Archive for the ‘Barry the Muslim’ Category

Congresswoman and former United States Ambassador to Luxembourg Ann Wagner (R-MO) appeared on The Dana Loesch show and placed the blame, of the stand down order to those that could have offered assistance to Americans under attack, on none other than Barack Obama.

Loesch asked Wagner, “Because you have been an ambassador, you have been overseas with similar responsibilities and similar missions – who gives such an order to stand down? Where does that come from?”
“The President of the United States,” the Missouri congresswoman affirmed.
As top diplomat in Libya Gregory Hicks testified to on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee, “The Libyans that I talked to, and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also, that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory.”
“They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them,” Hicks continued. “And so, in my personal opinion, a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.”
He went on to add, “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced” — around 9:30 that night — “I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
In fact, Hicks suggested that the Libyans would have granted the US permission to fly their planes directly over their airspace. “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced. I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”
Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that personnel “may not have arrived in time to save lives, but at the time the decision was made, the decision was wrong.”
Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a member of the committee also said that “military personnel were ready willing and able, and within proximity, but the Pentagon told them they had no authority and to stand down.”
I wrote back at the end of October of the reports coming out that there were calls for “military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.”
We know from testimony this week that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s statement that “The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over” was not true. They did know. They knew in real time. There was no way they would not have known, but Panetta testified that Obama was simply absent on the night of the Benghazi attacks. In fact, the White House received several emails indicating what was going on and yet Obama would not authorize any help.
While Chris Stevens was appointed as a diplomat to Libya in 2007 under President George W. Bush, he was named ambassador under Barack Obama. Now stop and think about that for a moment. If Obama will just let one of his appointees, a U.S. ambassador, die at the hands of Islamists, how much do you think he cares about American citizens? I’m guessing not too much.
Over and over, this comes back to one person, Barack Hussein Obama. He is the one that over and over in his first days in office had to beat the drum that he was the “Commander-in-chief” and don’t you people forget it! Well, I say Mr. Obama needs to own up to his dereliction of duty, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/congresswoman-benghazi-stand-down-order-came-from-obama/#ixzz2TaKaLQ6Y

As the West’s power diminishes and the sharia spreads, expect these horrible stories to become even more frequent. Any Western girl who goes to a Muslim country is taking her life in her hands. This happened in the moderate UAE.
With Dubai emerging as a major stopover point for long haul journeys, five hundred flights a month will deliver over one million of us to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the next year.

Dubai is being promoted as a luxury high-class paradise in the desert, but the reality is brutally different, as Australian Alicia Gali discovered. Gali took a job in the UAE with one of the world’s biggest hotel chains, Starwood. What happened next makes this story a must-watch for every Australian planning on travelling through the region.

Gali was using her laptop in the hotel’s staff bar when her drink was spiked. She awoke to a nightmare beyond belief: she had been savagely raped by three of her colleagues. Alone and frightened, she took herself to hospital. What Alicia didn’t know is that under the UAE’s strict sharia laws, if the perpetrator does not confess, a rape cannot be convicted without four adult Muslim male witnesses. She was charged with having illicit sex outside marriage, and thrown in a filthy jail cell for eight months.

Vice President Joe Biden swears in CIA Director John Brennan at the White House, March 8, 2013. (David Lienemann/Official …
Oh, dear. This is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted.
Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office—behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America’s top spy—the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.
“There’s one piece of this that I wanted to note for you,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. “Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”
Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
How … symbolic?

A deflection, the Department of defense did it, not us, is the message that Obama parlays, but, which will not fly.

The DOD was directed by the Regime to take the website down, period. Make no mistake, the DOD can do nothing without Presidential approval and is the strawman in this ploy.

Foxnews

By Perry Chiaramonte

The world’s first 3D-printed handgun, The Liberator, has had its liberty taken away by the government.

Plans for the working handgun were posted online Monday by Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, potentially allowing anyone with access to a 3D printer to make a firearm from plastic. The plans, which had been in the works for months, caused alarm among gun control advocates but were seen by some Second Amendment advocates as a breakthrough. More than 100,000 copies of the plans were downloaded before the federal government took the files.

“[Defense Distributed's] files are being removed from public access at the request of the U.S. Department of Defense Trade Controls,” read a banner atop the website. “Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.”

Wilson tells FoxNews.com that he decided to comply to a request by the Pentagon to take down the gun specs from his website while he weighs his legal options.

“They asked that I take it down while they determine if they have the authority to control the info,” he said. “It’s clearly a direct response to everything we did this week. 3D printing is clearly not the best way to make an effective weapon.”

“Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.”
- Defense Distributed website

Wilson says he has complied to most laws on the books and feels that the D.O.D.’s request may be more politically motivated.

“If this is an attempt to control the info from getting out there, it’s clearly a weak one,” he said, adding that the CAD design for the weapon has already spread across the Internet at downloading sites like the Pirate Bay.

Officials from the Department of Defense did not immediately return requests for comment.

All 16 parts of the controversial gun, called the Liberator, are made from a tough, heat-resistant plastic used in products such as musical instruments, kitchen appliances and vehicle bumper bars. Fifteen of the components are made with a 3D printer while one is a non-functional metal part which can be picked up by metal detectors, making it legal under U.S. law. The firing pin is also not made of plastic, though it is easily crafted from a metal nail.

The weapon is designed to fire standard handgun rounds and even features an interchangeable barrel so that it can handle different caliber rounds. The blueprint files were made available online today for download.

Defense Distributed is a not-for-profit group founded by Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas. He said the Liberator project was intended to highlight how technology can render laws and governments all but irrelevant.

“I recognize that this tool might be used to harm people,” Wilson told Forbes. “That’s what it is — it’s a gun. But I don’t think that’s a reason to not put it out there. I think that liberty in the end is a better interest.”

His publishing of the printable blueprints online instantly sparked outrage in the U.S.

Using the file, anyone with access to a 3D printer could theoretically print the gun with no serial number, background check or other regulatory hurdles.

U.S. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., has already called for national legislation to ban 3D-printed guns.

“Security checkpoints, background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser,” Israel said.

“When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago, I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science-fiction,” he added. “Now that this technology is proven, we need to act now to extend the ban on plastic firearms.”

Sky News contributed reporting to this story.

$70,000 Pakistani ad buy blamed obscure anti-Muhammad film

JERUSALEM – As the House Oversight Committee hears from witnesses presenting a chronological timeline that starkly contrasts with initial statements by the Obama administration on the Benghazi attacks, it is instructive to recall how the administration spent $70,000 in taxpayer funds on an ad denouncing an anti-Muhammad film.

The ad aired on Pakistani television amid White House claims that the Benghazi attacks were caused by popular protests against an obscure Muhammad film released on YouTube.

It would later emerge that no such protests took place and that the Obama administration almost immediately had evidence the Benghazi attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The ads reportedly aired on seven Pakistani networks. They also came in response to protests in Pakistan that were reportedly a reaction to the film. However, it was the claim of popular protests in Benghazi at the time that garnered the biggest public reaction from the White House.

The Sept. 19, 2012, ads feature Obama and Clinton making statements against the film in the wake of the Benghazi attacks, which transpired one week prior.

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation of respect, that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Obama says in the ad, which is stamped “paid content.”

Clinton then denies any official U.S. involvement in producing the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

“We absolutely reject its contents,” she says.

The Obama administration blamed the YouTube video for what it claimed were popular protests that engulfed the Benghazi mission.

On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, three days before the ads were released, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attacks. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Rice’s spot on “Face the Nation” was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was pre-planned, predetermined.”

Still, other Obama administration officials made similar claims about the film being behind the Benghazi attacks.

Scores of news reports, video and intelligence evidence that was immediately available to the government had demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility and that the attacks were carried out by jihadists.

The claims about the anti-Muhammad film being behind the Benghazi attacks are also now called into question by a top State Department official who said he knew immediately the attacks were terror strikes, not a protest turned violent, according to interview transcripts released Sunday.

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go,” said Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the No. 2 U.S. official in Libya at the time of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”

According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”

Reacting to Rice’s television interviews blaming the anti-Muhammad film, Hicks stated, “I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day.”

In testimony yesterday, Hicks said he was “stunned,” his “jaw dropped” and he was “embarrassed” when Rice blamed the terror attack on an Internet video.

“The YouTube video was a non-event in Libya,” he stated.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obama-used-taxpayer-funds-in-benghazi-cover-up/#ZkKPwzZetYchcI4e.99

BY Brian Fisher

Somebody has to be the first to say it.
It’s time, for the sake of the security of the United States of America, to immediately suspend Muslim immigration, to preclude Muslims from service in our military and to stop the building of mosques.
(The matters of Muslim military service and the building of mosques will need to be subjects of future columns.)
It should go without saying that I am speaking just for myself here. But these possibilities must be addressed and discussed in a sober fashion. The reality is that we will wind up doing these three things out of necessity if we do not do them out of wisdom. We need to make these adjustments before it’s too late rather than after it’s too late.
We should suspend Muslim immigration into the United States immediately. Why? Because Muslims bring with them a totalitarian ideology that calls for the submission of the United States to Islam and Sharia law.
Pew released its findings yesterday on its worldwide survey of Muslims, and revealed that two-thirds of Middle Eastern Muslims believe in the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to Christianity, and one-third believe in suicide bombings. This is not a religion of peace or liberty. Every tenet of Islam is fundamentally, irreversibly, subversively and implacably hostile to every value we cherish in America.
Muslim immigrants bring with them a totalitarian ideology whose holy book calls for the followers of Allah to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (Sura 9:5). The more devout a Muslim becomes, the more likely he is to obey such a command, as Tamerlan Tsarnaev illustrates, and the more of a threat he becomes to the security of the United States and the safety of the American people.
When I first began calling for an end to Muslim immigration in 2009, I was virtually a lone voice crying in the wilderness. But Andy McCarthy has since called for the suspension of immigration from Muslim majority nations, and Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy has called for precluding “shariah-adherent Muslims” from our shores, in a fashion similar to our post WWII ban on immigrants who adhered to communist ideology.
Since the Boston Muslim Massacre, Laura Ingraham has called for a ban on Muslim immigration, and more significantly, John McCain just yesterday suggested restrictions on immigration from countries with a “significant influence of radical Islamic extremism.” Both Marco Rubio and Rand Paul have openly called for considering the suspension of student visas to Muslim males.
Suspending Muslim immigration to the United States is an idea whose time has come.
Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, based on Europe’s bitter experience with virtually unrestricted Muslim immigration, has been calling for this for years, and imploring America to wake up and small the Sharia before we become we seal our doom.
Of course, the majority of Muslim immigrants do not want to kill us, but they are not the Muslims we have to worry about. The problem is we have no way of distinguishing the Muslims we do have to worry about from the ones we don’t. And we can’t watch them all.
Dzokhar Tsarnaev is a case in point. All of his friends and classmates said he was quiet, fun, one of us, and so forth. They all expressed shock that he went jihad on Americans. The only way to have prevented him from participating in the Boston Muslim Massacre would have been not to allow him in the country in the first place.
While this may seem unfair to Muslims who have no hostile intentions toward us, that is not our fault. The blame for such a blanket policy lies with the Muslims who do have hostile intentions toward us and have been responsible for no less than 55 terrorist attempts on our soil since 9/11. If friendly Muslims are looking for someone to blame for being unable to enter the U.S., that is where their finger should point.
Is banning Muslim immigration constitutional? Of course it is. No one has a right, constitutional or otherwise, to immigrate to the United States. In our system of government, immigration rules are the exclusive province of Congress. One of its express powers of action, as set forth in Article I, Section 8, is “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), (Mandel was a Marxist ideologue) the Supreme Court affirmed that “the power to exclude aliens is ‘inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers – a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government’ . . . .The Court without exception has sustained Congress’ ‘plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden’…[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens’…The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.” (Emphasis mine.)
Bottom line: Congress can ban Muslim immigration if it wants to. And it should.

Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/05/suspend-muslim-immigration-muslim-military-service-building-of-mosques/#ixzz2SQ1ALOgD