Video: Obama Admin Leaks Led to SEAL Team 6 Murder





On May 1st, 2011, U.S. Special Forces took out Public Enemy Number 1, Osama Bin Laden.

On May 9th, Obama’s PR machine began hemorrhaging top secret information about the Bin Laden raid to Hollywood director Kathryn Bigelow, including names of SEAL Team 6 members! The plan was to have the film Zero Dark Thirty ready before the 2012 election in order to use it as a two-hour campaign commercial.

It was a sickening spectacle to watch and showed the depths Obama would stoop to get re-elected.

Al-Qaeda, within days, released an official statement, proclaiming that they would hunt down those who killed their holy warrior, Osama Bin Laden. SEAL Team 6 members and their families from the day our Commander-in-Chief began spilling secrets lived in fear for their lives.

True to their vow—no doubt from information leaked from the Obama regime—al-Qaeda avenged their holy warrior, Osama Bin Laden.

On August 6, 2011, in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda insurgents perched on top of a tower with RPGs shot down a decrepit Vietnam-era CH-47 helicopter, Extortion 17, packed with 30 Special Ops forces, most of them part of the elite SEAL Team 6.

But this is only half the story.

New insider information and analysis of the 1300-page military report, heavily redacted and suppressed by the Obama regime, show that SEAL Team 6 was in effect murdered by our own government.

America must demand a full investigation and hold Barack Hussein Obama accountable for the murder of SEAL Team 6.





Video: SEAL Team 6 Was Set Up





On August 6, 2011, a military helicopter—Extortion 17, carrying thirty-eight men, including seventeen of the elite SEAL Team 6—was shot down over Taliban-controlled territory in eastern Afghanistan. It was the worst loss of life in a single day suffered since the Afghanistan war began.

Per a 1300-page military report, it was simply the result of a “lucky shot” by Taliban soldiers perched on top of a building.

According to family members of those murdered, it was no lucky shot. It was an inside job that may have included elements within our own government up to the highest levels, including the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

Why did they have to disappear?

These were the same Navy SEALS who took part in the Osama Bin Laden raid that, despite the passage of almost two years, is still shrouded in mystery. Over a year ago, the government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, sued the Obama administration for the release of documents, photos, and videos relating to the raid and alleged burial at sea of Bin Laden; but thus far, the Obama administration has refused to comply. Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer, recently said that the story of the Bin Laden raid was “one big lie.”

Watch this exclusive video by Western Center for Journalism in which we pull the curtain back to show how SEAL Team 6 was set up—more than likely by our own government.

Media Icon Exposes Obama’s War on the Press





Photo credit: Generation Progress (Creative Commons)

Famous Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh is turning his attention to the Obama administration. He told a left-wing conference over the weekend that the administration is using the NSA on a regular basis against government officials talking to the press. “If they want to, the government is capable of tracking any of us anytime, anyplace,” he said.

Hersh claimed there have been cases of people inside an intelligence service who have talked to reporters and have been told, “We know you’ve talked to this guy such and such a day; cut it out.”

As an example of how the administration manipulates the media and the public, Hersh cited the sacking of United States Army General Stanley McChrystal for making derogatory comments about President Obama and Vice President Biden, while Director of National Intelligence James Clapper remains in his job after lying to Congress.

McChrystal was caught by journalist Michael Hastings in a Rolling Stone article “making fun of the President, making fun of [Joe] Biden, and for that, of course, McChrystal got fired,” Hersh noted. “Here comes Clapper,” he went on. “He looks [Senator Ron] Wyden (D-OR) in the eye at the famous hearing you all know about and lies through his teeth, and nothing happens to him.”

He was talking about James Clapper, director of national intelligence, testifying at an open congressional hearing and being asked whether the NSA collects certain kinds of data. “No sir,” Clapper said. “Not wittingly.” Clapper’s answer was a lie—but he kept his job. Hersh said the message, if you’re an official on the inside of a government agency, is “Do what you want but watch your mouth.”

“That’s a message that somehow escaped us,” Hersh said of the media. “We should have communicated more to you about the message. Obama wouldn’t tolerate a little back-mouthing about him. He wouldn’t tolerate that. But he tolerated somebody going directly to the Congress and lying to their face about it.”

“They own the guy,” he said of the administration and Clapper.

Hersh said it appeared that Michael Hastings, the journalist who broke the McChrystal story, had been “full of coke” when he recently died in a traffic accident. “Why not? If you knew what he did,” Hersh commented.

The public, Hersh said, is catching on to the media manipulation.

He noted a conversation with one member of Congress who had been at the “B.S. hearings” on Syrian poison gas, and had been convinced by the Obama administration that Syrian President Bashar Assad had “delivered the gas himself in a helicopter probably.”

“Anything you want to say, the President got away with,” Hersh said. But the representative turned against the war after meeting with constituents opposed to it.

Turning his attention to Iran, Hersh claimed the administration is being maneuvered by outside forces associated with Israel and Saudi Arabia into a war with Iran, but that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is working to help Obama avoid such an outcome.

He said his old newspaper, The New York Times, has become a pawn in the campaign by selectively quoting pro-war officials.

An iconic figure for much of the media, Hersh was speaking before the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a notorious left-wing think tank that is celebrating 50 years of existence and has a history of collaborating with enemies and adversaries of the United States. Its 50th anniversary booklet included an ad showing longtime employee and Castro apologist Saul Landau, who recently passed away, with a Cuban spy.

The “U.S. campaign to end the Israel Occupation” was given special recognition and treatment at the conference, while James Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters signed an ad in the conference booklet saluting IPS for its “progressive analysis, advocacy and activism.”

Although Hersh’s anti-war comments to this audience about Iran were predictable, his recent criticisms of the Obama administration’s handling of the aftermath of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and its manipulation of the liberal press in general, have generated some conservative interest and comment. It is not clear to what extent these controversial comments are designed to sell his forthcoming book on national security affairs and generate conservative interest in his charges.

It also remains to be seen whether Hersh’s comments about the fawning media coverage of the Obama administration will lead to liberal media figures reconsidering their devotion to Obama, and exposing his masterful manipulation of reporters and the political process.

Hersh was asked during a panel discussion on the “national security state” about his much-publicized comment to the British Guardian that the killing of Osama bin Laden was a “big lie.” He responded that the Guardian corrected a misimpression about what he was saying, and that he believes Obama ordered the raid and the Navy SEALs killed bin Laden, “but after that everything isn’t true.”

“He was killed there” in Pakistan, Hersh said. But he quickly added, “It was an event before an election. So it became sort of grotesque what happened.” By “what happened,” he was apparently referring to Obama making it an election issue. He refused to go any further, saying he was writing about it.

Hersh, a contributor to the New Yorker, has won numerous awards for his work, several having to do with coverage of wars under Republican presidents. He did take heat from the liberals for his book, The Dark Side of Camelot, about financial and moral corruption on the part of President John F. Kennedy and his administration. However, he failed to uncover the most serious scandals of the Clinton administration, such as the official lies surrounding the destruction of TWA 800 and the evidence of foreign involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Appearing before the IPS panel on October 12 on “the national security state,” Hersh was asked about the interview he gave to The Guardian complaining about media coverage of the Obama administration. The interview was given in July, but the content was just published a couple of weeks ago. “He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth,” the publication said.

The Guardian reported, “The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.”

But some might question why he has only come to this conclusion now, after the Obama administration has been in power for nearly five years. And why was Hersh silent when Obama was running back in 2008, and questions about his background then—as now—cried out for answers?

According to The Guardian, Hersh said about the press, “It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama].”

While he didn’t explicitly praise Edward Snowden’s theft of classified documents from the NSA, he said these documents had forced the media to cover the issue of government surveillance. “About the NSA,” he said, “it’s not new what’s going on. It’s just being talked about more.”

“If you can listen to people, you will listen,” he said of the NSA.

He said the use of drones “is so much worse than you know,” and that an “incredible lack of care” is being taken when picking out terrorist targets.

“What’s going on is insanity,” he said.

While bemoaning U.S. military engagement around the world, Hersh and his friends in the IPS didn’t address the reality of Iranian-sponsored and Islamic terrorism against the United States and Israel. Several speakers expressed the hope that the United Nations would assume more of a role in world affairs and act against threats of U.S. military intervention.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

 

Photo credit: Generation Progress (Creative Commons)

New York Times Exposes Marxist Mayoral Candidate





de Blasio SC New York Times Exposes Marxist Mayoral Candidate

A new kind of investigative reporting was unveiled at The New York Times on Monday. A story about the communist connections of a major politician was plastered across page 19 of the paper. Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, just endorsed by President Obama, was the subject of a long story about his support for the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Whatever the reason for the scrutiny, the paper has opened the door to additional investigations of Democratic Party politicians, including Obama himself.

The story represents vindication for the late Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), who gave rise to the term “McCarthyism,” a search for Communist connections and anti-Americanism that was considered objectionable by progressives collaborating with enemies of the U.S. McCarthyism, it seems, is now in vogue at The New York Times.

There’s no reason to stop with de Blasio. Trevor Loudon’s new book The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress, looks at dozens of other Democratic Party politicians who call themselves progressives and have Communist connections that go even deeper than those of de Blasio.

Salon, whose editor has endorsed de Blasio as a “real progressive,” calls the Times article on de Blasio an “anti-lefty hit piece.” By the liberal Times? What is going on here?

“References to his early activism have been omitted from his campaign Web site,” the Times said about de Blasio, in a revelation that could have also applied to Barack Obama’s relationship with Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and his run for the presidency.

So what we have here is a cover-up of the first order.

In de Blasio’s case, the paper undertook investigations that would have made Senator Joe McCarthy proud. It said, “…a review of hundreds of pages of records and more than two dozen interviews suggest his time as a young activist was more influential in shaping his ideology than previously known, and far more political than typical humanitarian work.”

This is simply incredible, as well as admirable, on the part of the Times and its reporter, Javier C. Hernandez. The Communist background of a major political figure has suddenly become newsworthy. The paper even noted that de Blasio went on an illegal honeymoon to Communist Cuba.

It appears that his real “honey” was Fidel Castro. No wonder he is engaged in a cover-up.

Despite the Times’ investigative work, it is clear that more scrutiny is needed, even of his family connections. The Times says that de Blasio’s mother, “then working at the Office of War Information in New York, was accused of being a Communist for attending a concert featuring a Soviet band.” It’s doubtful that attending a Soviet concert is all there is to this particular subversive connection.

Bringing the story back to de Blasio, the paper added that he “studied Latin American politics at Columbia and was conversational in Spanish, grew to be an admirer of Nicaragua’s ruling Sandinista party, thrusting himself into one of the most polarizing issues in American politics at the time.”

Trying to explain the situation at the time, the paper said, “The Reagan administration denounced the Sandinistas as tyrannical and Communist, while their liberal backers argued that after years of dictatorship, they were building a free society with broad access to education, land and health care.”

Of course, the Sandinistas were indeed puppets of the Soviets and the Cubans and remain so to this day. Except that the Soviets have become the Russians, and the late Hugo Chavez of Venezuela emerged as one of their modern-day mentors (in addition to the Castro brothers.)

This is not completely an old news story, since the Sandinistas have returned to power in Nicaragua. Indeed, the Communists are on the rise throughout Latin America.

The Times added that “de Blasio became an ardent supporter of the Nicaraguan revolutionaries. He helped raise funds for the Sandinistas in New York and subscribed to the party’s newspaper, Barricada, or Barricade. When he was asked at a meeting in 1990 about his goals for society, he said he was an advocate of ‘democratic socialism.’”

The Times said that de Blasio did most of his work on behalf of the Sandinistas through the Quixote Center in Maryland, a group I came across while writing about the wars in Central America for Human Events in the 1980s. A spin-off, the Christic Institute, filed a frivolous lawsuit against supporters of the Nicaragua freedom fighters. You can still see my 1987 debate with Daniel Sheehan of the Christic Institute on C-SPAN.

When I noted the Communist links of the Christic Institute during the debate, Sheehan’s predictable response was: “Joe McCarthy.” His frivolous lawsuit was thrown out of court in a case that I described as “legal terrorism” against anti-communists.

The FBI file on the Christic Institute is helpful in analyzing its political contacts, such as then-Senator John Kerry, used in order to make support for the anti-Sandinista, pro-freedom cause into a “scandal.”

The Quixote Center was “founded by Catholic leaders,” as the Times points out, but these “leaders” were on the far left and dedicated to the belief that communism and Christianity could mix. It is also known as liberation theology.

De Blasio also raised money for the Nicaragua Solidarity Network, the Times said. “In 1991, at one of his final meetings with the Nicaragua Solidarity Network, he argued that the liberal values the group had defended were ‘far from dead’ around the world, with blossoming movements in places like Mexico, the Philippines, El Salvador and Brazil, according to minutes of the meeting,” the Times reported. “He spoke of a need to understand and build alliances with Islam, predicting it would soon be a dominant force in politics.”

This alliance with Islam is, of course, typical of many leftists, such as Carlos the Jackal, the terrorist trained by the KGB who converted to Islam and became devoted to Osama bin Laden.

Promoting a Marxist alliance with Islam, in view of 9/11 and the anti-American terrorism around the world, is something that takes on ominous and frightening implications.

Such talk is highly relevant today because, as mayor, de Blasio could dismantle the New York Police Department’s aggressive campaign to uncover jihad plots targeting the citizens of that city and the nation.

But Joan Walsh of Salon hails his “bold stands on police controversies.”

He is the frontrunner for mayor and has the endorsement of Barack Obama, who says, “Progressive change is the centerpiece of Bill de Blasio’s vision for New York City, and it’s why he will be a great mayor of America’s largest city.”

As for de Blasio himself, today, he too, “describes himself as a progressive,” the Times reports.

His endorsements include not only Obama and the Clintons, but also such figures as Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), George Soros, “The Nation” editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, Alec Baldwin, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, and former ACORN head Bertha Lewis.

Following up on the Times investigation, the CBS affiliate in New York confirmed that “De Blasio’s official biography on his campaign website makes no mention of his activism.”

Activism? Is that what organizing for communist revolution has become?

In any case, why would he want to hide his “progressive activism” on behalf of the Communists? Perhaps the connections go far beyond what the paper itself calls items on the “social justice” agenda.

In fact, the paper said he gave them a recent interview and that de Blasio said his views then—and now—“represented a mix of admiration for European social democratic movements, Mr. Roosevelt’s New Deal and liberation theology.”

So a mix of communism and Christianity is still appealing to him.

At the bottom of his campaign website, one finds the category of “transparency,” where we find “hosts of campaign-sponsored events,” but nothing about his Marxist background.

It would appear that the Times has uncovered a Pandora’s box of connections that the candidate never wanted to be discovered.

What else is he hiding? And after de Blasio is completely exposed, can we turn our attention to President Obama?

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission. 

 

Photo credit: azipaybarah (Creative Commons)

Commission Seeks Answers On Benghazi

Obama Who Is Benghazi SC Commission Seeks Answers on Benghazi

The Obama administration has been supporting jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, thereby furthering the goals of Islamists in the Middle East, argued several speakers at Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) conference last week. Why is this important to the exploration of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? First of all, it provides context for the terrible conditions that Ambassador Stevens faced when he traveled there that September, and the make-up of those who attacked our facilities there. It could also partially explain the administration’s eagerness to falsely blame the attack on a YouTube video that Muslims found offensive, rather than acknowledge poor security conditions and a growing al-Qaeda movement in the region. After all, the President believes that al Qaeda is on the run.

“Here’s the sentence, here’s the headline, that the Obama administration does not want broadcast anywhere or printed anywhere: ‘Obama Administration Arms Al Qaeda,’” Chris Farrell, Director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, said at the conference. “That’s it, right there.”

Judicial Watch is the only organization litigating in Federal Court on Benghazi to date. It recently issued a new report, the second of two, on the Benghazi attacks and the Administration’s subsequent stonewalling.

“Look, this attack in Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. It wasn’t a fluke. It didn’t just occur,” argued author and investigative journalist Ken Timmerman. “It was a policy shift that took place as soon as Obama took power to overturn our longstanding national security alliances in the Middle East and to support the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“I think the path, I think the green light, if you will, even, was given by President Obama in his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, when he green-lighted the Islamic uprising that would follow over the next two years,” said Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. Lopez is a former CIA operations officer and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. “What happened in Libya was a follow-on to that green light, as well as what happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood rose up and seized power for a time.”

During the aforementioned Cairo speech, noted Timmerman, “sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving the speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group although tolerated by the Mubarak regime.” Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt at that time, was not invited. This sends a clear message from our President.

As for Muammar Qaddafi, he was a brutal dictator, but “He had al-Qaeda jihadis in his jails,” said Lopez. “And yet, in March of 2011, the United States, together with NATO allies Italy, France, and others, decided to intervene in Libya. Why? To assist al Qaeda militias to overthrow a sovereign government that was no threat to the United States.” Those skeptical of the al Qaeda connections to Libya Shield, Ansar al Sharia, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Libyan “liberation” freedom fighters should read John Rosenthal’s The Jihadist Plot, which details al Qaeda’s intricate plan to overthrow the apostate Qaddafi.

“As we know, we’ve had step-by-step accounts of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and some information that was probably classified,” noted Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer and author of From the Company of Shadows, at the conference. “We’ve had step-by-step accounts of what’s going on in Syria, with the exceptions of some things about the gas. We’ve been given nothing about Benghazi. No, not even the smallest detail regarding what happened that evening.”

The reason we’ve been given step-by-step accounts of Osama bin Laden’s death is partially because it helped the President politically. Similarly, knowledge of Syria’s conflict assisted the President in making the case to send military and non-military aid. But Benghazi, where four people died? President Obama would rather that issue be swept under the rug.

Members of the Commission expressed their dismay that the administration did not mount a more vigorous attempt to rescue the Benghazi four and that, they argue, stand down orders were given.

“If the President’s child were in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt have been more aggressive?” asked Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, at the conference. Tyrone Woods was one of two former Navy SEALs who, along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith, was killed that day in Benghazi. Charles Woods asked the same question at a hearing before Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) committee three days later. At the hearing, Rep. Issa announced that he had subpoenaed two Diplomatic Security agents who were on the ground in Benghazi that night. He said that the State Department had suggested to him that these two might not want to come forward because there was an FBI investigation ongoing.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who also spoke at the conference, noted that those involved were consistently politicizing the FBI investigation by using it as an excuse to not provide information.

“I appreciate the fact that this Citizens’ Committee is here, but I wish that it wasn’t necessary,” said Woods. “I wish that it was not necessary, because the truth voluntarily should have been presented by our administration.”

The Commission is dedicated to finding out the truth behind the Benghazi attacks, and this work is ongoing. Captain Larry Bailey (Ret.) invited confidential sources to contact him and to be assured of total privacy and anonymity. Videos and transcripts from the September 16th conference are being posted at the CCB website.

 

This commentary originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.