AMBASSADOR STEVENS ‘ALLOWED TO DIE’ TO PROTECT OBAMA’S FRAUDULENT POLICIES

TREASONOUS INACTION:  Eyewitnesses in Benghazi, Libya during the attack on the US mission now say that CIA operatives twice sought permission from commanders to help Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff, and twice were ordered to 'stand down', while a later request to regional U.S. bases for military backup was also denied.

by Dan Crosby
of The DAILY PEN 

NEW YORK, NY – As U.S. Ambassador Stevens was being murdered by Islamic terrorists during the September 11 attack on the Benghazi, Libya mission headquarters, CIA operators on duty at the mission annex less than a mile from Stevens’ location, were ordered twice to "stand down" when they attempted to help the ambassador's team after they heard shots fired at approximately 9:40 p.m., according to a report from Fox News.

The report also says at least two urgent requests from the CIA operatives for military intervention, one in the early moments of the attack on the U.S. mission, and another in subsequent attack on the annex hours later, were denied by Obama Administration officials.

Even after at least two highly trained Navy Seal operatives experienced in combat assessment and tactical operations tried to tell the command center that military intervention was required, the Obama Administration still refused claiming there was not enough information about the attack to warrant a tactical response.

However, critics among the Intelligence community and military Special Operations command say claims by the Obama administration that information was not available are a lie.  They insist an on-site assessment from tactically trained Navy Seals actively engaged on the ground during the attack is more than enough intelligence information, by itself, to conduct an QRF (Quick Reaction Force) evacuation operation “site unseen”.

"...an on-site assessment from tactically trained Navy Seals actively engaged on the ground during the attack is more than enough intelligence information, by itself, to conduct a QRF evacuation operation...'site unseen'."

Defending the Obama Administration’s failed response to the attack, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta joined Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton saying, “…there was not enough information on the ground to safely send help.” 

However, Panetta’s testimony is contradicted by the recent disclosure of State Department emails which show that Obama, himself, as well as his staff were aware of the circumstances and extent of the attack from the moment it began.

Fox also reports that live video feeds from two separate drones in the skies over the attack were also being viewed by Obama administration officials in real time, which means they had more than enough information to assess the threat and provide help.

Also, former special operations commanders say that within moments of the beginning of the attack, a digital station-to-station “Flash Traffic” notification was sent to the U.S. operations headquarters in Tripoli, Italy telling officials there that the Ambassador was in peril.

Within the intelligence and security services forces deployed in the region, Ambassador Steven’s security detail is treated the same as those for a Chief of Staff or four-star general.  This means a “Flash Traffic” message must be immediately relayed in code form to the White House situation room explicitly stating the Ambassador is in peril and the message must be confirmed as received by the desk watch officer charged with conveying the message under standing orders to physically carry the notification directly to the White House situation room.

Africom Ops Center, the U.S. main communications network in the region, would have also been monitoring the attack in real time from Germany.  Three networks of communications are simultaneously connected through headquarters in North Africa, southern Europe and tactical placements in the Mediterranean region.  All forces remain on “strip ready” standby which means operatives are able to board aircraft and take off in minutes to engage any evacuation operation for U.S. diplomats in the region.  The nearest Evac Force was just 45 minutes from the Libyan Consulate, well within their capability to have saved Ambassador Stevens and his staff at any time during the seven hour assault.

The events as reported by Fox unfolded as follows:

“Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was manning the CIA annex with a small team about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When Woods and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to ‘stand down.’”

The report says Woods and at least two other CIA agents ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire.  The report suggests Woods and his team heroically violated orders and, in attempting to rescue Stevens and his staff, may have exposed something more sinister.  Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection.

“Obviously, these brave men had a good reason for defying orders and engage the attackers in defense of Ambassador Stevens,” says former special operations commander, Lt. Col. Douglas Radcliff.

"They must have known that they would have no back up if they engaged the fight against orders.  But,they did it anyway and paid with their lives."  

"Obviously, these brave men had a good reason for defying orders and engage the attackers in defense of Ambassador Stevens..."

There is much speculation about the motives for such derelict inaction by the Obama administration’s command.  Many theorize the Obama administration may have been using Ambassador Stevens to broker a covert arms deal through Turkey to arm Syrian rebels to help overthrow the Assad regime in Damascus.  Some believe the attack was a retaliatory strike for the allegation by the Obama Administration that it killed Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011.

The Fox report continues, “The quick reaction by Woods’ team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.”

“At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.”

The Fox report continued, “A Special Operations team, or CIF which stands for Commanders in Extremis Force, operating in Central Europe had been moved to Sigonella, Italy, but they too were told to stand down. A second force that specializes in counterterrorism rescues was on hand at Sigonella, according to senior military and intelligence sources. According to those sources, they could have flown to Benghazi in less than two hours. They were the same distance to Benghazi as those that were sent from Tripoli. Specter gunships are commonly used by the Special Operations community to provide close air support.

According to sources on the ground during the attack, the special operator on the roof of the CIA annex had visual contact and a laser pointing at the Libyan mortar team that was targeting the CIA annex. The operators were calling in coordinates of where the Libyan forces were firing from.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday that there was not a clear enough picture of what was occurring on the ground in Benghazi to send help.

"There's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here," Panetta said Thursday. "But the basic principle here ... is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on."

U.S. officials argue that there was a period of several hours when the fighting stopped before the mortars were fired at the annex, leading officials to believe the attack was over.

Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C. Any U.S. official or agency with the proper clearance, including the White House Situation Room, State Department, CIA, Pentagon and others, could call up that video in real time on their computers.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m. An American Quick Reaction Force sent from Tripoli had arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m. (four hours after the initial attack on the Consulate) and was delayed for 45 minutes at the airport because they could not at first get transportation, allegedly due to confusion among Libyan militias who were supposed to escort them to the annex, according to Benghazi sources.

The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi's fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.

Fox News has also learned that Stevens was in Benghazi that day to be present at the opening of an English-language school being started by the Libyan farmer who helped save an American pilot who had been shot down by pro-Qaddafi forces during the initial war to overthrow the regime. That farmer saved the life of the American pilot and the Ambassador wanted to be present to launch the Libyan rescuer's new school.”

DONALD TRUMP OFFERS FIVE MILLION DOLLAR REWARD FOR OBAMA’S RECORDS

PUTTING HIS MONEY WHERE OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY IS:  The billionaire showman has long suspected that Obama is lying about his past and that he is not eligible to hold the office of president.  Now, Donald Trump is offering a monstrous reward for disclosure of Obama’s educational and travel records from the 1980’s which may show who, what, when, where and how the democratic presidential candidate was able to afford, enroll in and graduate from two of America’s prestigious institutions while traveling to foreign countries unfriendly to U.S. citizens at the same time.

By Dan Crosby

Of the Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – A recent internet video by Donald Trump in which the billionaire real-estate magnate says he will give $5 million to charity if Barack Obama will release his college and passport records from the 1980s may have also been intended as a veiled message to would-be whistle-blowers and Obama supporters alike to come forth with documented information they may have about Obama’s past and to apply pressure on Obama to submit to the ongoing requests for his biographical information.

Given the state of the American economy under Obama, Trump feels there are many who would be happy to take the risk for five million dollars if Obama fails to meet the offer.

Moreover, in the wake of what appears to be a calculated plot on the part of the Obama administration to hide the truth about a recent terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which it now appears U.S. Ambassador, Chris Stevens was murdered by terrorists in retaliation for the death of Osama Bin Laden, Trump is betting the mainstream media are beginning to follow the lead of independent citizen-media websites and finally acknowledging the depth of Obama’s capacity to lie about anything when the truth does not serve his political interests, including his own eligibility to hold the office.

For more than a year and a half, so-called journalists in the mainstream media have accepted at face value the presentation by Barack Obama of a digital image of his alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth as evidence proving his legitimacy to hold the office of president.  However, now that same media is selectively refusing to believe the claims by the same fraudulently installed  administration that an internet video incited riots by offended Muslims resulting in the murder of four Americans in Libya.

In July, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case law enforcement team presented compelling evidence discovered throughout a 10-month investigation showing that the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 long form Certificate of Live Birth was a counterfeited fraud bearing no legal merit to prove Obama’s citizenship or identity.  They also proved the image of Obama’s selective service registration was a fraud based on inconsistencies in the alleged date received stamp and the conflicting date which the document was allegedly signed by Obama.

Following the investigation, Trump began questioning the credibility of Obama’s records once again. 

Then, former libertarian vice presidential candidate and former Columbia alum, Wayne Allen Root, said he never saw Obama in any of the Political Science classes he would have attended with Root if he had actually been there at that time.  Root says he had interview hundreds of his classmates and found no one who could remember seeing Obama in their classes from January 1982 until March of 1983.  

Despite the Obama administration’s insidious capacity to lie about the circumstances involving the murder of four Americans, some in the mainstream media remain irrationally and stubbornly reluctant to accept that it could possibly lie about Obama’s identity.

“The media has looked ridiculous for five years,” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson, “because they are only willing to see the lies in the events which they ignorantly consider as ‘above ground’ in their business model.”

Johannson blames the lack of diligence on the part of the media on a lack of moral decency.  He says the media has resigned itself to a set of moral standards which make criminal activity permissible when it protects political interests and voter favorability.

He continued, “The issue of Obama’s eligibility was libelously ridiculed by a few degenerates of the pro-Obama horde, then as the sentiment infected a complicit social architecture in the media, major networks and cable news soon capitulated when they realized that investigating Obama’s eligibility might reveal apocalyptic and destructive evidence to their own business model.  They realized they couldn’t make money off it so they shoved it ‘under-ground’ where sites like WND and us took it over.”

Johannson concludes, “Unfortunately, it's going to require a collective effort on the part of powerful men like Trump to rid this nation of liars and despots in our government.  The willful circumvention of the Constitution’s eligibility mandate by an intentionally deceptive candidate will eventually have the most destructive consequences greater than any terrorist attack or war in American history.  Our sovereignty has now been revealed as vulnerable throughout the world and it has been advertised to all corners of the globe that America is open to despotism and tyranny from all-comers.  All they have to do is apply as a Democrat party candidate and accuse anyone who challenges their candidacy of being racists…and the propaganda agents of the liberal mainstream press will use its power not to protect the people but actually help the caliphate take over this nation from within.  Eventually, a point of no return will be crossed where the patriots of God will once again bear arms under their Constitution and, as our blood ransomed history has persistently proven, will violently prevail over those liars and tyrants.”

Donald Trump understands a complicit American media establishment is willing to embrace the conspiracy theory that the Obama Administration would engage a massive deception to cover-up evidence in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi but, yet refuse to look into evidence discovered through a 10-month law enforcement investigation that Obama has engaged an even larger deception to hide evidence about his eligibility to hold the office of president.  He took credit for forcing Obama to post a counterfeit version of a birth certificate in 2011.

Requests for Obama’s personal records have been prompted by chronic suspicions that he is not eligible to hold the office of president because he has presented no evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the U.S.  These suspicions have evolved from Obama’s lack of transparency and his failure to disclose what the majority of Americans consider to be common records everyone else must present with any application to a job.  More than 2 million Americans have signed petitions demanding Obama to present his records.

In the video, the master-marketer Trump goads at Obama for his lack of transparency as doubts about Obama’s real identity and citizenship have circulated internet media sites for more than five years.

"I have a deal for the president; a deal that I don't believe he can refuse and I hope he doesn't," Trump said in the YouTube video released at noon on Wednesday.

"If Barack Obama opens up and gives his college records and applications and if he gives his passport applications and records, I will give to a charity of his choice… a check, immediately, for $5 million," said Trump, who was famously dubbed "Sideshow Don" on the front page of the Daily News in April 2011.

The Donald, as he is nicknamed, told reporters on Wednesday that he has already gotten a "tremendous response" to his offer.

"I think it's a positive thing, and I really think it could very positive for the President if he releases the documents I request.  Positive for the President, the country and the charity."

As reported by Kristen Lee of the NY Daily News, Trump, a vocal supporter of the so-called “birther” movement, was one of the loudest voices pressing Obama to release his long-form birth certificate last year.

When the White House complied, Trump still wasn't satisfied. He's since suggested that Obama's college records would show that he listed a foreign birthplace on applications. Some conservatives have also questioned whether the president benefitted from affirmative action at Columbia University.

The Donald — who began his offer by calling Obama "the least transparent President in the history of this country" — said releasing the college and passport records "will end the question, and indeed the anger, of many Americans."

"This is something that's so easy to do, that will give a tremendous amount of money for a charity," he told the News.

Trump has been teasing his offer since Monday, when he told “Fox & Friends” he would announce "something very, very big concerning the President of the United States."

On Wednesday, he claimed he will be "totally satisfied" if Obama releases the college and passport documents, although he added the vague stipulation that the records must be provided "to my satisfaction."

The immediate response by White House senior adviser David Plouffe indicated that Obama is unlikely to agree to Trump's terms. Plouffe told reporters to direct questions about the offer to Mitt Romney’s headquarters — suggesting that the Obama camp will use Trump’s offer to tie the GOP candidate to the controversial businessman.

"Direct those questions to Boston because Donald Trump is Mitt Romney's biggest supporter, so he owns everything he says," Plouffe told reporters, according to Politico.

Trump gave the president a one-week deadline. He said the records must be turned over by 5:00 p.m. on Oct. 31.

NOW OBAMA DENIES INTERNET POSTINGS ARE EVIDENCE OF LEGITIMACY

ONE LIE AFTER ANOTHER – Having vigorously promoted the digital .pdf image of his alleged 1961 birth certificate which was posted to the internet in 2011 as evidence of his legitimacy to be president, the Obama administration now says that posting claims on the internet is not proof of anything when those postings indict their lies.

By Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - Apparently, the Obama Administration is far more willing to embrace YouTube as a more credible source of evidence than Facebook or Twitter in determining what caused the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.   

Saying that the act of posting claims on the internet is not proof of legitimate evidence, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back Wednesday after suggestions that September 11 emails showing that an Al Qaeda-tied group in the Libya consulate attack were proof of terrorist involvement, saying their claims of responsibility on Facebook and Twitter were not "evidence."

However, she is on record as explicitly saying that YouTube videos are indeed evidence that the consulate was attacked as the result of spontaneous riot by offended Muslims.  Only weeks ago, Clinton , and other members of the Obama Administration, including Barack Obama, vehemently derided an obscure YouTube video, which was also posted to the internet by anonymous sources, as the legitimate cause of what the entire Obama administration initially claimed was a spontaneous riot which resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three Chief of Mission agents at the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

We now know the attacks were a well-planned, coordinated attack by a long known terrorist group, Ansar Al-Sharia and that the video had nothing to do with inciting the attack. 

An official review of the video by Muslim scholars revealed that the video is not offensive to the Islamic religion and that it actually honors many tenets of Islamic doctrine further suggesting the Obama Administration trumped the allegations against the random video in order to cover up the circumstances of the terrorist attack.  The Obama administration has long claimed that terrorism is in decline in the world despite evidence to the contrary.    

"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence," Clinton said. "And I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be."

"Posting something…is not in and of itself evidence"

Recall, the Obama Administration posted a digital image of Barack Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth saying that it was proof of Obama legitimacy to hold the office of President.  Clinton did not comment on whether the image of the certificate posted to the White House’s official website was also “not in and of itself evidence” of Obama’s eligibility to be president.   

Also refusing to acknowledge that he previously claimed that a YouTube video was indeed evidence that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous riot, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, was all too eager to say that other internet media is not proof of the likely scenario that terrorists had taken responsibility.

"I think within a few hours that organization itself claimed that it had not been responsible. Neither should be taken as fact,”  Carney said.

There is no evidence, internet or otherwise, that members of Ansar Al Sharia denied responsibility for the attacks.  However, the group is a prime suspect.  Indeed, one suspect in custody in Tunisia is a member of Ansar al-Sharia, one lawmaker told Fox News.

Three Republican senators, in a letter Wednesday to the White House, said they were "disturbed" by the latest email revelations, claiming it "adds to the confusion" about what the administration knew of the attacks.

 

"However, the newly uncovered emails clearly state the involvement of a militant group whose agenda is to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya."

"In television interviews nearly a week after the events in Benghazi, you yourself even refused to describe it as a terrorist attack, instead emphasizing the role played by a hateful video. This concerted misrepresentation of the facts of the case -- facts that, it appears, you and your administration possessed almost as soon as the attack began -- is why so many of our constituents are demanding a fuller explanation of why your administration responded as it did," wrote Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; John McCain, R-Ariz.; and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. They called on the president to "address the American people directly" on what happened.

Though the emails, obtained by Fox News on Tuesday, are just one piece of the puzzle, they reveal some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And they again raise questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Clinton also suggested those producing the emails were "cherrypicking" documentation, as the White House noted the organization reportedly had denied responsibility in other settings.   Clinton, of course, likewise, refused to characterize her act of blaming the internet video as “cherrypicking”

Though social media was vital in driving -- and monitoring -- the so-called Arab Spring that overthrew longtime dictators in Libya and other countries, Clinton dismissed it as an unreliable source after a series of internal emails sent by Clinton's State Department staff surfaced in which officials reported within hours of the attack that militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility in Internet postings.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation's top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU, which is shorthand for "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU)."

"Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads.

Earlier emails did not go into who might have been responsible for the attack.

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were "in the compound safe haven." Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line: "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU)."

"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

"The operations Center will provide updates as available."

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line: "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"

"Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel."

The emails on the day of the attack further challenge not only the initial statements made by administration officials like Rice about the strike, but also recent claims that they were only basing those statements on the intelligence they had at the time.

However, the newly uncovered emails clearly state the involvement of a militant group whose agenda is to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya.

State Department official Patrick Kennedy recently testified to Congress that anyone in Rice's position would have made the same statements about the attack being spontaneous.

Despite this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up Rice on Sept. 18. He said: "Based on information that we -- our initial information ... we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video." Carney went on to say "that is what we know" based on "concrete evidence, not supposition."

STATE DEPT. EMAILS SHOW OBAMA LIED ABOUT BENGHAZI TERROR ATTACK

IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY:  Two months after the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were slaughtered, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, the American people still have not been told the truth about what happened by the Obama administration.  Now, overwhelming evidence shows the Obama administration knew that terrorists were actively engaged in the attack as it was happening on September 11^th.

By Dan Crosby

Of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - A series of internal State Department emails reveals that within hours of last month's deadly consulate attack in Libya national security advisors report to Obama staff that Al Qaeda-tied group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility, according to reports by Fox News.

In spite of the recently publicized emails, the fraudulently ensconced Obama administration perpetuated a misleading narrative that the attacks were not the result of terrorists, but rather caused by an obscure internet video claimed by government officials to be offensive to Islam.

The lie by the Obama administration that the video incited “spontaneous riots” has been exposed after sources in Libya and at the State Department said that there was no riot at the time of the attack.

Despite the fact that the video has since been exposed as a fraud posted months before the attacks, the video’s creator was arrested and detained after charges of a parole violation were filed against him by federal law enforcement officers.

To date, no evidence has since been produced proving the video creator is actually the individual responsible for the video or that he was in violation of any parole conditions.  His identity has been kept secret leading many to believe that he may be a straw-man concocted by the Obama administration as a scape-goat.

As reported by Fox:  “The emails provide some of the most detailed information yet about what officials knew in the initial hours after the attack. And it again raises questions about why U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, apparently based on intelligence assessments, would claim five days after the attack that it was a "spontaneous" reaction to protests over an anti-Islam film.

Ansar al-Sharia has been declared by the State Department to be an Al Qaeda-affiliated group. A member of the group suspected of participating in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi has been arrested and is being held in Tunisia.

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

The timestamps on the emails are all Eastern Time and often include the subheading SBU, which is shorthand for “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The third email came at 6:07 p.m. ET and was sent to a different email list but still includes the White House Situation Room address and a subject line of “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU).”

“Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli," the email reads.

Earlier emails did not go into who might have been responsible for the attack.

The first email indicates that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other personnel were “in the compound safe haven.” Officials later discovered that Stevens and three other Americans had died in the attack.

The first email was sent at 4:05 p.m. ET with the subject line: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack (SBU).”

“The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack," the email reads. "Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

"The operations Center will provide updates as available.”

The second email came at 4:54 p.m. ET, with a subject line: “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi (SBU)"

“Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.”

The emails on the day of the attack further challenge not only the initial statements made by administration officials like Rice about the strike, but also recent claims that they were only basing those statements on the intelligence they had at the time.

State Department official Patrick Kennedy recently testified to Congress that anyone in Rice's position would have made the same statements about the attack being spontaneous.

However, the newly uncovered emails clearly state the involvement of a militant group whose agenda is to establish an Islamic state in eastern Libya.

Despite this, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney backed up Rice on Sept. 18. He said: "Based on information that we -- our initial information ... we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video." Carney went on to say "that is what we know" based on "concrete evidence, not supposition."

HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOT ONLY MUNICIPALITY LYING FOR OBAMA

AN INSIDE JOB...REPORT:  Suspecting the unemployment rate in last weeks' U.S. Labor Department jobless report had been "cooked" to favor the Obama Administration's economic performance, analysts discover that California was indeed omitted from the numbers and, in the course of their inquiry also find that California's Labor Secretary, Marty Morgenstern, is a big Obama campaign donor.

 

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – The state governments in Hawaii and California rely heavily on federal tax revenue to support their municipal operations, infrastructure and public services.  One relies on the federal government because it is so remote, the other because it is so big…and both because they are so liberal.   

For more than four years, many have suspected the State of Hawaii has lied to hide information about Obama’s natal history.  The reason for the suspicion is rooted in Hawaii’s refusal to provide information from their Health Department files which would help prove that Obama is a Natural-Born citizen and, therefore, eligible to hold the office of President.

Now, California is lying for Obama too. 

On October 11, the U.S. Labor Department reported that jobless claims had fallen by 30,000 to 339,000, suggesting the first dramatic increase in economic growth and a decline in layoffs since February 2008.  

However, speculation among business analysts and economists immediately questioned the accuracy of the report after a review of the volume of jobless claims in comparison with volumes in previous reports.  As a result, they found strong evidence that the unemployment rate had been falsely reported as 7.8%, down 0.5%.   

The drop in percentage of jobless claims caused analysts to then look at the comparative volumes from each state and what they found was a volume of jobless claims which indicated that one state may have failed to report its data.  This was determined after it was realized the denominator of a key labor rate indicator measuring the available labor force had sharply increased. 

Changing the denominator of the jobless rate without changing the numerator will change the percentage, without changing the volume.  For example, if 3 out 12 people are unemployed, that is a 25% unemployment rate.  But if you show those 3 unemployed people as a part of 15 available workers, instead of 12, the unemployment rate magically drops to 20%...BUT the same 3 people are still not working! 

"...if you show those same three unemployed people as a part of 15 available workers, instead of 12, the unemployment rate magically drops to 20%...BUT the same three people are still not working!" 
 

Based on the increase of the denominator in the ratio, the analysts focused on California as the possible state which they believed had been left out because California has the largest population and largest labor force in the U.S. which, if omitted, would indeed cause about a 0.5% fluctuation based on previous report numbers.   

In reaction to accusations of impropriety, the California Employment Development Department strongly denied that it had failed to properly document the data.

“Reports that California failed to fully report data to the U.S. Department of Labor, as required, are incorrect and irresponsible,” California Employment Development Department director Pam Harris said in a statement last week.

“The California Employment Development Department, which administers the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program in the state, has reported all UI claims data and submitted the data on time.”

However, it now appears the analysts were right.  Early Thursday, the federal government finally revealed that California was indeed the state that had, in fact, underreported jobless claims, as suspected by many, after the weekly Labor Department job report, skewing the national jobless claims results. This week’s updated jobs report corrected the error and showed unemployment claims spiking back up by 46,000.

The intentional omission of California’s data promoted an artificially favorable economic report for the Obama administration because the inclusion of California’s unemployed would have cause the jobless rate to increase by 0.02%, not decrease by 0.48% to 7.8%. 

Regardless, the pro-Obama, biased media spread the “good news” quickly, with outlets like CNN and Bloomberg declaring, “Jobless claims fall to four-year low.”

Within hours, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labor Department analysts announced that one major state had failed to fully document jobless claims. They declined to name the state.

Now, it has been learned that Marty Morgenstern, the secretary of the California municipal agency that under-reported unemployment claims, contributed to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign.

According to campaign disclosure records, Morgenstern donated $4,600 — the maximum amount allowed by law — to the 2008 Obama campaign, beginning with a $1,000 contribution to Obama for America in February 2008. Morgenstern followed up that donation with a $1,300 contribution in June, and then a $2,300 payout in early September.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Morgenstern to lead the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in 2011. The state agency oversees the Employment Development Department.

California recent in-state report claims its unemployment rate has dropped from 10.6% to 10.2%. 

Analysts are rightly skeptical of the report. 

NO, CANDY, OBAMA DID NOT CALL BENGHAZI “TERRORISM" AND, BY THE WAY,…BUTT OUT!

TWO AGAINST ONE:  In an unprecedented violation of presidential debate moderation protocol, CBS' Candy Crowley takes sides during a critical discussion between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama over the September 11^th terrorist attack in Benghazi further confirming the reasons why commissioners and organizers did not want her to moderate the debate.

Commentary by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

HEMPSTEAD, NY – The September 11^th tragedy in Benghazi is yet one more reason why you should never vote for an illegitimate president.  The election of an ineligible candidate breeds a weakened sense of sovereignty among the people and, therefore, a diminished sense of unity as a nation which, ultimately, leads to a slackened appreciation of the need to remain diligent in the security of Americans overseas.

The terrorist attack in Benghazi is the seventh terrorist attack attempted or carried out against Americans since Obama became president.

Moreover, now we understand why the Commission on Presidential Debates should never allow a liberal member of the media to moderate a presidential debate in a liberal state. 

In moderator Candy Crowley’s vigor to help the usurper, Barack Obama, she committed the cardinal sin of argument facilitation during the second of three 2012 Presidential debates.  At Hofstra University on Tuesday night, in the bastion of all blue states, New York, CBS' Crowley plumed her true liberal colors and allied herself with Barack Obama.

Surprise, surprise.

Crowley’s shocking intrusion into the debate between Mitt Romney and Obama occurred near the 66 minute mark of the hour and a half debate when she actually joined the discussion in defense of Obama, thereby committing and act of journalistic malpractice.

During a tense exchange, Romney questioned whether Obama had explicitly called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.

“I think this is interesting.  The president just said something which is, on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”

“That's what I said.” interrupted Obama.

Romney fired back, “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?”  

“Please proceed governor,” said Obama.

“I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” said Romney.

“Get the transcript,” quipped a visibly annoyed Obama.

Crowley then intervened by taking Obama’s side, “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.”

Taking Crowley’s queue, Obama turned into a five year old brat, “Say that at little louder, Candy.”

Crowley seemed to immediately acknowledge her error telling Romney, “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

After the debate, Crowley said, “He (Romney) was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.”

“Regardless of her assessment of who was right or wrong, it is not the place of any moderator to correct what a candidate says.  A debate is meant for the candidates to display their level of understanding to the people!” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson.   

“Unfortunately for Crowley and Obama, Obama did not explicitly call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism.  He merely made a broad statement about any act of terrorism, not this one specifically.” 

Here is what Obama actually said:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said a day after the attack.

If you are an Obama supporter, this statement was in direct reference to the Benghazi attack, even though Obama does not explicitly say that the Benghazi attack is one of those acts of terrorism he is referring to.  This lack of referential integrity is further indicated by his next sentence:

"Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

Notice he never says that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror, just that any act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation.  More specifically, Obama never put the words “Benghazi” and “terrorism” in the same sentence for two weeks.

If you are not an Obama supporter, this statement was nothing more than a premeditated c.m.a. “escape hatch” intentionally put in place by a calculating politically-minded creature just in case he might be challenged on his competency on the issue of terrorism.  This way, Obama knows he could, at least, stand on the word “terrorism” during his reaction to the Benghazi attack without actually calling that specific attack terrorism.

He made the broad sweeping statement intentionally to avoid the specific accusation which would appear unfavorable to his intellectually dishonest position that terrorism has been diminished because of his administration’s efforts in the Middle East.

 

People love to laud Obama’s intelligence.  However, the Obotic horde fails to remember that Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list.  He is a man divided among himself.

The problem with Obama’s lack of commitment to his wobbling position is that his administration said the attack was a spontaneous riot spurred by a YouTube video for almost two weeks while intelligence sources contended it was terrorism from day one.

Four days after Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.

"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.

That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."

Obama, himself, cited the video as the culprit six times in his address to the United Nations…eight days after his appearance in the Rose Garden. 

Flip-Flopper or was he just for a terrorist attack before he was against it…before he was for it again?

All this ugliness and tragedy…and just think…the guy is not even eligible to hold the office.    

PBS DOCUMENTARY PRODUCERS FIND NO EVIDENCE OBAMA ATTENDED COLUMBIA

“I DIDN’T CONSIDER HIM AMERICAN” – Interviewing several people from Obama’s past, producers of “The Choice” documentary about the coming 2012 election find it inexplicable that there are no Columbia classmates who can attest to Obama’s attendance there. 

By Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

updated 9:37 a.m. 10/15/12

NEW YORK, NY - A recent documentary about the life of Barack Obama broadcast on PBS’ “Frontline” called “The Choice 2012” presents a variety of testimony from alleged classmates of Obama during their mutual attendance of Occidental College and Harvard University.

However, when the producers attempted to film a segment about Obama’s attendance at Columbia University, they were unable to locate even one of Obama’s classmates from the New York-based University and, instead, recorded an interview with an alleged “roommate” who shared a rundown New York apartment with Obama. 

Because of this lack of first hand testimony about Obama’s presence at Columbia, the documentary disproportionately abbreviates its coverage of these years of Obama's life, from 1981 to 1983, when compared with its coverage of Obama’s other school attendance.  The documentary focuses instead on Obama’s residence in New York and presents a soliloquy about how traveling from the west coast to the east coast changed Obama’s perspective on race but mentions nothing about his relationship with Columbia students or faculty.

 

By Obama’s own admission, he traveled to Pakistan, India and Indonesia in 1981, but no record or passport from his trip has ever been made public.  Conspicuously, the PBS documentary makes no mention of Obama's travel outside the United States at this time.  

"That's a pretty significant event for a 20 year old kid," says Karen Welch, spokesperson for the Community Television Initiative, "One would think it worthy of inclusion in a world-wide broadcast about the biography of the President."    

At the 33 minute mark of the 1 hour 55 minute documentary, PBS begins a segment about Obama’s arrival in mainland America after his graduation from Hawaii’s highest ranked prep school, Punahou Academy, in 1979.  The segment begins with interview cuts with Obama’s former Occidental College roommates, Eric Moore, Louis Hook, Caroline Grauman, Sohale Siddiqi and author David Maraniss describing Obama’s time at the Los Angeles college.

“I didn’t consider him American,” admits Sohale Siddiqi, “He seemed like an international individual.”

“I didn’t consider him American.  He seemed like an international individual.”

"I was visiting his roommate in Los Angeles, Hasan Chandoo, who was also going to Occidental College with him. And after New Year's Eve we drove back from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and I spent a couple of weeks there," says Siddiqi. 

Many questions still remain about the relationship between Chandoo and Obama.  However, more suspicious is the fact that the documentary gives no biographical information about Chandoo or his relationship with Obama after the two had allegedly attended Occidental together. 

"Apparently, the producers made no effort to contact Chandoo for this piece or make his account of the story a part of this documentary," says Welch, "which is strange considering the rumors and testimony about how close they were.  They, apparently, traveled the world together and knew each other intimately for years, but PBS omitted him.  Strange."  

“'My father was Kenyan',” describes Moore, of a conversation in which Obama tells him about his origins, “he said, ’I go by the name ‘Barry’ so I don’t have to explain my name all the time.'”

“One day, he (Obama) told me he was going to transfer to Columbia,” Moore continued, “he said he needed a more expansive environment, a more urban environment where he could grow intellectually."

Full of other benign biographical allegations about Obama, the documentary also conspicuously omits how he was able to afford his move from the southwestern U.S to the northeastern U.S and the exorbitant tuition needed to attend Columbia. 

The documentary provides no insight on what might have prompted to Obama to choose Columbia, whether he was provided with some unknown financial opportunity, how he qualified for admission or when he first registered and attended classes.  By all accounts he had no publicly known connection to anyone in New York and no record of Obama's academic performance at Columbia has ever been made public, either. 

"If you relied on this documentary as a source of truth about whether Obama actually attended Columbia," says Welch, "you would be left with no choice but to conclude he did not." 

Boston Globe columnist, Scott Helman wrote Obama “flew across the United States”, but does not explain how Obama paid airfare or if he took any belongings.  The documentary goes on to report that Obama took residence on the “edge of Harlem”.

 

"If you relied on this documentary as a source of truth about whether Obama actually attended Columbia,you would be left with no choice but to conclude he did not." 

By all accounts, Obama was not a good student at Occidental.  His easy going lifestyle, according to PBS, left him restless and wanting, so it’s difficult to imagine that Obama attended Columbia on a merit scholarship.  If Obama actually registered for classes at Columbia, there remains no documented evidence that he actually attended them, or how he paid the tuition.

At the 37:20 mark, the documentary segues into an interview with an alleged New York roommate of Obama’s named Phil Boerner.  According to the documentary, they lived at 339 E. 6^th, Apt. 6A. 

The fact that Boerner is white having lived in Harlem with a black roommate raises questions about the nature of the living arrangement and if Boerner was a classmate of Obama’s at Columbia.  However, the documentary does not publish testimony from Boerner that he attended Columbia.   Boerner gives copious descriptions of the apartment, but provides no information about Obama’s attendance at Columbia.

For more than five minutes of material during the “Obama in New York” segment of the documentary, appearing immediately after the quote from Moore, there is absolutely no mention of Obama’s attendance at Columbia.  Instead the story devolves into Obama’s experiences with poverty, race, social isolation and ideology.  No mention of his attendance at Columbia is made. 

Former Libertarian VP candidate, Wayne Allyn Root has publicly stated that he never saw Obama at Columbia from 1980 to 1983.  Obama alleges that he was a classmate of Root’s enrolled in the same courses and the same major but Root says if that was true, he would remember him. 

“I was a poli-sci major, apparently just like Obama, in a class of about 400 or so people,” says Root, “and I, nor anyone I know ever remember seeing, talking to or being with Barack Obama while we attended Columbia.  Not one single person.  We don’t remember him in any of our classes.  We don’t remember him on campus.  We can’t find one professor that remembers grading him on any assignment.   It’s bizarre, like he was a ghost among us.” 

The documentary then claims that several of Obama’s Occidental classmates joined him in New York, including Siddiqi.

“I think the first thing we experienced was complete intimidation by New York City,” says Siddiqi, “which seemed rougher and tougher and uncivilized more than any other place either of us had lived.  Both of us were questioning ‘why the heck did we come to this place?’  It was scary and we had no resources.”

If Siddiqi's account is true regarding his and Obama's economic situation, then the question becomes more amplified: How did he afford Columbia's tuition and expenses? 

Siddiqi also provide no supporting testimony that Obama actually attended Columbia.  He never mentions Obama’s experiences as a college student while in New York.

Author, David Maraniss, expounds on the the impact living in New York had on Obama saying, “I think New York was the key to his life.  He made no lasting African-American friends during those four years, in New York."

“The NY years are marked by this kind of ‘turning inward’ for Obama,” says Obama biographer, Jodi Kantor.

“He spends time reading, fasting, wandering the city.  There’s this almost monk-like existence.”

If Kantor's account is correct about Obama reading, fasting and wandering, what was Obama reading if not text books from his Columbia classes.  Also, if Obama spent time wandering the city, was it at night when he had no classes?  Was Obama "fasting" as a voluntary religious practice, or does Kantor use the term as a way to hedge the truth that Obama was actually starving? 

Strangely, Maraniss and Kantor make no allusion to Obama’s alleged attendance at Columbia which is a shocking impasse to the theme of this segment considering the research Maraniss and Kantor are alleged to have done for their respective biographies about Obama.

“It’s the period of his life where he does the least,” says Maraniss, “But figures out the most.”

At the 41:21 mark, the documentary segues to Obama’s life in Chicago without so much as providing a single interview or piece of evidence from eyewitnesses or Columbia University demonstrating that Obama ever attended Columbia.  

PBS’ presentation of this part of Obama’s biography further raises suspicions about Obama’s activities during the early 1980’s.  Many have reason to believe that Obama was able to attend Harvard as a foreign student on a foreign student scholarship, after he returned from Pakistan sometime in 1982.

If Obama attended college as a foreign student, his natural born eligibility to be president would fall into suspicion.  Renouncing or losing one's American citizenship constitutionally disqualifies them from being a presidential candidate.

Like so much of Obama's covert past, PBS' documentary, "The Choice 2012" only confirms that the American people have never been allowed to review actual documented evidence of Obama’s so-called Columbia years.