What’s disturbing about this picture?-You Decide:
Posted on Accuracy in Media-By James Simpson-On October 1, 2012:
“With every new bit of information surfacing about the “Innocence of Muslims” movie trailer and its shady producer, it is looking more and more like the movie was part of an Islamist provocation, in which the film was produced to provide a pretext for widespread attacks against our embassies throughout the Middle East. It comes complete with cover story and perfect dupes. Let’s review.
On September 11, 2012, around 9:30 p.m. Libya time, the American consulate in Benghazi came under sustained attack from heavily armed Jihadists, ultimately resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, computer technician Sean Smith, and U.S. Navy SEALs Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, who attempted their rescue. Earlier that afternoon, Egyptian Muslims attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, pulling down the American flag. Subsequent protests saw violence in Tunisia, Yemen and elsewhere throughout the Muslim world.
As details emerged it became clear that the Benghazi raid was a premeditated, carefully planned attack by heavily armed Jihadists, coordinated with radicals in Egypt and other Mideast countries, and timed for the anniversary of 9-11, 2001. Libyan leaders confirmed as much shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, until September 27th the Obama administration was implausibly still insisting that the attacks were inspired by the movie. Now, more than two weeks after the attack, they are finally admitting they knew the truth within 24 hours.
Why did they stick to their story for so long, when it was clear that this idiotic film had nothing to do with the attack?
Or did it?
Early news reports claimed that an anti-Muslim movie sparked the violence. This could not have legitimately been the cause of spontaneous riots. That evening, some 15 hours after the Egyptian protests began, the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube trailer, posted way back in July, had garnered only 1,000 views. It should have been viral by then, but it is doubtful that many Muslims had even heard of the film. Furthermore, the quality and dialogue was so poor that it was laughable. Even imputing the lowest intelligence quotient to fanatic Islamist viewers, it is impossible to imagine anyone getting worked up over this joke of a film. The complete film debuted in June, according to the L.A. Times, at “a run-down theater on a seedy stretch of Hollywood Boulevard,” though fewer than 10 people were there to see it. Others question whether the full-length version actually exists. No copy has turned up since the story broke earlier this month.
At around 6 a.m. on September 11th, well before any protests were launched, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement, now disavowed by the State Department:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
They sent out supporting tweets at 5:53 and 6:10 a.m. stating, “Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” and “US Embassy condemns religious incitement.”
What religious incitement? No protests had yet occurred, so the Embassy clearly knew something was brewing. On September 9th, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, one the few people who had apparently heard of the film, denounced it as “Offensive to the Prophet.” He accused “extremist Copts” of producing it. How did he learn of it and why would he draw attention to such an insignificant production? How did he know it was “extremist Copts?” The filmmaker had not yet been exposed, he used an alias during the film’s production, and his cover story was that he was Jewish. Still, judging by the YouTube visits, few Muslims got the message.
On September 10th, Florida Reverend Terry Jones announced that he would air the trailer as part of an “International Judge Mohammad Day” on September 11. Jones claimed the film producer contacted him directly and appealed to him to help promote the film. Who better to incite a Muslim backlash than Jones, whose Koran burning exercise last year was cited forwidespread protests and killings in Afghanistan, including 20 UN staffers? Still, no big YouTube hits.
So how did thousands of Muslim rioters in multiple countries come out to protest a film they never saw?
The film’s supposed one-time screening is a bizarre story itself. One of the film’s promoters, Stephen Klein, is a hardcore anti-Muslim activist, who claims he was recruited as a “script consultant.” They originally named the film “Innocence of Bin Laden.”Quoted in the L.A. Times, he said the film’s intent was to smoke out Muslim terrorists:
“We passed out fliers at mosques around California where we knew there was a small percentage of terrorists. And the idea was to locate … those folks who believed Osama bin Laden was a great guy and to try to get them to come to the movie.”
The producer didn’t attend the film’s premiere, but pensively observed the theater entrance from a nearby restaurant while the movie, or trailer, was being shown. Police were apparently aware of the film’s provocative intent as they showed up to monitor the scene. The Daily Beast interviewed a law enforcement source who was there:
“You are monitoring the people in the area for behavioral characteristics, and he was displaying them. Normal people don’t act like that. He was across the street, on the opposite side of the block, so he could view what was going on. He was sweating and focusing in on the entrance. He was watching what was going on around and who was going in,” the source said.
Police introduced themselves to the man, who informed them that he was the producer. Initial reports identified him as “Sam Bacile,” an Israeli Jew who claimed the film was financed by more than 100 Jewish donors. Shortly after, he was identified asNakoula Basseley Nakoula, supposedly a Coptic Christian with family in Egypt. He then claimed his wife’s Egyptian relatives provided the money.
Court documents reveal that Nakoula is just one of many aliases. He has an extensive criminal history spanning decades, having been arrested for illicit drug manufacturing/trafficking and bank fraud. He served almost no time for his 1997 drug arrest, leading some to believe he avoided jail by informing for the government. The arrest may have been part of an investigation into a large Muslim drug ring that was financing the Muslim terrorist group Hezbollah. Daily Beast reported:
“The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah [sic]…”
Asa Hutchinson, DEA Administrator at the time, stated: “I’m satisfied that portions of the drug sales have moved back to the Middle East and portions of that are going to support terrorist organizations.”
Nakoula’s most recent conviction was for extensive bank fraud and identity theft, with a fine of $795,000. He received a comparatively light 21 month sentence and five years’ probation. Claiming he wrote the script while in prison, Nakoula apparently violated the terms of his probation—which forbids him from using computers or accessing the Internet without permission—to make the film. He was arrested on September 27th on that charge, and will remain in custody, according to the judge.
Now we learn from court documents obtained by the website, the Smoking Gun, that Nakoula’s light sentence this time definitely was due to his informing on co-conspirators, particularly, one Eiad Salameh. Salameh was characterized in the article as “a notorious fraudster who has been tracked for more than a decade by state and federal investigators.”
In a provocative article posted September 25th, Palestinian Christian convert Walid Shoebat claims the film was made by Muslim terrorists. He claims to know Salameh, that the man is his first cousin and has terrorist ties. Shoebat first wrote of him in 2008:
“Eiad Salameh Shu’aybat, my first cousin… who is wanted by the United States for major financial fraud most likely linked to financial terrorism… In fact a litany of stories on embezzlement and fraud can be tracked on Eiad…
“My cousin hated Copts with a passion and is well-known in the Middle East as a master schemer, probably one of the best the Middle East has produced. He also has multiple contacts with terror networks.”
Shoebat goes on to say that Salameh and Nakoula worked together for 10 years and that both had been handled gingerly by the FBI. If Shoebat’s claims are true, it is difficult to believe Nakoula was an “extremist Copt.” Why would Nakoula have worked with Salameh or vice versa?
With his criminal background, it is difficult to believe Nakoula could have firm beliefs about anything. On September 14,Nakoula was interviewed on the U.S. government-funded Sawa Radio, an Arabic radio program. Shoebat claims Nakoula said he was neither Jewish nor Christian, but actually he made no claim whatever about his religion, if he has one. He also disassociated himself from Egyptian Copts. Translated:
Sawa: Dozens of the Coptic organization in Egypt have denounced the movie.
Filmmaker: They have the right to do so, and they have nothing to do with the movie and I have nothing to do with them. I want to say that I did not come up with any information other than what is written in the Islamic books. I added nothing of my own.
Sawa: Have you read the Quran?
Filmmaker: Of course I have read the Quran, the Hadiths and more that 3,000 Islamic books.
Sawa: Do you believe that that only Islam has negative sides? What are your views about Judaism and Christianity, for example?
Filmmaker: I am an average reader about other religions and I can write about Judaism and Christianity if I ever resume writing.
It must be difficult to juggle one’s time between a massive credit card fraud operation and reading 3,000 Islamic books!
The idea that Nakoula made this film to highlight the plight of Egyptian Copts or even to “teach” anyone about Islam strains credulity. His lifetime of crime suggests a personality of no integrity. The notion that the film was financed by his wife’s Egyptian relatives must also be questioned. Why would he endanger his own family? Egyptian Copts have enough trouble with the new Muslim Brotherhood government already. The last thing they need now is negative attention.
The “Christians” he recruited in this effort, Stephen Klein and Pastor Jones are perfect patsies for a false flag operation. Blinded by their own zealotry, they supported this mindless film, making them, and by extension all Christians, look like a bunch of idiots. At the same time, it has provided an excuse for radical Muslims worldwide to go on an anti-American, anti-Christian tirade.
Indeed, Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian closely associated with Jones who helped promote the film, is considered a major headache by Egyptian Copts. “Every single thing he says is used by Islamists to justify terrorism against Copts,” said Cynthia Farahat, director of advocacy for Coptic Solidarity, a DC-based group. The group stated, “As his actions agitate more the Islamic extremists, some people wonder if he is not in fact working to fulfill their agenda.” According to Huffington Post, Sadek sent an email to journalists on September 6th promoting Jones’ upcoming “International Judge Mohammad Day,” along with a copy of the trailer which he translated into Arabic.
Finally, Nakoula was represented in court by James Henderson, Sr. Henderson is a prominent attorney and former Justice Department prosecutor who headed an organized crime task force from 1978 to 1987. How could Nakoula, who claimed in court to have engaged in criminal activity to support his family and earned little from it, hire such a high-powered attorney? Interestingly, in court he spoke through an interpreter, but the film was written and spoken in English—with New York accents no less. And despite his claims of penury, Nakoula lived well in a nice Cerritos, California home, complete with a late model Mercedes S430 parked in the driveway. Somebody was paying him.
Henderson is the right guy for the job. He “maintains working contacts with former U.S. Government attorneys and officials throughout the United States.” His specialties include business fraud, government contract investigations, gaming and “international legal matters.” In the 1980s, Henderson was accused by an informant of having organized crime ties. Although Henderson was cleared of this charge, the snitch making the allegation at one time shared a cell with 1993 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef, and claimed Yousef told him, “Bin Laden will use your own planes to take down the W.T.C.”
None of this adds up, unless this film had the one specific purpose for which it has been used. Such a film need not be well done. It only needs to provide a pretext. In that regard it has performed admirably.
Despite his many aliases, Nakoula is obviously known to the feds. Did they know of his film production? The local policeapparently did. Are the feds uncomfortable with exploring the possibility that this film was part of a premeditated provocation by Muslim terrorists? Were they taken for a ride by this “informant?” Why did the U.S. insist for weeks that the recent Middle East attacks were the result of this film when they knew better? Is this yet another effort by the Obama administration to find a pretext to suppress free speech? Islamic leaders in America are already calling for legislation limiting free speech. Why has the FBI still not departed for Libya? Are they afraid of what they might find, or is someone else afraid of what they might find?
This administration has much to answer for regarding this deadly attack and for that matter many other things. Despite its pledge to be the most “transparent” administration in history, if past is prologue, honest answers are not likely to be forthcoming soon.”
Note: The following articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to and/or support the above article and/or blog post-You Decide:
I. The Obama Administration and the OIC: The Anti-Free Speech Coalition!-Posted on FrontPage Magazine-By Joseph Puder-On October 2, 2012:
“Reacting to the murderous rioting against the U.S. throughout the Arab and Muslim world and especially in Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was murdered, and in Egypt, President Obama, who authorized millions in aid to Libya, said on September 12th: “Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others…Already, many Libyan have joined us…and this attack will not break the bonds between the U.S. and Libya[.]”
Obama and his administration officials have vehemently attacked the anti-Muslim video produced by a private American citizen, and yet they conveniently ignore the fact that the Obama administration supported the people who are now expressing visceral hate for America, in spite of Obama’s four-year record of appeasing Islam and Muslim countries. An example of which was obvious in the statement issued by the Embassy of Cairo: “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”
The Obama administration has yet to make the correlation between the killing of an American ambassador and the torching of U.S. embassies (which represent sovereign American territories) on the anniversary of September 11, and the rise to power of anti-American Islamists in Egypt and Libya, as well as elsewhere in the Arab Middle East.
Something else far more notorious has been occurring since March of last year. The Obama administration has been giving the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the most powerful bloc of nations inside the U.N., a platform on which to stifle free speech in America under the guise of fighting Islamophobia.
In March of 2011, U.S. diplomats helped push for the adoption of Human Right Council Resolution 16/18, which expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and negative profiling. It was a modification of an OIC resolution against the “defamation of religions” (ostensibly Islam), which would have protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms. In July 2011, the Obama administration went back to Resolution 16/18 and used it as a springboard to “greatly invigorate the international effort to criminalize speech against Islam.”
The April 12, 2011 Resolution provides, inter alia, that
everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or adopt a religious or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching, Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance, Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against persons based on their religion or belief in all regions of the world[.]
Ironically, it is in the Muslim world alone where intolerance towards other religions exists, which violates both the letter and spirit of the above document, yet the Obama administration is collaborating with OIC to enforce restrictions against anti-Muslim expressions.
Back in December 2005, the heads of state and governments of the OIC held an extraordinary summit in Mecca and adopted a “Ten Year Program of Action.” An observatory taskforce on Islamophobia was to be established to monitor Islamophobia and defamation of Islam. Its goals were to get the U.N. to adopt an international resolution on Islamophobia, and call on all states to enact laws to counter Islamophobia, including deterrent punishments.
The OIC’s anti-defamation resolutions passed in both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the U.N. General Assembly, and were adopted in December 2007 by a vote of 108 in favor to 51 against, with 25 abstentions.
The Observatory Report on Islamophobia declared that in order to have peace the OIC-approved version of Islam’s history must be understood, accepted, and promoted, and anything contrary is baseless Islamophobia and inciteful defamation of Islam, and responsible for the violent, destructive and punitive reaction of Muslims. Naturally, Islamic violence against the Danish cartoons was not irrational or criminal as far as the OIC is concerned.
According to the OIC, they regard the current situation (the riots against the U.S. embassies in Benghazi, Libya that killed Ambassador Stevens and the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012) as justified due to the “inciteful defamation” of Islam by an American citizen.
The Observatory Report argued that Islamophobia exists in part because there is no legal instrument to combat it, therefore “a binding legal instrument must be created to fight the menace of Islamophobia.
Clare Lopez wrote on December 8, 2011 in Family Security Matters:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the Washington, DC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (ostensibly against Islam only). The UN human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly, where it was passed in March 2011.
Complying with OIC attempts to implement its agenda to impose censorship on what they regard as anti-Muslim expressions is not enough for the Obama administration it seems. Breitbart reported on July 30, 2012, that “the FBI has taken another giant step down a very dangerous path with FBI Director Robert Mueller’s secret meeting with radical Islamic organizations and effectively allowing them to ‘edit‘ the FBI’s training manuals.”
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was filed which is seeking access to records detailing a February 8, 2012 meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Muslim organizations. Judicial Watch is also investigating the FBI’s subsequent controversial decision to purge the agency’s training curricula of material deemed “offensive” to Muslims.
On March 7, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the DOJ seeking access to records regarding the meeting. We’re after “any and all records setting criteria or guidelines for FBI curricula on Islam or records identifying potentially offensive material within the FBI curricula on Islam,” and any directives to “withdraw FBI presentations and curricula on Islam.”
While the mainstream media was thrilled to regale Americans with coverage of the shenanigans committed by GOP candidates for the presidency, it has done little to expose the Obama administration’s flirtation with the OIC. The general support given by the Obama administration to the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi (with whom Obama invited to meet, while refusing to meet with Israel’s PM Netanyahu), reveals an administration committed to appeasing America’s enemies and abandoning America’s friends. Moreover, the latest bout of anti-American riots testifies to the bankruptcy of the Obama administration charm offensive in the Muslim world.”
II. Putin Blames Video for Mideast Uprisings, Threatens to Ban YouTube in Russia!-Posted on Independent Journal Review-By KYLE BECKER-On September 30, 2012:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed President Obama’s condemnation of the anti-Muslim video “Innocence of Muslims,” and the Kremlin threatened to invoke its power to censor YouTube in Russia. The blaming of the video for the Mideast uprisings signals an eerie similarity in thinking between the two presidents and Islamic leaders across the Muslim world.
Yet there are stark differences on the issues of free speech and Internet censorship between the Russian, Islamic, and American leaders that should be appreciated.
A bit of background on Russia may help throw these issues into relief. In July, Russia’s rubberstamp parliament the Duma passed an Internet censorship bill that authorized Putin to arbitrarily shut down social media websites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, which have been so crucial to fostering opposition to dictatorial regimes across the globe. One of the justifications given was to combat child pornography; a worthy cause due to the real victims of that crime, but one that has given cover to governments seeking to censor political speech.
Acts of censorship in Russia of late have also come under the guise of protecting citizens from potentially offensive religious material. The arrest of the anti-Kremlin punk rock group “Pussy Riot” and sentence of two years in a gulag (on appeal) was justified as protecting the Orthodox Church. More recently, a performance of the controversial rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar” was blocked in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don due to the belief that it violated a religious offense law. The video “Innocence of Muslims” was removed by Russia’s largest social media website “ВКонтакте.”
Google has removed the offending anti-Islamic video in Egypt and Libya. By implication, the Egyptian government’s call for the UN to police religiously offensive speech draws a bright red line for advocates and opponents of free speech. Lost in the legitimate controversy over Obama’s charged comment at the UN that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” is that the president made a strong defense of free speech.
“There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy,” the President Obama said. These words were uttered shortly before the director of the anti-Muslim video was hauled into jail for violating his probation and “lying” about his role in making the film. The man may receive up to three years in prison.
The president might want to relay the worthy line of thinking he displayed at the UN to rogue FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who made the comment that his agency needs to be the web’s “cop on the beat.” The remark was made in regards to regulating broadband Internet; but as Americans know from experience, radio and television airwaves that fall under the FCC’s scope of authority have long been policed by the agency for “obscene, indecent or profane” content.
What may have been missed in the non-stop media coverage of the Republican Party’s political platform is that the GOP opposes any and all attempts to regulate the Internet (including taxation). While the Democrats have voted to uphold net neutrality and are for government “protecting” the openness of the Internet, Mitt Romney opposes SOPA and supports a self-regulating Internet driven by free speech and free enterprise.”
III. Muslims tell DOJ to find a way to criminalize criticism of Islam!-Posted on Creeping Sharia-By creeping-On October 24, 2011:
IV. Obama Still Wants to Fundamentally Transform America!-Posted on FrontPage Magazine-By David Horowitz-On October 2, 2012:
“The article below is reprinted from The Washington Times.
An American compound in Libya is invaded by al Qaeda terrorists and an American ambassador is purportedly tortured before being killed. Muslim mobs attack American embassies in 27 countries chanting,”Death to America.” The White Houseresponse? A statement blaming the outrages on a filmmaker in the United States, along with apologies to the Muslim world.
The American economy languishes with millions unemployed in the worst times since the Great Depression. Yet the president spends his first years in the White House focusing on a plan to create a trillion-dollar socialized health care system opposed by a majority of Americans. Then he campaigns for re-election on a platform blaming rich Americans for the economic woes.
What’s going on here?
The answer lies in a famous statement the president made on the eve of his election, when he told a crowd of cheering supporters: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” These are not the words of a traditional, pragmatic-minded American politician. A practical politician attempts to address problems and fix them, not to fundamentally transform an entire nation. Transforming nations is what radicals aspire to do. But Mr. Obama’s actions in the past four years — beginning with putting Obamacare in front of the economic crisis — are nothing if not radical.
Radicals are sometimes referred to as “liberals in a hurry.” They share goals but not means. Both Mr. Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, expressed early sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose rage at the American social order quickly turned violent and destructive.
But while Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi may pursue their agendas through the traditional process of democratic government, ends still determine means. The radical nature of the goals they pursue does have consequences, the first of which is to divide the nation in an hour when they should have been uniting it.
In a national crisis such as America faced in 2009 when 800,000 of us were losing our jobs every month, traditional leaders would have regarded their first task as one of rallying the country on a common agenda and bringing Americans together. Instead, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi put their radical agenda first — passing a massive health care bill, the most transformative legislation in American history, and passing it over the opposition not only of Republicans but even of Democratic voters in Massachusetts, who elected Republican Scott Brown to cast a vote against it.
Far from pursuing national unity to solve the crisis, Mr. Obama put his goal of transformation in front of everything. In order to achieve the change he wanted, he shut out the congressional Republicans in drafting his revolutionary legislation, and then disregarded the majority of Americans when they rejected his plan, defeating Democrats in special elections in New Jersey and Virginia — states that he had won. His radical goals caused Mr. Obama to squander his political capital on a divisive campaign in the first two years of his administration that has changed and embittered the political landscape, and that has persisted for four years and could continue.
Of the Obama election effort dominated by themes of class envy and conflict, a longtime liberal and Democrat, Mortimer Zuckerman, the publisher of U.S. News & World Report, has said: “It is a dishonest, divisive campaign. It’s discouraging of enterprise. It does the opposite of uniting the country to deal with the current economic crisis.”
Abroad, the story is depressingly similar. The president launched his radical foreign policy initiatives with a speech in June 2009. Speaking in Cairo, now aflame with anti-American protests, he offered the Muslim world “a new beginning.” By this, he meant not a Muslim new beginning but an American change of heart, as though it were our policies that led to the Islamic attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the ravages of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As an anti-war president, Mr. Obama has surrendered Iraq, in whose cause so many young Americans died, to America’s enemy, Iran. This was another gesture of American retreat designed to ingratiate us with those who hate us.
What have these three years of reversing America’s traditional policies wrought? Charles Krauthammer summarized it in a recent column: “The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.” According to public opinion polls, America’s appeasement of Islamic rage has led to a situation in which America is more hated today in the Muslim world than it was at the height of the war in Iraq.
Like all other radical ideas, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy schemes were based on wishful thinking rather than a realistic appraisal of what the country faces and what its real enemies intend. That is why his policies have failed and a weaker America faces a more dangerous world.
America is a nation that was created by conservatives who designed for it a system of checks and balances to frustrate radical schemes. In his four years as president, Mr. Obama has attempted to circumvent the Founding Fathers’ prudent plans. Now he is asking for a second opportunity.”
V. If Obama Wins: Democrats Reveal Plans to Fundamentally Transform America!-Posted on Independent Journal Review-By KYLE BECKER-On September 29, 2012:
VI. Obama Adviser Admits That Obamacare’s Death Panels Are “Inevitable”!-Posted on WND.com-By AARON KLEIN-On October 1, 2012:
VII. Obama Increased Foreign Aid 80%; Spent 76% More on Foreign Aid Than Border Security!-Posted on CNSNews.com-By Terence P. Jeffrey-On October 2, 2012:
VIII. Obama Shields Genocidal Muslim From Republican Legislation!-Posted on Western Journalism-By DOUG BOOK-On October 2, 2012:
IX. Border Patrol agent shot, killed on patrol in Ariz!-Posted on Yahoo! News-By JACQUES BILLEAUD and PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press-On October 2, 2012:
X. Gov. Brewer: Righteous Anger, Not Just Tears, for Slain Border Agent!-Posted on NewsMax.com-By Todd Beamon-On October 2, 2012:
XI. CHAVEZ AND OBAMA‘S ’SOCIALIZED MESSAGES‘ ARE ’ALMOST THE SAME THING’ SAYS VENEZUELAN POLITICAL REFUGEE!-Posted on The Blaze-By Benny Johnson-On October 2, 2012:
XII. TED NUGENT SAYS U.S. IS ‘DONE’ IF OBAMA RE-ELECTED!-Posted on Big Hollywood-By AWR HAWKINS-On October 2, 2012:
XIII. Video: Lt Colonel Allen West’s Speech on Jihad and Islam for Freedom Defense Initiative!-Posted on YouTube.com-By UAC4America-On February 21, 2010:
XIV. The Video That May Kill Obama’s Reelection!-Restoring Liberty-By News Editor-On October 2, 2012:
Video: Attack On Benghazi, Libya & Film Was A Covert Op. Then Syria!-Posted on YouTube.com-By Montagraph-On September 20, 2012:
Note: My following recent blog posts relate to and/or further support the above articles and/or blog posts and videos-You Decide:
The Film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ — Made By Terrorists?
2000 Dead Soldiers and Obama Can Still Do No Wrong!
Dishonest Media Avoids Truth about Obama Through Diversions!
Note: My following blog posts contain numerous articles and/or blog posts and videos that reveal: 1) the live presentation by Joel Gilbert, his DVD Film titled "Dreams From My Real Father," along with the newly released film titled "The Unvetted”; 2) the Islamic infiltration inside our government armed with our secrets, to include the President's secret link to Hamas; 3) the Islamic infiltration inside our military; 4) the Communist infiltration inside our government, to Include President Obama's secret link to Communists; 5) the George Soros connection, to include the shared agendas of George Soros and the President; and 6) the disastrous results of these infiltrations, links and connections-You Decide:
The Vetting: ‘Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection’! (Part 1):
The Vetting: ‘Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection’! (Part 2):
The Vetting: ‘Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection’! (Part 3):
The Vetting: ‘Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection’! (Part 4):
Continue Reading My Following Blog Posts That Relate To This Disturbing & Time Sensitive Issue:
Communists and Muslims: The Hidden Hand of the KGB!
White Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Weather Underground, Barack Obama, and the Fundamental Transformation of the United States!
Godfather of The Islamic Revolution!
Who ran cover for Obama’s Islamic background? ‘Tracing The Politics And The Money Behind Obama’s 2008 Campaign’!
‘CIVILIZATION JIHAD’ AND OBAMA’S CONNECTIONS!
The FCC Should Not Interfere With The Internet!
Did ATF provide weapons to Mexican drug cartels that were subsequently used to kill one of our own?
What Happened to Free Speech?
Who owns our supposedly fair and balanced airwaves and news outlets?
Is it important to understand the Marxist assault on the foundations of our system?
Nearly 80 percent don’t trust the government!
Where Is America Today?
Is History Repeating Itself?
Letter to Congressman Allen West Regarding Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse Allegations!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On July 28, 2012:
Letter To My NM U.S. Congressman Regarding George Soros’ Anti-American Agendas!-Posted on We The People USA-By Jake Martinez-On August 10, 2011:
Letter To My NM U.S. Senator Regarding George Soros’ Anti-American Agendas!-Posted on We The People USA-ByJake Martinez-On August 9, 2011:
Note: The following videos seem extremely appropriate today:
The Fightin Side of Me!
Note: If you have a problem viewing any of the listed blog posts, please copy website and paste it on your browser. Sure seems like any subject matter that may be considered controversial by this administration is being censored-What happened to free speech?-You Decide.
“Food For Thought”
God Bless the U.S.A.!