Wal Mart closures, expanded and highly visible military presence in cities all across the country, train after train full of military equipment, all manner of military choppers and planes seen conducting simulations over our cities; what does all this add up to?
Some say nothing more than ordinary military preparedness.
Some say it is our government preparing for total martial law.
Who knows? But this excellent article sheds some light and asks some very basic, logical questions that, so far, the military or our government is not answering.
DALLAS — The questions being raised by right-wing bloggers and conservative commentators about a Pentagon training exercise called Jade Helm 15 traverse the outer edges of political paranoia.
The eight-week exercise starting in July and planned for locations in Texas, New Mexico, California and other Southwestern states, they say, is part of a secret plan to impose martial law, take away people’s guns, arrest political undesirables, launch an Obama-led hostile takeover of red-state Texas, or do some combination thereof.
Is it? Or is it training for that highly unlikely but possible scenario?
Nobody doubts that the military needs to train in the sort of environment they may need to operate and for any reasonably-foreseeable eventuality. That’s expected and the usual practice, and there is a growing use of our military in urban, suburban and rural areas of the world (not in the United States) that would benefit from such an exercise.
So it seems that this is a rather ordinary thing, and thus the Texas (and some other people’s) reaction is one of conspiracy nuts.
Your ads will be inserted here by
Easy Plugin for AdSense.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Let’s say I take that at purely face value, which I am inclined to, particularly reading the NY Times article given the slant they put on it and the accusations made about Texans.
Now please explain, if this is a training exercise for overseas readiness, as the NY Times has claimed, why is it that the DEA and FBI are involved in any way with this exercise, including in providing interrogation services —because they allegedly are.
Jade Helm is a challenging eight week exercise. Truly, in the Martin and Howard County area we’re only going to be here for about five-to-five and half weeks. The eight weeks comes in where there is the preparation and planning that happens back in Florida and in the Mississippi area. The exercise is a joint military and inter-agency activity. What this means is that we have units from every military service participating in the exercise with us. And we also have some of our inter-agency partners, such as the FBI and the DEA, and some of the other agencies assisting us and working with us in the exercise.
Neither of those agencies have an overseas operational role and in fact they’re both prohibited by law from operating outside the borders of the United States. Therefore I would like the NY Times to explain to this ordinary guy why the DEA and FBI would be involved in any fashion with such an exercise if the intended operational use of such training is overseas and why the overseas-operable agencies such as the CIA or our FBI and DEA counterparts in other nations where such actions might take place are not invited to participate instead in place of our national LEOs, since integration with them in any such actual deployment would be of value both to our military and those foreign counterparts.
So, what can one take from all this? Well, the obvious: The military probably is war-gaming the possibility of civil insurrection, and if that was to occur Posse Comitatus (which is current law and prevents the Military from being used for such a purpose inside the US) would likely be repealed by Congress and The President in about 15 minutes.
In other words you’re not a “conspiracy nut” if what you believe someone is doing is in fact what they’re doing!
So over to you, NY Times, for slandering people that drew a completely-reasonable conclusion from available public information, never mind their perfectly-rational decision that they’re going to use the opportunity to gather information through observation as well. After all that’s what an exercise is for, right? It’s all about running through scenarios that are unlikely, but possible, something the military does all the time and is a perfectly-valid part of their remit.
The same holds true for ordinary citizens and State governments.
Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said the cargo ship’s master had initially refused an Iranian order to move further into Iranian waters, but after the warning shots were fired the MV Maersk Tigris complied.
Warren said the cargo ship has been boarded by Iranians, but no one has been injured and no Americans are involved.
Warren said the cargo ship issued a distress call and the US Naval Forces Central Command, based in the area, sent a US destroyer and an aircraft to the area of the incident to monitor the situation.
While the Marshall Islands is a sovereign country, the U.S. “has full authority and responsibility for security and defense of the Marshall Islands,” according to the U.S. State Department. Maersk, the shipping line whose vessel was commandeered, is one of the largest employers of U.S. merchant mariners, and “operate[s], manage[s] and maintain[s] ships for the U.S. government ships in preposition and surge sealift capacities,” according to its website.
Patrick Megahan, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that Maersk Tigris was in international waters when it was seized.
Last week at a State Department briefing, Acting Spokesperson Marie Harf emphasized that the move of U.S. naval vessels to Yemen was not to intercept Iranian ships but “only to ensure the shipping lanes remain open and safe.”
Even when I worked there, Renaissance Capital had close ties to the Kremlin – the relationship made Renaissance executives into oligarchs. By 2010, the firm had become a practical arm of Vladimir Putin. Nobody of sound mind would think otherwise.
Bill Clinton took that half million dollar payment as his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, served as a key member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This inter-agency panel must approve foreign purchase of private American companies the government deems vital to our national interest.
Shortly after Bill Clinton delivered the highest paid speech of his life, CFIUS was to consider and approve the key Russian purchase…
… [But in] 2010-2011, I ran acquisition communications for Safran Group, the French government-controlled defense contractor which bought the US biometrics company L-1. It took us almost two years to gain CFIUS approval for France, an historic ally, to purchase a biometrics firm, not even remotely a strategic asset. We were stymied at every turn by an endless stream of questions.
In contrast, the Rusatom acquisition of UraniumOne got CFIUS approval in four months – for control of 20 percent of America’s strategic uranium.
These two CFIUS approvals were happening at precisely the same time. Safran couldn’t buy a break and was questioned at ever turn. Somehow, Kremlin-controlled Rusatom’s purchase sailed through on a cool breeze.
Any insider will tell you that, considering the vital nature of the CFIUS-UraniumOne proceedings, it is certain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was directly involved. And Bill took $500,000 indirectly from the Kremlin at the same time.
In other words, we have an actual experiment that proves the Clintons are dirty. A control acquisition, with no national security implications whatsoever, was blocked at every turn. A deal for America’s precious uranium resources — a key to nuclear weapons construction — was approved faster than fecal matter through a goose.
Donors, observing that donations to Team Clinton are now under scrutiny as possible bribes, are thinking twice about investing in a candidacy that used to be seen as inevitable. Usually, such doubts are left unspoken in public. But now, a top fundraiser [New York businessman Jon Cooper] is obliquely expressing his fears and his plans to suspend fundraising…
…Mr. Cooper is not stating any worries about being tarred with the brush of corruption for merely raising money for Hillary. But that is the clear background of his worries. Now that donations are linked to corruption, anyone with any worries about being fairly or unfairly construed as corrupt (which includes anyone with sufficient money as a donor to be notable) must think carefully about donating to Team Hillary…
…[The once extant] logic [now] reverses itself. She may not be so inevitable, and a donation may lead to negative attention, perhaps leading to negative outcomes, the very reverse of what a donation might have been seen as buying. The more these doubts rise (and the revelations are continuing), the less inevitable she seems. The more doubt there is about her success, the less the payoff, and the greater the risk of critical scrutiny cast on her donors, especially if a Republican attorney general takes office in 2017 with a vow to clean up the mess in Washington.
Lifson asserts that subpoena time is coming.
Knowing the feckless, complicit boobs who comprise the current Republican leadership, I’m not holding my breath.
“The Constitution makes clear that Congress must approve international agreements like the one President Obama is negotiating with Iran,” said Sen. Cruz. “A nuclear Iran is the single greatest threat to our national security and also poses an unacceptably high risk to Israel. Reviewing this deal and deciding whether or not to consent to it may well be the most important function of this Congress. It is not something that should be rushed, and it is imperative that, at the very least, the President obtain majority support for his deal from both Houses of Congress before moving forward.”
As currently written, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 would first require Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval and then require Congress to muster votes from two-thirds of each chamber to override a Presidential veto. What’s more, if Congress failed to act within a set timeframe, the deal would go into effect by default. This process gets the Constitution’s allocation of authority precisely backwards.
The Cruz-Toomey amendment would remove these options and restore a more proper process for Congress to exercise its Constitutional power. It would require President Obama to persuade a majority of Senators and Representatives to approve his deal before it goes into effect.
Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal. It’s morning in Israel, again. Benjamin Netanyahu defeated the left in his country AND ours. Netanyahu faced an insurgent left-wing party, likely because of his hard line against both Iran and President Obama’s horribly failed foreign policy.This is the first time the Israeli left came so close to coming back to full power in this post 9/11 world.…Netanyahu’s Likud Party isn’t in such a strong position that it can control the whole government and seeing as how Israel is a Parliamentary system Netanyahu and Likud will now have to arrange a governing agreement with some of the lesser, left-wing parties.But the fact that Bibi pulled this out at the last second is also telling. Israel is not ready to hand leftists full power.
President Barack Obama despises Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with such immense passion that he has been covertly scheming to prevent the PM from being reelected in this upcoming Tuesday’s legislative election.He has been doing so by secretly funding those non-profit organizations in Israel that are actively attempting to dissuade the Israeli people from voting for Netanyahu.This unauthorized funding casts an extraordinarily pernicious light on Obama, especially given that we as a nation ought not to interfere with an ally nation’s election… This is why the president has ordered the non-profits to scrub anything from their websites that leads a trail back to him…The Senate believes [OneVoice, a group affiliated with Obama associates tried to influence the Israeli elections, and has launched] an investigation into whether or not Obama “aided OneVoice’s efforts to defeat Netanyahu via grants from the State Department.”We know for a fact that Obama’s State Department gave OneVoice a grant for $350,000. What we do not know, but that we suspect to be true, is whether the grant was issued specifically to help the non-profit thwart Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection efforts… We also know that back in 2010, Obama’s State Department issued a $999,715 grant to the Abraham Fund, which too is actively plotting to negatively affect Bibi’s chances of winning. ..
Let’s see, President Obama has ripped the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He’s shredded the Advise and Consent clause by declaring the Senate in session, despite not having the power to do so. He did away with the Legislative clause by writing laws on his own when he changed the Affordable Care Act a whopping 24 times.
And now, he’s at it again. This time he wishes to cede our ability to enter into treaties with other countries to the United Nations. If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know about the UN, then nothing does.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads:
The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday (Google link) that Secretary of State John Kerry is still upset about the open letter Sen. Tom Cotton (R – Ark.) wrote last week that was signed by 46 other Republican senators arguing that it was Congress’ role to review treaties.
Mr. Kerry said on Saturday in Egypt that these American lawmakers were “wrong.”
“It is almost inevitable it will raise questions in the minds of the folks with whom we’re negotiating as to whether or not they are negotiating with the executive department and the president, which is what the constitution says, or whether there are 535 members of Congress,” Mr. Kerry told reporters in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
“Let me make clear to Iran…that from our point of view, this letter is incorrect in its statements,” he added. “As far as we are concerned, the Congress has no ability to change an executive agreement.”
It strikes me as odd that Kerry is doubling down on his non-binding argument. An executive agreement is not binding, unlike a treaty, and therefore not subject to Congressional review. It’s also odd that he claims, “as far as we are concerned.”
Shouldn’t the Constitution be the standard by which the Republican claims are judged? Finally, there’s Kerry’s famous declaration at the time the Joint Plan of Action was signed in November 2013 that the agreement was not based on trust. So if the agreement is not based on trust and it’s non-binding what “mechanism” will there to be verify that Iran isn’t overtly or covertly pursuing an illicit nuclear program?
More and more I’m convinced that Cotton’s reason for writing the letter was to smoke out the administration on this point.
It wasn’t unknown that the administration was portraying the emerging agreement with Iran as “non-binding.” Armin Rosen of Business Insider, for example, suggested this a week before Kerry and other administration officials admitted it. The problem of course with the administration’s position is, as Rosen wrote last week:
The US wouldn’t have a firm legal obligation to uphold the agreement, so Iran would have a built-in reason to assume American bad faith and push the limits of a future deal. In other words, without a legal guarantee on the US side, compliance with an agreement is potentially diluted Tehran’s side as well — and remember, this is a regime that hid the existence of two secret nuclear facilities and operated 20,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges in defiance of repeated UN Security Council resolutions.
One problem with Kerry’s harping on the Cotton letter is that it reinforces the weakness of the agreement that the United States is negotiating with Iran. The other problem is that despite the administration’s claim that the deal it is negotiating is non-binding, there is an effort to make this deal binding – on the United States.
The Cotton letter not only elicited a response from the administration, it elicited a response from Iran. After the letter was publicized, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote a response on Iran’s foreign ministry website, leaking an important detail about the negotiations. (For some reason this leak did not elicit an outraged response from the administration about not negotiating in public.)
He [Zarif] emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
The Security Council gambit leaked by Zarif and apparently other sources prompted Sen. Bob Corker’s letter released Thursday, which called out the administration for bypassing Congress.
There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote. Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it, while simultaneously threatening to veto legislation that would enable Congress to do the same, is a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress’s appropriate role.
Corker pointed out that various senior administration officials had promised to take any deal to Congress, so in addition to the “affront to the American people,” the administration is going back on its word.
(About the same time Corker released his letter, Reuters reported that the P5+1 powers were negotiating with Iran to lift the U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran for breaching its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and failing to come clean about its past nuclear research to the International Atomic Energy Agency.)
Corker wasn’t the only Republican to object to administration’s plan of bringing the agreement to the U.N. Security Council, and, at first the National Security Council (NSC) pushed back against these reports, as Jennifer Rubin observed. Rubin cited BuzzFeed, which carried the NSC denial.
The U.S. has “no intention” of using the United Nations to lock into place any potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.
The United States will not be “converting U.S. political commitments under a deal with Iran into legally binding obligations through a UN Security Council resolution,” Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, said in a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News.
But then over the weekend Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, in a letter to Corker, no longer pretended that Security Council would not be involved.
(I am no lawyer, but I think that Jack Goldsmith gives McDonough and the administration way too much credit here. The implication of the letter is that you dance to our tune or risk undermining the careful diplomacy we’ve carried out. I find the David Rivkin-Lee Casey analysis here, even without reference to the McDonough letter, a lot more convincing.)
The administration’s incoherent response to the Cotton letter suggests that it wasn’t ready for the Security Council gambit to be revealed. It looks like Kerry and other administration sources, hoping to evade the issue, used the “non-binding” defense to say that the administration is not negotiating a treaty.
Then apparently the NSC tried to say that the Security Council would not play a role but no one believed the argument, so McDonough played it straight. Why Kerry is still fixated on the Cotton letter, I have no idea. My best guess is that he’s hoping to distract people from thinking too much about the implication of McDonough’s admission.
The game Iran is playing is that it wants the P5+1 nations (the P5 nations being the five permanent members of the Security Council) to revoke all six Security Council resolutions finding Iran in breach of its NPT obligations and imposing sanctions in response to its bad behavior. With this “get of jail free” card, Iran will turn to the United States and demand that Congress lift the sanctions it passed. I have little doubt that whatever lip service McDonough now pays to “Congress making its own determinations” about a deal will be gone if and when the Security Council lifts the sanctions. If Congress remains unconvinced of Iran’s reformed behavior, the administration will tell Congress that “if congressional action is perceived as preventing us from reaching a deal, it will create divisions within the international community,” just as it is doing now.
Intentionally or not I think that McDonough gave away the game when he wrote, “We agree that Congress will have a role to play – and will have to take a vote – as part of any comprehensive deal. As we have repeatedly said, even if a deal is reached, only Congress can terminate the existing Iran statutory sanctions.”
The administration doesn’t see Congress as a partner in these negotiations. Tom Cotton’s letter forced that out. That is why they still haven’t forgiven him. Meanwhile, those who aren’t distracted by the administration’s feigned outrage, are starting to figure out the scope of the administration’s capitulation to Iran.
With scandals mounting, it is plain to see that Hillary Clinton’s plan to be the 45th President of the United States is floundering and she hasn’t even officially announced yet.
The revelations, reported initially in the most left-wing newspaper in the nation, The New York Times, that Hillary Clinton used her own private emails to conduct public business, suggests that there are forces within the Democratic Party that do not want her to be its candidate for President in 2016.
It’s not like Hillary did not know she was supposed to use the State Department’s email system for reasons of national security; her private emails could have been hacked by forces unfriendly to the U.S. All government employees are routinely briefed on the laws that require this.
For the record, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. On September 18 of last year, I wrote a commentary titled “Go Away, Hillary” in which I asked “Other than earning her law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own. Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.”
Beyond Hillary, what I object to is the necessity to raise millions with which to secure either Party’s nomination and a billion to run for the presidency. We are electing someone who has literally bought the election courtesy of donors who have made the selection for the rest of us. There is something fundamentally undemocratic about that.
That said, I don’t think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016.
That may surprise you, but it surprises me as well. And, yes, I could be wrong, but the revelations about her patently illegal email use while Secretary of State suggests that there are forces within her Party that want to end her candidacy now rather than later. They are sending her an ominous message.
Ron Fournier is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal. Prior to that, he worked at the Associated Press for 20 years, most recently as its Washington Bureau Chief. On March 3rd, he wrote an opinion piece titled “Maybe she doesn’t want to run in 2016, top Democrats wonder. Maybe she shouldn’t.”
“Two weeks ago,” wrote Fournier, “we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from the Obama administration and Clinton aides that no donations were made during her tenure as Secretary of State were proven false.”
“Now The New York Times is reporting that Clinton used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State, an apparent violation of federal requirements that her records be retained.” He quoted one unnamed “senior Democrat” as saying “This story has legs as long as the election”, noting that many senior Democrats “are angry.”
“My concern,” wrote Fournier, “is that Clinton does not see this controversy as a personal failing. Rather, she sees it as a political problem that can be fixed with more polls, more money, and more attacks.” He described her problem as “a lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency.”
If there is one thing to which the Democratic Party is totally dedicated, it is winning the White House and control of the Congress. Ever since President Obama has been in office, it has taken a beating as voters have relentlessly transferred power to the Republican Party in Congress and in many States. It is an unmistakable trend and one that must keep Democrat strategists up at night.
In January 2014, a Pew Research poll found that 69% of women who identified themselves as Democrats hoped to see a female President in their lifetime, compared to only 20% of Republican women. In April 2014, a Rasmussen poll found that “51% of likely U.S. voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Clinton, while 44% view her unfavorably.”
The Huffington Post analysis of the Pew poll concluded that “not wanting Clinton in office is the only one explanation for Republican woman’s relative lack of enthusiasm about electing a candidate of their own gender”, adding that “It may be that (the) gender of a candidate has simply become a less compelling factor for voters…”
Six years of having a President who was elected primarily because he is black have taught voters that race and gender are insufficient factors on which to base one’s vote.
Six years of a sluggish economy, massive unemployment, declining wealth among the Middle Class, and a disaster called foreign policy will influence 2016 votes along with, of course, whoever the candidates may be.
So I will return to my conjecture that Hillary, no matter her desire to be the first woman U.S. President, will also have to address the practical realities of politics. Opposition from within the Democratic Party will likely be a deciding factor. She has put off announcing her intentions until April. If she puts it off again that would suggest some deep misgivings.
If you had the choice between a life of great wealth and fame as opposed to the daily inquisition and criticism that comes with the presidency, which would you choose?
Looks like Hillary’s chickens just may be coming home to roost…
I’ve always believed that the Benghazi cover-up was about two presidential campaigns: Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign.
Why else would Hillary Clinton personally send out lies about Benghazi within hours, and then keep on pushing these lies until the truth could no longer be ignored. The truth about an attack by an al Qaeda group that killed our ambassador and three other brave Americans in the days before Obama’s reelection would not only have put Obama at risk of losing, but also would have potentially dashed the hopes of his successor-in-waiting, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The desperation by Obama, Clinton, and their political teams must have been potent. It was so potent that they – rather than admitting to the Islamist conflagration they caused in Libya by ousting and killing Gadhafi – preferred to ignore pleas for increased security from Ambassador Stevens; to abandon him and his colleagues to rampaging terrorists; refuse to follow up with force against those who attacked us; and to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack.
Rather than admit that it was a planned attack by a terrorist group in league with al Qaeda, the Obama/Clinton machine knowingly put out the lie that the killings were the result of a spontaneous demonstration in response to an obscure Internet video supposedly offensive to radical Islamists. The message: don’t blame us – blame those who offend Islamists (conservatives, Republicans, etc.). Indeed, rather than sending our military to eliminate the enemy in Libya, the Obama administration arrested the poor sap who made the offending video.
As they say on late night infomercials, “But wait! It gets better!”
Strong stuff you might think. But the most recent documents forced out of the State Department will make you think I’m being too kind to the Benghazi betrayers controlling the Executive Branch.
On February 11, 2015, JW struck smoking-gun gold in another cache of documents we forced out of the State Department. The documents show that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the outset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group. The documents we’ve extracted from the Obama administration only through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State ((No. 1:14-cv-01511).
Unsurprisingly, the documents make no reference to a spontaneous demonstration or Internet video, except in an official statement issued by Hillary Clinton.
The JW lawsuit that uncovered this material focused on Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi scandal:
Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S, Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes but is not limited to, notes, taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
Mrs. Clinton had said she took notes on Benghazi for her recent book but suggested no one could see them. She isn’t above the law. Congress is asleep, the media is a cheerleader, so hence, our lawsuit.
We haven’t yet gotten Hillary’s notes, but the chain of internal emails we did get are extraordinary and track the events surrounding the terrorist attack in real time.
In chronological order:
On September 11, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Maria Sand (who was then a Special Assistant to Mrs. Clinton) forwarded an email from the State Department’s Operations Center entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack (SBU) [Sensitive But Unclassified]” to Cheryl Mills (then-Chief of Staff), Jacob Sullivan (then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s Executive Assistant), and a list of other Special Assistants in the Secretary’s office:
The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.
This email was sent about 30 minutes after the terrorist attack began!
DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.
Nearly seven hours later, at 12:04 am, on September 12, Randolph sends an email with the subject line “FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack” to Mills, Sullivan, and McManus that has several updates about the Benghazi attack:
I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center.
This email also contains a chain of other, earlier email updates:
September 11, 2012 11:57 PM email: “(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff.”
September 11, 2012 6:06 PM (Subject: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”
September 11, 2012, 4:54 PM: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel.”
Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi.
Two hours later, Joseph McManus forwards the news about Ambassador Stevens’ death to officials in the State Department Legislative Affairs office with instructions not to “forward to anyone at this point.”
Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the assault may have been in “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
Cheryl Mills asks that the State Department stop answering press inquiries at 12:11 am on September 12, despite the ongoing questions about “Chris’ whereabouts.” In an email to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, Jacob Kennedy, and Phillipe Reines (then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Senior Communications Advisor), Mills writes:
Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria b/c now the first one [Hillary Clinton’s “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” statement] is hanging out there.
Earlier in the chain of emails, Nuland told Mills, Sullivan, and Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary of State for Management) that she “ignored” a question about Ambassador Steven’s status and whereabouts from a CBS News reporter.
Think about this: Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s top aide, would rather go to bed and let hang out there the lie that Hillary Clinton put out about the attack than tell reporters the truth about the attack, which by that time had escalated to include mortar fire.
Another top State Department official is eager to promote a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, then-Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a liberal group. The September 2012 statement condemns “the video that apparently spurred these incidents. It was clearly crafted to provoke, offend, and to evoke outrage.” Michael Posner, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, forwarded the statement on September 12, 2012, to Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Jacob Sherman with the note:
This is an excellent statement – our goal should be to get the Conference of Presidents, the ADL etc. to follow suit and use similar language.
(President Obama nominated the left-wing Rabbi Saperstein to be Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom in July 2014. The U.S. Senate confirmed him in December 2014. Posner, by the way, is another far left activist installed at State by Obama.)
Also included in the documents are foreign press reports establishing the cause of Ambassador Chris Steven’s deathas being from asphyxiation. According to the reports, doctors attending Stevens said he could have been saved had he arrived at the hospital earlier.
The Obama administration has blacked out reactions from White House and top State Department officials to news stories published on September 14, 2012. One of the stories quoted a visitor who criticized the lack of security at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound and another headlined, “America ‘was warned of attack and did nothing.’” What was the reaction of key Obama officials to this truth-telling about the media. They don’t want you to know. If it were helpful, it would have been released to us!
Other emails list well over 20 invited participants in a “SVTC” (secure video teleconference). The invited participants for the September 14, 2012, early morning call include senior White House, CIA, and State Department political appointees. Details about that call, which likely documents the cover-up operation on Benghazi, haven’t been produced to Judicial Watch.
These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about “inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.”
The contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents, but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang’s cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information.
Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath.
Islamic terrorists connected to al Qaeda attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the evening of September 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith were both killed. Just a few hours later, a second terrorist strike targeted a different compound about one mile away. Two CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed and 10 others were injured in the second attack.
The families of those four men deserve truth and accountability. So do those who suffered injuries and others haunted by the attacks.
So as Congress is set to acquiesce in Obama’s deadly nullification of our nation’s immigration laws…
So as the mainstream media spends all of its time covering presidential wanna-be’s with all the depth of entertainment media coverage of the Oscars…
So as “Rome burns,” your Judicial Watch will, alone it seems, continue with the hard work of conducting government oversight in a city otherwise bereft of it. The Benghazi Four deserve no less.
We expect more Benghazi documents over the next few months, so stayed tuned for more disclosures.
About Judicial Watch:
Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach. Visit: www.judicialwatch.org
Investor’s Business Daily is reporting that there are almost two dozen Jihadist training camps right here in America.
Jihad Enclaves: With names like Islamberg and Mahmoudberg, some 22 of what the FBI calls “enclaves” have been established across the U.S. by a group linked to a Pakistani militant group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra.
The specter of 21 Christians being murdered “on the shores of Tripoli” in Libya where U.S. Marines first encountered Muslim forces — the Barbary pirates — and threats by the Islamic State against Rome show how President Obama’s “JV team” has metastasized as a global threat.
And, yes, it can happen here.
The Islamic State is encouraging attacks on infidels in the West like the one in Moore, Okla., where office worker Colleen Hufford was stabbed and beheaded.
Lost in the debate about the threat of Islamic terrorism is that the “home-grown” and “lone wolf” terrorists IS seeks to enlist already walk among us.
They may find aid and comfort in a network of what might be called training camps established by a group called Muslims of the Americas (MOA), a group that has been linked to the Pakistani militant group Jamaatul-Fuqra, whose members are devoted followers of Pakistani extremist cleric Mubarak Ali Gilani.
Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that seeks to educate the public about the threat of Islamic extremism, reports, based on FBI documents the group has obtained, the existence of a 22nd MOA paramilitary training camp in Brazoria County, Texas.
Called “Mahmoudberg” by the MOA, the FBI describes it as an “enclave” and “communal living site” at least seven to 10 acres large from which gunshots, possibly from target shooting, are frequently heard.
With its U.S. headquarters in the enclave of Islamberg, New York, MOA operates its communes in mostly remote areas of Georgia, South Carolina, California, Texas, New York, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and other states.
Doug Ross tweeted that picture along with a link to a very interesting article at the American Thinker.
As Burleigh explains:
The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain’s Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Don’t worry. I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything. That odd hand signal must have been just a weird affectation.
Waleed Sharaby, who is a secretary-general of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council and a spokesman for Judges for Egypt, a group reported to have close ties to the Brotherhood, posed for a selfie in front of the State Department emblem while showcasing the Muslim Brotherhood Rabia four-finger sign. The caption under the pic says, “Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone.” The sign is named after Rabia Square in Cairo, where a large anti-coup sit-in was held for about forty days before it was dispersed. The sign is meant to express solidarity with the thousands wounded, killed and burnt by the Egyptian army during the dispersal and persistence of the anti-coup movement, whereas pro-coup activists, figures and media consider the sign to be a terrorist sign. Or should that be called an ‘armed insurgent’ sign since we are not allowed to call the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban or CAIR the scum bag terrorists they are? Confusing, huh? Only certain terrorists are actually terrorists according to Obama. Only the ones he doesn’t snuggle with. Actually, doing away with the word ‘terrorist’ altogether is straight out of CAIR’s playbook. Radical Islamists of a feather and all that.
The delegation not only included Sharaby, it also had on board Gamal Heshmat, a leading member of the Brotherhood and Abdel Mawgoud al-Dardery, a Brotherhood member who served as a parliamentarian from Luxor as part of its makeup. Maha Azzam, who was also part of the delegation, proclaimed that the talks were ‘fruitful.’ Yeah, I bet they were. Azzam was speaking at the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). This is yet another group accused of having close ties to the Brotherhood. Azzam also declared that the State Department expressed openness to engagement. Quoi? Engage in what precisely? So, does this mean that the Brotherhood is now just another arm of our State Department? It’s sure beginning to look that way.
Any fool can see that Obama is still supporting putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and wants al-Sisi dealt with and gone. State Department officials would not comment on the content of the talks, several of which consisted of public get-togethers (by invitation) in Maryland and Virginia last week. I’m sure they had cocktails, while discussing the ouster of al-Sisi and the destruction of Israel.
Patrick Poole, a terrorism expert and national security reporter, said the powwow at the State Department could be a sign that the Obama administration still considers the Brotherhood politically viable, despite its ouster from power and a subsequent crackdown on its members by Egyptian authorities.
“What this shows is that the widespread rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East, particularly the largest protests in recorded human history in Egypt on June 30, 2013, that led to Morsi’s ouster, is not recognized by the State Department and the Obama administration,” Poole said.
“This is a direct insult to our Egyptian allies, who are in an existential struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood, all in the pursuit of the mythical ‘moderate Islamists’ who the D.C. foreign policy elite still believe will bring democracy to the Middle East,” Poole said.
Two days after the delegation meeting, the Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising Jihad” in Egypt. They released an official statement calling on their supporters to “prepare” for Jihad, according to an independent translation of the statement first posted on Tuesday.
America’s world dominance since the break up of the Soviet Union is coming to an end. Pundits will write millions of words debating the “how” and the “why” of America’s fall from grace. To borrow a phrase from our current esteemed leader, America has been punching above its weight class, for many years. Our government has spent more than it has taken in for over three decades.
Things took a decided turn for the worse during the G. W. Bush administration. The Clinton administration had the benefit of the inflating Dot.com bubble and the inflating housing bubble and, as a result, managed to balance the budget. The Dot.com bubble burst early in Bush’s first term and the housing bubble burst late in his last term. In between he passed the costly Medicare-Part D and al Qaeda attacked America, which brought us two long, costly, and bloody wars. The national debt went up $5 trillion on Bush’s eight year watch.
Then America blessed itself by electing Barack Obama to two terms of office. His response to the Great Recession was to run up the national debt $5.5 trillion in less than five and one half years and most Americans feel like they are still living in a recession.
So, today we find America funding all of its spending programs, including its vaunted military, by having to borrow 40% of its budget from China, Japan, individual investors, and most recently from the Federal Reserve (The Fed has no money of its own, but it can create money out of thin air). Can anyone really be surprised that America is losing its influence in the world? The world’s most awesome military aside, how can a beggar nation continue to be the world’s “benevolent” policeman? It can not!
America’s decline has been evident to the rest of the world for some time. Many have been the critics of America’s dominate role in world affairs. This criticism worried Harvard history professor, Naill Ferguson, when he wrote a 2004 Foreign Policy article titled, A World Without Power.
Critics of U.S. global dominance should pause and consider the alternative. If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world — and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age.
Now ten years later another pundit writes a very similar opinion. Daniel Greenfield is an Israeli living in New York where he is a professional journalist. He also writes the Sultan Knish blog where you will find his recent essay titled: The Shape of a Post-American World. He starts his essay with this:
The post-American world will be many things, but multilateral isn’t one of them. There will be no world government and international organizations will be good for little except sucking up the last drops of wealth and prestige of the United States. It will be a chaotic place with everyone out for themselves.
And, he ends with this:
The civilized world faces economic, demographic and military crises that it has a limited time frame in which to meet and resolve. If it fails to do that, the civilization in which we have grown up and which we have known all our lives will die and a long interregnum of darkness will follow in its wake.
I do hope you will take the time to read the Greenfield article because, between the two paragraphs quoted above, he offers much food for thought. He talks about the coming of a new world order of China, Russia and the US. He talks at length about the demographic problems facing each of these nations and the general decline of Europe’s influence in world affairs. Greenfield also talks of a fourth power in the world that is not a nation but an ideology and the fastest growing demographic in the world _ that being Islam. He makes the point that, although it would seem reasonable for China, Russia, and the US to see Islam as their common enemy, the leaders of these countries do not see it that way. He use Russia and the US as examples:
… Putin fights some Islamists while incorporating others into his allied clergy and helping still others go nuclear. The United States bombs the Taliban, but would never consider bombing their paymasters in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar.
But, the Islam issue aside, Greenfield doesn’t think that China, Russia, and the US will be able to hold their positions of power in the long run. This paragraph comes close to summing up his view point:
Russia, China and the United States are all demographically unstable. Russia and the United States are both on track to become majority-minority countries. China’s demographic disaster will be the outcome of its one child policies, gender abortion and its war on the countryside. The United States will probably weather its demographic problems better than Russia or China, because the former faces a fatal Muslim demographic takeover and the latter a conflict that will tear its society apart, but like Russia and China, the demographic crisis in the United States will be exacerbated by the lack of common bonds to see it through a period of social stress.
Clearly Mr. Greenfield’s view is as dark today as that which worried Professor Ferguson in 2004. What do you think of Mr. Greenfield’s view of a post-American world? That America is losing its hegemonic role in the world seems obvious. It’s just as obvious that China and Russia will expand their spheres of influence both individually and jointly (Middle East). The big question to me is not the demographic issues raised by Mr. Greenfield but rather: will the leaders of China and Russia be wise enough to expand their spheres of influence without bringing down the fragile international financial system?
And I was so sure that my tour of duty in this life would end before the SHTF. Silly me!
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
It may pain us to admit it, but Barack Obama and the American Soviet — er, Democratic Party — are not the problem. A certain perspicacious possum said it best: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” At least it’s those of us who keep blithely returning to power the avatars of a political organization whose recent resume includes a half-century of unfettered blundering abroad and deleterious social tinkering at home. And their less than esteemed Republican rivals are not much better. Any opposition whose motto seems to be “Me Too — Just Not So Fast” is not much of an opposition at all — they’re accessories after the fact.
Taken as a whole, the men and women we have chosen to represent us are the most malodorous collection of bunglers, buffoons, poltroons, miscreants, and incorrigible flim-flammers to be found anywhere outside of a county work farm. But politicians have always been full of the stuff that most of us scrape off the bottoms of our shoes. They haven’t changed over the years. We have. In 237 years we Americans have gone from “Give me liberty or give me death” to “Give me.” Human nature? To be sure, but it was once the purpose of our institutions to strengthen character, not to encourage venality, immorality, and bad breath … er, Michelle Obama’s ‘healthy foods’ crusade. Alas the leaky umbrella of Progressivism shelters both cannibal and Christian equally, though the former may gnaw on his neighbor while the latter is elbowed toward the nearest drainage ditch.
“If you’re an American, the country in which you were born no longer exists. But the place you live in now grows increasingly foreign: statist, over-regulated, ever-poorer, and frankly socialist in its regulations and intentions …
It’s difficult to believe that our health care will be partly insured through the build up and arming of agents employed by our Internal Revenue Service. These armed thugs agents will be our very own KGB. The IRS has been a law unto itself for at least two generations. In fact, people have only half-jokingly called them America’s KGB. That soviet-style humor is about to become most unfunny as folks who aren’t in compliance with ObamaCare find their assets in the clutches of the IRS. The armed IRS. – Dymphna/Gates of Vienna
Joel Gilbert, director of the film, “Dreams from My Real Father,” says it is likely that Barack Obama, when he was a student at Columbia, attended meetings of the May 19 Communist Organization, a support group for the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army … “I had one source who ID’d Obama as having attended May 19 public meetings,” he tells me. Obama’s Marxist background and connections are the story of a lifetime. It’s a story the media “forgot” to cover in their rush to make him President …
“It occurred to me the other day that people are confined to mental institutions when they’re found to constitute a danger to themselves or others. So, why is it that Obama is still running around loose? — Burt Prelutsky
Left in the mottled pink hands of today’s Democrats, any bad situation can be made infinitely worse. Pick a current affair, any one at all, from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, and you will invariably find Democrats on the wrong side of it. This kind of steely incompetence is rarely ever found in nature, primarily because the creatures which possessed it are all extinct.
Barack Obama, however, is not your garden variety incompetent. He is a man who actively sides with Marxists and malcontents at home and with the Muslim Brotherhood abroad — the very people that any objective American would readily identify as enemies of the state; people, for example, like Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, featured speaker at the convention of the Islamic Society of North America,an MB front group of which Obama recently said: “My administration is proud to be your partner.”
Proud to partner up with anti-American rabble like Hamza Yusef? A person whocalled the United States “…a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present”; a person who proudly proclaims, “I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights.”
The Egyptians, recently freed from the oppressive yoke of Mohammad Morsi, a Brotherhood stooge whose return to power Barack Obama has worked diligently to achieve, believe they know why: because Obama himself is a secret Muslim Brotherhood member. Well, no one here has seen evidence for that allegation just yet; but if motive can be discerned from action (and both crime scene investigators and professional hairdressers believe it can), then the President of the United States is both a Muslim and a homosexual communist.
“Obama would rather cultivate the worldwide ‘gay’ constituency than work with me to solve Syria.” — Vladimir Putin
Putin, of course, is no friend to the U.S., but he does possess on occasion the virtue of speaking his mind …
“Let’s stop trying to bring democracy to barbarians. Instead, let’s bring them the only thing they understand–force. Let’s all of us–Moscow, Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Jerusalem, Lagos, Addis Ababa, Beijing, New Delhi–come together in a new Holy Alliance, similar to that which kept Europe safe from radicalism in the early 19th century. Let’s join one another to crush the unholy, unruly, jihadi Muslims. The good Muslims will thank us for it. And if they don’t–too bad.”
… something his counterpart in Washington usually lacks:
[…] most oddly, despite having the attention of the nation on the eve of 9/11, Obama never bothered to mention either the devastating terrorist attacks from twelve years ago or the sacking of the Benghazi consulate on the previous anniversary, which took place on Obama’s watch. The closest that Obama came to either was a mention of al-Qaeda which argued that it would benefit most if we didn’t attack Assad, who’s currently fighting their affiliates in Syria, and an argument that the majority of Assad’s opponents are peaceful moderates … Did Obama offer any evidence of these assertions? Not at all, although plenty of evidence exists to cast serious doubt on them. (Hot Air)
As Lloyd Marcus observes:
“To put this crazy scenario into perspective, imagine the KKK and the Aryan Nation fighting each other. The KKK gases the Aryan Nation. The NAACP joins the Aryan Nation in attacking the KKK for using an immoral weapon.”
So is this administration run by Monty Python and the 4 Marx Brothers plus Karl? Or by the Islamic versions of Benedict Arnold and Don Corleone? The smart money says it’s 50-50.
If Obama supporters thought he was going to change how the world views us, they were right. Obama is a failure, an embarrassment, and a fool. And frankly, the whole world sees it, except the MSM, and the few OFA drones left in place.
Barack Obama, a man whose hawkishness always seems to somehow benefit the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, is at it again. Using the chemical weapons attack purportedly committed by the forces of Syrian president Assad as his pretext, the ‘morally outraged’ administration of Bombin’ Barry is ready to strike again. They have, they insist, an “almost air-tight circumstantial case” against Assad, a description that sounds a lot like “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence.” Makes ya wonder where all the ‘progressive’ outrage was a few years back when Barry’s much maligned predecessor went after the Baghdad Butcher. Be that as it may, by what dubious authority is the President of the United States authorized to intervene militarily in the civil wars of other nations? Saddam Hussein, at least, was in clear violation of the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement, and George W. Bush received the reluctant blessings of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress prior to his initiation of hostilities — the approbation of Barack Obama being notably absent at the time:
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” – Barack Obama
Proving that even a blind squirrel can occasionally find an acorn, Obama, for once, was absolutely correct. But that was then — before he unaccountably replaced Dubya and his thinking, such as it is, evolved.
Assad, of course, denies the use of chemical weapons. There is circumstantial evidence that their employment was in fact a ‘false flag’ attack by the Syrian rebels and sanctionedby Obama himself:
The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.
A new report, that contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme ‘approved by Washington’
At any event, Obama, who wants to control everyone’s guns but his own, is hell bent on lending as much of a helping hand to the radical rebels as possible. He’s been doing so for quite some time:
Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus were likely behind a mishandled gun-trafficking program that ended up arming the radical jihadist rebels who stormed the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi … Clinton most likely launched the gun program, expected [Ambassador] Stevens to oversee it and then her weapons likely landed in the hands of al-Qaida affiliates who killed Stevens and three other Americans.
Obama … Libya … Egypt … Syria. Dots that are all connected. And they all lead to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Are the Syrian Rebels Al Qaeda not killing children and Christians quickly enough? Apparently not, as if the rumors are true, we are preparing, with the British, to attack Syria. Weasel Zippers has more…
Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.
Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.
Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.
As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.
Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.
British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war.
Now, will there be anti-war protests if Obama enters another one? I don’t know about that. If there are, I’d expect them to be downplayed by the MSM.
And, of course, this President will side with Al Qaeda, who has been slaughtering children and Christians. That seems to be rather consistent, given his support of abortion and attacks on Christians.
Heh, for once, I can say that the President isn’t being a hypocrite. He really is being consistent.
As for the prospects of yet another war, I strongly disagree. This is no time to waste time, treasure, and more importantly, the blood of good men and women, on someone else’s civil war. And, it becomes even worse when the side that out government chooses is the worst of the two. Oh, and should I mention that the side our President seems to be supporting are the radical Islamists. Nothing to see there, right?
An artist’s representation of Manhattan Infidel’s gallbladder in it’s natural peace-loving state
For the past few days many people have been wondering about my whereabouts. And not just the usual suspects (parole officers, ex-wives, pimps I owe money to, trannies I haven’t paid).
No, the respectable, internet-dwelling readers of this blog have wondered where I have been.
Last Friday after spending some time watching the news (apparently there was a teenager on the loose with a gun that made the entire city of Boston cower in fear) I went off to work.
Twelve hours later I was in the ER preparing to have my gallbladder removed during emergency surgery.
But I am now out of the hospital and recovering at home.
I know what you are saying. “Manhattan Infidel, the gallbladder is an internal organ of peace. Why would it act like this?”
I don’t know. But after researching the gallbladder on Wikipedia and looking at images of it, including this image of a bad gallbladder,
This is what a bad gallbladder looks like
I have reached the following conclusions:
Society is to blame
Society, and by that I mean racist American society at large as exemplified by Red State culture, is evil, racist and filled with hatred for peoples of color. I as a member of the blogging elite, am above this culture but have often witnessed American racism in action when my black housekeeper (good help is so hard to find nowadays) is denied entrance to the humidor on the upper west side where my Cuban cigars are stored simply on account of her race. Because of this I had to send my Mexican gardener instead.
My gallbladder, filled with shame over institutional American racism and its treatment of peoples of color, rebelled.
The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to blame
My gallbladder, being an internal organ of peace, was quite rightly filled with anger over our wars of conquest in Iraq and Afghanistan. Filled with such anger, it became radicalized and sought to hurt me by planting bombs. Fortunately for me, my gallbladder’s bombs did not go off in time, giving the ER doctors time to diffuse them and remove the radicalized gallbladder.
Teabaggers (Isn’t that always the case!)
I have always been amazed by the ability of teabaggers to spread fear and violence over the land because of their love of racist liberty. As I was watching the Boston Police Department take down the teabagger who bombed the marathon I again was amazed at their duplicity. Isn’t that just like a teabagger to disguise himself as a Chechen Muslim of color so as to cast aspersions on that peace-loving race? I believe there are many similarities between my gallbladder and Chechens. Both are instruments of peace in this world. Both are misunderstood. Both have been appropriated by teabaggers for their violent, racist ends. Both like chocolate donuts and Perry Como.
Unlike the gallbladder of peace, no one has ever confused the appendix with an internal organ of peace. Much like Christianity itself it is a force of evil. Just like Christians have killed hundreds of thousands over the course of the past couple of decades and then blamed it on Muslims, so the appendix causes pain in the body and then blames the gallbladder. I hate the appendix! Much like CNN and the hair club for men, it serves no useful purpose. A pox on the appendix.
The lack of gallbladder control laws in the United States
Finally we must come to perhaps the real reason for my gallbladder to go bad: America’s wild west gun culture. Since it has been been proven that strict gun laws prevent gun violence (as in Barack Obama’s home town of Chicago) the lack of any gall bladder control laws in America gave my gallbladder encouragement to go rogue. We need tough gallbladder laws in the United States!
Ban assault gallbladders!
I call upon all our elected congressmen and senators to stop the scourge of gallbladder violence!
It’s for the children!
And there you have it. Possible reasons my gallbladder went bad.
So I am at home now, resting up. I hope to be back in action full time on my blog by the beginning of next week.
And remember, if you see a gallbladder, say something. Don’t assume it was left behind by accident.