Thread: Sick Video: Obama Has Islamic Iman Curse Dead Soldiers at Their Memorial Service (Sea

Sick Video: Obama Has Islamic Iman Curse Dead Soldiers at Their Memorial Service (Seal Team VI)


Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:44






(Before It's News)


Watch this Video closely at the 17 to 24 minutes mark (watch it all too).

Words cannot describe what you as an American will feel.

What should be done about this?



TrentoVision 5.9.13 - Navy SEAL Extortion 17 EXPOSED - Obama Failures

Published on May 9, 2013
May 9, Thursday 10:00 AM, National Press Club, Washington, DC:

Watch these Navy SEAL Team VI families and other family members as they reveal the Obama Administrations culpability in death of their sons in the fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan following the successful raid on bin Laden's compound. This is a powerful and riveting briefing thatincluded some of America's most significant military leaders.





This is a Video of the press conference today. The families released Video on how Obama’s military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes.
This cleric disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah.
A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” was shown this morning with a certified translation.
Critical Reads: More News Mainstream Media Chooses To Ignore By Josey Wales, Click Here!




Related Stories

• One Hundred Articles Of Impeachment Against Obama
• Blow-by-Blow: How Obama & Hillary Left Americans to Die
• Here is a list of Anti Gun Companies you should know about
• Executive Order — Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information
• Obama Administration Launches Competition for Three New Manufacturing Innovation Institutes
• Obama Administration Releases Historic Open Data Rules to Enhance Government Efficiency and Fuel Economic Growth
• Readout of the President’s Meeting with Electric Utility CEOs and their Trade Associations
• Statement by the Press Secretary on the Visit of Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom
• President Obama Nominates Joseph W. Nega and Michael B. Thornton to the United States Tax Court
• Readout of the President’s Meeting With Asian American and Pacific Islander National Leaders

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/...Fzimbra%2Fmail

Benghazi: Protecting The Throne – Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney

Thursday, May 9, 2013 13:08




0



(Before It's News)

Michael Connelly

As a result of the May 8^th House of Representatives Committee hearing on the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya three chilling conclusions can be drawn. First, the four Americans who were killed were abandoned by the very government they so bravely served. Days prior to the attack Ambassador Chris Stevens and others on his staff pointed out to the State Department that the security situation in Libya was deteriorating. There had already been a car bomb attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and an attempt had been made on the life of the British ambassador. Therefore, Ambassador Stevens wanted an increase in security personnel.
Yet, despite these reports and the fact that the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 was rapidly approaching these requests were denied and orders were issued actually reducing the number of security personnel already assigned to the Ambassador. Then when the attacks began on September 11^th, there is clear evidence that there were American military assets in the area, including a four man special opts team in Tripoli, that could have been used to break up the assault and save American lives. Instead of immediately deploying these assets, someone in the Obama administration ordered a stand down and no help was provided to the Ambassador and his embattled staff at the Consulate.
The second conclusion that can be clearly drawn is that the U.S. government knew from the beginning of the assault that this was a coordinated terrorist attack yet tried to hide this fact from the public for days. Instead of acknowledging that we had been struck by Jihadists once again on 9/11 administration officials, including the President and Secretary of State, claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration resulting from an obscure You Tube video critical of the prophet Mohammed that the demonstration somehow evolved into bloodshed. This was claimed despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There are still more questions than answers and there will be more hearings, but the final inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this initial hearing is that the Administration, the vast majority of the Democrats in Congress, and most of the mainstream media don’t want the American people to know the truth. Their only interest is in protecting King Obama and his throne, and protecting his possible successor, Hilary Clinton. Instead of asking pertinent The Democrats on the committee spent most of their time attacking the Republicans and the valiant whistleblowers.
Indeed, these elected representatives of “we the people” drew their swords and locked their shields together in order to form a bulwark between the truth and the American people. This is a direct violation of their oath of office where they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers carefully crafted the Constitution to set up a limited Federal government with three separate, but equal branches that would provide checks and balances to keep one branch from becoming too powerful and plunging our nation into tyranny. By refusing to rein in the excesses of the Executive Branch of government these so called “lawmakers” are failing to do what they are tasked to do by the Constitution. This is not only an impeachable offense, but is subject to criminal penalties under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.
As for the members of the national news media, they take no such oath but I contend that they are still bound by the duties imposed on them by the Constitution. The First Amendment provides for freedom of the press and the founding fathers placed it in the Constitution for a specific reason. They wanted a free press to be a watch dog over the Federal government to keep it from becoming tyrannical, lying to the American people, and taking away our God given freedoms. By refusing to dig for the truth about Benghazi and in fact assisting the Administration in the cover up much of the mainstream media has become nothing more than a propaganda forum for the President and his allies. They are no longer the standard bearers for a free press, but the disciples of tyranny.
It is time for us to take back our country and hold the enemies of our Constitution accountable for their actions.
Michael Connelly
mrobertc@hotmail.com
Michael Connelly blog
www.usjf.net
Constitutional Law Alliance
Welcome to my website and Blog. I am a U.S. Army veteran, a Constitutional attorney, Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation, and a published author, freelance writer, and teacher. I am the author of four books, “Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch”, “The Mortarmen“, a story about my father’s unit in WW II; my novel, ”Amayehli: A Story of America” and the newly released “America’s Livliest Ghosts” In addition, I have an affordable, pocket size booklet on the Constitution called “Our Constitution” that is receiving great reviews. You can read more about these books by going to the pages on each book on this website.
You may also want to check out my radio talk show that airs every Wednesday at 4:00 Eastern. Here is the website containing the link:http://www.americaswebradio.com/showpages/OurConstitution.php
I have been named the new Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation that works on Constitutional law cases. It’s website is www.usjf.net.
I have recently formed a non profit corporation named the Constitutional Law Alliance (CLA).To find out more about the the CLA and the type of projects we are working on go to the webite at www.constitution.jigsy.com. You will see information about a booklet I have written titled ”Our Constitution” and an online course I am teaching titled “Constitutional Law: Bill of Rights.” You can learn more about the course and sign up to take it at: http://libertyfirstclass.com/
The Blog you see below is designed to deal with the challenges to our Constitutional rights that are being made almost daily. I will try to post articles frequently and your comments are welcome.
New feature! I have added a new feature to my blog. I will be placing Legislative Alerts on the blog to notify you of specific pieces of legislation pending in Congress that contain direct threats to our Constitution.
I am available to speak on Constitutional issues to groups both large and small. To request a speaking engagement email me at mrobertc@hotmail.com
Check out my new ‘Our Constitution” video on You Tube. It is in two parts:
Our Constitution, Part 1
Our Constitution, Part 2

http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/2...Fzimbra%2Fmail

Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) Calls Benghazi Hearing “the tip of the iceberg”

Roger Aronoff — May 9, 2013
No comments | Printer Friendly





2



Revelations at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearings in Congress were “just the tip of the iceberg,” said Admiral James Lyons (Ret.). I caught up with Admiral Lyons, the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, at a press conference in Washington today, and asked him a few questions.
“We failed to protect those Americans who were under attack. There’s no other way to describe it,” said Lyons. Referring to the Obama administration’s original story that it was the anti-Islam video that sparked a demonstration, which led to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Lyons said, “As Richard Nixon found out, you don’t lie to the American public. Hopefully that theme will be picked up and carried on, and those that were perpetuating the lie will be held accountable. Resignation does come to mind.”
Back in January, I had a much longer discussion with the retired admiral, about Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s testimony and question, “What difference does it make?,” the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Law of the Sea Treaty and much more. Adm. Lyons is a national treasure who candidly speaks his mind.



Published on May 10, 2013
Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) Calls Benghazi Hearing "the tip of the iceberg"
By Roger Aronoff

Revelations at Wednesday's Benghazi hearings in Congress were "just the tip of the iceberg," said Admiral James Lyons (Ret.). I caught up with Admiral Lyons, the former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, at a press conference in Washington today, and asked him a few questions. "We failed to protect those Americans who were under attack. There's no other way to describe it," said Lyons. Referring to the Obama administration's original story that it was the anti-Islam video that sparked a demonstration, which led to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Lyons said, "As Richard Nixon found out, you don't lie to the American public. Hopefully that theme will be picked up and carried on, and those that were perpetuating the lie will be held accountable. Resignation does come to mind."

Back in January, I had a much longer discussion with the retired admiral, about Benghazi, Hillary Clinton's testimony and question, "What difference does it make?," the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Law of the Sea Treaty and much more. Adm. Lyons is a national treasure who candidly speaks his mind.


From the AIM Blogs
NYT Public Editor Says Fox News Has Helped Foment Criticism of Times’ Benghazi Coverage
By Don Irvine | May 9, 2013

Guest Columns
The MSM and Benghazi: Will Their Coverage Harm Obama Administration? (Updated)
By Ron Radosh | May 10, 2013
We are in the midst of an unfolding and growing scandal, which even the New York Times has been forced to admit in an online report which raises serious doubts about the administration’s spin after the embassy attack. Indeed, they emphasized in their headline the demotion of Gregory Hicks for daring to tell the truth — [...]

Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers
By Michelle Malkin | May 9, 2013
It’s on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama’s apologists are gearing up for battle. Put on your hip-waders. Grab those tar buckets. Get ready for Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers. Capitol Hill hearings this week on the deadly 9/11 consulate attack by jihadists will feature [...]

AIM Newswire
To Infinity, and Beyond? NASA paying Russia $70 million per astronaut

Google Tax gains momentum as Google under scrutiny

Pakistan Taliban bomb goes off at allies’ rally; shocks Pakistanis


http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/ad...1b01-224224701



Is anyone out there awake yet????

Obama Gave Benghazi Stand Down Order: Congresswoman Ann Wagner



According to Congresswoman Ann Wagner from Missouri on the Dana Show (video below) in comments that have gone almost completely un-noticed by the mainstream media (wonder why?!), ONLY Barack Obama could have given the Benghazi stand down order. Will Barack Obama NOW be held responsible for the deaths of the American citizens killed there? The fact that ONLY Obama could have given the stand down order is confirmed in the 2nd video below with Lt. Gen. McInerney, who claims that Obama and our top leaders should all be held in ‘dereliction of duty’ for their inaction on 9/11 in Benghazi.

Congresswoman Ann Wagner was asked by talk show host Dana Loesch, “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,” responded Wagner.

The White House has been scrambling to avoid the question of who gave the stand down order ever since whistleblower Greg Hicks, who was number two to Ambassador Chris Stevens, testified that US special forces were ready to board a plane in Tripoli but were prevented from coming to the aid of those under assault inside the consulate.






http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/...rticalresponse

Nothing to see here: media’s Benghazi bias

Video at link below



http://conservative50plus.com/blog/n...b18c3b-3065713

Rubio On Benghazi Talking Points: Someone In Admin. Should Have Said “This Is Wrong”




http://conservative50plus.com/blog/r...b18c3b-3065713


Now this fool Rubio is trying to get into the talking points...aaaahhhh where was he when Benghazi was going on, Silent. Did he make a statement then??? NOOOOOOO!!!!! TO little to late Rubio all you want to do is push your amnesty on to a very angry public, like that is gonna work!!!

Friday, 10 May 2013 15:53 Report Says al-Qaeda, CIA Warnings Deleted From Benghazi Talking Points

Written by Jack Kenny








References to al-Qaeda and to CIA warnings of terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility there were deleted from the now famous "talking points" delivered to Congress and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, ABC News reported Friday.

The report cites 12 different versions of the talking points obtained by ABC, from the original CIA draft to the final version. Summaries of State Department e-mails, some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard, show the documents "extensively edited," the report said. White House e-mails show "extensive input" from the State Department, including requests that all references to Ansar al-Sharia be deleted, as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the September 11 attack. According to the report, deleted portions included this paragraph:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has (sic) previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland objected to that information being included, saying in an e-mail to the White House and intelligence officials that it "could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?"

The talking points have been a source of controversy ever since Rice appeared on several Sunday morning talk shows five days after the heavily armed assault in Benghazi killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Rice described the events as growing out of a "spontaneous — not premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo," where hours earlier an angry mob had stormed the U.S. embassy grounds and torn down the U.S. flag in a demonstration reportedly inspired by an American-made anti-Muslim video that had appeared on YouTube.

"We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo," Rice said in her September 16 appearance on ABC's This Week. "And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons.... And it then evolved from there."


Rice's description of the events as spontaneous and unpremeditated was roundly criticized by congressional Republicans, in the news media, and most recently by former deputy chief of mission in Libya Gregory Hicks, who told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday that when he heard it, "I was stunned. My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed." Hicks emphatically rejected the connection between the Cairo riot over the video and the attack in Benghazi.

"The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya," said Hicks, who testified there was no evidence of a demonstration at the U.S mission preceding the attack. "The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate," he said.

Yet CIA's first drafts, as quoted in Friday's ABC report, also said the attack appeared to have been "spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. That being said," the agency added, "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack." The draft went on to name the al-Qaeda-affiliated group, Ansar al-Sharia. Nuland objected to the naming of the groups because "we don't want to prejudice the investigation."
The FBI, which was in charge of the investigation, "did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions," according to a National Security Council staff member's response to Nuland's message. After some minor editorial changes were made, Nuland wrote in a September 14 e-mail: "These changes don't resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings (sic) leadership," Nuland wrote. The State Department's concerns would be addressed the following morning at a "Deputies Committee meeting," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote in an e-mail.

"We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation," Rhodes wrote.
On Saturday morning, the day before Rice would make the circuit of the Sunday morning talk shows, the CIA drafted the final version in a White House meeting, ABC reported, deleting all references to al-Qaeda and to security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.

The attack on Benghazi came less than two months before last year's presidential election and news of the talking point revisions will likely fuel speculation that they were made to minimize any embarrassment President Obama might suffer from a successful attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission by al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. The killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and success in destroying terrorist cells and strongholds were a major part of the Obama campaign narrative. Any suggestion that the administration had been, in Nuland's words "not paying attention to warnings" from the CIA about terrorist activity in Benghazi could also present political problems for the president. Numerous reports have surfaced since the attack of requests for additional security that had been rejected by the State Department. Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya, told the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that the department's response to his repeated requests for additional security had been, in his words, "Basically, stop complaining."

As reported by ABC, the documents "appear to directly contradict" previous White House denials of any substantive changes made to the assessment of "the intelligence community."

"Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC's best assessments of what they thought had happened," Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters at the White House briefing on November 28, 2012. "The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' because 'consulate' was inaccurate." Carney still insists the changes made were "stylistic and nonsubstantive."

"The CIA drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points," he told ABC News. "The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this, but the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. And ultimately, this all has been discussed and reviewed and provided in enormous levels of detail by the administration to Congressional investigators, and the attempt to politicize the talking points, again, is part of an effort to, you know, chase after what isn't the substance here."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...talking-points

White House Meets Privately with Press to Discuss Benghazi

---

by Ben Shapiro 10 May 2013 3355 post a comment
In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. Politico reports that the meeting started at approximately 12:45 PM ET, and that it moved the normal press briefing to 1:45 PM ET. Jay Carney, White House press secretary, did not comment on whether the meeting took place.



Politico reports:


The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.


The administration routinely exerts pressure on reporters it feels are not kind enough in their coverage. Reporters like Cheryl Attkisson of CBS News have felt the hand of their bosses for “wading dangerously close to advocacy” with regard to Benghazi. No doubt this “off-the-record” meeting was designed to get all the president’s horses and all the president’s men to put the Benghazi humpty dumpty together again.
UPDATE: Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it:


Video at link below

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...off-the-record



AWAKET YET????

CIA Director David Petraeus Was Frustrated With Obama Admin For Scrubbing Benghazi Talking Points Of All References To Terrorism


Friday, May 10, 2013

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version—produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers—was a shadow of the original.


The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

Post Continues on weaselzippers.us

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/05/cia...#ixzz2T04TtWNq


Really "betrayus" I thought was too busy doing other things to get involved. He certainly never uttered a word at the time that I recall anyways, if I am wrong I stand corrected !!!

Nothing surprises me anymore....I feel almost all the leadership in Washington is anti-patriotic, anti-West and pro NWO. And that Muslim imam is a hypocrite if he thinks that Osama Bin Laudin, Sadam Hussein and M. Kadafi are in Heaven while our soldiers are in Hell.