Benghazi to Boston – Obama’s and Islam’s Bloody Motives

Photo Credit counterjihadreport.com

We agree with Canada Free Press Hagmann’s assessment that Benghazi and Boston are interconnected in an autonomic way. We must be on the offensive and continually garner legitimate intel in order to prevent further terror attacks on US Soil at home and abroad.-PBN

What do the murders of four Americans in Benghazi have to do with the murders of three in a terrorist attack in Boston? Plenty, if you understand what you are seeing in the abstract expressionism of the Jackson Pollock painting is actually a blood trail, and the Pollock painting you are closely studying is an exact reproduction of one of his earlier works. It is a reproduction of a reproduction. We’ve seen this picture before, a bloodstained tangle of lies being sold to us as an artistic masterpiece. But you have to step farther back, not closer to the painting, to actually see the blood trail.

Does anyone still remember the terror attack and murders of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? Does anyone still care? How about the indignation shown by Obama’s then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on January 23, 2013, when being questioned by Senator Johnson about whether the American people were misled about the motive for the attacks? Animated and agitated, Clinton never did answer the question, instead waving her arms and pounding her fist on the table before her in a decidedly undiplomatic like fashion while shedding absolutely no light on what she knew and when she knew it.

Her response was dreadfully shrill yet non-committal, instead rebuking the Senator for seeking the truth with “Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans What difference, at this point, does it make?”

In the wake of the bombings in Boston and amid information the government and media does not want you, the average American citizen to know, motive and causation make a lot of difference. Compare Clinton’s terse response to questions surrounding Benghazi with that of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, whose testosterone levels rose sharply as she decided that she would not even dignify Congressman Jeff Duncan’s questioning last week about the reported involvement of a Saudi national identified as Abdulrahman Ali Isa al-Salami al-Harbi, a/k/a Abdulrahman al Harbi.

The Saudi connections

In the event you don’t recognize that name associated with the Boston bombing, the media initially reported that a Saudi national, later determined to be al Harbi, was under guard at a Boston hospital after being injured in the attack. He was seen running from the explosions and tackled by police a short distance from the bombing site. During the normal investigative process of al Harbi, investigators learned that he was reportedly the subject of an alleged deportation order under Section 212 3B Immigration & Nationality Act regarding “Security an”, but completely unrelated to Boston. To get on this list requires some pretty substantial evidence. To be removed from this list is practically impossible, short of detention or death.

Amid the flurry of media reports that followed, however, his name and status at the hospital were gradually and methodically being erased from news reports and people’s memories. An intentional government and media brown-out turned into a noticeable blackout, even while federal authorities were searching his fifth floor apartment at 364 Ocean Avenue, Revere, MA and removing various items for forensic analysis.

Before the last items were taken from his apartment, I am told, orders were given to immediately stop any investigation of al Harbi. Suddenly and inexplicably, al Harbi became off limits, and a few federal agents are angry and want to know why.

His status under Section 212 3B was reportedly rescinded about 5:30 p.m. ET Wednesday, and he suddenly enjoyed protective status on orders from the ‘highest levels of our government’,  but not before Congressman Duncan had a copy of the 212 3B status of al Harbi. Additionally, it is reported, not only was the order rescinded, but his file was made to appear as if the order never existed in the first place.

According to sources close to this author, al Harbi became the primary focus of a high level diplomatic meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal on Tuesday morning, the day after the marathon bombing and the day before his status suddenly changed. The 10:00 am meeting was abruptly closed to the media with only minutes notice, something that rarely happens. The reason, according to sources with “knowledge” of the matter, is due to the classification of al Harbi as a person of interest in the marathon bombing and his status as a Saudi “elite”.

The aforementioned file alteration and status were changed following this meeting, and arrangements were reportedly made for him to leave the United States. As all of this reportedly took place in such a very short period of time, it is important to understand that the alleged changes had to have the approval at the level of the U.S. Secretary of State, or higher. It was done on behalf of the Saudis, with approval and direction from the highest levels of our own government. Why is this important to the events in Boston and Benghazi?

Benghazi to Boston: the Saudi agenda & shielding the truth

First, don’t get stuck in the minutia of al Harbi, just be aware of it and who is behind it. Instead, look at the larger picture. To be clear, al Harbi himself is not the main story here. It’s bigger than that, and the problem is that people are not thinking big enough. It’s about an agenda to shape the world power structure. The Obama regime is in place to finish what was started long ago. Now, the players under Obama and a complicit press are shielding the truth from the American people. We are not being told the truth about anything, from Benghazi to Boston, and the common factor in all of this is Saudi Arabia.

Our intimate relationship with Saudi Arabia began in earnest (most recently) under George Herbert Walker Bush, and was further expanded by George W. Bush, a/k/a ‘Bandar Bush,’ a name earned for his intimate relationship with Prince Sultan bin Bandar of Saudi Arabia. It should be clear by now that the continuity of this globalist, Pan-Islamic agenda that existed under Bush was further solidified and even expanded by the Obama administration. It is not a political agenda, but a globalist one. We do not have elected leaders who favor the U.S., but internationalists that favor the globalist agenda. Understanding this should explain that the right-left paradigm is a historical artifact, and provide prospective in terms of how the government is pushing this agenda towards completion. We’ve been overtaken and captured from within.

We’ve learned from the 2001 attacks that the Saudis are the largest exporters of terrorism, yet we continue to work for them, providing our military assets and our troops to doing their dirty work. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, they have infiltrated many, if not all levels of our government. As stated, this did not begin under Obama, but was expanded under him. And what better presidential candidate was there to accomplish this objective? Now does his meteoric rise from a community organizer to state senator to President make better sense?

We still cannot even have any intelligent conversation about Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the Office of President without being marginalized by both sides of the political divide. Why then, would we expect the truth about Benghazi? And yet, Americans believe what they see and hear about everything from Benghazi, Boston, and even to matters of our economy? We are a captured operation.

Just as the situation involving al Harbi provides us with a window into this agenda, Benghazi provides us with that same window. Unraveling the truth from the lies in both instances will show just how deep the U.S. is involved with expanding the Saudi Kingdom of power across the Middle East, even at our own national peril. Of critical importance, this relationship is leading us on the path to World War III.

Before the marathon bombings, Russian intelligence officials warned the U.S. about the Islamic terror threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S., including the older brother of the Boston bombing duo. The FBI KNEW the identity of the elder Boston bomber a year ago. Yet, the U.S. DHS, under the Obama regime, deliberately ignored the warnings. We’re spreading and actually sponsoring this radicalization through this Pan-Islamic agenda, yet most people cannot see the bigger picture.

Putin warned us that our policies were the equivalent of playing with dynamite, and continuing to play would result in a direct confrontation with them. During the so-called Arab Spring, Putin also warned the U.S. not to destabilize the Middle East, and warned Obama not to meddle in the affairs of Syria, which he described as their ‘red line in the sand’. Syria holds strategic military and economic importance for Russia and China, and is the backdoor to Iran, another country of importance to both superpowers.

Despite these warnings, the U.S. set up the largest weapons running operation in Benghazi, a location from where weapons were shipped under U.S. operational command to the Islamic terrorists in Syria to topple the Assad regime. The Saudis were the paymasters for this operation, but are duplicitous.

Benghazi was the direct result of this operation, and we now find ourselves in a proxy war with Russia-and soon to be China-with no peaceful end in sight as the U.S. continues to do the dirty work for the Saudis, the internationalists, the international bankers, and the global elite. The terror attacks in Boston were the latest blowback from our foreign policy, and there will be more.

Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and the entirety of the Obama regime are refusing to provide Americans with any truths about what is actually taking place, whether it is about a sole Saudi citizen or the attacks in Benghazi, and complete Saudi agenda. Meanwhile, clueless Americans cheer as the younger bombing suspect is arrested after one of the most unprecedented manhunts in U.S. history, but fail to see all of the entanglements of the Pollock painting. We are willfully and almost gleefully giving up our rights because of the globalists who are running the foreign and domestic policies.

The path to WW III

Like the Pollock paintings, people must be able to see the connections—the blood trails—that connect the terrorist attacks in Boston to the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. We are emboldening the Muslim terrorists by our foreign policies. We are training them, arming them, and in some cases, siding with one faction over another. We are not exporting peace or freeing people from oppression, but creating a new world order.

Time and again, from the first World Trade Center Bombing to 9/11, from Benghazi to Boston, we see the same template reproductions of the paintings, yet don’t recognize it.

We are not dealing with Americans with an American mentality. No, we are dealing with Americans in name only, driven by an internationalist, global mentality.

The ‘elected’ are the ‘elect’ vying for a future seat at the global table. They are hidden amid the entanglements of the Pollock work. They are the very ones who will lead us into global conflict.

So when you see the next massive manhunt that closes a city, understand that this is of our own doing. This is part of a larger agenda that you must step back from the painting to identify. While we surrender our rights domestically, we advance on the path that takes us into WW III. Boston was an indirect blowback from Benghazi, but the truth of the matter will continue to remain hidden unless we demand and receive answers to the proper questions. That is assuming, of course, there is anyone left to ask such questions.

Step back and look at the larger picture. See the blood trail that extends among the continents.

Copyright © Douglas J. Hagmann and Canada Free Press Source Here:

Breaking News -Terror on Train Plot Foiled by Royal Canadian Mounted Police

USA/Canada

We all need to be on high alert for now. It appears that Secret Terror cells are in high gear on our North American Continent-PBN

Two men were arrested and charged with plotting a terrorist attack against a Canadian passenger train, police said Monday.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said Monday that Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser, who live in Montreal and Toronto areas, were conspiring to carry out an al-Qaida supported attack against Via Rail, but posed no immediate threat.

“It was definitely in the planning stage but not imminent,” RCMP chief superintendent Jennifer Strachan told reporters.

Charges against the two men include conspiring to carry out an attack and murder people in association with a terrorist group. Police said the men are not Canadian citizens, but declined to say where they were from.

The investigation was part of a cross-border operation involving Canadian law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the US Department of Homeland Security.

AP

By Charmaine Noronha

Source Here:

What Does The Bible Say About Gun Control?

Bible-and-Gun
What Does The Bible Say About Gun Control? Larry Pratt keenly observed the difference between self-defense and vengeance:
read more

Qatar & Kerry, al Jazeera & Gore. . . Coincidence or in Bed with Islam?

http://p.im9.eu/obama-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam.jpg

Regarding The Benghazi Libya terrorist attack on September 2012 9-1-1. Where are the witnesses? Why have we not heard anything, not one peep, from anyone at all, until today?

Secretary of State John Kerry interviewed March 5th, 2013 (Fox News) “I have visited with one of the survivors at Bethesda Hospital who is a remarkable and courageous person and who is doing very very well.” Kerry went on to say regarding finding the persons responsible for the attack, “Justice sometimes takes a while. . . I believe that getting our troops out of Iraq, which is what the President did, was the right thing to do”, Kerry said defending Obama. In addition to the known murdered Benghazi Four, up to thirty US and allied personnel are believed to have been present and/or injured during the terrorist attack at the special diplomatic mission in Benghazi. The exact number of injured and exact number that were present at the Benghazi site are still being withheld from even the US Congress. The American public, it is certain, would like to know how Kerry obtained access to at least the one survivor when no one else has obtained access. Furthermore all facts regarding the Benghazi incident: who, where, what, why and when, all need to be accounted for in a single comprehensive timeline.

“The only likely explanation is that they are CIA..so keeping their identities secret is understandable.” Charles Krauthammer, Fox News

Among the forty world leaders in the Persian Gulf that the Secretary of State John Kerry met with during his Persian Gulf trip this past week were: the President of the Palestinians in Riyadh (who arrived yesterday unannounced) Saudi Arabia as well as the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

Today, March 5th, 2013 Kerry went to Qatar. It is the same Islamic government that bought the Current TV cable network to be used for terrorist friendly al Jazeera from Al Gore for 500 million dollars. Late Night Talk Show host David Letterman chided Gore, “Now why do we think of al Jazeera as something not right going on there in terms of, in terms of the good for Americans? Why do we think that they may be propaganda for Muslim violence and terrorism?” -MKO for WorldWideBroadcasters.com

 

Benghazi: Retaliation For Brennan’s Secret Wars

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2013/Cabinet-Agency-Candidates/john_brennan_barack_obama_reuters.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/---Xjyo-qrm8/UI1yFFvZnBI/AAAAAAAAAwI/-ynvI8tfmK0/s1600/A6LxsymCAAAs3J4.jpg

Many refer to the President of the United States, leader of the sole superpower in the world, as the most powerful person on the face of the Earth. It follows then that Barack Hussein Obama, as President, would be considered this person.

But that would be an incorrect conclusion. Even Obama with his “we can’t wait for Congress to act” meme, spurning the legislative branch, spurning the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put in place—even with Obama spurning the Courts in the recent NLRB ruling deeming his “recess” appointments unconstitutional, there is one man who wields more power than Obama: CIA appointee John Brennan.

How can that be? Brennan is man who is actually relatively low in the White House food chain, who is nothing more than an adviser to the President, with the title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Yet this man has a virtually unchecked amount of power—no, let us call it for what it is—unchecked power. Congress, the Courts, the CIA, even the Pentagon have no reign over this man as we shall see in a moment.

It was recently discovered that Brennan, running something akin to a fiefdom with his drone assassination program, has the power to decide who lives and who dies and doesn’t have to provide evidence to any entity that the “target” presents any threat to America—even if they are an American—even if the American is living in the United States!

Investigative Reporter Michael Isikoff uncovered a secret memo, entitled:

“Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”

The memo gives the Obama Administration—in effect Brennan—the authority to kill any American citizen at anytime for any reason without proof, without due process, and with absolutely no oversight.

The key passage in the sixteen page memo is the following:

The condition that an operational leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.

This was the basis for the drone strike against American-born al-Qaeda-linked terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki in September of 2011 in Yemen. And this was the basis of the murder of al-Awlaki’s sixteen-year-old son Abdulrahman, along with several other teenagers who were engaged in an outdoor barbecue. While it is debatable whether al-Awlaki as an American citizen should have received due process, it is doubtful that his son, murdered two weeks after al-Awlaki, had any connection to al-Qaeda.

But this unchecked power exercised by John Brennan is mild compared to what we learned with the recent release of an extensive book on the Benghazi consulate attack on September 11, 2012.

The book, Benghazi: The Definitive Report, released on February 12 makes the shocking claim that Obama’s chief counter terrorism officer, John Brennan, aside from having the authority to murder American citizens, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against Al Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-linked groups. How secret? So secret that he and his minions at JSOC, Joint Special Operations Command, operated not only outside the purview of Congress but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!

According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent,” but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the Libya-based terrorist group, Ansar al-Sharia. This was the group that we learned had taken responsibility within two hours of the attack, of which information was emailed directly to the White House Situation Room. After said information was uncovered, the Obama administration denied was true.

It turns out that, per the book, the West, particularly the United States, leading up to the 2011 Libyan civil war had been flooding Libya with literally millions of weapons. After the West—NATO, with Obama at the helm—decided to topple Gaddafi, these millions of weapons then fell into Al-Qaeda and associated groups’ hands. And what Team Obama wasn’t funneling to the Syrian rebels (what Benghazi: The Definitive Report calls an “open secret”)—they wanted to get back from groups such as Ansar al-Sharia. Brennan, throughout North Africa, had been conducting his secret JSOC wars against al-Qaeda and associated groups; and lo and behold, yes, Mr. Brennan, there was retaliation. And that retaliation resulted in the deaths of four Americans at the consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.

The whole Obama Benghazi cover-up was only partially about hiding the illegal funneling of Libyan weapons to Syria and was mainly about the real—but illegal—Commander-in-Chief John Brennan conducting secret wars in Libya—without approval from Congress, without approval from the Pentagon, and hidden even from the CIA, with only a behind-doors approval by Barack Hussein Obama.

How can the “adviser” to Obama—John Brennan—have the authority to make war on any country in the world?

The answer is he doesn’t have the authority.

Brennan should be arrested, not appointed to lead the CIA. And the man who is doing the appointing—Barack Hussein Obama—should be immediately impeached.

After he is impeached?

Prison will come in due time.

As a postscript, for the record, Benghazi: The Definitive Report makes it clear that when the Benghazi consulate was attacked and requested help, the CIA annex was told to stand down. They were ordered to stand idly by while Americans were slaughtered. They refused. According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report:

[Tyrone Woods’] leadership that day, and his refusal to sit by and all his fellow Americans to be overrun, is a testament to his character. His willingness to stand up to his CIA boss and do what was right is an example of true American heroism. Glen Doherty ran toward the sound of gunfire…

Brennan Vote Pushed Off Potentially Until Late February Says Intelligence Chair Feinstein

http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Rand-500x281.jpg

The Hill: Senate Intelligence Committee chief Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has decided to postpone the panel’s confirmation vote on White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan’s nomination to become CIA chief.

The California Democrat ordered the delay after committee members requested the White House provide more information on its armed drone program and last September’s terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Fox News: The Senate Intelligence Committee will delay voting to confirm John Brennan as CIA director as the panel’s Democratic chairwoman demanded Wednesday that the White House turn over more details about lethal drone strikes on terror suspects and last September’s attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left the U.S. ambassador there and three other Americans dead.

Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein said the vote likely will be pushed off until late February.

In a statement, the California Democrat said senators need to see more classified legal opinions that justify using the unmanned spy planes to kill Al Qaeda suspects overseas, including American citizens. The Obama administration last week released two of nine classified Justice Department memos outlining the legal reasoning to Feinstein’s committee just hours before Brennan’s confirmation hearing in front of the panel.

Feinstein said the memos are necessary “in order to fully evaluate the executive branch’s legal reasoning, and to broaden access to the opinions to appropriate members of the committee staff.”

The White House declined to comment Wednesday.

Feinstein and other lawmakers are considering creating a special court to review strikes against U.S. citizens. In 2011, drone strikes in Yemen killed three Americans: U.S. born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old-son and al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan.

Last week, Brennan defended the strikes in his confirmation testimony, but also said he welcomed more discussion on the controversial program.

“American citizens by definition are due much greater due process than anybody else by dint of their citizenship,” Brennan told Feinstein’s committee.

The Senate and House Judiciary committees also want to see the documents, and other lawmakers are pressing the White House for more for information on the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi the killed Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Fort Hood Victims ‘BETRAYED’ by Obama [NEW VIDEO]

Obama has a knack for betraying those closest to him. But when dissenters or military are in his path, he will do all he can to destroy them. Truly, the only way to be on a the side of those against the USA is to take a stance against the USA. Obama and his cabinet are an enemy within our country, they are practicing taqiyya and the only way to rid ourselves of these parasites is by sharing the truth and doing your part at every opportunity.

The heroine police sergeant who helped stop the Fort Hood killing spree and went on to sit with the First Lady at President Obama’s State of the Union speech three years ago has been laid off and says she and other victims of the shootings have been “betrayed” by the commander-in-chief.

“Betrayed is a good word,” former Sgt. Kimberly Munley told ABC News in an interview Tuesday. “Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of. In fact, they’ve been neglected.”

Maj. Nidal Hasan is accused of the November 2009 spree, which left 13 dead and 32 shot at the military base in Texas. Munley was shot three times as she and her partner confronted Hasan. Prosecutors say Hasan was a disgruntled Army psychiatrist and Muslim who had become radicalized through communications with Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Hasan is awaiting a military trial on murder charges.

Munley said she has been laid off from her position on Fort Hood’s civilian police force.

The White House and Pentagon have refused to characterize the attack as terrorism, instead terming it “workplace violence.” The victims have been denied Purple Hearts and are suing the military because they claim the “workplace violence” designation gives them diminished access to medical care and financial benefits normally available to those whose wounds are designated as “combat related.”

An Army spokesman told ABC none of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no oversight of Veterans Administration policies.

Munley told the network the White House used her for political advantage by having her sit next to Michelle Obama during the president’s 2010 State of the Union address.

READ the Fort Hood Victims’ Lawsuit

Some of the victims “had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment” and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group’s lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

“There’s a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case,” said Rubinstein. “We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers’ command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn’t so bad, it wasn’t combat.”

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is “committed to the highest care of those in our military family.”

“Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all servicemembers,” said Little. “The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident.”

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

“If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis,” McHugh told ABC News. “It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform.”

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as “workplace violence” instead of “combat related” or terrorism.

READ a Federal Report on the FBI’s Probe of Hasan’s Ties to al-Awlaki

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the “workplace violence” designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as “combat related.”

Sources here

Impeaching Obama Gains Steam

impeach.obama.mko.

Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

120213obama2

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

by DREW ZAHN

Source & Complete Article Here.

JohnBozombieBrennan

Libs: Explain Why Water Boarding is Evil but Indiscriminate Killing of Civilians Isn’t [VIDEOS]

The evil clan of Bozombies are at it. How long will it be before dissenters are “sanctioned” for disagreeing with the administration?

Washington - According to John Brenner, Obama’s pick for Director of the CIA, everything is fair in love and war except water boarding. While he defended the drone program at yesterday’s Senate nomination hearing, he depicted water boarding as reprehensible.

John Brenner, in a rare display of bipartisanship, came under fire by both Democrats and Republicans during his nomination hearing in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In what the Washington Post described as one of the most heated sessions for a nominee in a decade, Brennan was asked to defend the refusal by the administration to provide basic information on the drone program, including the death toll. To make the point, he was prodded to square this with his assertion that he opposed enhanced interrogation methods, known as water boarding. In both cases justice department lawyers provided legal opinions justifying the programs.JohnBozombieBrennan

Earlier this week a White Paper was leaked and published by NBC news that justified killing American citizens abroad provided that they were an imminent threat to the United States, as determined by a high level administration official. The White Paper was vague enough to allow the execution unchecked.

A Justice Department White paper issued late Monday, justifies killing Americans abroad if they pose an imminent threat to the United States. The document details that the American citizen has to be associated group and poses an imminent threat to the United States.

The document further details that the imminent threat does not have to be based on intelligence of a specific attack, but “imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity.” It must also take collateral damage to civilians into consideration.

While Brennan defended the White Paper policy and the drone program in general, he said that the water boarding undertaken by the Bush administration was reprehensible and had to be stopped. Brennan wasn’t sure if the enhanced interrogation program was effective and if it had yield any useful information.

On a second controversial topic, he said that after reading a classified intelligence report on harsh interrogation techniques, he does not know if water boarding has yielded useful information.

Despite what he called a public misimpression, Brennan told the Senate Intelligence Committee that drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he declared.

Republicans have claimed that water boarding indeed yielded results and information extracted that vital information and possibly thwarted dozens of attack and may have led to the capture of Osama Bin Ladin.

This was confirmed in an interview of retired Central Intelligence Agency field officer John Kiriakou, who headed he interrogation of Zubaydah in Pakistan after his capture in 2002.

Kiriakou told ABC that Zubaydah was waterboarded — a technique in which the person being interrogated is made to feel as if he is being drowned — after initially refusing to cooperate with those questioning him.

Zubaydah withstood the waterboarding for “quite some time” — about 30 to 35 seconds — Kiriakou said in the ABC interview.

“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” Kiriakou told ABC. “From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

While Brennan supports the Obama administration drone program, he said that it has to be acknowledged publicly.

Apparently Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was not too impressed with Brenner’s answers. She opined that this rationale was long gone. She said that she thought the administration was victim of its own secrecy.

She said that she had sought permission to disclose estimates of civilian casualties attributed to the drone program, but was told she couldn’t since it was classified. For the public, the drone program doesn’t exist.

She also indicated, for the first time, that she plans to have the committee examine the creation of a special court to evaluate evidence against Americans who might be targeted, similar to the scrutiny applied to government monitoring of the communications of Americans suspected of having connections to terrorist groups.

Although the public and the media have been aware of the drone program, particularly the drone strikes into Pakistan, this week was the first time that the administration publicly acknowledged it.

Since 9/11 the CIA has transformed into a powerful para military arm of the US administration. While it still collects data from all corners of the world it has become more and more involved in striking foreign targets with drones from a distance. The whole operation can be likened to a computer game, where the operators guide a drone to its target often more than 10,000 miles removed. No stench, no noise and no real evidence of collateral destruction. Clinical and clean with minimum psychological effect on the operators, the program has become an effective tool for the administration.

If John Brennan were confirmed, he would be the most experienced director in decades, having served 25 years in the agency.

The question is if water boarding is so reprehensible, why isn’t the indiscriminate killing of civilians?

Full article here.

Pathetic Panetta and the Libyan Lies

http://www.zengardner.com/wp-content/uploads/panetta.jpgThe CIA knew, Panetta knew, Hillary Clinton knew, and Obama the Liar In Chief: The POTUS, must have known, that the USA was working on a covert operation to support the Syrian rebels via US Ambassador Chris Stevens at a diplomatic facility located in Benghazi, Libya.  The pathetically remarkable excuse by Panetta, Clinton, and Obama et al that the United States had no warnings of increasingly unstable geo-political environment and of possible and likely impending acts of terror in an already unstable Middle Eastern country such as Libya cannot be ignored especially on the anniversary of 911 – PBN

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told Congress on Thursday that the Pentagon had supported a plan to arm Syrian rebels that was developed last year by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then serving as Secretary of State.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, left, and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were asked by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, if they had supported the recommendation that weapons be provided to the Syrian resistance.

“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mgd1gNwN1AQ/UI7f3u5BQBI/AAAAAAAAAlU/Eiteu_-kPPg/s1600/EmbassyBombed.jpg

“You did support that” Mr. McCain asked again.

“We did,” General Dempsey added.

The White House, however, was worried about the risks of getting more deeply involved in the crisis in Syria. And with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, the White House rebuffed the plan, rejecting the advice of most of the key members of Mr. Obama’s national security team.

The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions that as the fighting in Syria raged last summer, Mr. Petraeus developed the plan, which Mrs. Clinton supported and that called for vetting rebels and training fighters who would be supplied with weapons.

His proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States might work, during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal.

Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited again after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta was said by some officials to have been sympathetic to the idea, which was presented to the White House last year, though a spokesman for Mr. Panetta declined to comment on his role when asked last week.

General Dempsey made his comments during testimony with Mr. Panetta on the Sept. 11 attack on an American compound on Benghazi, Libya, which led to the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans.

Discussing steps to improve security at American compounds abroad, Mr. Panetta said that it would take two to three years to add the 35 new Marine security guard detachments that the United States plans to deploy to improve the security of American diplomatic compounds abroad.

The Marines have guard units at 152 diplomatic compounds, but did not have one in Benghazi when the assault occurred. Mr. Panetta said that the role of the Marines detachments would be expanded beyond protecting classified information at the compounds.

“This could include expanded use of nonlethal weapons, and additional training and equipment, to support the Embassy Regional Security Officer’s response options when host nation security force capabilities are at risk of being overwhelmed,” Mr. Panetta said in his prepared remarks.

Mr. Panetta said that the Pentagon was not able to respond more quickly to the Benghazi episode because it had not received an intelligence alert about animpending attack.

“Without adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” Mr. Panetta told the committee in his prepared statement.

When the attack began, the Pentagon had no forces that could be rapidly sent to Benghazi or to protect diplomatic outposts in Tunisia, Egypt or Algeria that might also have come under assault on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There are no armed drones thought to be within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea.

The Africa Command, whose area of operation includes North Africa, also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F., as it is known. Every other regional command had one at the time, but the Africa Command shared one with the European Command, and it was on an exercise in Croatia at the time.

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Panetta did not address the question of whether the Africa Command had requested any of these forces to be on hand on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nor did he say whether Mr. Panetta or General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had given any thought to moving forces to the region as a precaution before the attacks in September last year.

Senator McCain criticized the Pentagon for not positioning more forces in the region before the anniversary of Sept. 11 so they could more rapidly respond.

“We could have placed forces there,” he said. “We could have had aircraft and other capabilities as short distance away as Souda Bay, Crete.”

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

Source Here:

Islamic Gunman Fires at anti-Islam writer

As obama perches on his stolen perch. He freely shows his hatred for decent Americans.

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — A gunman tried to shoot a Danish writer and prominent critic of Islam, but the writer managed to fend him off and was not injured in the attack, police and an advocacy group he chairs said.

Police said Lars Hedegaard, who heads two groups that claim press freedom is under threat from Islam, was the target of the shooting. In a brief statement, they said a roughly 25-year-old gunman rang the doorbell at the writer’s Copenhagen home and when he opened the door, the gunman fired a shot aimed at his head, but missed.

“After a scuffle the attacker fled. At this writing we do not know whether the police have apprehended him,” the Danish Free Press Society said.

Hedegaard, 70, heads both the Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society. He was fined 5,000 kroner ($1,000) in 2011 for making a series of insulting and degrading statements about Muslims.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt condemned the attack. “It is even worse if the attack is rooted in an attempt to prevent Lars Hedegaard to use his freedom of expression,” she told Danish news agency Ritzau.

Hedegaard has expressed support for a range of outspoken Islam critics in Europe, including Swedish artist Lars Vilks and Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders.

“Failed attack on my friend and Islam critic Lars Hedegaard in Denmark this morning. My thoughts are with him. Terrible,” Wilders tweeted.

The Free Press Society said it was “shaken and angry” over the attack, but “relieved that the perpetrator did not succeed.”

Full article here.

The Benghazi Barrage Continues. Where is Our Leader USA?

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/files/2012/10/benghazi_cloud_white_house_10-28-12-2.jpgThe Benghazi Barrage Continues. Where is Our Leader USA? Is he golfing? Or is he busy trying to take our guns away? The shootings and shrapnel continue in Libya. Leave it up to Italy to take the reigns on garnering proper security for their ambassador…What about us USA? Where is our leader? -PBN

TRIPOLI (Reuters) – Libya plans to create a special force to protect diplomats, government sources said, after a gun attack on an Italian consul exposed the precarious security situation in the North African state.

Unidentified gunmen in Benghazi opened fire on Guido De Sanctis’s armored car on Saturday. The diplomat was unhurt but the attack was a reminder of the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission there that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.

“We are discussing putting in place a force that would look after diplomats. There are also plans to protect foreigners working for foreign companies,” a defense ministry source said, declining to be named as the proposal was still being discussed.

“The idea is it would be mixed between police and army but would likely come under the command of the defense ministry.”

The source said the members were likely to be trained abroad but did not give an estimate of how many there would be.

Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi spoke by telephone to his Libyan counterpart to reaffirm Italy’s resolve to help Libya reinforce its security.

Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi said Saturday’s attack was “an attempt to destabilize the institutions of the new Libya.”

“Italy expresses its strongest condemnation and reaffirms its total support of the democratic path and the reforms that the Tripoli authorities have started,” he said in a statement.

An Italian foreign ministry spokesman said security around officials in Benghazi was already high before Saturday’s attack, which will strengthen views that the city is seen as too dangerous a place for foreign diplomats and workers.

There was no immediate indication who might have been behind the attack.

DISARRAY

More than a year after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, security in Libya remains in disarray.

To keep a degree of order, the government relies on numerous militias made up of thousands of Libyans who took up arms against Gaddafi. The groups provide what passes for official security but also what poses the main threat to it.

The government has taken a twin-track approach, saying it will shut down rogue groups but licensing many of the most powerful armed brigades.

Almost 6,000 former rebel fighters have begun training to be policemen under a drive to disarm militias, the new interior minister said in an interview last week.

Confirming the government plan for a diplomatic security unit, a foreign ministry source said diplomats currently had to advise Libyan authorities if they planned to travel more than 80 kms (50 miles) from their base.

“Even when the force is established, diplomats need to take care of themselves. This is not Switzerland,” the source said.

American officials say militants with ties to al Qaeda affiliates were most likely involved in the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA annex.

However four months on, no arrests have been made, with some saying it is too difficult for the weak armed forces to move against these groups and there is no real desire to dig too deep for fear of reprisals.

In a scathing assessment released last month, an official U.S. inquiry determined security at the Benghazi mission was inadequate to deal with the attack and there was little evidence militia guards alerted Americans to the assault or swiftly summoned reinforcements once it was under way.

The eastern city of Benghazi was where the anti-Gaddafi uprising broke out nearly two years ago but it is now a hot spot for violence, riven with armed factions.

In November, the city’s police chief was shot dead. And last June, a convoy carrying the British ambassador was attacked with a rocket-propelled grenade that injured two of his bodyguards.

The offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the city were also attacked last year, as was a convoy carrying the United Nations’ former special envoy to Libya.

(Additional reporting by Catherine Hornby in Rome; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)