Obama’s Iran-Contra: The REAL Benghazi Scandal (Aaron Klein)

Obama’s Iran-Contra: The Real Benghazi Scandal – Aaron Klein

One would be hard pressed to find a more significant impeachable offense than aiding and abetting the sworn enemies of the United States, especially when any such support includes sending weapons to our murderous adversaries. A crime on that scale would certainly be made all the more serious if those same enemies turned around and utilized the U.S.-provided arms to kill Americans.

.

We are not here referring to the so-called “Fast and Furious” scandal in which President Obama’s Justice Department purposely allowed, with deadly consequence, licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers with the intent of tracking the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders. Instead, we document a much less reported gun-walking scandal, one you will soon regard as the “Fast and Furious” of the Middle East, the Iran-Contra of the Obama administration. It could be the White House got away not once but twice with the same misdeed of arming our foes.

In the case presented here, the enemy consists not of drug lords but of al-Qaeda, along with a witches’ brew of anti-American jihadists. The results are not dead U.S. border agents but a murdered U.S. ambassador, along with three other diplomatic staff, in one of the most brazen assaults on an American overseas target in history. To make matters worse, we will show how our president and top administration officials deliberately and repeatedly lied to the American public while taking actions that fomented anti-American sentiment, aided an Islamist revolution currently sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, and possibly helped create, whether wittingly or not, a well-armed al-Qaeda army that is already attacking our interests and fueling conflicts worldwide.

We will also show how the Obama administration engaged in a massive cover-up of the events that transpired during the Benghazi attacks, as well as the shocking reason our ambassador was sent to Benghazi on September 11, despite the many known (and ignored) security threats to the U.S. mission there. You are about to be introduced to the real Benghazi scandal. This chapter alone should result in the immediate impeachment of Obama, as well as topple other administration officials.

The true nature of the ‘consulate’

Information surrounding the September 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi has been so distorted by the Obama administration and so misreported by the news media that many Americans still don’t have the most basic of facts straight.

Let’s start with the true nature of the Benghazi facilities. For months after the attacks, the vast majority of all news media coverage worldwide referred to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.” A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, or an official representative of the government of one state in the territory of another. Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports, and citizen information.

On August 26, about two weeks before he was killed, Ambassador Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the American embassy in Tripoli, meaning the functioning U.S. consulate was working out of Tripoli. The new U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, was stationed at the embassy in Tripoli. A search of the State Department website could find no consulate listed in Benghazi.

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host govern­ment and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation. Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international intergovernmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.

However, according to a State Department investigative report on the attacks, the U.S. facility in Benghazi did not fit the profile of a diplomatic mission either. The results of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) probe, which we have read carefully, contain information indicating the U.S. mission in Libya was involved in activities outside the diplomatic realm. The thirty-nine-page document uses phraseology and descriptions not previously utilized to describe the facility and the role it may have played in Benghazi. The report, based on an investigation led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “U.S. Special Mis­sion.” Again, until the report’s release, government descriptions routinely referred to the facility as a “mission,” while the news media largely and wrongly labeled the building a “consulate.”

The report divulges how the mission’s special “non-status” made providing security to the facility difficult. “Special Mission Benghazi’s uncertain future after 2012 and its ‘non-status’ as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult,” it said.

The report contains information that clearly contradicts any claim that the special mission was to serve as a liaison office to the local government. It documents how the local Libyan government was not even informed of the existence of the mission.

To the keen observer, the State Department report raises major unanswered questions about what was going on at the Libyan mission. Specifically, one glaring question is why the host government was not informed of the facility’s existence. Was the facility being used for secretive purposes? What was happening there?

Arms to Jihadis, White House lies

On multiple occasions, Middle Eastern security sources have provided this writer with information indicating that both the U.S. mis­sion and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi served as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Prior to the establishment of the Libyan mission, the United States also coordinated aid to the rebels who eventually toppled Libya’s Gaddafi. That aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The sources described how the weapons were carefully purchased with Arab and Turkish funds to skirt laws about the accountability of U.S. funding for CIA and other intelligence operations.

Days after the Benghazi attacks, I broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials. Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate their recruit­ment of Islamic fighters from Libya and other parts of North Africa. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials also said Stevens worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the United States, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials. (Take note of that detail, since it will become relevant again in a few paragraphs.)

Until April 2013, the White House has repeatedly denied it was involved in helping to arm the rebels. Such action at the time was considered highly controversial because of the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaeda members, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups. Besides White House denials, other top U.S. officials and former officials, including Hillary Clinton, have implied in congressional testimony that they didn’t know about any U.S. involvement in procuring weapons for the rebels.

Now, a starkly different picture is emerging, one that threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels. My reporting on U.S. coordinating arms shipments to the rebels has been confirmed by several major news agencies, including the New York Times and Reuters.

Created al-Qaida army?

The possibly illegal transfer of weapons and aid to Middle East rebels is clearly resulting in a newly emboldened al-Qaeda. Even the United Nations is warning that weapons delivered to Libya during the uprising there are being used to fuel conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza, and elsewhere.

That Obama administration policy of support for the jihadist Libyan and Syria rebels may have already come back to haunt us in other ways. Besides questions about the arms used in the coordinated assaults against our facilities in Benghazi and the UN report on weapons proliferation, there are also claims of ties between the Benghazi attacks and a brazen assault on an Algerian gas complex where foreigners, including Americans, were employed.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

How Obama, Hillary Wrecked Libya (Aaron Klein)

How Obama, Hillary Wrecked Libya – Aaron Klein

A Library of Congress report that received almost no media attention detailed – one month before the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi – how al-Qaida established a major base of operations in Libya in the aftermath of the U.S.-NATO campaign that deposed Muammar Gadhafi and his secular regime.

.

The report documented al-Qaida and affiliated organizations were establishing terrorist training camps and pushing Taliban-style Islamic law in Libya while the new, Western-backed Libyan government incorporated jihadists into its militias

The document named Benghazi as a new central headquarters for al-Qaida activities.

“Al-Qaeda adherents in Libya used the 2011 Revolution to establish well-armed, well-trained, and combat-experienced militias,” stated the report.

The report also said a terrorist released from the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba became the leader of the al-Qaida-affiliate Ansar Al-Sharia in Libya, which espoused anti-Western ideology.

The Martyrs of 17 February Brigade, which was hired by the State Department to protect the U.S. facility in Benghazi, operates under the Ansar-Al-Sharia banner.

The document said scores of Islamic extremists were freed from Libyan prison after the U.S.-supported revolution in Libya.

The August 2012 document was prepared by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress under an inter-agency agreement with the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program. It may shed new light on the terrorism threat in Libya leading up to the assaults on the U.S. facility and CIA annex in Benghazi.

Despite the growing al-Qaida activity, the U.S. facilities in Benghazi remained poorly protected.

While al-Qaida and other extremist groups were establishing their new headquarters in Libya, the Obama administration reportedly was eager to declare the U.S.-NATO campaign there a victory.

According to testimony by the No. 2 U.S. official in Tripoli, who served under murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wanted the Benghazi facility turned into a permanent post ahead of her scheduled December 2012 visit to the country. A looming funding deadline may have been the reason that Stevens went to the compound the day of the attacks, the whistleblower charged.

Terrorist training camps

The report shows how various al-Qaida groups, including Al-Qaida Senior Leadership (AQSL) and Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), have sought to take advantage of the downfall of Gadhafi to “create a safe haven and possibly to extend their area of operations to Libya.”

AQSL in Pakistan issued strategic guidance to followers in Libya and elsewhere to take advantage of the Libyan rebellion. Specifically, instructions were given to gather weapons, establish training camps, establish an Islamic state, and institute Shariah, the document relates.

At the time of the report’s release, al-Qaida’s clandestine network in Libya was “in an expansion phase, running training camps and media campaigns on social-media platforms.”

The Libyan revolution “may have created an environment conducive to jihad and empowered the large and active community of Libyan jihadists, which is known to be well connected to international jihad,” the document stated.

The Library of Congress report said Ansar al-Sharia, led by Sufian Ben Qhumu, a former Guantanamo detainee, has increasingly embodied al-Qaida’s presence in Libya.

Qhumu, formerly a driver for Osama bin Laden, was released by the U.S. in 2007 and was transferred to a Libyan prison where he remained until being freed in a 2010 amnesty deal.

Shariah confab

The report noted AQSL’s strategic goals remain “restoration of the caliphate, instituting sharia, and ending the Western presence in Muslim lands.”

“Al-Qaeda’s primary goal in Libya is to establish an Islamic emirate as part of its overall objective to reestablish the caliphate,” the report said.

“The al-Qaeda clandestine network in Libya is most likely espousing a Taliban-like religious orientation that calls for strict adherence to the practice and principles of Islam as interpreted by radical clerics.”

From June 7 to 8, 2012, there was a gathering of groups supporting Shariah openly held at Liberation Square in Benghazi. The event was hosted by Ansar al-Sharia and reportedly attended by at least 15 militias, including al-Qaida-affiliated organizations.

Libyan government and al-Qaida

The report noted the July 2012 elections in Libya “failed to generate a strong and unified national leadership that could address the chronic insecurity posed by the multiplicity of local militias, which al-Qaeda’s clandestine network has probably infiltrated.”

Further, the Western-backed National Transitional Council in Libya “never fully controlled the rebel movement.”

Following the 2012 elections, the Libyan army and police have reconstituted their ranks “by incorporating whole militias regardless of the militants’ background.”

Hillary eager to declare victory

While al-Qaida and other Islamic groups gained major ground in Libya following U.S. intervention there, Clinton worked plans for a symbolic victory in Benghazi, according to congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission and charge’ d’affairs who was in Libya at the time of the attack.

Under questioning from Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., Hicks explained: “According to [Ambassador] Chris [Stevens], Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a permanent constituent post. Timing for this decision was important. Chris needed to report before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical and the political and security environment in Benghazi to support an action memo to convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.”

Hicks revealed the directive came from the State Department Office of Near Eastern Affairs, headed by Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones. Money was available to be transferred to Benghazi from a State Department fund set aside for Iraq available, provided the funds transfer had been done by Sept. 30.

He further testified that in May 2012, during a meeting Clinton, Stevens promised he would give priority to making sure the U.S. facility at Benghazi was transformed into a permanent constituent post.

Hicks also explained Stevens wanted to make a symbolic gesture to the people of Benghazi that the United States “stood behind their dream of establishing a new democracy.”

Additionally, he wanted to have the Benghazi complex upgraded to a permanent constituent post, so Clinton could make the announcement in her planned visit to Libya before the end of 2012.

Toward the end of the hearing, the chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked Hicks to summarize his testimony on why Stevens went to Benghazi.

“At least one of the reasons Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and that he was also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Hicks reiterated. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people the establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”

Clinton and the U.S. diplomatic staff in Libya reportedly were aware of the terrorist camps in Benghazi. Fox News reported last year the U.S. mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” in August 2012 to discuss the training camps.

The news network obtained a government cable addressed to Clinton’s office stating the U.S. diplomats in Libya were briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi… these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

William Teach: Boy the Left is about as anti-choice as it gets!

It seems that despite their cloaking themselves in choice, they wish to deny us most choices in life. Like who we do business with

Thought crimes vs. the First Amendment in Oregon (via The Blaze)

(KGW) The Oregon Department of Justice is looking into a complaint that a Gresham bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.

It started on Jan. 17 when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for the perfect wedding cake.

“My first question is what’s the wedding date,” said owner Aaron Klein.  “My next question is bride and groom’s name … the girl giggled a little bit and said it’s two brides.”

Klein apologized to the women and told them he and his wife do not make cakes for same-sex marriages.  Klein said the women were disgusted and walked out.

“I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God,” said Klein.  “A man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife … that to me is the beginning of marriage.”

The charge would be for discrimination in a public place under ORS 659a.403. Looking at the entire portion of ORS 659a, civil penalites can be assessed at up to $1,000 (659a.855). The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries can also forced the defendant to cease and desist. Furthermore, the defendant isn’t entitled to a trial by jury in front of his/her peers, but instead must face a tribunal of Bureau of Labor employees.

My first thought is this. If a business snubs you, leave and do not  go back. You have every right to not shop anywhere you choose. But, businesses also should possess the right to REFUSE to do business with you.

My second thought is that this is a trend we will see increased. The goal here is not acceptance or tolerance. It is Statism and control of thought and speech.

My third thought is that if this were my bakery, I would have taken the business and baked them whatever cake they wanted, but that is me. In a free country we should all be able to make the choice for ourselves. But, of course, to the Left, freedom is a bad thing because some people use their freedom to do or say things the Left disagrees with. And that is something the tolerant Left simply cannot tolerate.

*VIDEOS* Various Conservative Authors Discuss Obama, Leftists, And The Past, Present And Possible Future Of America

Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment Of President Barack Obama – By David Limbaugh

Political commentator and syndicated columnist, David Limbaugh presents his criticisms of President Obama and his administration. Mr. Limbaugh argues that the current administration is encroaching upon individuals rights. David Limbaugh discusses his book on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, where he takes national phone calls.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan To Ruin Your Life – By Terence Jeffrey

Terence Jeffrey, editor-in-chief of CNSNews.com, contends that the Obama administration is interested in an unlimited government that restricts political speech, is interested in a federally controlled economy, and makes decisions on individual’s retirement. Mr. Jeffrey presents his arguments against the current administration at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Red State Uprising: How To Take Back America – By Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson, editor of the conservative blog, Redstate.com, presents his thoughts on how to redefine the Republican Party. Mr. Erickson opines on ways to shrink the size of government, what he believes constitutes a Republican candidate, and why he thinks Republicans are as culpable as Democrats for the current size and cost of the American government. Erick Erickson co-wrote “Red State Uprising” with Lewis Uhler, founder and president of the National Tax Limitation Committee. Mr. Erickson discusses his book at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny In The 21st Century – By Thomas Woods

Thomas Woods examines the legal theory of nullification, the belief that a state has the ability to void a federal law it deems unconstitutional, and presents his thoughts on how the theory could be used to repeal recently passed legislation by the Obama administration. The author contends that states play a vital role in placing constraints on the power of the federal government. Thomas Woods presents his book at the Fargo Air Museum in Fargo, North Dakota.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Obama Zombies: How The Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation – By Jason Mattera

Washington Times and National Review writer makes the case that the liberal media brainwashed those under the age of 30 into voting for President Obama. He contends that electronic and internet media, as well as liberal academia, always side with Democrats in policy debates, even though conservative values are more in line with the individualist desires of youth.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America – By Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer argue that the Obama administration is interested in destroying the free market, placing limits on free speech, and putting international over domestic interests. The authors present their thoughts on President Obama’s planned and recently passed legislation and how conservatives can counter what they deem are attacks on American freedoms. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer discuss their book at Book Review bookstore in Huntington, New York.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Grand Jihad: How Islam And The Left Sabotage America – By Andrew C. McCarthy

Author of “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of Jihad” and former federal prosecutor in NYC argues that both the the U.S. Government and the Left actively suppress the jihadist ideology that he claims dictates that they conquer America.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack On Christianity – By S.E. Cupp

The New York Daily News columnist tries to hold the liberal left and liberal media accountable for what she says is an assault on religion and the nation’s heritage. The event is at the National Press Club in Washington.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties To Communists, Socialists And Other Anti-American Extremists – By Aaron Klein

Aaron Klein discusses ties he says President Obama has to fringe organizations and extremists. He appears here on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio program. Mr. Klein is senior investigative reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief for WorldNet-Daily.com. He’s also a columnist for Jewish Press, host of weekly radio talk show for New York’s WABC and author of two previous books, including Schmoozing with Terrorists.

————————————————————————————————————————————————

To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine – By Newt Gingrich

The former Speaker’s assessment of the Obama administration’s performance thus far and his plan to stop what he calls a socialist agenda.

Another Republican who I could support

John Bolton? Not a bad choice at all I would think~!

Another Republican has voiced interest in challenging President Obama for the White House in 2012. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday he’s “considering” a run.

“Yes, I am considering it,” Bolton told conservative radio show host Aaron Klein’s on WABC in New York. “If I did run, and I haven’t made a decision, I have never run for office one way or the other, so it would be a pretty big decision to do it.”

Bolton, who serves as a Fox News commentator, said he’s concerned that the national discourse does not include talk of foreign policy.

I really am not familiar with Bolton’s stance on domestic issues, fiscal ideals etc. But I think he is rock solid on foreign policy. And, as I have said before, I think there are several excellent Republicans, no, not YOU Huckaphoney, or YOU NEWT, who would make great presidents.