Chained: Former Navy SEAL Tells Of Forced Incarceration Under Obama Regime In 2009

Friday, July 19, 2013 5:10

(Before It's News)

Exclusive: Former Navy SEAL Tells of Forced 

Incarceration under Obama Regime in 2009

“WHEN I WOKE UP, MY ARMS AND LEGS WERE IN CHAINS”

By Sharon Rondeau | The Post & Email

In an initial interview with The Post & Email, Mr. Harry Galvin Butler, III said that in late 2008 and early 2009, all he wanted to do was point out was that Obama was “a phony” and see Congress act on it in the interest of national security. Instead, he ended up spending virtually the entire year in federal prisons awaiting a “psychiatric evaluation.”

Butler is a proponent of the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment and perceived that Obama, by virtue of being “a phony,” was “playing with my Constitution.” He told us that Navy SEALS and other military members “hate phonies.” He has no previous psychiatric history or criminal record.
Last August, former Marine Brandon Raub was arrested by the Secret Service and FBI, taken into custody and placed in a psychiatric institution where he was told he would be forced to take medication which he did not want. He was freed approximately one week later after a federal judge reviewed his detention and found no probable cause by which to hold him. Raub’s plight was taken up by The Rutherford Institute, which is suing the government for an unspecified amount of money. In a May 22, 2013 press release, Rutherford stated:

The complaint, filed in federal court in Richmond, alleges that Raub’s seizure and detention were the result of a federal government program code-named “Operation Vigilant Eagle” that involves the systematic surveillance of military veterans who express views critical of the government. Institute attorneys allege that the attempt to label Raub as “mentally ill” and his involuntary commitment was a pretext designed to silence Raub’s speech critical of the government and that the defendants violated Raub’s rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.

Following Raub’s highly-publicized case, Rutherford revealed that hundreds of other military veterans had contacted them to relate similar stories of government intimidation and people “disappearing.” Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead stated that “Brandon Raub’s case exposed the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting military veterans for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.”
Two days before announcing the civil rights lawsuit, Whitehead expounded on Operation Vigilant Eagle, which was launched by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice and the FBI to observe “veterans” for alleged signs of “extremism” and “oppositional defiance disorder (ODD).” Whitehead also wrote:

That the government is using the charge of mental illness as the means by which to immobilize (and disarm) these veterans is diabolically brilliant. With one stroke of a magistrate’s pen, these service men are being declared mentally ill, locked away against their will, and stripped of their constitutional rights. Make no mistake, these returning veterans are being positioned as enemy number one.

Navy veteran Darren Wesley Huff is presently incarcerated in a federal prison in Texarkana, TX resulting from a false FBI affidavit and prosecution witnesses who perjured themselves on the witness stand after Obama operatives reported “threats” to the Monroe County, TN courthouse which were never uttered.
The Post & Email has reported in depth on the targeting of veterans under the Obama regime, including the “Sovereign Citizen” program described by the FBI as including those who make “References to the Bible, The Constitution of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or treaties with foreign governments.” Both Huff and another Navy veteran, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, have been characterized as “Sovereign Citizens” in a law enforcement training program produced in Tennessee but used in various forms across the country.
Butler served as a Navy SEAL from 1969 to 1973 and was in the Reserves from 1973 to 1975. Following his release from the Navy, he attended Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, FL, where he went through the “Professional Pilot” program and obtained the necessary FAA Flight Ratings. From there, he went to work for Gulfstream Aerospace flying the world’s elite to their places of business and play. He became a captain and worked for the airline for 20 years until his retirement for medical reasons in 2002.
Of his flying training, Butler told us, “Before I made Aircraft Commander I personally made sure I had 5,000 hours flying time. Then when it came time for my Pilot in Command check ride I told the Check Airman that I wanted ‘No Slack’. He put me through the ringer and the ride took two days. I did this for one reason I knew that one day I’d be fighting an Emergency and peoples lives would be in my hands. I wanted to prove to myself that there was no emergency I could not handle in the cockpit. I took all those long years of hard work, study + spending every penny I + the VA could come up with.”
Butler loved his career. He told The Post & Email, “I retired from Gulfstream in 2002 which I hated. I was 52, at the height of my career + a Senior Demonstration Pilot in Flight Operations at General Dynamics/Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation.” However, because of medical complications and increasingly-long flights, Butler said he chose retirement because “I would not have been able to make it other wise.” He added, “So reluctantly, kicking + screaming I retired from a job I loved. I tell everyone I never worked a day in my life at Gulfstream, however I did have one long love affair.”
Following several life-changing operations, Butler said he “has a handicap” but “is not handicapped,” although he has trouble walking.
Before Barack Hussein Obama was elected in 2008, Butler became alarmed because he believed, and still believes, that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen,” although Butler is certain that Obama meets neither the definition of “U.S. citizen” nor “natural born Citizen.”
Butler said he called his representatives in Congress to no avail to “warn” them that a foreign national was about to be sworn in to the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
In a recent email to this writer, Butler wrote that Obama is guilty of being “a Phony, Ineligible to be Eligible, Unfit for Command” and has committed “Abuse of Office as POTUS.”
Butler said that after he began sending emails and making phone calls to members of Congress, agents from the Secret Service began visiting members of his family, as his address was unconventional and not easily found. He has been told by his family members that they were “inundated by lies” from Secret Service agents stating that he was not in his right mind. “They use the power that they wield by being a government employee, which is ludicrous; it’s wrong; it’s illegal…if there’s any way we can stop that, it will be a huge plus for this country,” Butler said. “They all do the same thing.”
Butler is not sure when the Secret Service began contacting his family members. However, he said that they were surveilling a friend of his in their black SUVs, describing it as “dirty, dirty pool.”
In our previous interview, Butler told The Post & Email that his family members brought him to a psychiatrist at the urging of the Secret Service, then a hospital, both on the same day. He reported being told that he would be given medication, which he refused. Butler was then surrounded by a dozen men whom he attempted to fight off despite his physical challenges but was finally subdued by an injection of medication which was forced on him. “When I woke up, my arms and legs were in chains,” Butler told us.
Butler was taken to the psychiatric wing of the hospital, where he remained for two weeks. He was then moved to what he called “a private prison” in Ocilla, GA, in Irwin County, where he spent about a month. Butler was told that he was there for a “psychological evaluation” before a judge could “make a ruling” on his case. He had neither seen nor been told of any criminal charges having been filed against him.
The criminal complaint, which Butler said he paid for and received only a month ago, states that he made threats against Obama, a claim that Butler refutes. Butler told The Post & Email that he “never threatened bodily harm” to Obama. “SEALS don’t do that,” he said.
Butler explained that before Obama’s first inauguration, he was “trying to get (Sens.) Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson to wake up.” “This guy’s a phony, this guy’s a phony…I was writing them and calling them…So when they say they weren’t aware, that’s BS. You can see all these lies and distortions in the complaint. The thing is, if you do this to the President of the United States, it only takes one Secret Service agent to have you incarcerated. Nothing happened until Obama was inaugurated. When he got inaugurated, the very first thing he did was seal everything in the world related to him, even before he came after me…The order for me to be arrested came directly from the White House; you can bet your bottom dollar on it,” Butler said.
“All of this is illegal. These guys get away with it for one reason: they have tons of money. All of this corruption is done by threats and money and pressures from the government. That’s where it all comes from; that’s the thing that fuels all of this corruption,” Butler told us. “The amount of money to facilitate this cover-up is a figure beyond anyone’s imagination, and it’s not a problem. The rich and famous don’t think about money because they have so much, they don’t worry about it.”
Butler described the facilities where he was kept as “out in the middle of nowhere, like FEMA camps. They’re on caretaker status, with barbed wire, huge; there would be a handful of people there, and they all look brand-new. It’s a prison. What happens is the federal marshals are responsible for moving the inmates around. They put you on a bus that’s got blacked-out windows so you don’t know exactly where you are. They’ll pull in to a facility out in the middle of nowhere and you go into a great big huge gate and then they’ll pull out some paperwork. There are two or three of those facilities between Miami and North Carolina.”
Butler said that if an inmate asked where he was being taken, the marshals would say the name of the town or city, but that was all.
The Post & Email asked if the marshals escorted him to the door of the facility, to which he responded, “They take you to the front gate, and that’s as far as they go. You’re in chains. Any time you leave a facility, you’re in chains. There are two sets of cuffs; the ankle cuffs are wider than the wrist cuffs, and then you have a chain that goes around the wrist cuffs around your waist in an overhand knot and it goes down to your legs.”
The Post & Email asked Butler how he felt after having served his country as a Navy SEAL and being placed in chains, to which he said, “You feel terrible.”
He reported that he sometimes spent 14-16 hours a day on a bus, which caused him great discomfort as a result of his medical condition. “They give you a bag with a sandwich and an apple in it, but try to eat a sandwich with your hands chained to your waist,” he said. When we asked, “How do you do it?” he said, “You can’t. Some of the guys will nudge it a little, but you can’t get anything out of it.”
We asked if the marshals helped at all in that situation, to which Butler said, “****, no.”
Following Ocilla, Butler was taken to a facility in Miami, FL. -

Obama Busted Again Professor Henry Graff : I taught at Columbia for 46 years Obama Could Not Have Gone There

Monday, June 10, 2013 11:21

0

(Before It's News)

Professor Henry Graff : “I taught at Columbia for 46 years” Obama Could Not Have Gone There UPDATED ANOTHER OBAMA PROFESSOR COMES OUT

UPDATED
ANOTHER PROFESSOR COMES OUT ABOUT OBAMA NOT GOING TO COLUMIA

June 9, 2013 |

By : Matt Winkeljohn – http://www.resistthetyranny.com

There is no shortage of evidence that Barrack H. Obama is quite possibly the most inept, deceptive and disgraceful president that America has ever seen.

With all that we do know about Barrack Obama, what don’t we know?

We know that congress refuses to investigate Obama’s birth certificate.  Why would they.  It would prove that either there are higher forces that choose presidents for us or that congress is just as inept and crooked as Obama himself.

We know that Obama’s records of school and much of his past have been either permanently sealed or investigators have been repeatedly denied access to them.

We also know that many people in Barrack Obama’s past have died.  Some of which has been in some very unusual and unexplainable ways.  These people, coincidentally, are also people that could have exposed truths about Obama.

Speaking of Barrack Hussein Obama… We also know that he lived a double life under the name “Barry Soetoro.”

As If all of that wasn’t enough, incredibly, there is more!

 

Let me introduce you to Wayne Allyn Root.

Mr. Root is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur, and Libertarian-conservative Republican.  He is also A graduate of Columbia University.  He also graduated the same year as Obama and from the same classes as Obama, but Mr. Root doesn’t remember Barrack Obama.  In fact, neither does anyone else in those classes.
Root is not alone in coming out about Obama’s mysterious absence from Columbia.
There are a number of professors that taught at the prestigious university that say they have no recollection of having Obama in any of their classes either. 

Of those professors, there is one that agreed to a full interview.
Meet Professor Henry Graff

Mr. Graff is perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University. He was THE American History and Diplomatic History professor at Columbia for 46 years.
Of everything that Mr. Graff said in his interview, he ended by saying this -

“I’m very upset by the whole story. I am angry when I hear Obama called ‘the first President of the United States from Columbia University.’ I don’t consider him a Columbia student. I have no idea what he did on the Columbia campus. No one knows him.”

You would think that at a largely liberal collage, such as Columbia, former students and professors would be clamoring to say they have studied with Obama, produce pictures of them together or even claim to have shared a beer or two with the now president, but no, nothing.

Does all of this not concern you?  Shouldn’t the main stream media be telling you about this?
More importantly…
Shouldn’t YOU be “up in arms” over this?

The Sequester Lie

By Bob Russell 

 Feb 24, 2013 

The big deal they are making over this sequester nonsense is giving me a headache.  I have made this point on several social network site discussions so I thought I would put it all together on one place.  Obama, his cabinet minions, and all of the members of Congress come out and say; Social Security checks will stop, meat plants will shut down, the FBI won’t be able to track terrorists, the Border Patrol won’t be able to secure the borders, airports will nearly shut down, pony rides in national parks will end, the sun won’t come up on March 2, and on and on and on.  And the RINO’s in Congress aren’t doing any better.
This is such tripe that it is actually embarrassing, and infuriating at the same time.  This is the best we have to govern our nation?  For anyone who doesn’t already know, let me lay out a few facts that you won’t hear on any “news media” outlet, including FOX News. The “media” covers the false flag talking points arguing but not the facts. NOTHING IS BEING CUT!!!!  That is just the truth of it.  The “baseline budgeting” system our government runs under calls for about 1.8% – 2% increase every year.  This is how they do it, every year.  They build in an automatic increase in every department in government, and they do it for the very reason you are seeing played out again for the 300^th time in the last 25 years.
Follow me here because this is the crux of the game being played by both political parties.  Spending goes UP, every year, in spite of the “horrendous cuts” they are “forced” to make.  The federal government is expected to spend approximately $3.7 trillion in 2013, yet they are wringing their hands and fretting over cutting $85 billion out of that total, which is 1.1% by the way.  According to figures released by the Heritage Foundation the federal government spent $3.6 trillion in FY 2012. If we take $85 billion off of the projected $3.7 trillion in 2013 we still find the government spending $3.615 trillion in 2013.  What the “the sky is falling” politicians are telling us is that spending $61.5 billion MORE,  1.66% more, in 2013 than they spent in 2012 is somehow a cut in spending, and will cause untold calamities if it happens.  How does that work?  I must have had a defective education because that doesn’t look they are spending less to me.
The “hawks” on defense want social items cut and the “hawks” on social items want defense cut.  So, they come to a “compromise”, eventually.  They posture and argue and pound their chests for their cause and in the end some things may get cosmetic ”cuts” (read less increase than planned) but spending overall still goes up.  They have “fought” on television, on radio, on the floors of the chambers and told us how ”terrible” life will be if we cut their pet project.  Both political parties get their sound bites in so low information voters on both sides of the aisle get just enough to think someone actually cares about what affects them and hence can count on that vote the next time it is needed.
The question I have, and one that never gets answered, is “if the country is going to almost totally shut down because we “cut” $85 billion, why are they spending $3.7 TRILLION and where does the rest of it go?”  This “spending cut” is going to cause firemen, policemen, and teachers to be laid off?  Since when does the federal government pay for these services?  Isn’t that why I pay county property taxes and state taxes?  Social Security checks won’t go out, pony rides in national parks will end (sad face), soldiers won’t have what they need to fight, and 700,000 federal employees in the Defense Department will be laid off? WHY??? Won’t the $61.5 billion MORE they plan to spend this year cover those social security checks, pony rides, soldier supplies, and employees just like they did last year?  Every politician and every bureaucrat comes out and cries about how their particular area is going to die a death of financial starvation, yet government is going to spend more money than last year.  Sorry, I guess I am just too stupid to understand their logic; at least they think so.
And to spending cuts, I have yet to hear Obama speak about cutting back on his vacations to Hawaii and Spain, golf with Tiger Woods, a special Leer jet for his dog to go to Martha’s Vineyard, or a junket on Air Force One to Nevada or wherever  to announce another of his “green energy” or “jobs” scams that he could have announced from Washington.  I haven’t heard about ‘Ole Nan’ giving up her first class jet for a broom.
Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 that he was authorized as a Senator but didn’t spend.  Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has been doing this for years.  A side question is “how much money do they get for ‘office expenses’?”  Apparently too much!!
I also haven’t heard anything about cutting congressional or White House staff, not to mention the pay raises they seem to get quite often.  We hear the horror stories about how We the People will suffer due to “cutbacks” but never how Congress or the Executive Branch plan to do with less.  It is always We the People who must do with less while they spend more on themselves, with never a true cut in government spending. Rush recently mentioned on his radio show that 7 of the 10 richest counties surround or are very near Washington, D.C. (De Cesspool). No recession in or near Washington!!!
In the real world they are scamming liberal and conservative voters alike.  The people running OUR government take We the People for being so stupid we can’t figure this out.  The sad fact of the matter is that about 51%, at least, buy into this lie. How do people like Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Diane Feinstein, Sheila Jackson Lee, Charles Rangel, Hank (Guam might tip over) Johnson, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, etc. continue to get elected?
Much of the problem comes from the Republican Party yet these same people who turn their backs on conservatives get elected time and again. WHY????  I don’t know of a single major promise Republicans have made in 20 years that they have actually followed through on, yet they continue to receive the same support from the same people.
The problem is that we have no other options. It is either ultra-liberal Democrats or very-liberal Republicans.  We vote time and again for the lesser of two evils because that is all the options we have.  That has to change if we are going to salvage the Republic established in 1791 and defended for all these years by the blood of American patriots.  The biggest problem facing America is career politicians and bureaucrats who could care less what We the People think or what the Constitution says.  A 3^rd party encompassing the 67% of We the People who make up the TEA Party could cure these problems.  Where are the leaders to step up and lead????
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 24, 2013

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

By Mychal Massie on January 5, 2013 in Daily Rant, Featured

 

 Editor's Note: Ditto, to everything Mychal MASSIE stated here.

 

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.”

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

 I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

About Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives; and a member of its’ parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. In his official capacity with this free market public policy think tank he has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and has testified concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources. He has been a keynote speaker at colleges and universities nationwide, at Tea Party Rallies, at rallies supporting our troops and conservative presidents; and rally’s supporting conservative causes across the country. He is an unapologetic supporter of our right to own and carry firearms

MEDIA “BALDFACE” LIES ABOUT PATRAEUS TESTIMONY TO DEFEND OBAMA’S BENGHAZI FAILURE

by Penbrook One

THE 1^stAMENDMENT WAS MURDERED IN BENGHAZI TOO - Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.  Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

Now, AP Columnists Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler have published an insidious and deceptive story claiming that the reason Obama and members of his administration were justified in lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack was because he was attempting to implement a covert response against the terrorists and did not want to, in their words, “tip them off” to his retaliatory plans.

 

By Dan Crosby

of the Daily Pen
 

NEW YORK, NY- The re-election of Barack Obama and defense of his illegitimate executive power has become more important than protecting the lives of innocent Americans, according the liberal mainstream media. Defending Obama’s lies in order to see him achieve his liberal aspirations was more important than protecting American security and providing the truth about the September 11 murder of four innocent Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the hands of terrorist enemies in Benghazi, Libya.
 

Despite former CIA director David Petraeus' testimony in closed hearings Friday that he has always believed the September 11 attack on a U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism and that it was not a result of a spontaneous demonstration, Obama’s media defenders are toiling to provide excuses for Obama’s failures to respond as well as his outright lies that the attack was the result of a YouTube video. 
 

Intelligence reports also show that Patraeus’ agency actually named specific terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, as those responsible for the attack in its initial reports sent to the Obama administration during and immediately following the attack. 

It has since been discovered, however, that the content of those reports were altered by unnamed personnel in the Obama administration in order to omit references to specific terrorist groups and implications that the attack was anything other than a spontaneous protest over the YouTube video, which at least five high ranking members of the Obama Administration explicitly blamed for the attack, including Barack Obama, himself.
 

Investigators believe the Obama administration removed references to terrorist groups prior to the election in order to convey a positive public narrative about Obama’s success against Al-Qaeda after exaggerating his own role in the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011.     
 

However, the ultra-liberal media has once again been caught altering facts and telling blatant lies in its coverage of the content of testimony given to congress by Patraeus.  In an article published on November 16, Associated Press columnists, Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler wrote the following:
 

“Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.”
 

The latter half of this paragraph is a lie.  An originally published story before Dozier’s and Pickler’s shows that General Patraeus made no such statement about what he believed were the reasons for why the Obama administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack or why the official CIA reports released just hours after the attack were altered.  Dozier and Pickler simply made that part up.  They continued:

“The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

Again, Dozier and Pickler invent facts to suit the pro-Obama narrative.  The actual released story originally published from reliable media sources appeared as follows: 

"WASHINGTON -- Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers during private hearings Friday that he believed all along that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a terrorist strike, even though that wasn't how the Obama administration initially described it publicly.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees as questions continue to persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies' assessments.

Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency took out the reference.

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign."

Notice, at no point in the original version of the AP story does it mention anything about the Obama administration changing CIA intelligence reports in order to avoid “tipping off” the terrorists.  Patraeus made no such statement about the reasons for changing the reports because there is no way for him to know why the original CIA reports on the attack were altered by anyone in the administration. 

Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.

That’s right, a member of one of the largest and long standing media organizations in America blamed politicians for his failure to do his job.  According to Tapper, the government now rules over the “free press” in America.  No more truth will be spoken against our government’s lust for power.  The pursuit of truth is officially dead among the American press.      

Essentially, Tapper admitted that the 1^stAmendment is dead.  He believes that journalists in his organization, as well as all of the press, are willing to allow the government to dictate which stories are newsworthy to the media based on political ideology.  He admitted that political interests and selfish dominion of power by politicians are being permitted to rule over the media and that he and his colleagues were helpless to provide any information or facts about the Benghazi tragedy in any viable manner, whatsoever.   

 

Shockingly, Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

 

He actually admitted that the despicable letches in our press were less willing to provide critical information about what our government was doing about terrorist attacks against Americans than help a radical regime and bowing liberal consensus achieve an electoral orgasm.
 

Let’s hope Tapper and his delusional band are proud of their accomplishment.  Obama’s re-election cost the lives of four innocent Americans and blood of countless others.   Good job. 

   
 

In their pathetic defense of the Obama Administration, Dozier and Pickler claim that the Obama administration was justified in lying about the identity of those responsible for the Benghazi attack because it did not want those same terrorists to know that the Obama Administration knew it was them.  Therefore, says Dozier and Pickler, the Obama administration chose to tell the world a lie claiming the attack and Obama’s failed response, which resulted in the murder of four innocent Americans, was the result a protest by offended Muslims over an obscure YouTube video.
 

 

However, in their placatory misinformation, Dozier and Pickler fail to explain two events not covered by Patraeaus’ testimony, which proves that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the Benghazi attack in order to protect Obama’s retention of executive power leading up to the 2012 election. 

 

By their false account, the lies told by the Obama administration about Benghazi were so justified and intellectually elaborate that the calculated deception actually required the unwarranted arrest and terrorization of an innocent American, based on trumped up charges.
 

In defending Obama’s lies, Dozier and Pickler fail to describe the reasons why, upon blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Obama administration then also felt it was necessary to go sin-sniffing and actually imprison the alleged film maker, Mark Basseley Youssef.  Apparently, according to these two liars, this extension of the Obama deception was so sophisticated that it was a required part of “not tipping off “ the terrorists that the administration was on to them.
 

 

If Dozier and Pickler had done their job as journalist instead of allowing their deranged ideological lusts to control their perspective, they would have discovered that US District Judge Christina Snyder dropped half the minor charges against Youssef before finding him guilty on even lesser charges of violating his parole and using an alias!  That’s right…when all was said and done, after all the destruction Youssef allegedly caused with his “offensive and disgusting” video in Benghazi, resulting in the murder of four Americans, he was convicted of the “capital offense” of using an alias! 
 

Youssef was not arrested for parole violations.  The fact is, these leftist liars didn’t even consider that the Obama administration sought to arrest Youssef, using the video as an excuse, in order to uphold Obama’s lies to the American people, not implement a covert response to the terrorists. 
   

Steven Seiden, Youssef’s lawyer said after trial, “All sides accepted that none of the charges had anything to do with the anti-Muslim content of the film.”
 

Seidens account seems to suggest that his client was arrested as part of scheme by the Obama administration to hide the fact that a terrorist group was responsible for the Benghazi attack.   
 

Had they done their job correctly, Dozier and Pickler would have also discovered there has been no explanation to the public about any specific violations by Youssef or which terms of his alleged probation he actually violated, or what the terms of his original probation actually were.  As far as the public knows, Youssef could have been arrested for jaywalking, a charge which federal authorities were able to then trump into a probation violation at the behest of Obama lap dog Attorney General, Eric Holder. 
 

According to Randy Kreider of ABC News, "Officials stressed during court proceedings that the movie's contents and impact had no bearing on Youssef's case.  After a prosecutor said 'he's not here because of the content of the movie,' the judge agreed.”
 

Then why was Youssef arrested?  What evidence did authorities have to file charges before the arrest and what were those charges?

 

TERRORISTS:  WE DID IT, BUT DON’T TELL OBAMA

But, the biggest lie Dozier and Pickler tell is that the terrorists were on the run and hiding from a heroic Obama superhero after the attack, yet they refuse to acknowledge that same superhero's failure to prevent attacks in the month before despite having mountains of warnings, intel reports and requests for additional security. 

According to Dozier and Pickler, no action or lie by the Obama administration thus far is punishable because, in their absurd view, the terrorists might have become wise to the fact that they were found out by the very same government and intelligence personnel they had attacked?

The problem with this excuse is that the terrorists, themselves, admitted to the attack by posting a confession on a worldwide social media site, Facebook, within 24 hours. 

 

Maybe Dozier and Pickler thought that since the terrorists didn’t “friend” Obama, they might be able to hide their murderous deeds amidst a billion teenagers and fraternity pledges.  Or, maybe Dozier and Pickler believed Secretary of State Clinton when she weaseled off that something posted on the internet is not proof of anything.
 

Or, maybe these idiots thought the terrorists posted on Facebook, “We did it…but don’t tell Obama.” 
 

In lying to protect Obama, Dozier and Pickler failed to realize the preeminent fact that the terrorists were never worried about being discovered because they publicly admitted to the attack immediately.  Therefore, there is no reason for the  Obama administration to think its response should be hidden from a terrorist group that already publicly admitted to the world that it was responsible for murdering Ambassador Stevens and three U.S. diplomat personnel.

In the end, the fact is that Obama, in his corrupt leftist ideology, wanted to be re-elected without the American people having the chance to find out the truth about his failure to prevent the deaths of four Americans at the hands of the very same terrorists he claims to have defeated long ago.

Now, he can sleep in the White House every night knowing he had the ability to save Americans and he intentionally allowed them to die because of his lust for power.

We don't know about the terrorists...but Americans are on to him.

MEDIA PUPPETS LIE TO PROTECT OBAMA'S DIABOLICAL SCHEME TO ARM AL QAEDA IN SYRIA!

by Penbrook One

FAILURE OF ALLEGIANCE - Attempting to aid and abet the fraudulent Obama Administration’s cover-up of the September 11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, leftist media websites and networks are publishing dishonest stories in an effort to provide cover for Obama’s failure to transparently respond to the crisis and, most likely, protect him from consequences of an outright cover-up of a diabolical scheme to arm an Al Qaeda-led rebellion in Syria.   

 

Commentary by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - As reported by the Washington Times, the liberal press overwhelmingly bought into the Obama administration's version that a YouTube video was to blame for what the regime said was a “spontaneous attack by offended rioters” at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, according to a study published Friday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which tracks news reports.

Officials from the Administration blamed the video for two weeks even though evidence now shows they knew the attack was a coordinated plot by terrorists the entire time.  Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and Obama, himself, lied to the American people for weeks in order cover up the truth about the reasons for the tragic events in Benghazi.   

But, the media is refusing to ask why they would do that.  Why would Obama and his State Department blame a random video after evidence had been received by them for weeks that terrorists were planning an attack? 

The media refuses to even consider the probability that Ambassador Stevens may have discovered information which exposed a scheme by the Obama administration to provide arms to an Al Qaeda-led rebellion against Syria's Assad regime, which has killed more than 30,000 civilians in that nation.

Assume the primary directive of Islam is to take over the world and establish a global caliphate.  Would it not therefore engage this endeavor in places where vacuums of power exist...or are created.  Are we not suspicious enough about Obama's allegiances after four years of unanswered questions about his past, his identity, his very eligibility to hold the office?    

The media won't ask themselves, once that information was exposed, terrorist elements of Al-Qaeda in Libya were informed that Stevens and his staff may attempt to prevent the covert operation as well as the fact that Stevens would possess politically fatal information against Obama. That being that a sitting president, despite his lack of eligibility to hold the office, was actively engaged in scheme to arm America's enemies.

Or, even worse...what if Stevens found out that Obama had made a deal with Al Qaeda to provide them with arms to help them assume power in both Libya and Syria if Al Qaeda would allow Obama to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden?  We still have never seen evidence of that mission.  We've only heard testimony from those who are lying to us right now.      

Under such circumstances, such an evil scheme would therefore have to neutralize an individual with that kind of apocalyptic information, wouldn't it?        

Reuters, as well as every liberal media network, has attempted to lie for Obama this week by making it seem like the two parties, the CIA in Benghazi and Obama's National Security Team in Washington D.C., were in agreement about the course of action and that when CIA security officer and former Navy Seal, Tyrone Woods defied orders to remain at the annex, his independent choice was somehow the result of Obama’s order to go help Ambassador Stevens.

This, of course, is just another of many endless lies from Obama's fraudulently installed horde of overbenders.    

"CMPA analysts show that press accounts framed the attack as a spontaneous protest in line with the Obama administration's initial version of events at a rate four times more often than they called it a terrorist assault, which was what skeptics identified it as in the days right after Sept. 11.

Initial coverage also focused more on debates over free speech versus hate speech because of the controversy surrounding the video, rather than on security decisions at the Benghazi mission complex, the study found. The Obama administration's initial explanation for the attack was that it was a mob protest against a video that mocked Islam's prophet Mohammed. A mob in Cairo did attack the American Embassy that same night in protest of the video.

The study graded news stories based on their use of words and phrases that touched on themes such as free speech, security problems and terrorism.

"The Benghazi attack was depicted in terms related to a spontaneous protest emphasized by the Obama administration over four times as often as a planned attack (emphasized by Republicans — 17% vs. 4% of the coverage, respectively," the CMPA concluded."

In Reuters’ most recent Benghazi story titled, “CIA Officials in Libya made key decisions during Benghazi attacks” the international news agency intentionally omits critical key facts which would otherwise confirm suspicions that the Obama administration is lying to the American people about its role in the crisis. 

For example, in his opening stanza, “CIA officials on the ground in Libya dispatched security forces to the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi within 25 minutes and made other key decisions about how to respond to the waves of attacks,” Reuters columnist, Mark Hosenball fails to attach his benign 25 minute time reference to any event during the attack.  He writes a lonely, “within 25 minutes”.

It isn’t until his 14^th paragraph that he identifies the chronological origins from whence the 25 minute claim was begotten saying, “…About 25 minutes after the initial report came into the CIA base, a team of about six agency security officers left their base for the public diplomatic mission compound.”

Hosenball conveniently omits the fact that the six security agency security officers left their base..in defiance of orders to not help Ambassador Stevens and his staff.  By intentionally leaving out the fact that Tyrone Woods and his small team went to help Stevens against orders, Hosenball and Reuters are attempting to make their readers believe that Woods' team left the CIA annex base as result of obeying orders to do so.  They did not.  They left the base in defiance of orders from Obama’s command to leave the situation alone.

We know Woods and the security team refused to stand by among cries for help and watch State Department staff get slaughtered by terrorists.  However, conspicuously, the liberal media has also failed to ask the Obama administration why the threat against the mission staff was so impending on September 11th.       

Hosenball’s second paragraph is no better.  He writes another benign account of actions from what he claims officials conveyed without attaching those actions to any name, authority, course of events or sequence of orders.  He writes:

“Officials in Washington monitored events through message traffic and a hovering U.S. military drone but did not interfere with or reject requests for help from officials in the line of fire, the official said.”

Did not Interfere? They should have interfered!  They should have interfered with the attempts by terrorists to murder Americans!  It’s infuriating to fathom what Hosenball is thinking by using the word “interfere” in this context.  Is it not the primary directive of the Commander-in-Chief to interfere with attempts to murder Americans?  If not, what good is he?

Apparently, Hosenball is therefore admitting that Obama administration officials remained silent and indifferent, not interfering or rejecting, as they watched drone footage of Americans being murdered.

It isn’t until Hosenball’s third paragraph where he actually begins to veer into bias by omission.   He writes:

“The information emerged as officials made available on Thursday a timeline chronicling the U.S. response to the Benghazi attacks in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other American officials died. The material appears to refute claims by critics that officials in Washington delayed sending help to the besieged personnel.”

Evidvence shows that Officials in Washington and CIA personnel in Benghazi were at odds the night of the attack.  Based on the apparent backlash from military command against the Obama regime, it appears the contention over the events during that night were outright hostile.  One commander was allegedly fired and two others were demoted in the field after they attempted to violate orders to stand down.   

Woods and his team, including Glen Doherty, were explicitly told by Obama’s national security team not to help Stevens.  Why else would the Obama Administration attempt to mislead the American people? 

Obama's plan began to fail the moment Woods and Doherty ignored orders and went anyway.

Their deaths should be investigated with prejudice.  

Therefore, it now appears the liberal pro-Obama media is attempting to lie to give credit for Woods’ and Doherty’s decision to defy orders and go help fellow Americans under attack, not to Woods and Doherty, but to Obama.  Sick and disgusting.

Hosenball finally attributes a quote to a real person.  He writes:

"Following the initial broadcast of the Fox News report, Jennifer Youngblood, a CIA spokeswoman, denied that CIA had ever turned down requests for help from U.S. personnel in Benghazi."

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate," Youngblood said. 

Again, Hosenball is giving an account of another admission by an Obama official which shows that at no time, in any form, did anyone from the Obama White House ever tell anyone in the CIA or the State Department to help Ambassador Stevens.  If such an order had been given, it would have a written chain of custody. 

Hosenball already said in the first part of the story that Obama officials did not interfere. 

If they didn’t interfere, how did they give the order to help Stevens?

Hosenball’s story says nothing about a YouTube video.   

 

OBAMA STILL STRUNG ON ELECTION FIX HOPING TO EVADE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS LIES

by Penbrook One

USURPER EN PRESENTIA - Barack Obama still believes the consequences for his administration’s lies are going to be easier to face if he ignores the outrage of the American people until after they cast their votes.  In the exact same way he believed the outrage over his lies about his lack of constitutional eligibility to even hold the office of president were going to be easier to ignore after the American people voted in 2008, he now believes he can evade the outrage over his lies about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.  Only this time, his lies have injured a dangerous assembly of U.S. military command and clandestine personnel with the ability to manifest politically destructive evidence of cover-up and deception.

 

Commentary by Penbrook Johannson

Editor of The Daily Pen

  

NEW YORK, NY - Like an addict hopelessly hooked on the poison that’s killing him, Obama thinks if he can just win another election fix, his lies will become irrelevant.

 

Someone needs to help Barack Obama before it’s too late.  They need to conduct a group intervention.  They need to sit him down and, after they remind him of the consequences of presiding over the most corrupt administration in American history, ask him if he really…really wants to reside in the White House for another four years.

After they remind him that he is not a legitimate office holder due to his lack of constitutional eligibility, they now need to make him aware of the damage his lies about the terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya have caused to the morale of our military and the American people. 

Finally they need to ask him if he truly believes the honorable members of our military service actually would respect after the lies and failures about his identity, his ideology and, now, his foreign allegiance to enemies abroad.   

There is some very bad news waiting for Obama on November 7, regardless if he is fraudulently ensconced to the White House again.  The pursuit of truth about his identity will continue, and his diminished credibility with the American military over the Benghazi scandal will continue to erode his image. 

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, issued a devastating response to Barack Obama’s ongoing failure to respond directly to charges that his administration is hiding information about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission facility in Benghazi which resulted in the murder of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens. 

When asked if congressional investigations should be conducted along with the investigation currently engaged by the Obama Adminstraton, Bolton said, “The only information we have is the result of an investigation of the Obama administration…by the Obama administration.  Investigations by both branches are appropriate.  In the case of the Obama administration, it’s not only that their internal investigations have produced accounts, so far, that are only favorable to them, but that the selective leaking of information has politicized the CIA and the Pentagon a few days before our election.”

It is now clear that Obama’s blatant lack of response to vehement questions about the Benghazi fiasco is an attempt to prevent the American people from discovering the truth before the election next week.  Obama is ignoring the American people’s growing outrage over Benghazi because he knows the answers to their questions will utterly destroy his political credibility and devastate his chances at re-election. 

Again, Obama is demonstrating his propensity for lies and cowardice when called upon to stand for the difficult decision of upholding honor and truth. 

Either way, however, Obama’s credibility and legitimacy have been deeply damaged, not only in the perception of the American people but, most importantly, in the hearts and minds of those who serve in our military, which the office of president must command with utmost credibility and legitimacy if America is to be effectively defended and protected. 

The failure in Benghazi has revealed that Obama is simply no long a legitimate leader able to exercise credible leadership over our military servicemen and servicewomen.   

“What this shows is an administration in disarray while emphasizing the importance of Congress getting to the bottom of this,” Bolton said.

  

A recent report by Fox News’ Catherine Herridge revealed a top secret communication sent in August, 2012, a full month before the attack, from Ambassador Chris Stevens and other U.S. Chief of Mission (COM) personnel in Benghazi directly to Hillary Clinton at the State Department which issued a clear warning that U.S. facilities in Libya were at extreme risk of a terrorist attack and that Al Qaeda sponsored groups were a clear and present threat to the complex and State Department personnel. 

The revelations presented by Fox are an unequivocal indictment against the Obama administration and clearly demonstrate that the White House and State Department were warned that if security measures were not increased at the Benghazi mission, it could not be defended in a coordinated attack.  We now know the Obama administration did nothing to increase security in the weeks leading up to the September 11^th attack, despite the warning from COM officials.

This fact, therefore, suggests executive leadership in the administration, including Obama himself, was fully aware of the threat but chose not to act in the interest of securing U.S. personnel because, for reasons yet to be disclosed, there was a greater political benefit in allowing the embassy to remain vulnerable.

Based on this, it becomes necessary to question whether the Obama administration had reason to believe that the possibility of U.S. Ambassador Stevens being killed was more favorable to an alternative of protecting him and his staff, and what was that reason?  

    

Commenting on the revelations by Fox, Bolton commented saying, “I’ve had chance to read that cable and it is the smoking gun in this investigation.  The idea that the CIA station in Benghazi offered to bring the consulate personnel into their compound a month before the September 11 attack shows just how worried everybody in Benghazi was about such an attack, which, as we know, is what happened a few weeks later.”

“This is a devastating rebuttal to any notion that there was an out of control demonstration  because of this ridiculous Mohammed video and it undercuts the Obama administration’s credibility in a profound way,” continued Bolton.

According to the Washington Times, retired Naval Rear Admiral James A Lyons told correspondents, “It now appears the White House, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, NDI, JCS and various other military commands monitored the entire battle in real time via frantic phone calls from our compound and video from overhead drone.  The cries for help and support went unanswered.  The terrorists could have been wiped out by an immediate counter attack but there appears to have been a lack of courage to make that happen.”

   

Said Bolton, “The passivity of this administration, before, after and during the attack deserves an investigation and that we need to address the broader systemic failure in which appears the Obama administration is believing its own press releases about the war on terror is over, denial of multiple requests for security before the attack on 9-11.”  

This is the result of a mixture of incompetence, politics and ideology, which is a toxic brew.  There is no doubt we had a debacle on 9-11 a tragedy of four Americans dead.  It is important for Americans to understand that this threat still exists today.  There has been no retaliation for that attack.”

Bolton concluded, “Every diplomatic facility in the Middle East is at risk until we do something.”  

And, so is the sovereignty of the Office of the Presidency.