Send A Message

 

You're Either On the Bus, or Under the Bus

Tossing Susan Rice Under the Bus 

by Paul R. Hollrah

Trying to make some sense of the Susan Rice fiasco is like trying to make some sense of how the most incompetent and the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history managed to get himself reelected.  It probably can’t be done.  But, just for the sake of argument, it might be interesting to engage in a bit of conjecture about how Susan Rice got picked to go under the bus.   

First some background.  On Sunday morning, September 16, five days after an Islamic terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Barack Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all five Sunday morning network talk shows.  Rushing from one broadcast studio to the next, Rice appeared on ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press… and all within a time span of just two hours.  

The tale that Rice told at each stop was typical of what she stated on ABC’s This Week, where she said, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo… In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.  We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather – to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.  And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

So the question arises… and persists… why was the U.N. Ambassador chosen to deliver such a whopper to the American people when, in fact, she had no connection to and no responsibility for the consulate in Benghazi? 

The most logical pecking order of people who should have been called upon to answer for what happened at Benghazi is, in order: Barack Obama, President and Commander in Chief; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense; General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; Michael Morrell, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor; and General David Petraeus, former Director of Central Intelligence.

As the principal architect and political beneficiary of the Benghazi fable, Barack Obama was not about to go on record as the bearer of what everyone would soon know was a false narrative.  But because he had hopes of explaining away the Benghazi terror attack in a way that would not damage his “al-Qaeda-is-on-its-heels” narrative two months before the November election, he had to have a patsy to carry his tale to the American people who was not only credible, but also expendable.  The one person who fit that description was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  And who is the only person who could make that decision, and who is the only person who could tell her exactly what to do and what to say?  Ambassador Rice is not in Hillary Clinton’s chain of command, so the order could have come from only one person: that would be Barack Obama.

He couldn’t expect Hillary to play that role.  As soon as the Benghazi story made the headlines, Hillary packed her polyester suits, grabbed her attaché case and her “body woman,” and got the hell out of town.  In a brief statement issued from Lima, Peru on Monday, October 15, where she was presumably conducting nuclear disarmament talks with the Peruvians, Clinton said, “I take responsibility.  I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha.”

Then, after stopping off in Washington just long enough to pick up a few changes of “undies,” she was off again on an extended tour of Hawaii, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Guinea, New Zealand, and Australia, returning on November 8, two days after the November election, when her testimony could not damage Obama’s reelection chances.

Compelling diplomatic business?  No.  Compelling political business?  Yes.  If Hillary had been in Washington and available to the Congress, she would have had some very difficult questions put to her.  And since it was Bill Clinton who was most responsible for exciting the Democratic base and getting Obama reelected, the last thing Obama wanted was to see Hillary sitting before a congressional committee.  The only thing to do was to get her out of town.

But what of Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense?  In terms of an attack on a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, Panetta’s only connection would have been in relation to a military rescue operation or a military response to al-Qaeda.  But since it appeared as if he had disobeyed Obama’s order to “secure our people” in Benghazi, Panetta was keeping a decidedly low profile.  Obama didn’t want Panetta having to answer questions about why he and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey had disobeyed his order.  Or, worse yet, having Panetta reveal that Obama had not given such an order… Obama’s public pronouncements to the contrary. 

General James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)?  In his previous incarnation he served as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI), an oxymoron if ever there was one.  Clapper's role in the Benghazi scandal shouldn't surprise anyone.  It certainly didn't surprise author Bob McCarty, who’s upcoming book, The Clapper Memo, will expose some of the DNI’s earlier exploits as USDI which are now “coming home to roost” in the form of so-called “Green-on-Blue” attacks in Afghanistan.

If there is a chief suspect in the effort to find who it was that rewrote the CIA talking points of September 12, which identified Ansar al Sharia as the al-Qaeda subsidiary responsible for the Benghazi attack, the finger would most logically point to General Clapper.  And since Obama must have known that his Director of National Intelligence was not a man to be trusted with the responsibility for carrying out an assignment of such strategic political importance… and get it right five times within two hours… he knew that General Clapper was not his man. 

Michael Morrell, the Acting Director of Central Intelligence?  This is the same Michael Morrell who in testimony before a congressional committee on Thursday, November 15, attempted to shield Susan Rice from criticism.  He told the committee that Rice had been provided with an unclassified version of the deadly attack in Benghazi that was incorrect. 

He failed to explain to the committee how or why, if the CIA knew on September 12, the day after the Benghazi attack, that the attack was carried out by an Islamic terrorist group, they allowed the U.N. Ambassador to appear on five Sunday morning TV interviews four days later, carrying a totally false narrative.

National Security Advisor Tom Donilon?  When the White House leaked classified information detailing the Navy SEAL methodology that brought Osama bin Laden to justice in Abbottabad; identifying the Pakistani doctor who assisted U.S. intelligence personnel in locating bin Laden; and providing details of the US-Israeli cyber attack on the Iranian nuclear program, it didn’t take then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates long to figure out who was responsible for the leaks.

As Jake Tapper of ABC News has reported, “… Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the (bin Laden) raid.

“ ‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend...’

“ ‘What was that?’ Donilon asked.

“ ‘Shut the f_ _ k up,’ the defense secretary said.”

Donilon’s credibility was so damaged by that episode that Obama didn’t dare send him before the five Sunday morning talk shows carrying a false version of the Benghazi attack.

And finally, General David Petraeus.  In the days following the Benghazi attack, Obama knew two very important things about his Director of Central Intelligence.  First, in spite of numerous denials to the contrary, Obama had to have known that Petraeus was under investigation by the FBI in connection with the Paula Broadwell affair.  In other words, he knew that his Director of Central Intelligence was in a potentially compromising position.  And finally, he knew that he could count on a man of Petraeus’s caliber to go only so far in parroting a false narrative in which politics trumped all other considerations.

Obama’s only choice was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, another incompetent hanger-on who had ambitions to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  Her ambition would dictate that she do what she was told without asking too many questions.  And with an ethically neutral mainstream media as watchdogs, there was a very good chance that they could pull it off.

Sorry, Obama.  Your luck just ran out.  There’s room for only so many “expendables” under that bus of yours and now you’ll have to pay the price.  Most importantly, if we’re lucky, and if we can find just a few members of Congress with the backbone to do what’s right, it appears all but certain that we’ll find an impeachable offense or two in all of this... just something to make your second inauguration a most memorable one.

An Explanation of Islam and Why It Cannot Work In America

H/T to a Brother Marine for the heads-up

There are those who say that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Of those, some are liars and the rest are delusional.  Islam is what it is, but the one thing it can never be is a respected participant in any civilized society.  Events of early September in which radical Islamists either attacked or laid siege to U.S. embassies across the Muslim world, should be proof enough of the violent nature of Islamists.  In Benghazi, Libya, the U.S. Ambassador and three others were brutally murdered in an al-Qaeda attack.  It is reported that Ambassador Stevens was brutally sodomized before he was murdered and his body put on display in the streets of Benghazi. 

The nature of Islam is such that, in the absence of a complete and total renunciation of the Quran and Sharia Law, it is impossible for any Muslim believer to participate in western society.  Under the Islamic concept called Taqiyya, a Muslim is permitted to deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, so long as that dishonesty inures to the benefit of Islam. 

It is what allows devout Muslims to take the naturalization oath that all new U.S. citizens must take.  They swear as follows:  "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

 When devout Muslims take that oath are they being sincere?  No, they are willfully lying.  It is the concept of Taqiyya… the right to lie… that Muslim’s rely on when they take the oath to become citizens of the United States.

 In the mistaken belief that their 7^th century culture is superior in every way to western cultures of the 21^st century, Islam has not attempted to hide or sugar-coat their ultimate goal, which is to replace civil society in every western nation with an Islamic society based on Sharia Law and the Quran.  Accordingly, Islam offers those of us in western cultures a rather simple choice: either convert to Islam or die. 

 But what if we in the Christian world refuse to convert, and what if we prefer to live rather than die?  What is our alternative?  Given the choice between converting to Islam or going to our final reward, our only reasonable alternative is to begin now to quarantine Muslims to those regions  of the world where they can share their misery with none but other Muslims.  If co-existence between Islam and the other major religions is not an option, then Islam must yield.  Islam must go the way of communism and fascism, and that must be done in a timely manner before they are allowed to achieve majority status in any Western nation.  Time is short. 

The 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Conversely, the Quran teaches that Islam is the only true religion and that all other religions and all the peoples of the world must yield to it and submit to it.  To suggest that those of the Christian or Jewish faith can somehow reach an accommodation or a compromise with Islam, or to co-exist peaceably with it, is to state an absurdity.

The Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most beautiful collection of words ever penned by the hand of man, proclaims that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Muslims may interpret those words to mean that all men are created equal, but we Americans interpret them differently.  We understand those words of equality to include all human beings, regardless of gender.  In the Muslim world, the Quran teaches the inferiority of women and specifically approves and recommends the practice of wife-beating.  Girls and women are treated no better than farm animals and in some cases, when the male members of a family feel as if the family honor has been damaged by a female family member… even in cases where she may have been forcibly raped… that woman may be put to death in what Muslims call an “honor killing.”         

Islam is so repulsive to civilized societies and such a great danger to the lives and property of all non-Muslims, that an organization called Stop the Islamization of Nations (SION) has begun the process of developing a detailed plan to bring a halt to the Islamization of the Christian world. 

But who would know Islam better than those who’ve had the courage to leave the faith?  An organization called FaithFreedom.org is, in their own words, “a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims” whose goal it is to tell the truth about Islam and to promote the adoption of a   constitutional amendment outlawing Islam in the United States. 

The organization’s website states that, “Muhammad’s merry band of disciples raided villages, looted and raped the women, and enslaved all who were not killed outright… No other cause is responsible for more deaths than Islam… Islam can’t be reformed, but it can be eradicated.  It can’t be molded, but it can be smashed… ” 

 In a November 24, 2010 article published by FaithFreedom.org, Dr. Jai Maharaj outlines the scope of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  As justification for the constitutional amendment, he writes:

“Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.  It is necessary to outlaw the practice of Islam in the United States of America because the teachings of this religion are antithetical to many vital provisions of the U.S. Constitution and represent an existential threat to the security of American citizens.  Furthermore, Shariah law, which is intrinsic to all orthodox forms of Islam, which is based directly on the Qur'an, seeks, as a stated goal of the religion, to replace civil law with a system based on inhumane values on the presumption that these values are superior to anything in the Constitution or in the religions of the world, including the religious faiths of the vast majority of Americans.” 

Dr. Maharaj reminds us that “The United States was founded on ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one's religion of choice, or no religion, and that compulsion to practice any religion is not tolerable… Islam, in contrast, rejects each of these principles and is therefore incompatible, on a fundamental level, with American citizenship.”

He writes, “Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and impose its will on all other religions and upon democratic institutions.  This view is completely unacceptable to Americans and is anti-Constitutional.” 

He reminds us that “Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam, does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil, and this being the case, it would be unjustifiable to regard Islam as in any way compatible with the many religions which exist in the United States.  To suppose that the character of Islam is such that it can peacefully co-exist with followers of other faiths is, to be candid, an absurd proposition. 

“Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of its faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions, none of which is remotely compatible with the (United States) Constitution.  Additionally, representatives of Islam around the world… have declared jihad on America and regularly declare that America should cease to exist, and this being the case, any other course than outlawing Islam within the (United States) would be folly.”

In making the case that 1^st Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution would in no way be incompatible with an anti-Islam amendment, Dr. Maharaj argues that Islam is a sworn enemy to everything that America stands for.  He writes, “Because Islam is subversive by its very nature, and antagonistic to followers of all other religions, actively seeking to harm people of other faiths, and actively seeking to replace the U.S. Constitution with an alien legal system that is abhorrent to Americans, Muslims have no claim to First Amendment freedoms or protections.”

So how do we respond to those on the political left who are certain to wave the Constitution under our noses, defending the right of radical Islamists to subjugate all non-Muslims, including the people of the United States?

The 1^st Amendment contains no language prohibiting the people of the United States from taking whatever steps are necessary to defend themselves from invasion and subjugation by purveyors of an alien political, economic, and religious culture.  Nowhere does it compel the American people to drink the poison-laced Islamic Kool-Ade, and nothing in the Constitution compels us to commit national suicide.  It’s us or them.  Either Islam must be tamed or it must be outlawed, just as communism was in times past.  

Former NYPW Running For FL-05

and the Progressive Republicans in the local party machine say Protest Warrior is a hate site. I guess any group that unequivocally supports Israel and a Free Lebanon, supports the troops at every turn, makes the left look stupid at their own rallies, and belives the Constitution is the Law of the Land could be considered a hate group.

BROOKSVILLE - Jason Sager doesn't have to look at someone else's pictures of the Twin Towers attack in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. He was there.
He saw the billowing smoke from his home and has his own scrapbook showing the devastation.

As shaken as he was that day, Sager said he witnessed something later that would propel him into a life of politics and ultimately lead him to Brooksville to become the tea party candidate for the 5th Congressional District.

Fourteen days after al-Qaida terrorists forced two pilots to crash into the World Trade Center, Sager said he was walking near ground zero when he saw Marxist progressive protesters dragging American flags on the ground and declaring to crowds the United States was to blame for 9/11>

The whole story is here.

Jason has NOTHING to explain, or apologize for. He is a Warrior on the homefront, fighting the insurgency at home.

Watch What We Do, Not What We Say

*Ms. Burlingame is a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.*

Originally published 8 May 2009 in the Wall Street Journal

Obama and the 9/11 Families
The president isn't sincere about 'swift and certain' justice for terrorists.
Debra Burlingame

Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.

Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in. The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.

On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.

Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.

Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with
ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.

Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them." How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.

News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing.

"[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."

"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.

Believe . . . feel . . . hope.

We'd been had.

Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed,
including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.

The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate
hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.

What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.

Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of
thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.
Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.

The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.

Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.

It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word"torture" in their stories.

I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.

"They saw it for what it was."