MEDIA “BALDFACE” LIES ABOUT PATRAEUS TESTIMONY TO DEFEND OBAMA’S BENGHAZI FAILURE

THE 1^st AMENDMENT WAS MURDERED IN BENGHAZI TOO - Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.  Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

Now, AP Columnists Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler have published an insidious and deceptive story claiming that the reason Obama and members of his administration were justified in lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack was because he was attempting to implement a covert response against the terrorists and did not want to, in their words, “tip them off” to his retaliatory plans.

 

By Dan Crosby

of the Daily Pen
 

NEW YORK, NY - The re-election of Barack Obama and defense of his illegitimate executive power has become more important than protecting the lives of innocent Americans, according the liberal mainstream media. Defending Obama’s lies in order to see him achieve his liberal aspirations was more important than protecting American security and providing the truth about the September 11 murder of four innocent Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the hands of terrorist enemies in Benghazi, Libya.
 

Despite former CIA director David Petraeus' testimony in closed hearings Friday that he has always believed the September 11 attack on a U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, was an act of terrorism and that it was not a result of a spontaneous demonstration, Obama’s media defenders are toiling to provide excuses for Obama’s failures to respond as well as his outright lies that the attack was the result of a YouTube video. 
 

Intelligence reports also show that Patraeus’ agency actually named specific terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, as those responsible for the attack in its initial reports sent to the Obama administration during and immediately following the attack. 

It has since been discovered, however, that the content of those reports were altered by unnamed personnel in the Obama administration in order to omit references to specific terrorist groups and implications that the attack was anything other than a spontaneous protest over the YouTube video, which at least five high ranking members of the Obama Administration explicitly blamed for the attack, including Barack Obama, himself.
 

Investigators believe the Obama administration removed references to terrorist groups prior to the election in order to convey a positive public narrative about Obama’s success against Al-Qaeda after exaggerating his own role in the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden in May, 2011.     
 

However, the ultra-liberal media has once again been caught altering facts and telling blatant lies in its coverage of the content of testimony given to congress by Patraeus.  In an article published on November 16, Associated Press columnists, Kim Dozier and Nedra Pickler wrote the following:
 

“Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers Friday that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.”
 

The latter half of this paragraph is a lie.  An originally published story before Dozier’s and Pickler’s shows that General Patraeus made no such statement about what he believed were the reasons for why the Obama administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi attack or why the official CIA reports released just hours after the attack were altered.  Dozier and Pickler simply made that part up.  They continued:

“The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended the private briefings.

Again, Dozier and Pickler invent facts to suit the pro-Obama narrative.  The actual released story originally published from reliable media sources appeared as follows: 

"WASHINGTON -- Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus told lawmakers during private hearings Friday that he believed all along that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a terrorist strike, even though that wasn't how the Obama administration initially described it publicly.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees as questions continue to persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies' assessments.

Lawmakers said Petraeus testified that the CIA's draft talking points written in response to the assault on the diplomat post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. But Petraeus told the lawmakers that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn't sure which federal agency took out the reference.

Democrats said Petraeus made it clear the change was not made for political reasons during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign."

Notice, at no point in the original version of the AP story does it mention anything about the Obama administration changing CIA intelligence reports in order to avoid “tipping off” the terrorists.  Patraeus made no such statement about the reasons for changing the reports because there is no way for him to know why the original CIA reports on the attack were altered by anyone in the administration. 

Earlier this week, in an astonishing admission of dereliction during an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, blamed the failure of the mainstream media to cover the Benghazi story before the election on “intense politicization” of the story, saying that it was because of “republican conspiracy theories” that made it impossible for he and the leftist, pro-Obama media to do its job.

That’s right, a member of one of the largest and long standing media organizations in America blamed politicians for his failure to do his job.  According to Tapper, the government now rules over the “free press” in America.  No more truth will be spoken against our government’s lust for power.  The pursuit of truth is officially dead among the American press.      

Essentially, Tapper admitted that the 1^st Amendment is dead.  He believes that journalists in his organization, as well as all of the press, are willing to allow the government to dictate which stories are newsworthy to the media based on political ideology.  He admitted that political interests and selfish dominion of power by politicians are being permitted to rule over the media and that he and his colleagues were helpless to provide any information or facts about the Benghazi tragedy in any viable manner, whatsoever.   

 

Shockingly, Tapper also said that one of the reasons the leftist media was guilty of journalistic malpractice in covering the murder of four Americans by terrorists was because they “didn’t want to interfere with the Obama Administrations positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

 

He actually admitted that the despicable letches in our press were less willing to provide critical information about what our government was doing about terrorist attacks against Americans than help a radical regime and bowing liberal consensus achieve an electoral orgasm.
 

Let’s hope Tapper and his delusional band are proud of their accomplishment.  Obama’s re-election cost the lives of four innocent Americans and blood of countless others.   Good job. 

   
 

In their pathetic defense of the Obama Administration, Dozier and Pickler claim that the Obama administration was justified in lying about the identity of those responsible for the Benghazi attack because it did not want those same terrorists to know that the Obama Administration knew it was them.  Therefore, says Dozier and Pickler, the Obama administration chose to tell the world a lie claiming the attack and Obama’s failed response, which resulted in the murder of four innocent Americans, was the result a protest by offended Muslims over an obscure YouTube video.
 

 

However, in their placatory misinformation, Dozier and Pickler fail to explain two events not covered by Patraeaus’ testimony, which proves that the Obama administration intentionally lied about the Benghazi attack in order to protect Obama’s retention of executive power leading up to the 2012 election. 

 

By their false account, the lies told by the Obama administration about Benghazi were so justified and intellectually elaborate that the calculated deception actually required the unwarranted arrest and terrorization of an innocent American, based on trumped up charges.
 

In defending Obama’s lies, Dozier and Pickler fail to describe the reasons why, upon blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Obama administration then also felt it was necessary to go sin-sniffing and actually imprison the alleged film maker, Mark Basseley Youssef.  Apparently, according to these two liars, this extension of the Obama deception was so sophisticated that it was a required part of “not tipping off “ the terrorists that the administration was on to them.
 

 

If Dozier and Pickler had done their job as journalist instead of allowing their deranged ideological lusts to control their perspective, they would have discovered that US District Judge Christina Snyder dropped half the minor charges against Youssef before finding him guilty on even lesser charges of violating his parole and using an alias!  That’s right…when all was said and done, after all the destruction Youssef allegedly caused with his “offensive and disgusting” video in Benghazi, resulting in the murder of four Americans, he was convicted of the “capital offense” of using an alias! 
 

Youssef was not arrested for parole violations.  The fact is, these leftist liars didn’t even consider that the Obama administration sought to arrest Youssef, using the video as an excuse, in order to uphold Obama’s lies to the American people, not implement a covert response to the terrorists. 
   

Steven Seiden, Youssef’s lawyer said after trial, “All sides accepted that none of the charges had anything to do with the anti-Muslim content of the film.”
 

Seidens account seems to suggest that his client was arrested as part of scheme by the Obama administration to hide the fact that a terrorist group was responsible for the Benghazi attack.   
 

Had they done their job correctly, Dozier and Pickler would have also discovered there has been no explanation to the public about any specific violations by Youssef or which terms of his alleged probation he actually violated, or what the terms of his original probation actually were.  As far as the public knows, Youssef could have been arrested for jaywalking, a charge which federal authorities were able to then trump into a probation violation at the behest of Obama lap dog Attorney General, Eric Holder. 
 

According to Randy Kreider of ABC News, "Officials stressed during court proceedings that the movie's contents and impact had no bearing on Youssef's case.  After a prosecutor said 'he's not here because of the content of the movie,' the judge agreed.”
 

Then why was Youssef arrested?  What evidence did authorities have to file charges before the arrest and what were those charges?

 

TERRORISTS:  WE DID IT, BUT DON’T TELL OBAMA

But, the biggest lie Dozier and Pickler tell is that the terrorists were on the run and hiding from a heroic Obama superhero after the attack, yet they refuse to acknowledge that same superhero's failure to prevent attacks in the month before despite having mountains of warnings, intel reports and requests for additional security. 

According to Dozier and Pickler, no action or lie by the Obama administration thus far is punishable because, in their absurd view, the terrorists might have become wise to the fact that they were found out by the very same government and intelligence personnel they had attacked?

The problem with this excuse is that the terrorists, themselves, admitted to the attack by posting a confession on a worldwide social media site, Facebook, within 24 hours. 

 

Maybe Dozier and Pickler thought that since the terrorists didn’t “friend” Obama, they might be able to hide their murderous deeds amidst a billion teenagers and fraternity pledges.  Or, maybe Dozier and Pickler believed Secretary of State Clinton when she weaseled off that something posted on the internet is not proof of anything.
 

Or, maybe these idiots thought the terrorists posted on Facebook, “We did it…but don’t tell Obama.” 
 

In lying to protect Obama, Dozier and Pickler failed to realize the preeminent fact that the terrorists were never worried about being discovered because they publicly admitted to the attack immediately.  Therefore, there is no reason for the  Obama administration to think its response should be hidden from a terrorist group that already publicly admitted to the world that it was responsible for murdering Ambassador Stevens and three U.S. diplomat personnel.

In the end, the fact is that Obama, in his corrupt leftist ideology, wanted to be re-elected without the American people having the chance to find out the truth about his failure to prevent the deaths of four Americans at the hands of the very same terrorists he claims to have defeated long ago.

Now, he can sleep in the White House every night knowing he had the ability to save Americans and he intentionally allowed them to die because of his lust for power.

We don't know about the terrorists...but Americans are on to him.       

ABC NEWS’ TAPPER ADMITS DERELICTION IN LIBERAL MEDIA’S FAILURE TO COVER BENGHAZI

MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED – At 3:42 p.m. on September 11, 2012, America was attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of four Americans and the possible exposure of covert CIA operations in the region.  Until that day, by howling its own version of the oft criticized Bush-era “Mission Accomplished” banner, the fraudulently elected Obama administration had persistently claimed that America, under Obama, had defeated Al-Qaeda and had the terrorist organization on the run after the alleged killing of terror leader, Osama Bin Laden, in May, 2011.

 

Since then, only one news network, Fox News, has attempted to provide the American people with viable reporting of the events in Benghazi while the pro-Obama networks have allowed misrepresentations and lies to emanate from the criminal regime without challenge apparently in an attempt to help Obama avoid scrutiny before the election on November 6.

Now, further demonstrating the pro-Obama liberal media is nothing more than a Nazi-like propaganda wing of Obama’s usurped executive branch, ABC News’ Jake Tapper has labeled blatant lies from White House about Benghazi as nothing more than merely “prominent theories” and says the reason his media genus refused to cover the story was because they “didn’t want to interfere with a positive narrative about Al Qaeda”.

 

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – According to ABC News’ Senior White House correspondent, Jake Tapper, the liberal mainstream media are guilty of dereliction in their failure to report on the murder of four innocent Americans in a terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya because they believe the attack was far less important than protecting Barack Obama’s political image.

 

Citing the reasons for the pro-Obama media's negligence in an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Wednesday, Tapper said, "They didn’t want to interfere with [the Obama administration’s] positive narrative about Al Qaeda.”

“They didn’t want to interfere with [the Obama administration’s] positive narrative about Al Qaeda.” Jake Tapper, ABC News Sr. WH Correspondent

As terrorists were overrunning the U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya and murdering Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, including CIA security operative Tyrone Woods and QRF agent, Glen Doherty, the media was intentionally ignoring the danger, thus hiding the information from the American people, in order to prevent the public from possibly criticizing Obama for his failure to respond. 

Based on the evidence, there are three instances of failure by the Obama administration which the liberal media has refused to cover. 

1.    The Obama administration’s incompetence in providing increased security measures during the months leading up to the attack despite at least two previous attacks on the complex in April and June, as well as multiple requests from U.S. mission personnel in Benghazi, including an explicit written request from Ambassador Stevens sent directly to Secretary of State Clinton in August, asking for increased security.  These requests were preceded by outright warnings from Stevens and his personnel onsite that the U.S. mission complex could not be defended with current security measures in the event of a coordinated terrorist attack.  The Obama administration ignored these requests presumably because Obama did not want to convey a message of hostility and elevated military presence which, in his view, would send a message that terrorists were still a threat to Americans, despite his lies to the contrary.

2.    The Obama administration’s failure to respond during the attack on September 11, despite multiple “flash traffic” notifications from Africom command in North Africa and Europe stating that the U.S. mission complex and CIA annex were under attack.  The Obama administration apparently also ignored pleas for help from besieged U.S. mission and CIA personnel on the ground as they were being fired upon and burned alive in the compound.   Evidence shows that White House situation room personnel and State Department personnel were being updated and watching live video feeds of the attack in real time indicating they had ample opportunity to order a counter attack from military and rescue forces stationed less than 50 miles away.  The Obama administration ignored these pleas for help, allowing four Americans to be murdered, in order to conceal possible covert CIA operations and protect the Obama administration’s political reputation leading up to the 2012 election.

3.    The Obama administration’s blatant lies over a period of more than four weeks that the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was the result of a protest by offended Muslims reacting to an obscure anti-Islamic YouTube video.  Members of the administration, including Barack Obama, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Sec. of Defense, Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. David Patraeus and U.N. Ambassador, Susan Rice, all intentionally lied about the attack in order to conceal the fact that it was a coordinated terrorist attack against a covert CIA installation and U.S. mission complex involved in sensitive negotiations with foreign diplomats and militant groups in the region. 

On September 25th, just two weeks after the attack, Barack Obama lied to the U.N. assembly when he stated that the attack was caused by a spontaneous riot because of the video.  Obama cited the video six different times during his address.  During the presidential debate on October 3, Obama claims that he acknowledged terrorism as the cause of the attack during his 9/11 Memorial Rose Garden address on September 12^th.  This was also a lie.  A review of the transcript of his address reveals that he did not directly associate terrorism with the 9/11 attack in Benghazi but rather made the association of terrorism with the 9/11 attacks in New York in 2001.   During his Rose Garden address, Obama was speaking about the 9/11 attacks in New York in 2001 when he 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."

He then added a paragraph to separately address the Benghazi attack but did not use the word terrorism in that stanza.  Obama did not publicly associate the terms "terrorism" and "Benghazi" in the same reference until October 27^th, just days before he was fraudulently re-elected to office.  

Director of the CIA, General David Patraeus cited the video in his address to a House Intelligence committee just three days after the attack on September 14th.  It is now suspected that his testimony was vulnerable to coercion by the Obama administration because he was the subject of a secret investigation by the FBI for an extramarital affair with biographer, Paula Broadwell.  It was learned recently that Patraeus actually visited the site of the Benghazi attack just weeks after it occurred during which he consulted with eyewitnesses who most certainly briefed him that the attack was the result of coordinated terrorists, not a spontaneous protest.  Based on the circumstances surrounding Patraeus, it is likely that he was blackmailed and lied to protect his reputation and his job as CIA director under threats of exposure by the administration.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta both lied about the attack on September 17^th during an address to the media at the State Department.  Hillary Clinton called the video “disgusting” and “offensive” saying the government had nothing to do with its production.  Clinton has since avoided all media inquiry about the Benghazi scandal. 

U.N. Ambassador Rice appeared on five separate Sunday news programs citing the video as the cause of the attack.  Obama administration officials have since come to her defense saying her appearance was specifically requested by the White House because she was not attached to the situation.  Rice’s testimony has fallen under intense criticism by lawmakers after Barack Obama defended her, saying she had nothing to do with the events in Benghazi, causing many to then question, therefore, her qualifications to even address the situation on the Sunday news shows.  

Tapper attempted to excuse Ambassador Rice from her responsibility for repeating the administration’s lies by saying that she was only conveying a “prominent theory” about what happened during the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya.  However, Tapper has long known that the administration knew before Rice’s appearance that the attack was the result of terrorists and that the CIA was involved.

It has become irrefutable that the liberal mainstream media in American, and around the world, is under a primary directive to protect the precious image of Barack Obama even if it means violating the tenets of objectivity and factual evidence.  Tapper, like many pro-Obama media activists, has a long and distinguished track record of refusing to challenge the lies coming out of the Obama White House and is widely recognized as a milquetoast fence-sitter when it comes to fulfilling his primary journalistic directive of speaking truth to liberal power.  However, a review of Tapper’s reporting during the Bush administration shows he was aggressive in challenging Republicans, especially when the truth from conservatives damaged the promotion of a liberal narrative.  Tapper’s favorable reporting in support of those involved in the “Journo-list” scandal and the rigging of Global Warming data story are two examples of his leftist orientation.

In the CNN interview, Morgan theorized a possible reason the media refused to cover the Benghazi story was that there “may well just have been the narrative for the White House running for the election of ‘we are defeating al Qaeda’, is not helped if it looks like an al Qaeda type resurgence was up against the ambassador in Benghazi and, indeed, led to his death.”

Tapper agreed, saying, “The Benghazi story…was so politicized with the White House and the administration in a defensive crouch, because they thought every word they said would be twisted and unfairly attacked.  And they didn't obviously want to interfere with a positive narrative about al Qaeda.”

“And Republicans putting out conspiracy theories, some of them not rooted in any facts or evidence, that it was tough to report on this.  Because both sides were not acting normally, as one would hope they would.”

FBI: PATRAEUS WAS VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

MUTINOUS WHISPERS AMONG THE RANKS – In an unprecedented purge of military command, General David Patraeus is the third high ranking member of America’s military intelligence structure to be removed from office indicating a massive effort by the White House to disrupt a recalcitrant culture in the wake of Obama’s massive failure as a fraudulently elected commander of the military.  Patraeus’ departure, after admitting an extramarital affair, follows the firing of the U.S. Navy’s most senior officer, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, and Africom Commander, General Carter Ham, who is believed to have circumvented White House orders in an attempt to send response forces to help personnel of the besieged U.S. mission in Benghazi.

by Dan Crosby

of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY - On September 14, 2012, General David Patraeus, then Director of the CIA, provided testimony to a Congressional House Intelligence committee in which he stated that he believed the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission complex in Benghazi, Libya, three days earlier, which resulted in the murder of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was the result of a spontaneous mob protesting an anti-Islamic YouTube video.

However, prior to Patreaus’ shocking resignation on November 9th, testimony from the National Counterterrorism Center about the attack suggests that he was vulnerable to blackmail by the Obama administration and, therefore, could have been coerced to go along with the video protest narrative despite evidence of terrorism.  At the time of his original testimony in September, Patraeus was the subject of a secret FBI investigation into allegations that he was involved in an extramarital affair with biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Patraeus and Broadwell met in 2006 but private emails and correspondence show the affair probably began sometime in early 2010, 14 months before Patraeus was appointed as CIA Director which raises critical questions about whether or not the White House or CIA was aware that Patraeus was vulnerable to exploitation because of the affair. 

Did Obama and his administration know about the affair between Patraeus and Broadwell before Patraeus was appointed as CIA Director?  If not, who failed to vet Patraeus’ relationships before giving him access to America’s most critical national security information?  If Obama and the administration knew about the affair, why did the Obama Administration proceed to appoint such a vulnerable individual to the most critical national security post?

Patraeus’ original testimony conflicts with briefings from both the FBI and National Counterterrorism Center two days earlier in which officials said the intelligence about the attack indicated that Al-Qaeda or Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were involved.  The FBI and NCTC also told the House Intel committee that there were several al-Qaida training camps just outside Benghazi. The area was described as a hotbed for the militant group, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al-Qaida in North Africa., according to reports from Fox News.

Despite his recent resignation under duress, Patraeus has announced that he will provide further testimony on the Benghazi scandal when congressional committees convene next week.  It is expected he will provide details about his correspondence with Africom QRF personnel and investigators he met with in person in Benghazi just weeks after the attack. 

According to reports, the Benghazi mission complex was previously attacked in April and June, apparently unbeknownst to Barack Obama.  Administration officials have repeatedly defended Obama saying that he was not aware of previous attacks on the Benghazi complex but members of congress say his lack of knowledge of the previous attacks is implausible because it would indicate incalculable incompetence and lack of leadership.  

Senator Lindsay Graham (R. SC) indicted Obama's claims of disconnection with the situation in Benghazi saying, "Imagine if a reporter had asked Barack Obama to comment a day after the first attack on the Benghazi consulate in April.  Would he have said, 'I'm sorry, I have no knowledge of that'? It's ridiculous.  The president did not know America was under attack?  According to those defending him, that is what he would have had to have said.  He didn't know about the previous attacks.  This president's lack of connection with these events is unprecedented."

Based on this timeline, it becomes inconceivable that the Obama Administration, the State Department, the FBI and the CIA were willing to allow Patraeus to assume the position as the nation’s top national security official knowing he was at risk of being blackmailed.  Or, worse, that no one vetted him well enough to discover his affair with Broadwell, which began a year and half before hiring him.

The investigation of Patraeus began when a friend of Patraeus, Jill Kelley, notified the FBI that she had received threatening emails from an anonymous individual expressing jealousy about Kelley's relationship with Patraeus which, by all accounts, was not intimate or sexual.  The subsequent investigation revealed the emails were sent by Broadwell using anonymous email accounts. 

The FBI knew in May, 2012 of the harassing emails sent by Petraeus' mistress to the Tampa party thrower, Kelley, who was a volunteer event planner at MacDill AFB Central Command, which Petraeus commanded.  This raises serious questions about whether or not the Obama administration was aware of the investigation during the seven months leading up to the election, or did it intentionally hide the details about the affair from the public until after the election in order to protect Obama. 

Upon learning of the details after Patraeus sudden resignation, officials immediately expressed concern about a connection between the Patraeus' affair and the Obama administration's failure in Benghazi.  Given Patraeus' testimony on September 14 in light of what is now known about the attack, it is reasonable to conclude that Patraeus would have known the attack was the result of terrorism, not a video protest.       

During his September 14th testimony, Patraeus said, “The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack.”

 

Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House Intel committee, said Petraeus laid out “a chronological order exactly what we felt happened, how it happened, and where we’re going in the future.”

 

“In the Benghazi area, in the beginning we feel that it was spontaneous – the protest- because it went on for two or three hours, which is very relevant because if it was something that was planned, then they could have come and attacked right away,” Ruppersberger, D-Md., said following the hour-long briefing by Petraeus.

 

“At this point it looks as if there was a spontaneous situation that occurred and that as a result of that, the extreme groups that were probably connected to al Qaeda took advantage of that situation and then the attack started.”

 

Four days after Patraeus' original testimony in September, Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice was asked by Obama to appear on multiple networks defending the administration's claims that the video was to blame, also.

 

Now, following Patraeus’ resignation, congressional leadership is openly questioning whether Patreaus’ original testimony was the result of his fear of being blackmailed by someone in the Obama Administration seeking to cover up the facts about the Benghazi debacle.

 

Fox News’ Charles Krauthammer questioned circumstances surrounding Patraeus saying, “I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.”

 

He continued, “And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 14. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?”

 

While Petraeus prepares again to give his side, congress is openly questioning when Petraeus first knew about the investigation that uncovered his affair -- and whether it impacted his statements to Congress on Sept. 14 about the Libya terror attack.

Petraeus briefed lawmakers that day that the attack was akin to a flash mob, and some top lawmakers noted to Fox News he seemed "wedded" to the administration's narrative that it was a demonstration spun out of control.

 

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News he now questions whether Petraeus' statements -- which were in conflict with both the FBI briefing and available raw intelligence -- were in any way impacted by the knowledge the FBI was investigating his affair with Broadwell.

 

King questioned whether the investigation "consciously or subconsciously" affected his statements to Congress.

OBAMA’S INDONESIAN RECORDS FURTHER UNDERMINE HIS CLAIMS OF ELIGIBILITY

THE FULLMOST MEASURE OF SOVEREIGNTY - By default, all candidates are ineligible, not eligible, to hold the office of President until they are proven otherwise.  Natural-born citizens are those citizens born under what America’s founders commonly and mutually held as the natural laws of God which, thereby, afford the individual with natal citizenry protected under both the jurisdiction of the constitutional laws of the nation, and by birth to two citizen parents, without relinquishment of that status by expatriation, renunciation or foreign adoption. 

By Dan Crosby

of THE DAILY PEN

 

NEW YORK, NY – A report released today by TheBlaze.com further affirms that Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as the U.S. president and, therefore, became an illegal president in 2008, because he relinquished his natural-born citizenship status when he became a citizen of Indonesia and that he, most likely, was adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. 

 

Upon completion of an investigation in Indonesia, the report by TheBlaze's Charles Johnson only clarifies public perception that Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy to hold the office of U.S. President will remain permanently damaged in the absence of confirmative evidence proving otherwise.  It was deemed so in this manner so that a candidate’s eligibility could be upheld by the people’s understanding that their welfare was securely held within inviolable sovereignty.

 

By the expressed Constitutional consent of the people, the office of the U.S. President shall only be held by those individuals who meet the eligibility mandate by a maximal fulfillment of the standards required, not a minimal fulfillment.  This means that a candidate is not entitled to be president based on a lack of evidence which might prove he is not eligible but rather by his ability to demonstrate his full devotion to American sovereignty without plural allegiances. 

 

If this can be accomplished with original documented evidence, the evidence should be provided without contention.  If it cannot be provided, then it is reasonable for the American people to declare that it does not exist and, therefore, the candidate is not eligible, by default.  

 

Candidates who fail to meet the measureable standards of eligibility defined by age and duration of residence as well as the full-most possible precepts of the natural-born citizenship requirement, are inferior and deficient by varying degrees up to and including disqualification, unless they are able to refute their lack of legitimacy with irrefutable evidence. 

 

In order to be seen as legitimate, the candidate must prove he is eligible, not suffer the people to show proof that he is not eligible.  In serving the office illegitimately, Obama has chosen the latter path of minimalism.  The path of inferiority.  The path of usurpation…the path of wrath and vengeance and destruction. 

 

The long-held conclusion that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and, therefore, not eligible to be President, is based on a lack of evidence proving three primary metrics of his natal citizenship.  Unlike the majority of Obama’s bowing liberal consensus who defend a minimalist fulfillment of the eligibility standards to hold this venerated, blood-ransomed office, in the absence of understanding of the guidance provided by the Constitution, it is imperative that we seek to serve not only the letter of the eligibility law, but the intention of the spirit of the law as well. 

 

There remains no credible documented evidence confirming Obama’s parentage.  We have been told by uncorroborated sources, including the State of Hawaii, that Obama’s father was Barack Obama, Sr., a British citizen from Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth.  However, the only piece of information making any allusion to this parentage is an uncertified .pdf image of an alleged 1961 birth record posted to a series of websites with a history of bias in support of Obama’s claims of legitimacy.

 

The image of this so-called birth certificate has since been discredited by a formal law enforcement investigation as a forged counterfeit and, therefore, cannot be relied up on whatsoever to validate Obama's natal identity or natural born citizenship.   

 

Secondly, there is also no evidence confirming with absolute assurance that Obama was born in the U.S.  Since the image of the alleged birth certificate has been determined to be fraudulent, there is now no other public record of Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii, or anywhere else.  This lack of evidence, by default, disqualifies his candidacy for the office of President. 

 

Finally, there is documented evidence that Obama became a citizen of another country, Indonesia.  This means he lost his natural born citizenship status prior to being elected which, therefore, means he was never eligible for the office of President by on his lack of continuity of natural born citizenship.

 

The story posted on www.theblaze.com is as follows: 

 

By Charles C. Johnson

Of TheBlaze

Editor’s note (from TheBlaze): Writer Charles C. Johnson will join TheBlaze Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker to talk about this story on today’s BlazeCast.

As part of our series on President Obama’s education and past, we interviewed Barack Obama’s first ever principal, Father Bart Janssen. Our freelance correspondent, Charles C. Johnson, went all the way to Indonesia to find out more about Obama’s past.

 

Enrollment documents viewed by TheBlaze confirm that a young Barack Obama was listed as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim on school registration in the 1960s. And while the document has been reported on before, albeit lightly, TheBlaze has compiled the most complete view thus far of the document and the circumstances surrounding it – including an interview with the president’s first-ever principal while he was in Indonesia.

 

TheBlaze repeatedly photographed the document in the office of the current headmaster of Santo Fransiskus Assisis, a Catholic school that Obama attended from January 1968 to December 1970 in Jakarta.  The record shows that Obama (or his parents) – at least for the period of his life – claimed to be an Indonesian citizen, that he took the last name Soetoro (the last name of his step-father, Lolo), that his religion was listed as Islam, and that he was born in Honolulu.

 

While Obama’s time at Santo Fransiskus is important (and we’ll explore it in more detail shortly), it’s just as crucial to fastforward to when Obama left the school.

 

According to records at Santo Fransiskus Assisis, Obama left after 1970 because his family moved. That move was due to Lolo leaving Dinas Topografi, a mapmaking survey company that contracted with the Indonesian army—which is listed in the document we viewed—to join Union Oil where he became a well-connected government liaison officer.

 

That job came with perks, among them access to some of the best schools for young Barry Soetoro. That’s evident by the young Obama attending Besuki School, one of the three best public schools in Indonesia, after leaving St. Fransiskus. Besuki School is the sort of place the connected send their children when they are not already sending them to the pricy international school.  (This is an important detail because once Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, got a job working for the Ford Foundation in 1980, and after she had divorced Lolo Soetoro, she began sending her daughter, Maya, to Jakarta International School.)

 

In a taped interview in Indonesian and subsequent email with Akhmad Solikhin, Besuki’s current principal, he told my Indonesian translator and me that, other than Obama, there has only been one non-Indonesian at the school—a Dutch student. That’s not surprising considering Besuki School, founded in 1934, was formerly Carpentier Alting Stichting Nassau School — a school run and controlled by the Dutch for the Dutch colonialists and the Indonesian elite.  In 1962 — before Obama attended in 1970 — it was taken over by the Indonesian government. Besuki was then and is now a prestigious place where potential students sit on waitlists. In fact, in 2007 Besuki began using a mandatory admissions test to try and cut down on the number of Indonesian children trying to get in.

 

Why is this all important? Because given that history, it doesn’t seem likely that the school would have wasted one of their prized seats on a student not claiming to be Indonesian, especially when it was the sort of place that educated the children of government officials and the well-to-do.

 

Could Obama Have Gone to a Public Indonesian School Without Claiming to Be a Citizen?

 

Thanks to the political instability in Indonesia that took place between 1965-1967, public records for the 1960s are spotty, at best, for all levels of government. Only the Catholic school Obama attended – St. Fransiskus — had any records to speak of regarding claims of citizenship.

 

Nevertheless, my Indonesian-born translator and I were able to speak with several government officials about the policy governing adoptions and foreign nationals attending public school. Was it possible that Obama could have gotten into Indonesian public schools without claiming to be an Indonesian citizen?

 

“It is extremely rare that non-Indonesians go to Indonesian public school,” Liperty Marpaum told us. He is a staff member of the department of Law & Labor (Hukum & Pegawaian), which handles education policies for the Indonesian government. Foreigners must apply and ask permission for the department of education before they may enroll and even must give a copy of their passport and reasons for wanting to go to school in the country. Most of the foreigners, he said, are Asians—Filipinos, Thai, and the like, not Europeans. And Americans? “No. All of the Americans go to international school.”

We searched for any such permission document Obama may have submitted to the department of education by Lolo Soetoro or Ann Dunham, but came up empty. We also could not find records at Besuki School, despite requests.

 

So how did Obama get in?

 

It has been a source of speculation for some time that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. It is always a possibility, and it could explain at least the citizenship claim on the school form. However, it’s important to not that even if Obama was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen, he would not have lost his American citizenship under existing constitutional law (see the Supreme Court case Perkins v. Elg). Indonesia then and now does not allow dual citizenship, but under American law he would not have lost his American citizenship until he reached the age of majority and chose himself to give it up.

 

(Think of it this way: Your parents cannot decide you are no longer a U.S. citizen if you are natural born. But if you make the decision yourself once old enough —join a foreign army, for example — you could very well lose your citizenship.)

 

Defenders of the president (and detractors of the adoption theory) point to a 1958 Indonesian law that says a child cannot be adopted if they are over five years old and that Barry and his mother arrived in August 1967—after he had turned six.  But Lolo and Ann Dunham married on March 15, 1965, when Obama was three and half and Lolo left for Indonesia in June 1966 while Obama was still four, according to Washington Post editor David Maraniss’s book, “Barack Obama: The Story.” Soetoro, then, could easily have filled out adoption forms, possibly in advance of the Indonesian school year that begins in July, in preparation of his wife and stepson’s arrival. We know that Obama’s mother suddenly reversed her previous position that her husband’s departure to Indonesia would cause undue mental hardship (Maraniss, p. 201) so presumably she had settled on living in Indonesia with her husband and child. Under Indonesian law, when a man married a woman with children, the woman’s children become Indonesian nationals, as well.

 

Additionally, the way Maraniss describes the relationship between Obama and his stepfather is like it were an adoption. “Like his mother, Barry took the Soetoro name. He called Ann mamah and Lolo papah and did not flinch when Lolo introduced him as his son.” (Maraniss, p. 230) So complete was the view that Barack Obama was Barry Soetoro that Israel Darmawan, Obama’s first grade teacher at Fransiskus Assisis, did not recognize who he was, according to one account.

 

A History of Mistruths 

 

While the current headmaster of Fransiskus Assisis did not know whose handwriting was on the form, she said it was safe to assume that the information on it was provided by Obama’s mother — his stepfather visited only rarely during the three years Obama attended school. That raises another theory: Could Ann Soetoro, who was said to have been very interested in her son’s education so much so that she tutored him in the morning, have lied or stretched the truth regarding her son’s status to help him get into Besuki school, the best school she could? If so, it wouldn’t be the last time that she did everything she could to have her son get the best possible education.

 

Maraniss describes Dunham as “tireless at working the system, even from afar” as one of the reasons Obama got into the elite Punahou prep school in Hawaii. Nor would it be the last time he and his family would lie about his origins.  Indeed, Maraniss notes Obama came from a family of liars who told tall tales about his origins:

 

“His grandfather [Stanley] had told strangers that the boy was a descendant of ali ‘i, native Hawaiian royalty. In Obama’s later memoir, he recalled boasting at Punahou that his father was an African prince. Some classmates remembered it differently, that first he claimed his father was an Indonesian prince.” (p. 268).

 

Maraniss is most likely referring to Kirsten B. Caldwell, who wrote in a 2008 collection that Obama had told her and her sister that he was an Indonesian prince:

 

“My sister and I remember Barry bragging about his father being an Indonesian prince (in his book, Dreams From My Father, he recalls telling people his father was an African prince, but we tennis court kids remember it the other way). We didn’t know it, but at that point, he was a young boy who didn’t know his real father, and had been living in Indonesia with his mother, stepfather, and half-sister, and had recently moved to a small apartment in Honolulu to live with his grandparents in order to attend a highly acclaimed private school on scholarship. What a culture shock! I can certainly understand how a new kid would want to seem more exotic when he was likely feeling a little insecure. I just figured he was an Indonesian prince who would go back for his legacy after graduation.” (“Our Friend Barry,” p. 69) [Emphasis added]

 

It doesn’t end there. Obama’s Occidental College classmate Amiekohel “Kim” Kimbrew of Los Angeles recalled rumors that Obama was a “Hawaiian prince” to the Chicago Tribune. (“Activism blossomed in college,” Chicago Tribune, March 30, 2007).

 

We also know from reports in the student newspaper that Occidental, which prides itself on its diversity and international relations focus, was trying to bring more minority students to campus at the time. Might Obama have tried to pass himself off as still more diverse? Could he even have lied to “seem more exotic” to an admissions officer at Occidental or Columbia?

 

Add all that to the fact that Obama embellished in his book, Dreams from My Father, as Maraniss has noted, and that TheBlaze has also revealed in the past he lied about a “transfer program” he describes between Occidental and Columbia in the same book (no such transfer program exists).

That raises the question: Were Obama’s parents lying when they told Fransiskus Assisis that he was an Indonesian citizen?

 

It’s hard to say, but the answers to such questions matter.

 

What the Founder of Obama’s Indonesian School Told Us

 

To find out more about Obama’s time in Indonesia, TheBlaze tracked down Father Bart Janssen. He’s the elderly founder of Santo Fransiskus Assisis who we found in a monastery in Den Bosch, The Netherlands. We asked him, through a Dutch translator, what he remembers of the young Barack Obama.

 

In the late 1960s, Janssen was sent by the Bishop of Jakarta to set up a church in the region, which at the time was a small village well beyond the city limits of Jakarta (though now sits practically in the middle of Jakarta due to the amazing growth of the city). And while his goal was a church, the school was a way to assimilate into the community.

 

“There were not Catholic churches or schools in that area at the time – it was quite remote, a little village, if you will. Offering a good education was a typical way to get the local people involved with the church and become part of the community,” Janssen told us.

 

The school started in February 1967 and attracted about 50 students in the first years: “It was quite a challenge in the beginning, especially to attract children and grow the school and the church in such a remote area, but it became a success after a few years.”

 

Obama was signed up for the school in 1968 as part of the second class of students entering the school. He was six years old at the time and attended first, second, and third grade there. Janssen doesn’t remember who registered Obama, but he recalls that Obama’s mother didn’t speak Indonesian at the time, so he thinks that both the stepfather and the mother would have been there together to register their son. He also doesn’t think the details in Obama’s registration document should be considered official declarations of his faith or citizenship because it wasn’t a government form and people played loose with such facts at the time. For example, it was typical to register as Indonesian and Islamic just because you were living there, so the religion indicated may just be what his father put down because it was the normal thing to do.

 

“That was just the norm,” Janssen explained.

 

It was, Janssen added however, well known that Obama was American and came to the school from Hawaii. And Janssen said he also had an understanding that Obama was raised Christian, though not Catholic, because his mother and natural father were known to be so. Janssen also said he knew that Obama’s birth father was from Kenya and that his mother was American.

 

And it wasn’t a requirement to be Indonesian or Catholic to attend the school. Things were loose in terms of citizenship requirements in Indonesia, Janssen recalled. He himself had Dutch citizenship when he first set up the school in 1967 and it wasn’t until 1982 that he changed his citizenship to Indonesian. He switched citizenship back to Dutch in 2005 when he returned to the Netherlands.

 

Obama at Age Six: I Want to Be President

Though Indonesian citizenship wasn’t required, courses were taught in Indonesian and Obama learned the language in three months. Father Janssen recalled that when Obama took his Indonesian speaking test for the school, the young student told the class that he wanted to be president some day.

 

“He said he would like to be president, but he didn’t say president of which country,” Janssen said. “It ‘s quite remarkable that he had that idea back then and now, in fact, he is president of the United States.”

 

While Father Janssen didn’t teach classes and has no direct recollection about Obama’s performance as a student, he said Obama’s teacher told him that Obama was a good student and received good grades.

 

“He learned Indonesian in 3 months, after all,” he said.

 

He added that Obama’s parents rented a house nearby so that their son could attend the school, and also remembers that Obama was quite a bit bigger than most other students there.

 

Obama wasn’t the only foreign student in the school, but Janssen doesn’t recall how many were Indonesian students and how many came from other countries. He said about half the students were Catholic and the rest were other religions, including many of Islamic faith.

 

“It wasn’t a requirement to be Catholic, but they would be taught Catholic principles and values.”

 

Where does all this leave us, then? Here’s what we know:

 

1.The document for the first-ever school Obama attended in Indonesia lists him as an Indonesian citizen (born in Hawaii) and a Muslim.

 2.Those claims would have benefited a young Obama as he continued his schooling.

 3.The Catholic priest who started the school, however, says it was not odd to lie about such things.

 4.We know that Obama and his family have a history of mistruths.

 5.But it’s also not far-fetched to consider that Obama’s step-father, Lolo, could have adopted him – thus making him an Indonesian citizen as a young boy.

 6.Even if he was adopted and was an Indonesian citizen at one time, though, it would not have affected his status as a U.S. citizen per the Supreme Court.

 

Still, that leaves many questions. And the truth lies somewhere in those facts. Ultimately, only Obama knows for sure what that truth is. And depending on what happens on Tuesday we may or may not know anytime soon.

 

An exit after one term from the White House could act as a catalyst for more information more quickly. An Obama win, on the other hand, would likely keep any information – at least from the president himself — sealed for at least four more years.

 

Voters on Tuesday, then, may be deciding more than just who the next president is – they could help decide how much more we know about the one we have now.