Like Slimey Cockroaches & their crooked President, Liberals Spread Disease

[Warph]

               


Kudos to CNN for Fact Checking the Democrats


Excerpt: CNN's Tom Foreman and Erin Burnett did a little "Reality Check" this week at the Democratic Convention that was bold and effective.  Don't they realize that they're not supposed to call out Democrats who fudge the truth?  Apparently not, and good for them. (I sent links to several articles from the MSM yesterday and earlier, showing that the MSM are no longer in the White House resident's corner.  It's not just that they don't support him.  It's worse.  Most of these are "fact checker" type articles and videos that show what LIARS Obuma and the Dems are.  

If this doesn't get him unelected, then the collective American IQ simply no longer sustains life.

http://www.trevorloudon.com/2012/09/kudos-to-cnn-for-fact-checking-the-democrats/

...and add to the above article:


From data-crunching math witch Political Math comes the most polished, efficient, accessible deconstruction of Obama's job creation talking point yet produced.

               

It has become fairly well known (at least among people paying attention, admittedly a distressingly small minority) that Obama cooked the books to get this number, by simply ignoring the first two years of his presidency.  It's actually much worse than that.  Watch the video below, and learn just how fraudulent Team Obama's numbers really are:

       

[/font] [/size]

[Warph]

Ten Ugly Outcomes on Obama's Amnesty for Illegal Alien Children

Rightsidenews.com
by Frosty Wooldridge
Saturday, 10 September 2012 


On the idealistic side, Barack Obama's executive amnesty for 1.9 million children of illegal alien border crosses looks like a compassionate decision. However, on the realistic side of the equation, American workers will be displaced by those 1.9 million additional workers. But it doesn't stop there. It grows by leaps and bounds.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Home | Federation for American Immigration Reform, asked Kristen Williamson to investigate the long term consequences. She discovered the amnesty will cost billions of dollars to American taxpayers, workers and the economy itself.

Estimates range around $900 billion to give instant citizenship to this armada of illegal alien children to the age of 30. They will be able to tap into food stamps, welfare, assisted housing, medical care and scholarships to higher education. All the while, their parents are cheating our work laws, working at cash-payment jobs, cashing in on Income Tax Credit benefits, breaking our immigration laws and remain in our country in violation of our sovereignty.

"Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began accepting applications for deferred action through US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). FAIR has been closely tracking developments in President Obama's executive amnesty since its announcement on June 15," said Williamson. "Below are some of the things you need to know about the President's unilateral changes to U.S. immigration policy."



1.) President Obama's amnesty will add nearly 2 million workers – possibly more – to the U.S. job market. This is a negligent economic and social policy with over 8% unemployment and half of recent young college graduates unemployed or underemployed.


2.) Lax documentation requirements to prove eligibility. DHS application instructions explicitly state that only copies of documents will be required to meet the eligibility criteria for amnesty including length of presence in the U.S., education, and even identity. Also, illegal aliens will be able to submit any and all documents they deem relevant to prove their eligibility. Virtually any form of documentation will be accepted, from report cards and plane tickets to mere personal correspondence.



3.) The Administration is making this up as they go along. In June, President Obama touted this policy as the "right thing to do" for some of the best and brightest. However, it is clear that the educational, residency and character requirements are becoming increasingly lax as more details about the implementation of the amnesty emerge.



4.) No face-to-face interview required. Most applications will be approved based only on the documentation submitted.



5.) Few safeguards against and limited consequences for filing fraudulent applications or documents. If DHS is actually diligent enough to identify fraud, the new amnesty instructions merely state that the Administration "may" elect to penalize illegal aliens by denying immigration benefits or placing them into removal proceedings. However, since illegal aliens are only required to submit copies – which lack identifiers of authenticity – it is unknown how USCIS employees will be able to identify fraud in the first place.



6.) USCIS turns blind eye to past illegal employment. Illegal aliens may use employment records to show eligibility for amnesty despite the fact illegal aliens are barred from working in the U.S. Past employers of illegal alien applicants are not likely to face prosecution for hiring illegal aliens.



7.) Family of deferred action recipients will also reap the benefits. Application instructions explicitly state that information collected on an illegal alien will not be used against him or her, or their "family members and guardians," for the purpose of immigration enforcement.



8.) Illegal aliens granted work authorization can obtain Social Security cards. Illegal aliens granted deferred action must apply for employment authorization if they present an "economic necessity." Once received, DHS work authorization will allow them to apply for a Social Security Number and possibly other benefits like driver's licenses.



9.) Illegal aliens with a criminal history DO qualify. DHS says only felony and "serious misdemeanor" convictions will make illegal aliens ineligible for amnesty, and even then, convictions won't necessarily be considered if they are expunged. Additionally, criminal convictions in foreign countries will go undetected and DHS will "exercise discretion" when considering juvenile records.



10.) USCIS doesn't have a great track record. Earlier this year, the DHS Inspector General found that USCIS leadership told employees to rubber-stamp applications for immigration benefits – including work authorization. In leaked documents to the Associated Press,

USCIS estimated that it will review 3,000 deferred action and work authorization applications daily, only increasing the pressure to overlook possible fraud and approve benefits quickly.


As you can see, Obama flies on a wing and a prayer, but the American taxpayer foots the bill. This amnesty, which is unconstitutional and solves nothing, will go down as a huge boondoggle that usurped the American people and their demands to enforce immigration laws.

[Warph]

         

Barack Obama Vs. Mitt Romney: 10 Big Differences Going "Forward"

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/11/barack_obama_vs_mitt_romney__10_big_differences_going_forward

By John Hawkins
9/11/2012

Forward is not a destination. If you'd asked Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or their supporters if they were taking their nations forward, they'd have undoubtedly said "yes." Mussolini? Forward. Napoleon? Forward. Genghis Khan? Forward. Of course, Churchill, Thatcher, and Reagan would have said "forward" as well. So, that's why it's important to ask what difference it would make if we go forward for four years under Mitt Romney as opposed to going forward for another four years under Barack Obama.

1) Mitt Romney would try to reduce tax rates for the wealthy and corporations to spur economic growth. On the other hand, Barack Obama is likely to try to raise taxes not just on the rich and corporations, but on the middle class. He really wouldn't have much choice. Despite the class warfare rhetoric you're hearing, there is far more money that can be confiscated from the vast middle class than there is to be plundered from the relatively thin ranks of the wealthy. If you believe tax increases are the answer, then you go after the middle class for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: "because that's where the money is."


2) Barack Obama has run trillion dollar plus deficits every year he's been in office and given that everything he wants to do comes with a large price tag attached, there's no reason to think the next four years would be any different than the last four years. At a minimum, that would mean further downgrades of our nation's credit rating, but it's possible it could precipitate a full-on Greek style financial crisis if investors conclude their money isn't safe here. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be under tremendous pressure from his right to reduce the deficit and a further credit downgrade on his watch would be a devastating political blow that he'd be highly motivated to avoid. Romney wouldn't have it easy since Obama would be leaving him a full-on budgetary disaster to deal with, but he'd have little choice other than to make cuts if he wants to be reelected in 2016.


3) Barack Obama has made encouraging dependence part of his electoral strategy. The more Americans that are dependent on the government for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and welfare, the more votes he believes the Democrats will get. In order to swell the welfare rolls, he's no longer demanding that welfare recipients work for their handout. Mitt Romney opposes that change and would put the work requirements back into welfare.


4) If Barack Obama is reelected, we should expect no serious attempts at entitlement reform in the next four years. That's very problematic because nobody wants to cut a deal that impacts current retirees which means any change will impact people 55 and younger. So every year we wait, we end up with more Americans in an unsustainable system. The longer we go without making a change, the more likely it becomes that we'll be forced, under financial duress of the sort Greece is facing, to dramatically cut benefits for people who already rely on the program. Of course, there are no guarantees Mitt Romney could reach a deal with Democrats in Congress, but he will at least try to make it happen. Barack Obama won't.


5) The Supreme Court currently has four doctrinaire liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), three conservative originalist justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia) and two right leaning moderates (Roberts, Kennedy). Four of the justices, Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73) are over 70. Given the ideological split of the SCOTUS and the ages of the judges, the next President may have an opportunity to create a historic shift on the Court. Replacing a single justice with an ideological opposite could be a decisive factor on cases from Roe v. Wade to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.


6) We currently have a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens who haven't committed a felony in the United States. All they have to do is claim that they went to school here and they're automatically released without verification. If that continues for another four years, millions more illegals will pour into the United States and Obama will encourage them to settle in for the long haul. On the other hand, Mitt Romney would be likely to continue to improve border security and deport illegal aliens who are captured. In fact, his supporters during the primary, like Ann Coulter, were touting him as the toughest GOP candidate on illegal immigration.


7) Obama has taken over the student loan program, frittered away billions in bad loans to companies like Solyndra, and proudly proclaims his partial takeover of GM and Chevrolet to be a success despite the fact the taxpayers lost 25 billion on the deal. If Barack Obama is reelected, expect more government takeovers and bailouts. In fact, Dodd-Frank, which Obama supports and Romney opposes, has bank bailouts built into the law. If Romney can, he will repeal Dodd-Frank, he won't be interested in any more government takeovers of industry, and the Tea Partiers in his base would so adamantly oppose any more bailouts that going down that path would probably make him unelectable.


The housing market was terrible when Barack Obama came into office and not only has he done little to improve the situation for people who currently own homes, the root causes of the crash are still in place. The government is still demanding that loans be given to people who can't afford them. Fannie and Freddie are still handling 90% of all new mortgages. Mitt Romney will make it easier for people with good credit to get homes, will stop applying pressure to give loans to poor risks, and will force Freddie and Fannie to slowly and responsibly reduce the number of home mortgages they're covering so that if, God forbid, there's another crash one day, taxpayers don't get stuck with the bill.


9) If Barack Obama is reelected, Obamacare will go into effect in 2014 ...and many companies will stop offering insurance, it will be harder to find a doctor, the quality of medical care will drop, costs will explode, and death panels, along with the IRS, will become permanently involved in your health care. If Mitt Romney is elected, this won't happen. Romney would also try to push through a replacement plan for Obamacare, but chances are Democrats would block it.


10) At some point, you have to expect that the natural vitality of the economy will reassert itself no matter who's in the White House. However, it is also entirely possible that the hostile, unpredictable business environment created by the Obama Administration could keep the economy just as stagnant for the next four years as it has been for the last four. Romney's pro-business administration along with his attempts to cut taxes and regulations will encourage growth and put Americans back to work. What would we rather have? Four years of hate, demonization, and class warfare aimed at small business owners because they'll never be able to do their "fair share" in Barack Obama's eyes or would we rather have a growing, thriving economy again?

[Warph]

               

Nitwit liberal Maureen Dowd?  Bashing Obuma?  In the NYTimes?  Oh, Oh... trouble in La La Land.  Gee, Maureen, your negativity really is running rampant.

In his renomination acceptance speech on Thursday night, Obuma told us that America's problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought.  And that's why he has kindly agreed to give us more time.  Because, after all, it's our fault.

Not so.. says Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes.  Could she finally have got something right :


"HOW did the one formerly known as The One go for two?

In his renomination acceptance speech here on Thursday night, he told us that America's problems were tougher to solve than he had originally thought.

And that's why he has kindly agreed to give us more time.

Because, after all, it's our fault.

"So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me," President Obama explained. "It was about you. My fellow citizens, you were the change."

We were the change!

We were the change? Us?"


Rest of story:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-playing-now-hail-to-us-chiefs.html?_r=1&hp

[Patriot]

One term of Obama - $5 Trillion +

Two years with Reid & Pelosi at the helm - Healthcare with a vengeance

Liberals shooting at liberals in the NYT - Priceless!

[Warph]

                               

Obama vs. Israel, Yet Again

By Ross Kaminsky on 9.11.12 @ 3:35PM

Yet again, President Obama has snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to the Jerusalem Post, "The White House has rejected a request by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to meet US President Barack Obama in the United States this month..." with the White House apparently saying that the meeting just won't fit into Obama's schedule.

This is about far more than protocol or wounded feelings.

The Middle East is (or at least seems to be) perilously close to violent chaos, with our enemies emboldened by Obama's obvious dislike for Israel, sympathy for Palestinians and other Islamists, and general weakness.

His refusal to meet with Netanyahu speaks both to his disdain for Israel generally and Netanyahu specifically, but also to this president's perverse priorities, which lead him to miss a majority of his national security briefings despite the world being an increasingly dangerous place.

Israel is not a ward of the US state, but they are our long-time very close ally and we have a real strategic interest in their survival and prosperity. Barack Obama either doesn't understand or doesn't care about any of that. And by his words and (in)actions, he raises the chances of death and destruction across the region.

It's not just Jews who need to abandon Barack Obama en masse. It is any person who wants to avoid bloody, perhaps nuclear, war in the Middle East.

[Warph]

Constitutional experts call Obama's abuse of power historic

By: Hope Hodge
9/12/2012 03:15 PM

As president, Barack Obama has made a habit of bypassing or ignoring constitutional limitations on his power, a panel of experts told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Obama's claiming of executive privilege during the Fast and Furious debacle has already faded from the headlines, and it may be hard to remember the weight of the outrage expressed at the beginning of the year, when Obama made a handful of unilateral "recess" appointments, opting to bypass a Senate that wasn't actually in recess.

But these incidents and a number of others were strung together at the hearing as proof of a dangerous trend in the administration.

"The administration has repeatedly put its partisan agenda above the rule of law," committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said. "In doing so, it has eroded the constitutional and legal foundation that have kept America prosperous and free for over 200 years."

Smith enumerated other instances of alleged presidential overreach, including Obama's decision to stop enforcing parts of U.S. immigration law to allow illegal aliens to stay in the country legally if they meet certain criteria and waivers issued to the No Child Left Behind Act and welfare reform bill that Smith said "effectively rewrite the law instead of enforcing it."

"Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can ignore it," Smith said. "Many people have gone to jail for doing just that."

He did not call for legal action against the president of the sort that some legislators took when Obama took military action in Libya without consulting Congress, but let Obama's record speak for itself as examples of presidential overreach that should not become future presidential habit.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) a noted constitutional scholar in Congress and a witness on the panel, told the committee that Obama's abuse of power by making recess appointments while the Senate was not actually in recess was a historic first.

"No president has ever made a unilateral appointment during an adjournment lasting less than three days," he said.

Lee also noted that executive privilege had been misused in the case of Fast and Furious, Congress pressed for full documentation of the operation following the discovery that a previous Department of Justice letter about the matter had been intentionally misleading and inaccurate.

"The privilege disappears altogether whenever there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred," Lee said.

Lori Windham, senior counsel to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, testified that the Obama administration's decision to require religious organizations to supply contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees or pay a fine was part of a longer tradition by Obama of dismissing religious concerns. Arguing last year in favor of churches and other houses of worship choosing clergy according to their own religious principles without interference in the Supreme Court case Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, she said, "I was not alone in my shock when the Obama Administration's lawyers opposed our position by arguing that churches are no different than bowling clubs, and that our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom does not protect religious organizations."

Ultimately, the court ruled unanimously in favor of religious groups.

Windham said the administration's actions set a dangerous precedent that extended beyond religious practice.

"If the government can trample First Amendment freedoms, then none of our fundamental rights are secure," she said.

Ultimately, Lee said even those who support Obama should understand the need for accountability and challenges to his actions when he oversteps his constitutional bounds.

"These things happen not because we've had bad men as presidents. We haven't," he said. "We've had good men, and that includes our current president. These things happen because presidents are human beings."

The system, he said, includes checks and balances for a reason.

"We cannot ignore abuses of power. Because if we ignore them, they become part of established practice and tradition," he said.

[Warph]

The Brass Standard

By Thomas Sowell
9/13/2012

Watch this video to see who else is to blame:

Politics takes a lot of brass. And Bill Clinton is a master politician. His rousing speech at the Democrats' convention told the delegates that Republicans "want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place."

That is world class brass. Bill Clinton's own administration, more than any other, promoted an unsustainable housing boom, which eventually and inevitably led to a housing bust that brought down the whole American economy.

Behind all the complex financial processes that reached to Wall Street and beyond, there is one fundamental fact: many people stopped making their mortgage payments.

Why did that happen? Because mortgage loans were made to people who did not meet the long-established qualification standards for getting a mortgage loan. And why did that happen? Because the Clinton administration threatened lawsuits against lenders who did not approve mortgage loans to minority applicants as often as to white applicants.

In other words, racial quotas replaced credit qualifications. A failure to have racial statistics on mortgage approvals that fit the government's preconceptions was equated with discrimination.

Attorney General Reno said that lenders who "closely examine their lending practices and make necessary changes to eliminate discrimination" would "fare better in this department's stepped-up enforcement effort than those who do not." She said: "Do not wait for the Justice Department to come knocking."

Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had similar racial quota policies, and began taking legal actions against banks that turned down more minority applicants than HUD thought they should.

HUD said that it was breaking down "racial and ethnic barriers" so as to create more "access" to home ownership. It established "goals" -- political Newspeak for quotas -- for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages that the original lenders had made to "the underserved population." In other words, the original lenders could pass on the increasingly risky mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- and, ultimately, to the taxpayers.

Other federal agencies warned mortgage lenders against having credit standards that these agencies considered too high. And these agencies had many powers to use against banks and other lenders who did not heed their warnings.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, for example, issued guidelines for "non-discriminatory" lending which warned lenders against "unreasonable measures of creditworthiness." Lenders should have standards "appropriate to the economic culture of urban lower-income and nontraditional consumers" and consider "extenuating circumstances." In other words, when some people don't come up to the lending standards, then the lending standards should be brought down to them.

What was the evidence for all the lending discrimination that the government was supposedly trying to prevent? Statistics.

In the year 2000, for example, black applicants for conventional mortgage loans were turned down at twice the rate for white applicants. Case closed, as far as the media and the government were concerned. Had they bothered to look a little deeper, they would have found that whites were turned down at nearly twice the rate for Asian Americans.

Had they bothered to check out average credit scores, they would have discovered that whites had higher average credit scores than blacks, and Asian Americans had higher average credit scores than whites.

Such inconvenient facts would have undermined the whole moral melodrama, reducing it to a case of plain economics, with lenders more likely to lend to those who were more likely to pay them back. Once lending standards were lowered, in order to meet racial quotas, they were lowered for everybody. Deadbeats of any race could get mortgage loans, and most were probably not minorities.

Democrats like to blame the "greed" of business, rather than the policies of government, for problems. But lenders don't make money by lending to individuals who don't pay them back. That is what government forced lenders to do, beginning under the Clinton administration. And the eventual collapse took down the economy.

It takes brass to defy the facts. And Bill Clinton has brass.

[Warph]

        
Protesters chant slogans during a march to the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, on Thursday, September 13.
One protester was killed in clashes when Yemeni security forces dispersed hundreds of demonstrators who
gathered around and inside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa as part of widespread anger in at least 11 countries
over a film ridiculing Islam's Prophet Mohammed.


       
Protesters carry flags that read "There is no God but Allah, Mohammed is Allah's messenger"
and chant slogans during a protest against a film they consider blasphemous to Islam and insulting
to the Islamic prophet in Tripoli, Lebanon, on Thursday.


Kuwaiti police stand guard as hundreds of demonstrators protest near the U.S. Embassy in
Kuwait City on Thursday.

Look for all hell to breakout in the Middle East starting Friday and through the weekend.... Warph

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html?printService=print

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination
Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

by Kim Sengupta
Friday, 14 September 2012
2a.m.

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Mr Stevens had been on a visit to Germany, Austria and Sweden and had just returned to Libya when the Benghazi trip took place with the US embassy's security staff deciding that the trip could be undertaken safely.

Eight Americans, some from the military, were wounded in the attack which claimed the lives of Mr Stevens, Sean Smith, an information officer, and two US Marines. All staff from Benghazi have now been moved to the capital, Tripoli, and those whose work is deemed to be non-essential may be flown out of Libya.

In the meantime a Marine Corps FAST Anti-Terrorism Reaction Team has already arrived in the country from a base in Spain and other personnel are believed to be on the way. Additional units have been put on standby to move to other states where their presence may be needed in the outbreak of anti-American fury triggered by publicity about a film which demeaned the Prophet Mohamed.

A mob of several hundred stormed the US embassy in the Yemeni capital Sanaa yesterday. Other missions which have been put on special alert include almost all those in the Middle East, as well as in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Burundi and Zambia.

Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.

There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Senator Bill Nelson, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qa'ida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action."

According to security sources the consulate had been given a "health check" in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."

Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the Tripoli government-sanctioned Libya's Shield Brigade, effectively a police force for Benghazi, maintained that it was anger over the Mohamed video which made the guards abandon their post. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."

Mr Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building. He was discovered lying unconscious by local people and taken to a hospital, the Benghazi Medical Centre, where, according to a doctor, Ziad Abu Ziad, he died from smoke inhalation.

An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. "I don't know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries," said Captain Obeidi. "It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa."

Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors.

Mr Stevens' mother, Mary Commanday, spoke of her son yesterday. "He did love what he did, and he did a very good job with it. He could have done a lot of other things, but this was his passion. I have a hole in my heart," she said.

Global anger: The protests spread

Yemen
The furore across the Middle East over the controversial film about the Prophet Mohamed is now threatening to get out of control. In Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, yesterday around 5,000 demonstrators attacked the US embassy, leaving at least 15 people injured. Young protesters, shouted: "We sacrifice ourselves for you, Messenger of God," smashed windows of the security offices and burned at least five cars, witnesses said.

Egypt
Egypt's Islamist President Mohamed Morsi yesterday condemned the attack in Benghazi that killed the US ambassador. In a speech in Brussels, Mr Morsi said he had spoken to President Obama and condemned "in the clearest terms" the Tuesday attacks. Despite this, and possibly playing to a domestic audience, President Obama said yesterday that "I don't think we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy".

Demonstrators in Cairo attacked the mission on Tuesday evening and protests have continued since.

Iraq
Militants said the anti-Islamic film "will put all the American interests Iraq in danger" and called on Muslims everywhere to "face our joint enemy", as protesters in Baghdad burned American flags yesterday. The warning from the Iranian-backed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq came as demonstrators demanded the closure of the US embassy in the capital.

Bangladesh
Islamists warned they may "besiege" the US embassy in Dhaka after security forces stopped around 1,000 protesters marching to the building. The Khelafat Andolon group called for bigger protests as demonstrators threw their fists in the air, burned the flag and chanted anti-US slogans.

Others
There was a Hamas-organised protest in Gaza City, and as many as 100 Arab Israelis took to the streets in Tel Aviv. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai postponed a trip to Norway, fearing violence. Officials in Pakistan said they "expected protests". Protesters in Tunis burnt US flags.

[Warph]

Think I'm pissed after reading this about "Broom Hilda" Clinton's rotten management of the State Dept?    You bet your sweet ass I am!!!!!

       

State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures
by Ben Shapiro
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/12/Clinton-responsible-for-security-failures-apologies

Today, speaking about the despicable and stomach-wrenching attacks by Islamists on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and our embassy in Cairo, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked: "How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?"


That single line is the most damning indictment of Hillary Clinton's State Department that could ever be penned. It demonstrates her complete lack of knowledge about the region, her failure to anticipate security threats, and worst of all, her willful ignorance about the Islamists that she and President Obama trusted to take over Libya and Egypt.

"How could this happen?"

Clinton, as Secretary of State, should know the answer to that question. That she didn't anticipate even the remote possibility of the murder of our ambassador to Libya by her erstwhile friends led to his death. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring the security of our embassies and consulates and staff, as the State Department website plainly acknowledges:

The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad. This mission is executed through the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). Personal and facility protection are the most critical elements of the DS mission abroad as they directly impact upon the Department's ability to carry out its foreign policy. With terrorist organizations and coalitions operating across international borders, the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests remains great. Therefore, any U.S. mission overseas can be a target even if identified as being in a low-threat environment.

Even the State Department website acknowledges that the threat in places like Libya and Egypt "remains great," even if targets are in a "low-threat environment," which Benghazi and Cairo are certainly not.

Yet the evidence shows: That despite ample evidence that Libyan Islamist terrorists were about to take action against US interests – including a taped message from Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri released the day before the attacks, as well as a recent history of multiple attacks on diplomats in Benghazi -- Hillary Clinton did nothing.

Actually, it's worse than that: the consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed was an "interim facility" with zero Marines. None. Instead, it was staffed by (4) Libyan security officers, who according to CBS News, told Ambassador Stevens to hide in a second building, then promptly directed the Islamist mob to him. He was murdered and dragged through the streets.

           

And what about Egypt? The Cairo Embassy is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. The Cairo Embassy, of course, was busily tweeting just before it was attacked, condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." After the Embassy was breached, they doubled down on the tweet, stating, "This morning's condemnation still stands." Then Clinton herself released a statement on the consulate attacks in Libya, in which she stated, "The US deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. She is responsible for the security of State Department officials abroad, and she is responsible too for their public actions. When it comes to the security threats and the Cairo apologies, the question isn't "How could this happen?" It's the same question she asked of President George W. Bush in 2002, politicizing the September 11 attacks:

What did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it?



"Broom Hilda" just got her ass chewed and looking gulity as hell!: