Trump to Make Major Announcement on Israel

Well…It’s about time…that is if the reports are true!

from the Blaze:

Trump to make big announcement this week regarding Israel’s capital and U.S. embassy

 

Report: Trump to make big announcement this week regarding Israel’s capital and U.S. embassy

President Trump will make a big announcement this week regarding the capital and embassy location in Israel, CNN reports. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump will announce several new policy changes this week regarding Israel, making good on promises he made last year on the campaign trail. read more

Benghazi was no Coincidence

Once again, You’ve been Lied to

by: the Common Constitutionalist

(As reports surface, the following article has been updated several times since I started writing it days ago.)

So, here’s what we’ve been told by the major media.

The night of Sept. 11, 2012, protesters are rioting outside and opened fire on the consulate building in Benghazi, Libya. At the same time from all 3 sides and within minutes the perimeter of the consulate was breeched.

Witnesses say that the, at least 30 guards, put up no resistance to the breech and fled.

A short time later the consulate was engulfed in flames.

The consulate staff raced to a supposedly secret safe house about a mile away.

The security staff then regrouped and tried to regain control of the consulate. They failed and were forced to fall back.

About an hour later, back up arrives to attempt to take back the main building. Meanwhile the ‘safe house’ is set ablaze. The attackers were evidently armed with automatic weapons, RPG’s and laser guided mortars capable of pinpoint accuracy. The 2 former Navy SEALs (one being Sean Smith) of ambassador Stevens security detail were killed in the firefight.

Around 1:15 am Stevens body was taken to a hospital. He was D.O.A.

So that’s what we all heard through the media. It was totally spontaneous. Nothing was planned in advance and all due a Youtube video.

Now for some oddities; things that don’t add up.

Ambassador Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential. His security staff decided the Benghazi trip was safe.

Why did he and his security people go into Benghazi, a well known hotspot, in an unmarked, unarmored car? Diplomats overseas always travel in armored cars or SUV’s. He also had no advance team.

Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons, yet the White House, the American ambassador to the U.N. et al, stated that the attack was absolutely the result of the video that no one saw. The video was released in June. Why, all of the sudden, was such a fuss made of it, months later?

Update: It has been confirmed publically, this was a planned terrorist attack.

The former Navy SEALs (both were originally said to be Marines) worked for the State Department and were Ambassador Steven’s security. They both were killed along side Stevens. One of them, Sean Smith, sent out a rather odd message. He posted that he had seen suspicious people.

Update: The CIA /SEALs may not have been his security.

His message read, “Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.” By “our police”, he meant local Libyan police that he apparently thought they could trust. The message was not the oddity; it was where it was posted. He didn’t the try to hail the embassy in Tripoli or any military or State Department. The post was to an online gaming website. Smith was known as “Vile Rat” on the site. This is the type of front that might be used by a CIA operative to reach out for help to other operatives.

Update: Two former SEALS, Tyrone Woods, 41, and Glen Doherty, 42, were not employed by the State Department diplomatic security office and instead were what is known as personal service contractors who had other duties related to security.

So why is the administration so hell bent on having everyone believe the attacks were due to the video when the new president of Libya is saying the exact opposite?

There was, according to witnesses, little defense put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: “The security people just all ran away and then the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.”

The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. “I don’t know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries,” said Captain Obeidi. “It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa.” Villa? It has been portrayed as an established consulate. Wrongo! It was a rented house with bars on the windows.

Stevens lived in Tripoli. The embassy was in Tripoli. So why did he go to Benghazi. Benghazi was a bad place. That’s where all the radicals are. Where was he before? In Tripoli? It was reported he had just come back from a trip to Germany, Austria and Sweden.

Stevens was the US government’s representative to the opposition National Transitional Council (the rebels) during the 2011 uprising against the government of Muammar Gaddafi and had previously been the second-ranking US diplomat in Libya.

Prior to this event, one of Steven’s security men ( a former Navy SEAL) was interviewed and he said he was, “ On an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war-torn nation”. There’s a problem with that statement. Diplomatic security doesn’t do that. They are charged with security and protection only. So who does do that? Former Navy SEALs who are now CIA.

So what weapons could the CIA be that concerned with, to feel the need to “round them up”?

If you recall, last year the Obama administration said it would help the rebel forces. When asked by Brian Williams, Obama said, “he had not ruled out the supply of weapons to the rebels but he had also not ruled it in.” I guess he did rule it in.

Benghazi was ground zero for the rebel forces opposing Gadhafi. It was confirmed a good deal of the rebels were actually al-Qaeda. Did we, in fact, arm al Qaeda? Looks like the Obama administration may have done just that.

There were reports circulating that we were now on the same side as al Qaeda. They (al Qaeda) wanted the ouster of Gadhafi also. The leader of the Libyan rebels admitted there were many al Qaeda fighting with them. The Rebel leader also admitted that he fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. We actually captured him in 2002, but then released him. The enemy of our supposed enemy is not our friend.

Now there have been glowing reports of ambassador Stevens. He had a heart of gold and loved, according the New York Times, the regular Libyan people. He was portrayed as just a regular guy. How many regular guys sneak into warring countries under cover of darkness in cargo ships or ride around in unarmed cars at night with CIA operatives?

Is that the training regimen for all our diplomats? No? Then who was this guy? CIA, possibly? Could he be that regions CIA weapons dealer? Could he have been the man that brokered the deal to supply arms to the rebels? Items like the missiles that took down Gadhafi’s air force.

So now the Middle East is on fire so close to the presidential election. Where did all the weapons we supplied go? Who has all the weapons? What if the electorate discovers our government-supplied terrorists with weapons? Boy that wouldn’t look good.

Could it be that the CIA found a cache of weapons, or an informant that claimed knowledge of there whereabouts in Benghazi, or near by? Could it be that whomever has the weapons we so desperately needed to recover insisted on seeing the agent that brokered the original deal; agent Stevens?

So Stevens flys back to Libya on short notice, gets into an unmarked unarmored car at night, so as to not draw undue attention and he goes to the meeting. Maybe he was followed. Maybe something else goes awry. Is that how they end up at the safe house? This is the time Sean Smith sends his message to the gaming website. Is this really the time to do some online gaming? Of course not. The message to other CIA ops, get us the hell out of here!

They were likely followed to the “safe house”. The attack was designed to do exactly what it did. Kill the CIA agents.

What about the riots; the protests? They were called in by the terrorists to smoke out the agents.

Imagine if it were to come out that Obama supplied the weapons to the terrorists that killed our own people. It wouldn’t sit well, I think.

Of course this is just a theory, but it’s a lot more plausible than spontaneous riots, coincidentally on 9/11, taking out our ambassador and just three others.

How odd, that with all that mayhem only 4 people died, and all American. Huh.

Don’t go looking for the mainstream press to poke around in this hot zone. We might only learn the truth if this were the Bush administration.

Thank you to Glenn Beck for providing the bulk of this information. Attribution also goes to the Independent UK and the Blaze.

They Said We Were Safer

The Huffington Post, just last week (Sept. 8, 2012), wrote the following glowing article about how Barack “George Patton” Obama has kept his flock safe from terror.

Lolita C. Blador of the Huff Post writes, “As Americans debate whether they are better off now than they were four years ago, there is a similar question with a somewhat easier answer: Are you safer now than you were when President Barack Obama took office? By most measures, the answer is yes.”

“…Americans have stopped fretting daily about a possible attack or stockpiling duct tape and water…”

“While the threat of a terrorist attack has not disappeared, the combined military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial efforts to hobble al-Qaida and its affiliates have escalated over the past four years and paid off. Terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are dead and their networks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia disrupted.”

“…Obama pursued a more aggressive drone campaign to target terrorist leaders, broadening efforts to help at-risk nations bolster their own defenses, and put in place plans to end the war in Iraq and bring troops out of Afghanistan.”

“As a result, terrorism worries have taken a back seat to the nation’s economic woes. Unlike previous elections, national security is not a big campaign issue this year.”

Phil Mudd, a senior research fellow at the nonpartisan New America Foundation said, “But I would say today that al-Qaidaism is on the decline. By any balance, the number of places where people want to come after us has declined in the past four years.”

James Lewis, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed, “through diplomatic efforts by the Obama administration that level of fear has been tamped down. The global perception of the U.S. is better.”

Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council stated, “The U.S. is absolutely safer now than four years ago.”

We were apparently so safe, the U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Yes!! You read that correctly. The Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

I’m sure she figured diplomacy would always be more effective than bullets.

As I’ve stated many times, diplomacy never has and never will work. Especially when dealing with an enemy that doesn’t mind dying, or at least encourages others to die for them. 

What makes this tragedy even worse is that it may have been prevented.

Sources have recently come forth, claiming the U.S. State Department knew of the potential for attacks up to 48 hours prior to 9-11.  They evidently did nothing about it. They took no precautions, no heightened security.

The threat was apparently not specific to any location.   Well, you say, if that’s the case, how could anyone be held responsible? Do you how many consulates and embassies we must have? How can one blame the Obama administration for such a vague threat?

Easy! Here’s how. The State Department receives notice of a threat on consulates and embassies. The threat is of  possible terrorist attacks corresponding to the 9-11 anniversary. The State Department alerts the The White House. The White House looks at the embassies around the globe. They then ask themselves where a terror threat is most eminent or more likely to occur. Then, by deductive reasoning, they eliminate all but those in suspected terror hotspots.

So the embassies in Barbados and Fiji are probably safe, where as the ones in, say Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Syria, etc. are more at risk.

The Commander-in-Chief would then bid David Letterman adieu, leave the campaign trail, rush back to the White House and send out orders to beef up security at those embassies deemed high risk. He might even order that they be issued ammunition.

I’m not saying that these attacks and subsequent deaths could have been prevented or even lessened. Yes I am. I’m saying exactly that. These poor souls were not even given a fighting chance. That’s the real tragedy here.

With this information of prior notification coming to light, might this be the reason the Administration and the cheer squad in the media keep harping on the dopey YouTube video as the sole cause of mayhem, when any reasonable person knows it had nothing to do with it? Of course it is!

If the mainstream media actually did their job and reported that the Obama State Department had prior notice and didn’t act, there would be hell to pay. If this happened during a Romney administration, you know they would shouting it from the tree tops.

Attribution: PJ Media, Huff Po, Daily Mail

Act of War?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The attack on the Libyan and Egyptian embassies are said to be a response to an anti-Muslim YouTube movie titled, “Innocence of Muslims” that derides the leader of the Muslim faith, Mohammed and also the Islam holy book, the Koran. (I’ve seen at least

Mohammed depicted in “Innocence of Muslims”

some of it. It’s pretty funny; not the content, that was spot on, but the cinematography. It’s like one of those old Godzilla movies.)  

Anyway, the U.S. ambassador to Lybia that was killed was the same man who was instrumental in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi , thus clearing the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood . That’s some thanks for a job well done. It’s like 1979 in Iran, but instead of American hostages, there are just corpses. And instead of Carter we have Obama.

Now, no one is ever allowed to make light (or tell the truth) of the Koran, Mohammed, or anything Islam.

Anyone, anywhere is, however, allowed to mock, degrade and subvert the Christian or Jewish faiths with impunity. The United States government is allowed to command the Catholic faith toss out one of the most precious tenets of their faith with forced

Piss Christ and the Jackass who created it

contraception, and most likely, abortions on demand. Yet, these same people would never dare speak ill of the Muslim community, for fear of merely cause the Muslims to feel bad, much less having their heads cut off.

I wonder if the raid by the Brotherhood (and make no mistake, this was the Brothers, or a wholly owned subsidiary of) was caused by viewing the Democrat National Convention? How is that, you say?

At said Convention, the peace-loving leftists joyously and publicly exclaimed that they killed Osama bin Laden no less than 21 times.

Those who attacked were actually shouting “Obama, Obama; there are still a billion Osama’s”. Remember, it was the anniversary of 9-11 on that day. This dopey little movie had very little or nothing to do with it. Obviously, this is just an excuse, for violence against the infidels. It is also my firm belief that this was not just some spontaneous riot. This was a premeditated, coordinated attack.

There is evidence unfolding that the ambassador and staff were told the area of the embassy they were in was not safe and they should be moved to a more secure location. The Brotherhood was then told where the Americans were moved to, affording the opportunity to attack. Another question, that will surely ruffle some feathers is, were the Brothers, in any way, facilitated by those Brotherhood members in the U.S. administration or State Department. It has to be asked! 

And how did our, tough on terrorists, government react? Here is the statement issued:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

So, instead of taking a hard line agianst the terrorists, we essentially apologize to the them. They have to just be laughing at how pitifully weak we are.

Mitt Romney’s response to the Obama administration statement was a tad more apropos:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

I believe it is fact that our embassies in every foreign land throughout the globe, are sovereign U.S. territory, just as foreign embassies in this country are not within U.S. jurisdiction. That being the case, is not an attack on our embassy considered an attack on United States soil? Is that not then a defacto, act of war?

Now we have yet another glimpse at our Commander in Chief, who is charged with protecting us. Heck of a job he’s doing, eh.

I almost forgot to mention that Obama is currently funneling taxpayer money to the “rebels” in Syria, who are tools of the Muslim Brotherhood and on the day our diplomatic facilities were being attacked, it was also revealed that the Obama Administration was negotiating a deal with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that would give them $1 billion to buy German submarines.

So who’s side is this guy really on anyway?

Attribution: Tad Cronn at Political Outcast