Friday, August 9, 2013
The brief I filed for Members of Congress makes this argument, as does Fisher’s brief for 23 states. Similar arguments regarding this point, or the related argument that courts are not able to draw lines telling citizens what they can and cannot say during prayers, are also made by briefs for constitutional scholars, theologians, Orthodox Jews, and many others.
The brief I filed for Members of Congress makes this argument, as does
Fisher’s brief for 23 states. Similar arguments regarding this point, or
the related argument that courts are not able to draw lines telling
citizens what they can and cannot say during prayers, are also made by
briefs for constitutional scholars, theologians, Orthodox Jews, and many others.
Obama Admits to Muslim Faith
Obama Admits to Muslim Faith
Oh, my. Our mainstream media seems to be ignoring their job again…..Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs apparently has to do the dirty work for them. It seems that when nobody was looking (or reporting), the Egyptian Prime Minister of Egypt went on TV and told of an interesting exchange that he had with Barack Obama…
“There was a recent “Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the “Round Table Show” that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.“
This has been verified in the May 2010 issue of “Israel Today” in an article titled “Obama, a ‘Strategic Catastrophe,’” by Aviel Schneider:
“The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.”
The author continues: “That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.“
It is presumed that the meeting between Obama and Gheit took place in January, 2010, when Gheit was visiting Washington DC . He was in town to convene with Hillary Clinton regarding MidEast Peace Talks on January 8, 2010.
So is Barack a Muslim or isn’t he?…..
Here’s what’s interesting. Barack attended school in Indonesia under the name Barry Soetoro when he was young. His religion was listed officially on school documents as “Islam.” At some point, when he was a young adult, he started to refer to himself as Barack Hussein Obama again.
He must have been proud of the name or he wouldn’t have changed back, right?
Yet, during the Presidential campaign, it was considered “racist” to use the name “Hussein” when saying Barack’s name. Why? Could it be that he wanted to distance himself from his Muslim name, knowing that America was not ready to elect a president with Islamic roots?
He’s never explained.
If Barack has denounced his Islamic faith, as he claims, then he is in danger for his life because Sharia Law states that anyone who leaves the Islamic faith is considered an “apostate”- and could face grave consequences. An article in the Christian Science Monitor explains it this way: “There are two types of apostates. The first type is murtad milli, one who converted to Islam and later renounced the faith. The second, and most egregious, type is murtad fitri. It refers to a person born of a Muslim father who renounces his birthright.
According to Islamic jurisprudence, children of a Muslim father – even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama’s father, and irrespective of the mother’s faith – are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.”
Those who leave the Islamic religion face death threats.
Does Obama seem frightened of those in the Middle East when he visits there? If he were a true “apostate”, a man who had left Islam, you would assume that we’d see extra security when Obama visits Islamic countries overseas. Instead we see Obama bowing to a Saudi Prince, quoting from the Koran in Cairo, placating the Palestinians, and turning his back on Netanyahu and the Jews time and time again. He’s gone out of his way to hire more Muslims to his administration, to proclaim that the United States is NOT a Christian Nation, to ignore the Islamic connection to the Fort Hood massacre, to handle Muslim terrorists from Gitmo with kid gloves, and to downplay the “terrorism” involved in the thwarted attacks by the panty bomber and the NYC car bomb.
Is he doing this because he is afraid for his life or because he is still sympathetic to the religion of Islam?
And why is he telling Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit that he is still a Muslim and will show the Muslim world what he will do with Israel in due time?
Why are we now promising $400 Million to the Palestinians, money we have to borrow from China, when there is no guarantee that the money won’t be used for weapons against Israel by the terrorist government, Hamas? Why are we joining with Turkey and supporting a UN inquiry into the flotilla incident when it seems clear through reports and film footage that Israel had every right to defend itself and protect its blockade?
Who is the real Barack Hussein Obama?
And 18 months into his presidency, why don’t we know?
The media is to blame, folks. They have stopped investigating and started worshiping at the altar of our President. They don’t seem to understand how important it is for this country to keep Sharia Law at bay. If Obama is a Muslim and is pushing a Muslim agenda, then the citizens of the United States have a right to know.
If Gheit is lying about his exchange with Obama, then wouldn’t you think that Obama would like to clear up the lies?
And if he’s not a Muslim, then why is he acting like one?
lsm
Congress, States, and Even Obama's DOJ Rally to Prayer-Givers' Defense
Congress, States, and Even Obama's DOJ Rally to Prayer-Givers' Defense
the only reason why is he is islamic he must pray 5 times a day
Congress, half of the states across the nation, and many others are rallying to defend public prayer in a major case at the U.S. Supreme Court. Even the Obama administration weighed in with a surprising legal brief in what is shaping up to be a major religious-liberty case—and could even become the biggest religious-liberty win in over half a century.
This is an update to our earlier report on Town of Greece v. Galloway, regarding whether prayers at government events are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Although the Supreme Court upheld the practice of “legislative prayer” in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers, and this town in western New York allows any citizen to volunteer to pray—even a local witch and an atheist—the Second Circuit appeals court struck down the practice because too many Christians volunteered, many of whom mentioned Jesus during their prayers.Now the first briefs have been filed. Tom Hungar of Gibson Dunn is lead counsel in this Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) case; his excellent brief is what you would expect from someone as accomplished as Hungar, as he prepares to argue for his 26th time before the Supreme Court.
A total of 25 amicus briefs (“friend of the court” briefs) were filed supporting ADF and the town of Greece. Among them is a brief by Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher on behalf of 23 states nationwide, a brief by Steffen Johnson representing 34 U.S. Senators, and the brief that I authored on behalf of 85 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Then came a welcome surprise for those on side of Greece in the case when Solicitor General Don Verrilli filed a brief for the United States strongly supporting the town and opposing liberal arguments that courts should bar “sectarian” references such as mentioning Jesus or quoting the Bible.
This is ironic, in that President Obama’s typical judicial nominees are “separationists,” who take a very restrictive view that the Establishment Clause does not allow “sectarian” prayers and allows courts to purge the public square of most traditional references to religious faith. But Verrilli’s brief takes a very different position, and with its filing, it becomes extremely likely that the prayer-givers will prevail in this case before the Supreme Court.
The real question will be how broad the Court goes. The Hungar/ADF brief thoroughly discusses how the lower court in this case (and a few others) got this case wrong by applying the “endorsement test”—a standard the Supreme Court adopted in 1989, saying that government action involving religion is unconstitutional if it gives someone the impression that government is endorsing religion.
This was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s pet theory on religious liberty, and is completely divorced from the First Amendment’s original meaning and 200 years of precedent. The endorsement test has been a train wreck since the Court narrowly adopted it by a 5-4 vote, setting a very hostile obstacle in the way of countless peaceful and longstanding expressions of faith and history.
This is why many of the briefs filed in this case encourage the Supreme Court to take this opportunity to overrule the endorsement test. These briefs argue it should be replaced by the “coercion test”—under which the Constitution does not allow the government to coerce any citizen to participate in a religious activity that violates their conscience, or officially create a national religion (such as passing a law declaring that we are a Southern Baptist nation). So long as there is no coercion, the First Amendment allows all manner of peaceful expressions and passive displays of faith in the public square.
The brief I filed for Members of Congress makes this argument, as does Fisher’s brief for 23 states. Similar arguments regarding this point, or the related argument that courts are not able to draw lines telling citizens what they can and cannot say during prayers, are also made by briefs for constitutional scholars, theologians, Orthodox Jews, and many others.
This is the biggest religious-liberty case to go before the Supreme Court in years. If the Court agrees on a majority opinion siding with the town and prayer-givers, it will be the biggest religious-liberty win in at least 20 years. And if the Court goes the distance and returns the Establishment Clause to the coercion standard that was the rule under the Constitution for most of America’s history, this will be the biggest religious-liberty victory in at least half a century.
This is a case worth watching. Oral arguments will be in November or December, with a decision by next July.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.
EDITORIAL: Islamic flag over the White House Radical Muslims want America ruled by Shariah
EDITORIAL: Islamic flag over the White House
Radical Muslims want America ruled by Shariah
President Barack Obama speaks at a rally at the University of Wisconsin ... more >
Islamists say the Koran is destined to rule America. In fact, the Muslim takeover of the White House is not just an unfolding action plan but a directive from Muhammad himself.
In an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” British radical Muslim activist Anjem Choudary made clear what he and his Islamist brothers have planned for the West. “We do believe, as Muslims, the East and the West will one day be governed by the Shariah,” he said. “Indeed, we believe that one day, the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.” He then quoted a hadith, or saying of Muhammad, as related by 10th-century Muslim scholar Al-Tabarani, that “the final hour will not come until Muslims conquer the White House.” Another version of the saying goes, “A small portion of Muslims will rise and conquer the White House.”
Many Americans believe this conquest is well underway, if not already secretly completed. President Obama was concerned enough about perceptions of his faith to address the question at one of his recent “backyard discussions” in New Mexico. Mr. Obama said he is “a Christian by choice,” which may or may not assuage the concerns of those who believe he is a Muslim by birth.
The OIC is currently campaigning to have so-called “Islamophobia” recognized by the international community as a form of racism prosecutable under international law. This would include any expression the Islamists find offensive, which in practice would amount to a global gag order on any critical discussion of Islam. Last year, the Obama administration co-sponsored with Egypt a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution against “racial and religious stereotyping,” which offered cover to the Islamists in their drive to put any criticism of their religion off limits.
The leading countries in the OIC are among the least religiously tolerant in the world. In most cases, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others may not freely practice their faith, and under Koranic law, converts from Islam face the death penalty. The OIC has stated that any freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that conflict with Shariah do not apply to its members. If this is the type of cooperation the Obama administration is seeking to promote with Islam, then the “final hour” draws closer still. Mr. Obama said Jesus Christ died for his sins, but the United States continues to suffer for the president’s mistakes.
In an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” British radical Muslim activist Anjem Choudary made clear what he and his Islamist brothers have planned for the West. “We do believe, as Muslims, the East and the West will one day be governed by the Shariah,” he said. “Indeed, we believe that one day, the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.” He then quoted a hadith, or saying of Muhammad, as related by 10th-century Muslim scholar Al-Tabarani, that “the final hour will not come until Muslims conquer the White House.” Another version of the saying goes, “A small portion of Muslims will rise and conquer the White House.”
Many Americans believe this conquest is well underway, if not already secretly completed. President Obama was concerned enough about perceptions of his faith to address the question at one of his recent “backyard discussions” in New Mexico. Mr. Obama said he is “a Christian by choice,” which may or may not assuage the concerns of those who believe he is a Muslim by birth.
The
president’s declaration of faith may not help with his vaunted outreach
to the global Muslim community. A Gallup poll released last week showed
that current approval of U.S.
leadership in countries in the Middle East and North Africa is “similar
or lower than what it was in 2008,” in some cases “erasing gains seen
after the transition from the Bush administration to the Obama administration.”
In no country was the approval rating above 30 percent. It’s fair to
conclude that this experiment in engagement with Islam has failed.
As Mr. Choudary indicated, Islamist “engagement” with the United States is a holy obligation. Last week, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),
the leading proponent of global Shariah law, held a conference on
“Islam and Muslims in America” in cooperation with the American Islamic
College in Chicago. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called on Muslims in the United States to become involved in all aspects of American life, including local and national politics. The Obama administration gave its imprimatur to the gathering by sending its own small portion, including special envoy to the OIC,
Rashad Hussain, Dalia Mogahed who works with the Office of Faith-Based
and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Farah Pandith, the State Department’s
special representative to Muslim communities.The OIC is currently campaigning to have so-called “Islamophobia” recognized by the international community as a form of racism prosecutable under international law. This would include any expression the Islamists find offensive, which in practice would amount to a global gag order on any critical discussion of Islam. Last year, the Obama administration co-sponsored with Egypt a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution against “racial and religious stereotyping,” which offered cover to the Islamists in their drive to put any criticism of their religion off limits.
The leading countries in the OIC are among the least religiously tolerant in the world. In most cases, Christians, Jews, Hindus and others may not freely practice their faith, and under Koranic law, converts from Islam face the death penalty. The OIC has stated that any freedoms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that conflict with Shariah do not apply to its members. If this is the type of cooperation the Obama administration is seeking to promote with Islam, then the “final hour” draws closer still. Mr. Obama said Jesus Christ died for his sins, but the United States continues to suffer for the president’s mistakes.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/4/islamic-flag-over-the-white-house/#ixzz2bVz4djg2
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
OBAMA REWARD TO ISLAMIC TERRORIST WHO KILLED Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens HE GAVE THEM A WALL MART AWESOME ISLAMIC TERRORIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE DONT THINK I DONT KNOW HOW YOU GAVE OUR WHITE HOUSE TO ISLAM
A Wal-Mart for Libya?
By: John Carney | Senior Editor, CNBC.com
Stan Honda | AFP | Getty Images
Former US President Bill Clinton during the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in September 2008 in New York.
On Sunday, however, former President Bill Clinton asked the chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores if he would open a store in Libya.
"If the new president of Libya asked you to open a store in Tripoli, would you consider it?" Clinton asked CEO Mike Duke at the opening panel of the Clinton Global Initiative.
The Wal-Mart CEO said that the company does not currently have any stores in the Middle East or North Africa, although it does have stores in South Africa and fourteen other sub-Saharan African nations.
What followed next was quite interesting, because it exposed a gap between the way Clinton thinks and the way Duke thinks about business expansion.
Clinton’s question, which he reformulated a few moments later to be about any country’s president calling on Wal-Mart to open stores, packs in an assumption about the centrality of government’s role in business decisions. For Clinton, government really is the starting place. It’s not even a short jump from his Libya question to Obama’s infamous “you didn’t build that” claim. (More:Hillary Clinton: Raise Taxes on the Rich Everywhere)
Clinton described at length an attempt to construct something called “political risk insurance” that would promote business expansion in areas of politicial instability. Government or a government-linked financial institution would, under this scheme, underwrite the political risks of private, profit-seeking companies expanding into risky areas. Sort of Fannie Mae for global capitalism.
Perhaps it’s not surprising that Clinton thinks of business expansion as beginning with a phone call from a national president, but that is not the way Duke thinks about it. His answer began by explaining that Wal-Mart begins thinking about where to open a store by looking to see where there might be customers who are “under-served” by traditional retailers. In short, Wal-Mart thinks first about business opportunity questions: would market demand support a new store, and what kind of competition is in place? (More:Romney and Obama Will Have a Close Call)
The other panel members were U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Queen Rania of Jordan and World Bank President Jim Yong Kim. Duke was the only businessman on the panel.
Clinton’s next question was about the need to think holistically about education and economics. He asked whether the United Nations, the World Bank and other international institutions should be trying to design a “21st century education and economy system where “you don’t have education over here and economy over there—but you ask them to do it together.”
This wasn’t the way Duke talked about things. Instead, he talked very specifically about Wal-Mart doing “job training” for employees it actually wants to hire. Wal-Mart’s CEO isn’t designing a "21st Century System"—it is training the workers it needs for its stores.
By the way, Duke never answered Clinton’s question about a store in Libya.
Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty
Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty
A picture shows a burnt building at the US
consulate compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi on September
13, 2012 following an attack late on September 11 in which the US
ambassador to Libya and three other US nationals were killed. (Image
credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
The Obama Administration received requests for additional security from the Embassy and the Ambassador himself as early as February. An embassy cable on June 25 expressed fear of rising Islamic extremism in eastern Libya around Benghazi, and noted that the black flag of Al-Qaeda “has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities.” On August 2, Ambassador Stevens sent a cable requesting 11 additional body guards, noting “Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on to provide a safe and secure environment for the diplomatic mission of outreach,”
But these requests for additional security were repeatedly denied, as security officials testified before Chairman Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee earlier this month. Obama and his allies did not want a show of American force in the country that would offend Muslim sensibilities. They wanted to rely instead on the host country’s security that the embassy was telling them was inadequate and could not be depended upon.
As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, the Obama Administration should have known that more security was necessary to protect diplomatic missions in the increasingly hostile country, especially on that sensitive date. But they did just the opposite, reducing security. The Wall Street Journal reported on October 10 that the Administration removed a well armed, 16 member, security detail from Libya in August, to be replaced by the Libyan security personnel that Ambassador Stevens had just told them could not be relied upon.
Based on documents released by the House Oversight Committee, the day of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, September 11, the White House situation room starts receiving emails at about 1 pm that the mission is under hostile surveillance. The only response was that the Pentagon sends a drone armed with a video camera so that everyone in Washington can see what transpires in real time, as it happens, at the White House, at the State Department, at the Pentagon, at the CIA.
The drone documents no crowds protesting any video. But at 4 pm Washington receives an email from the Benghazi mission that it is under military style attack. Subject: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The email states,
“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”The attack was then fed to all of them, the White House, the Pentagon, the State Dept., the CIA, through live video feed. A later email that day reported, “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.” The feed showed no protest of any supposedly offensive You Tube video.
Just one hour flight time away were U.S. Air Force bases that could have been rousted in minutes to send fighter planes and attack helicopters that could have routed the attackers in minutes of fighting. As Investors Business Daily editorialized on October 24, “Within an hour’s flight time from Libya, at the large naval air station in Sigonella, Italy, and at bases in nearby Aviano and Souda Bay, were fighters and AC 130 gunships that can be extremely effective in dispersing crowds or responding to a terrorist assault.” But the order for the rescue never came. Maybe because Barack Obama did not want to offend Muslim sensibilities by such a show of force.
The IBD editorial summarized the situation by the next morning as follows:
“When President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stepped into the Rose Garden the morning of September 12, they likely knew [correction: they surely knew] the attack on our Benghazi consulate the day before was organized by terrorists. They knew because they were privy to a flurry of emails among administration officials discussing the attack in real time. Yet they said nothing about what they knew and, worse, had done nothing to mount a rescue despite American forces being less than an hour away during the seven hour blitz. According to Fox News, 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. These people work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials.”By then everyone knew how the battle of Benghazi had turned out. The United States Ambassador to Libya, the personal representative of President Barack Obama, had been tortured, sodomized, dragged bloody through the streets of Benghazi, and murdered. Chris Stevens, along with the two Marines and another who were murdered along with him, had volunteered to serve his country. But under the leadership of Barack Obama, that is how his service ended.
By the evening of that next day, Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama was jetting off to a campaign fundraiser in Las Vegas, followed by parties with Jay-Z and Beyonce. Chris Stevens was already out of sight, out of mind. Except that Commander Obama could not wash off the stench of dereliction of duty, duty to far more worthy American warriors and servicemen, dereliction in failing to authorize worthy security for those who were sent in harms way under his leadership, and to order a timely rescue when he could. For such failure, any commander serving under the commander-in-chief should be court martialed. But the President expects you to give him four more years of such “leadership.”
The Truth-Challenged President
But the saga did not end there for the American people. The rest of us had to endure the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and UN Ambassador “explaining” to us that what really happened was that those irascible Muslims were all incited out of their minds by a previously unseen, unheard of You Tube video trailer by an unknown American immigrant, a movie that was never made outside the trailer advertising it, in Fool on the Hill style. Their protest had just got out of hand, you see.
Except they all knew when they were saying these very words that they were untrue. They were precisely calculated to deceive and to mislead. Yet there was our President Obama telling this mendacious fairy tale to the entire world at the U.N. And there was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice telling the American people the same concocted fairy tale. Typical Progressives, they were so certain that they could easily buffalo a majority of their countrymen, no smarter than the representative Homer Simpson.
An incredulous IBD editorialized, “How could emails be sent to the White House Situation Room in real time describing a terrorist attack on sovereign U.S. territory in which four Americans were killed as it happened, and as a drone flew overhead recording the truth of the carnage, and the President and Secretary of State insist that it was all about a video and there was no evidence to the contrary.”
Or as Glenn Beck (yes Glenn Beck, and you can go read some New York Times lying propaganda if you don’t like it), summarized at his website The Blaze,
“The president of the United States of America, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State have all lied to you. They have lied to you and said this might be a video; we don’t have all the information; the information is still sketchy; it’s confusing. No. We now have the documents. We now have the documents that came into the situation room saying there’s an attack; they’re watching. Then we have the documents that we have a live video feed in the situation room, so they could see that there was no protest.”How Clueless Does He Think We Are?
But the lies did not end even there. The President then went into a nationally televised debate with GOP nominee Mitt Romney, and before the whole country, expected to pull off another lie denying that he had lied, indeed, denying that what the entire country had just seen and heard, from him, from his Secretary of State, from his U.N. Ambassador, had even just happened.
Obama explained at the debate, “The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
An exasperated Mitt Romney, shocked at the brazenness of this Soviet style propaganda, exclaimed, “I think interesting the President just said something which – which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said this was an act of terror.” “That’s what I said,” Obama lied in response. Romney leaped at the brazen discrepancy with reality, saying “I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” Obama replied, “Get the transcript.”
It was a transparently pre-arranged, Soviet propaganda style, ambush that the supposed moderator Candy Crowley then jumped in to say, “He did in fact sir.” Obama then brazenly demonstrated his mastery over the Democrat Party controlled media, outright ordering right there before the American people, “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?” Crowley stood at attention, saluted, and “reported”: “He did call it an act of terror.”
This was so transparently pre-arranged because the transcript of the next day’s Rose Garden ceremony, in fact, does not report what Obama fantasized and Crowley “reported.” The transcript in plain black and white shows that Obama was not even talking about Benghazi when he mentioned terror, but about terrorism more generally, as displayed on 9/11. Do you see precisely the further “calculated deception?”
Romney alone among the three, ever sharp as a tack, and fully on top of the facts, persisted in recalling the truth: “The Administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction….It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group.”
Obama again interrupted and appealed to his plant for a further bailout, calling out, “Candy?” But Romney maintained his control and his ever classy demeanor, and unruffled by the blatant, Soviet style propaganda he was enduring, cut off this interruption, “Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous…” But Obama interrupted again, appealing further for help, “Candy, I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy.” Crowley took the cue again from the Boss, “I know you, absolutely, but I want to move you on….” A relieved Obama responded with obvious joy, “OK. I’m happy to do that too.”
This spectacle of the President lying about his own lies to a national debate audience is unprecedented in American politics. It shows an absurdly haughty attitude, and an arrogant disrespect for the intelligence and awareness of the American people. But an Obama supporter calling into the Glenn Beck radio program indicated that Obama may be on to something after all. When Beck asked her, “Where is Benghazi?” she responded, “He is at Walmart.”
CENT WHEN DOES OBAMA get to pick who would be the presidency of the Central Bank
Obama: Declaration of the name of the candidate for the presidency of the "Fed" in the fall
| Seventh Day |
President Barack Obama said on Friday that Lawrence Summers and Janet
Yellen both a high degree of efficiency of the Presidency of the Council
of the Federal Reserve (Fed), but said he was considering other names
for this position extreme importance.
Obama told a press conference "Frankly, I think that Larry Summers and
Janet Yellen candidates on a high degree of efficiency, there are other
candidates on the high degree of efficiency also," he said, adding that
the decision will be made in the autumn of this year.
U.S. President said, that the selection of a candidate for the
presidency of the Central Bank is certainly one of the most important
economic decisions for the rest of ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)