Friday, May 9, 2014

When John Kerry Berated Nigeria for Treatment of Boko Haram, Then Complained They Offer No Health Care

Remember when John Kerry chastised Nigeria for aggressively going after Boko Haram? That was about June 2013, four months or so after Hillary Clinton left her legacy as the most traveled, least concerned on national security, and most dangerous Secretary of State in the history of our country, who coincidentally refused to classify Boko Haram a terrorist organization. She single-handedly enabled Ansar al-Sharia’s attack on our Benghazi Special Mission. 

Boko Haram

Enter John Kerry:
However, the Nigerian government recently did go on the offensive to try to contain the jihadis in northern Nigeria—only to be chastised, according to Reuters, by the Obama administration, in the person of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, “in a strongly worded statement, saying: “We are… deeply concerned by credible allegations that the Nigerian security forces are committing gross human rights violations…..” against the jihadi mass murderers. Source: Gatestone Institute March 2013
One more:

“The kidnapping of hundreds of children by Boko Haram is an unconscionable crime, and we will do everything possible to support the Nigerian government to return these young women to their homes and to hold the perpetrators to justice,” Kerry said in a speech in Ethiopia.

“I will tell you, my friends, I have seen this scourge of terror across the planet, and so have you,” he continued. “They [terrorists] don’t offer anything except violence. They don’t offer a health care plan, they don’t offer schools. They don’t tell you how to build a nation, they don’t talk about how they will provide jobs. They just tell people, ‘You have to behave the way we tell you to,’ and they will punish you if you don’t. Source: Townhall
Can you believe that? Our Secretary of State lamenting that terrorists, specifically Muslim terrorists, not offering a health care plan – it’s bizarre! I can forgive even terrorists for not following this administration’s plan to “provide jobs.”

Not only can you not make this stuff up, the inept, witless analysis behind it is incomprehensible. Moving on to the story:

Not a single Muslim country is among those believed to be joining with the West and China to try to rescue the kidnapped girls from Boko Haram. Not one. According to the CIA World Factbook, Nigeria is 50% Muslim, 40% Christian, an English speaking country, with both “traditional” and Islamic law. Where is the United Arab Emirates? Where is Kuwait? Where is Saudi Arabia?

A Nigerian evangelist said that most of the 200 plus schoolgirls kidnapped by terrorist group Boko Haram are Christians, which he says is further evidence of the militant Islamists’ specific targeting of followers of Christ. 
“Chibok local government is 90% Christian. Majority of the girls abducted are Christian! Why did Boko Haram visit Chibok local government? Why didn’t they visit so many other local government girls secondary schools in Borno State?” asked Evangelist Matthew Owojaiye of the Old Time Revival Hour Church in Kaduna, who compiled a list of 180 kidnapped girls who have been identified, International Christian Concern shared.
Of those, Owojaiye identified that 163 are Christian girls, and 15 are Muslims. Source: Christian Post

Accosting jihad with a hashtag is about as sad as it gets, #BringBackOurGirls. How about this hastag: #EliminateIslam? What is even sadder is CNN crowing that the women of Nigera are not powerless, they have “made the world pay attention.” 

The U.K., France, the U.S. and China stepping in, is like sticking a finger in a dike. There isn’t a child on the face of this earth who is safe while the practice of Islam is allowed. It’s just the damn truth.

A little recent history (almost all of the following was posted on my blog by Findalis):

 Nigeria: Finally, as to the Christian pastor, members of Boko Haram came across Rev. Jacob Kwiza, a retired pastor with the Church of Christ in Nigeria, who was working in his fields. They demanded that he renounce the Christian faith and when he refused they slit his throat, killing him. June 2013

 Cameroon: The Islamic group Boko Haram, from neighboring Nigeria, slit the throat of a Christian missionary, David Dina Mataware, who had worked in a Nigeria-based mission agency in Cameroon for 14 years, bringing the Gospel to remote tribes, and a French priest, Father Georges Vandenbeusch, was kidnapped. December 2013

 Nigeria: After kidnapping a teenage Christian girl named Hajja, members of the Boko Haram terrorist organization kept her as a slave, eventually putting a knife to her throat and offering her one of two choices: convert to Islam or die. “If I cried, they beat me. If I spoke, they beat me. They told me I must become a Muslim but I refused again and again… They were about to slaughter me and one of them begged me not to resist and just before I had my throat slit I relented. They put a veil on me and made me read from the Koran.” According to Reuters, “She ceremonially converted to Islam, cooked for the men, carried ammunition during an attack on a police outpost and was about to be married to one of the insurgents before she managed to engineer a dramatic escape. She says she was not raped.” Recounting how her captors used her to lure people into traps, the 19-year-old told Reuters, and “They took them back to a cave and tied them up. They cut their throats, one at a time. I thought my heart would burst out of my chest, because I was the bait.” Among those who did the slaughtering was the Muslim wife of a leader, the only other woman in the band of jihadi terrorists. Separately, a Baptist high school principal and some teachers were beaten to a “pulp” and “state of coma” at the hands of “unknown persons,” who used axes, among other weapons. The reason was that the school had earlier sent home a female student for wearing a veil, or Islamic hijab, while on school premises. Finally, over 70 Christians were killed by what were described as “Islamic extremists”: Boko Haram terrorists killed 34 Christians in Borno State, while “Muslim herdsmen” slaughtered 37 Christians, injured dozens, and looted and destroyed their homes, in coordinated attacks on four Plateau State villages. November 2013

 Nigeria: A former Muslim terrorist recounted in detail the jihad on Christians and how Islamic organizations in the nation, not just Boko Haram, see the slaughter of Christians as one of the loftiest goals to which Muslims can aspire. He also explained how, “If we ask our victim, ‘Will you become a Muslim or not’ and he or she refuses, we will slaughter him like a goat…August 2013

 Nigeria: Members or supporters of the Islamist organization Boko Haram set off four bombs planted near three Protestant churches in Kano city, killing at least 45 people. Local Christians were meeting for Bible study at Christ Salvation Pentecostal Church when one explosion hit, and 39 bodies were recovered in the area; another bomb went off as Christians were meeting at St. Stephen’s Anglican Church; and an explosion apparently targeting Peniel Baptist Church failed to affect the building. July 2013

 Nigeria: Increasing numbers of Christian girls in Muslim-majority areas, where the Islamist group Boko Haram holds sway, are being abducted, kept in the homes of Muslim leaders and forced to renounce their faith. According to Professor Daniel Babayi, secretary of the Northern Christian Association of Nigeria, the issue is getting severely worse: “Christian girls below the age of 18 are forcefully abducted and made to denounce their faith… They have been kept in the houses of emirs or imams. When we report to the police, they tell you there is nothing they can do. The police have become very helpless. In some instances, they are part of the conspiracy.” Last year, Boko Haram had declared that it would begin doing precisely this—kidnap Christian women—as a way “to strike fear into the Christians of the power of Islam.”July 2013

 Nigeria: At least 28 were killed in a series of explosions throughout a Christian neighborhood in the Muslim-majority northern city of Kano. The attacks happened in the evening while people were out “to enjoy the area’s nightlife.” The same neighborhood had been targeted in the past by Boko Haram, which is responsible for killing more than 2,000 people. Although several nations have designated the group a terrorist organization, the current U.S. government refuses to do so, even as several American policymakers push for the designationJuly 2013

 Nigeria: According to Christian Today, Boko Haram “has repeatedly attacked Christian communities and churches, most recently killing 40 at a boarding school in Yobe state on 6 July. A dormitory was set aflame while the children were sleeping; those trying to escape were gunned down. A month earlier, 16 other students were shot dead in attacks on a secondary school in Yobe and another school in Borno. True to its name, “Boko Haram,” or “Western Education is a Sin,” the group has recently asserted, “Teachers who teach western education? We will kill them! We will kill them in front of their students, and tell the students to henceforth study the Quran.” July 2013

Nigeria: Four churches were burned in an attack committed by members of the jihadi group Boko Haram in Borno State in the Muslim-majority north of the country. According to Agenzia Fides, “A group of armed men with improvised explosive devices and petrol bombs attacked the Hwa’a, Kunde, Gathahure and Gjigga communities on Gwoza Hills, burning the 4 churches, raiding and looting cattle and grain reserves belonging to the population.” Discussing the ongoing terrorism Christians in the north are exposed to, one pastor lamented, “There are Christian villages that have been completely wiped out by these Muslim terrorists… Christian fellowship activities and evangelism outreaches are no longer possible…. For a number of years, the attacks on Christians in these three local government areas have caused the displacement of thousands of Christians there. There is a very lamentable problem, as we are no longer able to worship God as Christians in this part of Nigeria.” June 2013

 Nigeria: Finally, as to the Christian pastor, members of Boko Haram came across Rev. Jacob Kwiza, a retired pastor with the Church of Christ in Nigeria, who was working in his fields. They demanded that he renounce the Christian faith and when he refused they slit his throat, killing him. June 2013 

 Nigeria: Continues to be the most dangerous nation for Christians—where more Christians have been killed last year than all around the Muslim world combined. In one instance, Boko Haram Muslim militants stormed the home of a Pentecostal pastor and secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria, and opened fire on him, instantly murdering himMay 2013

 Nigeria: Separately, other Boko Haram gunmen killed 14 Christians, including the cousin and two nephews of the Rev. Moses Thliza, head of a Christian organization dedicated to preventing AIDS and caring for AIDS patients and orphans: Said Thliza: “My cousin, Bulus [Paul] Buba, was dragged out at gunpoint from his house by the Boko Haram members. They collected his car keys, demanded money and asked him three times to renounce his Christian faith, and three times he declined to do so [prompting them to execute him]. The attackers met three guards on duty, killed two of them by cutting their necks with knives, and then proceeded to take the third guard, Amtagu Samiyu, at gunpoint to lead them to where the keys of the deputy governor’s house is.” May 2013

 Nigeria: As for some Christians observing a wake two kilometers away, Boko Haram Muslims asked to know what was going on there, and when they
learned that people were saying prayers for an elderly Christian woman who had died, they charged in and shot into the crowd. “The attackers went there and shot indiscriminately at the worshippers, killing eight Christians—two women and six elderly men,” said Thliza. “In all, we buried 14 Christians. Some were injured and taken to the hospital.” Despite all this, when the Nigerian government tried militarily to confront and neutralize Boko Haram, the Obama administration criticized it, warning it not to violate the “human rights” of the Islamic terrorists. May 2013

 Nigeria: According to the Rev. Jerome Ituah, “Out of the 52 Catholic churches in Maiduguri diocese, 50 of them have been destroyed by [terrorist group] Boko Haram. When two Christian brothers were returning home after Sunday church service, jihadis opened fire on them with machine guns, killing the brothers, as well as three others, and injuring several more Christians.” March 2013

 Nigeria: Another 13 Christian factory workers in Kano were “gruesomely” slain. According to the local bishop, “Reports of the attack reaching us disclosed that on that fateful Saturday at about 7 p.m, Muslim faithful were conducting their prayer close to the affected compound occupied by Christian families, when two taxi cabs stopped in front of the compound and the occupants, who all concealed their arms, dashed into the complex and demanded to know why the residents were not part of the 7 p.m. Muslim prayer. They responded by telling the visitors they were Christians and so could not be part of the Muslim gathering. At that point, they separated the men from their wives and children and shot them dead on the spot after ordering the women and children into their homes” to be enslaved. March 2013

Cameroon: Two Muslim converts to Christianity were shot dead and two others wounded, in the Christian-majority African nation where Muslims make up approximately 20% of the population. One of the converts was previously threatened by the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram ["Western Education is a Sin"] to return to Islam or “face Allah’s wrath.” The attack occurred when these two Muslim converts to Christianity and two others were travelling together around Lake Chad. Their vehicle was stopped by armed men who forced the four Christians out of the vehicle and opened fire on them. The slain Christians leave behind wives and several children. February 2013

 Nigeria: A total of 30 Christians were slaughtered in two separate attacks carried out by armed men ahead of the New Year, in the Muslim-majority north: on Sunday December 30, 15 people were killed when armed jihadis stormed a church and opened fire on worshippers. The night before, Muslim terrorists broke into targeted homes and slaughtered 15 other Christians in their sleep. “The victims were selected because they were all Christians, some of whom had moved into the neighbourhood from other parts of the city hit by Boko Haram attacks,” said a relief worker. Meanwhile, Nigerian president Jonathan revealed that Boko Haram has enablers even within his own government: “The saboteurs in government condoning terrorism by Boko Haram, you do not love this nation,” he said. “Those of you who leak secrets to Boko Haram do not love this nation.” January 2013

† Nigeria: After a renewed spate of church attacks, thousands of Christians continue to flee northern areas of Nigeria, which are predominantly Muslim, and where the jihadi organization Boko Haram holds sway. An Islamic suicide bomber rammed an SUV loaded with explosives into St. Rita Catholic Church holding Sunday Mass; he killed eight people and wounded more than 100. One “journalist saw the bodies of four worshippers lying on the floor of the church after the blast, surrounded by broken glass. The body of the suicide bomber had been blasted into nearby rubble.” The church building, charred black, was devastated. Also, the Church of Brethren was raided by Islamic gunmen who killed at least two people and set the church ablaze. Many churches, fearing further attacks, are shutting down. October 2012

 Nigeria: Up to 30 Christian college students were shot or had their throats slit at a university in the Muslim-majority north. During the night, masked gunmen went door-to-door in the off-campus housing section of Federal Polytechnic College in the city of Moby: “the gunmen separated the Christian students from the Muslim students, addressed each victim by name, questioned them, and then proceeded to shoot them or slit their throat.” Among motives cited are reprisals against the fact that former Boko Haram Muslims, renouncing terrorism, converted to Christianity. Other former Boko Haram members have not converted to Christianity but have seen the “goodness of the Christian religion” and now warn Christians before there is an attack. October 2012

 Nigeria: The Islamic terrorist organization Boko Haram [Western Education is a Sin] continued its jihad [holy war] to purge north Nigeria of all Christians. In one instance, gunmen murdered a 57-year-old evangelist of a Pentecostal church. When threatened earlier, he had said “I leave everything in the hands of God.” August 2012

 Nigeria: In what is described as an ongoing genocide of Christians over 65 people, including two politicians, were killed in a triple attacks on Christians. First, Muslims destroyed 43 Christian-owned farms. Nobody was arrested. Then they attacked nine Christian villages around the city of Jos, killing dozens of people“They came in hundreds,” said an official, “Some had police uniforms and some even had bulletproof vests.” In one instance, Christians fleeing the violence took refuge in the house of a local church leader, which was bombed and more than 50 Christians were burned alive, including the pastor’s wife and children. Then the Muslims attacked the funeral for the victims of the village raids, killing several more people. Security forces said Muslim Fulani herdsmen were responsible but Islamist militant group Boko Haram issued a statement saying: “We thank Allah for the successful attack.” Separately, Islamic motorcycle assassins gunned down four ChristiansJuly 2012

 Nigeria: A Boko Haram suicide car bomber from the Islamist group Boko Haram [Arabic translation: "Western Education is a Sin"] attacked a Catholic church, killing at least 10 people. The bomb detonated as worshippers attended Mass at St. Finbar’s Catholic Church in Jos, a city in which thousands of Christians have died in the last decade as a result of Boko Haram’s jihad, and where, less than two weeks before, another church was attacked, killing threeMarch 2012 

Good luck to our Americans heading for Nigeria to try to track down these die-hard, Muslim child predators. I have no doubt they can find them and kill them; not so certain about finding the girls alive or even in fair health, but maybe our people will have time to make it out of Nigeria, back to their own families for a short time before a replacement pops up and kidnaps twice as many in half the time. Had the world, not the U.S., but the world, paid attention to all you see above, these girls would be home with their families.

Threats and Intimidation by Hillel and Jewish Federation at UC Irvine

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Anteaters for Israel forced to cancel speaking appearance by Nonie Darwish at I-Fest.

                                   "One person's hate speech is another person's education."

Hat tip Frontpage Magazine


Nicole Hungerford has an article in Frontpage Magazine describng how Hillel of Orange County and the Orange County Jewish Federation pressured Anteaters for Israel, a Jewish student group on the UC Irvine campus to withdraw a speaking invitation to Nonie Darwish.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/nichole-hungerford/uc-irvine-hillel-forces-cancellation-of-pro-israel-speaker/     

In response, Hilell's statements about Nonie Darwsih do not hold water. I have attended the last two appearances of Darwish to the UCI campus, and there was no security problem or incident. (Of course, she travels with her own security because of the threats on her life. Secondly, as a representative of Arabs for Israel, Darwish could have limited her talk to her support for Israel as a native-born Egyptian. How is that divisive?

In my last several years of confronting anti-Semitic hate speech on the UC Irvine campus, I have learned that Hillel is a useless organization at best and a big problem at worst. Of course, Hillel chapters, which are devoted to enhancing Jewish student life on campuses, vary from area to area, and I have no beef with those endeavors Presently, There is a great struggle going on as we speak between the new national leadership, which is against the involvement in Hillel of groups hostile to Israel vs several "open chapters", who want to accommodate anti-Israel Jews as well. Just to give you a taste of the flavor of Orange County Hillel, here is a piece I posted back in 2011 regarding this outfit.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2011/04/interfaith-event-at-chapman-university.html?m=1

I may not have a dog in that hunt, but I do object when Hillel's lack of willingness to stand up to anti-Semitism when it comes from campus events pertaining to the Israel-Palestinian issue conflicts with my own efforts to address these issues at UC Irvine.

One thing I want to underline: I have no quarrel with Jewish students who choose not to get involved with these issues on campus. They have a variety of reasons to make that choice, and some of it may depend on their own level of religious devotion or their own attitudes toward Israel. Besides, a lot of these young people on campus just want to do their studies, get along with fellow students, and not be involved in contentious issues. I get that. That is their choice, and I respect it.

What I don't respect are the so-called adults in the Hillel leadership who advise Jewish students not to get involved in these particular issues and in some cases put pressure on these students not to get involved. This is just the latest example of Hillel and Jewish Federation doing just that.

I had the occasion to exchange a few words with one of those high-ranking officials of Orange County Hillel Monday-before-last on the first day of the MSU anti-Israel week of events. I am going to leave his name out of this, but I am going to relate the conversation as it was heard by two witnesses who were party to the conversation.

In discussing the event at UCI and the recent BDS vote-down at UCLA, this person mentioned that he had been meeting with students at UCLA during that controversy. He then went on to say that things were much better in this regard at UCI than in past years. He listed the usual things like the upcoming I-Fest and the various religious dinners they have held on campus for the students etc. He also took issue with those who came out to oppose the MSU's speakers saying that it just gave them undue attention.

One of my friends and associates took issue and told this individual about what had been going on at UCI prior to the recent arrival of this individual. He explained the work of the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism at UCI.

I also jumped in and told him of the things I had seen and done in recent years at UCI. I told him of the times myself and others had shown up at the MSU events and documented what was being said and participated actively in q and a. I told him the two times I had stood face to face with Amir Abdel Malik Ali  after his speech and  told him why he was anti-Semite and his positions were wrong. I also told him that at times, I as a Gentile was wondering where all the Jews were while I was taking on Ali.

To all this this character said, "Well, I think that's counter-productive".

It was when my friend asked him who he was and he mentioned his position with Hillel, as well as the Rose Project, we both reacted, "This is the problem." "That explains everything" and walked away.

Again, it may be none of my business, but it is my opinion that Jewish students who wish to stand up to anti-Semitism on campus when it arises out of the Israel-Palestinian conflict need to find other sources of funding than Hillel, the Jewish Federation of Orange County, and its financial arm, the Rose Project. These organizations have a built-in conflict of interest. These people know that if Jewish students decide not to attend UCI because of perceived anti-Semitism, they are all out of a job.

Which they should be.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Why Are We Letting Jamal Badawi Into the US?

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Hat tip Investigative Project on Terrorism

That's what Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wants to know since Jamal Badawi fits into a number of red flag categories. Not only is he getting into the US from Canada, but apparently, the secretary of Homeland Security has authorized a "hands off" approach. Would that be the current DHS secretary or the previous one, our gal, Janet Napolitano?




http://www.investigativeproject.org/4377/isna-official-us-visits-draw-senator-attention

To tell the truth, I thought Badawi was a naturalized American citizen since I saw him speak at Loyola Marymount University a couple of years back at a symposium promoting sharia law.

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/shariah-workshop-at-loyola-marymount.html

Just to note for the record (again), Badawi is one of some 200 Muslim leaders in North America who has refused to sign the so-called Freedom Pledge from Former Muslims United that would declare that Muslim apostates should not be harmed.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Leon Panetta Violated NDAA, Changed Benghazi Sp Forces Mission Without Chris Stevens MANDATED Approval

Gregory Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission on the ground in Tripoli the night of September 11, 2012 when our Benghazi compound and the secret CIA Annex was attacked. In January 2014, Hicks hit back against those blaming Ambassador Chris Stevens for his own death. He refers to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, saying that the Committee interviewed him professionally and thoroughly, but the information below, on why Chris Stevens was forced to refuse military protection did not make it into the report. Three things of grave importance (full story below):


Gregory Hicks

1) When control was transferred from Stevens to the military under General Carter Ham, our military lost all diplomatic immunity,

2) The NDAA mandated that Chris Stevens had to approve of any change in the special forces mission. Panetta approved it without Steven's concurrence,

3) In the same week Stevens was told that Ham would take charge, two special forces teams were forced off the road in Libya. They escaped due to training and skill, but the incident forced Stevens to do what he had to do, let Ham withdraw them from the area until some protective agreement with Libya could be reached.

Pull-Out Quote:

Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges. ~ Gregory Hicks

The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.
On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.
Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.
However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority...
During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority...
Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.
According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence...
When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi...
To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."
Mr. Hicks served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from July 31 to Dec. 7, 2012. Read the entire story at WSJ

This is the first time that a diplomat has more balls than someone in the military. ~ Gregory Hicks
We did nothing to protect our military in one of the most dangerous spots on the face of the earth. Ambassador Chris Stevens was beaten into submission and sentenced to death by the State Department and the Department of Defense, before he was beaten, tortured and died in Benghazi. Find my complete Benghazi database here.

Monday, May 5, 2014

May 6, 2014 Primary for Ohio: Vote J.D. Winteregg - One More Voice for Secure the Border First!

Ohioans: Tuesday May 6th is your primary date. If you live in District 8, a vote for J.D. Winteregg will be a vote for your country. Here's just a portion of the reason why: Dr. William Brown is Ohio's Cedarville University chancellor. John Boehner is Brown's congressman. One of the Cedarville professors, J.D. Winteregg, had the audacity to challenge Speaker Boeher and do it with humor and pith. A racy 'Cialis' takeoff campaign ad went viral, and adjunct professor Winteregg promptly lost his job. The two prior Boehner challengers lost their jobs as well, while the campaign was under way.

J.D. Winteregg

But we can understand, Cedarville is a Christian University, and that Cialis-takeoff was just too much for all those Christian college students who have been watching these ads, and far worse, for years. The speculation -- the school had to do it -- a matter of principle, don't you know? But no, no principle involved in this decision. Pure politics at Cedarville University.

The Daily Caller exclusively reported Monday that Boehner’s tea party primary challenger J.D. Winteregg was fired from his job as an adjunct professor at Ohio’s Cedarville University for running an anti-Boehner campaign ad accusing the speaker of “Electile Dysfunction.” Winteregg is challenging Boehner in the district’s May 6 Republican primary. 
“I would say the raciness of it, sure,” was the reason the Christian college fired Winteregg, Cedarville University spokesman Mark Weinstein told TheDC, referring to the sexual innuendo in Winteregg’s ad. Weinstein also told FoxNews.com that “(At Cedarville) we don’t get into politics.”
WHAT???

But Cedarville University chancellor Dr. William Brown participated in a press conference Monday in Ohio calling for Boehner, his congressman, to pass immigration reform. Brown participated in the event one day before joining a group of pastors in flying to Washington, D.C. to meet with their representatives to discuss the issue. Cedarville University has featured an internship in Boehner’s congressional office as an official discipline-related experience for students. Source: Daily Caller (read about the West Point Grad who lost his job for facing off with John Boehner)
These are the Christians of the National Council of Churches, folks. You must not underestimate them.

66!


Saturday, May 3, 2014

General Lovell Explains AFRICOM Headquarters Night of 9-11-12 - Desperation Waiting on State Department

What does the House Armed Services Committee have to gain or lose by believing (or not) the men in command on the night of September 11, 2012? There is no willingness in Congress to believe the word of those in charge, and it seems there were several, scattered across the globe. There was only one person in charge inside Libya the night of the attacks, and that was Gregory Hicks, Chief of Mission in the Tripoli U.S. Embassy.


Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell


AFRICOM Commander General Carter Ham was the commander but he was in Washington, D.C. Ham said he retained command because of the communications capabilities he had there, but that Vice Admiral Leidig was at AFRICOM headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, was "on-site," and had the experience to make decisions.

Also on-site with Leidig was General Lovell, who was "running intelligence." Lovell testified yesterday, May 1, 2014 before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee. That testimony is several paragraphs below. McKeon thinks Lovell doesn't know what he's talking about.

Meanwhile at the White House, former NSA spokesman Tommy Vietor told Brett Baier last night that he was in the White House Situation Room as the hell broke loose in Benghazi, and throughout the night. Speaking of "commands," the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military didn't show up -- not even once, the entire night and morning that men were dying and gravely injured Americans were being rescued and evacuated.

Not only was Obama not in the Situation Room, he was apparently not in his office either as Vietor said this:

I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence. Read more here.
No one would refer to the Oval Office as "the residence." September 12, 2012 was an early morning for Obama -- Vegas Baby!

Vegas, of all places, while the crisis is still unfolding and before we've even fully notified the families of the Americans who died. Source: Breitbart
Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee refuted Lovell's testimony, saying Lovell did not have "reliable insight."

Lovell said that the U.S. should have tried to do more to save the lives of American citizens the night of 9-11-12, but Lovell also suggested that some of the 'doing' should have been done before the attacks happened, and that at the time of the attacks, we should have been better prepared. "My point is that there's more that we should be able to do," he said.

General Carter Ham believed Leidig knew what was going on, but McKeon thinks Lovell, who was with Leidig didn't have "reliable insight."

Use this space to curse.

Gregory Hicks testified that orders were given to "stand down, which some believe gained him a demotion and a unwanted desk job.

Hicks, testifying on May 8, 2013 before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and was asked by Congresswoman Martha Roby:

You believed help was needed in Benghazi, and there was a SOF unit, Special Operation unit, ordered to stand down, correct?"
Hick replied "Yes."

Roby asked: "Do you agree that you and your team were ordered to, quote, "stand down"?"

Colonel Gibson answered Roby's question:
Madam Chairman, I was not ordered to stand down. I was ordered to remain in place. "Stand down" implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli. We continued to maintain visibility of the events as they unfolded.
As so often happens in Washington, D.C., it all depends on what the meaning of is is.

The U.S. Senate investigative report said that a "40-man Special Ops force was transferred from the military's European command to General Ham, in the middle of the attack, from its training location in Croatia, but was ordered to return to Italy. That's as far as it went. The SpecOps force was not called-in.

General Ham, in charge of AFRICOM, did not know a CIA annex was located in Benghazi. He knew about the consulate or Special Mission, but the Senate report said he didn't know about the Annex.

Making full circle, the following are partial transcripts from several videos of Lovell today. I'm not sure of the order in which these remarks were made.

First video below:

CHAFFETZ: What was going on in the room General?  Our people are under attack. There are people dying. What is the military doing? [Vice Admiral Leidig was also present]. 
LOVELL: Desperately trying to gain situational awareness in an area where we had a dearth of it.
CHAFFETZ: Were they moving to the sound of the guns? Were they doing what they were trained to do or where they sitting around waiting for the State Department and Hillary Clinton to call them up and say 'do something?' What did they actually do?
LOVELL: We sent a predator drone overhead to be able to...
CHAFFETZ: Did we do enough, General?
LOVELL: Sir... 
CHAFFETZ: You're a professional. You're retired. I know you care deeply about this. What was the mood in the room. What was the feeling? Was it to save our people? 
LOVELL: It was desperation there, to be able to... 
CHAFFETZ: It was what? 
LOVELL: It was desperation there to gain situational awareness and to be able to do something to save people.
Chaffetz asks if other forces in Europe were called in.

LOVELL: No sir, those assets did not. 
CHAFFETZ: Why not? 
LOVELL: Basically, there's a lot of looking to the State Department for what it was that they wanted, and in deference to the Libyan people and a sense of deference to the desires of the State Department, in terms of what they'd like to have.
Remember that we are told that SpecOps forces were transferred from the European Command to General Carter Ham in the middle of the attacks. At some point they were sent to Italy.

CHAFFETZ: Did they ever tell you to go save the people in Benghazi? 
LOVELL: Not to my knowledge, sir. 
CHAFFETZ: We didn't run to the sound of the guns. They were issuing press releases. We had Americans dying. We had dead people. We had wounded people, and our military didn't try to engage in that fight. Would you disagree with that? 
LOVELL: Four individuals died, sir; we obviously did not respond in time to get there. 
CHAFFETZ: Could we have? 
LOVELL: We may have been able to, but we'll never know.
In another exchange with Rep. Darrell Issa today at the same hearing:

ISSA: In the hours that ensued after the attack on our consulate compound in Benghazi, did you hear 'YouTube video?' 
LOVELL: Briefly discussed, but not from any serious standpoint. 
ISSA: What time did you hear that there was a video, roughly? 
LOVELL: It was early on in the evening of September 11th. 
ISSA: Before 3:15 in the morning? 
LOVELL: Yes, absolutely. We were -- absolutely. I would have to say, dismissed that notion by then, by working with other sources. 
ISSA: You heard about this early on and you, as the Deputy and the highest ranking person that moment, working these issues, you dismissed the idea that this attack was, in fact, a demonstration that went awry, and it was based on a YouTube video out of Los Angeles? 
LOVELL: Yes sir, short answer.

LOVELL: As another saying goes, "always move to the sound of the guns." We didn't know how long this would last when we became aware of the distress, nor did we completely understand what we had in front of us. We had a kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement, or any or all of the above, but what we did know quite early on was this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.
To the point of what happened, the facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack. The AFRICOM J2 was focused on attribution. The facts became attributable very soon after the event.
A fourth video but from the same hearing:

CHAFFETZ: General, if I can recognize myself for 5 minutes, I want to conclude the thought from Congresswoman [inaudible]. I know you care deeply about our military families, you are one. We have parents, loved ones, brothers, sisters. What would you say to the mother of one of the people that was killed? Did we, did the military, the Pentagon, the United States of America, do everything it could to save those people? 
LOVELL: I would say, I'm sorry for your loss and your sacrifice. We should have done more, whether it was in preparation prior to, or execution at the time, even if we simply just, simply burned gas in airplanes moving people. 
We have to have the confidence of the American people that provide us with their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, moms and dads. They continue to fill the uniforms and fill the civilian positions that are so key, and so brave, as well, out there in harm's way. We have to be sure that we rebuild the trust, this [inaudible] as well. We have to rebuild their trust. It's a big part of why I want to be here, because we need to say to them, we should have done more and we owe it to the memory of those four people who have fallen and to those who are hurt and wounded. 
CHAFFETZ: Could we have done more? 
LOVELL: We, we, sure we could [maybe one word inaudible] 
CHAFFETZ: Hillary Clinton evidently, according to one of the mothers, whispered that it was the video that had done this. Is that true? 
LOVELL: Absolutely not, sir. 
CHAFFETZ: When did you think it was over? When were our Americans out of harm's way, when they were safe? 
LOVELL: They're still not safe today, sir. 
CHAFFETZ: When did you think the fight was over? 
LOVELL: They're still there. 
CHAFFETZ: That night though, September 12th, we still had people in Benghazi. When were they -- when was the fight over? 
LOVELL: When the people from Benghazi finally made their way back, and were extracted back to Tripoli. 
CHAFFETZ: You're opinion, your vantage point, there in Libya, was al-Qaeda on the run? 
LOVELL: No sir. 
CHAFFETZ: What was going on with al-Qaeda, September 11th, September 12th and the months leading up to that? Were they on the run? 
LOVELL: No sir, there were actually affiliates and other Islamic extremists were actually responsible for the perpetration of these attacks. 
CHAFFETZ: Were they growing in strength? Shrinking in strength? 
LOVELL: My estimation would be that they were growing in strength, in number and in capability.
In 2012 Jason Chaffetz asked General Ham:

But General, in order for you to go into action, to put people on alert, to start moving, do you need a request from the Department of State for help and assistance? Page 40
Whatever the answer to that question was, it is redacted in the report.

For what it's worth, Col. David Hunt was on one of the Fox evening shows tonight, O'Reilly, I think, and said Hillary was in charge and responsible in Benghazi on 9/11/12 until the firefight started. After the attack began, according to Hunt, Obama had to take action for the military to act. 

Congressman Jason Chaffetz Questions Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell on Benghazi, 5-1-14 (video)
Congressman Darrell Issa Questions Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell on Benghazi, 5-1-14 (video)

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Friday, May 2, 2014

Loubna Qutami Speaks at UC Irvine: To Tape or Not to Tape

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com


Last night concluded the Muslim Student Union's week of anti-Israel events at UC Irvine. The featured speaker was Ms. Loubna Qutami of the Palestinian Policy Network. The audience was almost all MSU members with a few non-Muslim students. Prior to the talk, a film was shown called Duna (Dolls). I was told last night that the film was shot in the West Bank-in Nazareth, but the above link makes reference to Palestinans living in Tel Aviv. The topic was sexual violence against Palestinian women within their own society. (I highly recommend viewing this film. It is is Arabic with English sub-titles. More on this later.)

Before the event started, there was the usual issue of videotaping. (This event was in a classroom.) Aside from myself, another individual, a journalist, was also present. He had set up a video camera on a small tripod. I was also nearby and was prepared to videotape with my own hand-held recorder. An MSU student came up and said that videotaping would not be allowed. At that point, I gave my now-standard response that it was a public event at a public university, that the issue had been decided in past events, and that people had the right to videotape. I added that if a campus police officer or university official instructed me to stop, I would comply.  A few minutes later, I walked outside and continued the discussion with the young man. He requested that I not videotape the film because of copyright laws. I agreed not to do that and added that I also would not videotape students as is my policy. A few minutes later, one of the female MSU members came to where the other cameraman and I were sitting and repeated the request not to videotape. I repeated my contention that we had a right to do so, but that I myself would not tape the film or videotape students. She then asked what if the speaker asked that we not videotape her talk, would I comply with that, and I answered "no", only if a campus police officer or university official directed me not to tape.  I also voiced the opinion to her that they might be inviting legal problems if they prevented people from videotaping. I repeated my promise that I would not tape the film or the students.

The event began and the movie started. A few minutes later, three campus police officers entered the room and asked to speak to both of us outside. It was their position that if the event organizers did not want any videotaping, we should comply with that wish. I repeated my contention that we had the right to do so at a public event at a public university. I also told them that the previous year, the MSU had tried to prevent me from taping (which were at indoor events) and that the campus police and the dean of students had backed me up and informed the MSU of that fact. One of the officers told me that was erroneous information. He also asked who the officer was that told me and I described the officer. (I didn't know his name, but I think he is a senior officer in the UCIPD.) It was clear from the outset that the officers were going to support the MSU's position, so I told them that I was going to follow their (officers' ) directions. The other cameraman  stated his case, but we both agreed to abide by the campus police directives. One of the officers added that it would be ok to videotape in an open outdoor venue but not in an enclosed room if that were the wish of the sponsoring organization. The two aforementioned MSU members, who were both present, agreed that there was no problem with us returning to the room as long as we didn't videotape. I should underline that the officers were all courteous and professional, and the discussion was civil at all times. I mentioned to the officers that on both sides we should research the legal question in order to avoid future problems. We then returned to the room.

The film

As stated, this film is highly recommended. ( I missed about ten minutes of it due to the above discussion with the campus police.) It is about one hour long and contains interviews with Palestinian women (their last names and faces not revealed) who had been the victims of rape and or violence at the hands of Palestinian men. Statements made by the women included references to women being blamed for the rape if they complained, being shamed, or even killed. It showed the funeral of a female, but we missed the part of how she died. There was a filmed and tape-recorded call made by a victim to her attacker years later, which was poignant. There was also a conversation between a victim, who had been raped by someone else's uncle, and a sympathetic female official of some type with whom she was going to lodge a complaint. At one point in the conversation, the female told her that, "This is a problem we have in Arab society." I did not see any reference to Israel in the film though, as stated, I missed about ten minutes due to the discussion with the campus police.

The speech

Then came Ms Qutami, who opened by repeating a request that she not be videotaped. Though she was not connected to the making of the film, she followed up by focusing her talk on gender violence within the Palestinian society.

I am paraphrasing her statements (unless quotation marks are used) since I was unable to videotape.

Make no mistake, Qutami, who comes from Palestinian parents, is an ideologue. While acknowledging the problem of gender violence, as she termed it, she laid the blame on guess who-the Israelis. You see, according to Qutami, gender violence arises as a consequence of the Israeli settler colonialism or the settler colonial project, as she termed it. She then went on to talk about the cycle of violence that occurs within indigenous populations by the colonizers or oppressors. She then talked about the Western mentality toward Eastern peoples as being uncivilized vis-a-vis the civilized West, using such terms as "colonial feminism". She
said that the West looks at Arab women as ones who need to be protected against this type of gender violence. She also said that they (Palestinians) could not talk about issues like gender violence because it reinforces Western stereotypes of Arabs. At one point, she referred to Edward Said's book, "Orientalism".

Going back to Israel, she said that Palestinian violence is embedded in the Zionist settler colonialism. "Occupation is violence". This has, according to Qutami, created a society of violence and intimidation. She stated that "violence is a tool of genocide" and made reference to the feminization of Palestinian men. She added that people of color don't talk about these things because it buys into the racist stereotypes of the West.

Qutami then launched into talk of Palestinian survival being the biggest threat to Israel and the worry that Palestinian women are giving birth. She then went back to 1948 and referred to threats of rape by Israel soldiers if Palestinians did not leave the territory during the fighting. She referred to a Palestinian woman who wrote of those days and was imprisoned by the Israelis for (terrorist acts) and later immigrated to the US where she is now under deportation proceedings by DHS. That led Qutami into references to the "US security structures".

Qutami then went into the usual horror stories of Israeli torture and the tactic of fear toward Palestinian women. referring to checkpoints, roadblocks, threats of rape, demolition of homes, and the apartheid wall. As her talk droned on (too long), her delivery suffered as she began quoting from books and reading her speech. She was losing her audience, and at 8 pm, the males left to pray. She was starting to lose her audience, literally and figuratively. What started out as impressive became boring.

Finally came the Q and A. As usual, I was the first to raise my hand. Due to what had happened earlier, I wanted to keep it civil yet make a point even if indirectly. After asking where the film was made (I was told Nazareth), I complimented the film as being important and courageous. I then asked Qutami if there were similar problems of gender violence within other Arab societies in the region, such as Egypt, Sudan, Iraq etc and also within the Arab diaspora in the West.

Qutami answered in the affirmative. Beginning with the US, she said that Arab women are being violated. Within the community, there is resistance in acknowledging the problem because too many want to maintain that the problem "doesn't exist within our community". She also said that Arab immigrant women have problems accessing the US court system. As an example, she said that sometimes, court translators come from the actual family involved. She also complained about the DOJ Office of Violence Against Women with a vague reference that resources are not available for Arab women because they are considered white. She also complained about the involvement of the FBI as investigators (presumably since the FBI is involved in investigating domestic terrorism).

As for the Arab world itself, Qutami mentioned Egypt as an example where gender violence is not criminalized and offers no support to women victims, so violence against women continues. However, she called Egypt an example of a "neo-colonialist regime". She added that the Arab world has never gotten out of the "neo-colonialist structure". It is the root of violence against women, she added.

In answering other questions, Qutami predictably brought in the litany of other complaints, such as illegal immigration, the "war on the poor" in the US, and US prisons. "Palestinians cannot be free as long as these conditions (in the US) continue".


At one point, she made a reference to the Judeo-Christian culture in connection with an attitude of conquest of indigenous peoples of other lands. There was no mention of any Islamic conquest. Again, I am paraphrasing.



To summarize, Qutami blames the problem of Palestinian gender violence on the "Israeli settler colonialism". She also blames the problem within the Arab world on "Neo-Colonialism". In the US diaspora, she lays at least partial blame on the US justice system for not providing sufficient access to abused women.

In other words, it's someone else's fault that the problem of gender violence against women exists in Arab society. The point I wanted to make with my question was that these problems do exist in other Arab societies, where one can hardly blame Israel. I think the point was made.

As to the video issue, I do intend to follow up with UCI and outside legal sources on this issue of videotaping. It has to be resolved from a legal point of view.