Video: John McCain assumes role of Jay Carney on Senate Floor, rips Rand Paul's Filibuster

As Rand Paul was making a stand by filibustering the nomination of John Brennan, John McCain was having dinner with Obama. The day after Paul's filibuster, McCain attacked Paul.

Via GWP:

Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Eric Holder to Rand Paul: We reserve the right to kill Americans on U.S. Soil

A letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) comes on the same day that the Senate Intelligence Committee approved John Brennan's nomination for CIA Director. Paul has been threatening to delay a full Senate vote until Brennan would unequivocally state that Drones could not be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Brennan hasn't answered Paul's question but Holder has.

Via Washington Examiner:

Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Once again, threats by Republican Senators to filibuster nominations appear to be empty because there is no united front when it comes to doing so.

Via the L.A. Times:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants the full Senate to consider the nomination by week’s end.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) vowed to delay the vote until the White House assures him it does not have authority to conduct a targeted killing of an American within the United States. But Paul acknowledged he probably cannot find enough senators to support a filibuster, which requires 41 votes.

It appears that Paul has gotten his answer via Holder but despite it being the wrong one, Brennan just got one step closer to becoming the new CIA Director.

Will Confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director reveal an even weaker Senate?

There is a mainstream line of thought that says John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director will go smoother than that of Chuck Hagel, who was recently confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Hagel was able to clear the necessary hurdles despite an embarrassing performance at his hearing and a string of past statements that indicated an anti-Israel bias at best and and anti-Semitic streak at worst.

However, unlike Brennan, Hagel didn't hold a high-ranking position inside the Obama administration during the Benghazi attacks. As of yet, we still don't have enough answers when it comes to the administration's response and / or Brennan's involvement. Though we do know that Brennan was involved in altering U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points. For some reason, it's being all but dismissed as relevant.

As Foreign Policy points out, one of the reasons a vote on Brennan's confirmation did not take place on the scheduled date of February 28th was because of unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, fellow amigos John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to CBS's Face the Nation to renew their months-long quest for more information on the terrorist attack in Benghazi -- and to threaten delays for Brennan's confirmation. One of the key sticking points has been the altered talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on a range of Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks.

Again, we received confirmation last week that emails provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee showed that Brenann was involved in altering those talking points.

If you are in the camp of those who believe promotions should be given based on good performance and openness relative to questionable performances, then the Senate should exercise its authority in preventing Brennan's confirmation until it gets the answers its entitled to. Unfortunately, such a reality is belied by a Democratically-controlled Senate that doesn't seem interested and a Republican minority that doesn't have enough collective will - as we saw with the nomination of Hagel.

Nonetheless, McCain, Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a statement outlining what is known and what is not known about the Benghazi attacks. The statement highlights why there should be far more interest in getting more information about Brennan, relative to those attacks, before moving forward with any confirmation.

Read that statement here.

If the Hagel nomination is any indication, such a statement will not be backed up by a united Republican front that will prevent Brennan's nomination from going through until such questions are answered. It truly will be astounding if the issues raised in the aforementioned statement are not addressed before Brennan is confirmed.

Another point of resistance to Brennan's confirmation comes from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is virtually apoplectic in response to Brennan's refusal to answer a "yes" or "no" question about whether Drones could or should be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Via FP:

The administration's targeted killing program via drone strikes remains a sticking point for Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky lawmaker says a simple "yes" or "no" answer on whether the White House can authorize a drone strike against an American in the United States would satisfy him.

A couple of areas that are being ignored by these Senators are the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo and the authors of a book entitled that singles out Brennan as being the primary player in an operation that served to kick the hornets nest that led to the Benghazi attacks. Guandolo claims to have sources who witnessed Brennan to convert to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

If authors Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are correct about Brennan's lead command role in a covert operation that involved weapons raids that took place without the knowledge of CIA Director Petraeus or Ambassador Stevens, it is the responsibility of both Republican and Democratic Senators to vet those claims. Ditto for the claims of Guandolo.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to be ceding its power to the Executive Branch on a near daily basis.

Confirmed: John Brennan involved in changing Benghazi talking points

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.

Via The Hill:

“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.

From Greta Wire (via Hot Air):

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.

Video: Authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

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.

Via Breitbart:



For more analysis of what these charges could mean, go here, here, here, and here.

'Tis the Season for Treason

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.

Check this out from Biography.com:

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.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

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.

Via First World War:

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.

Did Lindsey Graham accuse Obama of Manslaughter?

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.

Via the Washington Times:

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.

Another look at John Brennan's Q&A at that 2010 NYU Speech

"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:

Did John Brennan's actions play a role in Benghazi attacks?

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.

Via The Daily Mail:

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.

Report: Obama's Nominee for CIA Director converted to Islam

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.

Via Huffington Post: