. Wrongfully incarcerated since 1981 for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner, Mumia has continued to place a spotlight on various forms of injustice around the globe through his numerous columns, commentaries, and books. Mumia has generated international support for his own case, which has been one of the most glaring and repugnant reflections of the criminal (in)justice system.
So, in 2009, while giving a cop killer a weekly platform, Hill referred to that cop killer as a 'political prisoner' and was 'thrilled to make the announcement'.
In 2011, Hill and Jamal co-wrote a book entitled the Classroom and the Cell, which consists of very comfortable and agreeable exchanges between the two men. In fact, Hill likely found it 'exciting' to publish the book.
You can watch the interview between O'Reilly and Hill below but once again, when presented with an opportunity to expose a creature of the left for what he truly is, folks like O'Reilly take a pass. Are we to believe he didn't know about Hill's collaborative work with Mumia Abu Jamal? Considering that Hill used to be a Fox News Contributor who made regular appearances on O'Reilly's show, that's hard to believe. Even if it were plausible, it's an indictment of the Fox News host's research team. It's also false to call it irrelevant; it's extremely relevant because it makes the case against Hill that the professor is trying to prevent from being made.
The likely answer is that O'Reilly just didn't want to go there, a dynamic not all that dissimilar from Mitt Romney not wanting to call Obama a 'socialist'.
It's now a matter of record that Barack Obama made no phone calls during the many hours that transpired during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. What's also now a matter of record is the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - whether he realizes it or not - seems to have made the case for Obama's impeachment and removal from office.
President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.
"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.
The headline of the aforementioned story honed in on the admission by the White House that Obama made no phone calls during the attacks but unless I'm missing something, a U.S. Senator just accused the president of having the blood of two former Navy SEALs on his hands by not doing his job. In layman's parlance, that sounds like manslaughter, which has two legal definitions, both of which could apply to Obama.
Check out what the legal dictionary has to say about that offense:
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.
An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.
Try as one might, it's hard to argue - based on the White House admission and Graham's assertion - that Obama didn't have a duty to at least make an attempt to repel the attacks sometime during the seven hour siege involving the consulate and CIA Annex. If Graham is right, Obama failing to execute his duty led to the deaths of Americans. That would be criminally negligent manslaughter.
How about the more egregious form of involuntary manslaughter? As you consider the application of unlawful act manslaughter, consider the claims made in a book by Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy. Among their charges is that the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi were in response to weapons raids ordered by John Brennan directly from Obama's White House. Webb and Murphy also claim that then CIA Director David Petraeus and Ambassador Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark about it.
Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.
If Brennan was secretly ordering raids without the knowledge of the CIA Director and Petraeus should have been aware of those raids, that would constitute an unlawful act. If those unlawful acts were the cause of the attacks on the consulate and annex (CIA), it would seem that Brennan (acting as an arm of Obama) may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
Such things would mean that Brennan's nomination by Obama as CIA Director sets a new high water mark for audacity.
"I'd like to think that everybody is born into this world with a certain amount of innocence to them and unfortunately, sometimes as they go through life, forces of evil will bring them down a certain path." - John Brennan, February 13, 2010.
In light of John Brennan's nomination to be Barack Obama's CIA Director, coupled with a charge that he secretly converted to Islam, renewed attention has been brought to a speech he gave at New York University (NYU) on February 13, 2010 and deservedly so. But how about the lengthier Q and A that took place afterward?
If, as former FBI Agent John Guandolo alleges via access to firsthand accounts, that John Brennan converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and is now working against the interests of his own country, the aforementioned statement - made by Brennan during the Q and A session of his New York University speech - is a case study in projection.
The claim that Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia notwithstanding, it is important that his record be vetted. We know the "adversarial press" would rather be adversarial toward those of us who want that vetting to happen, which means the job necessarily falls to citizen journalists.
The video of the Q and A is at the bottom of this post but here are some especially telling moments...
2:57 - The second questioner identifies himself as Omar Shahin, Public Relations Director for Islamic Relief and the chairman of the North American Imam's Federation. This was the same Omar Shahin who was one of the six imams in the "flying imams" case in Minneapolis back in 2006. He was the spokesman for the group. During that incident, a concerned passenger handed a note to a flight attendant after observing suspicious behavior. Based on Shahin's associations, that passenger was rightly concerned. CAIR quickly came to Shahin's defense.
In fact, some might remember that the incident took place two weeks after the 2006 midterm elections, during which it became apparent that the very Muslim-friendly Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would become the chairman of the House Judiciary. Suspicions were raised that the entire incident was to make profiling a top issue during Conyers' tenure as chairman.
Here is a short interview excerpt from 12/1/06 between CNBC's Larry Kudlow and IPT's Steve Emerson during which Shahin's involvement in what was likely a staged publicity event, was discussed:
As for the concerns about Shahin, they are well-founded. Check out what Discover the Networks has reported about him:
The President of North American Imams Federation (NAIF) is Omar Shahin. Before NAIF’s founding in 2004, Shahin was the imam and President of the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT), a mosque that represented one of Al-Qaeda’s main hubs in America, prior to the ‘93 attack. One of Shahin’s predecessors at the mosque was Wael Hamza Julaidan, a former colleague of Osama bin Laden and bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam. Shahin, himself, has admitted to once supporting bin Laden.
Throughout his time with and after leaving ICT, Shahin was involved in terror financing organizations. He was the Arizona Coordinator for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), and was a representative for KindHearts, two charities shut down by the US government because of their links to Hamas.
Wael Hamza Julaidan was the head of Rabita Trust, the same Rabita Trust that was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef. That would be the same Abdullah Omar Naseef who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA). That would be the same IMMA where Huma Abedin worked for more than a decade. Julaidan is widely recognized as an al-Qaeda founder - and he was Shahin's predecessor at a mosque in Tucson.
That's not all. How about Shahin's work with Islamic Relief? Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), the group for which Shahin identified himself as Directing Public Relations is a division of Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), which has provided direct support to Hamas.
Shahin is tied to an al-Qaeda founder; he worked for the Holy Land Foundation, which was found guilty of financing terrorists; he heads a Muslim Brotherhood group - NAIF; and he works for Islamic Relief, which supported Hamas
In short, why on earth was Shahin given access to John Brennan's speech? The man is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood at nearly every turn and through multiple organizations.
How about a couple of the others in attendance? Sitting right up front - on the left hand side of your screen, sits Ingrid Mattson. She was the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front-group, until Mohamed Magid took over in 2011. Mattson wasn't only in attendance; she introduced Brennan that day and said that it was Brennan himself who "requested to meet with us." Brennan requested to meet with them? Can you imagine Brennan feeling this comfortable in a meeting with conservative groups concerned about his coziness with individuals with irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?
Yeah, me neither.
Another individual present during Brennan's speech is Salam Al-Marayati, who is seated in the front row, directly in front of Brennan. On the day of the 9/11/01 attacks, al-Marayati appeared on a Los Angeles radio station and said that Israel should be placed on the suspect list relative to the attacks and refuses to call Hezbollah a terrorist group. IPT reported that Al-Marayati said the U.S. Government "betrayed us" when it refused to unfreeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation. Four years later, HLF was found guilty on more than 100 counts of financing terrorism.
Remember, the claim by Guandolo was that Brennan was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood and made to convert to Islam. If that's true, would the people in attendance - coupled with Brennan's high comfort level there - not lend a bit more credence to the claim? On top of that, we have the new book that alleges Brennan was involved in shipping weapons from Libya to the Syrian rebels via Turkey while then CIA Director David Petraeus and Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark. Again, support for the Syrian rebels is support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Who allegedly 'turned' Brennan again?
Here are some of the noteworthy moments in the video of the Q and A with Brennan found in the video at the bottom of this post...
5:45 - "I was very concerned after the attack in Fort Hood as well as the December 25th attack, that all of a sudden there were people who went back into this fearful position, that lashed out, not thinking through what was reasonable and appropriate."
Gee, It's been well over three years since that attack and Nidal Malik Hasan has waged jihad successfully from his prison cell while still not being convicted despite countless witnesses who saw him murder 14 and injure 32 as he shouted 'Allahu Akbar'. That sounds like a case for Islamophobia.
29:20 - "I consider myself a citizen of the world."
38:30 - A man in the audience begins his question by saying that he has a twenty one year-old son and that "every time he passes through an airport security line, he's pulled aside and frisked."
Really? Every time your son goes through an airport, he's frisked? Why hasn't CAIR filed a lawsuit about this?
48:00 - "The world is not black and white, it's not divided into good and evil."
Interesting theory, considering his company that day.
58:38 - "I'm exceeding my welcome here but I could do this all day." - Brennan commenting about going past his time allotment. Again, can anyone see the Tea Party getting this much time with Brennan? Shortly thereafter, Brennan calls on a man who identifies himself as Assad Aktar (sp?), president of the Congressional Muslim Staff Association (CMSA). Mr. Aktar bemoans the "Unindicted co-conspirator" label. This is an obvious reference to the Holy Land Foundation trial and the label that has been subsequently applied to groups like CAIR and ISNA successfully.
CMSA has quite a questionable record relative to judgement. Check out some of the individuals - via Fox News - who the group has invited to lead Friday prayers: Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre as well as other terrorist attacks; Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood's founder; Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR and supporter of Hamas; and none other than MPAC's Salam Al-Marayati.
Perhaps most alarming about that is the fact that the head of the CMSA has a problem with identifying Muslim Brotherhood groups in America as such. It makes one wonder how influential Muslim Staffers are and what the group's true allegiances are. This ability to influence politics in Washington, D.C. is precisely one of the reasons why the Muslim Students Association (MSA) - a Muslim Brotherhood group - is in existence.
Here's the full Q and A video with John Brennan on 2/13/10:
Do you remember back in 2009, when China's Mao was all the rage? The Obamautomatons loved the comparisons. How about Che Guevara? T-shirts and hats were all the rage too. So were / are images of Fidel Castro. The left loves these heartless, cold-blooded killers. Let's also not forget the push to have cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal released from prison. Add Christopher Dorner to the list.
As the multi-murderer was holed up in a cabin, twitter was ablaze with Dorner-supporters, obviously a sick strain of the same phenomenon.
Before human remains were found in the cabin, Dorner had more support from the twitter-verse. Check out some of these beauties, via twitchy.
This song goes out to all of you sick Christopher Dorner supporters; you're all struck with Che Guevara Glorification Syndrome (CGGS):
When coupled with the shocking claim by John Guandolo, that Barack Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's, some of the details released from a new book written by a retired Green Beret and a Navy SEAL may take on added significance. Among other things in the book, Brennan's orders while operating from the White House are identified as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi.
Brennan is Obama's nominee to replace David Petraeus as CIA Director.
But first, take a look at some other relevant information taken from the book, starting with power players at the CIA who wanted Petraeus gone as CIA Director.
Media reports indicate that the FBI began investigating Petraeus' affair with Broadwell after Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, a friend of Petraeus and his wife Holly, reported that she had received threatening emails from the mistress warning her to stay away from Petraeus.
The authors say that Kelley's report may have started in the FBI investigation - but CIA officers pressured the Justice Department to keep the inquiry open.
Webb said his sources in the FBI told him federal agents wanted to close down their investigation when they learned that nothing illegal had happened, but they were told to keep digging. The FBI investigators, Webb says, never wanted to out Petraeus' affair.
The FBI reports to the Department of Justice, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder. Surely, something as big as investigating the CIA Director had to be something Holder was aware of. Based on the fact that the subject of the investigation was someone like Petraeus, Holder almost necessarily had to have approved pushing it forward, but to what end?
Was it - at least in part - to open the door for Brennan to head the CIA? Early indications are that authors Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy don't appear to go that far but they certainly piece together the groundwork for such a scenario.
Again, via the Daily Mail:
Murphy and co-author Brandon Webb also revealed that the September 11 Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was retaliation by Islamist militants who had been targeted by covert U.S. military operations.
The book claims that neither Stevens nor even Petraeus knew about the raids by American special operations troops, which had 'kicked a hornet's nest' among the heavily-armed fighters after the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
John Brennan, President Barack Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, had been authorizing 'unilateral operations in North Africa outside of the traditional command structure,' according to the e-book. Brennan is Obama's pick to replace Petraeus as head of the CIA.
If this is true, it would mean that Obama himself could be directly accountable for the attacks in Benghazi because Brennan was ordering these raids from the White House. As such, he was a direct arm of the Obama administration. These raids weren't just carried out on orders of the administration. They apparently weren't made known to the people who would ultimately face what could be identified as their consequences.
Petraeus was furious, they say, because he was kept in the dark about the raids being conducted without his knowledge by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) across Libya and North Africa.
Webb and Murphy claim that the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate and a CIA outpost in Benghazi proved to Petraeus that he was an outsider in the Obama administration and that he would remain marginalized as long as he was at the CIA.
The central premise of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' is that the attacks were precipitated by secret raids JSOC had performed in Libya. An attack on the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia days before September 11 may have been the final straw.
According to what Webb and Murphy are saying here, Petraeus was forced out and Brennan's orders to raid Islamist strongholds led to the Benghazi attacks on an unsuspecting consulate and CIA Annex. At least calling that last part into partial question is the fact that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith both seemed more than just a little concerned about coming under attack. Stevens sent cables to the State Department requesting more security and Smith made reference to losing his life while gaming from the consulate / Special Missions Compound (SMC) on the day of the attacks. That said, it's still possible that a growing threat was felt but not fully understood.
Check out this particularly explosive excerpt from the book. It seems to add credence to the concerns of Senator Rand Paul, raised during his questioning of Hillary Clinton last month:
John Brennan also ran a highly compartmentalized program out of the White House in regard to weapons transfers, and Stevens would not have been trusted with that type of information. Stevens likely helped consolidate as many weapons as possible after the war to safeguard them, at which point Brennan exported them overseas to start another conflict.
Ostensibly, that "exported them overseas" part is a reference to weapons sent from Libya (the annex?) to the Syrian rebels (via Turkey?).
If Petraeus and Stevens were kept in the dark relative to Brennan's raids and those raids served as the motivation for the attacks on the consulate and annex, that places blood directly on the hands of those behind Brennan's orders and secretiveness with respect to them. Under such a scenario, it would appear that Brennan is less qualified to be CIA Director than Petraeus was after the affair became public.
Also, if the claims of Webb and Murphy are true, Obama must certainly know that truth. If so, why would he be nominating Brennan to replace Petraeus unless he was fully behind what Brennan was allegedly doing?
That leads us directly to a covert, pro-Muslim Brotherhood strategy coming directly from the Obama White House, which brings us back to the claim made by Guandolo, that Brennan secretly converted to Islam while in Saudi Arabia and that he was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood specifically.
People might point to Brennan's orders to raid Islamist locations in Libya as evidence that he did NOT convert to Islam because his new religion would forbid him from attacking his own. In reality, the concept of Muruna, espoused by none other than the Brotherhood's most senior spiritual adviser - Yusuf al-Qaradawi - sanctions the killing of Muslims if doing so furthers the cause of Islam.
Again, just operating under the premise that Guandolo has already put forth...
If Brennan's objective was to raid Islamist strongholds for the purpose of confiscating weapons that could then be sent to the Syrian rebels in the latter's fight to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, such a thing would be perceived by the Brotherhood as a greater good.
The bottom line, however, is this: If Brennan was the guy behind operations that both left the consulate and the Annex unprepared to defend against attacks caused by White House policy AND if Brennan was the guy behind secretly ordering weapons be sent to Syrian rebels, all of that is made much worse by Obama's decision to nominate him for CIA Director in the first place.
That would tie Obama directly to gun-running from Libya to Syria and THAT would make Fast and Furious look like child's play by comparison.
The cherry on top would be this administration's attempt at gun control in the U.S. while arming al-Qaeda.
During a radio interview with Tom Trento of the United West, former FBI Agent John Guandolo made the claim that he knows people who were present when Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director - John Brennan - converted to Islam when Brennan was a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990's. If true, it might help to explain Brennan's response to a question at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) last year.
Last summer, letters signed by five congressmen, to include Michele Bachmann, were sent to five various Inspectors General. The intent of the letters was to raise concerns about the infiltration of the U.S. Government by the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who objected the most to the letters are the ones who avoided the facts altogether.
That leads to the appearance of Brennan at CFR last August, when the controversy surrounding the contents of Bachmann's letters was at its peak. If Guandolo is right, that Brennan was turned by the Muslim Brotherhood, it would mean that Obama's counterterrorism adviser is one of the people Bachmann, et. al. was unknowingly concerned about. On that note, pay attention to Brennan's reaction to a question about the concerns of those congressmen.
If Guandolo is right, Brennan's reaction is exactly the type of reaction one would expect. He mocked the congressmen and suggested the question be asked of them, not him. What is truly amazing is that Brennan actually speaks Arabic and displayed no concern whatsoever about infiltration.
Is it me or did Dr. Benjamin Carson spend thirty minutes criticizing Barack Obama - who heard every word - without ever looking at him? Right out of the gate, Carson begins ripping political correctness, something Obama loves.
Great line at the 8:14 mark:
"If you don't accept excuses, pretty soon people stop giving them and they start looking for solutions."
Ha! Was he telling Obama to stop blaming Bush?
Big quote moment begins at the 17:00 mark. As Carson was talking about great nations of the past, he made reference to Rome. Here's the quote, followed by a screenshot of the look on Obama's face after the comment:
I think particularly about ancient Rome. Very powerful, nobody could even challenge them militarily. But what happened to them? They destroyed themselves from within. Moral decay, fiscal irresponsibility. They destroyed themselves.
Here is the screenshot from right after Carson uttered those words but be sure to watch the look on the face of Obama during the entire comment.
The look of a man who knows people are on to him?
God appeared to be somewhere in the room at this National Prayer Breakfast and Obama clearly didn't like it.
To get the most out of this speech, watch Obama's face while listening to Carson's voice.
The appearances of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee didn't just reveal that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were nowhere to be found during the attacks. Panetta also revealed that he supported arming the Syrian rebels, which immediately made Clinton's interaction with Rand Paul at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month more relevant.
In testimony to Congress, Leon Panetta said he still supported the supply of weapons to rebels fighting forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The plan was proposed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, then director of the CIA, but reportedly rebuffed by the White House.
The US has so far offered only diplomatic backing to Syria's rebels.
Later in the day, McCain was interviewed by Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Here is a relevant portion of the transcript:
VAN SUSTEREN: And the reason that I ask you about the question what was the CIA doing is because one of the other issues that came up is arming of the Syrian rebels, a question that came up, and there had been a long controversy whether or not the United States was going to arm the Syrian rebels or not and who was on board and who wasn't on board. And there has been some suggestion that through that consulate that weapons were being sent through Turkey to the Syrians. And I'm curious whether or not that consulate was used to channel weapons to the Syrian rebels for one. And number two, what do you think about the response from General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta about weapons to Syrian rebels?
MCCAIN: Well, there were published reports that some of the arms were coming from Libya that were arriving for the resistance in Syria. But that information that we had was not through the United States government, but through other sources, but I'm not clear on that.
Of course, the way to arm the Syrian rebels was ostensibly through Turkey, which leads to Paul's interaction with Hillary Clinton during sworn testimony. When he asked Clinton about the CIA Annex being used to ship weapons from Libya to Turkey, which would then be sent to Syria.
Clinton committed perjury if she knew the answer to Paul's question because she said she didn't know anything about such shipments. Here is an exchange between Paul and Fox News Channel's Martha McCallum before the hearings yesterday.
