Tuesday, May 7, 2013

The Most Incorrigibly Political and America-Bashing President

David Limbaugh / Townhall Columnist
 

President Barack Obama has to be the most partisan and most ideological president we've seen in a long, long time. He cannot or will not refrain from injecting his partisan politics into almost every occasion.

Did he go to Mexico last week to improve our relationship with our southern neighbor or to use Mexico, as he does anything else he can find, as a political prop to bash Republicans and as a platform to criticize the United States?

What other American president has so often sidled up to foreign countries on the backs of his own countrymen? Obama's defenders deny, hallucinogenically, that he apologizes for the United States, but our lying eyes keep telling us otherwise.

In Mexico on Friday, Obama, under the guise of who-knows-what, took the opportunity to stump for his latest policy obsession -- gun control -- to an audience that had nothing to do with it, unless you imagine that some of the people there will one day be granted amnesty in the United States by Washington's ruling class and become voters who can pressure know-nothing GOP congressmen to confiscate the people's arms.

Obama didn't just offer a few throwaway lines at the issue, taking playful jabs at his Republican opponents. He actually seemed to be blaming Americans for the corrupt and violent Mexican drug culture.

He said, "Much of the root cause of violence that's been happening here in Mexico, for which so many Mexicans have suffered, is the demand for illegal drugs in the United States."

Can you believe that? Who thinks that way, much less a United States president? Whose team is he on? Whom is he fighting for? Wouldn't you think that if the captain of our team were going to complain about problems between our two countries, he would direct his criticisms at those committing the crimes in their own country and those who also come to our country in droves illegally, even if the numbers have decreased recently because of Obama's economy?

But no, it's our fault. It's always our fault, even when he's the president. What an impotent guy he must be not to be able to have a more positive effect on us evil Americans.

But he didn't stop there. Why should he have? He had a perfect platform to kill a couple of eagles with the same stone. He next took aim at America's evil gun manufacturers.

He said: "Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States. I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will. But at the same time, as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It's the right thing to do."

It is disgraceful enough that this American president would gratuitously paint America in a negative light before foreign people and their leaders (absent some egregious, deliberate action by the United States). But it is especially reprehensible that he attacked Americans and American gun manufacturers for the purpose of advancing his political and policy agenda in the United States.

If he wanted to apologize to Mexico, perhaps he should have started with Fast and Furious and the illegal guns his administration walked into Mexico without its permission or knowledge, which resulted in the death of some 200 Mexicans. But his apology ought to be on behalf of his administration, including himself and his attorney general, not America generally.

Do you get the impression, listening to Obama's words, that he is highly frustrated with constitutional restraints that keep him from taking unilateral action to restrict firearms? We witnessed similar frustration from him on the constitutional obstacles to his taking action on immigration via the DREAM Act, just two weeks before he took unilateral and illegal executive action on it anyway.

Forget the birth certificate issue; this president has made it increasingly clear he doesn't feel a sufficient bond with Americans or the American system to prevent him from rooting for the other team and lamenting our constitutional system the second he sets foot on foreign soil.

But foreign soil is not the only inappropriate venue Obama uses to wage partisan wars. On Sunday, he told Ohio State University's graduating class that Americans who fear government tyranny are messing everything up and obstructing his enlightened progressive agenda.

Can he ever set aside his agenda for a brief moment? Can he ever pass up an opportunity to politicize?

I don't believe I'm exaggerating when I say we've never seen anything like this before -- not to this extent, anyway.


One of the many great ironies of American politics is that liberals claim that conservative men don't like strong women. Supposedly, we demand that women be seen and not heard while they're barefoot in the kitchen cooking pot pies and preparing to bring us a beer. Yet, there is a host of fiery, strong, wildly popular women who are beloved by conservative men including, but certainly not limited to Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Nikki Haley, Jan Brewer, Dana Loesch and Condi Rice. 

The truth that most people on the Left know, but don't want to admit is that the most grotesque, woman-hating pigs in all of politics are inevitably liberal men who operate with the full sanction and support of left-wing feminists. As long as they limit their attacks to conservative women, the attitude is, "The b*tch deserved it." That's EXACTLY the way liberals have behaved with Sarah Palin and it's why most of the loons, sleazebags and degenerates who've done these things to her have paid no real price for their horrible behavior. As you read this column and get a sense of what prominent conservative women like Sarah Palin have to put up with, keep in mind that in addition to this, there have been tens of thousands of other negative articles and attacks aimed at Palin by politicians, actors, journalists and bloggers along with millions of nasty comments, tweets and emails she's had to put up with. This is how the Left attempts to humiliate and destroy strong women who stand up to them.

1) She was sued out of the governor’s office: Most people just note that Sarah Palin "quit" as governor of Alaska without pointing out the "why" behind it. Palin spent more than half a million dollars defending herself from frivolous ethics charges filed against her after she was on the 2008 ticket. Because of a since-fixed quirk in Alaska law, the Palin family had to pay all of these legal bills out of their own pocket. So in other words, it was COSTING Sarah Palin hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to be governor and without the financial resources she has today, it was putting a lot of financial strain on her family. Nobody should be put in a position where she has to choose between serving as governor or bankrupting her family fending off meritless, politically motivated lawsuits.

2) Sarah Palin was falsely blamed for the attack on Gabrielle Giffords: After crazed gunman Jared Loughner killed six people and shot Gabrielle Gifffords, the finger of blame immediately was pointed at....yes, Sarah Palin. She'd done a list of targeted districts and Giffords was one of the races in the crosshairs; so therefore she was obviously to blame for the shootings. Never mind that Palin was using extremely common, accepted and uncontroversial political rhetoric, that Jared Loughner apparently never saw Palin's list and that he turned out to be a registered independent, Palin was actually publicly blamed by many people in the liberal media for 6 murders and the shooting of a congresswoman that were completely unrelated to her in any way, shape or form.

3) Hustler did a porn movie about her called, "Who's Nailin' Paylin?": On the one hand, it's funny to make light of the fact that Hustler did a porn movie about Palin called, "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" On the other hand, Sarah Palin is one of the single most capable women in politics. She has also been married for almost 25 years and has 5 children. Can you imagine what she must have thought when Hustler did a porn movie featuring a woman that looks like her having sex with anybody and everybody she runs across? A movie that more than a few boys at her children's high school have probably seen? How gross and disgusting that must have been for her.

4) Her Email was hacked: When liberals decide that they hate you because you disagree with them, they also conclude you have no rights worth respecting. In other words, you're down the ladder from a monkey or a tree to them. So, they believe they have a right to hack into your email. In 2008, the son of Democratic State Representative Mike Kernell hacked into Palin's email and he posted some of the contents online. Happily David Kernell did at least end up with a felony on his record and a little less than a year in a minimum security prison, but he still got off way too light. He deserves to be still rotting in prison.

5) David Letterman made a statutory rape joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter: When the Lefties aren't going after Palin, they like to attack her children. Late night host David Letterman took one of the cheapest shots when he said, "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game -- during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."

Palin was at that game with her 14 year old daughter, Willow. As you can imagine, she was not amused and she fired back at Letterman.
Acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.
If Letterman had said something similar about one of Obama's children, it would have probably cost him his job. But, since it was Palin, the 62 year old Letterman gave a half hearted apology for making a nasty, sexual joke about a 14 year old girl and wasn't even suspended for what he said.

6) Andrew Sullivan pushed a crazy Trig Truther conspiracy theory: Prominent liberal writer Andrew Sullivan spent more than a year asserting that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig and that he is really Bristol's child. The evidence for this primarily seems to come from voices in Sullivan's head. Sullivan's conspiracy theory is so nuts, particularly in light of pictures of Palin walking around pregnant with Trig, that he should probably be locked away in an asylum until he can work through his mental illness. Unfortunately, given the insane hatred from the Left that's aimed at conservative women, few people seem to be able to tell him apart from the other lunatics.

7) A stalker/journalist moved in next door: Extremely creepy liberal Joe McGinniss blurred the line between journalism and stalking when he actually moved in next door to the Palins so he could leer at the family as he wrote his book about them. Sarah Palin noted,
"Here he is – about 15 feet away on the neighbor’s rented deck overlooking my children’s play area and my kitchen window."
The Palins responded by building a nice, high fence to keep Creepy McStalkerstein from staring at them so much. On the upside, if they'd found any pet animals boiling on the stove, they'd have known just whom to blame.

Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights

By: / Personal Liberty Digest

Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights
PHOTOS.COM
In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.

Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear.

Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.

This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.

When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him.

To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.

A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.

Let’s first be clear about the kind of rag we are dealing with. The Daily Beast was launched by Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker who was also a British citizen until 2005.

I would say she’s a kind of female Piers Morgan. For anyone who might take that as a compliment, trust me; it isn’t. Brown and Morgan are European collectivists who immigrated to America just to tell us how our Constitutionally conservative heritage of independence is outdated; meanwhile, the EU is in the shambles of failed socialism. We used to drive such people into the ocean, and now they breathe our oxygen while telling us what is politically “fashionable.”

In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, a magazine notorious for its statist crush on the Federal government (and now out of print). To say that The Daily Beast is a socialist platform and a mouthpiece for the Administration of President Barack Obama is an understatement, but I would point out that the website also tends to agree with politicians and judges on the right that also promote a “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Whether right or left, if you believe that the Bill of Rights is up for constant interpretation and revision or outright destruction, then you are the bee’s knees in the eyes of The Beast.

The article focuses on gun rights and how silly conservatives foolishly cling to the idea that some lines in the sand should never be crossed in terms of personal freedom. In a rather mediocre and rambling analysis, The Beast uses two primary arguments to qualify this stance, essentially asserting that:
  1. Compromises have already been made to the Bill of Rights; therefore, nothing is sacred.
  2. Even some Republicans agree with compromises to the Bill of Rights when it comes to other Amendments, so why are we being so childish about “reinterpreting” the 2nd Amendment?
First, the revisionist methodology of the Bill of Rights consistently ignores the history of its writing.

The colonists and Founding Fathers of our Nation, having successfully triumphed in a bloody revolution against what many then considered the most advanced elitist military empire on Earth, had absolutely no trust whatsoever in the concept of centralized government. Many of the colonials were anti-Federalists who believed that an overly powerful central government was a threat to future liberty. They felt that an immovable and unchangeable legal shield had to be created in order to ensure that a tyrannical system never prevailed again.

Thomas Jefferson said: “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

This statement includes modern governments as well. Technological advancement does not change the rules surrounding timeless inherent moral principles, as much as statists would like to argue otherwise.

The colonials demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for the establishment of the Federal government. This means that the Federal government owes its entire existence to a very strict agreement made on the Bill of Rights. By extension, if the Bill of Rights is politically diluted or denied, then the legitimacy of the Federal government must also be denied, for it has violated the very charter that gave it life.

The writer of the article, Michael Tomasky, lists numerous transgressions against our Constitutional protections; but he does not do so in the spirit of activism. Rather, he lists them as examples of how “compromise” on our freedoms is necessary (or somehow inevitable) in the name of the collective good. He claims Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice certain liberties, like freedom of speech, privacy or even Miranda rights, in the name of political expediency.

I wholeheartedly agree that our civil liberties have been whittled away by the establishment. I also agree that many so-called Republicans have betrayed the founding values of our culture and even voted to diminish or destroy the 2nd Amendment. But let’s think hard about the faulty logic behind Tomansky’s position. Do two wrongs or hundreds of wrongs really make a right? Tomansky is saying that because we have failed as a society to fully protect our freedoms and because our government has been successful in criminally neglecting them, we should simply give in and relinquish all freedom.

He would respond to this accusation by claiming that he is not calling for the relinquishment of all liberties, only the liberties he thinks are dangerous to society. The problem is, that is not how the Constitution was designed. Amendments can be made, yes. But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. No Federal law, no State law and no Amendment can be enforced that violates those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.

As far as Republican attacks on the Constitution are concerned, Tomasky has obviously never heard of the false/left right paradigm. He finds solace in the totalitarian actions of neocons because neocons are not conservative; they are statists. Ultimately, there is no right or left. Only freedom and decentralization, or slavery and collectivism exist. There are those who revel in control and those who rebel against control. The rest of the debate is nonsense and distraction.

Tomsky opines: “Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment–and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans.”

Actually, any true conservative would be standing right beside those liberals, as many of us in the liberty movement have done in the past in activism against the transgressions of fake conservatives like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, with his dismal anti-Constitution voting record. Frankly, who cares what “average Americans” think about our battle for what is right? Does Tomasky base all of his personal convictions on what happens to be popular at the moment? I think so.

What statists also don’t seem to comprehend is that there is a factor in the fight over Constitutional law that goes far beyond the Constitution itself.

The Constitution, as a document, is not what we as Americans and human beings obtain our rights from. The Constitution is only a written representation of the inborn freedoms derived from natural law and inherent conscience. We are born with a sense of liberty and that includes a right to self-defense from any enemy, foreign or domestic. No amount of political gaming, twisted rationalizations or intellectual idiocy is ever going to change these pre-existing rights.

Tomasky insists that: “[T]he idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.”

He uses the tired argument that some restrictions on personal liberty, including restrictions on gun rights, are “reasonable” given the circumstances of the times. And, it only follows that he and other statists should be the ones to decide what is reasonable.

I disagree, along with millions of other Americans; and believe me, this is a serious problem for statists. If Tomasky and The Daily Beast want to impose their collective worldview on the rest of us and dismantle our individual freedoms guaranteed in natural law and the Bill of Rights, then I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them. In the end, legal precedence is irrelevant. Political precedence is irrelevant. Political party is irrelevant. Historical precedence is irrelevant. The theater of words is irrelevant. Statists need to understand that there is no alternative. There is no “silver bullet” argument that will make us forget what is fundamentally true. There is no juxtaposition of logic that will muddle our resolve or confuse our principles. Some rights are indeed absolute; and we will not yield them, ever. The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.

Maxine Waters loves convicted terrorist

Democrat defends Cuba's asylum for FBI's most wanted

fbi-most-wanted
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is a staunch defender of convicted cop killer and domestic terrorist Joanne Chesimard, who just became the first woman ever to be placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

Chesimard, living under asylum in Cuba, also goes by her Black Panther name of Assata Shakur. She was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted by a jury of the 1979 murder of a New Jersey state trooper. Less than two years later, Chesimard escaped from prison and lived underground before surfacing in Cuba in 1984.

On Sept. 14, 1998, the House of Representatives, of which Waters was a member, passed a unanimous resolution requesting Fidel Castro extradite Chesimard to the United States. The name on the resolution, affirmed by Waters, was Joanne Chesimard and not Assata Shakur.

Waters said she only realized Chesimard’s identity after the vote and wrote a letter to Fidel Castro explaining that she, as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and other CBC members had “mistakenly voted” in favor of the resolution.

Waters claimed the Republicans had “slipped” the bill into an accelerated calendar in order to look “tough on Cuba” for the November elections. Waters claimed the Republicans had deliberately used Chesimard’s given name to deceive. Had she known Chesimard’s identity, she wrote, she would have voted otherwise.

On May 2, 1973, Chesimard and a pair of accomplices were stopped by two troopers for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike. At the time, Chesimard – a member of the violent revolutionary activist organization known as the Black Liberation Army – was wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery.

According to the FBI, Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One officer was wounded, and his partner – Trooper Werner Foerster – was shot and killed at point-blank range. One of Chesimard’s accomplices was killed in the shootout, and the other was arrested and remains in jail.

“Joanne Chesimard is a domestic terrorist who murdered a law enforcement officer execution-style,” said Aaron Ford, special agent in charge of the Newark Division. “Today, on the anniversary of Trooper Werner Foerster’s death, we want the public to know that we will not rest until this fugitive is brought to justice.”

Mike Rinaldi, a lieutenant in the New Jersey State Police and member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Newark, said the case “is just as important today as it was when it happened 40 years ago.”

“Bringing Joanne Chesimard back here to face justice is still a top priority,” he said.

Waters defends terrorist as victim

In 1998, Waters released a statement defending Castro’s right to grant asylum to Chesimard despite her conviction for murder in the U.S.

Stated Waters: “I support the right of all nations to grant political asylum to individuals fleeing political persecution. The United States grants political asylum to individuals from all over the world who successfully prove they are fleeing political persecution. Other sovereign nations have the same right, including the sovereign nation of Cuba.”

In her statement, Waters further defended Chesimard, claiming the convicted domestic terrorist was a victim of political persecution.

“The second reason I oppose this measure,” stated Waters, “is because I respect the right of Assata Shakur to seek political asylum. Assata Shakur has maintained that she was persecuted as a result of her political beliefs and political affiliations. As a result, she left the United States and sought political asylum in Cuba, where she still resides.

“In a sad and shameful chapter of our history, during the 1960s and 1970s, many civil rights, Black Power and other politically active groups were secretly targeted by the FBI for prosecution based on their political beliefs.”

Notably, domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn named one of their children after Zayd Shakur, Chesimard’s associate who was killed in the gun battle with the police. Ayers’ and Dohrn’s son, a playwright, now goes by the name Zayd Dohrn.

Now more than ever, we have to educate the American people

A message from Pamela Geller:

Now more than ever, we have to educate the American people. You see the spin the enemedia is in in the wake of the Boston jihad. And they blew up our families in our streets. Help us get our ads up. Go here.

Photo(12) 
As you know, ads calling Israel an apartheid state are running on NY Metro platforms (above). Our Islamic apartheid ads are going up on NY subways and DC dioramas this week to counter the Muslim lies and expose the truth about the sharia. We need your help. We have five days left on our crowdfunder campaign. Please contribute.

Thumbnail image for IslamicApartheid1.jpg
Thumbnail image for IslamicApartheid2.jpg
Thumbnail image for IslamicApartheid3.jpg
Thumbnail image for IslamicApartheid4.jpg

America First PAC Launches to “Restore American Values”

By JAVIER MANJARRES / The Shark Tank
http://bit.ly/16SbVVv

Former Republican Congressional candidate Karen Harrington, who has not announced whether or not she would make another attempt to campaign for Congress in 2014, has decided to launch the America First Political Action Committee.

Harrington lost to incumbent Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the 2010 & 2012 general elections, but was able to garner unprecedented national support for her 2012 campaign, raising $2.1 million and locking down endorsements from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senator Marco Rubio, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as well as from other members of the U.S. Congress and organizations.

According to the website, America First PAC was founded to ” restore American values and to support leaders with bold ideas and the courage to shape our nation so that future generations inherit a better America.”

By forming this PAC, Harrington would be keeping her name in the political game, perhaps paving the road for another congressional run for office in 2014.

America First PAC is a federally registered political action committee (PAC) that was started to help restore American values and to support leaders with bold ideas and the courage to shape our nation so that future generations inherit a better America.

America First PAC supports federal, state and local candidates that fight for tax reform, stand for a balanced budget amendment, and strive to end wasteful government spending.

America First PAC believes that small business has and will continue to be the core of our great country’s economic advancement. By reforming the business and personal tax code, balancing the national budget, and promoting responsible government, more and more Americans will be able to prosper and live the American dream.

America First is dedicated to fighting the runaway spending and reckless government policies that are the hallmark of the Obama administration and the failed leadership in Washington, D.C. Our efforts are focused not only on identifying principled candidates, but also on targeting potential voters and getting them to the polls.

-Karen Harrington, Chairman America First PAC  http://amfirstpac.com/

afp



Op-ed: 
One more day until we know the truth
By: Diane Sori


The ever-expanding web of Obama’s lies and cover-ups is starting to unravel as more information is coming to light about what the three whistleblowers will testify to on Wednesday when they appear before Darrel Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Countering the official statements made by Barack HUSEIN Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice that the Benghazi Consulate attack was a ‘spontaneous’ demonstration against an anti-islam YouTube video, whistleblower Gregory Hicks, the second-in-command in Libya during the time of the attack, told Congressional investigators in private testimony that when he contacted Washington on the night of the attack, “I never reported a demonstration, I reported an attack on the consulate.”

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go.”

‘A terrorist attack from the get-go’…yet this miserable excuse of a president and his equally miserable administration kept insisting…kept LYING…about what happened that night as it was more important to protect, lie for, and placate ‘the brethren’…and of course NOT have these ‘bumps in the road’ tarnish the Obama campaign tour then it was to seek justice and truth for Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and ex-SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

These words of Gregory Hick’s cannot be stressed enough, “I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.” He also said that Ambassador Stevens’ “final report stated, ‘Greg, we are under attack.’”

How much clearer can that be said…’We are under attack.” Under attack…under attack…NOT dealing with demonstrators with picket signs peacefully protesting…and still Obama and crew knowingly and willingly perpetrated the LIE of a demonstration gone sadly awry.

Making this even more alarming was that the day after the attack Mohamed al-Megaryef, president of Libya’s highest political authority, the General National Congress, gave a press conference and apologised to the United States for the attack in Benghazi declaring that it was indeed a terrorist attack, and yet Obama and crew continued to perpetrate the LIE about a video.

Here’s what Gregory Hicks said after hearing Obama spew that lie:

“The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about… My jaw hit the floor as I watched this. I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”

This group of traitors…and they are indeed traitors…deliberately covered-up the truth to protect barbaric muslim bast*rds so as NOT to upset the sensibilities of muslim leaders….you know, those of the sort that Barack HUSSEIN Obama likes to bow down to.

And to make this all even more horrific is that…help…rescue…back-up…could have stopped the attack and maybe saved the lives of Ambassador Stevens and the others. In fact, a team of Special Forces was prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the attacks but were told to ‘stand down’ by US Special Operations Command Africa. Commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi BEFORE the second attack even happened but Lt. Col. Gibson got a phone call from SOCAFRICA saying, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’

And in the time it took Lt. Col. Gibson to take that phone call the C-130 had gone. How strangely ‘convenient’ was that.

And so Americans were left to die horrible deaths at the hands of jihadists, because ‘someone’ in authority didn’t give them permission to go.

The question is who told Special Operations Command to give those orders to ‘stand down’…it had to be someone high up in the chain of command…or from the White House itself.

So while Obama, Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey keep insisting that NO military resources could have made it in time to thwart the seven hour attack they are LYING through their teeth, because the US Souda Bay Naval Base is just an hour’s flight away from Libya, and according to whistleblower Hicks, “I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

And oh yes, let’s NOT forget that our wonderful president (gag) went to sleep knowing Americans were in trouble. But with Benghazi happening too near the election, Obama couldn’t have this ‘bump in the road’ tainting his campaign bloviations that al-Qaeda was “decimated” or “on the path to defeat”…words he spewed forth dozens of times prior to the November election, so he went to sleep to block it all out and pretend it never happened.

Thankfully, tomorrow the truth will come out from these brave men who were there…men who will supposedly be naming high-level officials who were involved in the web of lies and cover-ups…senior officials who most likely will be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and our ever-loving Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

And like most patriotic Americans demanding to know the truth I will be glued to my television with notepad in hand.