Monthly Archives: October 2012

A postscript upon Presidential performance

The latest of the insensitive remarks made by the usurper Barry Soetoro, was a statement “We leave no one behind”. If only that were true, especially where the attack in Benghazi was concerned.

We now have a better understanding about some of the things that happened that night. However, some questions are beginning to form in my mind, and I have not seen anyone address these particular questions.

The Libyan interim President Mr. Mogharef, was very quick to counter the video story. That is fair enough because there was no protest and it was a terrorist attack. Many different sources stated from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack, but Barry S kept up the pretense that this was somehow a spontaneous action due to some really terrible video.

Mr Mogharef is a reasonable man, and the Libyan government have been co-operating with the Western world. They are enemies of Iran. Now, we do know that some reinforcements were sent from Tripoli. In fact the 17th February Brigade were alerted and escorted them to the annexe where the later action was taking place, and where Doherty and Woods were killed. This means that there must have been communication with the Libyans regarding the attack at some level.

We know that there were requests for help, and that those requests were denied. We know that there were two drones in the area taking photographs and videos of the whole attack. In fact we know that the White House Administration watched the whole attack in the situation room whilst it was happening.

If there was an issue about entering Libyan air space so that the drones could take care of the attackers, then was there or was there not, an attempt to request permission to end the attack via a drone strike? Did Washington reach out to the Libyan government regarding the attack? Did the Libyan government refuse permission to deal with the attackers?

I know the Libyans like to look after their own business. I pretty certain that they want to be able to take the attackers into custody and deal with them under their law. What I want to know, is whether or not Washington involved the Libyan government in what was happening, if they had approached Libyan security, and if not, then why not!!

Andrew Sullivan is a dunce

If you did not see what Andrew Sullivan said, then you can read his comments here. What a dunce!!  Andrew Sullivan knows diddly squat about American history. His comments show an appalling ignorance of the history of both Democrats and Republicans and a total lack of knowledge with regard to the Civil War. Sheesh, I am an Australian and I know more about the American Civil War. Of course it helps that I studied American history in school as well as the fact that I have visited some of the sites of the Civil War including the eerie Gettysberg, complete with its KFC and McDonalds on the edge of the battlefield!! Oh yes and I read the trilogy of North and South, an extremely interesting and detailed study of the Civil War that helped to bring the whole thing alive to me.

According to this dunce Andrew Sullivan, electing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will lead to a return of the Confederacy. What a load of poppycock. Does Sullivan believe that the Confederates were Republican? If he does, then all I can say is: WOW!!

Whilst I am not 100 per cent clear on everything relating to how the Civil War started, I do know that the Republicans, represented by Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery. I know that the Democrats were against this and I know that the first shot was fired at Fort Sumtner!!!!  What I do know is that the Confederates were Democrats. They were not Republicans!!

Since I also studied American Economic History at university level, I also did some further study on the ante-bellum South, and the post Civil War era, in particular the economic hardships. I know that there were carpet baggers who flocked to the south to make their money.

What else do I know? Well as it happens I am also aware of who was responsible for the Jim Crow Laws. I know about the formation of the Ku Klux Klan by Democrats. I know that after the Civil War the Democrats were not allowed to vote, and that for the first time blacks were in control of the various legislative assemblies around the country. On top of that I know that the blacks were corrupt. They were assisted by the Radical Republicans. The KKK was formed to prevent whites and blacks voting for those Republicans as well as preventing blacks from voting.

However, it seems to me that a lot of people are unaware of this true history. They seem to be unaware that Democrats were the ones who instituted all of the laws that took away equal rights for various citizens, and that includes the Irish immigrants. The Democrats discriminated against the Irish Catholics. Oh it is simply so ironic that the Democrats in 2012 have locked up the black vote and the Catholic vote, when if people knew real history they would discover the truth. Democrats continue to keep blacks on the plantation. Anyone who escapes is called an Oreo or an Uncle Tom. Any woman who goes against the Democrats is treated in a most disgusting fashion, especially women who do not believe in killing babies within the womb.

How could Andrew Sullivan sit there and say something so outrageous? What is worse, why did those who were on the program not interrupt and tell him that he knows diddly squat about American history and that he should simply shut his pie hole rather than look like a total imbecile.

Irresponsible Treason

Yes, I am talking about President Obama, Vice President Biden and the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, plus the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Everything I have been reading about what took place in Benghazi has led me to the conclusion on the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12 in Benghazi, an act of treason was committed.

Adding to the present confusion is the rumour that General Ham has been relieved of his position at AFRICOM. Why? It was further rumoured that he was ready to deploy forces despite being told to stand down. It was also stated that his second in command prevented him from going ahead with that deployment. Why?

There were two drones in the air directly over the sites of the incident. Those drones were equipped to fire. One of the operatives, I assume it was Tyrone Woods, painted the enemy’s equipment, he was asking for backup support to fire upon the attackers, but nothing happened. Leon Panetta has the gall to state that they could not send anyone to help because they did not know the conditions or something like that… His comment is total bullshit. Yeah I said it and I decided not to be polite. Considering that the White House was watching in real time in the Situation Room, I find this reasoning to be despicable.

Even worse is to come, because Mr. Woods decided to break his own silence. He is a man grieving for the loss of his brave son Tyrone. VP Biden made what can only be considered an extremely tacky remark when he mentioned “having balls the size of cue balls”, but Biden has unwittingly given the game way. THEY KNEW. The White House administration knew exactly what was happening. They knew that there was NO PROTEST. They knew that it was a terror attack, and THEY LIED to the American people..and for that matter they lied to the rest of the world. Hillary Clinton only talked about sending to prison a man who was exercising his First Amendment rights.

We can thank the British journalists for their own courageous reporting, that is they told the truth from the beginning. There was an attack. There was no protest.

What has also filtered out is that the requests for help were turned down. Only the President could have ordered those people to stand down. President Obama has deliberately lied about this whole incident. No wonder the bastard wanted Candy Crowley to help him crawl out of the hole where this cockroach had dug for himself.

It just occurred to me that Obama intended to use the incident in the same way as he intended to use the Fast and Furious incidents, that is to deny Americans their rights under the Constitution. With Fast and Furious there was an attempt to deny the right to carry guns, aka an attack on the Second Amendment. This Benghazi incident is far more serious because it was to be the means to curtail First Amendment rights.

IT’S the VIDEO, Stupid!!

One version of events from a Libyan who was allegedly in the guardhouse (that is debatable because only 2 were on hand according to other accounts and they fled to the roof) was detained and beaten. The person beating him was supposed to have called him an Infidel etc. etc. and there was a reference to the video. In the same article where this was mentioned, it also mentioned the elaborate roadblock that was put in place, plus another witness who stated that the attackers had rounded up 20 youths and incited them to chant about some video….. This is the set-up, or it is false information being planted for another purpose.

That purpose was the UN speech where Obama got up and stated that we should not have the right to criticize Islam.

YES, the video was the set-up.  Who paid that man to make that terrible rubbish in the first place? Someone had to give him the money to pay the people who took part. He is the patsy who sits in jail because of alleged parole violations. Who talked him into making this film? Who??????

Obama has been attacking various constitutional rights, but the major ones have related to the first and second amendments. His objection to the Citizens United case should have chilled everybody who had actually bothered to read the judgment in order to get some understanding of the verdict, and why those decisions were made. That case was decided based upon rights to free speech and stopping the chilling of free speech. Obama has done a song and dance ever since because he wants to curtain free speech.

How convenient is it that this third rate movie was uploaded to the Youtube and that it was then seen by some Egyptian Imam who then spread the word about it. Is it not a little bit too convenient?

Think about this for a moment. The subject matter was allegedly an attack on Mohammed the Pedophile and Pretender who founded what a quasi-religious institution or a theocracy. This theocracy has a lot in common with Communism and Fascism in that the State rules. Mohammed himself was both a bandit and a murderer. He was no messenger of God. A reading of the Scriptures should clear that up once and for all.

Considering the alleged subject matter, Rage Boy surfaced again. When Rage Boy gets going there are lots of riots, rampaging in the streets and of course the inevitable attacks on Westerners, especially Americans. This is precisely what has taken place. There were protests in Cairo, and the American Embassy was attacked there.  However, even in this case it is by no means certain that it was about the video, except that the White House proclaimed it was the case…. how is it that the White House knew so much about this video? There were riots in Tunisia, Pakistan and other Islamic countries. Of course these were copy cat protests and they were providing cover for the story about Benghazi.

It all sounds like it was being orchestrated. The people of Benghazi and Syria said it best when they commented upon how it was a lousy film, and in the case of Syria they question why was no one rioting over the fact that so many Syrians were being killed by Assad. Now that is a good question.

Obama got Susan Rice to repeat the crap about the video being to blame. Hillary Clinton even told Mr. Woods that the Administration intended to punish the film maker. She showed no regard for the film maker’s First Amendment rights. Yet the real cream was Obam’s U.N. speech where he decried the right of all Americans, Australians, British, French, Germans, Chinese, Japanese etc. to say anything against Islam.

Four Americans died, allegedly 10 Libyans also died in that attack. Obama behaved like a cold fish towards the grieving families, and was more concerned about fund raising and removing the right to free speech.

The attitude of Obama in particular over this incident has been despicable. The man has committed an act of treason.

In Australian parlance “Libya – Bloody Hell”

After reading some of the latest reports on what took place at Benghazi and the way in which the White House is implicated, all I can say is “Bloody Hell”.  If these reports are accurate, then someone high up in the White House has committed an act of treason by needlessly imperilling the lives of both Americans and Libyans.

There are so many holes in the way in which this story has been evolving that it is hard to keep the story straight. Someone has been lying to Americans and to the rest of the World!!

When this story first broke, it came on top of the first protest in Cairo that was allegedly about a documentary that was allegedly anti-Mohammed. There is some truth, but not a lot, in that story about what was a cruddy documentary. I point out here, once again, that an imam who has a TV spot showed the video with Arabic sub-titles. As it was the speech within the documentary was dubbed, and that dubbing had nothing to do with what the actors were actually saying. The documentary actually had another name. The story surrounding the making of this documentary, as well as the “director” always did have a smell of rotten fish about it. My best guess is that someone associated with jihadist type groups actually funded the making of this c- grade documentary. The reason I am guessing this is due to the nature of the rumours when it all first emerged. There was an attempt to slime both Israel and the Egyptian Coptic Christians. That smacks of something the Salafists would do so that they could continue to wage their war against both Christians and Jews. In other words, I continue to believe that the video iteslf was a blood libel set-up.

The protest in Cairo the day before the Benghazi attack was represented to us as a protest over this c- grade documentary. However, some new evidence regarding the protest seems to indicate that the real cause of the protest was in fact an effort to get the man behind the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Centre aka the blind sheik, a get out of jail free card.

Considering actions in Tunis and other M.E. locations where there were demonstrations and riots after the attack at Benghazi, it seems that the purpose of the video was to create a side-show and yes it was supposed to be used to create riots but probably in October, not in September. I am not really deviating on a point that I have made previously regarding this video. It was supposed to be used as an excuse for something but not for the Benghazi affair.

With all of the new information it is getting harder and harder to determine the truth, except that someone, very high up has lied, and that someone has committed an act of treason against the United States.

There are things about the Libyan situation that do not add up. Does anyone believe that Morgharef would have not given the US permission to take action against the attackers? Yet there were drones in the area, and there was no counter-attack. Now it turns out that one of the two dead operatives, who were killed at the annex had a fix on the weapons being used and had “painted” them, but no counter-attack was launched. What is wrong with this picture?

The White House had been informed of the attack. The President went to bed some time after the attack began. He knew that the US Ambassador was missing, yet he went to bed. The CIA operatives requested back up support. Now, there is information coming out that indicates that they were told to stand down, and on top of that their request for help was denied. Help could have been sent from Italy. I have no doubt in my mind that the Libyan government would have agreed for action to take place from the air. It is in the interests of the Libyan government that this kind of insurgency is stopped in its tracks, and I doubt that they would not have given permission. That means only one thing – the denial for permission to get help came at a very high level. Someone committed treason on the night of September 12.

Whilst the finger can be pointed at Obama, let’s have a look at who surrounds him, and let’s look closely at who tried to prevent the action taken against Osama Bin Laden. It has now been confirmed that Leon Panetta was in fact the man who gave the orders to take Osama Bin Laden. However, there was someone who did not want the action to take place and that person was Valerie Jarrett. Does Valerie Jarrett have a role in preventing aid being given to Americans who were under attack? Is Valerie Jarrett working in the interest of Iran?

Is it any wonder that Obama did not want to answer any questions about Benghazi during those debates. He could not answer because he knows the truth about what really happened. He has been lying to the American public. He has been lying to the world.

Parsing “terror attack”

Mitt Romney was correct, Obama and Candy Crowley were lying during the 2nd Presidential debate. How convenient that Crowley had a transcript in front of her. It is almost as if she was given the transcript to use, just in case there was a question and the Doofus needed some help.

A few points to consider here:

1. Obama is obfuscating. He is spinning his wheels to the point that they are not moving at all. He is not gaining traction. The Benghazi incident is sinking him. More and more information is coming to light about the real security situation in Benghazi.

The latest piece that I have read on the subject is a news story concerning an interview with 2 of the Libyans who had been hired to help with security at the consulate. These are very honest and forthright individuals. They agree that there were some within their ranks who have Islamist leanings. That is not the real issue here but what is the real issue is the fact that they had no heavy weapons to help in a situation of a heavy armed attack.

You can read their story here. It is from the LA Times!!  Basically, what they are saying is that they were provided with very little in the way of training, although the American security did give them training that was useful for a situation that would be a lot lighter. They had no heavy weapons, and they were not given any equipment to protect themselves. From what I can understand, they did well to make it to the roof and to survive the attack.

2. The terrorism attack at Benghazi has not been politicized by Republicans. It already was political. The attack itself is a political statement. Yet Obama wants to sweep it under the carpet. The reaction and the spinning from the White House is a foolish mistake.

Moving on to some of the other issues, I think it is time that Obama stopped blaming George Bush. The US economy was not in such a bad state when Obama took over. In fact the stimulus was not necessary. There was a blip, and if left alone it would have been self-correcting. Obama seized the opportunity to do things like interfering in the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcies. He then played favourites, ripped off millions from the bondholders and gave everything to his union cronies. I hope that the teachers’ union that had its super funds ripped apart will remember who did the damage.

The real lie happens to be the one about Romney supposedly wanting to send Detroit bankrupt. It already is bankrupt because of corruption.

4. The behaviour of Obama continues to be weird. During debate one he stood there and closed his eyes. His body language was really terrible. I do not think that there was much improvement in body language, at least not from the pictures that I have seen. He spent his time glowering. It was not in the slightest bit Presidential to behave in such a fashion.

Mitt Romney made many good points, and I do think that he has a firmer grasp of the economy. With Paul Ryan he has a big task ahead in that he must attempt to save a sinking ship. It is not going to be an easy task. There is one area where he might be naive, but I am open minded on the subject and that area relates to trade and China.

Coming intervention in Mali? – the Gadhafi connection

Mali has been one of those teasers. It is an African country that has a problem with extremists. The damage done in Timbuktoo springs to mind when talking about the situation in Mali. The President of Mali, Toure was ousted, and that was followed by rebels in the north seizing control.

The UN has apparently sanctioned the idea of an intervention in Mali in an effort to remove the extremists. France is preparing a memorandum or something, detailing what they will be doing to assist with the intervention. Once again we hear the “no troops on the ground” rhetoric.

However, there are some little known facts about Mali, and I draw your attention to some of the things that I learned in 2011. The first little teaser is mention of the Tuareg separatists. Why should that ring alarm bells? Why indeed, does the name of Mali ring alarm bells in my head? The answer is simple – there is a Gadhafi connection.

Whilst the world was thinking that Gadhafi was a changed individual, he was quietly shoring up his influence in Africa. He gave millions of dollars in aid etc to  tin pot African governments in the belief that if he should be ousted that they would provide him with sanctuary. Well, Algeria and Nigeria are giving sanctuary to members of the Gadhafi family. On top of that Gadhafi was sponsoring the Tuareg and it is the Tuareg who were involved in members of the Gadhafi family managing to escape from Libya. On top of that Gadhafi gave the Tuareg guns and equipment. In other words, Gadhafi sponsored the terrorism that has been gripping the north of Mali.

There are more connections because Gadhafi had hired people from Mali to be his snipers when he let loose on the people in Benghazi, Tripoli, Misrata, Zintan and other cities in Libya. Yes, that is a fact the snipers came from Mali.

If that is not sufficient for alarm bells, then perhaps some more snippets of truth coming out of Libya not long after the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi might open up some minds about who might have been behind the attack or indeed who might have financed the attack. That snippet of information is that people from Mali were identified as being involved in the attack.

Now this becomes interesting, because here we have a situation where an Egyptian set up camp in the Libyan desert, where he began training individuals (some were Libyan from Ansar al-Sharia and other like-minded individuals) to partake in the attack. The training camp was being observed via drones, yet nothing was done to take them out.  The Tuareg had arms that Gadhafi had given them, and in fact many of the arms that went across the border (blamed upon Al Qaeda people) ended up in the hands of the Tuareg and in Mali.

Gadhafi was supposed to be an enemy of Al Qaeda but he was in fact, and had remained, a major sponsor of terrorism in Africa and the Middle East. It is just that he chose to do that sponsoring by more devious means. He stopped directly sponsoring Al Qaeda, and he treated Islamists in Libya as the enemy. However, did he really treat others of like mind from say Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia etc in the same way?

Another little known fact is that the Gadhafi family members who managed to escape and get asylum took a lot of money with them. What is the possibility that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was in fact sponsored by the Gadhafi family?

I am not one for conspiracy theories, yet this is not the first time in recent weeks that I have had a suspicion that the Gadhafi family could somehow be involved in the attack, at least as sponsors of the terrorists. I am therefore putting this idea out there to see if anyone else has had similar thoughts.

I will only add here, that I am totally against the idea of the USA sending in the drones to Libya. That would be tantamount to an hostile attack on a sovereign nation, especially if there has been no agreement between the Libyan government and the USA for such action.

Althouse on the Benghazi cover up

I found this post at Althouse, and I thought it was a very lengthy and worthile read. The link refers to Fox News on Sunday, with Bob Woodward, Lindsay Graham and others. Ann gives a very detailed description of the whole thing.

One of the most pertinent points to be made is that the White House has been involved in a cover-up of facts, but the truth, as it comes out is far more devastating than the attempt to blame a very stupid video for the attack. It goes to the very heart of the war against terrorism.

In setting out my own thoughts, I have not been articulate enough on some very pertinent facts which have been staring me in the face. These facts not only involve the revival of Al Qaeda, but also the activity of Iran in the region.

For more than a year I have been mentioning the “sphere of influence”. What I see is that Russia and China have been very strong in the region. It is no wonder that both countries were extremely pissed when NATO took action in Libya. That action, and the death of Moammar Gadhafi ruined their sphere of influence. I have been guilty of concentrating on these two countries, and not paying sufficient attention to Iran.

It is not easy attempting any form of assessment for this region, because one needs a working knowledge of the history of Islam, and how it has broken up into various sectarian groups, and then understanding how each sub-group forms a part of the major group. All sects within Islam have certain things in common, but there are very specific differences between them. Some of the sub-groups are treated as though they are apostates. There is infighting between the two major sects, yet there is one thing that is outstanding – Al Qaeda and its affiliates – as well as belief in the Ummah.

The Mullahs in Iran are a part of the Shia sect. The Grand Pooh Bah, known to us as Khomenei is allegedly the Supreme Ruler (exactly what he is the Supereme Ruler of is actually hard to determine) of the Shia. The very corrupt Khomenei exerts a lot of influence amongst the Shia in Iran, as well as in Iraq. Now that the USA has departed Iraq, Iran has a new opportunity to exert influence over that country, thus it is managing to extend its sphere of influence. Prior to this situation, Iran had a sphere of influence in Syria, and Syria’s satellite of Hezbollah in Lebanon and through Lebanon its tentacles were spread to Hamas in the Gaza strip. Iran is the mortal enemy of Israel.

The other major sect is the Sunni, and these are found in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, UAE etc. etc. Sunni and Shia are also mortal enemies.

From these major sects there are sub-sects including the Wahibi, the Sufi and a variety of other sub-sects that can be found within Islam. Of these sub-sects the Wahibi are the strictest and it is from this group that the Islamists have arisen. Al Qaeda had its roots within the strict Wahibi sect.

Whilst these sects will kill each other, they will also form alliances against the Infidel, which in this case is represented by the USA.  There is no way that the USA can resolve the war that has been declared because these Muslims are determined that they will fly the flag of Islam over the White House. The declaration of war dates back to at least the first bombing of the Twin Towers – yes that first failed bombing was a declaration of war. This makes what happened on September 11, 2001 even more poignant. War had been declared on the USA, not the other way around. We are the ones that need to acknowledge that fact, and we need to be aware of the implications of that declaraton.

The problem with the current White House Administration is that it wants to pretend that the war against Al Qaeda, and its affiliates has been won, but that is not the truth. Whilst it is true that for a time the leadership was decimated, it is also true that others have risen in the ranks and have taken over the leadership roles. Even the death of Osama Bin Laden has not been sufficient to get rid of this scourge. (However, the attempted assassination of a 14 year old girl might be quite successful in shining a light on the ideology of the Taliban at least).

The White House appeasement has been an absolute disaser. Appeasement has not brought anything other than a stronger determination to subjugate the rest of the world. This is why the pretence about the influence of a very bad movie is so ridiculous. By spreading that story the White House is causing more and more problems.

I have an alternate theory on this video, and that is perhaps someone in the DNC or associated with OFA financed it, with the knowledge and idea of causing an international situation which was supposed to be a situation that would allow Obama to negotiate a resolution that would save his Presidency. I am suspicious because the leadership of Al Qaeda is touting the idea of protests about this terrible movie that had nothing to do with Mohammed.

The White House is refusing to explain why they were blaming this poor video on what took place in Benghazi. It really looks like they knew that something was going to happen, as though it was planned for October 2012.