Libya – U.S. Ambassador – Staffers- Killed in Embassy Takeover – Egypt Explodes– Movie the Excuse – Shades of 79'

Attacks on the American Embassy in Egypt - image CBS News

This morning fromReuters: The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on Tuesday in the Libyan city of Benghazi, a Libyan official said.
It was not clear if the ambassador was in his car or the Libyan consulate when the attack occurred.
"The Libyan ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.

A film produced by the U.S. State Department introducing the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, is shown below. The naiveté with which the U.S. approaches the region is evidenced in the short film – with Stevens pointing out how our nation allows freedom of (and he should have noted “from”) religion. That is something foreign to the Middle East, where theocracy is the main form of government in Iran, as well as newly formed governments in Egypt and Libya where the Muslim Brotherhood has a strong hand in the governments, or even our allies such as Saudi Arabia where the law is based on the Koran, and women’s rights are non-existent. (Stoning is the preferred method of dealing with immodest women and the LBGT community in the Middle East.)



There was also violence in Egypt, coverage of the day’s events by CBS News – catch the U.S. Response at the end of the report.




Apparently, the excuse for the eruption of violence, was the release of an anti-Muslim film by a group in California, the film had been released to little or no commercial success. The premise of the movie: a ridiculous and badly hatched movie that depicts Mohammad as some sort of nut – violent and erotic – in other words a parody. Fine if one is in the U.S. and free speech, no matter how poorly grafted and/or distasteful, is tolerated – but in Libya and Egypt that is enough “proof” of “anti-Muslim rhetoric” to attack the entire U.S., take over their embassies and kill Americans!



Perhaps, just perhaps, if every time someone of little or no import, a cartoonist, or even journalist, that joked or lampooned, the Pope, was met by millions of angry Catholics storming into the streets, burning the nations flag, and murdering staffer, the cartoonist, or whoever they pleased, this would make sense somehow – but – the only way this does make sense is that once a Theocracy has a foothold in a nation, and their population is undereducated or radical enough to believe a shoddy film produced in the U.S. is representative of all of the U.S., it allows those few at the top of the food chain to gain a firm foothold in the nation – while laying the blame on the “Great Satan” (i.e. the U.S.A.) for the Muslim worlds short-comings. The aforementioned provides the protagonist (General, Ayatollah, et al) an an instant riot, or takeover of an embassy where those staffers are sadly attempting to help these people.

Shades of the Ayatollah and his return to Iran! (See Jimmy Carter, his naive support for the Ayatollah’s return to Iran, and the subsequent U.S. embassy takeover, deaths and hostage situation in Iran in that period.)

Viewing, with a bit of sanity, any organized religion, one finds that the founders made decisions based on attracting a wide range of followers, that there were military, political and, let’s face it, colonization goals involved, with a startling few of those who were basically against such a sham. The fact that most of the Popes were more interested at one point in history in consolidating The Italian State, rather than in promoting Catholicism and its core values is a well known fact. Martin Luther rebelled over what can only be called the “purgatory tax” or a way to fund a war by making up a place called Purgatory, and then charging individuals a sum of cash to insure that they or their relatives did not end up there after death. That worked in the middle ages. Also, it is not a stretch that a general, bent on taking power and controlling a large section of the Middle East, whose plans encompassed the entire world at the time, would band tribes of Bedouins together, write a book, suddenly get “religion” – which was built on the backs of two of the prominent religions of the day – all in order to give the peoples a common thread to bind them together and consulate his power. He accomplished that task – His name was Mohammed. Therefore, today one has Catholics that pray for the souls of the dead trapped in an imaginary purgatory, and Muslims who want to kill infidels to gain entrance into Paradise, and in the meantime, convert the entire planet to the true religion by war and conquest.

(All of the above available in library books, history books, and college course in upper level theocracy and history disciplines – or they were at one time.)

What is mind-boggling is the total lack of coverage of this event by local affiliates on the 11 o’clock news hour last evening. The story broke yesterday afternoon, and when one has an embassy takeover and murder of staff on the anniversary of 9/11, then that is of some interest one would think, to some of the individuals watching?

Perhaps those in control of the breaking news segment passed in this area due to the fact that the very murder of an American in any nation for any reason, might be justified if a flag were involved – No joke, take the City of Amherst, MA for example, where U.S. flags may be flown on 9/11 every 5 days, so that the community won’t be upset by the controversial symbol of the flag!!! - (See Coverage here from local NBC Affiliate: WWLP Springfield. Of course, this is the University of Massachusetts, where one can become a certified SEIU Organizer – the only University that has an advance degree program in - Labor Studies Graduates go on to make hefty salaries, on the backs of union workers, while organizing protests in placed like Wisconsin – Therefore, not reporting on a major event involving a U.S. Embassy, and the death of the Ambassador at the hands of Muslim protestors, might not be considered, normal! Or perhaps, just perhaps, those networks would prefer to keep this one shoved under a rug somewhere.

Consider there are obvious comparison that would and should be made regarding the poor foreign policy choices coming from the Administration and the screamingly similar policy during the Carter Administration. Whereby any honest Historian will admit that the two have too many distinct parallels. To discover: one might read articles from 1977 to 1980 and find more than a few decisions that are comparable.

This act of violence, murder and mayhem in the name of Allah, will of course, go unanswered, as it was in 1980. Or it may be “strongly condemned” by the U.S. Administration. It must be seriously tiring for Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State to tow the party line in these instances. One can hazard to guess, as the number of 3 am calls have piled up over the years and that those individuals claiming to be fighting for Democracy while installing a Theocracy in the Middle East would not have dared to do so under a Clinton administration. It sends a message to the millions of baby boomers who got out the vote for Reagan in 1979, and are "very enthusiastic" regarding this years election.

Obama: Congress Must Act Now To Boost The Military Budget – Wants Afghanistan Increase In Troop Level to 60,000

On ThursdayBarack Obama asked Congress to increase the Defense Budget by an additional 83.4 billion; which brings the total 2009 military budget to approximately $150 billion dollars, down from 188 billion in 2008.

Obama plans to increase troop levels in Afghanistan from 38,000 to 60,000 and give the Pentagon requested funds to overall increase the overall armed forces to 547,000 plus active duty personnel.
John Boehner, Republican House Leader, indicated that the GOP members would support the request, although he placed a caveat on that announcement – Democrats are historically prone to manage war efforts and funding; in effect hamstringing military efforts through the use of timelines.

The most interesting aspect of this particular request to Congress will be the reaction of those Democrats who supported Obama as an anti-war candidate, including the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi released the following statement after receiving Obama’s request:

“Pelosi said Congress would carefully review Obama's request and "engage in a dialogue with the administration on appropriate benchmarks to measure the success of our investments."

In this simple statement, one can surmise that: “Carefully Review” does not meet the President’s request for quick and speedy cooperation, and may also include earmarks which he specifically indicated should not be attached to this particular bill. Additionally, the “diaglogue with the administration on appropriate benchmarks”, would indicate the usual timelines and other restrictions common with the leftist in the Party ultimately forcing the GOP to back off of support for the bill.

Within the past month, North Korea launched a long-range missile, which drew the strongest criticism within the current administration from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In addition, the drug cartels and violence on the U.S. and Mexico border has reached critical proportions – the State Department issued a travel alert. Just this week, Somali Pirates ( Who are not officially linked to terrorists) hijacked an American Flagged Ship, and are currently holding the Captain Hostage. Obama has remained quiet on the subject, while Hillary Clinton is releasing statements and keeping the press informed. In the case of the 3AM phone call, directly following, Obama contacted his staff, while Clinton made the calls to U.N. Security Council During the primary challenges, Clinton warned there would be days like this, giving rise to speculation that the President may lack ability to deal with the world violence that has increased since January.

Perhaps, that may be part of the reason, this anti-war Candidate – Obama, suddenly finds it necessary to take a rather hawkish stance through the increase military funding. The questions now remain; will Pelosi cooperate with both the President and the GOP in crafting a bill that will be earmark and restriction free? Will Obama begin to speak out strongly on the attacks on American interests and the threats from nations such as North Korea, or will Clinton continue to prove to be the “strong arm” of the administration? Finally, with the Presidents “strongly approves” continue its downard spiral - currently dwindling to a mere 34 percent.

A side note:
Obama’s approvals may only decrease, as the President plans to push for very controversial immigration reform, in hand with the Senate , which on Thursday introduced legislation that would grand conditional citizen ship to illegal immigrants. Currently, 74% polled (crossing party lines) are in favor of increased border security.