Erik Rush: Obama Engaging In Triple Cover-Up Of Benghazi

Channeling Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular Erik Rush today writes that President Obama orchestrated the attack on the US annex in Benghazi, which he claims had “clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria,” to cover up the weapons shipment. 

Now why would Obama and his supposed Islamist allies attack the same US annex they believe was arming Islamists? Well, as Rush explains, it was all an effort to cover up the fact that they were doing it in the first place, and then the administration had to cover up the reasons for the attack.

A cover-up of the cover-up.

But despite the fact that this makes absolutely no sense, Rush went on to say that the insurgents in Syria “came to possess chemical weapons” thanks to Obama, so now Obama must attack Syria in order to “erase the evidence of having provided them” and cover that up too.

Yep, it’s the old cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

Now Glenn Beck Is Dismissing Romney As Just Another 'Progressive'

On his radio broadcast this morning, Glenn Beck told some story about how, last week, he had rescued a lost sheep that had disappeared from his ranch over a year ago and, in typical Beck fashion, he saw it as some sort of allegory for the nation about how God allowed President Obama to win in order to ensure that the Tea Party remains awake and saves the nation and ultimately rescues all the "lost sheep" in America and blah, blah, blah.

While telling the story, Beck made an absolutely remarkable statement in passing when, around the 3:45 mark, he speculated that if Mitt Romney had won the election, he too might be pressing for military action in Syria "because, in the end, we all found out that he was the progressive."

Just think about that statement.

During the campaign, Beck spent every day telling his audience that Romney's performance was divine providence, that his victory was going to be a massive mandate and a work of God and that Romney was a modern-day George Washington and Abraham Lincoln:

But now Beck is dismissing him as just another progressive. 

If that is true, then why was Beck so enthralled with him during the election? Just where was Beck's self-proclaimed "gift" for being able to look into someone eyes and see their heart or his vaunted ability to see down the road and predict what will be coming our way? 

Beck says Romney revealed himself to be a "progressive" during the final presidential debate, which took place on October 22.  Yet two days after that, Beck was comparing Romney to George Washington on his radio broadcast.

If Beck knew that Romney was a "progressive" during the election, why didn't he warn his audience instead of repeatedly likening him to towering figures such as Washington and Lincoln? 

We have an archive full of examples of Glenn Beck saying utterly ridiculous things, but this current effort to rewrite his own history has to be one of the most fundamentally dishonest things he has ever said.

White Nationalist Group Upset It's Not Getting Credit for Inventing GOP 'Whites-Only' Strategy

As leaders of the Republican Party debate whether their party can remain viable without expanding its appeal among black and Latino voters, the white nationalist group that first outlined a GOP “whites-only” strategy for presidential victories wants credit for its idea.

In November of 2000, as George W. Bush and Al Gore were still wrangling over a handful of hanging chads in Florida,  Steve Sailer, an unabashedly racist columnist for the white nationalist site VDARE, wrote a column outlining a potential strategy for the GOP to remain strong in the face of changing demographics. In his column, titled “GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote,” Sailer crunched exit poll numbers and outlined a strategy by which the Republican Party could lose “every single nonwhite vote” and still win the presidency by working to increase its share of working class white voters. Sailer and VDARE continued to promote this strategy for over a decade, arguing that Republican attempts to reach out to people of color were not only bad politics, but also a losing strategy.

In the wake of President Obama’s reelection – which relied in a large part on the GOP’s alienation of black and Latino voters – the “Sailer Strategy” has seen a popular resurgence among the Right. While some GOP leaders, like RNC chairman Reince Priebus, have trumpeted the need for the party to expand its base in the face of changing demographics, others – including Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, leaders in the anti-immigrant movement, and the editors of The National Review and The Weekly Standard– have argued that the GOP can instead build a lasting strategy by increasing its share of the white vote. These leaders argue that any effort to build a more inclusive Republican Party – and especially any effort to update the country’s immigration policy – would in the long term be futile because, as Schlafly indelicately put it, Latino voters don’t “have any Republican inclinations at all.”

The mostly implicit, but sometimes explicit, subtext in the push for this strategy is that it would be partly achieved by stirring up racial resentments among white voters against the country’s growing Latino population. Buchanan put it most clearly when he called for a renewal of the Southern Strategy – which fundamentally realigned the Republican Party by digging up and egging on Southern white racism against African Americans – only this time with Latinos as the target. (Not coincidentally, Buchanan and Schlafly have both cited Sailer's writings on race in their own work.)

In a fascinating National Journal cover story this week, Ronald Brownstein examines the numbers behind the increasingly popular GOP “whites-only” strategy, concluding that the combination of an expanding non-white population, growing Democratic trends among white voters and the geographical distribution of swing states, make it unlikely to succeed.

Republican strategist White Ayres put it more bluntly in an interview with Brownstein. The strategy, he said, “is not getting much penetration among people who are serious about winning presidential elections. It is getting traction among people who are trying to justify voting against immigration reform or making any of the other changes that are necessary to be nationally competitive in the 21st century."

Which, of course, was the whole point of the idea from its very first airing in Steve Sailer’s column. 

Among those unhappy with Brownstein’s rigorously reported story were, predictably, the white nationalists at VDARE, who are not only still on board with the “whites-only” strategy, but are upset that now that the theory has taken off, Sailer is no longer getting credit for it. John Derbyshire, the VDARE columnist fired by The National Review after he wrote one too many racist screed, comes to the defense of Sailer and his strategy against Brownstein’s logic:

The wonkery here is, as you can see, very deep. For VDARE.com readers it is also deeply frustrating.

The central point of discussion here, the desirability of the GOP increasing its appeal to white voters, is the Sailer Strategy, which we have been airing, with full supporting numerical analyses, since the 2000 election.

We know that a prophet is without honor in his own country. But surely an occasional linked reference wouldn’t hurt?

Derbyshire then laments that the Sailer Strategy would be easier to implement if whites were not “too intensely engaged in their Cold Civil War—too much wrapped up in the pleasures of hating other whites—to unite as a tribe.” But he echoes other commentators in suggesting that it could be done if Republicans embraced a message of economic populism:

Note that, contra Ronald Brownstein’s title, there are some conceivable circumstances in which Republicans could win with whites alone.

Whites were 72 percent of the electorate in 2012. On current demographic trends, that number will decline at roughly two percent per 4-year cycle. That gives us ten or a dozen cycles in which whites are a majority of the electorate—well past mid-century.

If whites were to vote for white GOP presidential candidates as tribally as blacks vote for a black Democrat, with no additional votes from minorities at all, the presidency would be decided by the white vote alone in all but the last of those cycles.

Even if whites nationwide just voted as tribally as white Mississippians did last November (89 percent for Romney), all but the last three of those cycles would be a lock.

Well, conceivable, perhaps, but neither thing will happen. Whites are too intensely engaged in their Cold Civil War—too much wrapped up in the pleasures of hating other whites—to unite as a tribe.

What could happen, what we should wish to happen, is a turn on the part of the GOP to economic populism, as recommended by Sean Trende, and more recently by my VDARE.com colleague James Kirkpatrick in his article on Colorado:

Rather than serving as corporate lobbyists for the ultra-rich, the GOP should wage war on big money in politics and embrace a populist strategy against bankers, cheap labor, and offshoring.

A well-pitched populist appeal from an attractive candidate could reach parts that the current corporatist, big-donor-whipped GOP is not reaching. The fundamental issues are not hard to get across.

We don't agree with John Derbyshire on a lot, but we do agree with him on one thing: Republican proponents of the Sailer Strategy should give credit where credit's due. 

Cahn: Gay Marriage And Obama's Re-Election Are Signs Of The End Of America

Author Jonathan Cahn has become a star in Religious Right circles over his new book, The Harbinger, which basically claims that biblical prophecy regarding ancient Israel applies to the United States today. Cahn states that the September 11 attacks were a warning from God to repent and prophesied in the Bible. Instead of repenting, however, America is increasingly rebelling against God and Cahn predicts that such defiance will lead to the country’s ultimate destruction.

He appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins yesterday to mark the anniversary of 9/11 and discuss a recent prayer gathering in the Capitol, where Michele Bachmann delivered a Cahn-like speech about how 9/11 and the Benghazi attack represented divine judgment. Cahn also spoke at the event.

After Perkins asked Cahn if the US is “responding to these warning signs of the Lord” appropriately, since Cahn of course knows exactly how God views America, Cahn responded that while America is in spiritual decline, the good news is that lots of people are buying his book!

The End Times author reiterated his claim that members of Congress are reading The Harbinger, including members he met at the Capitol prayer summit.

Unfortunately, America is still going downhill thanks to gay marriage and the re-election of Obama, so we may all be doomed anyway.

What I’ve experienced is there’s a lot of people—The Harbinger’s been spreading across the country, it’s even been reaching Capitol Hill. You and I were there on that night of prayer and several congressmen came up to me about it, so it’s been spreading on one hand. So we’re seeing prayers, we’re seeing repentance; we’re seeing much of that. But, on the other hand, as a nation since The Harbinger came out, America has continued its descent, its moral descent, rapidly. And this has affected the church. I believe, when I look back at it, it came out in 2012 and 2013, this is a real tipping point time where for the first time you have more Americans in favor of gay marriage, you have a president who was re-elected after declaring this, you have states coming forward, you have so many tipping points. I think there’s a reason why The Harbinger came out at that time because it’s a warning and it’s a wakeup call. What happens with a tipping point is things accelerate, unless there’s an intervention of God, things accelerate and I believe we’re really watching an acceleration; the Supreme Court just came out with its decision, I mean so much.

Perkins: Boycott Betty Crocker For Baking Wedding Cakes For Gay Couples

When gay rights advocates criticized Chick-fil-A for the company’s financial support of anti-gay organizations, the Family Research Council decried their “gaystapo tactics.” Apparently, the FRC believes that boycotts are only acceptable if they are organized by conservative groups.

In fact, the FRC is already boycotting companies like Starbucks and McDonalds, and even the Girl Scout Cookies.

Today on his daily radio commentary, FRC president Tony Perkins urged listeners to also boycott Betty Crocker and offered a link to the National Organization for Marriage’s campaign at DumpGeneralMills.com.

Perkins was outraged that Betty Crocker donated custom cakes to three gay Minnesota couples who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage, and upset that a company spokesman said that “Betty celebrates all families.” Perkins warned that Betty Crocker’s “latest promotion is a recipe for disaster” and claimed that it is offensive to a majority of Americans who have already “made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks and JC Penney” for not opposing gay rights.

“When you’re at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box!”

At Betty Crocker, the only thing they're mixing up is their priorities. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker's latest promotion is a recipe for disaster. This summer, the famous dessert line decided to jump on the same-sex marriage bandwagon and bring cakes to celebrate. In Minnesota, where parent company General Mills is headquartered, Betty Crocker decided to donate wedding cakes to the first homosexual couples who exchanged vows on the first day that counterfeit marriage was legal. "Betty celebrates all families…. We don't want to be old fashioned," the company explained. Unfortunately for General Mills, the majority of Americans think natural marriage is anything but old fashioned. And they've made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks, and JC Penney who disagree. Know where your money is going. When you're at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box!

How Big Money Bought North Carolina for Extremists

In the years since Citizens United, North Carolina has provided a clear example of what happens when a small number of corporate interests, allied with a far-right base, are allowed unbridled influence over elections.

Klingenschmitt: Colorado Recall Election A Victory For Jesus

Heavenly angels were singing when two Democratic state senators in Colorado were defeated in a low-turnout recall election that focused on the lawmakers’ support for tougher gun laws, at least according to “Dr. Chaps” Gordon Klingenschmitt. The exorcist and former navy chaplain actively campaigned for the Republican challengers, the Colorado Independent reports:

“I was praying tonight that God would inspire His people,” Gordon Klingenschmitt, assured Linda Herpin, wife of the GOP recall challenger, minutes before El Paso County Republicans announced that her husband had unseated Morse, a Democrat.



“I wanted to help recall John Morse specifically because of 2nd Amendment issues,” he said. “As a Christian, as a person who follows Jesus, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I believe that when Jesus said, for example, ‘sell your cloak and buy a sword,’ that he endorsed the idea of self-defense, that defending yourself is not a crime. In fact, it’s a moral obligation to defend your wife, to defend your family, and John Morse stands against families who want to do that —stands against people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.”

In an email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, Klingenschmitt writes that Jesus was the real winner in Colorado:

Victory! Jesus and 2nd Amendment win Colorado Senate races

Not only do I live in southern Colorado, where conservatives just successfully recalled two gun-grabbing liberal Senators who voted to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, but I got personally involved in the local politics (block walking, petition gathering, donating, making phone calls, and praying) that helped elect a new Republican State Senator Bernie Herpin and throw out the Democrat Senate President John Morse. This internationally-watched race confronted President Obama himself, who sent VP Joe Biden to lobby the Colorado Senate to punish gun-owners, but those efforts backfired.



That said, I still believe religious freedom is the First right, because even if you have the right to bear arms, assemble, speak, and petition, but you don't have the right to worship Almighty God or pray in Jesus' name, then the government still owns your soul. Let's tell them "not my soul" today.

Napolitano: Syria's Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Just Like President Clinton's Murder Of The Branch Davidians

Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest on Glenn Beck's television program last night where Beck introduced him as "the man who actually can save our nation" before the two men sat down for a discussion about the possibility of military action against Syria for its use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Napolitano said any such action by the United States would be illegal because the US has not been attacked, is not in danger of imminent attack, nor has an ally been attacked. 

Furthermore, he said, Syria's use of chemical weapons was no different than what the Clinton administration did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas back in 1993.

"Who's used chemical weapon on their own people," Napolitano asked. "How far are we from Waco, Texas where federal agents used chemical weapons to murder 76 Americans in 1993 in the Clinton Administration? Can you imagine if China or Russia wanted to bomb us to punish us for what we did at the time? Come on! Where are we going with this?"

WND Is Just Asking The Question: Is Obama 'Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?'

Today’s WorldNetDaily News Alert was a true double-whammy, with two heavily slated reports phrased as questions so as to not take actual responsibility for the incendiary claims made in the articles.

“Are Terrorists Setting U.S. Wildfires?’ Joe Kovacs asks, relying on unsupported claims that Islamic extremists were maybe behind a Colorado wildfire.

As WND reported in June, an expert on Islamic terrorism believes a wildfire that ravaged the outskirts of Colorado Springs, Colo., killing two people and destroying more than 500 homes, should be examined by terror investigators.

“One thing that my investigators have given me the authority to state is that they have all but ruled out natural causes as the cause of this fire,” said Sheriff Terry Maketa at the time. “I can’t really go any further on that, but I can say we are pretty confident it was not, for instance, a lightning strike.”

In a message to WND’s Muslim readers, the NewsAlert offered this message: “If you are a Muslim … a Sunni Muslim … and you dream of the day the caliphate will be restored … then thank Allah for this man …”

Obama, of course!

WND reporter Aaron Klein’s post, “‘Manchurian President’ Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?,” argues that Obama has “empowered Islamic radicals” in order to create a global Islamic government. Klein, the author of “The Manchurian President,” is publicizing his new book “Impeachable Offenses.”

Since assuming office, President Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening U.S. enemies and tacitly supporting Muslim Brotherhood revolutions that have empowered Islamic radicals, charges a new book.

In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,”New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott demonstrate that Obama’s policies have been helping to install Muslim Brotherhood-friendly regimes to the detriment of U.S. national security and world stability.

“Obama’s policies are installing political Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa in a tidal wave of change already reaping disastrous results for those regions as well as for U.S. interests there,” write Klein and Elliott.



Islamic caliphate?

Mubarak was only the beginning, write Klein and Elliott. Obama’s support for a U.S. ally’s ouster and replacement with radical Islamic elements would be repeated numerous times in the Middle East and North Africa, to the great detriment of the American war on terror, the authors write.

Barton Cites Decade-Old Survey As Proof Abortion Will Be Illegal In Twenty Years

One of the great things about David Barton is that once he has adopted a talking point, he continues to repeat it regardless of how absurd or out of date it has become.

For example, earlier this week Barton appeared on "Praise the Lord" where he told hosts Matt and Laurie Crouch that legal abortion will not be an issue in twenty years because God has sent a new generation of teenagers who are overwhelmingly pro-life.

Claiming that polls show that 72% of teens oppose abortion, Barton said they were "an answer that God has sent with a new generation; we just gotta train these guys right and turn them loose to get this thing fixed":

If you actually bother to find the poll Barton cites, you discover that it is from 2003 and it found that 72% of teens thought that abortion was morally wrong.

If you trust Barton, then abortion should be illegal within the next decade, since the poll he is using it over ten years old.  The only problem is that the teens in that survey are now adults and according to a Gallup poll conducted in May of this year, 50% of adults ages 18-29 consider themselves to be pro-choice while 41% consider themselves to be pro-life.

Of course, as with so many of Barton's other talking points, he doesn't bother to mention any of that because doing so would completely undermine the very claim that he is making.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious