Monday, November 26, 2012

The Libs won the election, why are they so angry?

Joe Scarborough took the words right out of my mouth!

Shortly after the Presidential election, I couldn't help but notice a strange reaction emanating from the Left: a sudden onslaught of angry comments posted on conservative websites - expressions, and feelings, of discontent. Which left me wondering: why are the Libs so irate?

A healthy dose of gloating is fine, but what's with all the gloom and doom? They just won an important election; they should be brimming with joy - not anger! If a Republican candidate had won the Presidential election, conservatives would be overjoyed, not angry and bitter!

A couple of days ago, I thought about this question once again, and I arrived with what I believe to be a satisfactory and correct answer.

But first, lets hear what Joe Scarborough had to say:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough during a Monday broadcast of “Morning Joe” asked what a lot of conservatives have been asking since the reelection of President Barack Obama: Why are liberals still so angry?

Considering the fact that they won the presidential election, boosted their holdings in the House, and held onto the Senate, you’d think there’d be a little more giddiness on that side of the aisle. But if you were to pay a random visit to Twitter, it sure doesn’t seem that way.

“I went on the Twitter this weekend just to talk football,” said Scarborough (Yes, he says “the Twitter”). “Why are liberals still so angry on the Twitter? I say, you won!”

What are liberals so angry about?

“Everything,” according to Scarborough.

Conservatives, he noted, prefer to celebrate their victories by hunting and drinking beer, knowing full well that they’re in charge for another four years.

“It doesn’t bother me,” he said. “I feel sorry for them.”
I might have given away the answer to the aforementioned conundrum with the words I used to pose the question, but nevetheless here's the answer.

The Libs realize deep down that their ideologies are flawed. They know that they are in the wrong. What's more, they know that the person they elected to be President shares their flawed ideologies. [And I'm putting it mildly; The word 'flawed' does not do proper justice to their 'misplaced' beliefs... There I go again, the word 'misplaced', another benign word, another understatement.] They also know that Obama's 'flawed' policies are inherently wrong, futile and ineffective. Hence, the bizarre reaction, and response, from the Left.

Imagine, if you will, a small child, who keeps asking for something that is of detriment to him. And much to his dismay, his parents capitulate to his demands. The stunned child is suddenly gripped with feelings of guilt. He got what he wanted, his demands were met, but he knows deep down that he is wrong. Hence, the anticipated expressions of gratitude morph into expressions, and feelings, of guilt-ridden fury toward his parents.

The Libs won the election; the candidate who shares their 'flawed' ideologies won a second term in office - but they aren't feeling too good, or positive, about it.

Like the young child in the aforementioned anecdote, Liberals can't muster up any good feelings about their victory because they know they are in the wrong. Hence, rather than express themselves with feelings of gratitude and joy, they are lashing out with anger, resentment and bitterness. Just like a bratty child......

Sunday, November 25, 2012

More than 40 injured during anti-Morsi demonstration

At least 40 people [close to 60] were injured in a clash with police late Sunday when a group of protestors, in Egypt, tried to storm the local offices of the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Nile Delta city of Damanhoor, the AP reported.

The police response to the demonstration was markedly different then the police response several weeks ago when demonstrators stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, took down the American flag and destroyed it, then replaced it with a black flag similar to the banner used by Al Qaeda.

During the latter demonstration, the Egyptian police - who currently follow President Mohammed Morsi's directives - remainded indifferent to the violence and made no effort to confront the demonstrators until, at long last, after several hours, they finally removed the crowd from the embassy compound.

But today's protesters were a different breed. Their anger was aimed at Mr. Morsi, the Islamist leader, and his recent move to assume near absolute powers.

Hence, the response from Mr. Morsi and his lackeys was markedly different....

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Egypt's Morsi grants himself sweeping powers

Egyptian President and Muslim Brotherhood leader, and Obama pal, Mohammed Morsi, assumed sweeping powers on Thursday placing himself on a collision course with the judiciary and encroaching on Egypt's laughable and so-called Democracy movement.

From the AP:
Morsi decreed immunity for the panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it. He granted the same protection to the upper chamber of parliament... Both bodies are dominated by Morsi's Islamist allies.

Several courts are currently looking into cases demanding the dissolution of both bodies.

The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority, a move that places Morsi above oversight of any kind.

Morsi's decrees came as thousands of demonstrators gathered in downtown Cairo for the fourth day running to protest against Morsi's policies and criticize the Muslim Brotherhood, the fundamentalist group from which the Egyptian leader hails.
I've noted previously that Mr. Morsi had issued statements in the past claiming that Al Qaeda did not perpetrate the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

"When you come and tell me that the plane hit the tower like a knife in butter, then you are insulting us," Morsi said. "How did the plane cut through the steel like this? Something must have happened from the inside. It's impossible."

Morsi said that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq “due to the U.S. administration claims that the doers of the 11 September attacks [were] Muslims, without proving such a thing until now... This requires a huge scientific conference that is devoted to analyzing what caused the attack against a massive structure like the two WTC towers."

Earlier this year, Reuters reported that Morsi, the so-called moderate extremist, freed [pardoned] 17 Islamists jailed for militancy during Hosni Mubarak's era a step seen as a gesture to hardliners who supported his presidential bid. The freed detainees, includes two individuals accused of killing a police officer, and a third accused of killing another police officer in a separate incident.

Morsi also freed several members of al-Gama'a al-Islamiya, who were incarcerated for mounting armed insurrection against the government in the 1990s. Several members of Islamic Jihad, the movement behind the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat, were also freed by Mr. Morsi, the moderate, fun-loving, Pro-Democracy President of Egypt, and Obama pal.

P.S. I also noted previously: In September, demonstrators stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt, took down the American flag and destroyed it, then replaced it with a black flag similar to the banner used by Al Qaeda. For several hours, the Egyptian police - who follow Mr. Morsi's directives - remainded indifferent to the violence and made no effort to confront the thugs until, at long last, they finally decided to remove them from the embassy compound. For several hours, Obama's pal, good ol' Mohammed Morsi, gave the demonstrators free reign to wreak havoc upon the U.S. embassy.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012


From CBS News - h/t Breitbart:
The White House Photo Office has declined CBS News requests to release images taken of US officials during the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks.

CBS News first requested the images on Oct. 31. In the past, the White House has released photos showing US officials during national security incidents. A half dozen images related to the mission that captured and killed Osama bin Laden were given to the public last year. One depicts President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team gathered in the Situation Room on May 1, 2011...

In addition to the Benghazi images, CBS News has also requested, but not received, details concerning the president's and his staff's decisions during the attacks. Last year reporters were given details of the decision making, timeline and players regarding the Osama bin Laden raid as well as access to certain emails.

CBS News is also seeking drone and ground-level surveillance images and email communications and documents from the night of the Benghazi attacks. So far, none has been provided.
In a related development, Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter to President Obama, dated Nov. 20, 2012, asking him to reveal what he knew before, during, and after the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi [h/t Breitbart, PJ Media].

“Mr. President, many serious questions remain about you and your Administration’s actions before, during, and after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi,” Graham wrote.

“Can you please account, as you did during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, for your actions during the seven plus hours our Consulate was under attack?... It is unfair to the American people and the families of the victims of the Benghazi attack to not provide the same level of detailed facts and an accounting for what I consider a major national security failure."

"I remain concerned that over the past two months senators have written at least 13 letters requesting information from your Administration and they remain largely ignored," Graham wrote.

Graham went on to note that Obama had refrained from calling the attack on the U.S. consulate a terrorist attack when he appeared on The View, the David Letterman show and Univision in September, and in his address to the UN in September.

“Mr. President, our intelligence community had arrived at the conclusion Benghazi was a pre-planned terrorist attack linked to al-Qaeda one day after September 11. How could you not be aware of this development?” Graham asked. “… "Mr. President, answers to these and many other questions, many of which you should personally and immediately know the answer to, don’t require the type of ‘investigation’ you noted in recent remarks.”

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Sandy victim to Obama: Where have you been?

From the Washington Examiner:
President Obama, touring parts of New York City slammed by Hurricane Sandy, was chided by a girl for ignoring the disaster.

As the president waded through a supply center, a girl who was waiting for goods told a reporter, "We need help - he should of been here a long time ago," according to the White House pool report.

Obama has received little criticism for the federal government's handling of the disaster which is still crippling areas of New York where many families remain homeless or without power..

The girl said her house was on the beach but... they can't live in it. They're living [with] family.

She said of the president:

"We need help - he should of been here a long time ago."

A young hispanic man who just met the president said he "lost everything; I lost my job."

"Thanks so much," he said he wanted to say to the president.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Obama Parody: "They should go after me" - Press Conference

Speaking at his first post-election press conference on Wednesday, President Obama insisted that Republican lawmakers should not investigate U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, for her complicity in the White House' Libyagate scandal, but rather, he said, "they should go after me."

Obama: My second term will be EVEN BETTER than the first! Heh - Press Conference

Speaking at his first post-election news conference on Wednesday, President Obama shockingly proclaimed that, "I hope and intend to be an EVEN BETTER President in the second term than I was in the first." Heh......

Obama & Biden know nothing! Clueless about Petraeus, Benghazi, Libya, & everything else!

Despite the fact that the FBI had learned in the summer that [former] CIA Director David Petraeus had been involved in an extramarital affair that the agency feared might compromise U.S. national security, President Obama - purportedly - only learned about all of this after the Presidential election.

That's right; according to the adminstration, Obama knew nothing!

And despite the fact that all evidence indicated that the recent attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was not a spontaneous mob reaction, the President, nevertheless, was in the dark. He knew nothing!

Ultimately the various terrorist attacks that took place in Benghazi prior to the September 11 attack, and the requests from officials in Benghazi for additional security, were all irrelevant - because the President allegedly knew nothing, and a President that knows nothing can be of little assistance.

In truth, whenever the President is confronted with a discomfiting set of facts, his standard modus operandi is to say, "I know nothing!" The same goes for Joe Biden. Which begs the following question:

If the President and Vice President are lacking basic cognizance and general awareness of their surroundings, and the world at large - and they 'know nothing' - how did they manage to get their current jobs?!

My advice: Obama and Biden should relocate to a medical rehabilitation center or a psychiatric ward so they can develop the basic motor skills and cognizance that will allow them to function adequately in their environs, and in society.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Hurricane Sandy victims are angry, frustrated with the Politician-in-Chief

A week and a half after Hurricane Sandy slammed the East Coast, frustrations continue to mount over the slow recovery and the inept response of the Obama administration, as hundreds of thousands of residents still do not have electric power, heat, gasoline or telephone service. And many of them are lacking sufficient water and food supplies.

Immediately after the Hurricane, the Politician-in-chief flew in for a quick photo op with New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, and promptly returned to the campaign trail. But the victims of Hurricane Sandy are not looking for more photo ops; they're looking for help. And thus far, they haven't received much assistance from either FEMA or the Politician-in-Chief.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Obama Politician: Only after the election we learn Iran fired upon U.S. drone

The Obama administration played politics during the attack on the U.S. consulate in [Benghazi] Libya which left four U.S. diplomats dead. And, after the attack, the White House continued the political chicanery when it tried to cover-up the facts surrounding the attack. And now, only AFTER the election, do we learn that Iranian jets fired upon a U.S drone in international waters.

Barack Obama, the Politician-in-Chief.....

I will assume that CNN wasn't complicit in this.

I will assume that CNN did not wait till the after the election to make the inquiry, but rather, it just learned about it now, after the election.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

More on Obama & the Benghazi cover-up

Some additional notes about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi from Bret Baier of Fox News and Frontpage Magazine, but first I want to repeat and reemphasize what I stated in an earlier post about the Benghazi cover-up:
Obama tried to conceal the terrorist link behind the attack on the U.S consulate because he did not want the public to find out that he had actually empowered Al Qaeda militants inside Libya.

The facts are slowly trickling in, and we now know that Al Qaeda terrorists are working inside the Libyan government [inside the interior ministry etc.]. They have also been put in charge of border security, thus allowing more and more Al Qaeda terrorists to flow into the country.

Moreover, an Al Qaeda member, Abdelhakim Belhaj, had been put in charge of, among other things, overseeing security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 until at least the spring of 2012.

Obama's good buddy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) - appointed him to this position.

And, Obama, in his efforts to oust the Gaddafi regime, went along with all of this and effectively empowered Al Qaeda to wreak havoc upon Libya.

And now, as a result of this shocking, calamitous foreign policy decision, four U.S. diplomats are dead.

Hence, the cover-up.
Back to Bret Baier and Frontpage Mag:

Baier quotes from the CIA's official timeline of events:
"The first idea is to go to a Benghazi hospital to recover Stevens, who they correctly suspect is already dead. But the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Shariah militia that mounted the consulate attack."
Baier notes:
So the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is at the Benghazi hospital and suspected dead. The CIA contractors know that, but they can't get there because the hospital is surrounded by the Al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al Shariah, the "militia that mounted the consulate attack."

This goes up the chain communication at 1:15 a.m. on Sept. 12. The White House, the Situation Room, and all of those paying attention to intel channels know that the guys on the ground have determined the group that's behind this. It's the Al Qaeda-linked militia that are still fighting and have the hospital surrounded.
Baier goes on to ask why the President and his cronies continued to propagate the 'spontaneous demonstration' myth while playing down the terrorist link behind the attack, when they knew from the get-go that it was an Al Qaeda-linked "militia that mounted the consulate attack".

Frontpage Magazine notes:
The CIA contractors could not get inside the hospital because Ansar Al-Sharia [the group that mounted the attack on the consulate] was outside [the hospital]. So how did Ambassador Stevens and his supposed rescuers get inside?

The official story is that Stevens was rescued by a mob of helpful citizens, who kept stopping to snap cell phone photos of his corpse, but that’s just what good Samaritans do in the region...
I was also bothered by the 'good Samaritans' narrative after I had seen a video of these purported saints screaming 'Ala Akbar' while snapping photos of Stevens' body. Hmmm, maybe there were some bad dudes who just happened to be hanging out with the 'good Samaritans'... Hmmm....

Frontpage Mag continues:
So now the “rescuers” take Stevens to a hospital, access to which is controlled by Ansar Al Sharia, the very militia that tried to kill him... Ansar Al Sharia then lets Stevens in, without harming him further, even after trying to kill him.

Something doesn’t add up here. Either the “rescuers” were taking in his body for a reward. Or it wasn’t the presence of Ansar Al Sharia that slowed down the CIA response.
One final note: I pointed out at the onset of this post that, after the attack on the U.S. consulate, Obama tried to conceal the Al Qaeda link behind the attack because it was he who empowered Al Qaeda inside Libya. This is most certainly true; the following, however, is mere speculation, but very likely true:

Among the various reasons as to why Obama refused to send in U.S. troops [who were stationed nearby] to rescue the U.S. diplomats, I would posit, and add, the following explanation:

Obama had assured the American people, during the Libyan uprising, that he would assist the Libyan rebels without sending in American boots on the ground.

With the Presidential election looming, he wasn't about to alter that plan. Hence no boots were to be sent on the ground, even if it meant jeopardizing the lives of the 4 U.S. diplomats. For ultimately, their lives had to be sacrificed for the greater good: Obama, and his re-election.

Additionally, the President did not wish to engage in a brand new battle with Al Qaeda terrorists before the election, especially when it was he who was responsible for giving Al Qaeda the scepter of power and the reigns of destruction inside Libya.

The deaths of the four U.S. diplomats were essentially a trade-off that helped Obama retain his seat in the Oval Office.

Ultimately four American diplomats sacrificed their lives for the greater cause: Obama

And judging from last night's election, it worked out just fine; it was well worth the sacrifice...... Ahem......

Good grief.....

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Chris Matthews: Why Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term

With the 2012 Presidential election under way - as voters head out to the polling stations - it is worthwhile to watch this video of Chris Matthews as he offers his viewers some profound insight on why Barack Obama deserves their vote and why he deserves to be re-elected to a second term as President of the United States.

Obama's 3 A.M. phone call, Benghazi, Libya consulate attack - Who'll answer the next emergency call?

It's 3 AM. The phone is ringing in the White House Situation Room. Four American diplomats in the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya are under attack and they're pleading for help. But politics drowns out their voices. Your vote will decide who answers the next emergency phone call: Barack Obama, the Politician-in-Chief? Or Mitt Romney? Who do you want answering the next call?

Monday, November 5, 2012

Obama empowered Al Qaeda inside Libya, hence, the cover-up

Why did the Obama administration try to conceal the fact that Al Qaeda affiliates were behind the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi?

Well, there are a number of reasons.

One of the often cited reasons is that the President did not want to acknowledge that Al Qaeda - contrary to his blustering claims - is still alive and kicking.

Well, this is true, but it is actually much deeper than that.

In truth, Obama did not want the public to find out that he had actually empowered Al Qaeda in Libya.

The facts are slowly trickling in, and we now know that Al Qaeda terrorists are working inside the Libyan government [inside the interior ministry etc.]. They have also been put in charge of border security, thus allowing more and more Al Qaeda terrorists to flow into the country.

Moreover, an Al Qaeda member, Abdelhakim Belhaj, had been put in charge of, among other things, overseeing security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 until at least the spring of 2012.

Obama's good buddy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil - the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) - appointed him to this position.

And, Obama, in his efforts to oust the Gaddafi regime, went along with all of this and effectively empowered Al Qaeda to wreak havoc upon Libya.

And now, as a result of this shocking, calamitous foreign policy decision, four U.S. diplomats are dead.

Hence, the cover-up.

Obama and his cronies [including Leon Panetta] have also been churning out contradictory statements about the lack of effort to save the 4 U.S. diplomats in Libya.

Par for the course......

Nevertheless, we now know why the administration tried to cover up the terrorist aspect of this scandal.

And, now that we know at least some of the facts, Obama can now resume his regularly scheduled program of dismantling the U.S., and the rest of the world, inch-by-inch, without further obstruction from his pesky detractors.

And, the mainstream media can now resume their regularly scheduled program of propping up Obama and singing his glorious praises.

Ah..., what a relief!

P.S. Interesting. I've just come across an earlier, relevant post I wrote in October of 2011. Excerpts:
An Al Qaeda flag is now flying atop the court house in the city of Benghazi, Libya - according to several eyewitness reports.

Until August - before rebel forces overtook the capital city of Tripoli - the Benghazi courthouse had served as the provisional headquarters of the National Transitional Council [NTC], headed by the former justice minister, Mustafa Abdul Jalil.

Islamists have reportedly been spotted recently in Benghazi driving brand-new SUVs and waving black al Qaeda flags.

One reporter noted that that Abdelhakim Belhaj, a well-known al Qaeda fighter and founder of the notorious Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), is now leading the rebel “military counsel” in Tripoli. Mr. Belhaj was appointed to that position by the NTC [National Transitional Council]...

It should also be noted that several months ago, US officials had acknowledged that among the Libyan rebel ranks are terrorists who previously had joined up with the insurgents in Iraq to fight the US military.

Indeed, enthusiasm for Al Qaeda among Libya's new rulers should come as no surprise to us - or to President Obama, who, from the onset of this rebellion, gleefully, and eagerly, embraced the Libyan rebels. Mr. Obama was clearly cognizant of the rebel/Al Qaeda connection from day one, but he willfully chose to ignore the facts.

I suppose we can now paraphrase a line from the popular Southwest airline commercials:

"Al Qaeda, you are now free to move about the country [Libya]!"

Good grief......
P.S. It's important to note what I noted earlier, namely that we now know with certainty that Al Qaeda is pulling the strings in Libya. We also know that Obama's buddy, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, appointed Al Qaeda member, Abdelhakim Belhaj, to oversee security at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli from 2011 until at least the spring of 2012.

Obama was cognizant of all of these facts, hence the cover-up.......

Related Video below: "Jalil & Obama Hail the Arrival of Freedom & Democracy in Libya"

Obama: I mean what I say, my Presidency will be a 1 term Proposition

Speaking at a campaign rally in Hollywood, Florida on Sunday, President Obama told the crowd that, after 4 years of his [failed] Presidency, the American people know that, "I say what I mean and I mean what I say." [Joe Biden has made similar claims about himself.]

It goes without saying that Obama meant what he said, during a 2009 interview, when he insisted he would be a one-term President if he failed to fix the economy within the first 3 years of his Presidency.

Or maybe he didn't mean it...., but rather he meant what he said later on when he insisted that not only had he had never said such a thing, but that he actually had asserted all along it would take more than one term, and probably more than one President to fix the economy.

Maybe he meant the latter, and not the former....

Truth be told, it might take several decades, and several Presidents, to fix the economy - because, well, because it always take FOREVER to heal an ailing economy - according to Obama's currently held views.......

Nevertheless, one thing is perfectly clear: If you exclude the myriad of times that Obama has either lied to the American people or misled them, he has always spoken the truth and said what he means.

Four more years!!!