Wednesday, August 28, 2013

In the hands of radical Islamists

Israel surrounded and our leaders are on the wrong side
Today we see Egypt in chaos as violent protests erupt nationwide, while in the insufficiently policed Sinai, jihadists are mobilizing and posing increased threats to Israelis.

In Syria, more than 100,000 are dead in the country's escalating civil war, the regime's cache of chemical weapons at serious risk of falling into terrorist hands.

Meanwhile, to Israel's north and south, Hamas and Hezbollah have stockpiled more than 65,000 rockets on Israel's borders. And in Tehran, Iran’s leaders continue to call for Israel's destruction, while rapidly advancing a nuclear weapons program that could do just that.

These are events that demand attention now. But where is Obama, Kerry, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice? Backing the wrong sides, doing nothing. and Hillary's top aid is from a family full of Muslim brotherhood terrorists, and the scandal ridden Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation has taken huge money from radicalized Arab sources. Makes you pretty sure President Hillary will be even worse for israel then B. Hussein Obama has been. . Read this and get scared for our future
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5382&category=79

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Racial demagogue


August 20, 2013 By Matthew Vadum 
Hillary Clinton
Hoping to keep Obama-generated racial animosity alive long enough to get her past the presidential finish line in 2016, Hillary Clinton has been bloviating about what racist election laws America supposedly has.
“In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states,” Clinton told fawning admirers at a meeting of the American Bar Association. Such laws are part of a Jim Crow-like effort to “disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters,” she said.
Hillary, of course, is a seasoned race-monger who knows when to pour it on thick.
This is the person who patronizingly stretched her syllables out in a slow drawl when she last ran for the presidency. “I don’t feel noways tired,” she said, quoting a hymn by the late Rev. James Cleveland.
Race-baiting and racial pandering have always been part of Hillary’s oeuvre. She was close to ACORN just as her husband was when he was president and Arkansas governor. She spoke at ACORN conferences and played up her ties to the group.
Speaking at ACORN’s 2006 national convention, Mrs. Clinton looked back fondly on her memories of the group’s early days in Arkansas. It was a love fest. After noting that she founded a group called Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families that dealt with many of the same issues ACORN focused on, she hailed ACORN as a group of vision. “I thank you for being part of that great movement, that progressive tradition that has rolled across our country.”
Quoting Martin Luther King Jr., Clinton said, “Let’s move it forward, let’s be drum majors for justice.”
More recently, Mrs. Clinton falsely claimed that the Supreme Court was in on the supposedly racist plot because it had “struck at the heart” of the Voting Rights Act this summer in a ruling denounced by left-wingers and the misinformed.
In fact all the high court did was strike down an obsolete formula in the Voting Rights Act that gave the race-baiting ballot box stuffers of the Left a distinct advantage in federal elections. The rest of the statute remains in effect and the Department of Justice still has the legal right to ask a court to order that state and local election operations be federally monitored.
To boil it down, the court opinion in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a pronouncement by the highest court in the land that America is not the racist swamp of leftist myth. The court acknowledged at long last that the anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which gave the federal government a veto over changes in state election laws in places with a history of discrimination, may have been needed when the law was enacted 48 years ago, but no longer.
Congress approved the statute months after the nation witnessed Alabama state troopers attacking civil rights marchers in Selma in March 1965. Lawmakers reasoned it was needed because many state and local officials routinely discriminated against black Americans in the voting process, making it difficult for them to cast their ballots.
But the recent court ruling recognized that widespread voting discrimination is a distant memory. Today black Americans fully participate in the democratic process by voting, running for, and winning elective office at every level of government up to and including the highest office in the land.
This is bad news for the race industry which thrives on making mountains out of molehills. Leftist demagogues and community organizers across the fruited plain are now howling that a key tool they used to frustrate electoral integrity efforts has been taken away.
Outside of MSNBC hosts, Hillary is probably the most high profile of the complainers.
“Now not every obstacle is related to race but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention,” she declared.
Of course racial discrimination still exists somewhere out there, but it’s not much of a factor in modern American life.
As the Wall Street Journal opines, Mrs. Clinton “must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on ‘The Diversifying Electorate—Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections).’”
That government report showed that minority voter turnout nationwide has been surging in recent years. Black Americans, for example, had a voter turnout rate of just 53 percent in 1996. But black turnout has gone up in each of the last four presidential elections.
“In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters—66.2% to 64.1%. Nearly five million more African-Americans voted in 2012 (17.8 million) than voted in 2000 (12.9 million). In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.”
The big jump in black turnout since the days when left-wingers depicted Bill Clinton as the nation’s “first black president” undermines Hillary’s claim that new race-based obstacles to voting are on the upswing.
She claims that North Carolina’s new electoral integrity law “reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression.” All the legislation does is require the presentation of voter ID, shave a week off early voting, end same-day registration, and prevent the arbitrary extension of voting hours.
“Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered,” the newspaper notes. The paper’s editorial adds that even though Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee have “some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws,” black turnout blew past that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. states. “Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?”
Hillary seems convinced that feeding fears about make-believe government racism will get her back into the White House.
This Saul Alinsky disciple, whose senior college thesis was an ode to the master community organizer, is well aware that Democrats are going all-out to make her the nation’s first female president.
The primary purpose of the Benghazi cover-up was to help get Barack Obama reelected but the only slightly less important secondary purpose has always been to protect Mrs. Clinton as she runs for president.
Hillary may be even more thin-skinned than Obama. Look at her angry outburst during congressional hearings about the Benghazi attack in response to questions posed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.).
Displaying her signature callous indifference, she made it clear she didn’t care why Americans died on Sept. 11, 2012. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she shouted. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”
And remember this is the woman who is credited with the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy,” which she uttered on national television in order to distract from her husband’s storied “bimbo eruptions,” itself a term coined by Betsey Wright, a senior Bill Clinton campaign aide.
Hillary will do whatever it takes to become America’s 45th president.
If that entails trying to make Americans of different races hate each other, she’ll do it.
Brace yourselves for three and a half years of this, America.

should we be worried?

Why has Obama not condemned the burning of 50 Churches by Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Could it be because they have a revolving door at the White House http://www.investigativeproject.org/3777/a-red-carpet-for-radicals-at-the-white-house
and Hillary's top aid, married to Weiner, comes from family of them, http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/another-huma-link-to-muslim-brotherhood/
or because Obama's brother in Kenya is very active with them? http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/obamas-brother-linked-to-muslim-brotherhood/

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

The funny thing about Hillary Clinton is how vastly her reputation exceeds her accomplishments. In reality, the only reason anyone has heard of her is that she married Bill Clinton. Otherwise, she would have toiled away as an obscure, reasonably competent if obnoxious lawyer. She was a relatively unpopular First Lady who is best remembered for being embarrassed by her husband’s serial infidelities. She served a brief term as a Senator from New York, a role in which she achieved nothing. Then she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, and punched her ticket during a singularly unsuccessful stint as Secretary of State. Never has she had an original thought, formulated a successful strategy, or stepped out of the shadow of her singular husband.

Sunday, August 4, 2013

6 Ways Benghazi Proves Hillary Should Never Be President



HILLARY ANGRYFormer Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be the front runner for the Democratic nomination to run for President in 2016, despite the fact that her actions surrounding the terror attack on the Benghazi Consulate prove she shouldn’t be allowed to run a non-profit, much less a whole administration.
The entire Obama Administration has handled the attack poorly, but Hillary should shoulder most of the blame, due to her position and involvement.
The American people need only to look at her behavior before, during and after Benghazi to know how she would handle a similar crisis if she were to be elected President. If anything, we should be looking for ways to file criminal charges — not give her the most powerful political office on earth.
1. She blatantly lied. Hillary Clinton deliberately lied about the cause of the attack. The American people were told that the attack was the result of a spontaneous riot in protest of a little-seen Youtube video that spun out of control. Anyone could see that it was obviously a planned assault by a terrorist outfit. Yet, Hillary and other members of the administration blamed the video for over a month.
2. She said it didn’t “matter”. When Hillary finally found time to testify before Congress about the Benghazi attack, she claimed that her lies did not matter. Despite multiple Congressmen pointing out facts of the attack that disproved the administrations narrative, she arrogantly dismissed their questions.
Pressed by Senator Johnson about why she had lied, she famously exploded “what difference, at this point, does it make?” She also lied under oath in these hearings, claiming she had no foreknowledge of the security situation in Benghazi. Documents and emails obtained from the State Department, bearing her signature, prove otherwise.
3. Her “investigation” was a fraud. After the attack, Hillary directed the State Department to conduct an internal investigation into what went wrong. That was like having a criminal on trial act as his own prosecutor, judge and jury.
The fraudulent investigation discovered nothing noteworthy, mostly because it did not interview any of the survivors of the attack, nor any of the high-ranking State Department officials involved. Sticking only to interviewing mid-level and insulated employees, the investigation served only as an attempt to cover-up Hillary’s mistakes.
4. She could have stopped the attack. New evidence and information have revealed that the Benghazi attack could have been stopped. Numerous documents and emails show that the State Department, including Hillary Clinton, were well aware of the dangerous lack of security at the Consulate, yet they did nothing to remedy the situation.
Furthermore, anonymous special ops witnesses and whistleblower survivors have said that military assets were near the region and could have easily reached Benghazi in time to save lives and prevent the second attack.
5. She has silenced whistle blowers. The White House has censored the truth about what happened in Benghazi, helped along by the complicit mainstream media. From the beginning, all attempts to uncover the truth have been stonewalled at every turn and met with lies, half-truths, or silence.
Witnesses have been hidden. The few who have stepped forward claim they were threatened to remain silent. Certain members of the military who may have spoken out about Benghazi have died, disappeared, or fallen from public view in disgrace. By all appearances it seems the White House, and Hillary Clinton, are involved in a full-scale cover-up.
6. She had no plan for defense. It is now quite obvious that Hillary had no plan for dealing with an attack like Benghazi. From the ignoring of prior threats and attacks before 9/11 and the removal of a highly trained security force, to the denial of requests for additional security measures and the lack of communication between the State Department and the military, it is apparent that Hillary Clinton is quite incompetent when it comes to securing the interests of America and the lives of Americans serving those interests abroad.
Can we take the risk of expecting her to be any more competent in dealing with a similar situation as President? The answer is obvious. Keep that woman out of the White House, whatever it takes.
Please share this on Facebook

Kissing Arafat's wife



A congressional select committee could offer immunity to the CIA’s dispersed, intimidated survivors.
You can always tell the depth of an event’s illegality by the measures people take to cover it up. By that measure, the conduct of President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and David Petraeus leading up to the terrorist attack that killed four Americans on 9/11 2012 must be must be so sufficiently wrongful that, if revealed, they could lead to the president’s impeachment.
How else can we gauge what is apparently the most energetic coverup in modern history?  We know, from several sources, that the survivors of the attack — not on the consulate, but on the CIA annex — number a few dozen or more. We also know from those sources that almost all of their names have been concealed from Congress in the course of the coverup.
Those sources also reveal that the CIA has required those survivors to sign confidentiality agreements binding them to never disclose what they were doing in the days or months leading up to the 9/11-12 attack.  Keep in mind that good old Joe Wilson — the former ambassador sent to Niger by the CIA to “learn” what Iraq had done to acquire uranium — wasn’t required to sign any confidentiality agreement, hence his ability to become a Democratic political attack dog instantly after Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage leaked his wife’s CIA employment to reporter Robert Novak.
The Joe Wilson episode and the CIA requirement imposed on the Benghazi survivors is entirely consistent with the political conduct we’ve seen from the CIA in the past dozen years.
And it gets worse. Last week, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) disclosed that the CIA’s involvement in covering up the Benghazi scandal goes much further. He said that the CIA was not only requiring the Benghazi survivors to change their names, it is also spreading them around the country in a CIA version of a witness protection program. In this case, the witnesses are being protected from ever telling the truth to the media or testifying before Congress.
We now also know that the CIA’s Benghazi veterans are being required to submit to monthly polygraph tests to check on their behavior: they are being required to answer if they’ve leaked to Congress or the press every time they are polygraphed.   
Why is there such blatant intimidation of these people? We’ve all seen and heard the reports that the Benghazi CIA annex was the locus of a gun-running operation. If it was, the only likely recipients of the arms would be either the Syrian opposition — which is largely made up of al-Qaeda members and other Sunni jihadis — or the Turks who might have been serving as a pipeline for the arms to those same Syrian opposition guys.
In either case, the president — whose approval had to have been obtained for any such operations — would be directly implicated. He was either acting without congressional authority or in violation of laws on the books that are supposed to block those actions.
Either way Obama, Clinton, and Petraeus would be in the dock personally for having broken the law.
It would be enough to make Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean green with envy. Except for the fact that nobody died in Watergate. And the fact that the other facts of the day don’t just call into question Obama’s Middle East policy: these facts demonstrate that this policy is quite bizarre.
In the past two weeks, there have been massive jailbreaks of al Qaeda members — some of them high-ranking leaders — in Iraq and Libya. In Pakistan, hundreds of Taliban jihadis, again including some Taliban leadership, escaped. There are probably about a thousand al Qaeda and Taliban thugs at large today who weren’t at large last month.
So it should come as no surprise that the State Department issued a travel advisory on Friday and  ordered our embassies in most Muslim countries closed yesterday. Al Qaeda isn’t, as Obama has told us again and again, decimated or out of action. The specific information that led to the warning and closure of 22 embassies is of a widespread al Qaeda threat that could target Americans in any of those countries on President Obama’s birthday. This is his birthday gift from the people who brought us the “Arab Spring.”
The president continues to insist that there is some bloom of democracy in the Middle East. Both he and Eric Holder have admonished the Egyptian military to include the Muslim Brotherhood in any interim government they might form. This would be, Obama and Holder insist, a more “inclusive” government for Egypt.
They obviously believe that the Muslim Brotherhood — for all its ties to terrorism, for all its doctrine of strict Sharia law — is a force for democracy rather than against it. Either they believe that, or Obama and Holder have made America into a force against freedom and democracy. At this point, there is ample reason to believe either interpretation of American policy.

Hillary is a terrible choice






Hillary Hasn’t Heard the End of Benghazi

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DqFtEtpy9G8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Democrats arrived at the House Oversight Committee’s hearing on the Benghazi terror attack determined to defend the reputation of the person that most believe will be their presidential candidate in 2016. Ranking member Elijah Cummings and his colleagues thundered at chair Darrel Issa and any other Republican who dared to raise questions about the way the State Department responded not only to the attack but also to questions about the aftermath, determined to cast the entire event as a partisan ambush. But the testimony of the three whistleblowers overshadowed their complaints about the necessity for the hearing or the spin being put on it by Republicans. While nothing said at the hearing was the “smoking gun” that some in the GOP suspect will eventually bring senior administration officials down because of the Libyan tragedy, enough questions were raised to keep the fires stoked on the issue for the foreseeable future.
Whether Democrats like it or not, Americans are going to be wondering about what senior diplomat Gregory Hicks told the committee about requests for military assistance on the night of the attack, the disconnect between the false story about the murders being a response to an anti-Islamic film and what he and others on the scene told Washington, and why he was told not to cooperate with the House committee. If Clinton thought she had put these issues to rest in January when she railed at senators inquiring about Benghazi asking, “What difference does it make?” who killed the Americans and why, the whistleblowers have ensured that Congress will keep pushing until they get the answers to these questions.
The dramatic nature of Hicks’ testimony about the night of the attack changed what started out as a stormy proceeding as Cummings attacked Issa’s statements and motives. Hicks’s recollection of the phone going dead as Ambassador Chris Stevens told him the attack was under way made it clear that what he would say would rise above the political maelstrom. And when he spoke of his conversations with U.S. military personnel who were outraged that they weren’t being ordered to go to the rescue of the beleaguered Americans, that opened a can of worms that the administration had hoped it had definitively closed.
Just as problematic was Hicks’s telling of his shock when he heard U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice tell the country that U.S. intelligence had decided the attack was the result of film criticism run amuck. Given that he had already communicated to Washington the fact that the film wasn’t a factor in Libya and that U.S. personnel in Libya knew the assault was the work of an Islamist group connected to al-Qaeda, this makes the growing controversy about the truth behind the official administration talking points that the White House altered to downplay any connection to terror even more worrisome. As Pete Wehner noted on Monday, the emails prove that the administration knowingly misled the country about the attack in a manner that makes it impossible to believe they weren’t motivated by their desire to help President Obama win re-election.
Just as damning was Hicks’s testimony about being told by the State Department not to cooperate with the House committee and Representative Jason Chaffetz as well as how his career seems to have come to a standstill as a result of his unwillingness to toe the party line about Benghazi. When combined with other testimony raising questions about what was not done to protect or help the Americans, it’s clear that further grillings of senior officials will ensue and keep the issue alive. More than that, what we heard today will deepen the suspicion that Clinton or others very close to the top in the capital had a clear desire to lie about the attack and to make sure that no one in the know about what actually happened would speak out.
None of this may change the opinions of Democrats who have been determined to move on from Benghazi since the fateful night of 9/11/12. Nor will it deaden the enthusiasm they are feeling about the prospect of Hicks’s former boss running for president in 2016. But today’s testimony shows that the attack will be a wound that will continue to bleed in the weeks and months ahead. It may not sink Clinton, but anyone who thinks she’s heard the last of this wasn’t paying attention today.


Posted: 10 May 2013 09:27 AM PDT
(Paul Mirengoff)
Steve Hayes takes a detailed look at the scenario that led to the scrubbing of the CIA’s Benghazi talking points to delete terrorism references and focus on the “non-event” video. Hayes’ rendition is consistent with what we’ve been saying for some time now — the State Department pushed for the talking points to be changed to cover up its pre-Benghazi malfeasance and the White House concurred, presumably to help re-elect Obama.
The CIA sent out the original, valid talking points on Friday evening to top Obama administration officials. Forty-five minutes after receiving them, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed concerns about their contents, particularly the likelihood that members of Congress would criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
The quick response by a Clinton functionary shows that Clinton and her top advisers had planned ahead and were prepared to push for a revisionist story.
CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia. But this wasn’t enough for Hillary Clinton’s team. Thus, Nuland responded with an email stating that the changes do not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership.” (emphasis added)
Team Obama’s high-level national security adviser Ben Rhodes must have recognized that the State Department’s goal of avoiding congressional criticism was consistent with Obama’s political goals. Thus, he told those in the email group that Nuland had raised valid concerns. He added that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security​—​including State, Defense, and the CIA​—​as well as senior White House national security staffers.
The State Department representative at the meeting was Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton. As we have said, it is virtually inconceivable that Clinton was out of this loop.
The outcome of the meeting was that Sullivan, Rhodes, and Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA, edited the talking points. The bogus talking points used by Susan Rice were the product of that scrubbing.
Morrell’s involvement apparently is the basis for claims by Jay Carney that the CIA “redrafted” the talking points. But, as Hayes points out, the CIA would not have edited its finalized talking points of its own volition. Moreover, Hayes reports that CIA director David Petraeus promptly expressed unhappiness about the scrubbed talking points in an email to his legislative director. He complained (internally only) that the talking points had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided.
The talking points were changed from accurate to inaccurate because (1) the State Department’s “building leadership” pushed for the changes in order to avoid criticism for its failure to respond to warnings about the situation in Libya and (2) it suited Team Obama’s political purposes to accede to the changes. Unless Clinton has compromising photos of President Obama, it’s that simple.





Hillary shows her true colors   anti Israel



For all of you lovers of Hilary just know where she sides. Last week she stated Israel has not done enough for the peace process. Her assistant Huma Abedin's family is in the muslim brotherhood. Blood is on her hands from Bengazi...why didn
't she respond to their plees for more security? Sickening!
Clinton Excludes Israel Again from Counterterror Summit? « Commentary Magazine
www.commentarymagazine.com
Last year, the Obama administration and State Department promoted the Global Counterterrorism Forum, but acquiesced to Turkey’s demand that Israel be excluded from the forum. Apparently, as seen by his repeated endorsements of Hamas, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan believes that terrorism is alw...