NAPOLITANO: Obama is responsible for the mess in Libya – Washington Times

LIBYA/

LIBYA/ (Photo credit: شبكة برق | B.R.Q)

 

NAPOLITANO: Obama is responsible for the mess in Libya – Washington Times.

 

Intelligence community knew attacks were deliberate

 

By Andrew P. Napolitano

 

How many times have you heard the truism that in modern-day America the cover-up is often as troubling as the crime? That is becoming quite apparent in the case of the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the former U.S. ambassador to Libya.

 

Stevens and three State Department employees were murdered in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month, on September 11th. About an hour before the murders, the ambassador, who usually resides in the U.S. embassy in Tripoli but was visiting local officials and staying at the consulate in Benghazi, had just completed dinner there with a colleague, whom he personally walked to the front gate of the compound. In the next three hours, hundreds of persons assaulted the virtually defenseless compound and set it afire.

 

Around the same time that these crimes took place in Benghazi, a poorly produced, low-grade, 15-minute YouTube clip was going viral on the Internet. The clip shows actors in dubbed voices portraying the prophet Mohammed and others in an unflattering light. The Obama administration seized upon the temporary prevalence of this clip to explain the assault on the consulate. Indeed, the administration sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to represent it on five Sunday morning TV talk shows on September 16th, to make the claim that the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous reaction to the YouTube clip, that it could not have been anticipated, and that the perpetrators were ordinary Libyans angry at the freedom moviemakers in America enjoy.

 

Soon, U.S. intelligence reports were leaked that revealed that the intelligence community knew the attack was not as described by Ms. Rice. The intelligence folks on the ground in Libya reported before September 16th that the attack was well organized, utilized military equipment and tactics, and was carried out by local militias with ties to al-Qaida. In response to these leaks, the State Department, for which Ms. Rice works, acknowledged that the assault was an organized terrorist attack.

 

The Obama administration has publicly rejected the intelligence leaks and insisted as recently as last week during the vice presidential debate that “we” did not know the assault was an act of terrorism against American personnel and property. The word “we” was uttered by Vice President Joseph R. Biden, whose credibility hit a new low when he insisted that the government did not know what we now know it knew. A day after the debate, the White House claimed that the “we” uttered by Mr. Biden referred to the president and the vice president, and not to the federal government or the State Department. This is semantics akin to Bill Clinton’s “it depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

 

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in one of her rare forays into domestic politics, backed up the White House. She actually claimed that the White House was kept in the dark by the State Department.

 

What’s going on here?

 

What’s going on here is the unraveling of a value-free foreign policy and its unintended consequences. The whole reason that the streets in Libya are not safe and the country is ruled by roving gangs of militias is because the U.S. bombed the country last year. In an unconstitutional act of war, the president alone ordered the bombing. It destroyed the Libyan military, national and local police, roads, bridges, and private homes. It facilitated the murder of our former ally Col. Gadhafi and ensured the replacement of him by a government that cannot govern.

 

The consulate attack defies the claims of the president, articulated loud and long during this presidential campaign, that because he killed Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida is dead or dying, and the terrorists are at bay. Thus, in order to be faithful to his campaign rhetoric, the president has been unfaithful to the truth. I personally have seen excerpts from intelligence cables sent by American agents in Libya to Washington on September 12th, the day after the attack and four days before Ms. Rice’s TV appearances, acknowledging the dominant role played by al-Qaida in the attack.

 

So, who is to blame here? The president. He is responsible for destroying the government in Libya, and he is responsible for the security of U.S. personnel and property there. He is accountable to the American people, and he is expected to tell the truth. Instead, he has leaked the possibility of more bombings in Libya. These bombings would be more than a month after the Benghazi consulate attack and would attack the very government that Obama’s 2011 bombs helped to install.

 

Is it any wonder that Bill Clinton, in an unguarded private moment, referred to Obama as an “amateur”?

 

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

 

WE ARE AT WAR AND I WANT A LEADER! Obama campaigns with Beyonce and Clinton celebrates Muslim holiday! – Tea Party Nation

Benghazi Mosque

Benghazi Mosque (Photo credit: an agent)

WE ARE AT WAR AND I WANT A LEADER! Obama campaigns with Beyonce and Clinton celebrates Muslim holiday! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Kasey Jachim

The United States is in crisis mode while Obama skips security briefings to chat with ‘Pimp with a Limp’ and Hillary hosts Lockerbie bomber supporter!  We are at war and I want a leader – not a narcissistic detached campaigner who supports the Muslim Brotherhood.

The United States just lost four Americans, 17 others are wounded, and we have experienced another 9/11 terrorist attack – where is our President?  He is busy campaigning and scheduling appearances with David Letterman, Beyonce, and Jay Z.   Our ‘Commander in Chief’ passed up security briefings to discuss football and his favorite rappers with Pimp with a Limp.  But not to worry, Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett is still in charge at the White House!

Reports have also circulated that the attack in  Benghazi was an inside job and that the U.S. Department of State knew of the attack up to 48 hours ahead of time, yet chose to do nothing.

Well, not exactly nothing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was busy celebrating Muslim holiday Eid Mubarak two days after 9/11 attacks with Libyan ambassador Ali Sulaiman Aujali – the man who supported Scotland’s release of Lockerbie bomber.  But not to worry, Muslim-sisterhood member Huma Abedin has our backs!

Obama has put his campaign and ego ahead of national security and our safety.  Hillary Clinton is in denial.  Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco are burning flags and chanting ‘Death to America.’  Are they concerned?  Obama declined a meeting with our Israeli ally, Bibi Netanyahu, while endorsing and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.  In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  Well, sir, they are shifting in an ugly direction and we now know where you stand.

As the bodies of the four victims were returned to the US today, I was astonished to hear Clinton say this tragedy occurred because of a movie.  THAT is denial.  THAT was an excuse to kill Americans.  When will this administration understand that Islam is NOT a religion of peace?

As our President and Secretary of State play down the volatile situation in the Middle East, Newt Gingrich tells it like it is:

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again perpetuated the kind of intellectual dishonesty that cripples the U.S. response to radical Islamists.

The president asserted we have to oppose “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

Clinton reinforced his analysis when she said, “We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence.”

This concept of “senseless violence” is at the heart of the left’s refusal to confront the reality of radical Islamists.

These are not acts of senseless violence.

These are acts of war.

We are at war and we should demand a leader who will make our safety and the safety of our men and women serving in the Middle East his top priority!  Clint Eastwood nailed it – President Obama has failed us and it is time for him to go!

Kasey Jachim www.lettingfreedomring.com

UN Gun Control Treaty Will Kill Second Amendment » Commentary — GOPUSA

UN Gun Control Treaty Will Kill Second Amendment » Commentary — GOPUSA.

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

“Representatives from many of the world’s socialist, tyrannical and dictatorial regimes [are gathering] at the United Nations headquarters in New York for a month-long meeting, in which they’ll put the finishing touches on an international Arms Trade Treaty that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm,” warns Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

It’s happening right now. The member states of the United Nations have been meeting, behind closed doors with Hillary Clinton, since July 2nd to hammer out the final details on their so-called Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and Barack Obama, has vowed to sign it on July 27th.

If you’re not worried, you should be. Cox goes on to say: “You might think that something so obviously menacing to one of our enumerated fundamental rights would receive a strong rebuke from our top government leaders. But you’d be wrong. This is President Barack Obama’s vision for America, and we’re expected to just go along with it.”

Make no mistake, your constitutional and God-given right to keep and bear arms may forever be regulated and controlled by thugs within the United Nations.

As a matter of policy, President George W. Bush not only opposed the ATT, but also proclaimed that the United States would have no involvement with the planning or implementation of the ATT. He wanted no part of this treasonous treaty.

As Bloomberg news reported, under the Bush Administration, the United States “was the only nation to oppose the 2006 resolution to create an international treaty on the sale of small arms and light weapons, and subsequent measures to continue the talks.”

But the times, they are a changing. Instead of following President Bush’s example and saying, from the get-go, that this voluntary surrender of our constitutional rights will ever see the light of day; Senate Republicans are taking more of a ‘let’s-wait-and-see-what-the-UN-comes-up-with’ approach.

And while Republicans procrastinate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are legitimizing and actively negotiating something that is illegitimate, a treaty the United States should never be negotiating in the first place.

Make no mistake, our elected officials like to talk tough. As a matter of fact, a number of Senators penned a strongly worded letter on ATT to Barack Obama last year, and they even went so far as to say that they would “oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

Don’t be lulled into complacency by the tough-sounding rhetoric. Words are cheap and anyone who knows how the UN operates knows that its S.O.P. is deception. The ATT will, without a doubt, contain written promises and grandiose assurances and the UN will assure far too many Senate Republicans that the ATT will in no way restrict your right to legally own a firearm.

Once the ATT is signed and ratified our own government, under the supervision of the thugs of the United Nations, will start to “regulate” and, soon thereafter, start to “confiscate.” Don’t take our word for it. Former UN ambassador John Bolton, says that the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

The Biggest Scandal In U.S. History – Ann Coulter – Townhall.com

The Biggest Scandal In U.S. History – Ann Coulter – Townhall.com.

Forget executive privilege, contempt of Congress, “fast and furious,” how many documents the government has produced and who said what to whom on which date.

The Obama administration has almost certainly engaged in the most shockingly vile corruption scandal in the history of the country, not counting the results of Season Eight on “American Idol.”

Administration officials intentionally put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, so that when the guns taken from Mexican crime scenes turned out to be American guns, Democrats would have a reason to crack down on gun sellers in the United States.

Democrats will never stop trying to take our guns away. They see something more lethal than a salad shooter and wet themselves.

But since their party was thrown out of Congress for the first time in nearly half a century as a result of passing the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” even liberals know they’re going to need a really good argument to pass any limitation on guns ever again.

So it’s curious that Democrats all started telling the same lie about guns as soon as Obama became president. In March 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced to reporters on a trip to Mexico: “Since we know that the vast majority, 90 percent of that weaponry (used by Mexican drug cartels), comes from our country, we are going to try to stop it from getting there in the first place.”

As she sentimentally elaborated on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren show: “The guns sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico.”

Suddenly that 90 percent statistic was everywhere. It was like the statistic on women beaten by their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday.

CBS’ Bob Schieffer asked Obama on “Face the Nation”: “It’s my understanding that 90 percent of the guns that they’re getting down in Mexico are coming from the United States. We don’t seem to be doing a very good job of cutting off the gun flow. Do you need any kind of legislative help on that front? Have you, for example, thought about asking Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons?”

At a Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said: “It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors … come from the United States.”

And then, thanks to Fox News — the first network to report it — we found out the 90 percent figure was complete bunkum. It was a fabrication told by William Hoover, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), and then spread like wildfire by Democrats and the media.

Mexican law enforcement authorities send only a fraction of the guns they recover from criminals back to the U.S. for tracing. Which guns do they send? The guns that have U.S. serial numbers on them. It would be like asking a library to produce all their Mark Twain books and then concluding that 90 percent of the books in that library are by Mark Twain.

You begin to see why the left hates Fox News so much.

Obama backed away from the preposterous 90 percent claim. His National Security Council spokesman explained to Fox News that by “recovered,” they meant “guns traceable to the United States.” So, in other words, Democrats were frantically citing the amazing fact that almost all the guns traceable to the U.S. were … traceable to the U.S.

Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that even if the percentage is inaccurate, the “vast majority” of guns seized in crimes in Mexico come from the United States. And he should know, because it turns out he was sending them there!

Apart from the guns Holder was giving them, this was an absurd claim. Most of the guns used by drug cartels are automatic weapons — not to mention shoulder-fired rockets — that can’t be sold to most Americans. They are acquired from places like Russia, China and Guatemala.

Right about the time the 90 percent lie was unraveling, the Obama administration decided to directly hand thousands of American guns over to Mexican criminals. Apart from the fact that tracking thousands of guns into Mexico is not feasible or rational, the dumped guns didn’t have GPS tracing devices on them, anyway. There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to such a program.

This is what we know:

(1) Liberals thought it would be a great argument for gun control if American guns were ending up in the hands of Mexican criminals;

(2) They wanted that to be true so badly, Democrats lied about it;

(3) After they were busted on their lie, the Obama administration began dumping thousands of guns in the hands of Mexican criminals.

We also know that hundreds of people were murdered with these U.S.-government-supplied guns, including at least one American, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

But let’s look on the bright side. The BATF was originally going to ship warheads to Iran until realizing the explosions might disable the tracking devices.

(Contrary to more Democrat lies, there was no such program to dump thousands of guns in Mexico under George W. Bush. The Bush administration did have a program that put GPS trackers on about 100 guns in order to actually trace them. That operation was ended almost as soon as it began because of the lack of cooperation from Mexican officials. You may as well say Holder’s program was “started” by the first cop who ever put tracer dye on contraband.)

No one has explained what putting 2,500 untraceable guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers was supposed to accomplish.

But you know what that might have accomplished? It would make the Democrats’ lie retroactively true — allowing them to push for the same gun restrictions they were planning when they first concocted it. A majority of guns recovered from Mexican criminals would, at last, be American guns, because Eric Holder had put them there.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, some brave whistleblower inside the government leaked details of this monstrous scheme. As soon as Congress and the public demanded answers, Holder clammed up. He just says “oops” — and accuses Republicans of racism.

EDITORIAL: Obama is better than you – Washington Times

EDITORIAL: Obama is better than you – Washington Times.

State Department bequeaths words of ‘The One’ to a waiting world

The administration is downplaying the revelation that the State Department blew $70,000 in taxpayer cash buying copies of President Obama’s books. As first reported in The Washington Times, the purchase was meant to “engage key audiences in discussions of foreign policy.” It’s another uncomfortable reminder of the degree to which those who surround Mr. Obama feel it necessary to bathe him in adulation.

More than any president of recent or even distant memory Mr. Obama enjoyed a rock-star persona. “I’ve never seen anything like it,” Los Angeles Times reporter Joel Stein wrote after attending an Obama rally in February 2008. “People are crying, rending their garments.” In 2009, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared, “In a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He’s sort of God.”

Mr. Obama’s sense of personal esteem came through in many of his speeches, such as the classic statement in June 2008: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Mr. Obama was the first president-elect to require a special seal for his non-office. He thought it was perfectly reasonable to present Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II with an Ipod pre-loaded with audio of his inaugural address and 2004 speech before the Democratic National Convention – just in case she hadn’t downloaded them herself yet. Others have noticed Mr. Obama’s odd use of personal pronouns. Statistical analysis shows that he may not use the first person singular more often than some of his predecessors, but the way he does so clearly shows he considers himself a singular First Person.

Like many people with healthy egos, Mr. Obama does not suffer fools gladly – fools being anyone who doesn’t nod vigorously when he speaks. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, described Mr. Obama’s short temper when being forced to deal with Congress during debt ceiling negotiations last July. “It’s almost as if someone cannot have another opinion that is different from his,” he said. “He becomes visibly agitated. … He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds.” He is the president who blamed Americans for being soft and told people facing hard times to “eat your peas.”

Mr. Obama does have a self-congratulatory rival. Late last year a 6-by-9-foot, 800-pound bronze plaque honoring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reinstalled in the Ronald Reagan Building after an almost decade-long absence. This tribute was installed in the lobby of the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1998 and features an excerpt from a speech by Mrs. Clinton about “expanding the circle of human dignity.” Below it, a statement from then-USAID administrator J. Brian Atwood reads: “May all who pass through these portals recognize the invaluable contribution to worldwide development made by the First Lady of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.” It is one thing to make such a grotesquely sycophantic statement, it is quite another to have those words cast in bronze. The plaque was taken down during the George W. Bush administration and now is returned at Mrs. Clinton’s urging.

The story of the Obama book buys faintly echoed a scandal involving former House Speaker Jim Wright, Texas Democrat, who encouraged supporters and labor unions to make bulk purchases of his book, “Reflections of a Public Man.” Revelations of the purchases helped drive Mr. Wright from office in 1989. There is no legal impropriety in the State Department spending tens of thousands of dollars to bring Mr. Obama’s books to the world’s readers, it’s just in very poor taste.