Month: May 2013

Congress Dishes It Out

Revisiting King Barry’s “Mission” Strategy, Part 4

by Sandy Stringfellow

Al-Qaeda in Post-Gaddafi Libya

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, reported in her article Congress to probe security flaws for Libya diplomats, on October 5, 2012, “that congressional investigators have issued a subpoena to a former top security official at the US mission in Libya. The official is Lt. Col. Andy Wood, a Utah National Guard Army Green Beret who headed up a Special Forces ‘Site Security Team’ in Libya…Lt. Col. Wood has told CBS News and congressional investigators that his 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, just one month before the Benghazi assault. Wood says that’s despite the fact that US officials in Libya wanted security increased, not decreased.”

It’s been repeated in mainstream media the Benghazi mission attacks required weeks or months to plan; a narrative intended to persuade us the attacks were inevitable as well as undetectable, even if it dispels the “Innocence of Muslims” video trailer theory. It also overlooks the capabilities of a battle-ready, adequately trained, sufficiently-equipped, street-wise mobile al-Qaeda platoon such as one would expect to find available in Benghazi.

May I respectfully submit an attack of this nature could be planned within a matter of some hours and executed possibly within further hours after finalizing the plan, and after completion of the post-planning mission brief, assuming all necessary equipment was checked and ready. This possibility is even more likely still with the intelligence breaches reported to have taken place from inside or outside the Benghazi mission walls. The critical piece of operational intelligence for al-Qaeda is in knowing the fragile state of security measures in place at the Benghazi mission. Al-Qaeda preferred the odds stacked in their favor as much as possible, having learned through experience our Special Operations Forces warriors deserve their reputation as talented shooters, among other skills acquired.

If Ambassador Stevens’ name was on an al-Qaeda hit list and his presence at the mission was revealed through a source – either known or anonymous – it may have provided enough impetus for someone in the al-Qaeda chain of command to clear the op and launch it, taking in stride whatever fallout ensued. It would be seen among Muslim faithful as a bold stroke against the “Great Satan”; a victory for al-Qaeda by avenging the executive drone attacks with a prestigious score of a high-level target, along with the al-Qaeda recruitment coup from publicity of delivering a black eye to America on one of the most celebrated days of the year for jihadis. All while managing to bring a grinding halt to our State Department/CIA recovery op relating to those pesky MANPADS.

Acclaimed defense and national security reporter Bill Gertz (author of exceptional books on this subject as well) wrote an article titled Al Qaeda Winter, published in The Washington Free Beacon on October 8, 2012, documenting how “Pakistan-based al Qaeda is secretly setting up sleeper cells and a clandestine network of jihadists to destabilize and take over Libya while hiding under a new cover name to prevent exposure…”

“The 54-page unclassified report describes al Qaeda…as ‘seeking to create…a clandestine network in Libya that could be activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer logistical support to al Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel’—the Sahara desert region stretching across northern Africa.”

“‘Post-revolutionary Libya is a militarized society where young self-proclaimed jihadists are on the loose, ready to follow anyone offering a meaningful purpose for their newly acquired combat skills,’ the report said. ‘Al Qaeda’s clandestine network is likely attempting to attract these self-proclaimed jihadists through a mix of ideology, intimidation, and financial incentive. Al Qaeda militants are using the countries that toppled their leaders in the “Arab Awakening” as bases to train radical Western youths for potential attacks,’ the report said, adding that a small number of British jihadists are moving to Arab countries to seek training.”

If this 54-page unclassified report produced jointly by the Library of Congress and the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office’s Irregular Warfare Support Program is available to the public, is it not reasonable – with the intelligence resources available to P.O.T.U.S. – to conclude King Barry knows this and more?

The behavioral patterns of King Barry and his brain trust have been consistently successful for almost four years if gauged by what they sought to accomplish; they share common ideological beliefs, among them an animosity and malevolence towards our country as Founded, along with a visceral hatred of Israel. Any rational overview of their actions reveals decision-making threads that lend support to achieving specific objectives destructive to the United States; of which one may well have been a desire to “blow up” the Middle-East and North Africa, as it is near impossible to imagine a more efficient manner in which these precise results have occurred than what has been done thus far by the Progressive Marxists in charge since January 20, 2009.

Daniel Greenfield wrote an article titled The Afghanistanization of the Middle East, published in Front Page Magazine on October 3, 2012, in which he breaks down the real problem with a democratic Middle East; a history long established and well understood in knowledgeable Geo-political circles:

“The Muslim Middle East is facing a choice between two paths. One leads ahead to a Westernized society and the other back to the barren deserts of the 7th Century. The Muslim Brotherhood and other political Islamists claim that it is possible to have the best of both worlds, combining high tech and desert morals in a society where every woman is covered and every man is an engineer. But that illusion is under siege as Islamist militias begin fragmenting countries into tribal encampments. The Middle East that we have grown used to is a colonial legacy. Its corrupt regimes with the derivative structures of modern states are being torn down by the Arab Spring. The Islamists can have democratic elections where they are the majority, but what they cannot have are strong militaries, and that leaves them with few options but to rely on Islamist militias to fight Islamist militias; turning the region back to before the rise of the Ottoman Empire.”

Motives and Criminal Intent

Rahm Emanuel, current Mayor of Chicago, during an interview with the Wall Street Journal on November 19, 2008, provided an insight into the Progressive Marxist thought process matched in succinctness only by its honesty; right out of the Rules for Radicals playbook: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste…This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before.”

King Barry is in a tight race to win his second four-year reign and finish the economic and cultural destruction of America. The weighted mainstream media polls are doing their level best to energize sentimental Democrats while discouraging fed-up Republicans by declaring King Barry the early winner. Things don’t seem to be going King Barry’s way, however, and his people are getting nervous; especially his investors in Chicago. There are people – very powerful people – in Chicago watching him closely and expecting a win; actually, demanding a win from The Great Destroyer. If King Barry loses in November, there will be some unhappy campers in Chicago; they have a size-able investment in King Barry and are demanding a commensurate return.

King Barry and his brain trust expected to be comfortably ahead by now. They have the opponent they wanted in
Romney, a perfect foil for wealth envy and class warfare Marxist redistribution rhetoric – the rich, bourgeois, Republican establishment, out-of-touch white guy – but they misdiagnosed an important unknown: the number of Tea Party-types working doggedly behind the scenes instead of visibly protesting to spread the truth about his destructive successes. Everyone paying attention knows King Barry can’t win if the American electorate is focused on his record in office, and the best way to keep that from happening is to draw attention away from his unbridled carnage with a “serious crisis” that you wouldn’t want to “go to waste.”

Considerable attention is being paid to the inexplicably lax security measures at the Benghazi mission, and rightly so. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2012, asking why more protection for the mission was denied by Washington officials prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack:

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter outlines 13 security threats over the six months prior to the attack.

“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the chairmen write.

One expects negligence to be the initial focus, if not simplistic considering the cast of characters involved. Let us suppose for a moment Ambassador Stevens learned that King Barry’s support of the Arab Spring was not at all about democracy, but instead part of a long range game plan to destabilize the entire region to bring about maximum tumult and confusion – and the ensuing power vacuum – resulting in the expansion of Muslim Brotherhood-backed Islamist regimes hostile to both Israel and to the United States; Islamist regimes dedicated to the Caliphate and compliance with Sharia Law.

This is exactly what has happened thus far. If you’re one of the “anointed” such as George Soros, Maurice Strong, King Barry, Hillary Clinton and the impeached President William J. “Slick Willy” Clinton, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Andy Stern, etc.; if you’re in-the-know and up-to-speed with these wacky Progressive Marxist NWO “Open Society” types, some with a record of collapsing foreign economies along with the aiding and abetting of foreign powers hostile to the United States, it would be a plan you’d find worthy of promoting, implementing and helping to facilitate one way or another, by hook or crook.

Consider, for example, what Mr. Stern – former president of Service Employees International Union or SEIU (slogan: “Workers of the World Unite”) – wrote on the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal on December 1, 2011, under the title China’s Superior Economic Model: The free-market fundamentalist economic model is being thrown onto the trash heap of history. Keep in mind as you read Mr. Stern’s position he is referring to mainland China; the same Maoist China ruled by a cold-blooded military politburos: home of infanticide, involuntary human organ harvesting, slave labor, healthcare waiting lists with state allocations, starvation, mandatory abortions, forced sterilizations, religious persecution, imprisonment without trial, speech censorship, internet censorship, torture, murder, unaccountable corruption, state planning and quotas, etc.

“I was part of a U.S.-China dialogue—a trip organized by the China-United States Exchange Foundation and the Center for American Progress [George Soros funded]—with high-ranking Chinese government officials, both past and present. For me, the tension resulting from the chorus of American criticism paled in significance compared to reading the emerging outline of China’s 12th five-year plan. The aims: a 7% annual economic growth rate; a $640 billion investment in renewable energy; construction of six million homes; and expanding next-generation IT, clean-energy vehicles, biotechnology, high-end manufacturing and environmental protection—all while promoting social equity and rural development.

As Andy Grove so presciently articulated in the July 1, 2010, issue of BusinessWeek, the economies of China, Singapore, Germany, Brazil and India have demonstrated ‘that a plan for job creation must be the number-one objective of state economic policy; and that the government must play a strategic role in setting the priorities and arraying the forces of organization necessary to achieve this goal.’

The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model—so successful in the 20th century—is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century. In an era when countries need to become economic teams, Team USA’s results—a jobless decade, 30 years of flat median wages, a trade deficit, a shrinking middle class and phenomenal gains in wealth but only for the top 1%—are pathetic.

This should motivate leaders to rethink, rather than double down on an empirically failing free-market extremism. As painful and humbling as it may be, America needs to do what a once-dominant business or sports team would do when the tide turns: study the ingredients of its competitors’ success.”

Next: Part 5, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens

Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.

Revisiting King Barry’s “Mission” Strategy, Part 3

by Sandy Stringfellow

The Perils of Revolution

Patrick Cockburn wrote an editorial on September 12, 2012, also published in The Independent (UK), with a lengthy header and sub-header that speak volumes: The murder of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens proves the Arab Spring was never what it seemed – Bloody violence in Libya and protests in Egypt should dispel any notion that these revolutions were a vote in favor of Western ideals.

Mr. Cockburn makes the case – not without irony – that a dearth of knowledge and understanding of Middle-East reality among “informed” talking heads of all political persuasions helped perpetuate – through naive cheer leading – a grand illusion that may well result in far more widespread harm than any possible good:

“The Libyan revolution was never quite as it was portrayed by the media, politicians and diplomats at the time. It is true that its leaders in Benghazi were astute enough from the beginning to play down the role of Islamic militants in the uprising which began on 15 February 2011. They had no wish to frighten Western opinion when they were angling for military support. […] But the opposition to Gaddafi in the 1990s and after had always been primarily religious, strongest in Cyrenaica, eastern Libya…if people were anti-Gaddafi at that moment they were also against the US occupation of Iraq. East Libyan towns provided a disproportionately high number of suicide bombers who went to Iraq.”

“…[There’s been] a misunderstanding which springs in part from the over-simple and propagandist media coverage of the Libyan rebels during their uprising in 2011. They were presented as white hats and Gaddafi’s forces as black hats, while journalists, and particularly TV channels, uncritically broadcast reports that government troops were involved in mass rape. When such tales of atrocities were discredited by Amnesty International, they were ignored.”

“ In reality, the rebels were always more violent and anarchic than was reported. They would hardly have lasted more than a few weeks against Gaddafi without close air support from NATO. Since the fall of Gaddafi many of these militias have turned into uncontrolled bands of thugs.”

Political and Military War-Gaming

Those whom study political history know the old Democrat Party is dead and gone. King Barry and his sponsors killed it off and installed their own sympathetic junta of Progressive Marxist ideologues to control the new Democrat Party. There’s no existing ideology in American politics today with more experience in applied political strategic thinking or a greater sense of dedication to its’ objective than Progressive Marxist counter-cultural revolutionaries.

It should also be mentioned that infiltration of federal and state government and of our institutions by Islamic fascist elements dedicated to the Caliphate and Sharia Law continues to gain momentum and improve its’ effectiveness in steering the future direction of policy and judicial doctrine in the United States. Islamists should thank Progressive Marxists for advancing their cause; they’ve made inroads available that would not otherwise apply without the continued long-term efforts of the Progressive Marxists to break down societal mores and the traditional ideals, values, and principles instrumental to the cultural foundations of Western civilization.

As an example of said infiltration, consider King Barry. The opinion editorial from Investors Business Daily titled How Obama Engineered Mideast Radicalization, published on July 19, 2012, illustrates a simplified timeline of events from 2009; events in which King Barry is the central player involved in the process of fomenting revolution in Egypt and across the Middle East. A quick replay of a few of King Barry’s Muslim Brotherhood highlights are as follows:

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, “largely secular.”

2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

It would appear – based upon his words and deeds – that King Barry is not only a Progressive Marxist revolutionary, but is a closet Muslim as well. How special. One must wonder: could the known motivations of these two seemingly disparate collections of anti-Western radicals possibly be problematic in so far as affecting the future well-being of the United States of America? Is the Muslim Brotherhood a benign political influence with good intentions, malleable in direction of thought, or an adversary that has always been at war with the United States? The Muslim Brotherhood’s self-described mission statement may provide the answer: ““Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”

Could this explain why King Barry has illustrated – again, through his actions – that enfeebling our military through budgetary gutting has been one of his top tier priorities, while simultaneously increasing our military engagements around the world? Is it not readily apparent with crystalline clarity King Barry has been using our military men and women in Afghanistan as political bargaining chips to facilitate his greater scheme for America’s destruction? One may appreciate the efforts of those attempting to equate King Barry’s outward strategy in Afghanistan with a Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement process; however, this is to ignore the verifiable history of transgressions King Barry has committed against the United States: a history that may only be described as overt treason as opposed to the typical liberal propensity of misguided diplomacy. “Soft power” is intellectual gamesmanship; cover to conceal the strategic objectives of King Barry’s mission.

A Fast and Furious Connection

The following lines of inquiry regarding the Benghazi mission murders may seem a bit too far off-axis for serious contemplation by some readers – “tin foil hat” time, perhaps – so let us find a corollary news item that may provide enough “shock therapy” to jolt those lacking skepticism from their somnambulant condition; a type of criminal event requiring indisputable collusion at the highest levels of government. Operation Fast and Furious comes to mind as an example of s
uch criminal conduct and abject corruption within the executive branch. Numerous similarities appear in the way Operation Fast and Furious has been handled and the manner by which the Benghazi mission murders are being handled from a strategic standpoint.

Michael Kelley reports in his article Mexican Diplomat Says America Pretty Much Invited The Sinaola Drug Cartel Across The Border, published by Business Insider on October 1, 2012, that leaked e-mails from the private security firm Stratfor cite a Mexican diplomat [confirming] the U.S. government works with Mexican cartels to traffic drugs into the U.S. and has sided with the Sinaola Cartel in an attempt to limit violence in Mexico and thus grease the skids for the 60 billion dollar annual drug business in the United States:

Many people have doubted the quality of Stratfor’s intelligence, but the information from MX1 – a Mexican foreign service officer who doubled as a confidential source for Stratfor – seems to corroborate recent claims about U.S. involvement in the drug war in Mexico. Most notably, the reports from MX1 line up with assertions by a Sinaola cartel insider that cartel boss Joaquin Guzman is a U.S. informant, the Sinaloa cartel was ‘given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago,’ and Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the Sinaloa cartel in exchange for information used to take down rival cartels.”

Hypothetically, does this not appear to be a Progressive Marxist plan to sew destruction in America by arming the Sinaola drug cartel, reaping political benefits from reduced drug gang violence and a more politically stable Mexico through cooperation with the Sinaola cartel, tapping into the extraneous revenue from a 60 billion dollar U.S. illegal drug market through criminal associations, creating greater demand for illegal drugs by reducing costs through increased availability, thus furthering the erosion of civil society while creating political pressure in the U.S. for more restrictive gun laws, based on the false perception that U.S. gun dealers have been predominantly responsible for selling firearms to criminal elements in Mexico involved in the commission of felonious crimes, heinous atrocities and hundreds of murders? Strategically cunning, is it not? Ergo: “The Chicago Way.”

So let us carefully examine and critically analyze the Benghazi mission murders through the lens of an objective process – based on what’s known and unknown – in an effort to isolate possibilities that make sense strategically. The following question is a five-alarm bell-ringer. It’s based upon projection of a possible motive, examination of which includes circumstantial evidence and in-depth evaluation of all past behaviors, not just those in the near-term: Did top secret and highly protected inside information become known to Ambassador Stevens, was it damning enough to terminate King Barry’s reelection bid, and was “The Chicago Way” deemed acceptable to eliminate a potential threat of discovery and the ensuing avalanche of political damage should such information become widely known?

Next: Part 4, Al-Qaeda in Post-Gaddafi Libya

Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.

The Left’s Hostile Dependency Syndrome

by Jim Davis

“Tea-bagger” “Neo-con” “Racist” “Bigot” “Hater”: all words used by the Left to avoid genuine discussions on the issues and challenges of today’s society. This tactic is reminiscent of this writers experience raising children- especially in his children’s “tween” years (you know, when girls are eleven and twelve years old- shudder). This is the age (for girls anyway) when her pre-teen friends and herself know more about life and the world than their experienced parents. These are the days when one only sees a smile on that angelic face when she’s in a conversation with other people; but never when addressing Mom or Dad. Because the adolescent can’t make an intelligent argument for his/her “wisdom, he/she instead denigrates to default accusations or insults. The paradigm is known as “Resentful Dependency” or “Hostile Dependency” and stems from too many emotions and not enough humility to admit when one has been proved incorrect on a given subject. The condition, (“I want what I want, facts notwithstanding”) in adults is rooted in narcissism and is literally a demand for validation: which explains why the left is so sensitive to being identified as “good people” in spite of their bad demands, expectations, or performance, and why narcissist deny and blame others for their own failures.

This also explains the development of the modern Progressive movement, which is actually a self-realized movement. “Marxist”; as in achieving the goals of the writings of Karl Marx. There are multiple applications and brand names for Marxism: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and even modern day applications such as “Cloward-Pivens”: all predicated on the narcissism and adolescent demands of “Hostile Dependency.”

This condition in today’s Democrat Party came from a generation of children who were over-coddled and over-compensated in their childhoods. The Great Depression created families who suffered the strains of economic degradation- Depression era children grew up to become the parents of the over-indulged kids of the 1950’s and early 1960’s. The motives were honorable: to provide for the children what their parents did without because of the financial crisis. In common speak: “the kids were spoiled. Those kids became the “hippies” and “yippies” of that generation: and the leadership of today’s Democrat Party. Their narcissism, and therefore their adolescent behavior as adults has been passed on to a new generation. A generation that is so Hostile Dependent that acceptance of the Marxist movement within the Democrat Party is the next step in their condition. Because the Liberal Moment has failed to accomplish all that it promised, the new mantra of the left is “Pure Socialism has never been tried.” This is historically true, but ignores the fact that they themselves don’t represent the paradigm in its purity.

It’s this condition that drives the left; and the hostility is exemplified in their adolescent proclamations about the character of those with the audacity to disagree with them. This also explains the scandals in Washington. The vilification of Main Street America, the false accusations of hatred, bigotry and racism, the pretentious posture by the left even though their policies have failed time and again.

Ironically, the correct response to this “spoiled child syndrome” is to keep ones character, explain why their demands are unreasonable, treat the condition with sternness “be cruel to be kind” and encourage better behavior. This is the challenge of today’s’ political environment- even when being accused of hatred, bigotry, racism, and being called names in adolescent temper tantrums.

In short, Conservatives must continue to be the adults in the room.

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

 

We Remember …

Today Americans remember our fallen, the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, for the cause of liberty and the blessings of democracy throughout the world.

As we observe this holiday, let us take a moment to remember … and appreciate the sacrifices, past and present, made by our servicemen, women and their families. It is an honor to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, thanks to those who are willing to lay down their lives to protect our freedom and our Constitution.

 

The Sentinel’s Creed

My dedication to this sacred duty

is total and whole-hearted.


In the responsibility bestowed on me

never will I falter.


And with dignity and perseverance

my standard will remain perfection.


Through the years of diligence and praise

and the discomfort of the elements,

I will walk my tour in humble reverence

to the best of my ability.


It is he who commands the respect I protect,

his bravery that made us so proud.


Surrounded by well meaning crowds by day,

alone in the thoughtful peace of night,

this soldier will in honored glory rest

under my eternal vigilance.


– Simon 1971

For more information, please visit: TombGuard.org or consider a contribution to the Tomb Guard Society:

Contribute
The Society is able to provide programs, events, assistance and services due to the generosity of its members, organizations, and individuals. The Society does not receive institutional funding.

 

The Iron is Hot. Will We Strike?

by Robert Arvay

“I don’t know nuthin about nuthin, and I ain’t sayin nuthin to nobody.” This sounds like it might be a line from a 1930s gangster movie. But, for all practical purposes, albeit in different words, it is the line spoken repeatedly, in Congressional hearings, by supposed “public servants” who serve no one but themselves.

More than one pundit has recently noted that the problem with government scandal is not Obama. It’s “the system.” And while normally, we conservatives do not like using vague terms to describe a specific problem, in this case, the pundits have a point.

“The system” is not a vague mystery. For, while there are certainly many good public servants, the system itself is a vast, labyrinthine tangle of entrenched bureaucrats who are rarely held accountable to the public they supposedly serve. When asked about what they are doing, the only replies are of the category, “I don’t know nuthin about nuthin, and I ain’t sayin nuthin to nobody.”

For millions of law abiding, tax-paying Americans, it is inconceivable that the system could possibly work this way.

Yes, we respect the Fifth Amendment, but that amendment was intended to prevent abuse by the government against citizens. It is an amendment intended to shield the public from government abuse, not to shield the government from its criminal acts of abuse against the public.

IRS bureaucrats are unionized. Union rules protect IRS bureaucrats from answering to us, their employers. Who was it that signed our names to this outrageous agreement? Yes, IRS workers should be protected, but we who pay their wages deserve equal protection from them, when they abuse us. What kind of “system” permits this?

Either we will change this system for the better, or else, it will eventually destroy us. And it will not change unless you, the citizen, change it.

Robert Arvay is a Contributing Writer to The Bold Pursuit

Revisiting King Barry’s “Mission” Strategy, Part 2

by Sandy Stringfellow

King Barry Reaches Out

Certainly it’s damaging to the propagation of King Barry’s vamped-up, bin Laden-killing, pseudo-patriotic, nimbus-mythic image for us regular everyday Americans to wonder how our tough-guy king could so callously find it within himself to barter our lives and the lives of those whom so bravely and selflessly serve our country for the dubious purpose of deposing an ally; not to mention his credibility as the Nobel prize-winner bringing new understanding to Islamic-fascist jihadists.

After all, King Barry’s Islamic outreach program (NASA = Muslim pride, his “Apologize for America” tour, his bow to King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia, etc.) is so encompassing as to include a “Big-Sis” Department of Homeland Security-endorsed lexicon that diminishes the honesty and clarity of our war against terrorists – as does the DHS fondling of children, the elderly, the infirm, and attractive women at airports – by elevating basic words in our English language to unheard-of levels of political correctness: for example, the word “terrorism” has been replaced with the ultra-politically correct term “man-caused disaster,” and our “war on terror” has been diluted into an “overseas contingency plan.”
 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Progressive Marxism at work; doing what they’ve done so well over most of the past century: conditioning our thoughts and behavior by re-defining what we know to be true through repetition of the untrue. The most accomplished writers in a theater-of-the-absurd genre could not concoct anything more preposterous, yet today this terminological absurdity is official government policy.

George Neumayr summed up King Barry’s penchant for system-messaging at the basest of levels – highlighting his dis-ingeniousness and that of Secretary Hillary Clinton through their obvious hypocrisy – in his article Obama to Jihadists: Be Nicer, published in The American Spectator on September 27, 2012:

“Low comics have become presidential vetters and late-night talk shows have become places of refuge after a terrorist attack. Between the back-slapping and guffaws, Letterman asked Obama if ‘an act of war’ had occurred. Obama deflected the question, launching into a sermonette on how the Islamic world needs a slight attitude adjustment. Try to be nicer in the future, was the sermonette’s essential message. […] This week he kept up the patter on The View and at the UN. It is a toss-up as to which forum was more fatuous. His UN speech was hailed as a robust defense of free speech. Never mind that his administration tried to suppress the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video and sent police to the filmmaker’s home on ‘unrelated’ charges, hauling him off so that it could blast pictures of his arrest to North Africa and the Middle East. […] ‘The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech — the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect,’ said Obama, who is on record supporting ‘hate-crime’ legislation that would ban politically incorrect speech in the public square.”

King Barry’s Spring

None-the-less, Americans wouldn’t look kindly upon anyone – especially our president – helping American weapons become available to those seeking to kill Americans; nor would they appreciate the multimillion dollar carte blanche bonanza of weaponry King Barry provided to all comers willing to participate in his international revolutionary co-op, as long as the eclectic mix of Libyan rebels (al-Qaeda among them) professed support for his efforts to oust Gadhafi. 

Motivation to avoid this reelection liability by staving off the political disaster resulting from a terrorist attack using MANPADS may explain why Ambassador Stevens was visiting our Benghazi mission on the most dangerous night of the year, protected by nothing more than your typical house of standard construction. Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt described the rented villa as “like a cardboard building” without basic bullet-proof glass or reinforced entry doors.

 

Was Ambassador Stevens following orders from our Hillary Clinton-led State Department to expedite the known on-going recovery op of weapons State had shilled at King Barry’s directive to Libyan rebels for the express purpose of over-throwing a government that had been working with U.S. and British intelligence agencies to capture, interrogate, or kill Islamic terrorists? Had new intelligence become known, requiring King Barry’s urgent attention? If not, one must wonder who approved Ambassador Stevens’ visit to Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and why? 

Why would Ambassador Stevens not hunker down in Tripoli during this predictable time of 9/11-inspired Islamic rage, safely sequestered inside our fortified U.S. Embassy, unless his trip to the Benghazi mission was considered by someone at State a matter of urgent importance? A meticulous examination of all cables into and out of the Benghazi mission during the prior months leading up to the attack would be most interesting, but these State Department communications are as likely to be forthcoming as were Department of Justice communications pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious federal gun-running operations into Mexico. 

The timing of Ambassador Stevens Benghazi mission visit is downright puzzling given his understanding of al-Qaeda; the suspected assassination attempt on his life; knowing al-Qaeda wasn’t thrilled about losing access to high-tech weaponry; worries over the paltry security conditions at the mission; and being familiar with the overall “threat level” in Benghazi as al-Qaeda continues to consolidate its power through expansion of Muslim Brotherhood political influence: power gained – thanks in large part – from King Barry’s financing and support of the ubiquitous Arab Spring. Mainstream media downplayed the extent to which our U.S. government armed the Libyan rebels, but King Barry did indeed provide an exceptional amount of assistance through executive fiat in support of Libya’s Arab Spring; one could reasonably and without exaggeration call the morphing of former allies into the various newly-established and ever-expanding Muslim Brotherhood regimes “King Barry’s Spring.” It’s only fair, after all; credit where credit is due.

Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent for The Independent (UK), reported in his article America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels – Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi, on Monday, March 7, 2011: “Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi….The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi’s armor, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers…Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport.” Anti-tank rockets and mortars, along with RPG’s, AK-47’s, and ammunition, all headed for Benghazi; stronghold of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the location where King Barry’s illegal war in Libya gained footing: the Libyan revolutionary flame was kindled in Benghazi, and King Barry held the lighter.

 

The Benghazi Mission Murders

 Suspicious circumstances surround the Benghazi mission murders. It’s suspected the attack and subsequent murders were a reprisal by Libyan al-Qaeda as revenge for King Barry’s own executive-ordered unmanned aerial drone attacks and the collateral damage that often results. More specifically, al-Qaeda anger over the drone attack that killed Libyan al-Qaeda chieftain Mohammed Hassan Qaed in Pakistan – thought to be the deputy leader of al-Qaeda – has been cited in reports as a motivation for the attack. Throughout out North Africa, the Mid-East and elsewhere, tribal loyalties usually eclipse all other social connections. 

It’s a convenient package, just what King Barry and his brain trust are likely aiming for as they change the meme to keep us off balance: eventually plead guilty to manslaughter and avoid the charge of first degree murder, as a manner of speaking. Considering the facts, however, does it not leave unanswered questions arising from the attack? Did King Barry know in advance of the pending assault on our mission in Benghazi? If so, what did he know, when did he know it, and why was the threat level not increased at the mission if warnings were made known to him by those in positions of security and threat level analysis? More importantly, why was Ambassador Stevens given permission – or instructed – to make the Benghazi mission trip over the anniversary of 9/11?

One of the most in-depth early reports on the Benghazi mission murders was written by Defense Correspondent Kim Sengupta and published in The Independent (UK) on September 14, 2012, titled Revealed: inside story of U.S. envoy’s assassination. Mr. Sengupta raises interesting points pertaining to the lines of inquiry set forth in this essay; they are listed as follows in paraphrased form:

The murders at the Benghazi mission were “the result of a serious and continuing security breach.”Ambassador Stevens visit to the Benghazi mission was “meant to be confidential.” Secret documents are missing from the mission, some with names of Libyans working with Americans. The secret location of the “safe house” was compromised; other “safe house” locations across Libya are no longer considered secure. The U.S. State Department had credible information forty-eight to seventy-two hours in advance that embassies and missions may be targeted on 9/11, yet “no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lock-down’, under which movement is severely restricted.” The Benghazi mission underwent a security evaluation in preparation for possible violence connected to annual 9/11 anti-American activities. Foreign nationals contracted to defend the mission ran away.

Mr. Sengupta reports in his article Libya: We gave U.S. three-day warning of Benghazi attack, published in The Independent (UK) on September 18, 2012, American diplomats had been warned seventy-two hours in advance of a potential for violence in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11:

“A senior official of the biggest militia in Benghazi, the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he had warned US diplomats of a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi three days before the attack. ‘The situation is frightening, it scares us,’ he said he had stressed during the meeting. Mr. Stevens had been back in Libya for only a short time before US security officials decided it would be safe to make the journey to Benghazi during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador, in which his bodyguards were injured. The UN and International Committee of the Red Cross offices had been bombed and there had been a spate of political assassinations.”

At the Security Clearance/CNN website, Suzanne Kelly, Elise Labott, and Mike Mount reported on September 24, 2012, further information regarding the Benghazi mission attack; highlights are as follows in paraphrased form: 

The Benghazi mission was known to have minimal security measures in place. The mission – a “rented villa” – was considered a temporary facility, operating under a reduced security provision waiver. These “conditions” would have been approved in Washington, D.C., with “input” from Libyan officials, and supposedly with input from Ambassador Stevens as well. The security “waiver” confirms consensus among the Washington, D.C., policy decision-makers in charge the Benghazi mission was of “critical” importance.

A few hours before his murder, Sean Smith, U.S. Air Force communications specialist serving with the State Department at the Benghazi mission on the night of the attacks was corresponding with his friend and fellow EVE Online game player Alex Gianturco and sent the following ominous message: “…assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

Next: Part 3, The Perils of Revolution 

Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.

 

Revisiting King Barry’s “Mission” Strategy, Part 1

Last October, The Bold Pursuit published a five-part series by one of our favorite guest bloggers, Sandy Stringfellow. This series is worth revisiting; the content is even more relevant today as we read and watch numerous White House scandals unfold. Therefore, we are pleased to present again … King Barry’s “Mission” Strategy.

Revisiting  – King Barry’s “Mission” Strategy, Part 1

King Barry’s heart is in Chicago, as are the hearts of his Progressive Marxist fellow travelers. Chicago, “the only completely corrupt city in America” according to former Chicago professor of political science Charles E. Merriam, an early 20th century supporter of the Progressive movement. Chicago, where “the end has always justified the means when it came to insuring a decisive victory in this often grim Darwinistic life and death struggle. Slander campaigns, brass knuckles; even murder became the preferred tactics when the usual methods of propaganda and ‘persuasion’ failed” as described by Richard C. Lindberg in his fascinating article on Chicago’s stunning history of unparalleled corruption and political murder titled Chicago – the Way It Was: “A City that Was Never Legit” (published in Illinois Police and Sheriff’s News, 1995).

This lethal brand of political skullduggery Mr. Lindberg describes as normal in Chicago for decades became condensed over time into a convenient turn of phrase that encapsulates Chicago politics in all of its’ multifaceted illegalities: “The Chicago Way.” Chicago has traditionally been a comparatively unique environment in our United States for political violence and corruption, although it began to evolve somewhat into a more sophisticated and influence-driven political machine when Richard J. Daley came to power in the 1950’s, and more so after “Operation Greylord” and “Gambit” investigations into First Ward corruption in the 1980’s.

We’re induced from the tenor of today’s political events to consider if “The Chicago Way” of violence and mayhem is back in practice. Let us analyze through careful extrapolation whether the concentrated collection of well-known and relatively unknown Chicago-based radical left anti-American activists – from former Weather Underground domestic terrorists, Black Nationalists and Maoists, to Progressive Marxists, Anarchists, Mid-East jihad supporters, and NWO “Open Society” types – that live or lived in Chicago have taken solace and gained inspiration from Chicago’s sordid and violent political past as “the means to an end.”

Much in the same manner Progressives and Marxists have influenced each other since the late 1800’s when the ideology of Karl Marx and that of a relatively new Progressive Movement both began to gain traction with intellectuals, the lines of distinction are blurred today between methods used by Progressive Marxists to achieve their global ideological goals and methods Organized Crime Syndicates once used in Chicago to achieve their local political goals.
 

The Progressive Marxists have promoted cultural decline through indoctrination of thought in the U.S. for almost a century. Today they’re close to achieving the total collapse for which they’ve worked and fought, and they giddily await its’ consummation: a final push to finish the job and send our civil society into a terminal free fall. It’s no melodramatic cliché to suggest our Constitutional Republic clings for life to a precarious purchase high above the chasm of “hope and change.”

Conspiracy TheoryWe don’t need to fit ourselves with “tin foil hats” as we consider what’s been factually established regarding King Barry’s methods of operation; methods involving well-understood techniques of indoctrination that intentionally deceive the public through misdirection and omissions of fact, along with blatantly intentional outright lies. There’s no conspiracy theory involved to identify the trick required for King Barry to make his “Animal Farm” re-education model work. The trick is simple: his message must be in synchronous conjunction with the mainstream media and repeated in template form ad nauseaum until our eyes and ears have become so conditioned to the pattern we accept it without questioning its’ fraudulent content. Pavlov’s dog; knee-jerk reaction; call it what you wish: it works like a charm.

Stephen F. Hayes wrote an article titled Permanent Spin (The Weekly Standard-Oct.1, 2012, Vol.18, No.03) in which he illustrated King Barry’s shameless web of deception – happily spun by his spider-media mascots – regarding the attack on our U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the eleventh anniversary of Islamic jihad attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York:
“For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.  These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard…Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, ‘many other colleagues’ working security with them.”
Mr. Hayes proceeds to illustrate a pattern of past terror attack deceptions perpetuated by King Barry in concert with his sycophantic inculcation mavens:

“On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of ‘an isolated extremist.’ It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.”

“The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a ‘one-off’ by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged the United States had ‘evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.’ In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect.”

Strategic Recklessness
One explanation for Progressive Marxists accomplishing their objectives is the cunning behind their strategy to create insidious social “change;” a realignment of family and government brought about through rejecting God, our Founders and Framers, and our traditional ideals, values, and principles, thus providing a medium for culture rot that’s allowed our Constitutional Republic to become damaged almost beyond recognition. The only realization more painful is that we allowed it to happen. We were warned, but didn’t listen; going with the flow felt too good to be bothered with facts or reason. Thus we’ve been led, as sheep to the slaughter.

Progressive Marxists are maladjusted, misguided, morally defective, intellectually disingenuous, arrogant, conceited, narcissistic, unbalanced, petulant, spoiled, immature, selfish, know-it-all’s with egos matched in grandiosity only by their lack of objectivity and reason. But one thing these lost souls are not is stupid; a slanderous yet misplaced accusation frequently leveled with breezy aplomb. 

Accepting the premise that Progressive Marxists are stupid is to concede that damage accomplished thus far under the wrecking-ball reign of King Barry is unintentional; a product of ignorance, inexperience, incompetent or misunderstood advice, bad luck, etc. Two books written by David Limbaugh eloquently yet concisely lay out the trail of destruction that’s taken place since the 2009 presidential inauguration in a manner that may honestly be described as encyclopedic: Crimes Against Liberty (Regnery Publishing, 2010) and The Great Destroyer (Regnery Publishing, 2012).
 
These two well-documented, annotated, indexed books reveal the colossal scope and breadth of unrivaled devastation inflicted upon the American electorate through presidential fiat, executive branch corruption, bureaucratic edict, crony capitalism, legislative collusion and cowardice, judicial activism, and flagrantly criminal behavior; a systematic tyrannical shredding of our United States Constitution through a conscious political insurrection against the Rule of Law.
 
Progressive Marxists – by virtue of their existence – will always have a hidden agenda; subterfuge is the cornerstone of their steady-state efforts in the “martial art” of social and economic destruction of the West. If these efforts were made known voluntarily, Americans would react as if their families and very way of life were threatened; their liberty, access to free markets, property ownership, and all the rights guaranteed us in our Founding Documents. When events unfold that appear reckless and are spun in a manner that’s maddening to informed patriotic citizens, it’s not because King Barry or his minions are “stupid”; rather, they are working to position themselves and those sympathetic to their ideological “cause” in such a manner as to further their objectives.

Progressive Marxists promote narratives designed to create superficial impressions; the true story remains concealed unless otherwise revealed. After digesting the information available thus far, describing the attack on our U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, it’s reasonable to ask: what is the story behind the story? 

The Story Behind the Story
During a segment of his show The Glenn Beck Program on The Blaze T.V., Mr. Beck postulates the murders at our Benghazi mission were a by-product of an on-going CIA foreign “recovery” operation involving items that should be of interest to all U.S. citizens, especially those flying on commercial airlines. The CIA defines itself on its’ CIA World Factbook website as follows: “The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US policymakers.” Put another way, the CIA works hand-in-glove with the State Department, among other government agencies and departments, to affect foreign policy in a manner beneficial to the U.S. through direct and indirect actions.

Different explanations have been published as to why Ambassador Christopher Stevens had traveled to Benghazi on Tuesday, September 11, 2012: a ritualistically celebrated anti-American day of emotion-packed Muslim upheaval and protests around the globe. Did he travel to Benghazi on this annual occasion of volatility to open an American cultural center, or to meet with oil company executives the following day, or to interface with beloved local residents, or did these events provide cover for the true purpose of his supposedly confidential visit?

Mr. Beck opines speculatively whether one possible explanation for the ill-timed trip to Benghazi is that Ambassador Stevens – as special U.S. envoy to Libya in 2011 – was a go-between for the U.S. and Libyan rebels, charged with arranging for the transfer of weapons during the revolt staged against Moammar Gadhafi, and was actively working to help track down many of these same weapons: specifically, thousands of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) stolen from unguarded Libyan weapons storage depots after Gadhafi’s ouster.

CBS News reported on September 14, 2012, that Ambassador Stevens had been “credited by most Libyans with organizing a political front made up of opposition groups to unite the uprising against Qaddafi’s 41-year rule, mediating tribal and regional disputes.”
An important security-related detail: in the months leading up to his murder Ambassador Stevens had expressed worry over “the never ending security threats in Benghazi” and the growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya, in addition a to well-founded concern his name had been added to an al-Qaeda hit list.

Lee Ferran, ABC News, reported the following on September 13, 2012, regarding a continuing State Department/CIA operation in Libya to recover MANPADS:

“One of the Americans killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya Tuesday told ABC News before his death that he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war-torn nation. In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS…and destroy them. After the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, the State Department launched a mission to round up thousands of MANPADS…looted from military installations across the country. U.S. officials previously told ABC news they were concerned the MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists, creating a threat to commercial airliners.

“Attempts to explain away the Benghazi mission murders fall into a familiar pattern described by Mr. Hayes in his article Permanent Spin. The initial spin position from King Barry’s publicity mafia was to blame an obscure and poorly-made YouTube video trailer ridiculing the Muslim “prophet” Mohammed; a tactic kept in play, albeit promoted with ever-less fervor since its’ credibility is easily dismissed if not laughable. Muslims are incited into riotous protests upon instructions from their leaders with fabrications of truth. It’s simply not prudent for the physical health and general well-being of Muslim faithful to disobey instructions from an Imam, Mufti, or any other Islamic authority figure. Such is the radically absolute and unforgiving fascistic nature of Islamic theocratic rule.

 
King Barry cared not a whit as he launched his illegal war in Libya. He knew a boot-licking mainstream media would provide cover by regurgitating talking points from his ministry of propaganda, ignoring every story behind the “story.” Perhaps the most damning unreported story of all is the story behind yet another undeclared war: the war being prosecuted – from day one of his Presidential Oath of Office – against our United States Constitution and the Rule of Law.

More Spin

 Other fallback spin positions were sequentially offered for public consumption. One reflected acceptance of the mission attack as not caused by a protest that grew out of control; that it was in fact a planned military-style assault, although the “al-Qaeda” label has been consistently avoided as if a plague. One man living near the murder scene whom witnessed the attacks stated there weren’t any protesters beforehand; another witness living nearby corroborated the claim that no protests had occurred prior to the attack. He described instead a small gathering that milled about before militiamen arrived in trucks armed with machine guns, automatic rifles, and rocket propelled grenades (RPG’s).

 
In a modern digital era of smart phones and flash mobs, word travels fast. A few curious onlookers and thrill-seekers – conveniently misidentified – may have been waiting for the event, intending to capture images worthy of internet postings or to loot the premises for spoils after an attack. It’s now clear there were no protests taking place at our Benghazi mission before the attack commenced. The White House and State Department knew this early on from intelligence report briefs.
 
King Barry’s quasi-acknowledgement – days after the fact – of the Benghazi attack as a planned assault was tempered by underlings at press conferences and T.V. appearances that hammered these talking points: a formal investigation is underway; not enough information is known to draw solid conclusions; further comments on the matter would not be helpful or forthcoming until the investigation is complete. Since then – before a completed investigation – King Barry’s position “evolved” to accept the Benghazi murders as the acts of militiamen, while simultaneously continuing to promote the YouTube video trailer as an instigating factor.
 
Financial Times (UK) reported on September 28, 2012, the office of Director of National Intelligence, headed by James Clapper, accepted responsibility for early confusion regarding the “initial assessment” forwarded “to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available.”

Yet again King Barry and his Progressive Marxists minions implement the classic bait-and-switch publicity stunt: dangle the bait, obfuscate the facts, misdirect attention, alternate the narrative, and eventually produce an entirely different media circus event after things cool down and the limited attention span of everyday Americans moves on predictably to the next big distraction being promoted by the mainstream media “carnival barkers.” Based on spin-doctor overtime, there exists a distinct possibility the Benghazi mission murders have caused King Barry and his brain trust heightened concern. They appear to be nervously hiding something exceptionally profound and irrevocably damaging to his campaign from an increasingly skeptical citizenry; many of whom are disgusted to the point of physical illness from having bought into King Barry’s solemn promise to deliver “the most ethical administration in history.”

The well-publicized story from 9/13/12 on ABC News about MANPADS was re-cast at CNN on 9/15/12 as coming from “a diplomatic source.” Matt Smith, CNN, reported the following on September 15, 2012:
“A diplomatic source told CNN that Doherty [one of two Navy SEALs killed in action] was in Libya to search for shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles — a mission given high priority after the fall of longtime Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.”

The intended effect of mainstream media narrative is clear. King Barry would have us believe he’s exercising due diligence as P.O.T.U.S. Questions surrounding the anemic presence of foreign nationals contracted to provide security at the mission, the intelligence breech, and the mission’s condition of unusual vulnerability that – from a military perspective – invited the rampage by an al-Qaeda militia are being re-directed and modified; word-painted to form the public impression that our singularly focused worry should be over “shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles”…not that we shouldn’t be more than a tad concerned about these portable, accurate weapons, capable of taking out large passenger airliners.  

Perhaps that little detail should have been thought about – assuming only the best of intentions – before toppling Gadhafi, since Moammar had lately been relatively well-behaved within the greater contexts of our Western interests to combat jihad: “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.”
 
Many areas around the globe are justifiably seen as violent, harsh, brutal, nasty places where existence is tentative and life is cheap. World history illustrates with clarity the unvarnished truth: persuasion – as a rule – has usually been achieved by a show of strength or its’ real time application. As stated by Rush in the original Undeniable Truths listed for his article in the Sacramento Union back in 1988: “Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.”
 
Multiple reports indicate Gadhafi was an intelligence asset providing information to our CIA and British MI6, actively engaged as a participant in the CIA program of “extraordinary rendition” in our continuing war against Islamic terrorism, never mind King Barry’s claim in his DNC acceptance speech that “…al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead” or that one senior State Department official announced in April of 2012, “The war on terror is over.”

Next: Part 2, King Barry Reaches Out

 Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.