theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Libyans: Al-Qaida handled 'security' at Tripoli embassy

Documents show assignment ran through at least spring of 2012.

by Bob Unruh

   A secret document that has been obtained by former terrorist turned peace advocate Walid Shoebat suggests the Obama administration apparently approved assigning a member of al-Qaida to handle security at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.
According to a report published today by Shoebat, the confirmation comes from a letter dated Aug. 30, 2011, that informs the al-Qaida member that he now has responsibility for security in Tripoli, “to include all international embassies.”
   The letter was to Abdel Hakim al-Khowailidi Belhaj and it was signed by Mustafa Muhammad Abdul Jalil on behalf of the National Transitional Council, with which the U.S. was working at the time after Moammar Gadhafi fell from power in Libya.
   Belhaj previously has been described by al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri as “the amir of the mujahideen, the patient and steadfast [Belhaj].”
   Shoebat, who was joined by Ben Barrack in the investigation of the document, said the letter was from “a treasure trove of secret documents” that was obtained by a Libyan source.
   “It shows that in supporting the removal of Gadhafi, the Obama administration seemed to sign on to an arrangement that left forces loyal to al-Qaida in charge of security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 through at least the spring of 2012,” they wrote.
   Shoebat’s translation of the letter reveals it said, “We would like to inform you that you have been commissioned to the duties and responsibilities of the military committee of the city of Tripoli. These include taking all necessary procedures to secure the safety of the Capital and its citizens, its public and private property, and institutions, to include all international embassies. To coordinate with the local community of the city of Tripoli and the security assembly and defense on a national level.”
   Shoebat explained that al-Zawahiri’s endorsement of Belhaj came in a 2007 interview that was replayed by ABC.
The report also said that Belhaj had been identified as “a Libyan rebel and a moderate person who commands wide respect,” but Shoebat noted the source of that statement was “a leader with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood” – Ali Sulaiman Aujali.
   Aujali appeared at a convention for the Islamic Society of North America, considered by many to be a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood in America, just a few weeks before vouching for Belhaj, Shoebat reported.
And the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. reported at one point that “[Belhaj] should be accept[ed] for the person that he is today and we should deal with him on that basis.”
   The Benghazi controversy has been developing since Sept. 11 when on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an organized terror attack there.
   While evidence now reveals that the White House knew almost immediately that terror was suspected, for weeks after officials were blaming the deaths on Muslims being upset over a trailer of an online movie that purportedly criticized Muhammad.
   There also now are reports that there were orders for the military to stand down and not respond to the calls for help from Benghazi, and also reports that there was video being streamed back to the U.S. of the attack.
The report from Shoebat said the documents from Libya suggest secularists there increasingly want to see Mitt Romney defeat Obama – despite Muslim Brotherhood losses in Libyan elections last year.
Shoebat is the grandson of the Muslim Mukhtar of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem, who was a friend of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Ameen al-Husseni, who was a friend of Adolf Hitler.
   After serving as a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and participating in acts of terror against Israel, Shoebat studied the Tanach, the Jewish Bible, in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam.
He reports himself, six month later, he realized “that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie.”
   He said he was convinced he had been on the side of evil, so became an advocate for his former enemy.

Here comes the landslide...

By Dick Morris

   Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
   As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.
   The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.   His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).
Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.
   And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
   Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
Once everyone discovers that the emperor has no clothes (or that Obama has no argument after the negative ads stopped working), the vote shift could be of historic proportions.
   The impact on Senate races could be profound. Give the GOP easy pickups in Nebraska and North Dakota. Wisconsin has been a roller coaster. Once an easy win for Republican Tommy Thompson, then a likely loss as Democrat Tammy Baldwin caught up, and now Republican again, it will probably be a third pickup. Romney’s surge in Virginia is propelling George Allen to a good lead for the first time all campaign. In Montana, Republican Denny Rehberg holds and has held for some time a small lead over Democrat incumbent Jon Tester. And, in Pennsylvania, Smith has powered his campaign to a small lead over Democrat Bob Casey Jr.
   The GOP now leads in these six takeaways. But it is also within easy striking distance in Ohio and Florida, where incumbents are under 50 percent and Republican challengers Connie Mack (Fla.) and Josh Mandel (Ohio) are only a few points behind. It may even be possible to entertain daydreams of Rhode Island (Barry Hinckley) and New Jersey (Joe Kyrillos) going Republican.
   Republican losses? Look for a giveback in Maine and possibly in Indiana and Massachusetts. In Indiana, Republican Richard Mourdock had established a 5-point lead over Democrat Joe Donnelly. But his comments about rape knocked him back to a tie. With Romney carrying the state by 15 points, however, Mourdock could still make it. In Massachusetts,    Brown has been in hand-to-hand combat with Elizabeth Warren. Down by five a few days ago, he’s now tied, but the undecided usually goes against the incumbent.
   The most likely outcome? Eight GOP takeaways and two giveaways for a net gain of six. A 53-47 Senate, just like we have now, only opposite.
   Barack Obama’s parting gift to the Democratic Party.

Straight from the horse's ass...

Would you want this campaigning on your behalf, or even shaking your hand?

   What else needs to be said about the low standards of the democrats. What is missing is the fact he was actually Impeached by Congress!
theodore miraldi

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Sharpton: 'Poll Watching Brigades' to Be Stationed on Election Day

Rev. Al Sharpton, founder of the National Action Network (AP Photo)
( – The Rev. Al Sharpton said his National Action Network would be involved in "poll watching brigades" in Tennessee to prevent any voter suppression or intimidation.
   "One of the things that we announced today is that we are starting brigades here in Tennessee, voting poll watching brigades,” Sharpton said Friday.In a very close presidential race, questions have been raised about voting integrity.

   Republicans, who have supported voter ID laws, fear that ineligible voters will cast ballots, pointing out that dead voters are listed on the rolls, while some living voters’ addresses are not updated to reflect the precinct they currently live. Democrats counter that such laws could suppress voter turnout.

One group called True the Vote, was started to combat voter fraud, but Sharpton argued the group is involved in voter intimidation.
   “Now there is this group out called True the Vote said they are going to have a million people out,” Shartpton said. “That is clearly suspect. Many feel they are set up to intimidate and harass voters. So they are making sure that they are there to make sure the process is unfair and uninterrupted.
   “The brigade that is being formed here, they were at the breakfast, the leadership breakfast we had here. The National Action Network, Memphis Chapter, will be working along with them." called and e-mailed the national office for the National Action Network in New York to ask, “1. Will the NAN have poll watching brigades in other areas than Tennessee? 2. What are poll watching brigades exactly? How will it be different from what True the Vote groups are doing at polling places?” also left phone and e-mail messages with the Memphis, Tenn., chapter of the National Action Network.
At press time, neither the national nor Tennessee offices responded to inquiries from
  The True the Vote website says its initiatives include, “Mobilizing and training volunteers who are willing to work as election monitors; Aggressively pursuing fraud reports to ensure prosecution when appropriate; Providing a support system for our volunteers that includes live and online training, quick reference guides, a call bank to phone in problem reports, information on videotaping at polling places, and security as necessary; Creating documentaries and instructional videos for use in recruiting and training; Raising awareness of the problem through strategic outreach efforts including advertising, social networking, media relations, and relational marketing; Voter registration programs and efforts to validate existing registration lists, including the use of pattern recognition software to detect problem areas.”

Why was Chris Stevens allowed to die?

   There's a fly in the ointment, and the Obama Administration won't tell the truth. First question; why was the Ambassador in Benghazi to begin with? Where were his Marine escorts? Why was he working closely with CIA operatives at a compound, and not a consulate. Were they planning mayhem against another State in the Middle-East?     
   Last but not least, did Obama. Clinton, Panetta and staff sacrifice Americans to hide the truth?
theodore miraldi

by Mychal Massie

   Obama took to the cameras for a quasi press conference to play president in an attempt to deflect the growing cacophony of condemnation and questioning pursuant to his handling (or lack thereof) of Benghazi.
   We don’t need the president to tell people to stay indoors, stock up on bottled water, make sure we have plenty of batteries and canned food on hand, and to follow the instructions of emergency workers. That’s the job of the mayors and governors of the states in the path of Superstorm Sandy.

   What we need from Obama we will never get. We need him to tell us why he allowed Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to die.
   In my Sept. 19, 2012, evening update, which is published daily, in my very first public comments referencing the Benghazi attacks I wrote: ” There is more here than meets the eye. I have my suspicions as to the answers to the questions I’m asking, and, if I’m right, Obama and [Hillary] Clinton are worse than anything we could have remotely suspected.”
   In fairness, I must applaud the work being done by Fox News reporters Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin who are doing career-defining jobs in their coverage and investigation of the murderous Islamic attack – but even they have yet to ask the two-part question I have been asking from the first moment I learned of the attack.
   The question is not why did Obama, et al., move to cover up and obfuscate the circumstances surrounding the attack.
The question is why was Stevens allowed to be killed – and why were Smith, Woods and Doherty allowed to become collateral fatalities? That is the question we need answered. That is the question the media aren’t asking.
   Obama and Hillary Clinton can do the “two of a kind” two-step, but the fact remains there isn’t a snowball’s chance in the desert that they didn’t know and sign off on Stevens being kept in mortal danger. I know that is something Obama sycophants and those unfamiliar with how political decisions are made will dispute, so be it – the fact still remains that no one runs the risk of this becoming a presidential embarrassment without the Oval Office and State Department being consulted first.
    My suspicions are that Christopher Stevens, who had a long, personal history with Obama, either knew something he wasn’t supposed to and/or he was about to become an embarrassment/threat to Obama.
I didn’t make up the facts. Governments take better care of their ambassadors and consulate staffs than I do my handmade, ostrich-skin dress shoes. The British had removed their consulate people, and Stevens had been requesting help in the face of deteriorating conditions – but still Obama and Clinton chose to keep Stevens there in a worsening situation that was certain to (and in fact did) lead to death.
   Woods, Smith and Doherty were told to stand down when they requested help. They were ordered no less than three times to stand down when they indicated their intentions pursuant to getting Stevens and themselves out alive. Why? Woods and Doherty were former SEALs; they weren’t shout-and-shoot weekend warriors.
   The wrong questions are being asked by the small handful of reporters like Herridge and Griffin who are willing to dig for the truth. We don’t need politicians who are only interested in face-time on the evening news and sound bites attributed to them. We need action – we need the truth.
   I contend that every investigation and search for truth must begin with the question, “Why was Stevens allowed to die, and why were Smith, Woods and Doherty set up to be collateral damage?”
   If Stevens wasn’t placed in a situation to die, then why wasn’t he pulled out when the British pulled their people? Why did Obama and Clinton ignore warnings issued by Israel and the Libyan interim president? Why were the personal requests by Stevens, pleading for help, ignored? Since when does the official representative of the president of the United States drive around in a hot zone in what amounts to the same SUV you and I drive? Why wasn’t he in a secure vehicle and accompanied by Marines?
   There was no question but that Smith, Woods and Doherty were going to be killed regardless of whether or not they stood down as ordered. There was no way any of the four were getting out alive.
   Obama, Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta were huddled in Obama’s office approximately 90 minutes after the attack began. There were two predator drones sending real-time live feeds back to anyone with a computer and a mid-range security clearance. Are we really supposed to believe they weren’t watching those men die?
   I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I know government, and I know military. And seeing Obama sprint to the cameras and teleprompters to tell us that which our mayors and governors are in office to do is not presidential.
   It is the exaggerated behavior of a man watching his presidency being flushed down the toilet of history.

Report: Fast and Furious a product of DOJ

Report: Fast and Furious a product of DOJ ‘deliberate strategy’ laid out by Eric Holder, other senior Obama officials.

Matthew Boyle
   The latest congressional report on Operation Fast and Furious found that the gunwalking-program-turned-scandal was the result of a “deliberate strategy created at the highest levels of the Justice Department aimed at identifying the leaders of a major gun trafficking ring.”
   The report is the second installment in a three-part series from Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley and House oversight committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa.
   That “deliberate strategy,” congressional investigators argue, sprang from “a series of speeches about combating violence along the Southwest border” that Attorney General Eric Holder delivered shortly after taking office.
    “Although [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] ATF did not officially open the Fast and Furious investigation until the fall of 2009, the groundwork for the strategy that would guide the operation began shortly after new leadership took control of the Department of Justice nine months earlier,” the report reads. “On February 25, 2009, just one month after Attorney General Eric Holder took office, he gave a speech noting the danger of the Mexican drug cartels, focusing on the Sinaloa cartel in particular.”
   On Feb. 25, 2009, Holder said the drug cartels “are lucrative, they are violent, and they are operated with stunning planning and precision” and, under his leadership, he promised “these cartels will be destroyed.”
A little more than a month later, on April 2, 2009 in Cuernavaca, Mexico, congressional investigators say Holder “gave further insight into the department’s new strategy for combating these dangerous cartels.”
   “He spoke about the development of a prosecution and enforcement strategy with respect to firearms trafficking, noting that the ‘administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels,’” the report reads. “In particular, the attorney general said that the Justice Department was committed to adding ‘100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest Border’ and that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) would add ‘16 new positions on the border.’ Most importantly, the attorney general noted that there must be ‘an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel.’”
   Shortly after that April 2, 2009 speech by Holder, congressional investigators say “a Firearms Trafficking Working Group was formed.” Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, the head of DOJ’s Criminal Division, led the working group. It was tasked with “exploring and recommending proposals to enhance law enforcement efforts to curb firearms trafficking, focusing specifically on investigation, interdiction, training, prosecution, and intelligence-sharing.”
   Later, on June 30, 2009, congressional investigators say Deputy Attorney General David Ogden argued that the border between the U.S. and Mexico was the “front line” to fight firearms trafficking. The report lays out how Ogden “also said that ATF and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would sign a new agreement to ‘ensure coordination between the departments on firearms investigations.’”
   Then, on Aug. 19, 2009, that working group presented its recommendations to Holder in a memo. “The recommendations section of this August 2009 memo included many of the previous public comments by Attorney General Holder and Deputy Attorney General Ogden,” the congressional report says of that memo.
   “The document went on to recommend “intelligence-based, prosecutor-led, multi-agency task forces,’” congressional investigators write. “It suggested that under its new model, ‘we develop priority targets through the extensive use of intelligence,’ which would allow it to ‘build cases, coordinating long-term, extensive investigations to identify all the tentacles of a particular organization.’”

Read more:

Monday, October 29, 2012

Gallup: Massive swing to GOP since 2008

Obama destroys number of Democrats in 4 years.

by Joe Kovacs

   In the four years since Barack Obama has been president, American voters have been fleeing the Democratic Party in large numbers to become Republicans, according to brand-new figures released by the Gallup polling agency.
   “The largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters,” says Gallup.
   Based on surveys from Oct. 1 through 24, the pollster finds 36 percent of likely voters call themselves Republicans, compared to 35 percent who are Democrats.
   If those who are leaning toward a certain party are included, the GOP lead increases by 3 percent, at 49 to 46 percent.
But it was a much different story for Democrats in 2008, when they had 54 percent of people who identified themselves as Democrats or leaned Democratic.
   “In 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades,” Gallup said.
   “More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.”
   The agency says in 2004, when Republican George W. Bush was running against Democrat John Kerry for president, Republicans enjoyed a 2-point advantage over Democrats in party affiliation, 39 to 37 percent.
The new data for 2012 is being hailed by some on the political right who have complained about skewed polls that give more weight to Democrats than Republicans.
   John Hinderaker at the PowerLine blog says: “If the data released today correctly reflect the voting population this year, you can throw away all of those polls that are D +9, D +7 – or, for that matter, D +1. Substantially all polls show Mitt    Romney with a wide lead over Barack Obama among independents. So if today’s party ID data are correct, not only will the presidential election not be close, but the Republicans will do better than currently expected in the Senate and House, too.”


Singing children advocate for Obama's re-election

Creepy: Singing children advocate for Obama's re-election, blame parents.

By: Joe Newby

Song uses children to advocate for Obama's re-election
"The black and white spot features local kids and an original song (lyrics by Goodby, art direction by Silverstein) that provides a sobering look 'at what our children will say about us and how we left the world for them.' And it’s not always pretty," Carla Marinucci wrote.
The video is featured at the Future Children Project web site with a caption that reads: "Re-electing President Obama is a momentous decision that will require every single voter."
"Imagine an America where strip mines are fun and free; Where gays can be fixed and sick people just die; And oil fills the sea," reads the opening lyrics.
"We haven't killed all the polar bears, but it's not for lack of trying," the song adds, despite a suppressed report indicating that polar bear populations are actually increasing.
"Big Bird is sacked," the children sing - a clear reference to Mitt Romney's comment that he would stop taxpayer subsidies of PBS.
"The Earth is cracked and the atmosphere is frying," they add, despite a report showing that global warming ended 16 years ago.
The song is filled with similar straw-man arguments and ends with a message Barack Obama is sure to appreciate.
"Mom and Dad, we're blaming you!"
But the video is not going over well with conservatives.
"Do leftists really think that creepy singing kids are going to influence voters?" asked a post at Hillbuzz.
"When I see these vids USING children all I think of are those Hitler Youth videos from World War II," observes a post at Saving the Republic.
This is not the first time children have been used as propaganda tools to advocate for Barack Obama.
In February, we reported that kindergarteners at Tipps Elementary School in Houston, Texas, sang what was called the "Barack Obama Song" in honor of Black History Month.
"He’s our man, Yes we can!" the children chanted.
As part of our series entitled, "The case against re-electing Barack Hussein Obama," we reported that a number of songs heaping praise and worship on Barack Obama were being taught to children.
"Ross Douthat notes it's a merger of 2008's style -- viral video, children, outlandish claims -- with 2012's actual message -- 'Kill Romney,'" observes conservative blogger Ace of Spades.
Marinucci adds that "Goodby is a registered Republican" who has concerns about the direction of the party.

Fiat Says Chrysler, Jeep Production May Move to Italy

by Mark Modica

   Coming hot on the heels of speculation that some Jeep production may be moved to China comes a bombshell from a Bloomberg report. Fiat is now considering moving Chrysler and Jeep production to Italy.
   According to the piece, "To counter the severe slump in European sales, (Fiat CEO Sergio) Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said."

   So, let's be real clear here, we are talking about vehicles that will be built in Italy and exported to America. The evidence is clear that Fiat is looking at ways to move production of vehicles from the US to elsewhere, whether it be China or Italy, costing American jobs. This is becoming indisputable, despite outcries from certain parties to the contrary.
   Mitt Romney has rightfully criticized the Obama Administration for handing over Chrysler to the Italians and now leaving the fate of American workers in the hands of Fiat management. Fiat is not a healthy company and the auto industry is in as great a risk as ever. The insistence that all is well by those with political motivations does not mask the danger. More jobs are at risk of being lost and more taxpayer money may be lost as well.
   Let's face it, the auto bailouts were not well thought out. Perhaps General Motors' CEO, Dan Akerson, said it best when he said, "The good thing about our bankruptcy is that it took only 39 days. The bad news is that bankruptcy took only 39 days. If we had been there longer, people would have asked these questions and looked at these things."
  The whole auto industry bailout process was rushed through with the wrong primary motivation of protecting the politically powerful UAW's interests. The Obama Administration never considered that giving Chrysler to Fiat was not a great idea and could eventually hurt the same UAW workers it was trying to protect. Manufacturers like Chrysler and GM are at a competitive disadvantage due to UAW obligations that were not properly addressed in the bankruptcy process.     The industry is more competitive than ever and the government does not seem to be the best innovators to lead the sector to real health. This truth is very likely to become more apparent when the political season ends.
Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow.

Obama’s independent problem

Chris Cillizza

   President Obama has a problem with independents. And it’s not a small problem.
In the last three releases of the tracking poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, Obama has trailed former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among independent voters by between 16 and 20 percentage points.
   That’s a striking reversal from 2008, when Obama won independent voters, who made up 29 percent of the electorate, by eight points over Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
   And if Romney’s large margin among independents holds, it will be a break not just from 2008 but also from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush won independents by 47 percent to 45 percent over Vice President Al Gore. Four years later, Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts essentially split unaffiliated voters, according to exit polls — 48 percent for Bush to 49 percent for Kerry. (Independents made up 27 percent of the vote in 2000 and 26 percent in 2004.)
   So, what gives? Why is Obama — at least according to the Post-ABC data — having so much trouble with independents?
   The answer lies in the fact that most independents are not, well, independent. Of all the likely voters who called themselves independents in nine days of the Post-ABC tracking poll, fully three-quarters (75 percent) — said they tend to lean toward one party or the other. (The remainder are known as “pure” independents.)
   And it’s among those shadow partisans that Obama is struggling. Ninety-two percent of Republican-leaning independents said they plan to support Romney, while 84 percent of Democratic-leaning independents are backing Obama.
   It’s not just in the head-to-head matchup that the difference between GOP-leaning and Democratic-leaning independents is visible. Among all registered voters, 69 percent of Republican-leaning independents say they are following the election closely while just 49 percent of Democratic-leaning independents say the same. (Just more than four in 10 — 41 percent — of pure independents say they are closely following the election.)
   That gap between partisan-leaning independents was just nine points in September but has now grown to a 20-point edge this month as the election draws near.
   By way of comparison, in Post-ABC polling conducted in October 2008, 62 percent of Democratic-leaning independents said they were closely following the election while 60 percent of Republican-leaning said the same.
Among independents who say they are “absolutely certain” to vote, 87 percent of Republican-leaning independents express that sentiment, compared with 81 percent of Democratic-leaning independents.
   What all those numbers mean is that among independent voters — who tend to be less likely to turn out, even in a presidential election, than partisans — Romney has a clear edge.
Now, several caveats are worth noting.
   First, while the election is national in scope, it will be decided in a handful of swing states, including Virginia, where Post polling released Sunday showed Obama with a four-point edge.
Second, enthusiasm among independents can be a fleeting thing — as shown by the movement in the numbers among GOP-leaning independents over the past few weeks.
   Third, even Republicans acknowledge that Obama’s turnout operation is the best that has ever been built, meaning (a) the incumbent’s campaign will find every Democratic partisan there is in a swing state and (b) it will work hard to contact and energize those Democratic-leaning independents in the final eight days of the campaign.
   Still, Romney’s wide lead among independents in Post-ABC tracking polling is a remarkable finding, given the narrow margins between the two men overall. (Romney polled 49 percent to Obama’s 48 in Sunday’s Post-ABC tracking survey.) And, if Romney wins the election Nov. 6, he will almost certainly have independents loosely affiliated with Republicans to thank for his victory.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Romney lands key endorsement in crucial swing state -- Iowa

By Ashley Killough

Des Moines Register breaks from 2008 support of President Barack Obama.

Romney Ryan va with fireworks
(CNN) —
The Des Moines Register, Iowa's largest newspaper, endorsed Mitt Romney for president Saturday, reversing its 2008 support for President Barack Obama and marking the first time the paper has endorsed a Republican in 40 years.
   While the editorial praised both Romney and Obama, the decision ultimately came down to one question, the newspaper stated. "Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate."
   According to the announcement, the editorial board, which enthusiastically endorsed Romney for the state's Republican caucuses earlier this year, had "a vigorous debate" over which candidate to choose for the November election.
   While "Romney has made rebuilding the economy his No. 1 campaign priority," the paper stated, "the president's best efforts to resuscitate the stumbling economy have fallen short. Nothing indicates it would change with a second term in the White House."
   The editorial board said the country needed a "renewed sense of confidence" in the economy. "That should come with Mitt Romney in the White House."
   With six electoral votes, the swing state is highly contentious territory in the tight presidential race. The president campaigned in the Hawkeye State on Wednesday, while Romney was also in the state Wednesday, as well as Friday.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll released last week indicated the president was ahead of Romney by 8 points, 51% to 43%, while a separate American Research Group survey released days earlier showed the two candidates tied at 48%.
   Obama frequently points to Iowa as the state that launched him on the path to winning the Democratic nomination in 2008. During the state's caucuses, the then-Illinois senator captured a surprising victory over then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards.
   Saturday's editorial stated that Romney's record as Massachusetts governor proved he could work across the aisle and would be more likely to bridge Congress and the White House than Obama would in a second term.
   It continued: "Voters should give Mitt Romney a chance to correct the nation's fiscal course and to implode the partisan gridlock that has shackled Washington and the rest of America - with the understanding that he would face the same assessment in four years if he does not succeed."

(HQ) Best Version of "Battle Hymn of the Republic" EVER! Mormon Taberna...

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Mitt Romney is the clear choice for troubled times

Photo - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (AP Photo)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (AP Photo)
    On July 15, 2010, President Obama appeared at a groundbreaking ceremony in Holland, Mich. to tout a $151 million stimulus grant his administration made to build the LG Chem electric car battery factory.
   "[W]hat this plant will prove is that we're headed in the right direction," he said. "This is a symbol of where Michigan is going. This is a symbol of where Holland is going. This is a symbol of where America is going." Two years later, this factory has yet to ship a single battery. WOOD TV8, a western Michigan television station, found that the workers at the LG Chem plant "have so little work to do that they spend hours playing cards and board games, reading magazines or watching movies."
   Obama was right -- for the last four years, this is where America has been going. Under his administration, Cabinet secretaries from academic and political backgrounds, who with few exceptions know nothing of the struggles of running a business, have been making crucial economic decisions and creating industrial policy without understanding the effects.    A full three years after the Great Recession ended, the results of this folly are evident: Entrepreneurs, paralyzed by uncertainty, keep capital on the sidelines, and as a result 23 million American workers remain unemployed or underemployed, or have given up on finding work. Many of them and their families are now forced to rely on government assistance.
   The American economy is treading water in the short term and threatened by a crushing debt burden in the long term. To fix this mess, and to bring back what most Americans consider economic normalcy, we urge our readers to vote for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6.
   With his successful business career, Romney understands how government policies, however well-intentioned, can harm business growth and exacerbate unemployment. He will restore pragmatism, balance and fairness to a business climate that has been chilled by Obama's ideological approach to regulation. He will end Obama's appeasement of influential and moneyed constituencies -- especially organized labor, environmentalists and trial lawyers -- that has harmed entrepreneurs and, ultimately, the workers they wish they could hire.
   Obama came into office at a difficult time in the nation's history. We don't think it fair to judge him against some fairy-tale notion of what a president can do. But it is perfectly fair, after four years, to judge him by the standards he set for himself.
   In 2009, Obama pushed his stimulus package through Congress with the argument that it would reduce the unemployment rate more quickly. This added $833 billion in government debt, without positive effect. The current 7.8 percent unemployment rate exceeds even the dire scenario his economic team predicted in the event the stimulus did not pass.
   But Obama did not just promise the stimulus would create jobs. He also promised that his economic stimulus package would create the foundations for future growth. His statement that "companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future" reflects his philosophy that government intervention can jump-start the industries of tomorrow. With Solyndra and 33 other Obama-subsidized green energy companies declaring bankruptcy or finding themselves on the cusp of it, voters should question this vision and ask themselves why Obama never does.
   In February 2009, Obama convened a "fiscal responsibility summit" at the White House and pledged "to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office." He acknowledged that "this will not be easy. ... But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control."
   Had Obama followed through on this promise, the 2012 deficit would have been $600 billion. Instead, it was $1.1 trillion. The national debt is $16.2 trillion, more than $5 trillion higher than when Obama took office.
   Despite his vow to make tough choices, Obama has presented no plan to put the nation's entitlement programs on a sustainable fiscal path. He discarded the recommendations of the fiscal commission he created to address the problem. His treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, dismissed Republicans' attempts to fix the problem with this striking statement: "[W]e're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."
   In the partisan process of ramming his national health care law through Congress without a single Republican vote, Obama left behind a junkyard full of broken promises. When pitching the law, he said that Americans who liked their current insurance plans could keep them. The Congressional Budget Office has since estimated that 3 million to 5 million would likely be forced out of employer-based coverage as a result of the law, and that that number could be as high as 20 million.
   In September 2009, when Obama was selling the law to the American people before a joint session of Congress, he said, "The plan that I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years." Currently, the CBO pegs the law's 10-year cost at $1.7 trillion.
   Obama promised that his plan would reduce health insurance premiums, yet the CBO projects that premiums for family plans will rise by more than $2,000. Under the law, individuals will be forced to purchase government-approved insurance policies or pay a tax penalty. This tax will fall on 6 million uninsured Americans, most of whom are in the middle class, breaking Obama's pledge that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase" during his administration.
   In fact, Obamacare's massive costs are offset by $1 trillion in tax hikes, many of which will be paid by middle-class Americans, directly or indirectly -- taxes on medical device manufactures, capital gains and tanning salons, among others. Obama promised not to cut Medicare benefits, but he has effectively done so by carving $716 billion out of the program's reimbursements to medical providers.
I   n contrast with Obama, Mitt Romney spent most of his career in the private sector. He helped found Bain Capital, one of the nation's top private equity firms. While at Bain, he invested in hundreds of companies, helping to build such familiar name brands as Staples, Domino's Pizza, Bright Starts and Sports Authority -- all of which employ many thousands of Americans.
   In 1999, Romney applied his impressive management skills to the difficult task of saving the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. The event had fallen deeply into debt, and corruption scandals had scared off corporate sponsors. Romney trimmed budgets, secured new sponsorships, restored the integrity of the Games and ultimately ran a $100 million surplus.
   With his business background, Romney understands that Obama's planned tax increase would not just affect the wealthy. In reality, it would also hit 940,000 small-business owners who file as individuals. Romney illustrated the point with the story of a St. Louis electronics store owner with four employees. The businessman already pays more than half of his income in combined state, federal and local taxes, and under Obama's plan he would be squeezed even harder. Romney also explained how Obama's financial regulatory law had the unintended consequence of protecting large banks as "too big to fail" at the expense of smaller community banks.
   Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a market-based alternative. He's proposed simplifying the tax code by reducing rates and eliminating loopholes and deductions -- an act that would instantly make America more competitive and improve the risk-reward ratio for entrepreneurial risk-taking. Romney has embraced the idea of giving states more control over Medicaid, which is crippling their budgets. He promised to transform Medicare into a system in which today's young people, as seniors, will choose among plans that compete for their business.
Romney is not perfect. We strongly opposed his approach to health care in Massachusetts. Having witnessed during the Bush era how easily Republicans cast aside principle to help a president of their own party, we are wary of that happening again.
   But whatever their doubts about Romney, Americans know exactly what four more years of an Obama presidency would bring. Obama has proposed an additional $450 billion in economic stimulus spending, even though the first round was a dismal failure. He has promised to shield the unsustainable welfare state from necessary reforms and to fund the status quo by raising taxes only on the top 2 percent of taxpayers. But the math in his plan does not add up, and so either debt will continue to pile up or he will also raise taxes on the middle class.
   If he wins this election, Obama will have "flexibility" to become even more aggressive in bypassing Congress and enacting new regulations. But even if he does nothing, his re-election would mean that his burdensome health care law would automatically go into effect, imposing crushing new mandates on businesses and interfering in individuals' health decisions. Whatever doubts exist about Romney's ability to repeal Obamacare, it goes without saying that chances of repeal are nil if Obama is re-elected.
   Honest people will disagree about how much of his agenda Romney can realistically implement. But at least his election would provide America with a fighting chance in both economic and fiscal terms. What Americans need now is not a savior or a messiah, but someone who knows how to take a troubled situation and turn it around. Romney is the man for the job.

'Magic missing' from Obama campaign

Candidates in nationwide blitz that tells different story from 2008.

by Jerome R. Corsi
TRAVELING WITH THE ROMNEY CAMPAIGN – What a difference four years makes.
Mitt Romney is drawing overflow crowds in well-organized barnstorm campaigning, skipping across the nation from Colorado and Nevada, to Iowa and Ohio, with side-trips to Florida, holding two to three rallies a day.

   The Obama campaign is also in a cross-country blitz. But comparing the modest crowds Obama is drawing today with the unprecedented crowds that came out for him in 2008 begs the question: “What happened to the Obama magic?”
By the end of October 2008, the campaign of then-Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain was in trouble, as the momentum had swung clearly and irretrievably in the direction of Obama’s “hope and change” campaign.
   But this year, Romney, emphasizing jobs and economic growth, is grabbing the enthusiasm from an Obama campaign hard pressed to find a plan for the next four years that successfully explains away the economic hardship of the past four.
   Ironically, it’s the Romney campaign that has incorporated the message of “real change, real recovery” into the candidate’s stump speech, with Romney writing emails to supporters that read: “This has become more than just a campaign. It has become a national movement. Americans recognize we can do better as a nation than we’ve done over these last four years.”
   That message is oddly reminiscent of Obama’s tactic in 2008 to run against George W. Bush.
The proposition Romney placed before voters in three campaign rallies Thursday in Ohio was that he could deliver where Obama had failed.
Red Rocks
   On Tuesday, Romney drew a crowd the Secret Service put at 12,500 – the maximum fire marshals would allow – at the Red Rocks Amphitheater in Morrison, Colo., north of Denver.
People of all ages began arriving at noon, ready to make the high-altitude climb from the facility’s many parking lots to the tiered seats of the famed outdoor music venue.
   Romney campaign workers handed out red, blue, yellow and white T-shirts to those seated in the center of the audience in a pattern designed to form the logo on the Colorado flag.
   The applause for Romney and Ryan in the amphitheater was thundering as the candidates promised supporters that this year the Republican ticket would beat Obama in Colorado, something McCain failed to do in 2008.
See video of the Red Rocks rally:

   In 2008, Obama drew a crowd of 100,000 that filled the parks in front of the state capitol in downtown Denver. A crowd that exceeded by 25,000 the 75,000 capacity the Broncos football team draws at Invesco Field watched Obama’s acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.
But on Wednesday, Denver’s fire chief generously estimated just 16,000 came to see Obama at the modest venue of Denver City Park.
   At Red Rocks, the Republican enthusiasts heard candidate Romney proclaim “What a place this is!” to loud shouts and wild applause accompanied by the clapping of thundersticks.
In Denver, Obama countered by claiming: “I love Red Rocks more than just about anybody, but it could never hold all of you guys.”

Mitt Romney speaks at rally at Red Rocks Amphitheater in Colorado

On the low road
   As the Obama campaign enters the final days, its message appears heavily focused on causes of the far left that are calculated to motivate the Democratic Party’s base in an apparent decision to deemphasize the large mass of independent voters to Romney.
   Politico, a Democrat-friendly website, reported this week the Democrats have “gone all in for abortion rights,” noting that contraception advocate Sandra Fluke is prominent on the campaign trail, and Cecile Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood, recently introduced Obama at a Virginia campaign rally.
   Foreign Policy noted the sexually suggestive “first time” ad featuring Lena Dunham is a rip-off of a presidential campaign ad used earlier this year by Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
   Keeping Obama off the campaign trail for a series of MTV-like interviews may be calculated to appeal to college voters, but the strategy does not address the fear of graduating with large tuition debts and meager prospects of jobs equal to the educational levels achieved.
   All indications are that Obama intends to run a negative closing game, as the Des Moines Register front page suggested this week, attempting to scare a far-left base regarding how much it will lose in social welfare and lifestyle benefits if Romney is elected, while Romney advances a positive plan to revive the economy, reduce energy prices and put the nation back to work.
   If the Red Rocks rally was any indication of the mood across the country, the Republican base has enough energy to propel its ticket to the White House.

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus


   Breaking news on Benghazi: the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”

Barack Obama

   So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
   It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why—and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations—did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?

Obama's HHS 'grooming' children for sex

Exclusive: Matt Barber on how advocated techniques mirror those of pedophiles.

by Matt Barber
My strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson

   My dear friend and colleague Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, recently guest lectured during “Sexual Behavior and the Law,” a course I teach. Dr. Reisman’s lecture was filmed by CSPAN and will be airing soon.
   In past years, Dr. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a world renowned expert on the discredited research of bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.
   Kinsey, though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”
   Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.
   Among other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”
Yeah. Sounds like it.
It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.
   Disturbing though that may be, what’s equally disturbing is that nearly all of today’s liberal “comprehensive sex education” curricula – such as that pushed by groups like the National Education Association (NEA), Planned Parenthood and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – is derived entirely from the criminally fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey.
   But even more troubling is a recent discovery by Dr. Reisman. She found that the Obama administration, which fully embraces the debunked Kinsey sex-education model, has begun pushing a curriculum that, in many ways, eerily mirrors the “FBI Molester Grooming Paradigm.”
   In short, she found that both Obama’s HHS and many public sex-education programs are doing to children, constructively, what pedophiles do to “groom” them for sex:
According to the FBI, child molesters:
  • Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
  • Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
  • Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
  • Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.
   During her lecture, Dr. Reisman shocked the 50-plus in attendance by illustrating that today’s Kinseyan-based sex education – as promoted by Obama’s HHS – does much of what the FBI describes above.
   Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.
   According to Dr. Reisman, “the brain data fully support [the] finding” that such “sex education” literally changes the neural pathways of a child’s brain. There is mounting scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.
Whatever its motive, the Obama administration is guilty of employing these grooming techniques on children.
Consider, for instance, that just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Questions and Answers About Sex” website provided a “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section which, like Kinsey, outrageously claimed that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings … which is healthy and normal.”
   Get the implication? And what do “sexual beings” do? Well, they have sex, of course. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this,” admitted the page.
You think?
   The HHS link then suggested that youth “may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality.”
Sound familiar? Remember, the FBI indicates that pedophiles will “teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.”
Who needs pedophiles when we have today’s “comprehensive sex education”? It does all that and more.
   Speaking of masturbation and other “sort of ‘sexual’ behavior … young kids exhibit,” the HHS is right there to help. The link says “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”
Otherwise, masturbate away, I guess.
   Today’s Kinseyan “comprehensive sex education” model, embraced by Barack Obama and other “progressives,” is nothing short of educational malpractice. It’s child corruption. It’s criminally reckless. It’s undeniably “grooming” children for sex.
   During the 2008 presidential campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama spoke about teaching “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners: “It’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” he said.
And by “science-based,” of course, he meant “Kinsey-based.”
So, what is age appropriate, science-based sex education? Well, we know what Alfred Kinsey thought was “age appropriate.” We know what he considered “science-based.”
   I’d expect such “educational” grooming tactics and opinions from Alfred Kinsey or Jerry Sandusky, but not from public educators – not from the U.S. government.
And most certainly, not from the president of the United States.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Now Reuters contradicts itself on Benghazi attacks

News agency already in hot water for seemingly misleading report.

by Aaron Klein

Reuters has yet to explain a possibly false or misleading report quoting a purported protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi.
The widely circulated Reuters article is now apparently contradicted by the news agency’s own new reporting. Two days ago, Reuters broke the story that White House and State Department officials were immediately informed by email that an Islamic terrorist group had claimed credit for the Benghazi attack.
The original Reuters article claiming a popular protest against a Muhammad film is also contradicted by vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials describing how no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, the officials said.
The new Reuters report quoting emails to the White House describing an Islamic terror attack also directly contradicts multiple statements by President Obama and White House officials who had claimed there was a civilian protest before the attacks and that the demonstration was an expression of anger over a YouTube video that mocked Muhammad.
The questions about the original Reuters reporting also come as CBS News was accused of holding back a video interview with Obama that indicates the president knew the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was a premeditated terror attack and not motivated by a Muhammad film, as the White House originally claimed. reported CBS chose not to air the clip for over a month, while instead airing Obama’s attack on Mitt Romney for the presidential candidate’s criticism of the White House handling of the situation in Benghazi.
On Wednesday, Reuters broke the story that officials at the White House and State Department were advised by emails two hours after the Benghazi assault that the Islamic terror Ansar al-Sharia group had claimed credit for the attack. The emails described an armed assault on the U.S. compound.
Reuters reportedly obtained three emails dispatched by the State Department’s Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.
The first email came 20-30 minutes after the attack. It carried the subject “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” That emailed described “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.”
A third email carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The sections of the emails quoted by Reuters don’t mention any popular protests.
The emails seem to conflict with a Reuters report from Sept. 13 – two days after the attack – describing a supposedly popular protest outside the U.S. mission and even claiming to quote a protester. WND reported last week on the inconsistency of that original Reuters report with new information showing no popular protest took place.
Reads the Sept. 13 Reuters report: “Accounts from Libyan and U.S. officials, and from locals who watched what began as a protest on Tuesday against a crudely made American film that insults the Prophet Mohammad spiral into violence and a military-style assault on U.S. troops, point to a series of unfortunate choices amid the confusion and fear.”
The article quotes one protester and only by his first name, described as “a 17-year-old student named Hamam, who spoke to Reuters at the devastated compound on Wednesday.”
Reuters quotes “Hamam” as saying, “When we had heard that there was a film that was insulting to the Prophet, we, as members of the public, and not as militia brigades, we came to the consulate here to protest and hold a small demonstration.”
“Hamam” further claimed that a rumor had spread that a protester had been wounded by firing from inside the U.S. mission, and so Hamam and many others went off to retrieve guns which, Reuters reported, like many Libyans, they keep at home for security.
What really went on at Benghazi ‘consulate’
Like scores of news articles worldwide, the Reuters piece repeatedly referred to the attacked U.S. compound in Benghazi as a “consulate.”
However, as WND was first to report, the building was not a consulate and at no point functioned as one. Instead, the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.
Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
The distinction may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for such sensitive purposes.
Since the mission was attacked last month, countless news media reports around the world have referred to the obscure post as a U.S. consulate. That theme continues to permeate the media, with articles daily referencing a “consulate” in Benghazi.
U.S. officials have been more careful in their rhetoric while not contradicting the media narrative that a consulate was attacked.
In his remarks on the attack, Obama has referred to the Benghazi post as a “U.S. mission.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has similarly called the post a “mission.”
A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.
Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.
On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.
“I’m happy to announce that starting on Monday, August 27, we are ready to offer a full range of consular services to Libyans,” stated Stevens at the ceremony in Tripoli. “This means non-immigrant visas, as well as assistance to Americans residing in, or visiting, Libya.”
The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.
Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.
The State Department website lists no consulate in Benghazi.
Last week, the State Department gave a vivid account of Stevens’ final day during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It was disclosed that about an hour before the attack began, Stevens concluded his final meeting of the day with a Turkish diplomat. Turkey has been leading the insurgency against Assad’s regime.
Last month, WND broke the story that Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.
Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.
The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed on Sept. 11 in an attack blamed on Islamists.
One witness to the mob scene in Libya said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.
The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.
Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels
As WND reported, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Moammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.
Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. Earlier this month, Obama announced $50 million more in aid to the Syrian rebels.
During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”
In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.
In August, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at least 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.
Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.
There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times.
WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.
The military official told WND that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:
  • Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
  • Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
  • Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.