Tuesday, May 07, 2013

Tuesday Post

Why did Obama want Ambassador Stevens dead?

According to the source, when the attack on the Consulate occurred, a specific chain of command to gain verbal permission to move special-forces in must have occurred. SOCAFRICA commander Lieutenant Col. Gibson would have contacted a desk officer at the time, asking for that permission.  

That desk officer would have called Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, then in command of Joint Special Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara. From there, Bristol would have made contact with Rear Admiral Brian Losey, then Commander of Special Operations Command Africa. Losey would have contacted four-star General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. AFRICOM at the time.  

Ham answers directly to the President of the United States,” said the source. It wasn’t a low-level bureaucrat making the call, the source adamantly added. 

That call may have been made early in the engagement. Both Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey testified in January that they had no further communication with President Barack Obama after an initial briefing in the early hours of the Benghazi crisis, which continued through the night.

What is known: security was requested months before the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya and denied. Despite the emphatic claims that a Youtube video was to blame for the attack, Gregory Hicks states that he knew that the attack was a terrorist one from the start. The denial and obfuscation went on for months. It was three weeks before the FBI arrived on the scene. Leon Panetta testified that Obama did not communicate with the Secretary of Defense. This timeline recounts the requests for the security, what occurred after, to Hillary Clinton's inflammatory declaration during her testimony.

So- why did everyone lie?

Related: Benghazi is the new Gosnell for the popular press.

There are many elements on the periodic table but the two that may explain why a principal allegedly did not know about an obscene poster promoting sex acts are maliceum and stupidium. Either way, fire this man and privatise education.

Journalists are hacks- redux:

As in the United States, the anti-abortion movement continues to challenge a woman's right to chose to terminate her pregnancy, arguing a fetus has as much right to life as a newborn baby.

The movement has its champions in the federal Conservative caucus, even if Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stressed he doesn't want the politically explosive debate reopened. While a segment of his support base might back the right-to-life position, Harper sees only potential lost votes in the electoral centre.

But he hasn't been able to rein in advocates such as Alberta MP Mark Warawa and Ontario's Stephen Woodworth, who've defied their micro-managing prime minister and tried to bring the issue back into the House of Commons.

Their strategy has not been a frontal attack on abortion's de facto legality. Rather, they've tried to snooker opponents by tying their positions to more broadly supported concepts such as opposition to sex-selective abortion and a motherhood affirmation of the worth of human beings.

Warawa's proposed motion to condemn sex-selective abortion hasn't made it to a vote, despite two attempts, though he reportedly plans to pursue it in the future, according to CBC News.

The latest gambit comes from Woodworth, who wants the Commons to vote on his motion: “That the Parliament of Canada declare that the equal worth and dignity of everyone must be recognized by Canadian law based on their inherent nature as a human being.”

Like Warawa's motion, Woodworth's contains a trap for pro-choice supporters. But they're not taking the bait.

The Kitchener Centre MP approached the National Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada to support his motion. When it refused, Woodworth pounced, accusing the organization of devaluing some members of the human race.

“If you begin by saying that 'I'm sorry, some people are just not human beings and therefore they can be written out of the equation,' it's a really bad move,” Woodworth told CBC News, after he was rebuffed. “It creates a dark and dangerous future.”

Woodworth argued that the terms "human being," "dignity" and "equality," could be defined later through public and parliamentary discussion after the motion had passed.

Hyperbole and complete inability to grasp the basic facts of human biology and reproduction aside, Stephen Harper is not trying to re-open the abortion debate because he knows it is politically poisonous and the fact that Warewa and Woodworth are tireless in their efforts to get anyone, even the rancid pro-abortion movement, to see the logical disparity between abortion, gendercide and Gosnell's pet projects says more about their character than that which is lacking in Mertl's. The discussion can't even be had but that has not stopped Mertl or any other mouth-breather from making pronouncements that defy known legal and scientific facts.


If the UN discourages "baby boxes", the idea must be encouraged and implemented:

The UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child says the idea of baby boxes is outdated and simply a form of abandonment, which strips the baby of its right to know the name of its biological parents. It claims such projects have not been proven to reduce infanticide or reduce abandonment.
Really- who sees such a slot and thinks of just abandoning a baby? Is it better to leave the child in a dumpster?

Damn UN...

(With thanks to one and many)

No comments: