Posts

Hillary’s ‘Libyan legacy’ still responsible for invasion of Europe as Italy panics

Invasion of Europe news….

I’m not going to let you all forget that it was Hillary and her girls who were responsible for the overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar Ghaddafi that resulted in the opening of the flood gates from Africa to Europe for tens of thousands of mostly economic migrants from the heart of Africa to countries like Italy geographically on the frontline of the invasion.

Left to right – Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power

Even Obama didn’t have the stomach for the slaughter of Ghaddafi.  I followed the whole sorry tale from its earliest days here at RRW.

Of course the Europeans made that fatal mistake in the earliest days of the invasion by not turning back (using safe methods) the first boats that were launched from the Libyan coast. Now they rescue each one sending a signal to people smugglers to keep ’em coming!

Susan Rice, Hillary and Samantha Power. Hillary admitted that in 2011 Obama was reluctant to follow Europe’s lead and get involved in Libya, but that she marshaled the forces (including Susan Rice and Samantha Power) to persuade Obama to help overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Ultimately, she said, it was the President’s decision thereby tossing blame back on Obama when the results of her actions have proven so disastrous.

Here is the latest news from Middle East Monitor:

hillary-clinton-benghazi-phone-transcripts-696x364Italy panics as North Africa migrants surge

Italy will host a meeting between European and North African countries next week in a bid to strengthen support for an agreement it struck with Libya to fight people smuggling as migrant arrivals surge.

The prime minister of the UN-backed government in Tripoli, Fayez Al-Seraj, will meet with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and interior ministers from eight European countries including Germany and France on Monday.

Last month, Italy pledged money, training and equipment to help Libya fight people smugglers, a deal that was endorsed by European Union member states.

But Libya is still far from stable. Two governments are vying for power – in Tobruk to the east and Tripoli to the west – and the country remains mired in factional fighting and lawlessness.

The authorities in eastern Libya have rejected the deal struck between Rome and Tripoli.

“I’m not so naive as to not understand the situation there,” Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti told reporters. “But we cannot remain immobile and wait for the country to stabilise.”

He said the Libya agreement and next week’s meeting were not just “talk”, but strategic steps toward managing mass migration to Europe.

So far this year more than 16,000 migrants – a 36 per cent increase on the same period last year – have been rescued at sea and brought to Italy after Libya-based people smugglers piled them onto flimsy boats.

Don’t miss Hillary cackling about her success in killing Gaddafi. She looks like an absolute loon here:

Another version of Hillary’s looney laugh, is here. Don’t you think it might be too early for her to come out of the woods!

Our archives on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ are here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

If SD governor willing to do this, why not take next step, join the Tennessee States’ rights case?

MONTANA: Never too soon to make sure Islamic ‘sharia’ law doesn’t creep into your state as it has in others

The Hijab’s Progression To Symbol Of Political Oppression

Since President Trump took office over 2,400 refugees from travel-ban countries entered U.S.

Pew Research has done a handy little summary of where we stand with refugees admitted this fiscal year, but most importantly they made a useful graph of how many entered from travel-restricted countries since the first week of December, through Trump’s inauguration and up to last Friday.

There is nothing we haven’t already been talking about as we reported also from Wrapsnet over recent weeks and months, but they put it in a neat little package for your review on the eve of the 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement.

Pew Research Center:

A total of 2,466 refugees from six countries under new travel restrictions – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – have resettled in the United States since Donald Trump became president, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department data. The number of refugees from the six travel-restricted countries represents 32% of all refugees who have entered the U.S. since Trump took office.

Pew continues….

Including refugees from countries with no travel restrictions, a total of 7,594 refugees have entered the U.S. during Trump’s first seven weeks in office (Jan. 21 to March 10). Of these refugees, 3,410 are Muslims (45%) and 3,292 are Christians (43%), with other religions or the religiously unaffiliated accounting for the rest.

So far in fiscal 2017 (which began Oct. 1, 2016), refugees who hold citizenship from the six restricted countries have accounted for more than a third (34%) of 37,716 refugee admissions.

More here.

President Trump has set the ceiling for the entire 2017 fiscal year at 50,000, a number we explained here is not that low!

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

EndNote: It is amusing to me to see research/articles like this because for years and years (I started writing RRW in 2007) no one paid any attention to the numbers, religions and ethnicities of refugees entering the US. It is nice to see so many news outlets educating the public!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Flow chart for refugee admissions shows where Trump team could downsize program with funding cuts

California judge seeks to prevent immigration arrests inside state courts

Horowitz: Where is Congress? Why are they not helping Trump on immigration?

Middle East experts: Kurdish safe zones could thwart Iranian threat to Israel

One report: Trump Department of State to cut funding to UN by 50%

Democrats Abandoned Isreal on December 23, 2016: A date that will live in Infamy

The leader of the Democratic Party has decided to abandon Israel on December 23rd, 2016 and Democrats knew full well that he would. To understand why this happened one must read President Obama’s 2012 speech to the United Nations.

Barack Obama said in a speech before the United Nations on September 25th, 2012 that, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Democrats stood by the President, knowing that he was speaking directly to the Arab world, Israel, and those in the United States and beyond, who did not fully embrace the “religion of peace.”

Democrats knew their President stood squarely on the side of Islam and Islamists and they did nothing.

President Obama commented on Benghazi stating:

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.  Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith.  We are home to Muslims who worship across our country.  We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.  We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video.  And the answer is enshrined in our laws:  Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

This about Tunisia, now a hot bed of terrorism and the home of the Berlin Christmas market slaughter:

It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring.  And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that’s taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.

We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.

This about the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt:

We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.

This about Yemen:

We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.

This about Libya:

We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.

And this about Syria:

And as we meet here, we again declare that the regime of Bashar al-Assad must come to an end so that the suffering of the Syrian people can stop and a new dawn can begin.

Each of these statements were honey to the ears of Democrats and the Arab world and the Muslim community.  But for those who understood his real message, knew it was a death knell for the Israelis, Syrians, Libyans, Egyptians, Yemenis, Europeans and Americans.

Obama was saying that the future belongs to Islam. History will call December 23rd, 2016 a date that will live in infamy but the foundation of the betrayal of the Christian world was laid on September 25th, 2012.

And Democrats were silent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are no joke

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.
This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

DeceptionEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill. The featured image is of Huma Abedin is by Greg Nash.

Mr. Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Hillary’s ‘smart power’ foreign policy makes her unfit for command

Today’s headlines are about the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi. Benghazi is the expected outcome of Hillary Clinton’s “smart power” policy while she was Secretary of State. This policy is part of her platform as the Democratic Party nominee for president.

According to Chester A. Crocker, smart power,

Involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy.

It was smart power that Hillary used to depose Muammar Gaddafi, the former Prime Minister of Libya. David Brooks in a June 2011 New York Times op-ed “Smart Power Setback” wrote:

When she became secretary of state, Hillary Clinton sketched out a very attractive foreign policy vision that would use “the full range of tools at our disposal: diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” But it could be that cultural and economic development works on a different timetable than traditional foreign policy.

Perhaps we don’t know enough, can’t plan enough, can’t implement effectively enough to coordinate nation building with national security objectives.

The peace and security timetable is measured in years or decades. Development progress, if it comes at all, is measured in generations.

In February 2016 a New York Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane titled “Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall” noted:

President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country [Libya]. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support.

In her suite at the Westin, she and Mr. Jibril, a political scientist with a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, spoke at length about the fast­moving military situation in Libya. But Mrs. Clinton was clearly also thinking about Iraq, and its hard lessons for American intervention.

Did the opposition’s Transitional National Council really represent the whole of a deeply divided country, or just one region? What if Colonel Qaddafi quit, fled or was killed — did they have a plan for what came next?

“She was asking every question you could imagine,” Mr. Jibril recalled.

Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51­49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line. 

The consequences would be more far ­reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.

[Emphasis added]

Ironically is was American diplomat John Christopher “Chris” Stevens who Clinton sent to Libya to implement the “5149” decision. Gaddafi was toppled and executed by those same “opposition leaders” who convinced Secretary Clinton they were on our side. Clinton implemented smart power.

Fast forward to September 11, 2012. Hillary’s smart power caused her and the State Department to rely on local militia to protect now Ambassador Chris Stevens at the compound in Benghazi. Stevens knew the risks and expressed them in his diary on that fateful day.

Stevens’s final entry in his diary, dated Sept. 11, reads: “Never ending security threats…”

Security threats ignored because of Hillary’s smart power policies. Four died on that day, the cause Hillary Clinton and smart power.

RELATED REPORT: Proposed Additional Views of Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo

13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi a Stephen Coughlin Video Moment

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed 13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, focusing on a few crucial things not covered in the film.

And make sure to watch The Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveiled how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror: CLICK HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim migrant: “German girls are just there for sex”

Hugh Fitzgerald: Sticking to the Details

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Readers may donate through The Glazov Gang Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook.

VIDEO: Benghazi and the Clinton-Obama Gun Running Operation Exposed

13 hours posteerClare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy, a member of the Benghazi Citizen’s Commission and former CIA intelligence officer, exposes Benghazi as a complete national security disaster resulting from the lack of leadership from President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In part one, Lopez explains in simple detail exactly how the United States,  led by Clinton, aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in a way that defies common sense and basic principles of foreign policy.

The United West presents this three-part series as a national security context to better understand the blockbuster Hollywood movie, 13 Hours, the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

EDITORS NOTE: Reader may f ollow The United West on Twitter @TheUnitedWest

Benghazi: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

Excerpts from the forward to Mitchell Zuckoff’s book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi”:

Dean_Rusk,_Lyndon_B._Johnson_and_Robert_McNamara_in_Cabinet_Room_meeting_February_1968

Dean Rusk,Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert McNamara in Cabinet Room meeting February 1968.

“A BLOODTHIRSTY MOB BORE DOWN ON THE UNITED States’ poorly defended diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. Besieged American envoys and staffers withdrew to a locked room as fires set by the attackers drew closer. The Americans prayed and appealed for rescue, calling home to Washington and to nearby allies. If no help came, they feared one of three fates: They’d be killed by the invaders, suffocate from smoke, or be roasted alive. In the meantime, they’d fight.

The date was June 5, 1967.

War had just begun between Israel and Egypt, and morning radio reports in Benghazi were filled with false claims that US military planes had provided air cover for Israeli attacks or had bombed Cairo, less than seven hundred miles away. Hundreds”

[ … ]

“With no rescue in sight, Kormann took down from the wall a photo of President Lyndon Johnson and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson. He broke it from its frame, flipped it over, and wrote on the back that, whatever happened, they had done their duty. Everyone in the smoky vault signed the farewell note.”

[ … ]

Hillary+Clinton+President+Obama+Meets+Cabinet+__g1TiFp3W4l

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Robert Gates in cabinet meeting , November 2009.

“Forty-five years later, on September 11, 2012, the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi again came under sudden siege by a murderous mob. Again the attackers couldn’t reach their prey, so they plundered buildings and set fires with deadly intent. But this time, no British or other friendly troops were close enough to attempt a rescue.

With fires raging, gunmen swarming, State Department security officers taking cover, and the US ambassador missing, a call went out from one of the overwhelmed Americans: “If you don’t get here soon, we’re all going to die!”

George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

It is prophetic that the two attacks on American embassy personnel in Benghazi happened under the leadership of Democratic President Johnson and his Secretary of State Dean Rusk; and forty-five years later under Democratic President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It this a harbinger of things to come?

Please watch 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Official Trailer:

Hillary knew Benghazi was ‘a planned attack—not a protest’

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.” Yet when Susan Rice said that the attack was “a spontaneous reaction to a video,” and other Obama officials said the same thing, she never corrected them. And she gave the same impression herself when she said, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted to the Internet,” although she tried to walk that back at yesterday’s hearings.

Remember also that right after the Benghazi jihad murders, Hillary said, “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested,” and did so, on a trumped-up parole violation — while probably thousands of parolees have committed worse and never gotten hauled back in. The filmmaker became America’s first Sharia political prisoner, in prison for violating Islamic blasphemy law.

“Hillary Clinton Knew All Along Benghazi Attack Had “Nothing To Do With The Film,” Documents Reveal,” by Anthony L. Fisher, Reason, October 22, 2015 (thanks to Adrian):

According to documents revealed as part of the ongoing Congressional hearings on Benghazi, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil in a phone call the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

The film Clinton refers to is the 10 minute Youtube trailer for the ultra-low budget anti-Islam movie “Innocence of Muslims,” which she and other senior Obama administration officials, including President Obama himself, almost immediately began casting as a scapegoat for the attacks. Those attacks, however, were already understood by senior administration officials to be a planned and coordinated attack, and very much not what then-ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called a “a spontaneous reaction to a video.”

Clinton also reportedly emailed her daughter Chelsea, who used the pseudonym Diane Reynolds when communicating with her mother via her private email account, on the night of the attacks, telling her that the consulate had been attacked by an “Al Queda-like group.” (sic)

That same night, in her first statement following the attacks on 9/11/12, Clinton wrote:

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted to the Internet.”

When challenged about that characterization at today’s hearings by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Clinton refused to admit that the administration blamed the video for the attacks, saying:

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.

I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Not only did senior administration officials persist in framing the attack as a protest sparked by the video for days after, one of its first moves upon hearing that Ambassador Chris Stevens had been murdered was to contact Youtube and ask them “to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use.”

My colleague Matt Welch wrote up this helpful and infuriating roundup of the administration officials and distinguished members of the intelligentsia who advocated for everything from imprisonment for the filmmaker (who would be imprisoned for a parole violation committed when he uploaded the video) to calls for “free speech to yield to other values.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: UK telecommunications corporation hacked: “Jihad From Us Is Coming”

Hillary (and the girls) are to blame for Libyan hellhole and Muslim invasion of Europe

As I listened to testimony yesterday at the Benghazi hearing I was reminded of the many posts I’ve written over the years about how Hillary was directly involved in the destruction of the Libyan state that ultimately led to the use of that country as an important launch pad for the Mediterranean invasion of Europe by tens of thousands of Africans and Middle Easterners.

Hillary admitted yesterday that in 2011 Obama was reluctant to follow Europe’s lead and get involved in Libya, but that she marshaled the forces (including Susan Rice and Samantha Power) to persuade Obama to help overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Ultimately, she said yesterday, it was the President’s decision thereby tossing blame back on Obama when the results of her actions have proven so disastrous. Ambassador Stevens and the others who died might not have been there if it weren’t for those “loose weapons.”

Here is one of our many posts on Hillary:  This one is from December 2014, but we had predicted in 2011 that Hillary’s (and yes, she admitted it yesterday that she was the leading Administration force for the overthrow of Qaddafi) misadventure in Libya was leading to a refugee crisis of massive proportion.

Hillary and the girls (dubbed the “humanitarian Vulcans” by some in the White House) said it was our “responsibility to protect” the Libyan people that underpinned our imperative to join the Europeans in overthrowing (and killing) Qaddafi.  This is what I said in December of 2011.  So much for the poor Libyan people now!

Watch for it!   The ‘responsibility to protect’ means we go to war and create a whole new bunch of refugees that need to be resettled in the West!

April 2011:  read what we said about the three witches, here.  Go here for all of our posts mentioning Hillary and Libya.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Amnesty advocate Rep. Paul Ryan poised to be next Speaker of the House, if you don’t take action

What is the cost to admit (and care for!) refugees in the U.S.?

6 Key Exchanges From Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony

British taxpayers on the hook for about $36,000 for each Syrian refugee admitted

Raleigh, NC: Federal resettlement contractor goes into the half-way house business, not enough subsidized housing?

Could you lose your gun rights as U.S. refugee population grows?

Hebrew refugee contractor: Don’t send money/supplies to Syrians, lobby Washington to bring them hereFBI Director James Comey says it again: They cannot screen Syrian refugees entering the U.S.

Special Report: Betrayal at Benghazi airing on Wednesday 10/21/2015 at 10 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network will air a thirty minute Benghazi special titled, Betrayal at Benghazi: The Cost of Hillary Clinton’s Dereliction & Greed, on the eve of former Secretary of State Clinton’s Oct. 22nd testimony before Congress. The special will air at 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET.

The special report features exclusive interviews with Representative and former House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, Senator Lindsey Graham, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. James Inhofe, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a former commanding general of Army Special Operations Command, and national talk show host Mark Levin.

The Benghazi program provides viewers with critical background information about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on American facilities in Benghazi, the failures of President Barack Obama and Clinton to send help before and during the attacks and catalogs new information about Clinton-related business interests that influenced the former Secretary of State’s judgment.

Neil W. McCabe, a OAN political reporter and host of the special for One America News Network, said, “In addition to the amazing insights provided by leaders on Capitol Hill and General Boykin, it was an honor to work with Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks.”

“The role of Sidney Blumenthal and his representation of business interests seeking lucrative agreements inLibya is a fascinating twist,” said McCabe, who served as a combat historian in Iraq.

“The economic pursuits and Blumenthal’s close ties to the Clinton’s simply isn’t well known to many Americans and the complete details haven’t been fully disclosed,” he said. “American’s don’t realize the impact and import of his relationship with the former Secretary of State Clinton.”

RELATED VIDEO: The criminal arrogance of Hillary Clinton:

ABOUT ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK (“OAN”)

One America News Network is available on AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC, and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please visit www.OANN.com.

What Really Drives Obama’s Destructive Mideast Policy?

It’s not a stretch to say that what ex-president Jimmy Carter did for Iran, Barack Obama is doing for the whole Middle East and beyond. Islamic State is on the move; jihadism in general is raging and all the rage; and with the Iran deal, the man who helped enable the “Arab Spring” may give us a nuclear winter.

A Mideast policy with such results has befuddled many. Why did Obama help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and hurl Libya into turmoil? Why did he throw Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak under the bus? And why, as radio host Michael Savage asked late last week, does he have such a “vendetta” against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad?

It’s not enough to say that the Gaddafis and Assads of the world are bad men; the devil you know is often better than the devil you don’t know, and this certainly appears the case when turmoil and jihadists are the apparent alternatives to these strongmen’s rule. And Iran is governed by bad men, but Obama showed no interest in supporting dissidents there.

When analyzing the above, credulous liberals might say the president is merely interested in supporting “democracy,” some conservatives might explain it by way of incompetence, while yet others may aver that Muslim sympathies impel him to support jihadist causes. But the truth is perhaps a bit more nuanced, so let me suggest a different theory.

When discerning a person’s motivations, you must first consider what he is. Obama is a hardcore leftist, marinated in Marxism from his youth, raised by a leftist mother and grandparents and mentored by card-carrying Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. He also belonged to the socialist New Party in 1990s Chicago and, according to a 2007 study, owned the Senate’s most left-wing voting record; this means he was ahead of even that body’s only avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders (who was number two).

Now, one thing we know about hardcore leftists is that they generally consider religion the “opiate of the masses.” This brings us to the idea, embraced by 29 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Republicans, that Obama is a Muslim. Question: is it realistic to think that Obama truly believes in God and that God’s name is Allah? Does his support for the homosexual agenda (including faux marriage), women in combat and “transgenders” in the military reflect Sharia?

The reality? Obama is a de facto atheist. He deifies himself more than anyone else. But there’s an important distinction here almost universally missed by liberals and conservatives: Obama isn’t religiously Muslim.

But there’s every indication he’s culturally Muslim.

Having lived in the Islamic country of Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10 with a Muslim stepfather, it’s likely that Obama’s earliest memories are of life in a Muslim culture. He also has characterized the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset” (and recites it with an authentic accent) and has avoided Christian events while trumpeting his Muslim heritage. Yet however much this influences his thinking, it pales in comparison to something else that characterizes him and virtually all leftists.

Hatred for the West.

In Obama’s narrow universe, the West is the cause of most evil in the world. The West is oppressive, destructive and poisons everything it touches. And for justice to prevail, Western institutions and influence must be quashed.

Now consider the Middle East’s modern history. Syria’s current borders were created by the West after the fall of the Ottomans, and the CIA covertly backed the Arab world’s first military coup in that nation in 1949. Italy seized Libya from the Ottoman Empire in the Italo-Turkish War in 1911-12; in fact, the name “Libya” itself was adopted by Italy in 1934 during its colonization of the region and originated with the ancient Greeks (the birthplace of Western civilization), who used it to describe all of North Africa apart from Egypt. As for Egypt, it was part of the Cold War geopolitical tussle, first allied with the Soviet Union and then switching allegiance to the U.S. under President Anwar Sadat. Also note that the Assad dynasty has long been supported by — and Gaddafi was a longtime ally of — the Soviet Union/Russia.

But wouldn’t a leftist such as Obama welcome Soviet influence? First, the leftist line was that the Soviets’ Cold War activities were designed mainly to counterbalance Western imperialism — the Soviets wouldn’t have been in the Middle East if we weren’t. More significantly with Obama, however, I believe that in one sense he doesn’t distinguish between the West and Russia, in that he views them both as the oppressive “white world” (especially since the U.S.S.R. is no more).

You no doubt see the point. The modern Middle East is largely a Western construct, with Western-drawn borders and Western-facilitated strongmen. Obama sees Western influence and creations as the bane of humanity.

Ergo, not only is the enemy of my ideological enemy my friend, but, whatever the “Arab Street” may be, it can’t be worse than the world’s most evil force: the West.

This also helps shed light on Obama’s apparent antipathy for Israel, which he would also view as a Western invention, and his refusal to support dissidents in Iran. Remember that the Iranian theocracy, born in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, already represents the overthrow of the Western Mideast order.

This theory certainly explains Obama’s actions. No, it would not be a rational motivation, but much of what animates man is irrational. This is especially true of leftists, who, disbelieving in and disconnected from Truth, are driven by emotional attachment to misbegotten ideas.

Nor would Obama likely heed cooler-heads’ counsel. He lives in the echo chamber of his own mind, considering others’ opinions superfluous; he’s the very antithesis of the saying “Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him.” Note that he arrogantly stated in 2007 not only that he’d be a better political director than his political director, but also “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. [And] I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Even more telling is a story related by economist and gun-rights advocate Dr. John Lott on Mark Levin’s radio show last Friday about the time when he and Obama were both in the University of Chicago’s employ. Obama didn’t attend the gatherings at which the staff exchanged ideas, except once, when he asked a fairly unintelligible question. Lott then saw Obama after the event and, trying to make friends and conversation, said (I’m paraphrasing), “You know, your question was interesting, but I think more people would have understood it if….” Lott never got to finish.

Because Obama, cold as ice, just turned his back.

And Obama long ago turned his back on reality and on the civilization that has given him everything. He hates the world’s Western-imposed order so much that he’s propelling the world toward disorder. And that’s the tragic result when you don’t realize that hatred is not a strategy.

EDITORS NOTE: You may contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com,

Putin to those who supported the “Arab Spring”: “Do you realize what you have done?”

“Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?”

No, they don’t realize what they have done, and they’re poised to do more of it. And those of us who warned at the time that the “Arab Spring” would not lead to “the triumph of democracy and progress,” but to “violence, poverty and social disaster,” were dismissed and derided as racist, bigoted “Islamophobes.” And no matter how often the establishment analysts get things wrong, and disastrously, fatally so, they never get called to account, and keep applying the same failed solutions over and over again.

“Putin: ‘Do you realize what you have done?,’” by Everett Rosenfeld, CNBC, September 28, 2015:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday admonished those who supported democratic revolutions in the Middle East, telling the United Nations they led to the rise of a globally ambitious Islamic State.

“Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life,” Putin said through a translator. “I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?”

The Russian president added that the power vacuum following these revolutions led to the rise of terrorist groups in the region — including the Islamic State group.

He told the General Assembly it would be an “enormous mistake” not to cooperate with the Syrian government to combat the extremist group.

“No one but President (Bashar) Assad’s armed forces and Kurdish militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria,” he said.

In an earlier speech at the U.N. , President Barack Obama said it would be a mistake to think that Syria could be stable under Assad.

Acknowledging some of the criticism lobbed at Russia’s proposal, Putin said his country is only proposing to help save the world from terrorism.

“I must note that such an honest and frank approach from Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say it has no ambitions at all. However, it’s not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world,” he said.

He proposed a “generally broad international coalition against terrorism,” likening the suggestion to the anti-Hitler coalition that brought together disparate interests to battle fascism in Europe.

Putin warned that international policy toward the region has led to an Islamic State with plans that “go further” than simply dominating the Middle East. And citing recent data about failures in successfully recruiting “moderate” Syrian opposition, Putin said countries opposed to Assad are simply worsening the situation.

“We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but hazardous. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions,” the Russian leader said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bethlehem monastery torched by Islamic jihadists

New U.S. Army patch for fight against the Islamic State closely resembles Muslim Brotherhood logo

Former UK Defense Chief: Cameron lacked “balls” to head off rise of Islamic State

“Lord Richards reportedly told author Sir Anthony Seldon that the prime minister had in 2012 rejected a ‘coherent military strategy’ to take on the regime of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, which would in his view have seen the Islamic extremists ‘squeezed out of existence.’” It seems fanciful that taking on the Islamic State’s enemy, Assad, would have “squeezed” the Islamic State “out of existence,” but it is manifestly true that David Cameron lacks the courage and vision to take on the jihad threat in general, and is instead following a disastrous policy of appeasement and accommodation of Islamic supremacists that is going to result in nothing less than the ruin of Britain if it isn’t stopped.

“Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.” No doubt about that.

“David Cameron lacked ‘balls’ to head off the rise of Isis, says former defence chief,” by Frances Perraudin, Guardian, August 30, 2015 01.06 EDT
Last modified on Sunday 30 August 2015:

David Cameron lacked “the balls” to take the military action in Syria that could have prevented the rise of Islamic State, a former head of the armed forces has said.

In a scathing analysis of the UK prime minister’s approach, Gen Lord Richards of Herstmonceux said Cameron’s approach seemed “more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft”.

Lord Richards reportedly told author Sir Anthony Seldon that the prime minister had in 2012 rejected a “coherent military strategy” to take on the regime of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, which would in his view have seen the Islamic extremists “squeezed out of existence”.

The comments are detailed in Seldon’s biography of Cameron – titled Cameron at 10: the Inside Story 2010-2015 – which is being serialised in the Mail on Sunday.

Lord Richards, who was chief of the defence staff from October 2010 to July 2013, is quoted as saying: “If they had the balls they would have gone through with it … if they’d done what I’d argued, they wouldn’t be where they are with Isis.

“In Ukraine, as in Syria and Libya, there is a clear lack of strategy and statecraft. The problem is the inability to think things through. Too often it seems to be more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft.”

The House of Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013 and parliamentary authorisation has so far only been given to UK airstrikes against Isis in neighbouring Iraq.

But Cameron and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, made clear they were considering extending the military air campaign to Syria in the wake of the Tunisian beach massacre on 26 June, which claimed 30 British victims among the 38 dead….

RELATED ARTICLES:

General Secretary for Danish Refugee Help: “We face an Armageddon scenario”

New Islamic State coins commemorate eventual conquest of “Rome and America”

Benghazi Witness: U.S. Provided Arms to Muslims Who Killed Americans on 9/11/2012

More Obama.

The only thing more monstrous is the media’s complicity in these treasonous acts — covering up for Obama (thankyouverymuch, Candy Crowley) and insuring his re-election not two months after his betrayal of America in Benghazi.

Benghazi-9.11.12-attack-APMohammad-Hannon-640x480

“Benghazi Witness: U.S. Provided Arms to Jihadists Who Killed Americans in 9/11 Attack,” By y Edwin Mora, Breitbart, August 27, 2015

The Obama administration may have provided the weapons used by some Islamist extremists to kill four Americans at the United States’ compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, according to a Libyan source who told Breitbart News he witnessed the attack first hand.

Breitbart News’s Tera Dahl spoke to the witness who was living near the U.S. compound in Benghazi when the attack took place.

Libya’s al-Qaeda-linked militia group known as the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was reportedly hired by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department to provide security at the Benghazi compound, but failed to so the whole day of the attack, according to the witness.

It was unusual that in the morning of September 11, the brigade was not providing the typical level of security around the U.S. consulate and the ambassador himself, a sign that something was off from the start and a major red flag that there was something suspicious in the works, he added.

Terrorists carried out at least three separate attacks against the Benghazi compound, starting at night on September 11 and carrying into the wee hours of the following day.

Those extremists may be the same ones who were allegedly armed by the Obama administration during the U.S. and NATO-backed uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, who was overthrown and executed in October 2011. Libya has been in a state of chaos since, with jihadist groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) filling a power and security vacuum left by the dissolution of the government.

It was evident from the beginning of the first attack on that fateful September night in 2012 that it was not a protest, the witness told Breitbart News.

About 40 armed extremists, most likely affiliated with al-Qaeda, approached the embassy, he added.

He noted that four or more Americans were evacuated from the compound, “minutes before the first attack,” because they saw the “extremists” coming towards them.

The witness sounded extremely surprised to hear that Amb. Stevens was left behind.

“I didn’t think there was an American left in the embassy,” he said, adding, “I didn’t think for a second that the ambassador was still inside.”

“Sometimes it feels like a cheesy, cheap movie…something like the United States intended for the ambassador to die,” added the Benghazi resident. “They sacrificed him as a scapegoat.”

Consistent with secret intelligence reports obtained by The Washington Times early this year, the Libyan witness said the Obama administration armed Islamist extremists and rebels in 2011 as then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to overthrow Gaddafi.

The United States government and Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was then-working with Islamist extremists and rebels, including the February 17th Brigade, and “even gave them weapons.”

“Libyan officials were deeply concerned in 2011, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, that weapons were being funneled to NATO-backed rebels with ties to al Qaeda, fearing that well-armed insurgents could create a safe haven for terrorists,” the reports obtained by The Washington Times revealed.

Top senior Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat lawmaker distrusted Secretary Clinton’s push for military intervention in Libya so much that they decided to meet with Gaddafi-regime officials themselves.

“In the documents and separately recorded conversations with U.S. emissaries, Libyan officials expressed particular concern that the weapons and training given the rebe

ls would spread throughout the region, in particular turning the city of Benghazi into a future terrorist haven,” noted The Washington Times.

It continued, “Those fears would be realized a little over a year later when a band of jihadist insurgents attacked the State Department diplomatic post in Benghazi and a related CIA compound, killing four Americans…”

According to the witness who spoke to Breitbart News, it was a poorly-kept secret among locals that the U.S. was working with the extremists to take down the Libyan strongman.

“The U.S. thought Gaddafi was a greater threat than the extremists,” he said.

The attacks would eventually result in the deaths of four Americans. U.S. Amb. J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in the attack.

President Obama and his team initially blamed the attack on individuals protesting a film that offended Islam’s Mohammed. Moreover, the Obama administration continued to insist the Benghazi attack was not pre-planned.

The administration was slow to concede that it was a premeditated terrorist attack that had nothing to do with the video, downplaying statements to that effect, sometimes from members of their own team, for months.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PamelaGeller.com. To stay on top of what’s really happening please follow Pamela Geller on Twitter and like her on Facebook here.