Video: Obama Could Be Indicted For War Crimes

On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama burst onto the national scene with his famous anti-war speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. Mysteriously—or not so mysteriously per the 2008 Obama presidential campaign—video of the speech was “lost” except for thirteen seconds (shown in the above video). Many believe it was lost because the panning camera would have revealed a who’s who of radical leftists, anti-Semites, and “social justice” (that is socialist) unions  in the audience.

It was only one step then from the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech to the presidency. Along the way, Obama continued to rally his anti-war shock troops, complete with “Bush is a war criminal” posters and frothing protesters reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Oddly, or not so oddly, these anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared once Obama ascended to the presidency. But lo and behold, when the Occupy Wall Street movement got under way, the same radicals who were part of the anti-war movement were now part of the “pay your fair share” movement.

But “anti-war” President Obama proved himself nothing of the kind. He embraced the use of Orwellian doublespeak and secrecy to conduct endless wars that has made George W. Bush look like a pacifist.

The non-war war in Libya wasn’t a war because Obama never invoked the War Powers Act—or more correctly, he refused to seek approval for the war from Congress. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta famously told Congress that seeking “international permission” from NATO was sufficient for action against Gaddafi.  Obama’s rationale, on the other hand, for not seeking Congressional approval, was because we didn’t have any boots on the ground. Because we pulverized Gaddafi with a blitzkrieg of air power instead of a standing army, then, technically, war was never declared. According to this line of reasoning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not actually a declaration of war.

Because of Obama’s non-war war in Libya, we have much of Libya (and North Africa for that matter) controlled by al-Qaeda, which led directly to the attack on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of 9/11.

Why didn’t Obama send in help to save Americans when the Benghazi consulate was attacked? We now know at least one stand down order was given. It is a forgone conclusion it was because Benghazi was ground zero for another one of Obama’s non-war wars—in Syria—in which Obama had been secretly shipping weapons to the Syrian “rebels” (and sending in help would have revealed this.)

The difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya, the fact that the rebels were linked to al-Qaeda was kept under wraps. The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, make no bones about their links to al-Qaeda.

But this is only the surface of Obama’s non-war wars. John Brennan (simply a terrorism advisor to Obama until recently being named CIA director), according to the extensively research book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-linked groups for years. Brennan and his minions at JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) have not only been operating outside the purview of Congress, but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!

According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent”—now completely debunked by the release on Monday of the “revised” White House talking points—but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia.

Not only in charge of dozens of secret wars, Brennan then as now is in charge of the vast drone program that has reached a frightening level. Obama authorized more drone strikes in the first ten months of his presidency than George W. Bush carried out in his entire eight-year presidency.

Obama authorizes, for the most part, what are called “signature” strikes, which means in a nut shell that you are never sure who you are killing. This of course translates into hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, including women and children.

Jeremy Scahill’s just-published blockbuster book, Dirty Wars, gives a laundry list of the “anti-war” Obama’s real record as a warmonger.

Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single “high value target” (HVT) on a funeral procession!  According to Dirty Wars:

Scores of civilians— estimates ranged between eighteen and forty-five— were killed. “After the prayers ended people were asking each other to leave the area as drones were hovering,” said a man who lost his leg in the attack. “First two drones fired two missiles, it created a havoc, there was smoke and dust everywhere. Injured people were crying and asking for help… they fired the third missile after a minute, and I fell on the ground.”

And this is just one instance of what many are calling war crimes. It is estimated that for every “high value target” killed by a drone, fifty civilians are killed, predominantly women and children.

All of this has been conveniently covered up by Obama’s compliant media, but it appears the wheels are now coming off the “anti-war” Obama bus.

Buried in the mainstream media amid the Boston Marathon terror attack the day before, on April 16, an organization called the Constitution Project  released the mammoth 600 page study entitled “The Report of The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.”

The report comes to some shocking conclusions. It in effect makes the case that Barack Hussein Obama, under international law, is guilty of war crimes and should be indicted.

In the coming days, we will be looking at this mammoth document along with Jeremy Scahill’s equally mammoth study, discussing Obama’s Dirty Wars in order to determine if in fact Barack Hussein Obama is a war criminal who should be indicted for war crimes.

The Scandal That Will Not Die

Obama Hillary Benghazi SC The Scandal That Will Not Die

Fox News and CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson have been busy keeping the Benghazi story alive. They must have earned a special place on the Obama’s administration’s enemies list. This week, the American People found out that John Kerry and the State Department are busy trying to silence Benghazi whistle-blowers. The State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department have been asked to permit attorneys representing witnesses with knowledge of the Benghazi attacks access to classified information. In the manner of all Democrat regimes, they are dragging their feet in hopes the American people will forget about this “incident.”  Barack Obama’s only priority is to win the house in 2014, and the liberal press is doing everything to help.

“President Obama said he’s unaware of the controversy” and pled ignorance to the possibility of interference with people who want to tell the truth about the Benghazi murders. A senior State Department official has been threatened, according to his lawyer, Victoria Toensing.  Toensing, a former Justice Department official, is being stonewalled by the Kerry State Department. Kerry is probably under orders to make this go away. Mr. Kerry’s most powerful weapons (boredom and double speak) so far aren’t working.

One of the big surprises last week was the interview a military Special Ops whistleblower gave in which he explained that a 40-man unit was a couple hours away and ready to deploy at a moment’s notice, but was stopped from going in to help save the Americans at Benghazi. The execution order never happened. Neither Hillary Clinton nor her second-in-command Patrick Kennedy nor Barack Obama could be found during the attack. The units in the immediate region were ordered to “stand down.” The order most likely came from Secretary Leon Panetta.

At the time of this writing, Sen. John McCain is asking the President for the names of the 40 Benghazi survivors. Congress doesn’t know who they are. Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s Benghazi review panel has done a good job of obscuring the facts. The panel is now under investigation from the State Department’s Inspector General for not doing their jobs.

The American People deserve the truth, instead of the State Department investigating itself with predictable results. Maybe Congress should appoint an outsider to look into the matter, someone like Joe Arpaio. Don’t count on it; the inside DC elite will protect themselves.

The White House will not allow Congress to get close to the truth (remember “Fast and Furious.”) If Obama gets desperate enough, he will use “Executive Privilege” to shut everything down. Bet on it.

Congressman Challenges Colleagues To Press Obama On Benghazi

Steve Stockman official portrait Congressman challenges Colleagues to press Obama on Benghazi

WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas 36) released the following open letter to Congress Tuesday afternoon, encouraging members to support Congressman Frank Wolf’s bill creating a Select Committee to investigate the Obama administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 killings of Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

Dear Colleague:

As a fellow member of this body, I feel that we should protect and honor the sacrifice of those who sacrifice their lives to provide us with the freedoms that make our nation great.

In that same spirit, we should investigate and seek the truth about what happened on that tragic day in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

These four men served their nation with honor and character in the face of danger, and we likewise should honor their memory in seeking the truth about what actually took place that fateful day.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage colleagues of the House of Representatives to support Congressman Wolf’s H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi.

It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities.

We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.

It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries.

Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far.

The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:

1.      Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

a.       Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?

b.      If so, were they alerted?

c.       Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

d.      Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?

e.       Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

f.        What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?

2.      What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

3.      How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

4.      Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

5.      Where are the survivors?

6.      Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

7.      Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

8.      Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

9.      Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?

10.  Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

11.  Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?

12.  What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?

13.  Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?

14.  What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

15.  What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

16.  Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?

This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.  Thus far, it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention from Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked.

Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened.

Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments.  That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked.  That is an unacceptable message.

The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.

I would ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi.

With over sixty members of us in the House calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.

Warmest wishes,


Steve Stockman

Member of Congress




Donny Ferguson


Hagel Vows Budget Cuts Won’t Erode US Military

Chuck Hagel SC Hagel vows budget cuts won’t erode US military

WASHINGTON  — The Pentagon will not let an impending $46 billion in budget cuts erode U.S. military power, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday. He said the cuts will “cause pain” but insisted that they can be managed without hurting national security.

At his first news conference since taking over for Leon Panetta as Pentagon chief, Hagel struck a more relaxed tone about the budget reductions, which are part of $85 billion in government-wide spending cuts that were taking effect Friday at midnight.

Whereas Panetta had warned of “catastrophic” effects that could reduce America to the status of a “second-rate” military power, Hagel said he believed the budget crisis can be managed in ways that do not put U.S. national security in jeopardy.

Hagel said the U.S. is “the best fighting force, the most capable fighting force, the most powerful fighting force in the world. The management of this institution, starting with the Joint Chiefs, are not going to allow this capacity to erode.”

Read more at Official Wire. By Robert Burns.

Sequestration: Say Goodbye To Our First Line Of Defense

Fallujah Iraq Dec 8 2004 1 Sequestration: Say Goodbye to Our First Line of Defense

Between Leon Panetta’s unconstitutional order that combat units be opened to women and impending Sequestration this week, America can kiss goodbye its military superiority and ability to fight wars effectively.  As readiness goes, so goes our security both at home and abroad.

The top military brass is already under pressure to show diversity and prove it doesn’t discriminate.  Indeed, that is now its foremost mandate, not military readiness.  With the repeal of laws barring women from combat units and special forces, they will now be forced to prove they’re giving women a “fair” shake by discriminating against more qualified men, since no comprehensive testing was done to prove women can make it through their training. (And the only two we know of who attempted such, two in the Marine Infantry Officer course, failed in the first day and the first week of training respectively.)  It won’t matter that the women can’t make those standards that most of the top men in every branch can’t achieve.

It will go something like this at the officer level:  “Suzy-Q failed the training?  You’re up for promotion, aren’t you?  Take another look at Suzy-Q.”  And from DOD to the top brass:  “We expect X% pass rate for females.  Anything less will be seen as discrimination.  Next year’s budget will reflect the success of this program.  Understood?”  The military will have to lower the standards of its toughest units in order to fill quotas of women to show they’re not discriminating.

Under Sequestration, equipment isn’t the only thing on the chopping block.  Personnel will be as well, and all will have to prove their value in the positions they hold or want to hold.  With the conflicting directives of cutting fat vs. compliance with female quotas in the combat units, it is qualified and experienced men who will be purged first.  Combined with the inevitably lowered standards in these units to accommodate women, it is combat readiness that will suffer the most.

Cutting spending is vital for every department of government, including the military.  The Marines have always been in the lead when it comes to working with the least, then cutting even more.  With so many other ways to cut the excess – from non-vital programs like the National Endowment for the Arts to stopping the fraud and waste so pervasive in government programs from Social Security to Medicare – Sequestration is totally unnecessary.  But this was Obama’s idea, and it put the military in the cross-hairs from the start.  It’s easy to see why.  This administration thinks the military is too masculine, too white, too conservative, and too straight.  They’ve repealed DADT, opened the toughest units to women who can’t make it through one week of their training, and sold our equipment to our enemies.  This is just the next phase in destroying the last bastion of merit and strength our country has against enemies both foreign and domestic.