Tag Archives: Chris Stevens

Obama Supporters Discuss Benghazi…Or Not…

At least two things to take from this video:

1)Votes from an informed electorate are critical.

2)College students may be well educated but are not necessarily well informed.

IF you know where Benghazi is. . .

IF you have even heard of the Arab Spring . . .

IF you know who Chris Stevens was. . .

IF you know about the lies told by this administration to cover up their errors. . .

THEN YOU NEED TO VOTE!

The people in this video will be voting. It is time for the educated electorate to rally and vote for a better direction. 

Vote November 6 and take a friend.

Obama and Benghazi-Gate

It’s been 17 days since the attack on the Consulate at Benghazi, and Obama still hasn’t said publicly that it was a terrorist attack. He’s left that to his surrogates, including Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The bizarre situation that we’re left with is a dead-asleep press that is largely ignoring the entire situation, with few exceptions. While CNN has managed to get far more information on the ground in Libya than even our FBI has (since they have yet to make it to the scene, as of reports on the evening of September 27th), they are not really saying much of anything beyond the canned responses that have apparently been approved by the administration. And when CNN was reporting slightly on the contents of a journal owned by Ambassador Chris Stevens, the response from the administration was that it should have been given to the family without any reports on its contents hitting the airwaves. Everyone in the U.S. should have seen enough crime dramas over the years to know that is an extremely bizarre statement, presuming that the government ever had any intention of investigating the attack in the first place. Any normal person would think that knowing what Stevens was writing in the days before the attack might be relevant to the investigation, right?

Secretary of Defense (CC)

And now we’re down to trying to figure out who knew what, and when. For now, it’s become clear that the administration knew from day one that this was a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with the video that slandered Islam. In the coming months, it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that none of the attacks on Western embassies in the Middle East and North Africa had anything to do with that film. But, beyond all of that, the fact that the administration has admitted fairly quickly that they knew from the beginning the true nature of the attack in Benghazi is unsettling. It was not a situation where the press was exerting any great pressure on them about the situation – they were taking the story they were being spoon fed with the noted exceptions of FoxNews, and a few foreign press agencies. While I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, this definitely causes me to think there’s something more to this whole story.

While the administration has been very quick to point out what a great man Ambassador Stevens was – that’s to be expected – the fact that he was assigned to Libya is a little puzzling. It’s become clear over the past couple weeks that Libya was far less stable than the administration was leading people to believe – and they knew it. Stevens specialized in the Middle East and North Africa, and admittedly, there were other far more stable outposts in the region where he could have been assigned. I suggest this right now because of one glaring fact – Stevens was openly gay. Given the level of hatred and intolerance seen exerted against gays in Islamist nations, the last place any responsible member of the administration should want to place an openly gay diplomat is one where there is even a hint of radical Islamic activity. Either the administration is entirely incompetent, or someone really didn’t care about the safety of Stevens at all when choosing his assignment. Of course, these are issues that may or may not have been addressed in that journal the administration didn’t want CNN reporting about – and apparently didn’t want to read themselves.

There is no proof apparent of what I’ve suggested above. It is merely an observation, based on the few facts available right now – call it an exercise in basic logic. And perhaps it is a suggestion to the few people out there that are really interested in finding out the truth about this attack. Beyond searching for information on the radicals in Libya, another priority should be investigating what was really going on in the administration before the attack. Did Stevens have any enemies in the administration? Were there any under-the-table deals going on between the administration and Islamist organizations on the ground in Libya? Is there really a credible connection to al-Qaeda, or is it merely a matter of a single man with previous associations with that organization having a hand in the planning? And, like any other questionable situation in the Federal Government, how high does it really go? That last one is very important, primarily because Obama detractors have a horrible habit of giving him far too much credit when it comes to just about everything. Bluntly, he’s too much of an amateur in foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, to personally manage being puppetmaster on something like this. The Islam apologist policies he follows are really his undoing in the region – radical Muslims respect him less than the right-wing in the U.S. does because of it. The bottom line is that we are nowhere near the end of this one, if there is even one person determined to stay the course, and figure out exactly what happened. And it will be interesting to see what the truth really is.

President Obama: Jihad Your Chance to Win the Election

Moslems commemorate 9/11 in their special way.

The term for Christians and other non–Moslems living in Islamic countries is “dhimmi.” Think of it as Jim Crow with a turban. Think of it as Jim Crow right now.

According to Mitchell Bard, dhimmis in Islamic lands “on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Moslems or to touch a Moslem woman.”

Dhimmis were forbidden to hold public office, serve in the armed forces or own weapons. Non–Moslems cannot build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, construct houses taller than those of Moslems or drink wine in public, which helps to explain Donald Trump’s absence.

A dhimmi’s testimony in court was worthless, which meant attacking dhimmis was penalty–free for Moslems, just like today.

But one doesn’t have to live in the Middle East to be a dhimmi. You could be the President of the United States and impose dhimmitude on an entire nation.

Obama orders our soldiers to wear white gloves when touching the Koran (no word on whether the troops are required to suit up before touching the Bible or Bagvad Gita) and avoid drinking or eating in front of Moslems during their Ramadan fast.

His administration can insist there is no nexus between Islam and terrorism; and collaborate with Muslim Brotherhood front groups here at home.

And the President can treat the murder of our Libyan ambassador and an attack on our embassy in Egypt as simply a random act in response to provocation from US citizens.

In full dhimmi mode the embassy in Cairo and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton scrambled to burn the Constitution in a futile effort to placate readers of the Koran. “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims…” the statement read. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The death of the ambassador presented a problem for the State Department since he was important, and not a grunt in Afghanistan. They couldn’t blame his death on asking to see photos of a Moslem’s wife and kids, like the military does in “green on blue” attacks in Kabul.

So Hillary “strongly condemned the attack” and asked the same Libyans who allowed the murder to provide additional protection for the rubble.

An attack on an embassy or the murder of an ambassador is not a law enforcement problem. It’s an act of war. The proper response is not a hand–wringing statement and a eulogy for Ambassador Chris Stevens.

That would be like FDR — Obama’s hero — issuing a statement after Pearl Harbor that saluted the dead, praised them for their public service and failed to mention the attack by Japan.

The proper response to an act of war is a demand the perpetrators be handed over immediately.

And until then, the US 6th fleet should blockade Libyan ports and institute a no–fly zone over every airport. In the case of Egypt, the administration should end discussions on forgiving its $1 billion debt and Egypt should not get a penny of the $1.5 billion in aid until rioters who violated US sovereignty are turned over.

(On second thought, keep the rioters. Since they crossed an international border while invading our embassy, this administration might feel relieved to finally encounter illegals that don’t speak Spanish. There’s a real possibility Janet Incompetano would offer rioters a green card and a free college education.)

Unfortunately, none of this will happen. This weak, feckless, incompetent excuse for a President puts a higher priority on making sure the Pentagon allows homosexuals in military uniform to march in “gay pride” parades than he does in protecting Americans and embassies overseas on the anniversary of 9/11.

Instead the Cairo embassy apologetically announced there would be no visa services on Wednesday due to clean up from a previously unplanned al Qaeda festival.

Any psychologist will tell you successful behavior is learned behavior and since 1979 Moslems have learned attacking a US embassy is penalty–free and gives the attackers plenty of cachet with the hijab hotties.

One of the Islamists at the embassy storming explained, “This is a very simple reaction to harming our prophet.” So why can’t the United States have a very simple reaction to harming our embassy and our citizens?

A good friend of mine observed that if Obama had ordered Marines in Cairo to fire when the rioters crossed the wall, he would have won the election yesterday. Fortunately for Mitt Romney, that dhimmi knows his place.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – 9/13

When: Thursday, August 30th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Tj Thompson (@_TjThompson) fills in for Michelle. Middle East violence, QE3, and Conservative Daily News contributors Liz Harrison (@GoldwaterGal) and Eye Desert (@EyeDesertBlog) discuss whether libertarians have a role in the GOP