Never Leave your Lover

Syrian refugees pose no more of a threat than tourists wanting to visit the Lincoln Memorial or go to the top of the Empire State Building, claims President Obama. Speaking to reporters with his usual impatience, Obama said Republicans are ginning up unsubstantiated fear when it comes to our new neighbors.

Speaking to reporters at a summit in the Philippines, Mr. Obama said the “overwhelming numbers” of Syrians who are applying for entry to the U.S. “are children, women, families — themselves victims of terrorism.” He said they are already subject to rigorous vetting by U.S. security officials.

(which isn’t strictly true, but since when did this guy care about facts!)

“The idea that somehow they pose a more significant threat than all the tourists who pour into the United States every single day just doesn’t jive with reality,” Mr. Obama said. “So my expectation is after the initial spasm of rhetoric, the people will settle down, take a look at the facts, and we’ll be able to proceed.”

 

Facts? Obama. Sorry Not compatible.

In other words, the president thinks refugees are simply coming here to sightsee. Recent incidents prove otherwise. Americans’ fear that some of the immigrants are secret terrorists was somewhat confirmed now that more than one terror suspect in last weekend’s attack in Paris reportedly entered Europe by posing as a Syrian refugee.

Tourist Visas is one of the biggest reasons for Illegal Aliens also, by the way.

Thankfully, our leaders aren’t so naïve.

But they are “racists” and “islamophobic”. 🙂

A total of 34 states are now rejecting the White House’s refugee plan, which aims to bring in 100,000 refugees by 2017, choosing to place their citizens’ safety first.

As the influx of refugees into Europe continues, the continent can expect more than a rise in tourism revenue. For leaders like Viktor Orban, the president of Hungary, he predicts a much more dangerous outcome.

“For us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition.

“Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all.”

Tourists come to visit, take in the sights, then return home with their pictures and souvenirs. Refugees, on the other hand, are here to stay. People like Gov. Mike Huckabee worry about the influx, considering the refugees don’t understand our language or our culture. He suggested offering them safe havens, just not in the United States.

Meanwhile, Congress has introduced legislation that would halt the refugee program until a better vetting process can be established.

Obama has threatened to veto it.

Of course he will. The Narrative is The Narrative and you aren’t allowed to disagree with it.

pragersneaktrojan horse

Fact Free Left

The outrage over another multiple murder of American military personnel on American soil by another Islamic extremist has been exacerbated by the fact that these military people had been ordered to be unarmed — and therefore sitting ducks.

Millions of American civilians have also been forbidden to have guns, and are also sitting ducks — for criminals, terrorists or psychos.

You might think that, before having laws or policies forcing fellow human beings to be defenseless targets, those who support such laws and policies would have some factual basis for believing that these gun restrictions save more lives, on net balance, than allowing more legal access to firearms. But you would be wrong.

Facts, Liberals don’t need no stinking facts. They have their Agenda and that’s all that matters because they are Homo Superior Liberalis and they are never wrong.

evolution of the left

Most gun control zealots show not the slightest interest in testing empirically their beliefs or assumptions. There have been careful factual studies by various scholars of what happens after gun control laws have been instituted, strengthened or reduced.

But those studies are seldom even mentioned by gun control activists. Somehow they just know that gun restrictions reduce gun crime, no matter how many studies show the opposite. How do they know? Because other like-minded people say so — and say so repeatedly and loudly.

And then they get MSNBC and CNN and the Liberal media to repeat it over and over again.

The end justifies the means, regardless of how you got there. The Agenda is The Agenda.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” –Josef Goebbels

A few gun control advocates may cherry-pick examples of countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have lower murder rates (such as England) — and omit other countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have far higher murder rates (such as Mexico, Russia and Brazil).

You don’t test an assumption or belief by cherry-picking examples. Not if you are serious. And if you are not going to be serious about life and death, when are you going to be serious?

On Left, about how righteous they are about their Agenda and how to make you follow it no matter what. That is serious business.

Unfortunately, gun control is just one of many issues on which the political left shows no real interest in testing their assumptions or beliefs. The left glorifies the 1960s as a turning point in American life. But they show no interest in testing whether things turned for the better or for the worse.

Homicide rates had been going down substantially, for decades on end — among both blacks and whites — until the 1960s. Plotted on a graph, there is a big U-shaped curve, showing the turnaround after the bright ideas of the left were applied to criminals in American courts of law in the 1960s.

This was not the only U-shaped curve, with its low, turnaround point in the 1960s. The same was true of the venereal disease gonorrhea, whose rate of infection went down in every year of the 1950s — and then skyrocketed, beginning in the 1960s.

Teenage pregnancies had also been going down for years, until the late 1960s, when “sex education” was introduced in schools across the country. Then pregnancy rates rose nearly 50 percent over the next decade, among girls 15 to 19 years old — exactly the opposite of what had been predicted by the left.

Another program that had the opposite effect from its advocates’ claims was the “war on poverty” program created by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Contrary to what was said during the celebrations of its 50th anniversary last year, the loudly proclaimed purpose of the “war on poverty” was not simply to transfer money or other benefits to the poor. Both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and their supporters in Congress and in the media, all clearly stated that the central purpose of the “war on poverty” was to reduce dependency on government.

Both poverty and dependency on government had already been declining for years before this massive program began. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level — without counting government benefits — declined by about one third from 1950 to 1965.

This was yet another beneficial trend that reversed itself after another bright idea of the left was put into practice in the 1960s. After half a century and trillions of dollars, the only response of the left has been to change the criteria, so that now the “war on poverty” could be portrayed as a success because it proved that, if you transferred more resources from X to Y, then Y would now have more resources. Who could have doubted that?

And now there are more poor children than in the Depression itself. Less jobs than in the last 40 years. But you won’t hear THAT from the Left.

Changing the goal after the fact is just one of the ways the left has portrayed its failures as successes.

And they continue to do so. Or, for the sake of The Agenda, they just ignore any “inconvenient” truths 🙂 that get in the way of it and demonize you for daring to defy them.

Just do as you are told. Believe what you are told, without question like they do and Utopia awaits you.

And if it doesn’t happen, it’s someone elses fault, like George W. Bush! 🙂

There is no way to know what is going on in someone else’s mind. But sometimes their behavior tells you more than their words.

The political left’s great claim to authenticity and honor is that what they advocate is for the benefit of the less fortunate. But how could we test that?

T.S. Eliot once said, “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”

This suggests that one way to find out if those who claim to be trying to help the less fortunate are for real is to see if they are satisfied to simply advocate a given policy, and see it through to being imposed — without also testing empirically whether the policy is accomplishing what it set out to do.

The first two steps are enough to let advocates feel important and righteous. Whether you really care about what happens to the supposed beneficiaries of the policy is indicated by whether you bother to check out the empirical evidence afterwards.

Many, if not most, people who are zealous advocates of minimum wage laws, for example, never check to see if these laws do more good by raising some workers’ wages than harm by preventing many young and inexperienced workers from finding jobs.

One of my own pieces of good fortune, when I left home at age 17, was that the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was in single digits that year — for the last time. The minimum wage law was ten years old, and the wage specified in that law was now so low that it was irrelevant, after years of inflation. It was the same as if there were no minimum wage law.

Liberals, of course, wanted the minimum wage raised, to keep up with inflation. The result was that, ten years later, the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was 27.5 percent — and it has never been less than 20 percent in all the years since then.

As the minimum wage kept getting raised, so did the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males. In 1971 it was 33.4 percent — and it has never been under 30 percent since then. It has often been over 40 percent and, occasionally, over 50 percent.

But people who advocate minimum wage laws seldom show any interest in the actual consequences of such laws, which include many idle young males on the streets, which does no good for them or for their communities.

Advocates talk about people who make minimum wages as if they are a permanent class of people. In reality, most are young inexperienced workers, and no one stays young permanently. But they can stay inexperienced for a very long time, damaging their prospects of getting a job and increasing their chances of getting into trouble, hanging out with other idle and immature males.

There is the same liberal zeal for government intervention in housing markets, and the same lack of interest in checking out what the actual consequences are for the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of government housing policies, whether as tenants or home buyers.

They have the best of intentions so consequences don’t matter and they are someone elese fault anyways.

Government pressures and threats forced mortgage lenders to lower their lending standards, to allow more low-income and minority applicants to qualify. But, after the housing boom became a bust, the biggest losers were low-income and minority home buyers, who were unable to keep up the payments and lost everything — which was the very reason they were turned down before lending standards were lowered.

Rent control laws have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. More than a thousand apartment buildings have been abandoned by their owners in New York alone — more than enough to house all the homeless in the city.

High tax rates on “the rich” — however defined — are an ever popular crusade on the left. Who cares about the consequences — such as the rich investing their money overseas, where it will create jobs and economic growth in other countries, while American workers are unemployed and American economic growth is anemic?

All these policies allow the political left to persist in their fact-free visions. And those visions in turn allow the left to feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.

For they are Homo Superior Liberalis!

Liberals are like Wile E. Coyote.  For example:

  • Elaborate and expensive ideas and contraptions that always fail miserably.
  • These ideas always come from the same source.  Like Wile E. Coyote using ACME, liberals use John Maynard Keynes, Saul Alinsky, and Karl Marx for their sources every time.
  • The goal is more important than the damage attempting to achieve it causes along the way.
  • Never focusing on the possible consequences, but only focusing on the goal. Unfortunately, for Wile E. Coyote, a Mac truck, a train, an explosive rocket, etc. bring the reality of the lack of ability to see all possible consequences into the picture.  For liberals, the realities of human nature and economics seem to elude them, as they seem to think that this ACME product will work this time, and that their “super genius” will exert control over what is uncontrollable.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Anyone watching Wile E. Coyote knows it is just a cartoon intended to make you laugh at the Coyote’s rampant stubbornness and stupidity.  In real life, we would call such behavior insanity.

The Liberals call it The Agenda, and it’s perfection, just like they are. All they have to do is force you to see it. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
But you’re just a “hater” if you disagree.
 crazy old socialist
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

In His Interest Only

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Columnist and author of “The Undocumented,” Mark Steyn argued comparing President Obama to Neville Chamberlain is “rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain” on Tuesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said of comparisons between Obama and Chamberlain, “I think actually that’s rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain, Sean. He got the central question of the 1930’s wrong, but he was an honorable man, who believed he was acting in the interests of his country and the British Empire which he loved. When Churchill became prime minister he kept Chamberlain on and had him chair the War Cabinet in his absence. And Churchill wept over Chamberlain’s funeral casket, and claimed he was an honorable man who just happened to be wrong. I don’t think you can say that about Obama. I think what Obama did is significantly worse than what Neville Chamberlain did. I don’t think, in effect, Obama was negotiating on behalf of the United States. I think what happened at these talks is that he and the Iranians were, in a sense, negotiating together to anoint Iran as the regional power in the Middle East and to facilitate Iran’s reentry, the biggest planetary sponsor of terrorism, to facilitate its reentry into the global community. That’s what Obama was there doing.”

“I think the nuclear issue was a mere pretext, a Hitchcockian McGuffin. Iran will be a nuclear state, and very soon. The joke inspections regime – under which Teheran can block any inspections for the best part of a month – will facilitate the nuclearization of Iran and prevent anyone who objects to it – such as Israel – from doing anything about it. That’s a given.”

But that’s not what the talks were about. Obama’s vision of the post-American Middle East sees Iran as the dominant power, and that’s what the negotiations were there to finesse.

Steyn added, “I think that’s the other difference between Obama and Chamberlain. The horrors of the — of what Germany did were not known to Neville Chamberlain. And in a sense the appeasers of the 1930’s did so because of the horrors of the first World War and the lost generation, and they didn’t want that to happen again. And it’s because we know they got it wrong, that history won’t give us the same opt out card. Because we should have known better because it had happened before. And I think what Obama gets here, i think it does come back to a — to his classic Marxist worldview in which he sees America as the problem on the world’s stage. And if you look at everything he did — he’s done, Sean, what he did with Iran fits into that context. I mean, whether you look at missile defense in Eastern Europe, where he takes the side of Russia over US allies like Poland and the Czech Republic. If you look at little things, like the Falklands Islands, where he takes the side of Argentina over a US ally like United Kingdom. And in the Middle East, he’s taken the side of Iran over US allies like the Sunni monarchies and Israel, because his central view is that America and American power is the problem in the world. And, therefore, American allies are part of that problem. And, therefore, what he does is, in a sense, withdraw from the world, and enhance the position of the enemies of American allies. That’s what he’s done in the Middle East. And it won’t be confined to the Middle East, it’ll spread beyond that.”

Sheldon Filger: In a private meeting with leftwing progressive activists in the Democratic Party held in January 2014, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, spelled out the administration’s intentions. Unknown to Rhodes, his confidential briefing was secretly recorded, and details would subsequently leak out. The core of what he had to say about the negotiations with Iran:

“So no small opportunity, it’s a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.” He went on to say, “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away. And there are ways to do that.”

Largely in secret, and based on a belief that the American people lacked the sophistication to fully understand the Iran issue as thoroughly as President Obama and his expert advisors, a policy decision was apparently made to engage in a grand act of appeasement, allowing Iran to maintain intact its illicit nuclear infrastructure designed solely to fabricate fissile materials suitable for ultimately only one purpose — manufacturing nuclear weapons. A fig leaf of a 10-year moratorium on full-scale use of that capacity by Iran, with a supposedly strict inspection regime that is obfuscated by a complex treaty that is so arcane, it allows Iran numerous opportunities to thwart its intent and cheat successfully, has been presented as largely a public relations exercise. The real intent of the Iran deal, as Ben Rhodes suggested 18 months ago, is to transform Iran from an adversary to a regional ally of America’s and serve as the Middle East policeman, allowing the United States to finally extricate itself from military involvement in that region.

Barack Obama, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes apparently believe in a manner similar to Stalin’s that the Ayatollahs’ vehemently anti-American hatred is not a core value of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will be sublimated by pragmatism. Yet, even as the Iran Deal was being finalized, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei publicly chanted “death to America!” American flags were burning on Iranian streets as Kerry and Zarif exchanged smiles. And the regime’s most militant instrument of power, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, was staging naval exercises that involved the “sinking” of a replica of an American aircraft carrier.

President Obama has apparently convinced himself that Tehran’s hostility is only a passing phase, and that in time it will become the trustworthy guardian of the Middle East, protecting the United States from what the administration seems to regard as the unruly Sunni Arab world. Decades of alliances with the broader Arab world, and especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, along with Israel, are in the process of being abandoned, in what must be regarded as the most reckless crapshoot in American geostrategic planning.

Unfortunately, the administration has lulled itself into sleepwalking with a hegemon whose core ideology, as the leaders of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly stated, is centered on hatred of the United States. Unless other forces can prevent what at this point seems inevitable, the ultimate outcome of the Iran deal is that Americans will one day awaken to the reality of an apocalyptic regime pointing nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles at their shores.

But it makes THEM feel good. It makes THEM feel superior. It MAKES them look “strong” in their eyes. And we know the only opinion that matters to Obama, Is Obama’s.

And in 10-15 years (or less) when Iran is terrorizing the world with Nuclear weapons the Left and Obama will be firmly and resolutely convinced beyond a shadow of any doubt that it will be someone elses fault! 🙂

Somebody Else’s Problem field, or SEP, is a cheap, easy, and staggeringly useful way of safely protecting something from unwanted eyes. It can run almost indefinitely on a torch (flashlight)/9 volt battery, and is able to do so because it utilises a person’s natural tendency to ignore things they don’t easily accept, like, for example, aliens at a cricket match. Any object around which an S.E.P. is applied will cease to be noticed, because any problems one may have understanding it (and therefore accepting its existence) become Somebody Else’s. An object becomes not so much invisible as unnoticed.

“The Somebody Else’s Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what’s more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people’s natural disposition not to see anything they don’t want to, weren’t expecting, or can’t explain.”

― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

Problem Solved. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

13 Hours Part 2

http://therightscoop.com/heres-the-entire-13-hours-fox-news-special-with-eyewitness-accounts-of-benghazi/

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

13 Hours

On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”

Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.

But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.

In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.

The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.

The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.

The book, written by New York Times bestselling author Mitchell Zuckoff in collaboration with the remaining members of the Team, is a riveting account of heroism and tragedy, something that you might expect to find (and equally not be able to put down) in a Tom Clancy novel and from which there will no doubt be a most adrenaline-pumping movie.

After all, how could a director improve on Oz, his body pounded and his left arm shredded by a mortar blast, about to be carried on a stretcher to the evacuation airplane, standing up and saying “Hell no! I walked into this country and I’m going to f***ing walk out of this town”?

Of the five surviving Team members, three use their real names in the book: Mark “Oz” Geist (Marines), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Army), and John “Tig” Tiegen (Marines). Two others use pseudonyms, going by Jack Silva (Navy) and Dave “D.B.” Benton (Marines). Each of them, including Rone, is a father, making even more remarkable the risks they took for their countrymen and more scandalous the reasonable conclusion that but for poor decision-making by high-ranking State Department and others the deaths in Benghazi, and perhaps the attack itself, might never have happened.

The book begins with Jack’s arrival in Benghazi, being wary of surveillance as soon as arriving at baggage claim, and being shown to the CIA Annex by Rone, who “told Jack that the summer in Benghazi would be his last job for the GRS… he wanted to spend more time with his wife and to help raise their infant son.”

After descriptions of the other team members — in which you really feel as if you know them at least a little bit — and an introduction to Ambassador Stevens, whose “optimism was tested from the start by instability and violence,” 13 Hours moves quickly into the violent events of the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12, 2012, beginning with the State Department Compound’s Libyan gate security fleeing — though they were unarmed in any case — allowing in “armed invaders ([who]… roamed freely through the dimly lit Compound, firing their weapons and chanting as they approached the buildings in packs, some stealing what they could carry, all trying to find the Americans.”

Your next enthralling hour or two of reading is of battles and tactics and bravery and confusion which for civilians is only imaginable as a 21st century Alamo — under attack by al Qaeda instead of Santa Ana’s army: “As Tig moved to join in, a [friendly] 17 February militiaman on the west side of Gunfighter Road fired two rocket-propelled grenades toward the men outside the Compound gate. The grenade-firing militiaman was positioned about twenty yards behind Tig, who heard the alarming sound of shells whizzing over his head. The grenades didn’t faze the attackers, who kept firing.”

And while I’ve offered an example involving John “Tig” Tiegen, every member of the team demonstrated almost inconceivable — again, at least to civilians — courage and determination. They would (and do) say that it’s simply what they were trained to do. Which does not lessen my admiration for them by even the smallest measure.

Yet despite everything, and this is the intention of the surviving members of the Team, if one person comes through the book as most memorable and, although I hesitate to suggest degrees of heroism, a man whom the other heroes themselves see as a hero, it is Tyrone “Rone” Woods, whom everyone on the team liked, trusted, and respected, and who lost his life in a terrorist mortar attack on a roof in Benghazi:

The former SEAL with the King Leonidas beard, who’d extended his stay in Benghazi to help protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who intended to retire from GRS operator trips to work with his wife, who was eager to raise his infant son and see his two older boys grow into men, who instinctively and compulsively watched over his fellow operators, who led the rescue charge into the Compound, who searched through a burning building for two missing men, and who answered the first two explosions by rising with a machine gun and returning fire, had absorbed the deadly concussive force of the explosion.

13 Hours recognizes but deliberately avoids partisan politics. Regarding some of the most common questions about what happened in Benghazi, such as “During the attack, was the U.S. military response appropriate, and if not, why not?”

Most answers have fallen on one side or the other of a partisan divide… Media reports have run the gamut on who, if anyone, in Washington deserves blame and punishment, and whether the attacks should be considered a tragedy, a scandal, or both. However, by early 2014 one conclusion had gained considerable traction across partisan lines: The attacks could have been prevented. That is, if only the State Department had taken appropriate steps to improve security at the Compound in response to the numerous warnings and incidents during the months prior.

Yes, the brave men of Benghazi are simply telling their story, but the words of Pericles ring as true as ever: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Simply as a matter of “the buck stops here” management responsibility, one can’t avoid the feeling that 13 Hours means that Hillary Clinton has more ’splainin’ to do if she seeks to be the next president of the United States.

As you look beyond the incredible story, the events in Benghazi offer as many questions as answers. Again, one cannot help but ask questions that might have political implications despite the authors’ explicit declarations that they are not trying to make political statements but simply to get the truth of that night’s events into the public sphere.

On Monday, in an exclusive interview for The American Spectator, I asked a few of these and other questions of Mark “Oz” Geist and John “Tig” Tiegen — three men who after enduring Benghazi have been willing to risk their own now-civilian privacy in order to tell their story:

Ross Kaminsky: Many aspects of that night seem like they might have been preventable. Let’s start with the initial situation on the ground. What did you make of it at the time and what do you make of it in retrospect?

Mark Geist: It was about like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city. After the fall of Gaddafi, it was controlled by several different militias and they were all vying for control of various entities within the city, like the airport, the port, commerce, things like that, so they can make money.

RK: Did you think that the State Dept. security people, the State Department more broadly, even the CIA, had taken their own security seriously enough and done enough to be prepared for what could happen in a lawless city, much less in a lawless city on September 11th?

John Tiegen: Our side, we took measures, from the get-go, when we first got into Benghazi. For the State Dept. guys I’d say no. Even the very first trip that I did down in Benghazi, they were shorthanded. There’d be only like two Americans on that Compound, no principal officer, just two RSOs [Regional Security Officers] sitting there, not doing anything. Or they’d go on a move and only leave one American on the Compound. They were always understaffed and basically no security. I mean, the guys at the gate, they had no weapons; I don’t even think they had batons. There was a total lack of security over there.

RK: Did you think at the time that there was an unsafe reliance on Libyans for the security at the Compounds?

MG: My personal opinion is because of the relationship that people felt they had with the Libyans — most of the Libyans who lived there were supportive of us — it gave a false sense of security to some people. You have a town that’s controlled by militias. The militias weren’t friendly. At best, they were neutral to us. Some of them I guess were quasi-friendly but not somebody you’d want to trust your life to.

RK: One thing that I don’t really know even after reading the book: What was your team’s explicit responsibility, if any, for the State Department Compound?

JT: We had no requirement to go rescue them or do anything with them. We were augmenting our time to even escort the ambassador to the different events he was attending, just so they’d have extra security.

RK: During the attacks, you told the Team Leader that you wanted aerial military support as well as surveillance. What happened and didn’t happen when you made that request?

JT: It was Tanto who made that request. He made it pretty quick. He requested the IR and a Spectre gunship within 10 or 15 minutes. They just kinda said “Roger that. We’ll look into it.” All we ever got was the IR (drone surveillance), obviously.

RK: Did you ever figure out why?

JT: No.

RK: What do you make of the fact that you never figured out why?

MG: I think somebody was either afraid to make the decision or they felt that the situation wasn’t as grave as it was, which could lead you to the conclusion that maybe that’s [also] why they had us stand down and hold off for 30 minutes. Because they thought it could be handled in an easier manner, or they didn’t want the exposure or something.

RK: It’s not as if you guys are the type of people to call and say you need help except in the absolute worst possible situations. I just can’t imagine who would hear a call from any one of you and say “Well, maybe it’s not that serious.” I suppose that’s more of a comment than a question…

MG and JT: I would agree. I would agree with that.

RK: You talk in the book about the CIA station chief in Benghazi, whom you call “Bob,” and who refused to be interviewed for the book, as I gather from the book’s notes. Bob made some decisions which you’ve made clear you believe cost American lives. What did Bob do or not do, and what were the impacts of his actions or inactions, and perhaps you can include any thoughts on why he did what he did.

JT: Initially it would be to coordinate with [supposedly friendly militia] 17th Feb[ruary] guys so they knew we were coming. But it doesn’t — it shouldn’t — take 30 minutes to coordinate. That’s just “Hey, we have guys coming over. Don’t shoot at them…” kind of thing.

RK: In the book, you go a little further… it really seems that you guys think that Bob was a bit of a coward.

JT: Well, there were quite a few incidents in Benghazi before this where somebody would get tied up at a checkpoint, even at gunpoint, and he wouldn’t let the QRF team leave, not even just to get to the area. We don’t just rush in and start shooting people just because something happened. We go in, assess the situation, and then we adapt to it. And he just never would — I don’t know, maybe he just didn’t know what our capabilities really were. He just blatantly didn’t want us to ever do anything.

[Note: The Daily Beast reported in May 2013 that “Bob” received “one of the [CIA’s] highest intelligence medals.”]

RK: Tell us what that time was like from the moment when you guys got into the vehicles to get ready to go [from the CIA Annex to the State Department Compound which was under attack], waiting for Bob to give you the “go,” and what happened over the next 30 to 40 minutes.

JT: A lot of anger. A lot of us were getting extremely pissed off.

RK: What did Bob say to you?

JT: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”

RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?

JT: He used the words “stand down.”

RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?

JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.

MG: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die.

RK: So Bob was a CIA guy. One thing I’m still trying to understand is why was there a relatively significant CIA presence in Benghazi at that time?

JT: They’re trying to gather information on terrorists. [Islamic radicals] were all over [the port city of] Derna [about 150 miles northeast of Benghazi]. Derna was pretty much overrun by [terrorists] months before Benghazi. So they’re out there collecting intel.Initially, they were out there trying to find the yellow cake [uranium] that Gaddafi had.

RK: Some people wonder whether the CIA was trying to send arms to Syria through Libya. Do you have any opinion about that?

JT: I’ve been there three trips and I never once even heard them talk about running AKs or anything. Yeah, they would try to find the shoulder-fired missiles, but they did that in just about every country, so [terrorists] couldn’t shoot down airliners. But for running AKs and stuff, I even went to the port with them and that never came up, and I was in a meeting there and they were just discussing the situation at the port. That’s all it was.

[Note: Another new book on Benghazi continues to assert that the State Department and Ambassador Stevens were involved in highly secret arms transfers, both within Libya (to keep large quantities of weapons out of the hands of the most radical militias) and from Libya to Turkey and then on to Syria.]

RK: Did this experience change how you think about government and bureaucracy?

MG: I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. We don’t do the job that we do because of government or higher-ups in the chain of command. We do it because there’s a need to serve people and protect people. To me, it’s a calling. It’s just something I do. Like a firefighter who runs to the fire instead of away from it. We’re the same way.

RK: Does the government understand national security?

JT: This administration, I’d say no.

RK: I know what you’re going to say but I’m going to ask you anyway: What goes through your mind when someone calls you a hero?

JT: I’m no hero. I mean, this is something we’ve been trained to do. We all joined the military and we like doing it. We like protecting people, obviously.

MG: It seems to me that everybody should just be this way, be there to help people who can’t help themselves. If doing that… that’s just helping other people. That ain’t being a hero.

RK: How are you guys doing now? Are you happy? Do you miss that aspect of your life? Do you feel like that was just a chapter of your life and now you’re on to a new one, or do you feel as if you’re missing something fundamental?

JT: We’re always going to miss it. I mean, you’re working around people who think the same. The camaraderie that was there. I mean, God, I miss it every day. It was fun. I enjoyed it.

RK: So did you give it up mainly because you have kids?

JT: I’d probably say yes. That’s one of the main reasons. I mean, I went back. I did two trips. My twins are only two and a half. They weren’t even six months old when Benghazi happened. The first trip was kinda hard. The second trip was even harder. I just said, “That’s it.”

MG: I can’t work doing that anymore, at least not in that capacity, due to my injuries. It’s hard to say why… but I’d go back in a heartbeat. But I also am glad that I’m able to be home now because out of — I started contracting in 2004, so since 2004 I’ve probably been gone for two thirds of that time. So my two older kids, one who’s 18 and one who’s 13, I’ve missed a lot of their growing up. So it’s really nice to be home but there’s always that — like we said — camaraderie, being around people who think like you and can understand why you think the way you do and why you look at things the way you do. You, having grown up on a military base, probably understand that a little more than most. But the civilian population doesn’t think like we do.

JT: Plus it’s a job where you get to take out terrorists. I mean, you’re taking out the bad guy. It’s not as if you’re sitting around not accomplishing anything. It’s a very rewarding job even though the public doesn’t get to know about it.

RK: Last question for you: What question should you be asked that people are missing and not asking you?

MG: The thing that should be asked is, “Why did we write the book?” And the answer to that is because it’s the story that hasn’t been told. The media has talked about the beginning and what should have been done and they’ve talked about all the things that happened since and why people did what they did. But nobody’s asked the question of what happened during those 13 hours. Not because we care about some political thing — but because we want people to know what happened on the ground. And to honor Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and the sacrifices they made to try to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. And to honor them, too. Because they were serving their country, in a different way than we did, but they were serving their country and they died doing it. You know, no one has honored them the way they should be honored, all four of them who died.

Published today, 13 Hours may indeed set the record straight on what really happened during a night which has itself become a political RPG and could threaten the presidential aspirations of the next would-be President Clinton, whose infamous “what difference at this point does it make?” should be disqualifying, even if her failure to protect Ambassador Stevens were somehow overlooked.

More importantly, 13 Hours is also an incredible, harrowing, engrossing story of American warriors demonstrating heroism and bravery at a level that most of us can barely imagine — fighting against a much larger, well-armed radical militia force and saving the lives of many despite cowardice, cynicism, and incompetence all around them. (American Spectator)

If you see something that is not within the ideology, say nothing or lie, that’s the Democrat way.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Campaign War

never forget“We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are,” Mr. Obama declared in a 14-minute address. “That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq,” he added, using an alternative name for ISIS. “This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

How many believe this is campaign rhetoric? How many actually believe Mr “Red Line” is serious?

Certainly not the terrorists.

The Left has completely forgotten 9/11. They had to, so they did.

“They were at war with us, but we weren’t at war with them” — 9/11 Report. Sound Familiar?

“These American forces will not have a combat mission; we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” Mr. Obama pledged, adding that the mission “will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; it will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.” (NYT)

Don’t you love how he telegraphs everything in the media? 🙂

Then we can’t possibly win. But then again, he’s just looking to win just enough to get the critics off his back so he can go back to golfing and the Democrats stand a chance in November.

Nothing more than that.

Another “campaign” war. More “symbolism” and “jingoism” that’s his “strategy”.

Make it look like’s doing something….ANYTHING…Just get off his back so he can go back to be King!

We need more Winston Churchill and less Ward Churchill.

Those people who say that President Obama has no clear vision and no clear strategy for dealing with the ISIS terrorists in the Middle East may be mistaken. It seems to me that he has a very clear and very consistent strategy. And a vision behind that strategy.

First the strategy — which is to get each crisis off the front pages and off television news programs as quickly as he can, in whatever way he can, at the lowest political cost. Calling ISIS a junior varsity months ago accomplished that goal.

Saying before the 2012 elections that “bin Laden is dead” and that terrorism was defeated accomplished the goal of getting reelected.

Ineffective sanctions against Iran and Russia likewise serve a clear purpose. They serve to give the illusion that Obama is doing something that will stop Iran from getting nuclear bombs and stop Russia from invading Ukraine.

This forestalls the massive and enraged outcries there would be if the public were fully aware that he was doing nothing serious enough to prevent either of these things from happening. Generations of Americans yet unborn may curse us all for leaving them hostage to a nuclear terrorist Iran. But generations yet unborn do not vote, so they carry no weight with Barack Obama.

No one has a perfect batting average in any field, so Obama has been caught in some dicey situations, such as the sudden eruption of ISIS on the world stage, with their videotaped beheadings that make it hard to get them off the front pages and off the TV newscasts.

Caught off guard, the president has played for time — time for Iraq to get its internal politics fixed, time for our allies to come together, time for the military to create a strategy. Ideally, from his standpoint, time for the whole ISIS crisis to blow over.

There is always someone else to blame for whatever goes wrong in the Obama administration. Supposedly the intelligence services had not kept him informed about how imminent the ISIS threat was. But others who received top-secret briefings by the intelligence services say otherwise.

Some people are wondering how someone of obvious intelligence like Barack Obama could be so mistaken about so many things, especially in deadly foreign policy issues. But there is no way of knowing whether anyone is succeeding or failing without first knowing what they are trying to do.

If you assume that Barack Obama is trying to protect the safety and interests of the United States and its allies, then clearly he has been a monumental failure. It is hard to think of any part of the world where things have gotten better for us since the Obama administration began.

Certainly not in Iraq. Or Iran. Or Libya. Or China. Things went from bad to worse after Obama intervened in Egypt and helped put the murderous Muslim Brotherhood in power. Fortunately for Egypt — and for the whole Middle East — the Egyptian military took the Muslim Brotherhood out of power, in defiance of Obama.

If you start from the assumption that Barack Obama wanted to advance America’s interests, this is truly an unbelievable record of failure. But what is there in Obama’s background that would justify the assumption that America’s best interests are his goal?

He has, from childhood on, been mentored by, or allied with, people hostile to the United States and to American values. His mentors and allies have all been very much like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, even if they were not as flamboyant.

Barack Obama has succeeded in reducing America’s military strength while our adversaries are increasing theirs, and reducing our credibility and influence with our allies. That is completely consistent with his vision of how the world ought to be, with the West taken down a peg and humbled.

We are currently at a point where we can either kill as many of the ISIS terrorists as possible over there — where they are bunched together and visible against a desert background — or else leave the job half done and have them come over here, where they will be hard to find, and can start beheading Americans in America.

Everything in Barack Obama’s history suggests that he is going to leave the job half done, so long as that gets the issue off the front pages and off the TV newscasts. (Thomas Sowell)

 

5th Anniversary

1,788 posts later it’s this blog’s 5th Anniversary and nothing better than this says how far (or low) we’ve come in those 5 years.

The ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit last year on behalf of eleven illegal immigrants who deported themselves. The settlement reached on Wednesday will only cover “longtime California residents with relatives who are U.S. citizens and… young migrants whose parents brought them into the country illegally” who deported themselves between 2009 and 2013. An ACLU official has indicated that there were nearly 250,000 people who were “deported voluntarily from Southern California between 2009 and 2013” and estimated to the Los Angeles Times that the “number of repatriations could reach into the hundreds or thousands.”

The U.S. government, through ad buys online, in print, on billboards, and on radio stations, will hope to reach “friends and family of the affected class” in Southern California and Mexico. According to the settlement, the federal government will advertise on television channels like Univision, ESPN Deportes, MundoFox, El Universal, and the Univision Deportes Network. They will also partner with People en Espanol and even the Mexico National Football Team in addition to placing billboards “in high population Mexican border cities of Tijuana, Tecate and Mexicali, as well as focusing placements near border crossings.”

U.S. officials will also place “radio ads :60 in length… on top Spanish speaking radio stations near the Mexico/U.S. border.” Those who search for “Lopez Case,” “Lopez Class Action,” “Voluntary Return to Mexico,” “Rights for Detainees,” “Detained by ICE,” and “Returned to Mexico by ICE” will also be targeted with information about the settlement.

The US Government is actively advertising for Illegal Aliens to come back into this country.

‘Nuff said.

The Political Correctness nazis spilled over into my favorite shhow this week when a Lizard Woman and her “wife” (a human) kissed (actually it was a transfer of oxygen not a kiss) and some nuts “got offended” and now that scene will be cut from Asian prints of the show.

GET A LIFE!

The political correctness movement has spun out of control at schools nationwide. The latest victim is a student’s ability to say, “Bless you” in the classroom without fear of a grade deduction. The polite saying is now under assault by the PC police looking to restrict student’s rights.

Just how far will the political correctness movement go in our nation’s schools? This year alone we have seen luau parties protested and elementary school shows where the “YMCA” protested—because they were deemed as racist and insensitive. Students have been sent home for wearing shirts with branding of conservative organizations or the American flag. While these are more subtle examples of free speech restrictions at schools there are more alarming examples.

The rise of “free speech” zones on campuses should be worrisome to many because those zones restrict free speech rights to small, designated areas on campuses. Students are now being denied a fundamental right—free speech. For example, at Pennsylvania State University—an 8,500 acre campus restricts student free speech rights to just 12 small zones on campus.

In a nationwide survey conducted by Young America’s Foundation (YAF), 52% of students said that professors often do not present alternative viewpoints when there are different sides to an issue. This underscores that most lessons in today’s classrooms are often not taught from an objective viewpoint. We have seen many examples of indoctrination in the classroom and professors who use their classes as soapboxes.

It’s worth noting that campus “sensitivity” trainings are on the rise, yet intolerance toward conservative students only seems to grow. Students are now being asked, or required in some cases, to “check their privilege” at the door because, according to school administrations, every student should be on equal footing.

Young America’s Foundation polling also shows that 75% of 2014 graduates, were required to take courses in race and ethnicity, diversity, and gender studies in order to graduate. This poll was conducted after a report showed that the University of Michigan was also requiring students to take a course in race & ethnicity, which taught about “the inherent racism in America.” When viewing the content of these courses, it is clear that many are not being taught objectively but rather with a liberal bias. Why is it that our students are now required to take such courses, and where are the conservative courses?

Not only does there appear to be no objectivity in the classroom, but students are subject to liberal commencement speakers as well as a plethora of expensive liberal speakers, such as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, throughout the school year. We are living in a politically correct environment and it begins in our schools.

In May, Michael Bloomberg stated, “Colleges are supposed to be a place where students learn how to think, not where they are told what to think.” Bloomberg’s comments are worth applauding. Even Bloomberg recognizes the growing intolerance toward conservative ideas on campuses and the consequences of suppressing free speech. (Townhall)

The Left’s version of the Real First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against Corporations and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

The rights of Conservative to free speech only extends to them agreeing with The Left or just shutting the hell up and doing as you’re told. Period.

That’s where we are 5 years later.

Welcome to Amerika!

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell