Is Joe Biden Mentally Ill Or Just Plain Stupid? (Video)

Brainless Idiot Joe Biden Tells Boston Bombing Survivors “It Was Worth It” – Gateway Pundit

Jumping Joe Biden was in Boston today on the anniversary of the Marathon bombings. Biden told the survivors of last year’s terrorist attack – “It was worth it.”

“To those quote “survivors,” My God, you have survived and you have soared. It was worth… It was worth it. I mean this sincerely, just to hear each of you speak. You’re truly, truly inspiring. I’ve never heard anything so beautiful with what all of you just said.”


Twitchy has reaction.

More… Patty added:

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Egyptian Court Sentences 529 Obama-Backed, Muslim Brotherhood Extremists To Death

Egypt Sentences 529 Morsi Supporters To Death – Times Of Israel

A court in Egypt on Monday sentenced 529 supporters of ousted Islamist president Mohamed Morsi to death after a mass trial, judicial sources said.


Islamist backers of Morsi are facing a deadly crackdown launched by the military-installed authorities since his ouster in July, with hundreds of people killed and thousands arrested.

The sentence was delivered in the second hearing of a trial which began on Saturday in Minya, south of the capital.

Of those sentenced, 153 are in detention and the rest are on the run, the sources said, adding that 17 others were acquitted. The verdict can be appealed.

Those sentenced are among more than 1,200 Morsi supporters on trial in Minya. A second group of about 700 defendants will be in the dock on Tuesday.

They are accused of attacking both people and public property in southern Egypt in August, after security forces broke up two Cairo protest camps set up by Morsi supporters on August 14.

They are also charged with committing acts of violence that led to the deaths of two policemen in Minya, judicial sources said.

The accused include several leaders of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, including its supreme guide Mohamed Badie.

Morsi, Egypt’s first elected and civilian president, was ousted by the army on July 3 in a move that triggered widespread unrest across the deeply polarised nation.

Hundreds of people died in the August assault on the two Cairo protest camps and in subsequent clashes that day.

Rights group Amnesty International says at least 1,400 people have been killed in violence across Egypt since then, and thousands more have been arrested.

Morsi is himself currently on trial in three different cases, including one for inciting the killing of protesters outside a presidential palace while he was in office.

Morsi was removed after just 12 months as president following mass street protests against his rule amid allegations of power grabbing and worsening an already weak economy.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Personnel On Ground During Benghazi Attacks Outraged That CIA IG Has Never Conducted An Investigation

‘Very Upset’: CIA Sat On Benghazi Investigation, US Personnel Fuming – Fox News

American personnel on the ground in Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack are outraged after learning that the CIA’s inspector general never conducted an investigation into what happened – despite two CIA workers being killed in the attack and despite at least two complaints being filed by CIA employees.


Former Ambassador Chris Stevens, another State official and two ex-Navy SEALs working for the CIA were killed in that attack.

Many in the agency were told, or were under the impression, that an investigation was in the works, but that is not the case.

One person close to the issue told Fox News: “They should be doing an investigation to see what the chief of base in Benghazi and station chief in Tripoli did that night. If they did, they’d find out there were some major mistakes.”

This source claimed an investigation would likely uncover a lot of details the public does not know.

Asked why such a probe has not been launched, a CIA spokesman said: “CIA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) always reviews carefully every matter that is brought to its attention, and takes appropriate action based on a variety of factors.”

Still, at least two complaints were filed by CIA employees concerned about the attack, which began at the U.S. compound and eventually spread to the CIA annex one mile away. There is no question that CIA personnel saved a lot of lives; those on the ground that night continue to herald the heroism of the individuals who responded to try and help Stevens and others under attack.

Yet questions remain about the overall decision-making, possible destruction of evidence and warnings of an impending attack.

“There needs to be a CIA investigation… there was a lot of things done wrong,” one special operator said.

But a CIA spokesman said the OIG has already “explained fully” to the agency’s congressional oversight committees “why it did not open an investigation into Benghazi-related issues.”

“That decision was based on a determination that the concerns raised fell under the purview of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, and that a separate OIG action could unnecessarily disrupt the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Benghazi attacks,” the spokesman said.

The Accountability Review Board probe was ordered by the State Department, and the board reported its findings in December 2012.

But separate investigations haven’t stopped the OIG from investigating issues before. Why they held back in this instance is a question starting to filter through the agents at the CIA. Fox News has been told some of the investigators initially assigned to review the Benghazi complaints are “very upset and very frustrated” that they were told to stop the process.

Some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee expressed some of these same concerns in their review of the Benghazi attacks. On page 15 of the Republican response on Jan. 15, it states: “…the committee has learned that the CIA Inspector General did not investigate complaints relating to the Benghazi attacks from CIA whistle blowers. Whether these complaints are ultimately substantiated or dismissed is irrelevant. On a matter of this magnitude involving the deaths of four Americans, the Inspector General has a singular obligation to take seriously and fully investigate any allegation of wrongdoing. His failure to do so raises significant questions that we believe the Committee must explore more fully.”

Fox News has also learned that the Senate Committee was told by the CIA that the investigation did not take place because it would interfere with the State Department Accountability Review Board, which was conducted to “examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks.” While that review contained major criticism aimed at State Department officials in Washington, it didn’t directly mention the CIA.

“Since when does the CIA defer to State? The ARB is in a total different agency anyway,” one special operator said.

Former U.S. United Nations spokesman Richard Grenell also is critical of the CIA actions. “It’s puzzling that the Obama administration is so reluctant to do a real investigation of the facts surrounding the Benghazi attack,” he said. “The ARB conveniently never interviewed Hillary Clinton or her political team about what they knew in the lead up or how they reacted during the crisis. And now we learn that the CIA wasn’t interested in conducting a real investigation either.”

The frustration within the agency is building over the fact that many see the CIA inspector general as their last line of defense internally. While the internal complaints are classified, Fox News has learned that besides questioning the actions of the station chief and chief of base, the complaints also question dealings with the Libyan security forces – and include questions about the reliance on a group of local volunteer militiamen called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade for security and their likely participation in the attack.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Iran-Backed Palestinian Terrorists Launch 60 Rockets At Israel

Iran-Backed Terror Group Launches 60 Rockets At Israel – Washington Free Beacon

Palestinian terrorists tied to Iran fired more than 60 rockets into Israel on Wednesday, causing widespread panic among Israeli citizens and throwing into jeopardy months of U.S.-led negotiations towards a peace deal.


The Iranian-backed terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) reportedly claimed responsibility for firing dozens of rockets into Southern Israel.

The Palestinian al Quds Brigade’s main website claimed earlier in the morning that PIJ was responsible for the attack. PIJ says it will be releasing a statement on the attacks within the next hours.

Al Quds reported that more than 90 rockets had been fired in retaliation for what claimed is Israeli aggression and “Zionist settlements.”

The boost in rocket attacks comes just a week after Israel seized a ship carrying advanced Iranian weapons destined for the Gaza Strip.

One Israeli official was quoted on local radio as saying, “It’s a barrage such as we haven’t seen for two years,” according to reports.

PIJ officials and the terror group Hamas have been threatening to attack Israel for weeks and similar rhetoric has emerged this week from Iran, where one of the country’s military leaders claimed Tehran has its “hands on the trigger” to destroy Israel.

Early reports indicate that no Israelis were harmed in the attack, but an official readout of the damage has not yet been released.

PIJ is just “one of several [terror] groups that observers worry have been stockpiling weapons, including advanced missiles,” according to the pro-Israel advocacy group The Israel Project (TIP).

A team of PIJ terrorists on Tuesday “managed to fire a mortar at Israel,” TIP reported.

Israel’s Air Force responded to the incident, killing three of the terrorists.

The Israeli Defense Forces recently disclosed that the intercepted Iranian weapons ship was carrying a large cache of advanced weapons.

“Naval forces discovered a large Iranian weapons shipment intended for Gaza terrorists,” the IDF reported on its blog. “The shipment included powerful M-302 rockets capable of striking almost any point in Israel, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.”

The IDF additionally discovered “40 long-range M-302 rockets, 181 mortar shells and approximately 400,000 7.62 caliber rounds.”

While Iran “attempted to hide its involvement in the weapons shipment,” the IDF said in a statement the “containers have Iranian authenticity seals on them, including seals of the Iranian postal company.”

The IDF said via Twitter that it “will act to protect our citizens.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Hillary Clinton: The Butcher Of Benghazi (Video)

Hillary Clinton Implicated In Benghazi Murders – Daily Sheeple


The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.

This according to a scathing report entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” put together by Special Ops OPSEC, the same group that produced the viral documentary Dishonorable Disclosures.

Western Center for Journalism has analyzed this groundbreaking report and found that Hillary Rodham Clinton has indeed been implicated in murder.

Watch our exclusive video for all the details about “The Butcher of Benghazi Hillary Rodham Clinton.”


Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Related video:



UCLA Student Throws Psychotic, Profanity-Laced Hissy Fit Following Defeat Of Israel Boycott Measure (Video)

Calif. Student Goes Off On Bizarre, Unintelligible Tirade Following Defeat Of Israel Boycott Measure: ‘We F***ing Blew It!’ – The Blaze

A student at the University of California, Los Angeles, went off on a bizarre and tearful tirade Wednesday after her colleagues voted to dismiss a student council proposal to boycott, divest from and sanction the Jewish state.

The measure was defeated by a vote of 7-5, according to Legal Insurrection.

After the measure was a defeated, one of its supporters lost her cool and launched into a mostly unintelligible outburst.

“I’ve never been more f***ing disappointed than today,” she cried, rocking back-and-forth in her chair.

After that, she started to moan.

“I’ve never been so f***ing disappointed on anything,” she said, pounding her fist on the table. “We f***ing blew it. I’m sorry.”

“And I’m like, I’m like sorry for blowing up right now. And I’m just so disappointed,” she added. “I don’t understand why, like, it went like that.”

She followed this up with more unintelligible moaning:


“The defeat of the divestment resolution was hailed as a win for opponents of the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) movement, which aims to economically isolate Israel and the Jewish people,” the Washington Free Beacon notes. “It follows a series of defeats for backers of the boycott movement, who continue to be viewed as anti-Semitic fringe activists.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Related article:

Ben Shapiro Knocks It Out Of The Park At UCLA BDS Meeting – Right Scoop

Ben Shapiro showed up at a UCLA meeting where the undergraduate student government was voting on whether or not to become part of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement and torched the people there supporting the movement, calling it a “direct manifestation of anti-Semitism.”



Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Whitewashing Benghazi (Jed Babbin & R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.)

Whitewashing Benghazi – Jed Babbin & R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Were he alive today, Richard Nixon would have to doff his hat to Barack Obama. Compared with how the Obama administration has swept under the rug the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012, Nixon’s attempt to cover up the Watergate burglary was rank amateurism. To be fair, Nixon’s team of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and Dean were not in the same league as Obama’s, which includes not only his cabinet but most of the national media and much of Congress.


If a president were intent on covering something up – something big, such as an illegal gun walking operation to Mexico or a dereliction of duty that gets Americans killed at a diplomatic outpost in the Middle East – he would have to operate on as grand a scale as Obama has. He would have to insist that the events were caused not by what the facts showed, but something cut from whole cloth. He and his administration’s functionaries would have to hide documents and shut people up to thwart congressional oversight. And, most importantly, he’d have to have the unquestioning support of loyal minions who would lie and mislead on his behalf, or – like Susan McDougal apparently did for Bill Clinton in the Whitewater scandal – even go to jail to protect him.

The Benghazi veneer is difficult to penetrate. What began as a claim that the attack was a spontaneous response to an obscure video evolved into a centerpiece of the 2012 election and a major scandal for Obama’s administration. A poll conducted last fall showed that 62 percent of likely voters – Democrats, Republicans, and independents – believe a dedicated congressional committee should be formed to investigate the attack. Americans want to know why this happened and who, really, was behind it. They also want to know how it could have happened. A year and a half after the assault, answers are still less than forthcoming. Hearings have been conducted, testimony has been given, reports have been produced and distributed, documents have been declassified, articles and blog posts have been written, books have been published – hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of material. Yet last December, after what he called “months of reporting,” David Kirkpatrick, chief of the New York Times’s bureau in Cairo, tentatively concluded in an article that the “attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs,” that there is “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” and that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” In other words, we’re back in the Rose Garden again, where President Obama spoke on the morning of September 12, 2012. We’re still watching Susan Rice on the Sunday shows. We’re right where we started.

Things might even be worse than that. At least in September of 2012, Rice, now Obama’s national security advisor, agreed to broach the subject. Now she has decided it’s time for the administration – and the American people – to move on. “I don’t have time to think about a false controversy,” she told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes in December. Similarly, Hillary Clinton – in a moment that should shadow her every day of her nascent presidential campaign – let her frustration with pesky questions show when she exploded at a Senate hearing: “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Those who have watched all the hearings and waded through the reports know that months before the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and the two former Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, U.S. intelligence agencies had been warning of possible attacks on American personnel and other assets in Benghazi. So many reports were given to the State Department that it is impossible to explain why all of them were ignored. But they were.

According to the January 15, 2014, report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”), those repeated warnings began with a June 12, 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report that noted growing ties between al Qaeda in the Benghazi area and local Libyan terrorists. Another report, less than a week later (June 18), said that conditions were “ripe” for more attacks and that Libya was becoming a “safe haven” for terrorists. Such reports continued in steady stream. One, in August, noted that the “safe havens” were covering more and more territory and warned that terrorist operations might even be strong enough to attack European targets from Libyan bases.

Between March and August of 2012, western targets were attacked at least 20 times in Benghazi by terrorists using increasingly powerful and sophisticated weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices. Several of these assaults were directed at the convoys of foreign diplomatic personnel. On April 10, Ian Martin, in charge of the special United Nations Support Mission in Libya, survived an explosion from a homemade bomb. The convoy of Dominic Asquith, the British ambassador to Libya, was hit by a grenade on June 11. Asquith was not injured, but the United Kingdom promptly closed its mission the next day. During this period terrorists also attacked UN and Red Cross officials and detonated IEDs planted at the American Temporary Mission Facility, the headquarters of Ambassador Stevens.

In March, Eric Nordstrom, the head security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, made the first of a series of requests for increased security in the country. His requests, which continued at least into July, were not denied; they were ignored. Later, in June, Ambassador Stevens began making similar requests, which the State Department did not honor; and, as a report by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence puts it, the Benghazi mission “continued to be understaffed and under-resourced.” Colonel Andrew Wood, commander of the Site Security Team (SST) at the Benghazi mission, testified in an October 10, 2012, hearing of the House Oversight Committee that three Mobile Security Deployment (MSD) teams were withdrawn from Benghazi over the course of the year despite Stevens’s repeated requests for additional security.

By the time Stevens attended an Emergency Action Committee meeting on August 15, all three of the MSD teams were gone, as was Wood’s SST. The EAC is an interagency panel that meets in embassies and other facilities around the world when those facilities face major security threats. And the Benghazi mission was certainly threatened. On August 8, Stevens sent a cable to Washington observing that “a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape”; he calls these incidents “targeted and indiscriminate attacks.” At the EAC meeting a CIA representative claimed that Benghazi was home to about 10 Islamist training camps, some of them al Qaeda affiliated. At the same meeting, an unnamed “regional security officer” said that he was concerned – justifiably, it turned out – about the mission’s ability to defend itself.

About 60 armed terrorists entered the mission unimpeded at 9:42 p.m. on September 11, 2012. They set fire to the barracks holding Libyan militia troops, who were supposedly acting as a “security force,” and, minutes later, set fire to the building where Ambassador Stevens was. One of the five Diplomatic Security Service agents on duty immediately relayed the situation to the nearby CIA Annex, the embassy in Tripoli, and the State Department in Washington. Stevens was moved to a “safe room.”

Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya, received a call from Stevens five minutes later, and the ambassador told him the consulate was under attack. Hicks later told the press that he and everyone else in the Libya mission believed it was a terrorist attack “from the get go.” At about that time, a security team based in Tripoli consisting of seven men – at least two of them Delta Force operators – was ordered to Benghazi. It had to charter an aircraft to fly there, and didn’t arrive at the Benghazi airport until about 1:15 a.m. It spent three hours negotiating with Libyans for transportation and a security escort to get to the Annex.

The DSS agent who had put Stevens in the “safe room” stationed himself outside it. When the fire and smoke forced him to move, he lost track of the ambassador. Capturing Stevens alive may have been the terrorists’ main objective. Whether they intended to take him alive or not, he seems to have been killed within the first 20 minutes of the attack. According to the SSCI report, none of the DSS agents fired a shot that night.

By about 11:30 p.m., the annex security team, accompanied by the survivors of the mission, retreated in two armored vehicles, to the annex. At roughly the same time, a Predator reconnaissance drone arrived over the mission and began transmitting intelligence to the Pentagon, and probably to the CIA and State Department as well.

According to Greg Hicks, reports began to filter in at about 12:30 a.m. – via Twitter – that the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group – an al Qaeda affiliate – was claiming credit for the attacks.

Beginning between midnight and 2 a.m., Defense Secretary Leon Panetta began ordering other military assets to prepare for intervention. Panetta ordered two Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) platoons to Libya from Rota, Spain. One was to go to the rescue of the annex, but it failed to arrive until about 9 p.m. on September 12, a full day after the attacks. The second unit wouldn’t have arrived for another 72 hours, according to the SSCI report.

In addition, between midnight and 2 a.m., Panetta ordered special operations units in from Croatia. But they also couldn’t arrive in time.

At about midnight, the annex was fired upon in a small arms and RPG attack that lasted about an hour. At 4:30 a.m. the seven-man team from Tripoli left for the annex. Upon arriving, they immediately began to assist in its defense. A former SEAL with knowledge of the situation told TAS that the security team inflicted a large number of casualties on the attackers.

The final attack came at about 5:15 a.m. Mortar fire took the lives of Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, who were on the roof of the building, defending it. (One of the Delta Force operators, MSgt. David Halbruner, received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in that fight. Another, rumored to be a Marine, may have received the Navy Cross. Both honors are second only to the Medal of Honor.)

According to the SSCI report, “The mortar fire was particularly accurate, demonstrating a lethal capability and sophistication that changed the dynamic on the ground that night.” In less than an hour, all were evacuated from the annex. Stevens’s body, recovered from a hospital, and all the other living and dead Americans left Benghazi at about 10:00 a.m.

The SSCI has concluded that the attacks “were deliberate and organized, but that their lethality and efficacy did not necessarily indicate extensive planning.” Which is to say that the attacks, whatever the specific motivation behind them, were simply not a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video. That supports the conclusion of a former Navy ordinance expert we spoke to within about 48 hours of the attacks, who told us that the mortar attack could not have been accomplished by random demonstrators.

The bottom line is that the attacks went on for just a few minutes short of eight hours. But according to the Obama administration, the Americans initially under fire were beyond any help our military could have provided.

What makes Benghazi so exasperating is the fact that it involves two scandals. The first is the scandal of the attack that left dead four Americans whose lives might have been saved had they received the level of security that they deserved – and indeed requested. The second, intimately bound up in the first, is the scandal of the Obama administration’s response to their deaths.

When the attacks occurred the 2012 presidential election was less than eight weeks away—a problem given Obama’s campaign narrative that the dangers of terrorism were a thing of the past. Remember Joe Biden’s trope that “al Qaeda is dead and GM is alive”?

Lucky for President Obama, Mitt Romney supported American intervention in Libya, too, which left him unable to raise the obvious point that there would have been no Americans in Benghazi to be killed if Obama hadn’t foolishly put them there. Having wrongly decided that America had a national security interest in helping France topple Gaddafi, Obama’s mistake was compounded by the decision to put American diplomats in a city that was known to be a safe haven for terrorists. Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, knew or should have known of the security problems in Benghazi and had the responsibility to correct them. Romney wouldn’t point any of this out, and Obama certainly couldn’t admit it. Which is why – pace, Candy Crowley – Obama didn’t say on September 12, 2012, that it was a terrorist attack. Instead, in his Rose Garden remarks, the president talked about our unshakeable ties to Libya (of which our history is bereft) and said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

On September 14, 2012, three days after the attacks, a memorial service was held for Sean Smith at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. President Obama and Hillary Clinton both spoke at the service. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Smith’s mother Pat said that Obama, Clinton, and Susan Rice had each told her at the service that the cause of the attacks was the anti-Muslim video. The following day, the CIA prepared talking points for the House and Senate Intelligence committees. As originally drafted, they included references to al Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia, and they referred to “attacks,” not protests. They also detailed the previous attacks on foreign interests in Benghazi. Those references were expurgated. The party responsible is unknown, but a good bet would be on the White House. According to the SSCI report, then-CIA Director David Petraeus wrote in an email that the White House national security staff had the final word on the talking points. The people responsible may well have been those identified in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s recent memoir Duty as having made decisions based on politics rather than the national interest: then-National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Army Lt. Gen. Doug Lute..

At that time, the Obama administration knew what the CIA knew: that there were terrorist camps in Benghazi, that the security of the mission was perfunctory, and that Stevens had been asking for reinforcements. It knew what Greg Hicks knew: The attacks were an organized, terrorist effort. It also knew that Ansar al-Sharia had apparently claimed credit for the attack, that Ansar is tied to al Qaeda, and that the accuracy of the mortar attack on the annex could not have been the work of untrained men.

Five days after the attacks, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice went on five Sunday talk shows and said the attacks were spontaneous, not premeditated, the response to an offensive anti-Muslim video.

The White House insisted that she relied on the CIA talking points, leaving out the fact that they had been watered down to delete references to terrorist involvement.

A few weeks later, Darrell Issa held a hearing of the House Government Oversight Committee. Many expected Issa to blow the lid off the Benghazi scandal. Though Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb claimed, erroneously, that there had been adequate security resources in Benghazi, these hearings went nowhere. Were requests made for additional security or not? The story was not kept straight. During the vice-presidential debate on October 11, Joe Biden made the absurd claim that budget cuts had made responding to Stevens’s requests impossible and that the requests had never been received in the first place.

After the election leak followed leak, but the administration stonewalled any serious investigation. The half-hearted effort of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board led the way. Convened by Hillary Clinton and led by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, the ARB came to nothing, or at least nothing much. According a source close to the State Department who tried to approach the ARB about the security laxity in Benghazi, the board was dismissive and really didn’t want to know. Its December 12, 2012, report harrumphed gravely, finding that systematic failures in State Department management and leadership (meaning exercised by people far below Hillary in rank) led to the inadequate security in Benghazi. It downplayed decisions made by higher-ups such as Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who exchanged a memo in 2011 titled “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya” which states in part, “I would like to maintain a small State-run presence in Benghazi through the end of calendar year 2012, to include the critical summer elections period… With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees…” Kennedy remains at the State Department. Feltman, who did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this article, moved to a ranking position at the UN in June 2012. He ought to be invited to tell what he knows to Congress.

Further, CIA employees knowledgeable about the Benghazi attacks have been subjected to monthly polygraph examinations – far more often than usual – to prove that they haven’t leaked anything to the press or Congress. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has asked for testimony from survivors of the attacks, but the number – and identity – of respondents remains classified.

Security videos show that there was no demonstration before the attacks, which suggests that the anti-video protest story is a complete fiction. A former senior Navy officer says that EA-18G “Growler” aircraft were fueled and on the ramp in Sigonella, Italy, about 40 minutes’ flying time at Mach 0.7 from Benghazi. Though unarmed, the Growlers could have provided reconnaissance (in addition to that being done by the Prowler) within an hour or two of the 9:40 pm attack. Why weren’t they ordered in?

There were other aircraft – F-15s and more – at our airbase in Aviano, Italy, that could have been alerted. Even if it took an hour to gather intelligence and arm the aircraft, even if they had to land at Sigonella to quickly refuel because no tankers were available, they could have arrived long before the 5 a.m. attack on the annex. A single armed F-15 could have put a quick stop to the attacks. But no such orders came. There is simply no excuse for inaction. When Americans are under fire, our military has a moral obligation to fly into the fight as fast as it can. The administration tried to excuse inaction by saying it did not have Libyan permission to cross the border with armed aircraft or troops. In cases such as these, it’s always better to ask forgiveness than permission.

The SSCI report includes a section for comments by Republican lawmakers, who cite “significant and sustained” resistance by the State Department to SSCI’s efforts to obtain documents, access witnesses, and answer questions. They claim that the State Department “swiftly asserted questionable jurisdictional objections and resisted full cooperation with our review” despite the fact that the attacks were made against intelligence community personnel and the fact that the SSCI jurisdiction cuts across committee jurisdiction whenever intelligence matters are concerned.

General Martin Dempsey, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is specifically criticized by the SSCI for deficiencies in command. The report admits that the Pentagon cannot plan to rescue anyone from any embassy at any time, but states that given the terrorist presence in Benghazi and the inadequate security there (not to mention the importance of the date), Dempsey is guilty of “…either a profound inability or a clear unwillingness to prevent problems before they arise.”

And what of the president? We still don’t know where Obama was or what he was doing on the night of the attacks. To repeat a familiar phrase, what did the president know, and when did he know it? How did he react? Did he make any decisions, and if so what were they? If not, why not?

So far the Obama administration hasn’t claimed executive privilege to protect people and documents. They haven’t had to, because Congress, a few indefatigable individuals excepted, has had the attention span of a guppy.

Soon after the attacks, Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf introduced HR-36, a bill to create a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks. Under Wolf’s bill, the special committee would have subpoena power and could force the issue of testimony and access to documents. If it did, we might yet see Obama exercise Executive Privilege just as he did in the “Fast and Furious” scandal. The bill has 177 sponsors, almost enough to pass the House today. The only problem is that House Speaker John Boehner won’t allow the bill to come to the floor. He has repeatedly blocked it from consideration. Without leaders interested in the truth, the American public will never find out, not now, not in the history books, just what happened on September 11, 2012. Nor, on present trends, will they find out why they can’t find out.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Convert to Catolicism planned to kill American troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan

Oh, wait, did I say he converted to Catholicism? My mistake, take a wild guess what religion he DID CONVERT TO!

Via IPT:

A New York man pleaded guilty Wednesday to plotting an attack on American police and soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. Jose Pimentel (a/k/a Muhammad Yousuf), a Dominican convert to Islam living in Harlem, wanted to use homemade pipe bombs in the attack.

According to the original criminal complaint, Pimentel’s website,, advocated violence against Americans. For example, an article titled, “Why Usamah Ibn [sic] Laden is the Leader of the Believers,” said that “People have to understand that America and its allies are all legitimate targets of warfare. This includes, facilities such as army bases, police stations, political facilities, embassies, CIA and FBI buildings, private and public airports, and all kinds of buildings where money is being made to help fund the war.”

In recorded conversations with a government informant, Pimentel discussed targeting Americans using explosive devices, including killing returning marines and soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. He suggested buying bomb components from Home Depot. “That is what I really want to get into because it’s so cheap and it could do a lot of damage,” Pimentel said in a September 2011 conversation. “[A]nd then that’s something worth going to jail for, you know. Like, if you get caught because you blew up half of a side of a police station.”

OK, he has confessed now take him to any Redneck bar in Alabama, announce what he did, and let nature take its course! 

Only Under Holder (Robert Delahunty & John Yoo)

Only Under Holder – Robert Delahunty & John Yoo


Chalk up yet one more legal fiasco to Attorney General Eric Holder. Apart from failing to enforce Obamacare, immigration, and the drug laws, the administration continues to endanger national security with its catch-and-release approach to terrorists. In a preview of the consequences of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama Justice department (DOJ) is starting to apprehend terrorists abroad and free them at home.

The story begins with the 2011 arrest of Ali Mohamed Ali, who took part in the pirate attack on a Danish vessel, the CEC Future, off the northern coast of Somalia three years earlier. Ali acted as a translator for the pirates and communicated their demands to the vessel’s owner, Clipper Group. After two months of holding the ship and its crew of 13 captive, the pirates eventually released them in exchange for a ransom of $1.7 million. The ransom payment was dropped onto the vessel by helicopter. As part of its efforts to suppress piracy, including the stationing of a naval task force off East Africa, the United States eventually captured Ali.

For centuries, international law has considered pirates to be the ultimate war criminals and “enemies of all mankind.” As a crime of “universal jurisdiction,” piracy can be punished by any nation. But there is no requirement that it be tried in the civilian courts. Piracy is inherently a warlike enterprise, and in its present form off the Somali coast it has reached higher levels of violence than some wars do. In 2008, the year in which the CEC Future was taken captive, pirates seized 49 ships and held nearly 900 crew members for ransom worldwide. Somali pirates were responsible for 111 attacks that year. Although the incidence of Somali piracy has dropped since peaking in 2011, it is still a serious menace.

But this administration, trapped by the ideology of its anti-war base, had no idea what to do with Ali. The Obama administration refuses to send any new detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because it cannot bring itself to admit agreement with Bush-era anti-terrorism policies. Instead, it prefers to kill terrorist leaders (and nearby civilians) with drone strikes rather than capturing them to gain intelligence. As a result, the Obama administration has failed to capture a single high-ranking terrorist leader in five years, and the most valuable pool of information – human intelligence – is drying up.

Out of options, Holder began the sad comedy of errors by bringing Ali back to the United States. Consistent with Holder’s preferred policy of trying suspected terrorists in ordinary civil courts inside the United States, rather than before military commissions, federal prosecutors put Ali on trial in a federal district court in Washington, D.C. The most important charge against him was piracy, which on conviction carries a mandatory life sentence. Lesser charges included hostage taking.

Prosecutors compounded Holder’s basic mistake by failing last November to persuade the jury to convict Ali. Obama’s DOJ then brought its bungling to new heights by deciding to drop the remaining charges against Ali. Having gotten a read on the men across the table, Ali has called the administration and now raised it – by applying for permanent asylum in the United States. The chances are excellent that Ali will remain inside the United States for a prolonged stay or even the rest of his life.

This is not the first time that Holder’s DOJ has sought to try such cases in ordinary civil courts inside the country, rather than at Guantanamo Bay, where military commissions for trying terrorists are available. Earlier in the Obama administration, Holder sought a civil criminal trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other suspects involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. But Holder had no answer to questions about what would happen if a jury failed to convict these al-Qaeda suspects. He said merely, “I would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless I was confident that our outcome would be a successful one.”

In other words, Holder acknowledged that he had no Plan B. But despite Holder’s presumptuousness, federal prosecutors cannot control jury deliberations or predict their outcomes with certainty. Once a case has gone to the jury, it is for the jurors alone to decide whether to find that the accused has been proven guilty or not.

The public blowback against trying terrorists inside the United States was intense and bipartisan, and the White House retreated from Holder’s plan under fire. But this administration is not one to admit to or learn from its mistakes. In the Ali case, Holder and his subordinates took the risk that they might not succeed in convincing a jury that Ali was himself a pirate because he had provided translation services to a pirate gang. Their gamble backfired when the jury reported its verdict.

What happened makes plain the original wisdom behind military commissions. From the Revolution to World War II, American commanders convened these special military courts to try the enemy for war crimes. George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt ordered the use of commissions as part of their responsibility to punish enemy transgressions and to encourage compliance with the rules of civilized warfare. They combine speedy proceedings unencumbered by the years of delay in the peacetime justice system with judges and juries drawn from the officer corps who are specialists in the laws of war. In a WWII decision, Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld FDR’s choice of military commission to try German spies captured on a sabotage mission within the United States, even though at least one of the defendants may have been born in the country.

But committed to its base’s dislike of Bush anti-terrorism policies, the Obama administration has forsworn the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and trial by military tribunals. Instead, Holder may have assumed that even if Ali were not convicted, he could be deported from the country as an illegal alien. But our immigration laws permit aliens inside the United States to apply for asylum – even if they have been brought into the country to stand trial. Ali has taken advantage of that opportunity. In all likelihood, his asylum application will take months, if not years, to process. And in the end, he may even prevail. Other terrorists will take note: Even if their plots in the U.S. fail, they can always try their luck with a jury trial and then file for citizenship.

There is no need for our government to create a public danger of this kind. We should not have to worry about the presence of suspected pirates or terrorists in our midst. The correct course in a case like this would have been to try Ali outside the United States, before a military commission. But the broader problem still remains: President Obama is intent on returning terrorism to our domestic law enforcement and civilian courts for resolution because he believes that – all information to the contrary – the tide of war is receding. Grappling with the metamorphosis of the terrorist into a less intense, more decentralized enemy, however, is no excuse to bring terrorists back home for release.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


House Republicans Create ‘Benghazi File Repository’ Website

House Republicans Create “Benghazi File Repository” Website – DCX


House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled their new “Investigation of Benghazi” website which appears to be a Benghazi file repository of committee reports and other declassified publications related to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Diplomat Sean Smith.

In a couple of brief paragraphs the website explains that the mission of the House Republicans is to discover what occurred on that night in Benghazi and to uncover exactly what the Obama administration is attempting to cover up:

Shortly after the attack, House Republicans asked the Obama administration to explain to the American people the Administration’s actions leading up to and during the attack itself, as well as the fact that publicly-available information consistently contradicted Administration accounts describing the cause and nature of the attack. Our fight for answers and justice continues today.

For over a year now, House Committees have engaged in serious, deliberate, and exhaustive oversight investigations of what led up to this tragic event, what happened that night, and why the White House still refuses to tell the whole truth. All of the unclassified information and findings from this ongoing investigation can be found on this website.

This page continues to be updated as more information becomes available. The most recent update was made on January 29, 2014.

One of the most interesting sections of the new repository is titled House Committee on Foreign Affairs and includes the following files:

Hearing Transcripts
* “Benghazi: Where is the State Department Accountability?” September 18, 2013
* “Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s View,” January 23, 2013
* “Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board,” December 20, 2012
* “Benghazi and Beyond: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012 and How to Prevent it from Happening at other Frontline Posts, Part I,” November 15, 2012

1/28/13 Clinton-State
* Outgoing: 04.15.13 – State Dept, Sec. of State, Royce Chaffetz Issa
* Outgoing: 2013-01-28-DEI-Royce-Chaffetz-to-Clinton-State-ARB-due-2-11

1/31/13 ARB Recommendations
* Incoming: 03.29.13 – State Dept, RE Issa Royce Chaffetz to Clinton-State
* Outgoing: 01.31.13 – State Dept, Sec. Clinton – ARB recommendations

4/23/13 Interim Report 5 Cmte Letter
* Outgoing: 04.23.13 – POTUS, Five Committee letter re Benghazi

5/15/13 Talking Points
* Incoming: 05.20.13 – State Dept, Gibbons, RE DEI & Royce Benghazi-related emails
* Outgoing: 05.15.13 – State Dept, Sec. Kerry, DEI & Royce – Benghazi talking points due 5-20

05/27/13 OIG Continued Concerns
* Incoming: 05.10.13 – OIG, Dep. IG Harold Geisel, Under review RE Continued concerns with ARB report
* Outgoing: 05.10.13 – OIG, Dep. IG Harold Geisel, Continued concerns with ARB report
* Outgoing: 09.27.13 – OIG, Dep IG Geisel, Questions on OIG ARB Review

05/29/13 Status of ARB-Cited Employees
* Incoming: 08.23.13 – State Dept, RE. Status of ARB-cited employees
* Outgoing: 05.29.13 – State Dept, Sec. Kerry, Status of ARB-cited employees

10/30/13 Benghazi Annex Response
* Incoming: 10.30.13 – DOD, Hagel, RE. Benghazi Annex response
* Incoming: 11.12.13 – State, Kerry, RE. Benghazi Annex response
* Incoming: 12.11.13 – CIA, RE. Benghazi Annex response
* Outgoing: 2013-10-30 DEI & Royce to Brennan-CIA – Benghazi Annex response
* Outgoing: 2013-10-30 DEI & Royce to Hagel-DOD – Benghazi Annex response
* Outgoing: 2013-10-30 DEI & Royce to Kerry-DOS – Benghazi Annex respons

10/30/13 Rewards for Justice Program
* Incoming: 11.15.13 – State Dept, Kerry, RE. Benghazi Rewards for Justice
* Outgoing: 10.30.13 – State Dept, Kerry, Benghazi Rewards for Justice

11/19/13 Benghazi Four Employment Status Update
* Incoming: 01.17.14 -State Dept, RE. Benghazi Four Employment Status Update
* Outgoing: 11.19.13 – State Dept, Kerry, Beghazi Four Employment Status Update
* Outgoing: 12.13.13 – State, Follow-up on status ARB-cited employees

The list of other available reports is quite extensive but many of them are heavily redacted. The page should prove to be a valuable resource for anyone investigating the Benghazi terrorist attack.


Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Obama-Supported Syrian “Rebels” Besiege Christian Villiage, Slaughter Residents, Behead Children

Syrian Rebels Behead And Kill Children In Christian Villages – Conservative Infidel


Obama’s proxy war on Christianity continues in Syria as his Al Qaeda allies ruthlessly attack and kill innocent unarmed civilians. They are even beheading children. That’s a manly and moral group Hussein is supporting. Those kids must have had it coming. Way to take the moral high ground, Obama!

In typical Hussein “Fast and Furious” fashion, his weapons that he provided and his “freedom fighters” are killing in the name of the United States.

And there is an interesting twist to this that may offer insights into the underlying mission of both Hussein Obama and his Al Qaeda foot soldiers. Some of the inhabitants of the village of Maaloula, where this latest round of inhumanity is occurring, were given the option of converting to Islam or having their heads cut off.

Not the most attractive of options but hey, they’re Christians, so in Hussein’s world, Al Qaeda is just doing the “lord’s work”. Of course the usual gratuitous shouts of “Allahu Akbar” could be heard. Can’t have a bloodthirsty murder spree without that!

We are in the middle of a “Twilight Zone” type of insanity that borders on unbelievable. How did we go so wrong in such a short period of time?


Click HERE For Rest Of Story


*VIDEOS* It’s Sunday! Time For Walid Shoebat To School All You Heathens On The Difference Between Christendom And Islam




Click HERE to visit Mr. Shoebat’s official website.

H/T The Right Scoop


Within Hours Of FOIA Request For Bin Laden Death Pictures, Admiral McRaven Ordered Them Destroyed

Judicial Watch: Top Pentagon Leader Ordered Destruction Of Bin Laden Death Photos – Washongton Free Beacon

Judicial Watch announced Monday that it received documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing that Admiral William McRaven ordered the immediate destruction of any photos of Osama bin Laden’s death within hours of a Judicial Watch FOIA request.


According to the Pentagon documents, McRaven sent his email on “Friday, May 13, 2011 5:09 PM.” The documents do not detail what documents, if any, were destroyed in response to the McRaven directive. The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit seeking the documents was filed in the United States Court for the District of Columbia only hours earlier. Judicial Watch also announced the filing at a morning press conference. [...]

The move by McRaven to purge the photos appears to have come, at least in part, in response to aggressive efforts by Judicial Watch to obtain images of the deceased bin Laden that President Obama, in a rewrite of federal open records law, had refused to disclose. In addition to its May 2, 2011, FOIA request with the Pentagon Judicial Watch filed an identical request on May 3, 2011, with the CIA. When neither the Defense Department nor the CIA complied with the FOIA requests, Judicial Watch, in June 2011, filed FOIA lawsuits against both agencies. In the course of the litigation, the Pentagon claimed that it had “no records responsive to plaintiff’s request.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


New Navy Map Shows U.S. Had ‘Multitude Of Forces’ Near Libya During Benghazi Attack

Benghazi-Gate: New Navy Map Shows U.S. Had ‘Multitude Of Forces’ In Region Surrounding Libya During Benghazi Attack – Clash Daily


The U.S. military had a multitude of forces in the region surrounding Libya when terrorists attacked the Special Mission in Benghazi and murdered four Americans, according to an unclassified Navy map obtained by Judicial Watch this week.

The map features the Navy fleet positions in the North Africa Area of Responsibility (AOR) on September 11, 2012, the day Islamic jihadists raided the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the first diplomat to be killed overseas in decades, and three other Americans were murdered in the violent ambush.

Dozens of vessels were stationed in the region on that day, including two aircraft carriers (Dwight D. Eisenhower and Enterprise), four amphibious ships, 13 destroyers, three cruisers and more than a dozen other smaller Navy boats as well as a command ship. Carriers are warships, the powerhouse of the naval fleet with a full-length flight deck for aircraft operations. During the Benghazi attack, two carriers were based to the east in the Arabian Sea, the Navy map shows.

Two amphibious assault ships (Iwo Jima and Gunston Hill) were situated to the east in the Gulf of Oman and one (New York) was in the Gulf of Aden, the map shows.


Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Your Daley Gator Feel-Good Story O’ The Day

Bad Day At Bomb School: Al Qaeda Instructor Blows Up His Class – Conservative Infidel

Monday was a bad day at bomb school for a group of Sunni insurgents north of Baghdad. A bomb that they intended for others accidentally detonated at their training camp, killing 21.


Authorities responding to the scene found seven car bombs as well as several explosive belts and roadside bombs.

The camp, which included two houses and a garage, was located in a dense, orchard area. Bomb experts immediately defused the other explosiveecurity forces rushed to the sceneUpon hearing the explosion, Iraqi swec

Security forces rushed to the area after hearing the explosion. They arrested 22, many of them wounded.

Car bombs are the weapon of choice and among the deadliest used by the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an al-Qaeda offshoot.

The bomb assembly area was in the village of al-Jalam, a rural farming area outside of Samarra. The nature of the area permitted for easy travel to and from for the militants without being discovered.

Iraqi police verified that the incident was an instructional session which went bad. Of course, that depends upon one’s perspective. Those for whom the explosives were intended would likely have a completely different opinion of the event.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Obama Regime Relaxing Immigration Ban On Terror-Supporting Refugees

Obama Administration Relaxes Immigration Ban On Refugees Who Have Supported Terrorism – Allen B. West

I am sorry to have to report yet another event that makes me question not only the Obama administration’s intent and motivation, but more fundamentally, its allegiance. Naturally, this latest action by the administration is receiving little attention.


Now you would think refugees and asylum seekers who have provided “limited material support” to terrorists might be barred access to our country. But not according to the Obama administration. On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security and the State department wrote new exemptions for the Immigration and Nationality Act which narrowed a ban to exclude refugees and asylum seekers who had supported terrorists.

Thankfully, not everyone in DC thinks this is a good idea. As reported in the Daily Caller,

Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions offered a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration’s decision. Senator Sessions is a stalwart champion in the fight against amnesty for illegal immigrants and protecting our sovereign Republic. He stated, “Not only is this a national security issue, but a financial issue: those granted admission gain access to federal welfare programs funded by U.S. taxpayers. It seems the Obama Administration has forgotten that our immigration laws are meant to protect the interests of Americans.”

Last week, Speaker John Boehner said immigration reform legislation will not happen this year due to President Obama’s penchant for unilaterally and selectively enforcing only those laws he approves. Do you realize how seriously frightening this is? After all, it is a violation of the president’s oath of office not to uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of this Republic – and the Speaker of the House says it as a matter of fact.

Senator Sessions said,

“In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama Administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum-seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups. This includes terror groups not yet designated: al-Qaida was not designated by the Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization until 1999 – long after the first attack on the World Trade Center.”

A Department of Homeland Security official explained the reasoning behind the exemptions, saying “These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure.”

I absolutely agree with Senator Sessions, as I’m sure many of you would when he said,

“The DHS does not have the authority to eliminate portions of the law, stating the department’s claim, leaves one incredulous. It is one thing to approve a waiver in a particular case with uniquely compelling circumstances; it is entirely another thing to declare a plain legal requirement is null and void. What is the point of Congress passing a law if the Administration abuses its ‘discretion’ to say that law simply no longer applies? This is yet one more instance of the Administration rewriting U.S. code through executive decree.”

Many of you are asking, what can be done? We need lawsuits to be filed against President Obama by Congress, regardless if the DC Circuit Court is now stacked with his selected cronies. We also need citizens who can prove legal “standing” to file lawsuits against this unconstitutional administration, which means they must demonstrate concrete evidence of invasion of their legally protected interests.

Most importantly, we need those who are concerned for the future of this Republic to cast the correct vote in November to ensure there is a conservative House and Senate a year from now on Capitol Hill. In which case, if this lawlessness continues from President Obama, there is a Constitutionally-established method to return him to Chicago.

What can possibly be the motivation and intent of eliminating the law barring entry into America for those who have offered support to terrorism, regardless of degree or circumstance? I will leave it up to you to determine the answer – but it’s just another aspect of the “fundamental transformation” of America.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Obama Family Discovered To Be Part Of Secret Muslim Terror Operation (Walid Shoebat)

Obama Family Discovered To Be Part Of Secret Muslim Terror Operation – Walid Shoebat

The Obama family’s legacy – although most today would not even consider saying it – will one day be etched in history books under the heading, “How a family of terrorists fooled America”. They have promoted Wahhabist interests in Saudi Arabia and were the greatest supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.


……………….Sayyid Obama, Barack Obama, and Malik Obama.

And now more damning evidence reveals the Hamas financing connections of President Obama’s brother, Malik Obama, adding further to what we previously disclosed. The Islamic Dawa Organization (IDO) Malik Obama helps lead as Executive Director, is a member organization of “The Union of Good” (UG), which the U.S. Treasury designated as “Terrorist”.

The official website for UG still shows the IDO of Malik and his boss Suar al-Dhahab as being an official member organization in the coalition. UG is an umbrella organization that represents over 50 Islamic fundraising groups worldwide and was designated by the U.S. Department of Treasury as a terrorist entity under Executive Order 13224:

NAME OF ENTITY ADDED ON 11-12-08 UNION OF GOOD (a.k.a. 101 DAYS CAMPAIGN; a.k.a. CHARITY COALITION; a.k.a. COALITION OF GOOD; a.k.a. ETELAF AL-KHAIR; a.k.a. ETILAFU EL-KHAIR; a.k.a. I’TILAF AL-KHAIR; a.k.a. I’TILAF AL-KHAYR), P.O. Box 136301, Jeddah 21313, Saudi Arabia

This authorizes the U.S. government to block the assets of organizations and individuals that provide financial support to terrorist organizations. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, Hamas leadership founded the UG in 2000 shortly after the inception of the second Intifada with the purpose of facilitating the transfer of funds to Hamas.

But how could this happen if his brother is U.S. President?

Now for the damning evidence. According to the UG website’s home page, the two main photos of its two greatest leaders are #1 president of its organization Yusuf al-Qaradawi (the unwavering supporter for Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and the #2 man is none other than Suar al-Dhahab, Malik Obama’s direct boss.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Suar al-Dahab on Union of Good Homepage.


“AKAs: Charity Coalition, Coalition of Good I’tilaf Al-Khair I’tilaf Al-Khayr 101 Days Campaign, Etelaf Al-Khair” (see Dept of Treasury)

…………………Malik Obama and his IDO boss, Suar al-Dahab.

On the Trustees list, Yusuf al-Qaradawi is also listed as #1 President and Suar al-Dhahab is #2 as vice-president (if you use Google translate here, you’re likely to see al-Dahab’s name translated into English as ‘gold bracelet’ due to Arabic names having specific meanings).

…………..Qaradawi and al-Dahab: #1 and #2 on UG Trustees list.

On UG’s Contributing Institutions page, one of the partners listed is Malik Obama’s IDO:

………………….Malik Obama’s IDO listed as UG Contributor.

Islamic Dawa Organization (aka Islamic Dawa Association)*

*Note: The U.S., Wikileaks and Israel err by calling it “Association” when it should be “organization” (Munazamat). The Arabic is correct (Munazzamatal-Da’waal-Islamiia) from the U.S. but the Arabic is incorrect from Israel (Munazzamat Al-Dawa Al Islamic). It should read “Munazamat Al-Dawa Al Islamia”.

The website even provides the method to donate that includes all the affiliated organizations, even Malik’s IDO, with contact information to send the contributions for Hamas:


While IDO funded Hamas throughout the years, it still does and is still part of the coalition of the UG (Union of Good). Again, the U.S. Treasury Department has designated the Union of Good – a worldwide collection of charities headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi – as a terrorist entity as a result of its fund-raising activities on behalf of Hamas. This designation is also in Israel. (see #19 and also here)

The IRS granted a terror funding outfit the ability to operate under a 501(c)(3) and the worst part is we’re talking about the brother of the U.S. President. Everything we reported adds up; the Obama family, to include Grandmother Mama Sarah, Uncle Sayid Obama, Cousin Musa Ismail Obama and now Malik Obama, is part of a clandestine team that funds terrorism. Some questioned the links we provided, complaining that we only provided limited websites of Malik’s IDO. The fact is, there is a plethora of forums and religious websites (some very prominent). There are also universities and even sports clubs raising funds for Hamas and asking donors to send the money to the Sudan’s IDO. To show the volume of websites, we included but a few below.


Lois Lerner: Signature at bottom of Malik Obama’s tax-exempt approval letter.

I rest my case regarding this wretched family.


IDO donations linked to Hamas:
Star Times:
Islamweb, perhaps the most prominent: is a major Muslim website:

Koora (Forum):

Almuslim (Forum): (this one says, “donate for Palestine” on 12/9/09) (called by Yusuf al-Qaradawi in 2006) (King Saud University)

Be my guest and use Google Translate.

Here are a few more links for those who need more information:!

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Related article:

Obama’s Al-Qaeda Allies Pre-K And Kinder Jihad Training Program – Conservative Infidel


In the mind of those who are obsessed with killing, it’s never too earlier to start your children down that path.

This is the four-year-old son of one of the al-Qaeda “freedom fighters” allied with Barack Obama and John McCain. He’s already learning how to shoot the enemy and the infidels before he can even read. There might be a shortage of books in his village, but thanks to America’s arming of our enemies, there’s plenty of bullets to go around.

These are the moderates that John McCain was so insistent on us helping with arms and “humanitarian aid” so they could overthrow the Syrian government. Is this really the kind of people we want to help run a government?

McCain has assured us these are moderates. Perhaps the radical elements start their children out at age three.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


National Intelligence Director Clapper: Iran Can Now Build And Deliver Nuclear Weapons (Video)

Iran Can Now Build And Deliver Nukes, U.S. Intel Reports – Times Of Israel

Iran now has all the technical infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons should it make the political decision to do, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wrote in a report to a Senate intelligence committee published Wednesday. However, he added, it could not break out to the bomb without being detected.


In the “U.S. Intelligence Worldwide Threat Assessment,” delivered to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Clapper reported that Tehran has made significant advances recently in its nuclear program to the point where it could produce and deliver nuclear bombs should it be so inclined.

“Tehran has made technical progress in a number of areas – including uranium enrichment, nuclear reactors, and ballistic missiles – from which it could draw if it decided to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons,” Clapper wrote. “These technical advancements strengthen our assessment that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons. This makes the central issue its political will to do so.”

In the past year alone, the report states, Iran has enhanced its centrifuge designs, increased the number of centrifuges, and amassed a larger quantity of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride. These advancements have placed Iran in a better position to produce weapons-grade uranium.

“Despite this progress, we assess that Iran would not be able to divert safeguarded material and produce enough WGU [weapons grade uranium] for a weapon before such activity would be discovered,” he wrote.

He said the increased supervision and other “transparency” to which Iran has agreed under the new interim deal, reached with the world powers in Geneva in November and finalized last week, could offer earlier warning of a breakout to the bomb. Should Iran cooperate with the interim deal, halt enrichment, and “provide transparency,” then “This transparency would provide earlier warning of a breakout using these facilities.”

Clapper told the Senate committee that the interim deal will have an impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program’s progress and “gets at the key thing we’re interested in and most concerned about,” namely, Iran’s 20 percent enriched uranium.

Iran had also worked hard to advance its program at the Arak heavy water facility, wrote Clapper. Its ballistic missiles, he noted, of which it has “the largest inventory in the Middle East,” are “inherently capable of delivering WMD.” And its space program gives it the means to develop longer-range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.

“We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons,” Clapper wrote. But he noted that Iran’s overarching “strategic goals” were leading it to pursue the capability to do so.


The national intelligence director reiterated that imposing additional sanctions against Iran would be “counterproductive” and would “jeopardize the [interim] agreement.” He advised that additional sanctions against the Islamic Republic should only be kept “in reserve.”

The report was released a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the interim nuclear agreement only set back the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by six weeks.

“This agreement merely set Iran back six weeks – no more – according to our assessments, in relation to its previous position, so that the test, as to denying Iran the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, has been and remains the permanent agreement, if such [a deal] can indeed be achieved,” Netanyahu said at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

Last Wednesday, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of mischaracterizing the terms of an interim nuclear deal. “We did not agree to dismantle anything,” Zarif told CNN.

Zarif repeated that “we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching [uranium] over 5%.”

The six-month deal freezes key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, while allowing limited enrichment to continue, in exchange for some economic sanctions relief. It went into effect on January 20.

The next round of international nuclear negotiations with Iran is expected to be held in New York next month, according to officials involved in the planning.

Israel has threatened to attack Iran should it not back off from its alleged pursuit of a military nuclear capability.

On Tuesday, UN nuclear inspectors arrived in Tehran to visit Iran’s Gachin uranium mine for the first time in several years, Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi said. The visit was part of the framework of a separate deal between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency in November.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Impeachable Offenses Update: State Department’s Own Guards Attacked U.S. Benghazi Mission

State Department’s Own Guards Attacked U.S. Benghazi Mission – WorldNetDaily

The recently released Senate report on the Benghazi attack reveals that the Islamic militia hired to protect the fated U.S. special mission had “vandalized” and “attacked” the mission in the months prior to Sept. 11, 2012.


The new detail raises the question of why the State Department, headed at the time by Hillary Clinton, would continue to employ the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade, an al-Qaida-linked organization, to provide external security to the U.S. facility.

The 88-page Senate report, reviewed in full by WND, states the U.S. Benghazi mission “had been vandalized and attacked in the months prior to the September 11-12 attacks by some of the same guards who were there to protect it.”

That piece of information was not mentioned in the State Department-sanctioned Accountability Review Board, or ARB, investigating the attack.

WND reported Tuesday the Senate report also for the first time reveals the 17th of February Brigade militia refused to “provide cover” for the U.S. security team that was trapped inside the compound.

The ARB paints a picture of the 17th of February Brigade as largely aiding in the evacuation of the U.S. personnel at the mission.

The 17th of February Brigade operates under the Ansar-Al-Sharia banner.

Ansar al-Sharia, tied to al-Qaida, has been implicated in carrying out the attack.

Senate report contradicts State Department

The Senate report states “there were three armed members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade militia” present and working as part of the mission’s security external detail during the attack.

“Outside the compound, the security team asked 17th February Brigade members to ‘provide cover’ for them to advance to the gate of the Temporary Mission Facility with gun trucks,” the report says. “The February Brigade members refused, saying they preferred to negotiate with the attackers instead.

“Eventually,” states the report, “the security team initiated their plan of assault on the mission compound. Some members of the 17th February Brigade ‘jump[ed] into the vehicle’ and ‘a few 17 Feb members follow[ed] behind on foot to support the team’ according to the informal CIA notes provided to the Committee.”

The Senate picture of 17th of February Brigade members refusing to “provide cover” contrasts sharply with the image of the brigade painted in the State Department’s ARB.

The ARB claims the 17th of February Brigade helped American personnel escape a roadblock while fleeing the compound.

“The driver, ARSO 1, reversed direction to avoid a crowd farther down the street, then reverted back to the original easterly route toward the crowd after a man whom the DS agents believed to be with February 17 signaled them to do so.”

The ARB recounted how the 17th of February Brigade complained to the local Libyan government on the U.S. special mission’s behalf after a uniformed Libyan police officer was caught taking pictures of the compound prior to the attack.

The ARB states that as soon as the attack began, the 17th of February Brigade guards advanced “toward the Villa B area.”

Continued the ARB: “At the urging of the Annex security team and friendly militia members, who warned that the compound was at risk of being overrun, the TDY RSO and four ARSOs departed for the Annex without having found Ambassador Stevens.”

It’s all about spreading Islam

The Ansar al-Sharia group promotes strict Shariah, or Islamic law, implementation and the creation of an Islamic empire, or caliphate. It was first to take responsibility for the attack in social media. The group later claimed it “didn’t participate [in the attack] as a sole entity,” stating the assault “was a spontaneous popular uprising” in response to the anti-Muhammad film.

Witnesses told media they saw vehicles at the scene of the attack bearing Ansar al-Sharia’s logo and said gunmen taking part boasted of belonging to the group.

The role of Ansar al-Sharia’s 17th of February Brigade in providing security at the compound may prompt more questions following the naming last week of senior Ansar leader Abu Sufian bin Qumu as a ringleader in the Benghazi attack.

The Washington Post reported gunmen under the command of Qumu participated in the Benghazi attack, according to a U.S. official.

The Post identified Qumu as “leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah,” while the extensive, 54-page Library of Congress document said Qumu in 2012 was “the leader of Ansar Al-Sharia” in Libya and not just in Darnah.

The Post reported witnesses told American officials that Qumu’s militia arrived in Benghazi before the attack and that the State Department was set to implicate him in the deadly assault.

The information will be used in part to designate Qumu’s branch of Ansar al-Sharia as a terrorist group, along with two other al-Sharia branches, reported the Post.

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

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Report: Commander Of U.S. Forces In Africa Didn’t Know Benghazi Annex Existed

Bombshell: Pentagon ‘Didn’t Know’ Benghazi Annex Existed – WorldNetDaily

The extensive Senate report on the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack dropped a major, unreported bombshell: The commander of U.S. forces in Africa was not aware of the existence of the besieged CIA annex.


The staggering detail raises the question of what was transpiring at the fated annex and nearby U.S. special mission and why key members of the Defense Department, including those responsible for responding to emergency situations, were not aware of it.

Questions now must be also raised as to why, on the night of attack, command of an elite unit known as C-110, or the EUCOM CIF, was reportedly transferred from the military’s European command to AFRICOM, or the United States Africa Command.

Page 28 of the 85-page report states:

“With respect to the role of DoD and AFRICOM in emergency evacuations and rescue operations in Benghazi, the Committee received conflicting information on the extent of the awareness within DoD of the Benghazi Annex. According to U.S. AFRICOM, neither the command nor its Commander were aware of an annex in Benghazi, Libya.

“However, it is the Committee’s understanding that other DoD personnel were aware of the Benghazi Annex.”

Page 77 of the report further divulges that Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of U.S. Africa Command, “was not even aware there was a CIA annex in Benghazi at the time of the attacks.”

Continued the Senate report: “We are puzzled as to how the military leadership expected to effectively respond and rescue Americans in the event of an emergency when it did not even know of the existence of one of the U.S. facilities.”

On the night of the attack, Ham was placed in charge of the C-110, a 40-man Special Ops force maintained for rapid response to emergencies. The force was trained for deployment for events like the Benghazi attack. Command was transferred from the military’s European command to Ham in the middle of the attack.

Ultimately, the C-110, which had reportedly been training in Croatia during the attack, was not deployed to respond in Benghazi. Instead it was ordered to return to its forward operating base in Italy.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story