benghazi

Hanging Offenses in High Places

Hanging Offenses in High Places

Between the Soviet-style propaganda purveyed by President Obama and the White House, the undeniable evidence of their collusion with Islamists, and the ever-widening body of government officials and lawmakers of both parties who have demonstrated that they intend to ignore this treason, our nation is faced with a crisis of unprecedented proportion.

Early this week, Sen. Kelly Ayotte called for the Obama administration to declare war against radical Islam. “[Y]ou have to define your enemy,” Ayotte said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The administration should spend less time on political correctness and more time on a strategy.”

As we’ve seen groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaida gain ground in the Muslim world, news organizations have described the White House as “struggling with trying to define terrorism.” Meanwhile, President Obama and his surrogates continue to insist that these terrorist organizations and the atrocities they commit have nothing to do with Islam.

“My God, ISIS is taking over the Middle East, and our president can’t even say ‘Islamist terror.’”

– Lt. Col Ralph Peters, Fox News, Feb. 3

It’s not that President Obama can’t utter the phrase “Islamist terror,” it is that he won’t do so, because at this juncture, Obama has become the chief facilitator of Islamist terror on a global scale.

For the record, I have been personally assured by intelligence operatives from the U.S. and Britain, both past and present, that they and other foreign intelligence organizations are “well aware” of who the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama actually is, the parties who orchestrated his rise to power and that his mission is nothing less than to “bring America down.”

As all indicators reveal, this is precisely what he has been doing, despite the wholesale misrepresentations of the administration and the American press. Intelligence groups from outside the U.S. have approached American media representatives with information concerning Obama’s origins and designs; whether their reticence to engage is due to fear, having been compromised, or ideological affinity is anyone’s guess, but they won’t touch it.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at just some of the most recent evidence that tends to bear out what I have been told:

  • The Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising jihad” in Egypt just one day after a delegation of the Islamist group’s key leaders and allies met with the Obama State Department, which was instrumental in the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power and short but bloody reign in Egypt in the first place.
  • Rep. Trey Gowdy charged two weeks ago that the Obama administration is purposely slowing a congressional inquiry into the deadly 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya. It has also been reported that Gowdy is enduring White House intimidation over his pursuit of the investigation. Evidence suggests it is altogether likely that the White House had a hand in orchestrating the Benghazi attack, rather than merely failing to provide adequate military support in time to prevent casualties.
  • The Pentagon, which said mere weeks ago it was “confident” that it could “mitigate any threat of [military] re-engagement” by five Taliban generals swapped last year by Obama for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, now says that it can do “very little” to prevent same. The trade of the Taliban generals for Bergdahl, quite possibly an Islamist sympathist and a deserter, was called “treasonous” by retired U.S. Gen. Paul Vallely.
  • The administration admitted last week (in rather cavalier fashion, by the way) that its Iran policy had become one of attempting to slow that nation’s development of nuclear weapons, despite the administration’s earlier claims that it would never allow Iran to possess same. This seems to be in keeping with White House policy, which has incrementally negotiated away America’s leverage against Iran. Considering the potentially deadly implications – a nuclear holocaust, after all – one would think that such action would mobilize every political opponent the president has in seeking his head (figuratively speaking), yet this has not occurred.

As I have detailed in this space on numerous occasions, the Obama administration has been directly implicated in innumerable incidents involving Islamist militants. For a long time, I and other commentators expressed frustration as to why Obama’s political opponents universally failed to pursue this despite Cyclopean heaps of evidence.

During a recent interview on Fox News, former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove attempted to marginalize truth-seekers on Benghazi by equating them with Obama “birthers,” an apparent ploy to shield those GOP power players involved in America’s Libya policy at the time of the attack, or involved in the coverup concerning motives for the attack.

Among the most prominent – and probably most compromised of the aforementioned GOP power players – would be the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee in Intelligence at the time, former Rep. Mike Rogers. In 2011, Rogers’ wife, Kristi Rogers, was on the board of directors of a company that was ultimately responsible for outsourcing security at the Benghazi Special Mission Compound. Mike Rogers subsequently and inexplicably stonewalled and obfuscated during House hearings on Benghazi, to the consternation of Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike.

It is said that America’s “ruling class” (as detailed in “the writings of Angelo M. Codevilla) always close ranks to protect their own. It has become tragically apparent that in order to protect their filthy little political fiefdoms, these parties have determined that they must run interference for both the degenerate white-robed sultans and sheiks in the Sunni Muslim world, the black-dress-wearing Shiite mullahs in Iran, as well as the smug, insubstantial usurper in the White House. The common denominator among these is only that little trifle of their intention to destroy America.

This has gone far beyond dishonesty, disloyalty, or even self-aggrandizing corruption. Hanging offenses have been committed by people in high places; the list of such offenses increases daily, as does the number of those who add themselves to the list of the culpable, or dig themselves in deeper with each diversion they craft and lie they utter.

Originally published at WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

How to ‘fundamentally transform’ Barack Obama

During a discussion of current events with a very knowledgeable colleague, we turned to the subject of just how many in Congress are realizing that they were deceived by Barack Obama and that we are in deep trouble with this president, as opposed to those who advocate his policies, are so narcissistic that they’ve no real concern for the direction in which he is taking this nation, or are mind-blowingly stupid.

obama-changeAs unlikely as it may seem, we have learned over the years (the last few in particular) that there are indeed some lawmakers who are mind-blowingly stupid. There are also those who have been in Congress for so long that diapers may be in order, if they are not utilizing them already. Some I believe are simply intellectually indolent and don’t keep themselves informed. It’s just a job to them – a job they can become quite wealthy doing but don’t feel compelled to do particularly well.

There are, of course, lawmakers in the Democratic Party who are lifelong progressives, or Marxists, if you prefer. If you’re interested, there’s an extensive dossier on each and every one of them in Trevor Loudon’s book, “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress.” Despite having become a powerful force within the party, they by no means represent the majority of our elected officials.

No, we’re talking about Republican officeholders who are now starting to use words like “orchestrated” and “criminal” to describe the administration’s actions. We’re also talking about Democrats who, while they may not be employing these terms as yet, they’re certainly thinking them. Believe it or not, there are liberals in Congress who are not progressives, who did not wish to see America’s economy in this downward spiral, our national security compromised, our stature on the international stage devastated and emerging tyranny.

It has become apparent to those on the House Ways and Means Committee, for example (whose members heard testimony this week on the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative nonprofits), that this administration is essentially a criminal enterprise, probably qualifying for prosecution under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). This will never happen, since our oleaginous attorney general, Eric Holder, is the valued and powerful consigliere of the crime family – but there’s more than one way to skin a cat, or a pack of communists, as the case may be.

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Is Obama’s treason finally being recognized?

Erik Rush sees president facilitating new rise of caliphate

By now, we are quite familiar with the exploits of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the fact that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was released from detention by the Obama administration in 2009. These savages have cut a swath from northern Syria through northern Iraq, engaging in the most grotesque mass murder along the way, and by all accounts – including photographs and video footage of their own making – reveling in doing so.

bloody_hands1While many, for some unfathomable reason, remain wedded to the idea that this and countless other developments involving the Obama administration are the result of its incompetence, others have reached the point where their ability to suspend their disbelief has been stretched beyond the breaking point, and they no longer believe it is a matter of political ineptitude or poor leadership.

As I have said before, operating outside of the realm of believability has been a deliberate tactic of this regime, and a largely complicit establishment press contributed to its success.

Thus, despite overwhelming evidence, many Americans will still find it difficult to accept that the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.

As reported in WND this week, ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan; this has been confirmed not only by officials in Jordan, but in both the German and British press.

Are Americans now expected to believe that ISIS is among the “moderate” Muslim factions the administration has maintained it is imperative to support, for which Obama went to the lengths of first clandestinely arming and supplying, and then unilaterally amending U.S. law so that he might do so overtly?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Hillary’s real ‘Hard Choices’ could be her undoing

Hillary Clinton Reads From Her New Memoir In New York CityOne wonders if Hillary Clinton and her minions are aware that their job in presenting her as a viable presidential candidate will be far more difficult than it was for Barack Obama’s handlers. Even though he had the disadvantage of being profoundly inexperienced, at least he was an unknown commodity. Hillary Clinton is not.

Over the last week, the former first lady and secretary of state has been hawking her latest book, “Hard Choices,” which the New York Times called “a statesmanlike document intended to attest to Mrs. Clinton’s wide-ranging experience on national security and on foreign policy.”

Well, consider the source. I suppose the surgeon who’s performed 10,000 surgeries and lost every patient could be said to have “wide-ranging experience.”

Clinton’s book is very obviously meant to “soften up the ground” for her presidential run. Per her discussions with the press, it is evident that her intent is damage control pertaining to her role in the Benghazi scandal and to distance herself from the more damaging Obama policies that necessarily remain foremost in the minds of Americans.

Hillary’s detractors rightly point out her inexperience, but one thing at which she is well-practiced is political fluency. Some of her statements have been positively laughable, such as the claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001, and that Benghazi was a good reason for her to run for president, as opposed to not. The answers do come quickly, however; there is none of the hemming and hawing we get from Obama on the rare occasions he’s been caught off-teleprompter.

Still, selling Hillary to an electorate that, if somewhat superficial in many aspects, is at least aware that she’s fairly close to Obama in policy and ideology won’t be easy. I mean, if you’re a liberal or independent who’s fed up with Obama, why would you want to elect someone formerly in his Cabinet?

Read more here

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Boko Hokum: Distraction on a global scale

bokoharam1Let it not be said that I don’t feel for the plight of the nearly 300 Nigerian high-school girls kidnapped by the Islamist group Boko Haram; indeed, anyone with a conscience ought to empathize with them and their duly distraught families. That said, the abduction of these girls and, sadly, their fates (should rescue efforts fail) pale in comparison to the atrocities committed across the world daily against women by Muslim men “in the name of Allah.”

At least two components of this tragic comedy are worthy of examination. One is the blatant and shameless distraction coming directly out of the White House and Hillary Clinton camp. Michelle Obama hit social media with her Twitter hashtag campaign; Clinton followed suit shortly thereafter.

Carried to its logical conclusion, the investigation into the Benghazi attack could topple the Obama administration, and then some. Clinton’s presidential ambitions could be irreparably damaged, depending on the outcome. So, both have ample motivation for diverting public attention from Benghazi. They, the press and powerful Democrats are attempting to set the stage for this investigation to be downplayed as much as possible; this is to say nothing of more subtle manipulation of the process in which the administration will no doubt engage.

Even assuming that Rep. Trey Gowdy and the other committee members are dogged in their efforts, the administration could sabotage and obfuscate the process into oblivion. Will the investigation be able to penetrate the cover-up and reveal the administration’s diabolical Middle East policy? Will the administration’s “Benghazi version” of Lois Lerner be offered up for castigation that will be every bit as unimpressive and ineffectual as that meted out to Attorney General Eric “You don’t wanna go there, buddy” Holder for his contempt of Congress?

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

Will Benghazi committee consider the T-word?

IRS officials face the House Oversight Committee in Washington,       DC.The primal revulsion felt when one pulls back a wall or floorboard to discover an unimaginable accumulation of vermin bristling beneath is difficult to describe. Whether it’s a seething mass of scattering cockroaches, mice, or rats, even those who aren’t squeamish concerning such creatures may find themselves fighting a combination of nausea and the fight-or-flight reaction.

I sincerely hope that Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and his colleagues on the newly minted congressional select committee tasked with investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, have the belly for what they will most certainly uncover if they are duly committed to finding the truth. This is because there is so much more to this debacle than most engaged conservatives know, let alone the average American news consumer.

We’ll presume for a moment that the craven protestations of Democrat politicos (like former Obama White House senior adviser David Plouffe), the limited (or at least biased) coverage this exercise is likely to garner from much of the establishment press and the impediments presented by the White House do not deter the committee in any significant sense, and that it is the committee’s will which determine the outcome.

Benghazi isn’t simply about the cover-up of a terrorist attack in order to save an election; it’s not even about gun-running, although the latter did play a large role. It’s about a nefarious foreign policy that would qualify as criminal in nature under both U.S. and international law – provided that this committee is not fainthearted in its duty.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

The conservative press: Too easy on Obama

obama_sshIt’s a foregone conclusion that the liberal press (mainstream media, establishment press) will never admit that our miserable excuse for a president even possesses normal human frailties, let alone gross character defects. Across the industry, I would say that this is largely rooted in a combination of ideological kinship, ignorance, fear, or top-down directives, depending on the case.

I’m also aware that some journalists and press outlets have been reticent to report negative information about Barack Obama over fears of being attacked for being racist, as inane a concept as this remains.

All of the above, of course, could apply in the practical sense to our elected officials as well, but we have grown to expect a certain level of duplicity on their part. This is not to justify their actions – particularly now, when some have bordered on treason – but the purpose of the press has always been in safeguarding our liberties through their function. This is largely why so many Americans have yet to come to the conclusion that the establishment press has become a subversive propaganda arm for the political left. People still trust them.

But what about the conservative press (the “new media” or “alternative press”)? Despite the power this body has been able to successfully wield, in the face of the grave and dangerous actions of the Obama administration and the deteriorating geopolitical landscape, too much of their coverage remains disappointingly superficial.

For example: I have noted that many conservative press outlets have gotten caught up in this theatrical bluster between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the situation in Ukraine. This is no different a tack than that taken by their liberal media counterparts. It occurs to me that the interests of global peace as well as our domestic situation (with this president) might be better addressed by examining the actions Obama has taken to precipitate that crisis.

Read more…

I’m also aware that some journalists and press outlets have been reticent to report negative information about Barack Obama over fears of being attacked for being racist, as inane a concept as this remains.

All of the above, of course, could apply in the practical sense to our elected officials as well, but we have grown to expect a certain level of duplicity on their part. This is not to justify their actions – particularly now, when some have bordered on treason – but the purpose of the press has always been in safeguarding our liberties through their function. This is largely why so many Americans have yet to come to the conclusion that the establishment press has become a subversive propaganda arm for the political left. People still trust them.

But what about the conservative press (the “new media” or “alternative press”)? Despite the power this body has been able to successfully wield, in the face of the grave and dangerous actions of the Obama administration and the deteriorating geopolitical landscape, too much of their coverage remains disappointingly superficial.

For example: I have noted that many conservative press outlets have gotten caught up in this theatrical bluster between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the situation in Ukraine. This is no different a tack than that taken by their liberal media counterparts. It occurs to me that the interests of global peace as well as our domestic situation (with this president) might be better addressed by examining the actions Obama has taken to precipitate that crisis.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/the-conservative-press-too-easy-on-obama/#oQZHYH1tjXfBKEto.99

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns

‘Top Secret’ Documents Implicate Obamas, Clintons

Via Shoebat Foundation – Shocking documents by Egyptian security forces monitoring the movements of Malik Obama’s Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) and the father (Essam el-Haddad) of a former Clinton employee (Gehad El-Haddad) sheds further light on the nefarious dealings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. These documents could implicate the Obamas and the Clintons as being complicit in endangering national security.

Bill_Hillary_BarackAl-Masry Network also published the claims of intelligence sources showing that Malik Obama’s Organization is the main sponsor to Islamize the Nuba area, Aswan and Luxor. The Aswan region is a territory in southeastern Egypt that borders northern Sudan, which includes a long stretch of the Nile river. During the Mohammed Mursi regime, both Egypt and Sudan (under Omar al-Bashir) would have presented an opportunity to work toward the slow erasure of the border between the two nations. Such negotiations in Aswan would have predictably caused Egypt’s Security Forces great concern.

The younger Haddad, who worked as City Director for five years at the William J. Clinton Foundation, also worked with his father; both men were the closest of advisers to Mursi. Both Essam and Gehad were arrested late last year – after Mursi’s ouster – and had their assets frozen.
The Al-Masry report seems to indicate that Malik Obama’s role within the Sudanese branch of the IDO is much more significant than previously thought (translated):

“Authorities within Egypt’s security apparatus have warned over the past two and a half years of the movements of the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), based in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, headed by businessman Kenyan owner Aboonju Obama (Malik), the elder brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, according to security authorities who are privy to the details of the investigation. One official said the organization and its president, a close friend of the President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, support the Muslim Brotherhood with money, as well as the international organization of the group…”

The article further reports that Malik has headed the IDO not only in Kenya but leads the organization headquartered in Khartoum and “overseen by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir”. His role allegedly includes assisting and regulating the global Muslim Brotherhood agenda.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in News

Time to wrest car keys from Obama cabal

hillary_whatdifferenceConfirmations of the oft-ridiculed charges against the Obama administration are emerging with the frequency of eutheria in the “Whack-a-Mole” game. While I have certain encouraging suspicions as to how this information may be being disseminated, catalogued and employed to America’s benefit, I also wonder (somewhat cynically) if they will simply go the way of condemning information that has already been revealed regarding the administration – in short, nowhere.

This week it was reported that Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett gave the “stand down” order during the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. This would in the very least convict President Obama of negligence in delegating such responsibility to an unelected, inexperienced subordinate, as well as explaining “all of the serial lies and the cover-ups and the obfuscation and all of the efforts that were made to distract people’s attention from this,” as characterized by talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

Also this week, Fox News’ James Rosen (who was illegally targeted by the administration as a result of his investigative work) reported that according to declassified documents, within minutes after the mission in Benghazi came under attack, the White House was informed that the event was a terrorist attack, as opposed to the false narrative proffered by the administration for weeks afterward. Further, it has been determined that the Benghazi survivors who were interviewed by the FBI shortly after the attack did not report a protest (as maintained in the administration’s anti-Islam-film narrative), but a coordinated strike by well-trained, well-armed jihadis.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns