I disagree with the statement,
"The amazing part of this investigation is that there is ALREADY clear evidence. We have witnessed Susan Rice lie on TV multiple times about what she knew."
There is nothing amazing about Susan Rice or any of the other Obama regime lying to the public.
SUSAN RICE LIED ABOUT SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS
By
Daniel John Sobieski
The chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad on the rebel-held town Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 once again underscores what a foreign policy failure President Obama was and what a serial liar Susan Rice is.
On January 16, 2017, Rice, who served as U.N. Ambassador during Obama’s first term and was rewarded for her Benghazi lies with the post of National Security Advisor, where she could be compelled to testify before Congress,
Gave what amounted to an exit interview with NPR. During the interview she crowed about the Obama administration’s success in eliminating the threat of Syrian chemical weapons:
We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.
Tell that, Ms. Rice, to the children of Khan Sheikoun who succumbed to the horrible effects of the sarin gas dropped on them by Syrian forces with the support of their Russian allies. You and your boss colluded with the Russians to keep Assad in power and give Russia a free hand in Syria. Your claim of having removed the threat of Syrian chemical weapons was a lie, as phony as the statement President Onama made after the tragedy of Aleppo. As CNBC reported the statement President Obama made as he washed his hands of all guilt and responsibility:
"With respect to Syria of what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to end the civil war and having also taken into account of the long-term national security interest of the United States," he said….
"Unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems," Obama said in the news conference, noting that it would have required "putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate."…
"Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone: with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands," Obama said.
No, sir the responsibility for this horror lies with you, and the blood of Aleppo and Khan Sheikoun is on your and Susan Rice’s hands. It is you who drew the red lines in Syria and there would be consequences if they were crossed. It is you who said Assad must go. There were no consequences and Assad, protected by Russia, is still there.
As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on Obama’s disappearing red lines in Syria:
Syria's chemical weapons are on the move, their precursor chemicals having been mixed, a crossing of a line drawn by President Obama Aug. 20 when he said "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." So our resolute president decides to draw another line — that if Syria's Bashar al-Assad makes use of those weapons, presumably against his own people or neighbors, he will face "consequences." …Obama's appeasement has come home to roost. Assad remembers how Clinton, appearing on CBS' "Face The Nation," dismissed the idea of U.S. military action or regime change in Syria, claiming that unlike Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, Assad was considered to be a "reformer" by "many of the members of Congress."
Yep, your Secretary of State and defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer:
Apparently neither Mrs. Clinton nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees Syria as an outlaw nation. Both said Sunday that Syria was different from Libya and that we would not be lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus in another "humanitarian" effort.
"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer," Clinton said without disputing the assessment. She also drew a distinction between Libya's use of tanks and aircraft against its protesters and "police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."
Obama and Clinton intervened in Libta to prevent the slaughter of civilians, turning Libya into a failed state and an incubator of terrorism. Yet both did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Syria when they could have easily. We sacrificed four brave Americans at Benghazi in pursuance of this failed policy.
Why did we do nothing in Syria? Perhaps for the same reason we did nothing to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - the Iran deal. Obama, who once promised Russian President Medvedev more “flexibility” after Obama’s reelection, didn’t want to offend Putin. He needed Russia’s help in securing the Iran deal. Taking out Assad would have offended Tehran. So Obama and Clinton sacrificed both Ukraine and Syria to get the Iran deal and put $150 billion in the hands of Iran, a state ponsor of terror and a mass murderer of U.S. troops in both Lebanon and Iraq.
This reformer moved his chemical weapons and you did nothing. He used his chemical weapons and you did nothing. Seeing no resistance Russia moved in to protect Assad and safeguard its access to the Syrian port of Tarus on th Mediterranean.
You could have done a lot, and it did not involve ground troops. You could have parked an aircraft carrier, 90,000 tons of American diplomacy, off the Syrian coast. You could have ordered aur strikes and destroyed the Syrian air force in 24 hours. Then you could have established a no-fly zone protecting a safe haven in Syria. You could have prevented the slaughter in Aleppo, as well as the flood of refugees into Europe. But you didn’t.
The rise of ISIS, which Obama calls ISIL so he can omit the “S” that stands for Syria, is a direct result of the vacuum he created In Iraq by his precipitous withdrawal after victory had been won.
President Bush left a stable Iraq, one where Shiite and Sunnis had learned to coexist and resist a common al-Qaida enemy. There were free and fair elections and we all remember the pictures of Iraqi women holding up their purple fingers indicating they had proudly voted in those elections. Now we have the mass graves of ISIS, beheadings and what can only be called the ethnic cleansing of Christians.
It is a myth, as the White House now claims, that President Obama inherited an Iraqi mess from President Bush and had no choice but to withdraw U.S. troops in the absence of a status of forces agreement. The problem was not that Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki wanted the U.S. to leave, but that the force Obama wanted to leave was just too small. As Patrick Brennan has written in National Review:
These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.
Obama destroyed Libya for no god reason, and sacrificed Syria so that he could pursue the dangerous and flawed Iran deal. He created the vacuum ISIS filled in Iraq and Syria. The blood of Aleppo is on nobody’s hands but his, Hillaty Clinton’s and yours, Susan Rice.
Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
Benghazi After-Action Report by Walt Harper
In lieu of an official After Action Report by the US Congress and in keeping with military traditions of honoring our War Dead, I submit my After Action Report in order to reveal heinous events that not only aggravated a potentially defensible assault on an American Embassy but also insulted the integrity of the US Government. Under the current administration, acceptance of responsibility and feeble attempts to conceal arms trafficking to enemies of the United States through the American Embassy at Benghazi preclude official reporting of fault so I offer it here.
More to the point, a concise report of the September 11, 2012 Attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi can be had here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack- and this is closer to a personal rant about rampant disregard for accountability by the Federal Government.
Ambassador S. Christopher Stevens was killed by Islamic militants affiliated with Ansar-al-Sharia who were in turn affiliated with Libyan Security Forces and local police. Ironically and with conflicting accounts, Ansar-al Sharia transported Ambassador Stevens to their hospital and tired for more than an hour to revive him without success.
Sean Smith was killed was killed by Islamic militants affiliated with Ansar-al-Sharia who were in turn affiliated with Libyan Security Forces and local police. Sean Smith died alongside Ambassador Stevens inside the American Embassy at Benghazi. His body was recovered by CIA operatives before the next attack began at the CIA Annex 1.2 miles away.
At great personal risk, Glen Doherty left Tripoli to assist in defending the CIA Annex in Benghazi and to effect the evacuation of 30 Americans. He met his friend Tyrone Banks there early in the morning of September 12th, 2012 and they both fell in combat after being struck by mortar rounds but not before the safe evacuation of 30 Americans was made possible.
Despite the fact that the loss of four American lives cannot be mitigated by any glorious claim of American Diplomacy or other assertion, it most certainly cannot be summarily dismissed by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she forcefully uttered, “At this point, what difference does it make?”. Thankfully, her public display of callousness towards the gallantry of the fallen heroes was delayed a few days as she recovered from a head injury that occurred after she stumbled and fell.
Throughout all American History, the U.S. Secretary to the United Nations has been a position that served discreetly in international affairs. In the Benghazi Incident, UN Secretary Susan Rice was drummed up to report in place of the Secretary of State and to parrot a wildly incredulous fable that the Embassy was attacked in retaliation for an Anti-Islamic movie called “Innocence of Muslims”. Coincidences, such as the attack occurring on September 11th and the involvement of Ansar-al –Sharia, were willfully negated as mere coincidences. Both actions of both women were disgraceful and insulting to common American intelligence.
The representation of facts pertaining to the Benghazi Incident were rabidly and emphatically dispensed, so much so that, that absence of a final authority-the President of the United States of America-became glaringly obvious. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did when she acquiesced her bid for the Presidency to Senator Barrack H. Obama at the DNC in 2007, she also acquiesced her integrity as a government official when she denied responsibility for the safety of diplomats but admitted to “security lapses”. Any inept Captain of any ship who admitted to knowing of a leak in the ship but not accepting the sinking of the ship would be as obvious as an inept Secretary of State.
Similarly throughout American History, the location and actions of the President of the United States of America during times of crises have always been known, with the exception of the Benghazi Incident. Weak or completely missing details about President Obama’s reactions to, or even knowledge of, the Benghazi Incident, have been as pardoned as the actions of the two women who shielded him.
A Standard Operating Procedure-SOP-is universal to all organized military forces. Mysteriously and for the first time in recorded American military history, the SOP for an attack on Americans was overruled. High ranking military officers involved in the Benghazi Incident and commissioned to initiate SOPs were reassigned. Although it is evident to all military personnel where a “stand down” order must originate from, very little (no) significance is given to this single factor of the Benghazi Incident. Speculatively, had the body count been higher, this single factor might have been sufficient to justify Articles of Impeachment.
When I was much younger, the evening news always reported the Human casualties of the Viet Nam Police Action. I reveled in my naiveté about the greater number of enemy killed and that the war would soon be won. With that upbringing, I am (somewhat) satisfied that the kill ratio that fateful night was 1:33 and it was completed without artillery or air support. Our valiant warriors who fought and died deserve better respect than what was meted out by the Secretary of State, UN Secretary, and the President of the United States of America.
Lest we forget!
Will the Benghazi murders of our four brave American men ever be solved? Probably not because the key players have snubbed their noses at Americans pretty much saying, “catch me if you can.”
Darrell Issa has fallen prey to Washington politics anyway you cut it. This in no way means Darrell Issa has been a willing victim of our defunct judicial system, but it does mean that the Obama Administration has been protected by Obama’s Executive Privilege and Executive immunity.
Darrell Issa did his job and subpoenaed the correct information including telephone calls, emails and other communication sources, but the Obama Administration picked and chose what information would be given to Issa leaving out the pertinent information that would expose or connect him to the Benghazi murders.
If Mr. Issa could have been privy to all telephone calls, emails and communications the night of the Benghazi massacre, there would be numerous people behind bars as we speak. But this isn’t the way the Obama Administration works, they altered, changed and rewrote various communications concerning the night our 4 Americans were killed leaving Mr. Issa with nothing but his hat.
Hang with me and see what has happened to the “key players” in the Benghazi investigation. It’s hard to believe but it appears that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs was the only one on duty at the White House on 9/11/12 – Charlene testified that she watched the Benghazi atrocity in real time.
Obama and Hillary took care of Charlene and placed her on Administrated leave in December 2112 – so one of the key players was removed by Obama and put out of action. * Note at the same time Lamb was hog tied, Hillary swept her office clean removing four midlevel officials who probably could have fingered Hillary, Panetta and Obama.
Next came good old Hillary who stalled when first subpoenaed, because she was banging her head (or something like that), partying and wine testing. Hillary was definitely the white whale of the entire investigation but she pulled off her testimony under oath with the usual Clinton strategy, lying a lot, yelling and finishing by saying, “What difference does it make?” Hillary is doing a dress rehearsal for “Clinton” for President as we speak.
Then we have good ole Panetta who managed to step in the Benghazi Gate crap up to his elbows, but somehow slithered away without a scratch. He testified that the President was pre-occupied and not really interested or engaged in the real time murders were occurring right before his eyes.
Panetta let Hillary off the hook too saying during all this time our Embassy was under attack; there wasn’t any communication with Hillary Clinton. He gave Obama and Hillary a clean bill of health by saying, “Don’t ask and I won’t tell.” Panetta was their guinea pig or Judas goat!
There are many more players who have been shut down by the Obama Administration such as Clapper, Dempsey, Carney, Rice, Petraeus, Pickering, Mullen. Liberal News media and many, many more. Obama and his Administration have gagged and pretty much hand tied all of these players at this time.
Over a year since the Benghazi attack and it appears that Darrell Issa has one more investigation that will be silently swept under the rug leaving Americans and the families of the four men nothing but heartache.
So far Obama appears to have all bases covered in the Fast and Furious gunrunner operation, NSA, IRS, Benghazi and Obamacare – but before 2016 rolls around there will be some brave American Patriot who will honor his or her duty to their Country and fellow Americans – they will take Obama and his Administration down. It’s only a matter of time and I truly believe in “What goes around comes around.”
For all Americans it’s important to realize that we’re under the control of a dictator who will stop at nothing including murder as he continues his attack on our Nation.
As Always,
Little Tboca
There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.
The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.
On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.
The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.
Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.
These weapons were loaded on more than 20 trailer-trucks which crossed into northern Syria and distributed the weapons to several depots. Follow-up weapon shipments, also several hundred tons, took place over the weekend of August 24-25, 2013, and included mainly sophisticated anti-tank guided missiles and rockets. Opposition officials in Hatay said that these weapon shipments were “the biggest” they had received “since the beginning of the turmoil more than two years ago”. The deliveries from Hatay went to all the rebel forces operating in the Idlib-to-Aleppo area, including the al-Qaida affiliated jihadists (who constitute the largest rebel forces in the area).
Several senior officials from both the Syrian opposition and sponsoring Arab states stressed that these weapon deliveries were specifically in anticipation for exploiting the impact of imminent bombing of Syria by the US and the Western allies. The latest strategy formulation and coordination meetings took place on August 26, 2013. The political coordination meeting took place in Istanbul and was attended by US Amb. Robert Ford.
More important were the military and operational coordination meetings at the Antakya garrison. Senior Turkish, Qatari, and US Intelligence officials attended in addition to the Syrian senior (opposition) commanders. The Syrians were informed that bombing would start in a few days.
“The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days,” a Syrian participant in the meeting said. Another Syrian participant said that he was convinced US bombing was scheduled to begin on Thursday, August 29, 2013. Several participants — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that the assurances of forthcoming bombing were most explicit even as formally Obama is still undecided.
The descriptions of these meetings raise the question of the extent of foreknowledge of US Intelligence, and therefore, the Obama White House. All the sources consulted — both Syrian and Arab — stressed that officials of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” actively participated in the meetings and briefings in Turkey. Therefore, at the very least, they should have known that the opposition leaders were anticipating “a war-changing development”: that is, a dramatic event which would provoke a US-led military intervention.
The mere fact that weapon storage sites under the tight supervision of US Intelligence were opened up and about a thousand tons of high-quality weapons were distributed to the opposition indicates that US Intelligence anticipated such a provocation and the opportunity for the Syrian opposition to exploit the impact of the ensuing US and allied bombing. Hence, even if the Obama White House did not know in advance of the chemical provocation, they should have concluded, or at the very least suspected, that the chemical attack was most likely the “war-changing development” anticipated by the opposition leaders as provocation of US-led bombing. Under such circumstances, the Obama White House should have refrained from rushing head-on to accuse Assad’s Damascus and threaten retaliation, thus making the Obama White House at the very least complicit after the act.
Meanwhile, additional data from Damascus about the actual chemical attack increases the doubts about Washington’s version of events. Immediately after the attack, three hospitals of Doctors Without Borders (MSF: médecins sans frontières) in the greater Damascus area treated more than 3,600 Syrians affected by the chemical attack, and 355 of them died. MSF performed tests on the vast majority of those treated.
MSF director of operations Bart Janssens summed up the findings: “MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events — characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers — strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.” Simply put, even after testing some 3,600 patients, MSF failed to confirm that sarin was the cause of the injuries. According to MSF, the cause could have been nerve agents like sarin, concentrated riot control gas, or even high-concentration pesticides. Moreover, opposition reports that there was distinct stench during the attack suggest that it could have come from the “kitchen sarin” used by jihadist groups (as distinct from the odorless military-type sarin) or improvised agents like pesticides.
Some of the evidence touted by the Obama White House is questionable at best.
A small incident in Beirut raises big questions. A day after the chemical attack, Lebanese fixers working for the “Mukhabarat Amriki” succeeded to convince a Syrian male who claimed to have been injured in the chemical attack to seek medical aid in Beirut in return for a hefty sum that would effectively settle him for life. The man was put into an ambulance and transferred overnight to the Farhat Hospital in Jib Janine, Beirut. The Obama White House immediately leaked friendly media that “the Lebanese Red Cross announced that test results found traces of sarin gas in his blood.” However, this was news to Lebanese intelligence and Red Cross officials. According to senior intelligence officials, “Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh told [them] that the injured Syrian fled the hospital before doctors were able to test for traces of toxic gas in his blood.” Apparently, the patient declared that he had recovered from his nausea and no longer needed medical treatment. The Lebanese security forces are still searching for the Syrian patient and his honorarium.
On August 24, 2013, Syrian Commando forces acted on intelligence about the possible perpetrators of the chemical attack and raided a cluster of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Canisters of toxic material were hit in the fierce fire-fight as several Syrian soldiers suffered from suffocation and “some of the injured are in a critical condition”.
The Commando eventually seized an opposition warehouse containing barrels full of chemicals required for mixing “kitchen sarin”, laboratory equipment, as well as a large number of protective masks. The Syrian Commando also captured several improvised explosive devices, RPG rounds, and mortar shells. The same day, at least four HizbAllah fighters operating in Damascus near Ghouta were hit by chemical agents at the very same time the Syrian Commando unit was hit while searching a group of rebel tunnels in Jobar. Both the Syrian and the HizbAllah forces were acting on intelligence information about the real perpetrators of the chemical attack. Damascus told Moscow the Syrian troops were hit by some form of a nerve agent and sent samples (blood, tissues, and soil) and captured equipment to Russia.
Several Syrian leaders, many of whom are not Bashar al-Assad supporters and are even his sworn enemies, are now convinced that the Syrian opposition is responsible for the August 21, 2013, chemical attack in the Damascus area in order to provoke the US and the allies into bombing Assad’s Syria. Most explicit and eloquent is Saleh Muslim, the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) which has been fighting the Syrian Government. Muslim doubts Assad would have used chemical weapons when he was winning the civil war.
“The regime in Syria … has chemical weapons, but they wouldn’t use them around Damascus, five km from the [UN] committee which is investigating chemical weapons. Of course they are not so stupid as to do so,” Muslim told Reuters on August 27, 2013. He believes the attack was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction”. Muslim is convinced that “some other sides who want to blame the Syrian regime, who want to show them as guilty and then see action” is responsible for the chemical attack. The US was exploiting the attack to further its own anti-Assad policies and should the UN inspectors find evidence that the rebels were behind the attack, then “everybody would forget it”, Muslim shrugged. “Who is the side who would be punished? Are they are going to punish the Emir of Qatar or the King of Saudi Arabia, or Mr Erdo?an of Turkey?”
And there remain the questions: Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?
It is a colossal failure.
And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?
Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?
Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs
Copyright Defense and Foreign Affairs and Oilprice.com 2013
How could Ambassador Rice explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?
Smells like a Watergate style cover up.
So, now Ambassador Rice surfaces in what seems to be an attempt to regurgitate the exact same inconsistencies and cover up narrative as if, telling a lie often enough will suddenly become the truth. Not this time Ms. Rice. Not good enough!. Your oath of office should have more value than protecting a cover story. Just ask the White House officials who went to jail because they lied to congress about their own culpability in the Watergate cover up.
Maybe Ms Rice you need to be reminded that these were real people with real families. Their names were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty.
Again, what was she thinking?
Did Susan Rice truly believe that after the Presidential election, America, the news networks and the congress would go on as business as usual? Well, Ambassador Rice, America’s business is to find out what the truth really is and why the administration would allow a series of lies to fester in a climate of White House CYA political theatrics.
Four Americans, who had families and had loved ones, only, asked that their Commander in Chief would act like one and defend their lives. The administration reneged on its solemn duty. The families that saw their loved ones return in coffins deserve more, far, far more than a circle of lies.
History has a way of repeating itself. Forty years ago, Richard Nixon was reelected president of the United States. Congress then went to work. Articles of Impeachment were voted on, and well, you know the rest of the story.
Fast forward to 2012, where Obama is doing victory laps and Ambassador Rice is apparently aiming for the Secretary of State seat now being kept warm by Hillary Clinton. Well if conventional wisdom serves, perhaps, Ambassador Rice should be setting her sights more toward a congressional investigation witness seat.
Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.
This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.
Where does that leave Americans?
The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”
The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.
When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!
The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.
The attack on America’s Benghazi consulate was not premeditated.
It was all about the video.
So said the White House, so said the State Department, so said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice:
"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to - or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there".
Never mind that Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf said the attack was planned in advance.
What would people who live and work in an official capacity within Libya know about what is going on in their country?
How could Americans possibly believe that the President of Libya knows more about what is happening on the ground in Libya than do Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice or Jay Carney?
Those Americans should be ashamed of themselves.
Rather, Americans are to believe that on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon the United States no elements of Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood or any other Islamofascist groups within Libya, Egypt, Tunis, or the other twenty odd countries that purportedly simultaneously and spontaneously erupted into violent anti-American hatred, planned to assault American embassies, besiege American consulates, burn American flags, hoist the Al Qaeda flag over the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and ruthless murder American Citizens in cold blood.
Nobody in any of those countries planned in advance. No groups coordinated the date, the targets, the weapons, the tactics…nope.
It was all about the video.
It was all because of a low budget privately made video posted online by a relative unknown that a slim few had heard of, much less seen.
A video which, whether the White House, the State Department or anyone else within the institutionalized “progressive” left cares to admit, falls within an American’s God given, constitutionally protected Right to free speech.
The administration of Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney, et al are counting on enough American voters being so naive that they will blindly accept any flimsy cover story coming out of the White House.
Of course it definitely helps when everyone save for a brave few souls in the media obediently parrots the "progressive" Party line while hiding, obstructing or completely ignoring entire stories and/or pertinent facts in the process.
It is a pretty darned good bet the people buying this White House cover story concerning anti-American violence in the Middle East also swallowed the equally flimsy cover story about Fast and Furious…hook line and sinker.
Yes, the administration and like-minded members of the self-imagined, self-appointed intellectual “progressive” elite truly believe a sufficient number of Americans needed to re-elect them ARE that stupid, ignorant, sufficiently distracted or simply not paying attention.
Americans have the chance to prove them wrong on November 6, 2012.
http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/white-house-mid-east-attacks-not-premeditated/
When it comes to former enemies and disfunctional Muslim regimes, Barack Obama has a yellow streak a mile wide coloring his back. And his lackeys? Even worse it seems as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice rather than opposing Iran’s new seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) was out getting her hair done or nails or, who can know because our U.N. representative skipped the U.N. altogether rather than showing up to oppose Iran being seated on the important international women’s rights commission at the U.N.
Naming Hitler “Rabbi” would probably be less offensive than seating Iran on any panel dealing with women’s rights, if there is a more hostile regime on earth toward women than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s little insane asylum, Rajjpuut is unaware of it .
Item: Less than three weeks ago, Iranian cleric Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi of Tehran said that women’s immodest behavior and clothing was the cause of earthquakes. Good job, Kaze, Rajjpuut is very interested in what makes the earth move for men and women . . . .
Item: Women in Iran are stoned to death if their husband merely claims infidelity.
Item: Women can be arrested for sunbathing or sporting a tan.
Item: Accusations of homosexual behavior by women by their husband is grounds for execution. Male homosexuality gets flogging, and the homosexuality must be proved.
Item: Wearing of western style clothing by a woman is grounds for immediate arrest and imprisonment.
Item: 9-year old girls can be married off by their families.
Item: No matter if the husband in an arranged marriage is 60 years older than his girl-bride, she has no recourse if her father sells her off.
Item: Iranian Men who drink alcohol or gamble can be publically whipped; women doing the same thing are eligible for death by stoning.
Item: Men who even feel their wife is “uppity” can beat her as much as they wish. Much Islamic discussion in Iran is spent discussing the size and flexibility of the recommended rod used for such beating. Actually, Rajjpuut is NOT opposed to this one . . . . : )
Item: The Iranian dress code for women and policy of discouragement of women’s education is closely akin to the Taliban’s.
Item: Iran’s own women’s rights activists (while dodging stones?) wrote a letter to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women declaring that placing Iran on the CSW would seriously set back the cause of women everywhere.
Item: Unmarried Iranian women caught having sex may be executed.
Item: Women expressing opposition to sharia (strict Islamic code of behavior and punishment as outlined in the Koran) law can be executed.
Item: An Iranian woman who offends her husband, for example by trying to stop his beating of her, and strikes him in the process can have her hand chopped off. It’s recommended that she repent after the mutilation . . . you think?
This hideous regime being nominated to any position of power or influence is utter infamy. The American delegation could have stopped the move in its tracks by merely raising an objection. Rajjpuut suggests that here, if ever there was one, is an opportunity to rail against the regime’s track record on women’s rights. Not a peep. So beginning in 2011, Iran will start help setting policy for women’s treatment around the world. NICE!!! Nice job, Mr. Obama!
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
