Violence within the Middle East against the US continues - with Islamic fundamentalists in Yemen storming the US Embassy there, removing and desecrating the US Flag, and raising the black flag of al-Qaeda over the Embassy compound. Radicals also stormed the US Embassy in Tunisia - and demonstrations against the US continued overnight in Cairo.
Additional information and questions are coming out not only regarding the actions in Cairo and Benghazi, but also about the film / film maker that was being used as the 'justification' for the violence of Islamic radicals. On top of this, comes the media / political kerfuffle around not only the responses of the Obama Administration, but the comments by GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and latest examples of media collusion / bias against Mitt Romney.
Throughout this, parallels to the islamic radical actions in 1979 and the feckless Carter Administration, continue to grow - from the expansion of assaults and demonstrations against US Embassies and Consulates, US State Department personnel being killed, and condemnations by the President of his critics.
Unfortunately, US officials, like the Secretary of State, continue to focus on the You Tube 'film' as being the justification and cause for all of the violence taking place against the US throughout the region. The 'film' was posted on the internet back in June - but for some reason, it didn't become an issue until September 11th? Then we have the initial information that the film was intended to be anti-Islamic and was produced / posted by an Israeli Jew and entirely funded by donations from US Jews....all of which is now known to be completely false.
This 'justification' has all of the appearances of either a 'false flag' effort to damage the US, Israel, and Jews while providing a cover for planned acts against US Embassies and Consulates in the Middle East, or something that was conveniently selected to provide a 'justification' for violence by Islamic radicals who support the concept of jihad against the US and Western Civilization and planned these attacks on / around the anniversary of 9/11. To focus on this as the primary causation of the attacks is incredibly naive - and refuses to see that the war between us and islamofascism is not over by any means.
Radical islamists, like those who follow al-Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations, or are members of the Salafist sect, Muslim Brotherhood or followers of the Iranian despots, need no 'justification' to attack 'infidels' - which is how they see the US. The radical imans in Libya, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern nations, already spend much of their time stirring up the 'faithful' to support 'jihad' against the 'infidel'. The 'justification', however, is handy for those, primarily leftists, in the US who do not want to see or accept the world as it is.
There are other concerns and questions that we need to continue to address and yes, debate. On September 11th, why weren't there more protective measures taken in Benghazi or Cairo? In fact, why was the US Ambassador to Libya at the Benghazi consulate - which had effectively no US security beyond a single person providing personal security on the 11th? Where was the protective details of either Libya or Egypt? President Morsi of Egypt, a 9/11 truther and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, in his statement, offered lukewarm condolences to the US for the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, but his only reference to the Cairo mob was to demand that the US government prosecute the creators of the 'anti-Islamic' film.
President Obama is sending 50 US Marines to Libya to provide additional security to the US Embassy in Tripoli, but why wasn't this seen as being needed on the 11th in Benghazi? What about the reports of Libyan police / security personnel telling the attackers the location of the Ambassador Stevens and the photos of the body of the Ambassador being paraded through the streets of Benghazi?
Not only were the first official comments by President Obama a condemnation of Mitt Romney's statement castigating the multiple messages from the US Embassy in Egypt that condemned the You Tube video, as opposed to condemning those who committed the violent acts, but the President then echoed Jimmy Carter from 1979 by referencing to politicians (Mitt Romney specifically in Obama's case) for 'firing first and then aiming' in their criticisms. On top of this, yesterday, the media worked overtime, even colluding, to gin up a political narrative attack on Mitt Romney over his statement and provide political cover for President Obama's incompetence and feckless foreign policy in the Middle East.
Prior to Mitt Romney's appearance yesterday morning, NPR's Ari Shapiro and CBS's Jan Crawford, were captured on audio tape colluding and collaborating among themselves the question to ask the GOP candidate to hammer Romney for speaking out against the Administration - forcing the candidate to either back down from his first statement or hold to that and build a case that Romney 'fired before aiming'. Immediately after Romney's statement, and unlike Obama's Rose Garden statement, the GOP candidate took questions from the press. Every one of the six questions was a variation of the same question that Shapiro and Crawford colluded to ask...and each of the six were answered by Mitt Romney who refused to back down from his statement of the previous evening.
Throughout yesterday, political pundits, the vast majority actively shilling for Barack Obama, attacked Mitt Romney for politicizing the attacks on the US and the murder of the US Ambassador to Libya. In fact, there was more outrage expressed towards Mitt Romney than towards the murder of the US Ambassador.
Not only is that reprehensible, but it is also just another clear example of the double standard and bias of the mainstream media. Where was their outrage in July 2008 when, in the wake of the death of 9 US combat soldiers in a single event in Afghanistan, candidate Barack Obama attacked President George W. Bush and likely GOP Presidential candidate John McCain, over their policies regarding military operations in Afghanistan.
The policies of Barack Obama, SecState Hillary Clinton, and the progressive leftists that are part of the US government (Foggy Bottom, in the WH, in the Pentagon, and in Congress) are a legitimate point of debate particularly given the Presidential election just as the 'war on terror' was used by the progressives as a legitimate political discussion point for the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections.
What should be clear is that the same viewpoints and policies that were official policy in 1979 are in place today. These incompetent and naive policies are based on a fundamental disconnect between the leftists (Obama / Democrats) and reality in the world, and in particular the Middle East where millions see us as the enemy despite the billions in cash we give them in aid, despite the assistance and support we provided the 'Arab Spring', and despite all of the efforts these deluded leftists make towards appeasing these enemies.
Given the economic and domestic similarities between this feckless Administration and that of the last major failed Democratic Presidency, it should not be a surprise that there is also a common incompetence and naivete when it comes to foreign policy. We can call it being 'stuck on stupid' or 'stupid is as stupid does' - it all means the same. This is all fallout of a specific policy that is based on debasing the US and its values - of appeasing our enemies in the hope to get them to 'like us'.
What is not being referenced at all by the Administration are specifics to hold these governments accountable and responsible for the actions of their people - that the billions that they get in foreign aid from the US is contingent on the behavior of those nations and actions towards the US.
No wonder they neither respect or fear us....and given how often and how much Barack Obama has been spiking the football regarding 'getting' Osama Bin Laden or the Obama policy regarding the 'kill list' for drone attacks, is it any surprise that the radical fundamentalists are fighting back against us?
Today's weekly jobless report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics only reinforces the dismal report for the month of August that was released last Friday. 382,000 new jobless claims were filed in the last week - an increase of 15,000 over last week's number, after it was revised by from 365,000 to 367,000. This is the 4th largest number of new jobless claims in 2012 - and missed the expectations of economists who projected only 370,000 new jobless claims.
This is more evidence that the Obama economic recovery continues to stagnate - more than 3 years after the 2008-2009 recession ended in June 2009....and despite nearly $5.5 trillion in new debt and 4 consecutive years of annual deficits exceeding $1.1 trillion.
Today, the Federal Reserve is meeting to determine their next steps regarding the dismal economic recovery - and the reelection of Barack Obama. Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke will advocate that the Fed initiate a third round of Quantitative Easing - printing money and buying mortgage-backed bond debt obligations ($40 billion / month) in an open ended commitment to stimulate the economy. Last month, Bernanke claimed that his previous two efforts of QE accounted for 2 million jobs being added and stimulating the economy in 2010 and 2011. Unlike the previous 2 efforts at QE which had a fixed commitment by the FedReserve, this one will continue until the Fed Chair determines that the employment numbers are at an adequate level.
In reality, a third round of QE will continue to devalue the US dollar, and increase inflation as opposed to effectively stimulating a vibrant and viable economic recovery. The Fed is also committing to record low interest rates through 2015.
What is amazing is that this step is being take while Congress and the President refuse to address the fiscal cliff that we face on January 1, 2013 known as 'taxmageddon' - and while the economic policies of the President based on 'fairness' and 'social justice' strangle the economy and prevent job creation.
Did you know a major Cabinet member of President Obama's Cabinet violated the Hatch Act? The Hatch Act is federal legislation that prohibits members of the Executive Branch from openly campaigning for political candidates. But last month, in North Carolina on official business, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she endorsed / campaigned for her boss, Barack Obama. Fittingly for a loyal Democrat, the only punishment for Sebelius is a slap on the wrist and a remedial class on ethical behavior.
One set of rules for those with a 'D' after their name, and another for the rest of us. That's 'fairness'.