Skip to content

OBAMA attempting to “Run Out the Clock” on Libyan Scandal…

October 29, 2012

OBAMA DIDN’T KNOW THE EMBASSY NEEDED HELP? HE WATCHED IT LIVE AS IT WAS HAPPENING FOR 6 HRS IN THE SITUATION ROOM! WATCHING AMERICANS BEING MURDERED!

“The White House itself   is  being careful about not making news. This is why no statement was released denying the Fox News report. If the Administration issues a denial, the CorruptMedia will be forced to cover the denial, which in turn will call attention to the story.

You bet it’s a big, fat naked conspiracy between the Obama campaign and the media. This is nothing more than a replay of the John Edwards scandal, where the media ignored an extra-marital affair until Edwards’ chances at being elected president disappeared.

I could be wrong about one thing, though; my speculation that this is an “unspoken” conspiracy. After Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin dropped her bombshell, it’s not hard to imagine David Axelrod burning up a Bat Phone that connects directly to the JournOlist Hotline and denying the story completely — off the record, of course — you know, so that the denial won’t…make news.

To be fair, it’s entirely possible there’s more to the story than what’s being reported, or that the White House has a good answer. But there’s no question the only response thus far has been a preventive-defense cone of silence. This is not an issue Obama or his media pals want to litigate now, not even with denials. ***But in a moral world, the media would be demanding this matter be cleared up before people cast their votes.*** We just don’t live in that world.

We are of the understanding the people just aren’t going to take it anymore. The SLEEPING GIANT HAS RISEN! saying:

“Our Intel & SpecOps community are refusing to be thrown under the OBAMA 2012 bus, the next “big” headline will make Fast & Furious pale in comparison,” Americans died hiding Obama gun running to al-Quada. We don’t need the LameStreamMedia™ anymore, thanks to Breitbart and FOX NEWS, we’re all “Big” now.”

Media Blackout?

We have a remedy. As Old fashioned and primitive as it is, IT WORKS!

If you are increasingly upset over the Mainstream Media’s refusal to honestly cover the Benghazi Massacre and cover-up in order to insulate Barack Obama and his failed administration from rightful blame, for the deaths of four Americans, I urge you now to let your feelings be known by those who control the networks. This process can begin today with your collective emails and phone calls specifically to COMCAST and NBC News (NBC Phone (212)-664-3720). This contact information is now available here to you here.
BIG MEDIA, HEAR AMERICA ROAR!

TOGETHER, YOU HAVE FAR MORE POWER THAN YOU MIGHT REALIZE. And if you wish to contact other news media, here is that information as well:

ABC Phone (212) 456-7777

CBS Phone (212) – 975-4321

CNN Phone (404) 827-1500

(ht/Ulsterman

…………….

 

…………………….

About these ads
29 Comments
  1. October 29, 2012 7:53 am

    Storm Update:

    Stephanie Goss reporting from Narragansett Bay, RI. The hightides expected at 7:51am this morning including an unusual Moon Tide pushing surf and water three times as high as the normal high tides. This storm will continue surging three or four times until it make landfall in New Jersey and New York. This is a monster storm expected to affect 50 million people especially with flooding in low lying areas along the coast.

    Along the RI coastline, the barometric pressure is the lowest it has ever been in history except for the Great Hurricane of 1938. Designating Hurricane Sandy, the nickname Frankenstorm- Frankencane as two storm fronts continue to merge in the Atlantic before coming ashore.

  2. October 29, 2012 8:38 am

    moon:

    Just heard, the Obama campaign is touting they will most likely win the election by having enough electoral votes even if they don’t have the popular vote.

  3. October 29, 2012 8:49 am

    Same old song and dance stonewalling before the election. (If power is still out in states for this election.. what do we do then?)

  4. October 29, 2012 9:26 am

    Reblogged this on Mcnorman's Weblog and commented:
    Hurricane Sandy is helping the msm to blurr the obvious.

  5. nomobama permalink
    October 29, 2012 11:52 am

    You know, even if Obama wins the upcoming election (and he won’t), he will
    have the impeachment process brought against him over this with his eventual impeachment certain, imo. This is a remarkable turn of events, and as more and more information comes to light, American citizens get to see the real Obama.

    I need to read up on the information that Fox news and Breitbart have exposed. I will then use the phone numbers that have been provided to blast these news organizations lack of “fair and balanced” coverage. Shame on them!

  6. nomobama permalink
    October 29, 2012 11:55 am

    Here’s some good news.

    The Two Polls That Have Chicago Terrified
    October 27, 2012 6:10 PM
    By Josh Jordan  
    For all of the polls that are flying out almost hourly now, there are two common trends emerging: Mitt Romney is leading independents by healthy margins, and who holds the overall lead is entirely dependent on the party split within the sample. As of last night, Romney had a razor-thin lead of eight-tenths of a point nationally against an average Democratic partisan advantage of 4.4 points. In 2008, Barack Obama won the election by 7.2 points (52.9–45.7) and Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 8 points. Compared with the average today, Obama has dropped 8 points while losing only 2.6 points of the turnout advantage. That is due entirely to Romney’s strength with independent voters, and reason enough to sound the alarm in Chicago.

    But of all the polls that have been released, there are two polls that will have Team Obama waking up in a cold sweat, knowing that if these polls are even somewhat accurate, they might be on the other end of a dramatic victory on Election Day: The party-affiliation polls from Gallup and Rasmussen.

    Gallup released a demographic poll of likely voters from October 1 through October 24. The poll is of 9,424 likely voters — a large enough sample that the maximum margin of error is 1 point. In other words, this is a very comprehensive poll of the electorate, unlike smaller polls, that has much more reliability, especially in the subgroups, than any current national poll. The headline of the poll, “2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008,” would make Team Obama want to pick up the phone and reserve Grant Park for election-night festivities, but looking at the data inside may have them preferring to rent out a Lou Malnati’s so they can drown their sorrows in a deep-dish pizza as the results pour in.

    In 2008, Gallup found the party breakdown of the electorate to be 39 percent Democrats, 29 percent Republicans, and 31 percent independents. That 10-point advantage grew to 12 points when independents were asked which party they typically leaned toward, with 54 percent identifying as Democrats and 42 percent as Republicans.

    From that sample, Gallup predicted that Democratic turnout would be 10 points higher than Republican, and that independents would break to Obama. In 2008, Democrats did outperform Republicans by a slightly smaller margin, 7 points, and independents did break to Obama by 8 points. So while they might have overstated Democratic support slightly, Gallup was able to see the underlying trend, which was a huge jump from 2004, an election that was just about even.

    In the current tracking poll, Gallup finds that the 10-point advantage for Democrats has now turned into a 1-point Republican advantage. The current party breakdown is now 35 percent Democrats, 36 percent Republicans, and 29 percent independents. And just in like 2008, that 1-point advantage increases when independents are asked which party they typically lean to, with 49 percent identifying as Republicans and 46 percent as Democrats. That number backs up the trends in other polling showing Romney leading among independents by large margins.

    To get an idea of what this shift means, I plugged the Gallup 2008 and 2012 partisan numbers into the actual results from the 2008 election. Under Gallup’s breakdown, Obama would have won in 2008 by 9.8 points (he actually won by 7.2), and would eke out a victory against Romney in 2012 by eight-tenths of a point.

    But here’s why you can feel the panic emanating from Chicago: Romney is currently doing better with independents than Obama did in 2008. Obama won independents by 8 in 2008, while Romney is currently leading by 10.6 points on average. If the independent numbers are entered in to the 2008 results, Romney would have a victory of more than 4 points. Even if Romney does not take any more crossover votes (Democrats who vote Republican and vice versa) than McCain got in 2008, he would still win by more than 4 points on Election Day.

    While Team Obama loudly declares that Gallup has to be an outlier, there is one other poll that has been tracking party affiliation every day as well: Rasmussen. Just like Gallup, Rasmussen runs a daily tracking poll with about 1,500 respondents included in the partisan-affiliation breakdown. In 2008, Rasmussen found Democrats with a 7.1 percentage point advantage in turnout, which was a perfect prediction of the Democratic-turnout margin on Election Day. In September of 2012, Rasmussen has Republicans now edging Democrats by 2.6 points, with a split of 34 percent Democrats, 37 percent Republicans, and 29 percent independents. Keep in mind that September was a brutal month for Romney — between enduring Obama’s post-DNC bounce, the 47 percent video, and the media reaction to his Egypt-embassy statement. This means that October, given the debates, could be even stronger than September was for the GOP.

    Regardless, taking the Rasmussen partisan breakdown of 2008 and 2012 numbers and plugging them into the actual results gives Obama a 7-point win in 2008 and Romney a half-point victory in 2012. Taking the same scenario as Gallup and moving the independent results to match the current polling average changes Romney’s half-point victory into a 5.7-point victory. (As with Gallup, I’m assuming the Republican and Democrat voting margins stay the same as they were in 2008.)

    If these polls are accurate and Romney captures a popular-vote win of 4 to 6 points, there is no chance he could lose the Electoral College. In fact, that type of victory would probably yield Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and possibly even some blue states such as Michigan or Minnesota. Overall it would be almost like 2008 in reverse, with Romney taking states many thought would be impossible a month ago.

    We will find out in just over a week which pollsters end up right, but any time you have two surveys with such comprehensive data showing the same trend, it is impossible to ignore. And if you had any question as to whether or not Team Obama sees that writing on the wall, you can just watch their recent campaign activity for confirmation. A campaign with a robust, revved-up base does not sharpen attacks on core base issues such as abortion, focus interviews on the Daily Show and MTV, and hold rallies almost exclusively on college campuses. There’s barely over a week to go, and the real battle should be for the middle. Every minute that the Obama campaign can’t make a compelling argument to the middle is a minute lost to Romney and they know it, and it has them terrified.

    — Josh Jordan is a small-business market-research consultant. You can follow him on Twitter @Numbersmuncher.

  7. JanH permalink
    October 29, 2012 12:19 pm

    Did Bill ask Hillary to resign?

    Council for Constitutional Principles
    By Thomas Macchia
    October 29, 2012

    Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, came forward to “take responsibility overall” for the attacks at Benghazi, but per Ed Klein we now know behind the scenes Bill Clinton advised his wife to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre. Today we learn from sources that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack. Why?

    Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel? Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle? I’d say YES. Could this be a criminal act, negligence, dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder? I’d say YES. And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel.

    Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi,
    and those requests were denied—but by who?

    To fully understand what happened in Benghazi, we need to step back. Ambassador Stevens was located in a CIA safehouse (otherwise known as the building burned down during attack)–that location is where on the night of the attack he dined with the Turkish General Counsel. Why?

    Why was Stevens meeting with this Turkish official? Apparently, in reports the US was gun running weapons through Turkey to aid the Syrian Rebels, but the real kicker here is that we handed over 400 tons in one shipment, to Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the leaders of these so called “Syrian Rebels”. We can speculate what the Turkish General Counsel talked with Ambassador Stevens about that night—but what is clear is that the Al Queda backed forces were on scene whilst the two men dined.

    The ‘Libyan forces’ called the Feb. 17th Brigade, were the extra security which manned that CIA safe house. On the night of the attack, Sean Smith, sent this message via a gaming app
    ”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

    What is interesting to note here, is the quotations around the word police. Here, he is referring to the Feb. 17th Brigade, and what it tells me is he is questioning just who these ‘police’ are with, why are they casing the safe house taking pictures? We now know that this “Brigade” is an affiliate of Al Queda and they fought under the “Black Flag” of Al Queda. Diana West, an expert in Middle East affairs has this to offer:

    The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”

    Let’s cut to the chase. Benghazi is shaping up to be the worst cover-up ever in the history of the US. The 12 reports that were filed within the first 24 hours, outlining to the White House exactly what had transpired, never once mention a “protest” or any “video”. They do mention Al Queda linked group called Ansar al-Sharia, claiming the attacks. We know that the drone was feeding live video back to the White house “situation room” and that Obama was in a meeting with Panetta and Biden at the White House—we know they were informed via those emails of the attack in progress. Is there any doubt they also were watching this live in real time?

    And with that info, Obama strolled out to the Rose Garden, and alluded to this “video”. In later appearances Obama does talk about the “vile” video, slamming Romney for calling it a “terrorist” attack.

    America stands at the crossroads in history. The Main Stream Media is protecting Obama, so many Americans do not know these details. They are hoping to slide through the next 2 weeks and pull out a victory, putting back in power the President who watched our fellow Americans die….and then, went to bed.

    http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/council-constitutional-principles/2012/oct/29/gggggggggggggggggggg/

  8. JanH permalink
    October 29, 2012 12:26 pm

    Evidence Hillary Answered the 3:00 a.m. Call While Obama Hung Up

    By David French
    October 29, 2012

    This weekend, while pondering the recent revelations that explicit calls for military help may have been rejected, I realized the media has been misunderstanding the basic lines of authority that were likely in place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. If those lines of authority were conventional, then on that night it is highly likely that Hillary Clinton did all she could while Barack Obama — who controlled vastly more resources — did nothing effective.

    Now, I’m not at all excusing State Department decision-making that left the Benghazi compound ridiculously vulnerable or the State Department’s spin after the attack. Instead, I’m focusing on the events of that night — the subject of the most recent revelations that someone rejected urgent calls for military help.

    To fully understand the various accounts of the battle, one has to understand the concept of “assets,” “responsibility,” and “command authority.” For example, a military commander may be responsible for a particular battle space, but only has command authority over very specific military assets. In Iraq, my squadron commander was responsible for a 17,000 square kilometer section of Diyala Province, but only had command authority over a specific set of assets — a “squadron minus” of armored cavalry (we left a tank company up in Mosul) plus various attached soldiers and teams. If these assets were insufficient, he had to specifically appeal to higher headquarters for help, and higher headquarters would approve or reject the request.

    In a mixed civilian/military environment, the situation becomes more complex. For example, at various points in our deployment, U.N. negotiating teams would arrive to try to broker peace agreements between competing tribes. They had their own security, and the head of that security team was responsible for the safety of the U.N. negotiators, but if his team was overmatched, he’d appeal for help to my commander — as the on-scene military commander responsible for the battle space and with command authority over necessary assets to respond to a crisis.

    Clear as mud? Thankfully, in our case the U.N. never had to make the call for help — in large part because we escorted the negotiators with heavy armor. The insurgents never launched an attack.

    With that framework in place, let’s go back to Benghazi. While the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security assumes responsibility for “providing a safe and secure environment for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,” that does not mean that it necessarily has command authority over the necessary assets to accomplish its mission. In other words, if an embassy is under attack, the State Department doesn’t suddenly command aircraft carriers, fighter groups, or infantry battalions. The military chain of command doesn’t suddenly become a State Department chain of command. Instead, if an embassy or diplomatic compound is under attack, and State Department forces are insufficient to repel the attack or secure embassy personnel, then the State Department has to appeal to a separate command structure and ask that it deploy those assets under its command authority to assist — such as the host country’s military or our own.

    International law assigns primary responsibility for diplomatic security to the host country, but Libya was not capable of meeting that responsibility. So — if current reports can be believed — we appealed to our own military for help. Here’s the critical point: The decision to proactively use military force in a sovereign country that we are not at war with or in is typically a decision reserved to the National Command Authority alone. (The National Command Authority is the president acting in concert with — but in command of — the Secretary of Defense). Unless this decision has been delegated to a lower command, this is the president’s call to make. Period.

    So far we have been provided with a fairly precise accounting of how the State Department deployed its very limited assets to respond to the Benghazi attack, and that account makes for harrowing reading. In short, while there were too few assets in place to help, the State Department threw everyone into the breach — even sending small teams to engage the terrorists without air cover and without heavy weapons. Those men — American and Libyan — by all accounts exhibited bravery most Americans can scarcely comprehend. It wasn’t quite the Alamo or Little Big Horn (thankfully), but they exhibited bravery against overwhelming odds in keeping with the best of American martial traditions. The call came, and the State Department answered with what little it had. It was not enough.

    But where is the Department of Defense’s corresponding account of that night? There is little doubt it has already compiled an account at least as comprehensive as the State Department’s — and this account details (a) when the military learned of the attack; (b) the military’s state of situational awareness hour by hour; (c) whether it received any requests for help; (d) what assets — if any — were available to render aid in time; (e) what recommendations were made; (f) whether any definitive orders were given; and (g) who gave them. Make no mistake: That information is currently available, already compiled, and can be released (even if in heavily redacted form to protect classified assets).

    Yet here’s our Secretary of Defense’s incomplete and unsatisfactory response:

    “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

    His “basic principle” is simply false. We deploy forces all the time in our theaters of war without good real-time information. All. The. Time. If we didn’t, far more men would die. The fog of war never fully clears, and our solution has been to typically go in with sufficient force to deal with virtually any reasonable contingency. But the truly revealing part of the response is here: “General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” To military ears those are not the words of a man who made a decision; those are the words of a man who made a recommendation. A decision-maker follows his strong feeling with an order: to stand down or decline the request for help. A recommender passes his feeling up the chain of command — in this case, to the president of the United States.

    The State Department answered the call with what force it had. The military did not. Either we did not have assets to answer (and that would be a different kind of scandal) or someone made the decision to — in effect — hang up on the 3:00 a.m. caller. Who made that call and why? The military already knows. So should the American people.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331869/evidence-hillary-answered-300-am-call-while-obama-hung-david-french

  9. JanH permalink
    October 29, 2012 12:32 pm

    Controversial book skewers Biden but is ignored by media

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/26/controversial-book-skewers-biden-but-is-ignored-by-media/

  10. October 29, 2012 12:53 pm

    Since I posted last, the storm has intensified to 49 mph with gusts to 60 mph. Our power has gone off and on intermittently, staying off for just a few minutes. Work crews from power companies as far away as Canada (thanks Canada) and states east of the Mississippi, Al, GA, AK, are here and have been since last night bringing with them additional transformers and tree removal equipment to assist our locals. The house is reverberating from the wind whipping across the windows dashing them with pelting horizontal rain. Our house is fairly new standing up nicely to a rain bath it didn’t really need or want… standing firmly taking every thrashing of wind and rain with impunity… but the storm hasn’t even made landfall yet… We will do our best not letting Sandy have her way with us.. we are prepared, fingers crossed… and a prayer for those by the coastline who refuse to leave their homes risking all.

  11. October 29, 2012 1:02 pm

    Great articles, JanH. Thanks for posting more information about Hillary. We are so worried about her getting dragged into this mess created by Obama and in the end dragged down with him when the final facts are known… I’m sure Hillary has her plan laid out and hopefully the media spinmeisters do not act with malice when the truth is known and realize, Hillary is NOT the president, SHE cannot countermand an order given by the CIC… and that is the way this all plays out.

    Keep them coming… We appreciate the news about Hillary.. she has our prayers and our support come Hell or HighWater..

  12. October 29, 2012 1:22 pm

    mcnorman

    I visited your site last week. I remember we were going to discuss ‘Fool Me Twice’ at some point in time… and have yet to do so. I’ve spoken to Brenda Elliot and she may come here addressing questions once she gets off her book tour which would be great..

    She is as tired of Obama as we are- after all her hard work researching and writing with validated sourced attributions (which is the mark of a good researcher) is ready for a good long break to rest her mind. I can speak to that as well before this brain drain becomes a lifestyle and a daily fight for survival. You are welcome to cherry pick anything from my site and post it… the main thing is getting the word out how people have made a terrible choice electing Obama the first time and warning them not to make the same mistake twice..

    Looking forward to your input..

  13. October 29, 2012 1:26 pm

    nomobama
    October 29, 2012 11:55 am

    Here’s some good news.

    The Two Polls That Have Chicago Terrified
    ……………………………

    What is your thinking about the Obama Campaign’s announcement this morning about winning via the electoral college? Even though Romney may win the popular vote..

    Alert: Route 95 in CT- SHUT DOWN.. no passable traffic allowed..

  14. October 29, 2012 2:31 pm

    Now this is significant…….

    Generic Congressional Ballot: #Republicans 46%, #Democrats 43%..

    Rasmussen

    Republicans now lead Democrats by three points on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending October 28, 2012.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, while 43% would choose the Democrat instead.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/generic_congressional_ballot

  15. October 29, 2012 2:31 pm

    Gallup tracking still stuck at 51 R and O 46…..1 week to go..

  16. October 29, 2012 2:52 pm

    Rasmussen Ohio : Romney 50% Obama 48%

  17. October 29, 2012 2:57 pm

    the winds and storms are brewing here on my side of the world, may be disappearing off and on for a few days.

  18. nomobama permalink
    October 29, 2012 3:10 pm

    Tellurian on October 29, 2012 at 1:26 pm
    ————
    I find that comment an acknowledgment that the Obama campaign is preparing for a loss in both electoral and popular vote. If anything, it would be more believable if he had stated just the opposite… that he would win the popular vote on the backs of states like New York and California, but I still find that unlikely, too. Romney has the momentum for sure. I read another poll today indicated that Romney is now ahead by 2 in Ohio, 50 to 48. That came from Rasmussen. When you have Obama, a person who is so impressed with himself, talking about losing the popular vote just one week before the election, that’s a campaign gasping for air. He is hanging by a thread, and within the next few days, Benghazi may just help finish him off.

  19. nomobama permalink
    October 29, 2012 3:16 pm

    Stay safe, Mrs. Smith. We’ve had breezy conditions here in central west coast Florida for a good 3 days now. It sprinkled a few seconds on Sunday morning, but that was it.
    It is breezy again today, which is actually nice after having a relatively hot and muggy summer.

  20. Anonymous permalink
    October 29, 2012 3:50 pm

    Power OFF posting from cell phone

  21. October 29, 2012 4:02 pm

    That last post was frm me..this power outage could go on for days…will conserve cell battery.. and ck in later..

  22. October 29, 2012 7:12 pm

    LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi
    The American people deserve to know the truth

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi/?page=all#pagebreak

    We now know why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had to be in Benghazi the night of 9/11 to meet a Turkish representative, even though he feared for his safety. According to various reports, one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

  23. nomobama permalink
    October 29, 2012 7:44 pm

    Well, there you go Basil. Mr. Stevens was not exactly the good guy here, was he? He was doing Obama’s dirty work, and I feel comfortable writing here that Hillary also knew his function. Funneling weapons to al-Queda groups should not have occurred. This is a much different world than when the US uses that trick to foil the Soviets in Afghanistan. Heck, the Free Syria group
    indicated that they didn’t want the Islamic radicals interfering in the conflict. Yet, there’s Obama giving dangerous weapons to dangerous people who have no problem turning the weapons on their benefactors. This is some screwed up sh!t. I find it hard to believe that Hillary was not involved in some way. if you play with dogs, you just might get fleas.

  24. nomobama permalink
    October 29, 2012 7:50 pm

    Syria is run by an evil man, but at least Assad is somewhat secular. The Christians of Syria have less to fear of him than they do
    of the Islamic radicals that may some day rule over them. It would have been nice to see Assad go without all the fighting, and
    the eventual involvement of thr jihadists.

  25. October 29, 2012 9:41 pm

    Power back on- candles snuffed- nice nap- totally refreshed-

    This is what I was about when the lights went out-

    someone had just tweeted this pic to me and I was about to post it. Then POOF..Here it is

    tomb

    ………………….

    Soldiers standing guard over the Tomb of the UNKNOWN Soldier..during Hurricane Sandy.

  26. October 29, 2012 9:49 pm

    When you compare these wonderful boys and what they stand for to what we face in the Middle East… It’s a WONDERFUL Feeling to Be PROUD to BE an AMERICAN…

  27. October 29, 2012 10:33 pm

    Storm Pictures.. NYC got hit pretty hard. NJ was paid a visit by 10ft storm surges into their neighborhoods.

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/29/14779590-live-updates-on-sandy?lite

  28. October 29, 2012 10:39 pm

    nomobama
    October 29, 2012 7:44 pm

    Well, there you go Basil. Mr. Stevens was not exactly the good guy here, was he? He was doing Obama’s dirty work, and I feel comfortable writing here that Hillary also knew his function. Funneling weapons to al-Queda groups should not have occurred. This is a much different world than when the US uses that trick to foil the Soviets in Afghanistan. Heck, the Free Syria group indicated that they didn’t want the Islamic radicals interfering in the conflict. Yet, there’s Obama giving dangerous weapons to dangerous people who have no problem turning the weapons on their benefactors. This is some screwed up sh!t. I find it hard to believe that Hillary was not involved in some way. if you play with dogs, you just might get fleas.
    ………………………

    Holy Smokes- you gleaned all of that information from that article? If Stevens was such a great employee, why would Obama want to see him dead? It could be Hillary was aware of what Stevens was doing and they were preparing to blow the whistle on Obama once Stevens returned to the US.. Now that is something I can believe.

  29. October 30, 2012 2:25 am

    NEW ARTICLE IS UP-

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: