BREAKING: Petraeus testifies CIA references to "Al Qaeda involvement" removed from talking points

Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified before a closed-door hearing today that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points. Corroborated by other intelligence officials, this information strikes another blow at the Obama Administration's handling of the Benghazi Massacre. Now we know for certain that the CIA indicated in it's original memo that the attack was an "al qaeda related terrorist attack" and that they knew right away it wasn't because of a protest over a movie!

The officials were unable to say who changed the talking points. They went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department, and White House. Rep. Peter King told Fox News, "I'd say it was somebody in the administration that had to have taken it out. That, to me, has to be pursued."

While it is a "smoking gun" that they were told it WAS a terrorist attack from the beginning by the CIA, proving that Jay Carney, Susan Rice, etc., were spreading a false story about the protest over a movie, I seriously doubt it will be pursued. Who's going to pursue it? The Republicans in the House? They're already being portrayed as "sore losers" in order to discredit them. The Obama Administration is beyond reproach at this point. Even if impeachment proceedings were begun by the House, the Harry "I can't" Reid led Senate would never impeach Obama no matter how damning the info is. Obama is safe.

And why did they lie about it being about a protest over an anti-Islam movie? Because they support blasphemy laws and need to begin to soften the public up over them. They can't get around the First Amendment without help from the sheeple.

Obama says "we" knew recovery would take more than one term

At a campaign rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin yesterday, President Obama has, once again, tried to erase history. (He seems to be doing a lot of that lately.) While talking about the economy and his plan for recovery, the president had this to say:

"Now, we knew from the beginning that our work would take more than one year, or even one term -- because let's face it, the middle class was getting hammered long before the financial crisis hit."

Wait...what? "We" knew it would take more than one term to fix the economy, did "we"? Did "we" also forget about this:



So, once again, (and I can't stress that phrase enough!) President Obama has said one thing....and now is saying another. He tells us that "we" knew from the beginning. So then, ONCE AGAIN, either the president really did know something from the beginning (ahem, Benghazi) and intentionally straight LIED to the American people...or he's not very good at this whole president thing. You decide which, America.

My lord, I can't believe people are still supporting this man.....
Full story here.

"Voter fraud doesn't happen here!"

Or so the left-wing media wants you to believe. Yet, already in the past few weeks we've had more stories that stir up the debate than I can shake a stick at. And you know I can shake a lot of sticks!

The first story that caught my attention was about fraudulent letters sent to Florida Republicans in 18 different counties. The letters "inform" the recipients that there is a problem with their voting registration and they are therefore ineligible to vote. The letters appear to come from the office of the Florida elections supervisor, but were actually sent from Washington state. The absence of a return address was a red flag to some recipients who alerted the authorities. The FBI is now investigating.
While this is not linked to any official group, it is a clear attempt to deceive people...Republicans...into not voting.

The second story was about voting machines recording votes for Barack Obama when the voter actually chose Mitt Romney's name. In North Carolina, at the Bur-Mil Park polling location in Guilford County, Sher Coromalis was just one voter who encountered this problem. She chose Romney; it entered a vote for Obama. She tried again; again it entered a vote for Obama. Finally on the third try, it correctly entered the vote for Romney. For those counting at home: that's two votes for Obama, one for Romney. Guilford County Board of Elections Director George Gilbert told MyFox8 that such problems arise every election and can be resolved after machines are re-calibrated. "It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a machine that needs to be corrected,” Gilbert said. While I do believe bugs like this will happen from time to time with voting machines, it's pretty interesting all the "errors" work in the Democrat's favor. Similar stories are coming out of Nevada and Ohio as well.

Also in North Carolina, Democrats have been caught violating state laws in order to get more votes for Obama. Two vans of students who worked at the North Carolina Job Corps were transported to the Swain County voting location in order to cast their votes. The problem was that the vans were Swain County Transit Vehicles, which are funded by the federal government. The Hatch Act states that federal employees "may not engage in political activity while using a government vehicle." Not a major violation, but breaking a law nonetheless. Not to mention the numerous reports about possible illegals being bused to polling stations across the country...

North Carolina (aside from having a lot of fraud) also has a lot of old people casting their votes. And I mean OLD people. NC voter rolls show that the Tar Heel State has 2,214 voters that are OVER 110 years old. That is A LOT of old people! Shockingly (not), most of these voters are Democrats. The Carolina Transparency project did a review of voter rolls this year and have found that there are 631 registered Democrats that are 112 and older! Some have already voted. Also two people OVER 150 (YES, 150!!!) have already cast their ballots! One in Gaston County is registered as 154 years old while one in Granville County is listed as an astonishing 160 years old! To give an idea of the magnitude of that, the oldest recorded age is 122 and the oldest disputed age is 138! We better get Guinness to North Carolina fast...they've got TWO Democrats who beat that by a long shot!
Officials say that isn't necessarily evidence of fraud, and that it may just be evidence of poor information gathering. Um, ok...if you say so.

The most damning evidence, however, comes out of Virginia from Congressman Jim Moran's son, Patrick. Patrick Moran headed up his father's campaign. Past tense. Not too long ago, Project Veritas (the group that helped bust ACORN by documenting their attempts at fraud) secretly recorded video of Patrick Moran telling the undercover reporter how to get away with casting multiple votes under different names. He told the reporter to fake utility bills and to make sure the people who's names they were planning to vote under were definitely not going to vote by contacting them pretending to be pollsters. The worst part of this is the ease with which Moran offers this advice. There's no reticence, no guilt...it seems like this is just another day at the office for Mr. Moran. That attitude leads me to believe voter fraud is not only going on...but that it's become no big deal for some politicians. And if that's their attitude, then how can you deny this isn't a normal occurrence? Patrick Moran has since resigned from his father's campaign, which released a statement saying Patrick's actions were "an error in judgement." He said he was only joking. Isn't it nice to be a politician (or politician's son in this case)? You can get caught directly trying to orchestrate a felony, and then simply claim it was a joke and an "error in judgement" and get away scot free!

Some of these stories will turn out to be just coincidences...others, not so much. What is true, though, is that we as a nation can (and should) no longer dismiss stories of voter fraud as pure mularky, as Joe Biden would put it. If we, as America, begin to enact the same kind of dubious voting processes as Russia or Venezuela...then our Republic is all but over. And if we fail to protect the integrity of the voting process, that's exactly what's going to happen....if it isn't already. So next time someone tells you that voter fraud doesn't happen here, channel your inner Joe and tell 'em: "That's mularky!"

How do you kill 11 million people?

Well it seems the theme of the day is Nazi Germany...

While looking for the Hitler Youth video I used in the last post, I stumbled upon this video by Hilmer Von Campe. He was a member of the Hitler Youth and fought for Germany in WWII. It's a long video and could probably be cut in half, but it's an important message about how our government today is closer to Nazism than the Founding Fathers and how 90% of Germans didn't believe in the Nazi ideology but fought for it anyway because they believed the lies they were told. He also says the same kind of ignorance and apathy exists in America today. His message is a warning.



Then 5 minutes ago I see this video at We The People



It's shorter and more poignant...but what blew me away is how eerily similar the messages are. Actually I guess they're more than similar, they're the same. Ever have something keep popping up from different places?? Makes you think you're supposed to pay attention. Well apparently this is what I'm supposed to pay attention to today. And it is a message I fully agree with.

How do you kill 11 million people? By subduing 80 million into inaction.
How many will be killed if 300 million are subdued in America?


"We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men!"

Obama: "Election has nothing to do" with deaths of Americans in Libya

Friday was a bad day for Barack Obama. First, the news comes out that CIA operators were told to "stand down" when they wanted to go to the consulate in Benghazi to try and help the Ambassador and other Americans there...then in an interview with an NBC affiliate in Denver, the president, when asked about those reports, responded by saying:

"The election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened."

Um...excuse me, Mr. President?? The election has nothing to do with a terrorist attack that took the lives of 4 Americans, your inability or unwillingness to send in rescuers who might've been able to save them, your lies about the attack which lasted for weeks (which you yourself have now confirmed), and your subsequent coverup/dodging of the issue as more reports come out?? What DOES the election have to do with, Big Bird and birth control?

I'm increasingly distraught that ANYONE in America continues to support this man. Some people would support him no matter what...he could strangle a puppy while kicking a baby in the head on national television and there would still be some morons gushing about how great he is! What worries me is that it seems like that number is astronomically high. Either that or an astronomically high number of people just don't pay attention to anything he says or does. Which is why my Facebook page has been drowned recently with articles and stories of his atrocities. But how can this election even be close? I'm beginning to believe an article I read a while ago that said Obama is trying to lose the election; that he hates the responsibility and is passive aggressively trying to derail his re-election by speaking and acting stupidly. That, at least, is a good explanation of how he can be so flippant about important issues. The sad thing is that it isn't dissuading people like it should. If Romney doesn't win this election big...I will lose heart about the state of America and it's future. Because either there are way too many idiots here, or there are way too many people so self-absorbed that nothing that doesn't affect them matters to them. Either way it's bad for America.

But back to this "Libya thing"...because it DOES matter to millions of Americans. Among them are Charles Woods, the father of one of the ex-Navy SEAL's, Tyrone Woods. He is beginning to speak out against the president and his response to this attack. Mr. Woods also has been talking about his meeting with President Obama and Hillary Clinton when his son's body was flown into Andrews Air Force Base. His description of the meeting is disturbing, to say the least. He says President Obama didn't look him in the eyes and merely mumbled some words about being sorry which, to Mr. Woods, sounded insincere and forced. He says Clinton's apology also sounded hollow and forced and that...and this is shocking...she told him that they would find the man who made the anti-Islam film and HAVE HIM ARRESTED! There's almost too much there to properly analyze. First, it was a misguided response. How about getting the terrorists who actually did the killing!? Second, saying you're going to have an American citizen arrested for making a movie is INSANE and against everything America stands for! And the fact that he was, in fact, arrested is disturbingly scary. He was arrested on charges of probation violation, so I had no ground to complain on because he may have very well violated his probation. However, NOW knowing that Hillary said this before he was arrested either means A) they (meaning the federal government) had already begun researching this man to know that he was on probation or B) they had planned to arrest him ILLEGALLY based simply off his making this film.

I'd say someone needs to look more closely at who that man is, what he had done to get on probation in the first place, and who decided he had violated his probation. Because pledging to arrest a man ONLY based on the knowledge that he produced a movie is unconstitutional and illegal. I doubt that we'll get an answer to these things as he's almost become an afterthought. He's also still in jail. How long will he stay there for a "probation violation?" We need to keep an eye on that.

This has gotten long (because there's just SO many things to discuss about it!) so I'll end it now by talking about Tyrone Woods. He was stationed at the "annex," about a mile from the consulate where Ambassador Stevens was killed. When he heard the shots and explosions happening at the consulate, he (along with other unnamed heroes) requested to go to the consulate to help their countrymen. They were denied that request at least twice. But they ignored it, and Tyrone Woods was one of a few men who made their way to the consulate, secured the area for a time while they evacuated personnel, and made their way back to the annex...where, in a mortar attack about 4 hours later, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed. Those two men should be alive today. They died about 6 hours after the assault began...more than enough time to get larger response forces there. Charles Woods said he received an email from one person who was in the consulate that night. It said that his son, Tyrone, saved his life. Tyrone Woods ignored his orders to stand down and went to that consulate...saving lives. Tragically his was lost as others made decisions antithetical to his: they chose to ignore his peril. Tyrone Woods is a real American hero. And I, for one, will never forget his story. Nor will I forget Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, and Glen Doherty. And that's why their death DOES and SHOULD matter to this election, despite the president's insistence that it doesn't.

Tyrone Woods, Real American Hero

BREAKING NEWS: CIA Operators were denied requests for help 3 times during Benghazi attack

I've been saying for weeks that this whole thing just doesn't make sense. The White House could have claimed ignorance and that might have been believable. After all, you can't question stupidity. However, they've now backed themselves into a corner by saying they DID know it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Now we KNOW they lied about it for two weeks. Something is fishy about it. And while this report doesn't prove anything, it does throw a gallon of fuel on the fire. Something doesn't make sense. If I was an investigative reporter I'd be all over this. What we're being told just doesn't make sense, and we deserve to know why. 4 dead Americans deserve it even more.
.........................................................................................

Courtesy of Monkey in the Middle
Hat tip to Texas Fred (With a plea for everyone to cross post and spread the word.)


Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

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

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

Full Story Here:
EXCLUSIVE: CIA Operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

To ALL of my friends, family and readers, this is the REGIME that has given our nation away and has caused the deaths of Americans, not only in Benghazi, but in the USA via Fast and Furious as well.

I am asking ALL of you, PLEASE share this post via any and all social media, email, instant messenger, whatever it takes. America MUST see this story and know the truth.

This entire EVIL administration must be removed; they must be subjected to the most intense scrutiny and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They are, ALL, either directly or indirectly, guilty of MURDER!

Here is MORE from the original story:

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

America, for the love of God, our families and this nation,please share this story with everyone you know, even hard-core libbers! They may be on the other side of the fence but they are NOT stupid, just severely misguided. Maybe THIS will open their eyes!

Rape! Rape! Rape! (Libya?)

Big news today: Richard Mourdock, an Indiana Republican candidate for Senate, said he thinks God wants women to be raped!

Ok...he didn't actually say that. But that's how it's being reported across the country. What Mr. Mourdock actually said was that he believes every life is a gift from God, even one resulting from a rape is God's will. The story being reported, however, is one of just another Republican who hates women. I actually saw a headline earlier (though I can't remember where) that read, "Republican candidate says rape is part of God's will." I mean...seriously? Is this what passes as news nowadays. Take one white male Republican, add in a religious belief about abortion, spin, stir, and obfuscate, then serve to the public with a dash of feminism. This dude said what most true Christians believe; that life begins at conception and since all life is precious, even a life caused by a horrible thing such as rape, then that life is a precious part of God's will. And that's EXACTLY what Richard Mourdock said. Yet the way it's being reported is absolutely astounding and ridiculous.

While searching for where I saw that headline...because I always like to be accurate about what I say here...I came across another equally astounding and ridiculous headline about rape in the Huffington Post. (I believe that's where the Mourdock headline was as well, but can't find it now so I could be wrong.) As I was scouring the website I noticed the word Pennsylvania, and being a Pennsylvania resident, I took notice. This is the headline:

"Pennsylvania Bill Includes
Provision Requiring Women
To Prove They Were Raped"

That IS a shockingly terrible thing to have to make a woman prove. Then I read the first line of the article:

"A bill in the Pennsylvania House proposing the reduction of welfare benefits for low-income women contains a provision requiring a woman who became pregnant from rape to prove that she reported her assault."

Prove what? Prove that she was raped? NO! Prove that she REPORTED the rape! How can news organizations get away with so twisting things and, in this case, lying outright in the headline!? Is there no such thing as journalistic integrity anymore?? The article goes on to explain that the bill is about cutting or reducing welfare, and that mothers who became pregnant as a result of rape will not be discontinued from receiving welfare. Hence, so someone can't come out and take advantage of that by saying they were raped when they weren't, they have to have proof they reported the rape. Doesn't seem so barbaric and insensible if it's reported correctly does it?

This whole faux outrage over some people's comments about rape and abortion is outrageous. All the more outrageous is that it only seems to be directed towards Republicans! President Obama even used Mourdock's statement as another example of his phony war on women. Yet...Breitbart.com reported that a Democratic Congressman, Jerry McNerney from California, wrote a novel in which one character explains that men evolved to be able to rape women because it prevents inbreeding. Yet no one, NO ONE, is talking about that. Because he's a Democrat. Hypocrisy bothers me.

You know what else bothers me. The fact that 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Libya and the Obama Administration has been lying about it and covering things up about it...and yet the news is about rape and abortion and the phony war on women. And not just making that the top news stories, but twisting it to make it sound so much more worse than what it actually is....I mean, I know it's not news, but the media has become absolutely pathetic.

Special Report on Benghazi/Attack Timeline

How is it that Fox News and CNN can get this information, but no one in Washington can!?!

I especially appreciate the attack timeline. Before this I heard nothing about the attack on the second location, in which the two ex-Navy Seals were killed by mortar fire. Why aren't we hearing these things from the Administration? Where is the leadership?

Did President Obama really say it was "an act of terror" on September 12th?

Last night's presidential debate had one very interesting moment that will surely be discussed a lot in the coming days. Once the terrorist attacks in Libya were brought up (which took far too long and lasted far too short for my liking) President Obama said something that made Mitt Romney do a double-take. He said that the day after the attack, while making a speech in the Rose Garden, that he called the attack "an act of terror." Mitt Romney seized on that and tried to get him to repeat it (which for some unknown reason he would not do) but it was moderator Candy Crowley who spoke up to say that those indeed were his words. (How she managed to get the transcript only a few seconds after he said it is unknown to me.) President Obama seized on the moment and asked Candy to repeat that, which she did...to applause from the pro-Obama portion of the crowd.

This has caused countless people to go back and re-read or re-watch the president's speech from that day. I'll include it here so everyone can watch it for themselves. While no one really remembers the president saying anything about the attack being terrorism, he does indeed say the words "acts of terror." It happens toward the end of his speech. After making some remarks about how September 11th was already a painful day, the president said this:

"As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."


Now it is all but impossible to tell from the context of the speech whether the words "acts of terror" were meant about the Beghazi attack directly or whether they were simply meant as some generic message about any terrorist attacks. There will be arguments supporting both. And since there's no actual way of knowing, both arguments will be deemed as "correct."
(In a move of political genius, Obama may have used the term ambiguously on purpose, so that he could later choose to acknowledge it as one way or the other to fit whichever narrative he wanted. I wouldn't put it past him.)

However, whether President Obama meant it one way or the other or both doesn't really matter one bit at this point. The president can spin the story whichever way he wants to now. What he can't do is erase the past month.

He can't ignore that on September 13th...two days after the attack, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said this during a press briefing:

Q. "At Benghazi? What happened at Benghazi --"

MR. CARNEY: "We certainly don't know. We don't know otherwise. We have NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS A PREPLANNED ATTACK. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, IT IS NOT A REACTION TO THE 9/11 ANNIVERSARY THAT WE KNOW OF, or to U.S. policy."

A few questions later Mr. Carney reiterated this:

MR. CARNEY: "I think there has been news reports on this, Jake, even in the press, which some of it has been speculative. What I’m telling you is this is under investigation. The unrest around the region has been in response to this video. WE DO NOT, AT THIS MOMENT, HAVE INFORMATION TO SUGGEST OR TO TELL YOU THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS UNREST WAS PREPLANNED. "

Now while Mr. Carney insists that the event is still under investigation, he leaves no doubt that, as far as the White House is concerned (i.e. President Obama) on September the 13th...that TWO DAYS after the attack there was NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION to suggest the attack was pre-planned!
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR THE DAY BEFORE!

He also cannot ignore that 3 days later, on September 16th, FIVE days after the attack, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, went on all 5 of the Sunday morning talk shows where she basically repeated this line:

RICE: "Our current best assessment, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT PRESENT, is that, in fact, what this began as, IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS — NOT A PREMEDITATED — RESPONSE to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but THAT'S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE AT PRESENT."


While Susan Rice also insists that the event is still under investigation, she also makes it clear that the "best information they have at present" indicates that "IT WAS A SPONTANEOUS - NOT A PREMEDITATED - RESPONSE...IN REACTION TO THIS VERY OFFENSIVE VIDEO..."
THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR 4 DAYS EARLIER!

He cannot ignore that 4 days after that, on September 20th, while being interviewed by Univision, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said, when asked directly if it was a terrorist attack:

“Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

5 days after that, while asked if it was a terrorist attack on The View, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF said:

“We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

And on that same day, during a speech to the United Nations, PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF made NO mention of the words "terrorism," "terrorist act," or "act of terror." The closest he came to discussing the attack was this:

"That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan."

President Obama does not directly say that the video was the cause of the attacks...but he also does NOT say they were an "act of terror" either. As a matter of fact, he makes it sound more like the attacks were caused by the video than not, as he goes on a diatribe about free speech and how it must be protected even though it may insult, and in how he declares that "no speech justifies mindless violence...no words excuse the killing of innocents.
ALL OF THESE RESPONSES SEEM TO DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE STATEMENT THAT HE UNDERSTOOD IT WAS AN ACT OF TERROR ON SEPTEMBER 12TH!

The question that begged to be answered about all of this rhetoric was this: was the death of four Americans and the resulting campaign of misinformation caused by incompetence or was it deliberate deception?

Up until now, the president and his entire administration could play the game of ignorance. They could blame the falsely made statements on the "fog of war" as Hillary Clinton did. They could say that they made statements based on "incomplete information." They could say that the exact details were "unknown" and that the investigation was "ongoing." They could insist that all of the information given to them at that time pointed to an "unplanned" attack. They could get away with simply saying that they made those statements based on the information they had at that time and then the information changed.

But not anymore. Now that President Obama said last night that he called it an "act of terror" on the VERY NEXT DAY, thus implying that he understood it was a terrorist attack as early as September 12th...it takes incompetence right off the table. It takes confusion and "evolving information" right off the table. IF President Obama believed it was an "act of terror" on September the 12th...then WHY did White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say there was no information to support that!? WHY did Ambassador Rice say the same 5 days later!? If the president of the United States believed it was an "act of terror" the day after it happened, then WHY did it take OVER TWO WEEKS for the Administration to finally admit it!? IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then the story about there being NO information or evidence supporting a terrorist act as the cause and focusing all attention on the movie instead was NOT simply confusion due to the "fog of war." IF the president believed it was an act of terror, then removing all rhetoric about terrorism and placing the blame on a "spontaneous protest" was a downright lie! If the White House Press Secretary isn't speaking with and for President Obama, then there is incompetence on a massive level going on in that administration. And if he is...then WHY did he say something that the president himself didn't believe? WHY DID HE LIE? WHY DID THEY ALL LIE??

So which is it, Mr. President? Did you truly believe and understand it to be an act of terror on September 12th as you said last night? Because if so...you've got a lot of explaining to do on who made the decision to lie about it for two weeks, and why that decision was made. You've just painted yourself into a pretty sticky corner, and I'm not sure even you can get out of it.

It will be a very interesting next few days and weeks as the election approaches, and as President Obama tries to answer the questions he himself raised by stating that claim last night. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with it now or if he tries to change the story again. The questions remain either way...but I think he just made it a lot harder on himself. Yes, should be interesting indeed.