Today, October 12, marks the 12th anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. The grim milestone comes as President Obama faces mounting questions about his administration’s dereliction of duty during the murderous attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And it comes just a day after resurgent al-Qaida thugs pulled off the drive-by assassination of a top Yemeni security official who worked at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa.
These are not “bumps in the road.” These are gravesites on the blood-spattered path to surrender.
Seventeen U.S. sailors died in the brutal suicide attack on the guided Navy missile destroyer as it refueled at the Yemeni port of Aden in the fall of 2000. Then-President Bill Clinton vowed to track down the Muslim terrorist attackers: “We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable.” But a dozen disgraceful years later, Slick Willy’s toothless promise has become a bitter punch line.
The current Democratic White House has not only delayed and denied justice to the victims and their families. President Obama’s foot-dragging administration, crawling with pro-terrorist lawyers, effectively undermines our nation’s ability to detain, contain and destroy jihad threats from within and without.
Suspected Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf Operations Chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at Gitmo since 2006. In February 2009, Obama met with Cole families and promised them justice. Then, he stabbed them in the back by ordering the (Social) Justice Department to abandon the death penalty case assembled against the al-Qaida mastermind under the Bush administration.
That’s right: The Osama bin Laden football-spikers in the Obama administration deliberately dropped the USS Cole ball on al-Nashiri’s military prosecution because of their opposition to the Guantanamo Bay detention system. Jesse Nieto, father of murdered Cole sailor Marc Nieto, won’t forget it. “That really left a bitter, bad taste in my mouth,” he told the Newnan (Ga.) Times-Herald earlier this year.
In 2011, the Obama administration reinstated the charges amid a widespread backlash against Attorney General Eric Holder’s plans to bestow U.S. civilian trials in Manhattan to delays and left-wing lawyer antics painting Nashiri as a victim of American hegemony. “This whole trial is a political football the politicians are playing with,” Nieto aptly noted. “If they left it to the military, it would be taken care of. And it would be fair.”
Team Obama’s initial withdrawal from the prosecution came out of left field — literally. But it is no surprise to those who paid attention to Holder’s radical ideological and corporate allegiances. As I reported in “Culture of Corruption,” Holder joined the prestigious Covington and Burling business and corporate law firm after a quarter-century as a government lawyer. The stint boosted his net worth to nearly $6 million. Covington and Burling’s post-9/11 claim to fame? Representing 17 terror suspects held at Gitmo who hail from Yemen, long a safe haven for terrorists.
Holder’s law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington and Burling secured victories for several Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Remes, who garnered human rights awards for Covington and Burling before striking out on his own, now represents Nashiri.
Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, “Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak,” which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: “For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen.”
One of the class of Yemeni Gitmo detainees that Falkoff described as “gentle, thoughtful young men” was released in 2005 — only to blow himself up (gently and thoughtfully, of course) in a truck bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in 2008, killing 13 soldiers from the 2nd Iraqi Army division and seriously wounding 42 others.
The rapidly evolving Libya scandal provides yet more opportunity for extraordinary pro-Obama media bias. To appreciate the staggering level of bias, just ask yourself a simple question: what if this were George W. Bush?
Yes, end of argument.
But I recently had a unique thought that connects the two — that is, the media’s protection of Obama on the Middle East vs. the media’s evisceration of Bush on the Middle East. It was kindled — credit where credit is due — by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh pondered how the family of our slain Libyan ambassador, Chris Stevens, might be reacting to all of this. Surely, Stevens’ family is very upset right now — and not just about his death. They are probably deeply troubled by the Obama administration’s apparently ignoring critical details that might have better protected Chris Stevens. They are probably also bothered by the administration’s terrible attempts to blame the whole mess not on clearly premeditated terrorism, but on a ridiculous video. And I bet they aren’t too pleased with “journalists” refusing to ask hard questions of the president whom they are committed to coddle.
Again, imagine if this were George W. Bush. The media would be staked outside the Stevens’ family home, cameras running and microphones hoisted, waiting breathlessly, begging Chris’s mom and dad to take some shots at the president. And if you think I’m off-base on that one, then remember one name from the Bush years: Nick Berg.
In May 2004 — coincidentally, just as Senator Ted Kennedy publicly claimed that “we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management” — a group of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad released video of themselves beheading a 26-year-old American from West Chester, Pennsylvania named Nick Berg. Berg was in Iraq as a private citizen lending a hand to the nation’s postwar reconstruction.
The killers yelled “Allah Akbar!” (“God is great!”) as they sawed off Berg’s head. According to estimates, the beheading lasted 30 to 60 seconds. Berg’s screaming was halted only by the severing of his vocal chords. The video was streamed online for the world to absorb in horror. Yet, unlike the pictures of harassed Iraqi POWs at Abu Ghraib, which were splashed on the front page of every newspaper in America, the Berg video was too graphic to air. The boldest talk radio hosts — frustrated by the media’s nonstop, weeks-long coverage of Abu Ghraib while barely covering the Berg execution beyond the day’s wires — played audio of the beheading. Some conservative websites posted photos of the execution. Few to none linked to the grisly raw video.
The beheading brought perspective to the Abu Ghraib scandal: sure, the humiliation of Iraqi POWs was an embarrassing mistreatment by unauthorized U.S. troops, but the action against Nick Berg was an atrocity of unspeakable barbarism. The Berg beheading made it abundantly clear that America’s Islamist enemy in Iraq was perpetrating true evil.
But not everyone interpreted it that way. Nick Berg’s father, Michael, disagreed. Michael Berg was an anti-war activist and supporter of the radical anti-war group International ANSWER.
Michael didn’t like George W. Bush, and the anti-Bush media wasted no time dashing to his front door with cameras and microphones. Any thoughts on President Bush, Mr. Berg?
“My son died for the sins of George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld,” said Michael Berg in a May 13 press conference. “This administration did this.” He said of the Bush team: “The al-Qaeda people are probably just as bad as they are.”
Yep, those responsible for September 11, 2001, Michael Berg concluded, were probably just as bad as the Bush White House. Gee, even Hezb’allah, the Iranian Shiite terrorist group, was willing to blame al-Qaeda instead of Bush.
Reuters had itself a headline: “Berg Died for Bush, Rumsfeld ‘Sins’ — Father.” Every news source had its headline.
Nick Berg’s murder had already upset me greatly. When I heard Michael Berg’s widely reported words, I got even sicker.
Needless to say, our “journalists” won’t dare attempt to dig up anything this revolting against President Barack Obama. They won’t go looking for the family of Chris Stevens in hopes of a blistering comment against the president. For that matter, they won’t even go looking for the truth of what really happened with Chris Stevens. Instead, they are poised to attack those who dare go looking. Hey, whatever it takes to achieve their highest aspiration: the protection and re-election of Barack Obama.
Two former intelligence chiefs today blasted Vice President Joe Biden for making the U.S. intelligence community a scapegoat for ‘the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama Administration’.
Michael Hayden, former CIA director, and Michael Chertoff, who served as Homeland Security chief, hit out after Biden stunned many in the intelligence community by insisting that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi did not ask for additional security before it was attacked on September 11 – directly contradicting what security officials and diplomats have testified under oath.
The tough joint statement was issued via the Romney campaign. In it they added: ‘Blaming those who put their lives on the line is not the kind of leadership this country needs.’
‘During the Vice Presidential debate, we were disappointed to see Vice President Biden blame the intelligence community for the inconsistent and shifting response of the Obama Administration to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi,’ they said in the statement.
‘Given what has emerged publicly about the intelligence available before, during, and after the September 11 attack, it is clear that any failure was not on the part of the intelligence community, but on the part of White House decision-makers who should have listened to, and acted on, available intelligence. Blaming those who put their lives on the line is not the kind of leadership this country needs.’
Earlier this week, it was revealed that Stevens himself expressed concerns about security at the facility.
Also, the head of a special operations team helping out with security asked for ‘more, not less’ reinforcements before the government pulled dozens from Libya earlier this year.
But Biden, when asked about it by debate moderator Martha Raddatz, said: ‘We weren’t told they wanted more security there.’
Ryan kept up his attack, saying: ‘There were requests for extra security – those requests were not honoured.’
He compared the situation in Libya with the heavily guarded American embassy in France as he insisted: ‘Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him, shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi?’
On Sunday March 21, 2010 the Senate Healthcare bill HR3200 was passed and signed into law the following Tuesday. Like I said before, there are a legion of horrible and just plain evil aspects to this bill and I’m sure you’ve heard a lot them by now. I don’t want to discount them but what cannot be missed here is this new law now opens a prophetic door on a magnitude not seen since the reformation of Israel.
This new law requires an RFID chip implanted in all of us. This chip will not only contain your personal information with tracking capability but it will also be linked to your bank account. And get this, Page 1004 of the new law (dictating the timing of this chip), reads, and I quote: “Not later than 36 months after the date of the enactment”.It is now the law of the land that by March 23rd 2013 we will all be required to have an RFID chip underneath our skin and this chip will be link to our bank accounts as well as have our personal records and tracking capability built into it.
In just a minute I’m going to show you the black and white of the law itself and you can see it with your own eyes and wonder why an event of this magnitude which is nothing less than seismic in nature is met with little more than silence in the Christian community.
Is it now starting to dawn on you just where exactly we are in prophecy? I’ll ask that question again in a minute and follow up on it, but now I want to show you the law itself. I’ve downloaded a PDF copy of HR3200 from the government’s website so what I’m about to show you is from the bill itself its nothing that I’ve written. You can access it all and see it all for yourself straight from the source itself.
H.R. 3200 section 2521, Pg. 1001, paragraph 1.
The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that— ‘‘is or has been used in or on a patient; ‘‘and is— ‘‘a class III device; or ‘‘a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.”
What exactly is a class II device that is implantable? As you saw earlier, it is the device approved by the FDA in 2004.
Who needs debates between candidates when you can have cartoon character distractions?
First there was Barack Obama, who did so poorly in his first debate with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney that he and his campaign resorted to focusing on saving Big Bird and Sesame Street from spending cuts.
Next, there was Joe Biden auditioning to play the role of the Joker in a Batman show at Universal City Hollywood.
Biden showed he is a real natural.
His innate ability to bully, muster condescending goofy faces, to laugh, smirk, constantly interrupt, grimace, or chuckle while very serious topics were being discussed showed that when it comes to being a Court Jester, Biden is more than ready to play prime time.
Some believe Biden’s performance in the October 11th VP debate was a win for “progressive” Democrats, because it dominated the post-debate conversation.
That perspective is a clear sign of how panicked “progressives” and their parroting lapdogs within the institutionalized “progressive” left and the ultra-obedient “progressive” Party Pravda are.
If the best they can point to is a sitting Vice President making stupid, animated faces in reaction to nearly everything Congressman Paul Ryan said, they are desperately grasping at straws.
Talk about drawing inappropriate conclusions.
Read more HERE.