Tag Archives: Benghazi

Secretary of State Clinton And Boko Haram

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Chief of Staff Huma Mahmood Abedin

Now that the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram has kidnapped nearly 300 teenage girls, Christian girls, from school where they were taking their final exams, questions are popping up about how this group is still not on the list of terrorist organizations by the State Department. The answer to that lies in the State Department under the leadership of Hillary Clinton.

What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

One of the closest sources of Islamic sympathizers (aside from the President himself) in the Obama administration was Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Muslim Brotherhood sister Huma Mahmood Abedin, aka Anthony Weiner’s wife. President Obama and Huma Abedin are soul mates when it comes to appeasing Islamists, even terrorist ones, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Adding another terrorist group to the list of terrorist groups around the world would have contradicted the regime at a time when they are publicly saying that alQaeda is on the run. A purely political decision that cost American, and now hundreds of kids, lives.

AlQaeda is on the run. Towards us. Not away from us. 

You needn’t look any further to explain candidate Obama’s apology tour in Egypt and their Arab Spring (turned Arab Winter), the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood there, the devolution of Libya and Syria, leading to the death of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, and replacing bad governments with alQaeda and their affiliates than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Obama Warns Russia Against Intervention

Psst. Hey media! They’ve already intervened. Russia has taken over Ukraine airports and seaports. Putin has done this before, in Georgia.

‘Leading from behind’ is so predictable. Nothing different here than how President Obama reacted to Egypt, Lybia, Syria, or how candidate Obama reacted to Georgia.

So predictable in fact, that Sarah Palin called it six years ago . . .

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the

Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov tweeted a photoshopped image of President Barack Obama in a Russian military uniform.
Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov tweeted a photoshopped image of President Barack Obama in a Russian military uniform.

kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Our president’s official reaction:

  • Any violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilising, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe.
  • It would represent a profound interference in matters that must be determined by the Ukrainian people.
  • It would be a clear violation of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine – and of international laws.
  • Just days after the world came to Russia for the Olympic games, it would invite the condemnation of nations around the world.
  • And, indeed, the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine.
  • The president is also considering boycotting a G8 summit hosted by Russia.

As if any of that has Putin quaking in his boots. I can imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin rolling on the floor laughing his ass off.

And news on ABC’s Nightline tonight? Nothing about Russia invading a sovereign country. “News” is the Oscars.

Link: BBC News – Ukraine crisis: Obama warns Russia against intervention  |  “Stupid” “Insipid” Sarah Palin Predicted Russian Invasion of Ukraine (Video) 

Obama’s Confession Of Failure

The ten minute interview that President Obama granted to FOX News Channel host Bill O’Reilly was, among other things, a study in dodging pertinent questions. It was also a decent critique of the success, or failure, of his six years in office. In this case, failure. The transcript below was the first two and a half minutes of it which didn’t make the cut for the ten minute segment that aired. It was about the economy and the dissolution of the American family.

O’Reilly’s first question:

BILL O’REILLY – One of my, uh, points on the Factor is that poverty is driven by the dissolution of the American family, that is the prime mover, okay. On your watch, median income has dropped seventeen percent among working families in this country. That’s not a good record, it’s not all your fault, part of it was this terrible recession, we all know that. Everybody knows that.


O’REILLY – All right. But 72 percent of babies in African-American community are born out of wedlock.

Some irrelevant back and forth, then this.

In his own words . . .

PRESIDENT OBAMA – Because — because what’s interesting, when you look at what’s going on right now, you’re starting to see in a lot of white working class homes, similar problems — when men can’t find good work, when the economy is shutting ladders of opportunity off from people, whether they’re black, white, Hispanic, it doesn’t matter. Then that puts pressure as well on the home. So you’ve got an interaction between the economy that isn’t generating enough good jobs for folks who traditionally could get blue-collar jobs even if they didn’t have a higher education, and some legitimate social concerns, uh. That compound the problem and so we want to hit both. We want to make sure that we’re putting folks back to work and making sure that they’re well-paid —

In the first 2 minutes 35 seconds of the interview, President Obama correctly listed his performance in his first six years. And, he made it sound like he wasn’t responsible for any of it. As if he is campaigning for President who is running against his predecessor. Only in this case, his predecessor is himself.

  • you’re starting to see in a lot of white working class homes, similar problems
  • men can’t find good work
  • the economy is shutting ladders of opportunity off
  • that puts pressure as well on the home.
  • the economy that isn’t generating enough good jobs
  • some legitimate social concerns

Feel free to follow the link to the full unedited 11 minutes and 17 seconds of the interview. What you’ll see is the art of not answering a question, and, blaming FOX News for these scandals; Benghazi, IRS, and Obamacare.

Link: TRANSCRIPT: Full interview between President Obama and Bill O’Reilly

Muslim Brotherhood Gets “Port Courtesy” From TSA, Not You

And in the WTF Department comes this. Something that took a FOIA request to get.

Never mind for a moment that there is a war against the West and non-believers going on. It used to be called a war on terror. It’s a war where the aggressors are all radical Muslims. Then consider that the reason your grandmother and 10 yr. old daughter get patted down at the airport is because ‘racial profiling’ is not politically correct. No matter how effective it may be. So you have to wonder why racial profiling is now allowed for members of the Muslim Brotherhood. An organization affiliated with terrorists (Hamas) and listed a terrorist organization, with family ties to Anthony Weiner’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Weiner, aka Huma Mahmood Abedin.

This racial profiling dictates that if air travelers are Muslim Brotherhood types, then they will not get the same scrutiny that you and your family receive. They’ll get the VIP treatment that the TSA calls “port courtesy,” normally reserved for high-ranking visiting government officials and dignitaries.

It’s embarrassing how reckless, naive, and downright stupid President Obama is waging this war on terror. Seems like he’s on the wrong side. Or, he thinks the was is over. Were it not for his actions in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi wouldn’t have deposed Hosni Mubarak. Himself now behind bars. The Muslim Brotherhood has been outlawed in Egypt and labeled a terrorist organization, and all their assets there are frozen. Not here in the United States. His stupid head-in-the-sand handling of Benghazi post Muammar Gaddafi is another example. It’s the same kind of “leadership” that gave Syria to Al Qaeda.

As if you needed convincing that President Obama is our enemy from within, this should do it. When is the first impeachment hearing scheduled? Probably not until Speaker John Boehner is replaced. Keep a sharp eye out for this revelation coming from the mainstream media.

Links: Well, This Seems Fair. | Obama ‘Admin’ DHS Gave Muslim Brotherhood VIP Treatment, No TSA Pat Downs | IPT Exclusive: Records Prove MB Delegates Skipped Airport Inspections

Unbelievably Small, Hillary Clinton

It’s been one year since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began lying about the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, where our Ambassador and three other Americans fought to their death. And since that time, Mrs. Clinton has still not put her hand on the bible to talk about it.


No one has been ‘brought to justice’ for it. It’s like it never happened. Try to convince the families of the victims that it never happened. Try to give the American people amnesia so they will forget that it happened. Because Hillary said, at this point, what difference does it make?

Run for president Hillary, and you’ll find out.


unbelievably_small_john_kerryIn another unbelievably small action from another unbelievably small politician, is Hillary’s successor. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), must have Syria’s Assad shaking in his boots. As further evidence that the U.S. military does not deserved to be commanded by Democrats of today, Secretary of State Kerry said that a military attack on Syria would be unbelievably small. What?

Here’s the military strategy as executed by Democrats. Never make the case that America’s national security (as opposed to America’s interest) is at stake. Then, publicize that an attack is coming weeks if not months ahead of time. Then, publish the intended targets in the newspaper. Give several weeks, if not months, for the enemy to move their munitions. Then, tell them, hey, it’s no big deal. We’re barely going to hurt you. Unbelievably small!  Then, after it is clear the president has no public support, use Congress as someone to blame, or to save his butt. Accept no responsibility yourself.

Yeah, that’s who I’ll entrust the life of my son or daughter to. As a soldier, I’d feel even less confident.

A Year After Benghazi, US orders diplomats out of Lebanon

anti-war_protesters-at_us_embassy-lebanonThe State Department ordered all nonessential U.S. personnel Friday to leave Lebanon, and suggest U.S. citizens do the same.

barack_hidingSo when can we know who was responsible for what happened, and what didn’t happen, in Benghazi nearly a year ago? If there’s nothing to hide, why are witnesses, from Secretary Clinton on down, still prevented from talking?

Link: BEIRUT: US orders diplomats out of Lebanon amid fears – World Wires – MiamiHerald.com.

Obama’s “Intelligence” On Syria Is The Muslim Brotherhood

When Sec. of State John (Lurch) Kerry made the case for an attack on Syria, the sources guiding his judgement were that of the Arab League, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), and Turkey. All Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers or affiliates.

In Sec. of State John Kerry’s statement . . .

The world is speaking out. And many friends stand ready to respond. The Arab League pledged, quote, “to hold the Syrian regime fully responsible for this crime.” The Organization for Islamic Cooperation condemned the regime and said we needed, quote, “to hold the Syrian government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime. Turkey said there is no doubt that the regime is responsible.

Right, those friends.

So it should come as no surprise why the President has lost his coalition, and why the President is still talking about a military action in Syria.

When asked if the Arab League is advocating military action in Syria, Arab League Secretary General Nabil el-Arabi told the BBC that they aren’t advocating it openly, but . . .

“Maybe it is in our minds that someone would do that but we would like the Security Council to take charge,” Mr el-Arabi said.

What they considered might happen “would be something of a limited scope”, he told the BBC’s Bethany Bell, in Cairo.

Using the rest of the same talking points as President Obama and Sec. of State Kerry, el-Arabi also said the strike would “hopefully” prevent future use of chemical weapons, and punish those who used them.

So who do you suppose that “someone” would be? The United States of course. The President is the only one on the planet talking about military action against Syria. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, sacrificed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Lybia to alQaeda, and still doing the bidding, or wanting to, of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

That chemical weapons were used is no longer a question. But watch el-Arabi squirm when asked what evidence the Arab League has that the Assad regime was the party that used them. Secretary of State Kerry says unequivocally that it was the Syrian government that used the WMD outside Damascus. OK, but look at the way President Obama said it, wordsmith that he is, when interviewed by PBS . . .

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said during an interview with PBS’ NewsHour. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

So what’s the “And if that’s so” all about? Nevermind that even if Syria did do it, it wasn’t upon the U.S.. It was on their own people. And sorry as that is, it does not raise to the level of harming our national interest in any way, shape, or form. Again, we’re not the world’s policeman and civil-war-country custodian.

For The White House to still, after all that’s happened in Egypt, be listening and catering to the Muslim Brotherhood says volumes on how naive and dangerous President Obama is to our national security interests.

Obama Losing Coalition Support On Syria

British Parliament In Special Session

Great Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron called a special session of Britain’s Parliament to discuss growing tensions in Sirya and President Obama’s call for military action over the use of chemical weapons, ostensibly used by the Syrian regime on its own people.

U.S. Congress On Vacation
U.S. Congress On Vacation

President Obama, on the other hand, demonstrating his lack of leadership in not calling Congress back from vacation for a special session, is now talking about going it alone. Without a coalition of willing partners and without involving Congress. And so far, without addressing the American people as to what our security interests in Syria are that justifies us getting involved militarily on our own. And also without explaining to the American people the possible consequences of a slap-in-the-face cruise missile attack.

A proposed attack with the potential targets being revealed to the world, including the Assad regime. A military strategist, he is not. Nor, apparently, are the people advising him.

It is this lack of leadership and President Obama’s vague, if not non-existent, strategy in the end-game with Syria that has caused all the coalition partners he had last week to drop out. Add NATO to the list of the unwilling. Instead of following the blind, they’ve taken the position to wait and see what the U.N. inspectors conclude about who it was that used the WMD’s outside of Damascus. So far, most people in the U.S. aren’t convinced that we are being threatened by Syria to the extent that we need to act unilaterally against them, not only at the expense of our credibility in the world, but at the expense of our ally Israel, who both Iran and Syria said will attack if the U.S. attacks Syria. And certainly not before knowing who will be taking over in Syria. Common thought now is if Assad goes down, alQaeda and company takes his place.

We’ve already seen it happen in Libya with alQaeda and their affiliates, and in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. Is Obama’s ego worth turning over the rest of the middle east to radical Islam and possibly sacrificing the state of Israel?

The time to act militarily has long past. We’re not the world’s policeman and civil-war-country custodian. They’ll have to fight it out on their own, and kill each other until someone wins. Then, and only then, will we know who it is we’re dealing with.

Link: U.S. ready to go it alone on Syria after stinging British defeat  |  Obama strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria  |  NATO CHIEF: NO PLANS FOR ALLIANCE ACTION IN SYRIA

Calling General Colin Powell

Anxious to see General Powell present our President’s case for attacking Syria to the United Nations. I’ll even settle for his opinion on a friendly network, like CBS, NBC-BS, ABC-BS, CNN-BS, and MSNBC-BS.

Let him make the case for the President helping alQaeda take over Syria. You know, like he did in Lybia and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

No “Stand Your Ground” For U.S. Embassies

The news this weekend is all about the United States closing 22 embassies in the Middle East. Two things are clear. Make that three.


alQaeda is on the run. But not in the direction we’ve been led to believe.

The lesson learned from 9/11/2012 seems to be, instead of defending our interests, you retreat. They win. We lose.

The third thing is, which seems to be lost in all the hoopla, is the way the administration is handling this incident that is yet to obama_surrenderhappen. An incident that, arguably, is best dealt with in private, not in public. They have signaled to the enemy that they’ve already won. Without a single shot being fired. At the same time, they’ve told the enemy that their electronic communications were intercepted, losing our intel on the two terrorist leaders. It clearly demonstrates that this administration has absolutely no will to take the fight to this enemy. Even when they deliver it to us. And is willing to sacrifice national security for political cover.

That the administration would weaken their hand with all this pre-emptive transparency to the enemy, seems more than a little politically motivated when we still get no transparency on what happened nearly a year ago in Benghazi.