Doug Hagmann - Obama’s October surprise - exposed by Benghazi?

As a veteran investigator, I’ve learned long ago to shed my blinders and look at the larger picture, or look at all of the dots to see if any might connect. In the realm of politics, it also seems reasonable to consider the quote attributed to Joseph Kennedy in 1960: “There are no accidents in politics.” Furthermore, it is important to reconstruct the actions of all suspects, or in this case, elected officials, to determine “motives and means” amid a hefty dose of theatrical diversions that would make an accomplished magician envious.

October surprise

The concept of an “October surprise,” or a news event with significant potential to influence the presidential election arose exactly forty years ago, when former National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger under then President Richard Nixon announced that an end of the Vietnam War was at hand.

Applied to the present day, what one comparable announcement could be made that would have the same impact in scope and influence favoring the incumbent Obama. Given all that we know, let’s postulate that it would be an agreement hammered out between Obama and Iran where Iran would agree to halt its nuclear ambitions. That certainly would appear to be an accomplishment worthy of domestic and international praise, in spite of any inherent fragility.

In the shadow of the events in Benghazi, let’s connect a few dots to see where they take us.

The Earl Warren of 2012

Barack Obama promised Americans that he is committed to investigate any intelligence and security failures in Libya. To this end, it was announced in the Federal Register on October 4, 2012, that Thomas Pickering would be the chairman of the U.S. State Department’s Accountability Review Board, a commission charged with investigating the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi. But who is Thomas Pickering and why was he selected to head the investigation?

Summoning the ghost of Earl Warren, Pickering appears to be a logical choice to select if one were to have an interest in controlling the public disclosure. Pickering, it appears, has quite a cozy history with Iran as extensively documented by Matthew Vadum in his October 24, 2012 report.

The magic act continues

While the magician on stage activated the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the activities behind the scenes were in full swing. Concurrent with the appointment of Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born Senior Advisor, jetted to the nation of Qatar. Although her activities were concealed by the magician’s accomplice - the dutiful Western media - it was reported by the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.

Talks about any such meetings or potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.

A break in the magician’s fog

While the creation of an October surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots - or events - come into view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those looking for the clues.

It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.

It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.

It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”

Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.

Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.

Connecting the dots - exposing the magic trick

It is here that I needed to rely on my intelligence source to assist me in seeing through the clouded world stage. Do the dots connect?

Could it be that Obama’s “October surprise” was to announce that an agreement had been reached with Iran, that they would halt their nuclear ambitions much like the Kissinger “peace is at hand” announcement? If so, and if Iran had any involvement on a nation-state level in Benghazi, wouldn’t it seem logical that the truth about the attacks needed to be managed without any such mention of Iran? Who would be the best person to head such an investigation? And if Iran was behind the pre-planned and sophisticated 9/11 murderous attacks in Benghazi, could it be that the July 31, 2012 mortar attack was a probe of that facility’s defenses in advance of a future attack? That would explain the curious disappearance of the 7 member Iranian “Red Crescent” team, and their equally mysterious reappearance, unharmed, 65 days later.

Has the magic trick been revealed?

Douglas Hagmann

Visit the Northeast Intelligence Network Website by clicking HERE

Douglas J. Hagmann is the founder and director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and CEO of a multi-state licensed private investigative agency serving many Fortune 500 clients. A 23 year veteran of conducting investigations in the private sector, he has logged over 40,000 hours of covert surveillance in his career and is the author of Tactical Surveillance. He is a member of the International Counter- Terrorism Officers Association and possesses many law enforcement related training certifications. He has been used as an operational asset by federal law enforcement and various police departments, and has performed over 5,000 civil and criminal investigations throughout the United States. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Hagmann began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness by establishing the Northeast Intelligence Network.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kevin McCullough - Why President Optimal Isn't

Optimal is an odd word.

Those of us who use words for a living, like to play with their nuance, their sound, even play them in our heads long before we put them on paper or speak them.

At least most of us do.

Those who edit my written words have gotten hugely frustrated with me. My syntax, grammar, and even meaning have sometime--in their opinions--been left askew because I wanted to insist on using a certain word, or using it in a certain context, or order of words.

Yet through the writing of three best-selling books, more than a 1000 op-ed columns, and more broadcast show prep than I care to think about, I bet I have used the word optimal less than a dozen times. The reason being that it's just an odd word.

It's not a word that people use often. It's not as flashy as say the word fantastic. It's not as elite as the word excellent. In fact it's kind of a hard word to say, starting with that awkward "ah" sound. A sound that left by itself much mirrors a gag reflex.

Such a reflex was largely invoked on Thursday when within seconds of appearing on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, first the transcript, and then the video itself began pouring out across the internet with President Obama stating that losing four public servants in Libya was not "optimal."

You see optimal is supposedly a declarative assertion of what is best. Yet just saying the word doesn't seem to lend one's thoughts to such an idea. In fact when I think of the word it always strikes me as better than average but not necessarily the very peak of perfection. It's a funny word. Kind of a shadow of what it's own meaning is supposed to imply. Like a bumper that's mostly chrome, except for the rust just on one end.

So using it to describe the brutal assault that killed a beloved ambassador, a retired Air Force officer, and two of our nation's very best--Navy Seals, seems to be a bit of an insult, even if none was intended.

I mean, I think I know what the President meant to say. I think he wanted to say that the taking of our personnel was "awful," "tragic," "a loss and a sting that their families will mourn through for the next year, and beyond that endure sadness on every holiday." Doesn't that sound a whole lot more like what a President should have said?

Maybe it's because law professors tend to be such... eh... law professors, that somewhere along the line the part of them that feels human emotion just completely unplugs from their brain. You know the type. They will sit and argue any issue from every possible perspective, all the while, not really telling you which one they think is right. Because making a moral judgement in court cases may not always be "optimal."

Then again perhaps the idea of current affairs being far from "optimal" is weighing on President Obama more than in the past. More people being out of work than when he took office sure isn't optimal. 500,000 more women being out of work than when he took office isn't optimal. 3,500,000 women now being homeless, some with their children is increasingly "less optimal."

What seems astoundingly crummy in President Obama's case though is that he brought a lot of the less-than-optimal to the table in terms of Libya.

Does anyone remember that he decided to invade that little country, but to do so by "leading from behind?" Any former generals or admirals want to weigh in on just how optimal it is for U.S. forces to be following the direction of other nation's military leaders?

Of course once we invaded not everyone was pleased so we had to send more special forces into Libya to protect the diplomats who were working hard to turn that hellish nightmare of a nation into a representative form of self governance. So how optimal was it for President Obama to draw down the military security, marines, and special ops forces we had on the ground, say in the last thirty days before Al Qaeda carried out the attack it had openly advertised it would make happen?

Optimal?

Was it very optimal to not even repair the outer wall of the security perimeter when Al Qaeda "practiced" carrying out their attack by blowing a chunk of it open with an IED? Was it optimal to not respond--at all?

Yes Mr. President the killing of four Americans was certainly "less than perfect." (If that's really how you want the tape to be played.) It's just that, well... from my own perspective... it just seems like you don't care anymore.

Yes you love the optimal trappings of being President. Air Force One is a hoot. More golf in four years than your predecessor had in eight--very, very, optimal--for you.

But the running the world thing? Making tough decisions that don't start and end with bowing to George Soros, or by expressing worship to the ACLU, the SEIU, or Planned Parenthood -- these are really tough things. And truly difficult for someone who's never really run things before.

Our nation's economy, our national security, the fiscal cliff, the state of the underemployed family, worker, and woman, the cuts you're attempting to make to our military, the lack of attention you give to anything on the border--except the guns you let flow to drug cartels, and the list goes on--none of these things are optimal.

In fact they're pretty bad.

So like the African American gentleman who questioned you in the second debate, (President Clinton said he thought the man was going to start crying) about why he should vote for you again this go around, many are wondering is the current state of America what you would consider to be optimal?

It is such a funny, uncomfortable, and usually forgettable word, but this week Mr. President you've given it a whole new level of meaning.

And to be candid Mr. President, we're not finding it very optimal.

Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Doug Giles - Obama and His Ilk Hung Chris Stevens and Others Out to Dry

This past Friday (10/19/12) the State Department released internal docs showing that Chris Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to hell’s corridor in Libya, begged Obama’s boys in D.C. to ramp up security in Benghazi. And, as we all know now, he got nothing from the State Department but was allowed to be tortured and murdered by “democracy seekers” from the “Religion of Peace” in the “liberated” nation of Libya.

As far as I am concerned, blood is dripping from Obama’s golf-gloved campaign hands. Whatever do I mean, you ask? Well, according to James Rosen’s findings in the newly released damning papers, it’s crap like:

• On September 11—the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed—the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled “sensitive,” in which he noted “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as “too weak to keep the country secure.”


• Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled “sensitive,” that he entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya.” Writing on August 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months’ time, “Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape … The individual incidents have been organized,” he added, a function of “the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes.”

“Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity,” Stevens cabled. “What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks.” His final comment on the two-page document was: “Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable.”

• By September 4, Stevens’s aides were reporting back to Washington on the “strong revolutionary and Islamist sentiment” in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a “recent increase in violent incidents,” including “attacks against western [sic] interests.” “Until the GOL [Government of Libya] is able to effectively deal with these key issues,” Stevens wrote on June 25, “the violence is likely to continue and worsen.”

• After the U.S. consulate in Benghazi had been damaged by an improvised explosive device, earlier that month, Stevens had reported to his superiors that an Islamist group had claimed credit for the attack, and in so doing had “described the attack as ‘targeting the Christians supervising the management of the consulate.’”

“Islamic extremism appears to be on the rise in eastern Libya,” the ambassador wrote, adding “the Al-Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities …”

• In the days leading up to 9/11, warnings came even from people outside the State Department. A Libyan women’s rights activist, Wafa Bugaighis, confided to the Americans in Benghazi in mid-August: “For the first time since the revolution, I am scared.”

From the 166 hellish pages we see a stack of warnings, via multiple cables sent to D.C. from Chris’s own laptop about which diddly was done—and that being after prior bombings of the Red Cross and our own compound and an assassination attempt on the British ambassador. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. This is gross and inexcusable.

If what happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was not an act of terror, or an act of war, I don’t know what is. What’s the “Religion of Peace” got to do to wake this administration the heck up? Destroy one of Obama’s favorite golf courses?

Oh, BTW: Missing from the extensive documents is any mention of a YouTube video ticking these “peaceful protestors” off.

Someone please forward this over to Romney’s campaign for talking points for Monday night’s debate on “National Security.”

Doug Giles

Hey parents! See what you’re paying big bucks for your kid’s education? A rather mannish female professor telling your college student that God’s a myth and if she had it her way they would not get a diploma if they believed in the creation account in the scripture. Hope and Atheism.

Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - The Obama-Crowley Transcript Charade

Many people are asking the question: Did something seem rotten in Hempstead? In preparation for the second debate, moderator par excellence Candy Crowley was the one who picked the debate questions, including the hot-button query on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, Libya.

That Libya question was presented to Barack Obama by Kerry Ladka in the following way:

LADKA: This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

Predictably, President Obama gave a non-answer:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren’t just representatives of the United States; they’re my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm’s way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody’s more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And that’s not how a commander in chief operates. You don’t turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it’s happening.

In his reply Obama focused on goading Romney by accusing him of “trying to make political points” by attempting to “turn national security into a political issue.” Obama went on to say that the next day in the Rose Garden he called the Benghazi attack “an act of terror,” which he knew would get Romney’s attention.

When Mitt Romney challenged the President’s claim to have admitted that it was an “act of terror” the next day, a relaxed Obama smiled haughtily, balanced himself on his stool and said, “Please proceed…please proceed Governor” as if to say “Go ahead and make a fool of yourself.”

Obama then signaled to Crowley to “Get the transcript.” Wonder of wonders, Candy just happened to have Obama’s Rose Garden comments right in her hand. Crowley, who obviously didn’t read the transcript, proceeded to agree with Obama by informing Romney that the President did indeed say that it was an “act of terrorism.” A smirking Obama then delighted the audience when he smarmily yelled out, “Could you say that a little louder” honey, I mean Candy?

Was Mitt set up? It appears that Obama purposely instigated the Benghazi controversy. If not, then why would tag team Obama/Crowley just so happen to have the Rose Garden transcript handy? Obama called for a reading from the record and was supported by the supposedly neutral debate moderator with an interpretational stretch that endeavored to make Mitt Romney look clueless and as if he was trying to score political points.

By the next day, besides admitting she was wrong on the facts, Candy Crowley also revealed that she was wearing a Peter Popoff-style earpiece, which she claimed “played no part in the Benghazi/terror exchange.”

The question is, did Candy Crowley have any other transcripts in her debate brush-up pile? And if not, why not?

There is no way to know for sure whether the Obama/Crowley crew attempted, albeit poorly, to purposely ensnare Mitt Romney, but based on what happened at Hofstra University, an orchestrated liberal assault is certainly something that doesn’t seem out of the question.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

See the Entire Benghazi Terrorist Attack Timeline - Updated several times since original posting.
Click HERE to Read Timeline.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Latest on Benghazi Terrorist Attack

The continued bad news from Libya and today?s House Oversight Committee probing of State Department officials.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Michelle Malkin - "This Administration Has Been Malicious and Reckless With the Truth!"

"What you have here is a den of lying liars and crap weasels, who are all behind the scenes trying to figure out who to hang out to dry" says Syndicated Columnist, NY Times #1 Best Selling Author, Michelle Malkin, as she offers her perspective on the White House Cover-up of the facts regarding the Benghazi attack that took place on the 11th anniversary of 9-11.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Vice President Debate - Benghazi

Martha Raddatz, moderator of the Vice Presidential Debate, opens the evening by asking Joe Biden about the recent terrorist attack in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11, inquiring if it was "a massive intelligence failure."

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Mitt Romney - Foreign Policy Speech Analyzed

Tonight more bad news from Libya is the backdrop for a foreign policy speech today (10/8/12) from Mitt Romney.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

American Crossroads - Intelligence on Benghazi

What did Barack Obama know about Benghazi and when did he know it?

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Embassy Staff in Libya Denied Extra Security Before Benghazi Attack

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has subpoenaed the leading security official at the U.S. consulate in Libya for an upcoming hearing, an attempt to learn more details about the deadly terror attack last month on the compound.




The committee, led by California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, has issued a subpoena to Utah Army National Guard Green Beret Lt. Col. Andy Wood, Fox News learned Saturday.



Wood led a 16-member Special Forces site security team responsible for protecting U.S. personnel at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya stated that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before a terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

UPDATE: Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, according to Democratic pollster Pat Caddell.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Kevin McCullough - Why Rice Resigning, Misses The Point

Dr. Susan Rice should resign her post as the U.N. Ambassador of the United States.

The bald-faced lies that she blatantly repeated five days after the savage and brutal attack against the American compounds (plural) in Libya on September 11, 2012 are enough to bar her from being allowed to represent the United States in any position of trust for a very long time to come. Americans don't like it when facts get mixed up or miscommunicated, but purposefully using the media megaphone that is the top television news platforms to openly lie to the American people defies Nixonian and Clintonian levels of brash arrogance and contempt for the Americans who pay her salary.

But it also must be clearly understood, that Dr. Susan Rice simply resigning from her post as a highly placed official within the current administration accomplishes almost zero.

It's not like Dr. Rice has been all that busy pressing for human rights and the spread of freedom at the United Nations. She, like her supervisor President Obama, was evidently too busy for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and boycotted his speech before the General Assembly--just like Iran.

Her lack of importance within the administration was in fact probably one of the ideal reasons she was touted as the mouthpiece on something as important as the U.S. rapid response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2012.

But Dr. Rice is not the only one who participated in the blatant falsehoods told to the American people, told to the media, and most importantly told to the families of the victims of the 9.11.12 attacks.

According to multiple sources, including Israeli and British journalists, Fox News' Catherine Herridge, and finally some outlets in American broadcast media, the trail of dereliction, disaster, and dishonesty was shared by many.

Reporters who work for the Jerusalem Post were able to confirm, that as early as September 4th, Libyan intelligence was issuing warnings to the Obama administration as to the looming violent environment, the intentions of the organized terror forces on the ground in Benghazi, and the approximate timeline of a coming attack. This was followed closely on the heels with British media on September 9th.

The Ambassador's itinerary still had him out of Libya and tending to matters in Europe. Instead of acting on the early intelligence, keeping the ambassador out of country for a few more days, the administration took no action--an epic shoulder shrug if ever there was one.

This was followed by direct communication from Libyan intelligence to U.S. intelligence in the final 48 hours that conditions on the ground were hardening and that an attack on an American outpost was imminent. These concerns were mirrored by thoughts that Ambassador Stevens had been documenting in his own personal journal, in his own personal handwriting, fearing for his own life.

Sources confirmed this week that after the attack the U.S. was told clearly of Al Qaeda's involvement, and what meticulous planning had gone into shelling both the American consulate, but also the CIA safe-house. It was nearly 5 days later that Dr. Rice began disseminating a narrative that President Obama continued to repeat--even to the U.N. this week, and having the creator of the film at question in the narrative arrested.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton also both repeated the known-false-narrative at the memorial homecoming ceremony of the four dead Americans, as the ceremony was carried live to Americans by news networks.

In large measure the pro-Obama media had been willing to overlook the entirety of this story. After Obama's repeated false assertions at the U.N. and more sources beginning to speak with journalists, not to mention the Prime Minister of Libya--on NBC--was seen openly laughing at the idea that a YouTube video had caused the attack, only then did senior officials Clinton and Panetta change their public confession of the narrative. Meanwhile Press Secretary Jay Carney seemed stunned and offended when the White House press corps asked him simply why the President hadn't clarified his view of the events.

But now we--The American People--are to believe that a resignation from perhaps the least effective U.N. Ambassador we've ever had, would somehow solve the issue of the dishonest narrative, the mangling of intelligence, the negligence of sending a great Ambassador to his own assassination, lying to the national media, forcing an innocent man to do a perp walk, arresting him, and continuing to tell the same lie to the gathered body of nations?

Does anyone suppose that the families of the ambassador, the retired air-force officer, or the two navy seals that we buried would believe that was good enough?

The perpetration of this lie, the continuation of this false narrative, and the attempt to distract the whole of the American people did not end without severe loss. We not only lost one of our best ambassadors--who was dearly loved by even the people of the nations he worked in. We not only lost heroes of the first degree as those Airman, and Seals did all they could to protect our sovereign space on that hostile night. We did not only lose most of the intelligence that had been gathered and many of our live assets in the almost forgotten about attack on the CIA secret safe house. We lost hard drives with information, lists of assets across our northern Africa operation. And we lost our dignity as other terrorists in other nations seized upon that moment of American weakness.

It is of no surprise that our assessment can only be--of this entire operation--total and absolute failure on every level.

For such outcomes people should lose jobs at minimum, and in some cases where criminal lying was perpetrated, perhaps even harsher outcomes for some of those involved.

And if this is but one snapshot of our effectiveness and readiness in that region of the world.

Kevin McCullough

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

American Crossroads - World

Barack Obama campaigning in Las Vegas on the same day of the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya and appearing on The View instead of meeting with world leaders during an annual meeting of the United Nations.

“President Obama needs to learn being President isn’t just about being on TV and protecting your job,” says the narrator. “It’s about leadership.”

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Angela McGlowan - "Benghazi-Gate" - What Did the White House Know?

The killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, in one of the most brazen attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in a generation, sparked a security crisis in the North African country, elevated tensions across the Middle East and raised concerns about how well the U.S. can protect its diplomats abroad.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Brigitte Gabriel - Libyan Embassy Attack Was "Act of Terrorism"

“Through their websites and networks, we are seeing the Muslim Brotherhood rising in Libya, where it has been active for the past 30 years.”
Brigitte Gabriel

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

PJTV Trifecta - The End of America As We Know It: Why Barack Obama Should Resign Immediately

The filmmaker behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film that some blame for the Middle East riots, was taken into custody. Is this the end of the First Amendment as we know it? Find out on this Trifecta.

"I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Barack Obama
Cairo Speech

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Steve Green - Obama and Libyan President Clash Over Attack as Middle East Explodes

Libyan President ‪Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf‬ says the attack on our embassy was pre-planned by foreigners possibly belonging to al-Qaeda. But Ambassador Susan Rice says the Middle East is enraged by some no name filmmaker. Who does Obama blame? Find out on this Hair of the Dog as Stephen Green summarizes the Sunday show coverage of the situations in Libya, Egypt, Israel and the Middle East.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Community Organizing, Cairo Style

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

Barack Obama prides himselfon being a community organizer -- stirring up the disgruntled in Chicago was the sole skill set that earned him the esteemed title of Leader of the Free World.

Using Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as a road map, Barack Obama not only community organized, but taught others how to follow his lead. Young Obama instructed students that to make a statement that would inspire change, they'd have to be well-practiced in the art of street-level confrontation, picketing, demonstrating, and all-out pandemonium.

He was very good at what he did. Saul Alinsky-style organizers were taught to be "an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions" which, ironically, is exactly what the world is witnessing as the Middle East is ablaze with street-level hatred.

For days the world has watched in growing horror as the fires of animosity have spread. Yet for those wondering why Barack Obama isn't addressing more firmly the upheaval in the Islamic world, a simple answer might be that one community organizer can't very well criticize another community organizer's style of community organizing, now can he?

Back in Chicago, Barack Obama encouraged the underprivileged to take action on their own behalf by reminding the already resentful of past injustices. Wherever and whenever there's strife, there is surely what Obama called "indigenous...charismatic leadership" nearby. There's always a ringleader in the group - an individual or a team that possesses the ability to make something happen by getting "people to understand the source of their social or political problems." In this case the source of the turmoil is rooted in religious zealotry.

Either way, wherever street-level organizing takes place and regardless of the extent of the mayhem, motivating people to unrest to make a point is really nothing more than a mob leader organizing a group of angry thugs and goading them toward hostile confrontation. Sometimes the resulting action takes place in American cities like Chicago, but other times it erupts in unstable pockets in the world like the ones Barack Obama commiserated with in his book "Dreams From My Father" when he said:

"[t]he desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi in much the same way as it does the lives of children on Chicago's South Side, how narrow the path is for them between humiliation and untrammeled fury, how easily they slip into violence and despair."

Barack Obama explained in a chapter he wrote for a 1990 book entitled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois that the work of a successful community organizer is to devise and map out solutions and strategies with the express goal of moving protesters to "action through campaigns that win concrete changes." In Chicago, broken streetlights were facilitators to discuss jobs, education and crime. In Cairo, poorly made videos and American infidels are the torches that ignited the flames of unrest in an already unstable situation.

Think about it -- thousands of miles away from Chicago, people -- angry, vicious people - under the banner of the late al Qaeda leader Osama 'Alinsky' Bin Laden are rallying together under the Islam black flag of "common self interest."

In the Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, and even in Libya, the means to the end may be more violent and destructive than what went down on the Southside of Chicago, but it's the same philosophy at work. In Chicago, picketing opened the door to demanding stop signs be fixed and progressed from there. In Benghazi, it started with burning American flags; an embassy was then destroyed and innocent lives were lost as ancient grievances were resurrected from the hot desert sand to make a statement against America, the Great Satan, and Isaac, Ishmael's arch enemy, also known as the nation of Israel.

Whether residing in Chicago, Washington DC, or a remote compound in Pakistan, in their efforts to "make something happen," community organizers have their own unique ways of applying conflict for change.

Although the gripes and tactics are more primitive, what is actually happening in the Islamic world is simply this: common people with a common agenda are coming together, in their own uniquely violent way, to address a common concern. In Obama's Chicago, the goal was to whip up the community to a "fighting pitch" to address political and social justice. In this case, the goal is clearly to deliver "Death to America."

Similar to Alinsky's recommendations in his radical rules handbook, Middle Eastern protesters are merely exhibiting neighborhood empowerment in a culturally innovative way. From a tactical point of view, any community organizer worth his salt would have to admit that the community-organizing stratagem Barack Obama so closely identifies with is what is now crudely on display in the Arab world.

Maybe that explains why the perpetually fundraising Barack Obama is hesitant to criticize the chaos; he recognizes that what's going on thousands of miles from Chicago is an impressive show of "collective power," where a community vision has moved our Muslim brothers and sisters to action. It could be that our Community Organizer-in-Chief, who once praised people for "reshap[ing] their mutual values and expectations and rediscover[ing] the possibilities of acting collaboratively," actually believes that throwing stones, ambushing diplomats, and burning American flags is just another kind of neighborhood effort to foster lasting change.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Alfonzo Rachel - Islamists Killed Americas in Libya, but Right-Wing Christians Are to Blame?

Four Americans were killed at the American consulate in Libya this past week. So why do liberals insist on saying Christians are as violent as Muslims? Find out on this ZoNation.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Jeannie DeAngelis - Hillary Clinton, Defender of Infidelity and the Killers of Infidels

Originally posted at American Thinker

---

Last year, Mrs. Clinton was inspired
by the revolution in Libya and praised the rebels for "taking back their country." This year, when US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens' murdered corpse was desecrated in a manner reminiscent of how rebels treated the body of "we came, we saw, he died" Muammar Gaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed shocked and confused.

Hillary Clinton, who must have been asking herself a similar "How can this happen" question when Bill was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office, responded to the crisis by asking "How can this happen in a country we help liberate, in a city (Benghazi) we helped save from destruction?" One would think that Mrs. Clinton would have learned by now that in certain situations, trust is not prudent and appreciation for loyalty, especially from those who've proved untrustworthy, is often not expressed with good behavior.

Much like her complicated and confounding pseudo-marriage, Clinton said that her question about Libya "reflects just how complicated, and at times, how confounding the world can be."

Wasn't it just last year that in a triumphant statement in response to the "liberation" of Libya, Clinton called the revolution that the US proudly assisted in "the work of ordinary, brave Libyans who demanded their freedoms and dignity." Clinton said, "The United States is proud to have supported them in those efforts, and we are committed to their future." Now we see that supporting those efforts have resulted in the murdering of benevolent ambassadors, the burning down of US embassies, and the threatening of American citizens?

Maybe Hillary refuses to censure the guilt-ridden out of concern for her own culpability. Reacting to the attacks at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton explained that "This was an attack by a small and savage group. Not the people or government of Libya." In other words, what went on in Libya was not the fault of the larger Islamist community who did nothing to stop it, but rather a small "right wing conspiracy"-type group of religious zealots who savaged, defiled and snapped pictures of a murdered American diplomat.

After his murder, Hillary commended the late U.S. Ambassador to Libya, saying "Everywhere that Chris and his team went in Libya -- in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners." What Hillary Clinton and most liberals have yet to grasp is a lesson learned long ago by "Lebanese American journalist, author, and activist" Brigitte Gabriel: that tolerance and multicultural acceptance of Islam oftentimes leads to fair-minded Christians and Jews being shot at traffic lights by Muslims merely for being a Christian or a Jew.

Yet, much as she defended Bill when he was caught in blatant adultery, Hillary insists on only seeing what she wants to see and refuses to be wooed by verifiable facts. Even though Ambassador Stevens' disheveled body was missing for five hours, dragged through the streets of Benghazi by a man with a cell phone in his mouth and photographed while crowds of smiling rebels tossed his body around like a rag doll, Hillary the Defender of the Guilty insisted that "[w]hen the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris' body to the hospital and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety." More like dragged.

Hillary believing that the crowd was reverently transporting the Ambassador's body to the hospital is on par with believing Bill Clinton when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never."

In a written statement on Wednesday, Clinton noted that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens "was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi." A lot of good that did him. Mrs. Clinton commended the Berkeley-educated Peace Corps volunteer and humanitarian because he "risked his life" to help the Libyan people build a better future -- a self-sacrificial endeavor that ultimately, at 52 years of age, cost the man his life.

Despite the brutality of what is now believed to be a coordinated 9-11 anniversary attack, Mrs. Clinton said at the State Department that she believes that "The friendship between our countries, borne out of shared struggle, will not be another casualty of this attack." Because much like staying married to a serial womanizer and recognizing the political necessity of putting his victims last, Hillary Clinton believes that "A free and stable Libya is still in America's interest and security, and we will not turn our back on that, nor will we rest until those responsible for these attacks are found and brought to justice." Yeah, right.

After all, it was Hillary Clinton who said: "We need to stop worrying about the rights of the individual and start worrying about what is best for society!" Clearly, based on her response to the Libya attack, that kind of twisted philosophy applies as much to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's failed Middle East strategy as it did to Bill and Hillary Clinton's strategy to feign marital bliss for the high-minded goal of bettering America with their self-perceived political greatness.

In the midst of all the upheaval, a Scripture in the Gospel of Luke comes to mind where Jesus said, "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." If, for political gain, Hillary Clinton continues to be dishonest about the reality of her own sham of a marriage, it's highly unlikely, if political reputations and careers were jeopardized, that she or Barack Obama would admit that their handling of the Libya situation is yet another example of abysmal failure.

Jeannie DeAngelis

Jeannie DeAngelis writes almost exclusively for American Thinker and has been published on the conservative website Pajamas Media, as well as hosting a blog. See Jeannie's Blog

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Muammar Qaddafi Killed, Libya's Prime Minister Confirms

"We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. Muammar Qaddafi has been killed," Jibril told a news conference in the capital Tripoli.

Qaddafi died of wounds suffered during his capture near his hometown of Sirte on Thursday, Reuters and Sky News reported. Libyan leaders have informed the United States that Qaddafi is dead, according to an unidentified U.S. official who said Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) is expected to officially announce his death soon. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the U.S. could independently confirm Qaddafi's death.

"Qaddafi is dead. He is absolutely dead ... he was shot in both legs and in the head. The body will be arriving in Misrata soon," media spokesman Abdullah Berrassali told Sky News.

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO OF QADDAFI'S BODY SHOWN IN THE VIDEO BELOW

October 20, 2011


Details Emerge on Qaddafi's Final Moments

---

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

---