Pete Davidson is a comedian who works on SNL. He’s also a jerk who mocks disabled veterans.
He appeared on SNL Saturday night to make fun of republicans running in the mid-terms. In the video, Davidsonmocks Dan Crenshaw who is running for Congress in Texas. About Crenshaw, from his web site:
“Lieutenant Commander Dan Crenshaw (Retired) is the Republican nominee to replace retiring Congressman Ted Poe as the Representative for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District. Dan knew that he wanted to serve his country with the most elite fighting force in history: the U.S. Navy SEALs. Dan graduated from Tufts University in 2006, where he earned his Naval officer commission through Navy ROTC. He immediately reported to SEAL training in Coronado, CA, where he met his future wife, Tara, just a few months later. After graduating SEAL training, Dan deployed to Fallujah, Iraq to join SEAL Team Three, his first of five deployments overseas.
On Dan’s third deployment in 2012, his life changed forever. After six months of combat operations, Dan was hit by an IED blast during a mission in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was evacuated and awoke from his medically induced coma learning that his right eye had been destroyed in the blast and his left eye was still present, but badly damaged. Dan was completely blind and the doctors did not believe he would ever see again.Tara stood by him every day and night, keeping faith and praying he would see again. After several difficult surgeries, he eventually regained sight in his left eye, a miracle according to the head surgeon. Dan refused to quit and went on to deploy twice more, first back to the Middle East in 2014 and then South Korea in 2016.
Dan was medically retired in September of 2016, after ten years in the SEAL Teams. He left service with two Bronze Stars (one with Valor), the Purple Heart, and the Navy Commendation Medal with Valor, among many other recognitions.”
In the SNL skit Davidson says the following (beginning at the :58 second mark):
“This guy Dan Crenshaw. You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate from Texas and not a hit man in a porno movie. I’m sorry. I know he lost his eye in war or whatever. Whatever.”
Classy. Real classy.
Mr. Crenshaw took the high road and had a classierresponse to NBC:
“Good rule in life: I try hard not to offend; I try harder not to be offended. That being said, I hope @nbcsnl recognizes that vets don’t deserve to see their wounds used as punchlines for bad jokes.”
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
Here’s the wise counsel from Admiral William H. McRaven, 9th commander of U.S. Special Operations, from his 2014 Commencement Address to the University of Texas, Austin:
If you want to change the world, start off by making your bed.
When confronted by sharks, incl. human sharks, stand your ground, do not act afraid, and don’t back down.
Nothing matters but your will to succeed — not your color, ethnic background, education, or social status.
Measure a person by the size of their heart, not by the size of their flippers.
The power of one person: One person can change the world by giving people hope.
“So if you want to change the world, start each day with a task completed, find someone to help you through life, respect everyone, know that life is not fair and you will fail often. But if you take some risks, step up when the times are the toughest, face down the bullies, lift up the downtrodden, and never, ever give up, the next generation and the generations that follow will live in a world far better than the one we have today.” -Adm. William McRaven.
H/t maziel ~Eowyn
We already know that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly lied when she said that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya — which resulted in the murders of 4 Americans, including an ambassador — was a spontaneous mob reaction to a little-known anti-Muhammad video.
But now we have the hard evidence that, all along and at the time it was happening, Hillary knew that the attack had nothing to do with the video, but was undertaken by Muslim terrorists. The evidence is in the form of the State Department’s phone transcripts, which were obtained by Judicial Watch, the nonpartisan DC-based citizens’ watchdog group.
From Judicial Watch, April 14, 2016:
Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.” The documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack.
Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22, but court filings in Judicial Watch litigation show that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to Judicial Watch. Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier.
The State Department produced the information last month to Judicial Watch, information that was found among thousands of new Clinton State Department records supposedly only discovered in December, 2015. Under court order, the State Department released 11 documents responsive to the Judicial Watch request with large blocks of information redacted. The documents also include phone conservations between Clinton and other foreign dignitaries and heads of state during the period of the deadly terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate. At 10:08 p.m. on September 11, Hillary issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Yet the next day, in her 7:49 PM September 12 conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.” Kandil responded, “You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.” On September 15, in a telephone call with then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr, Clinton emphatically portrayed the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the Benghazi violence. Clinton told Amr, “I have repeatedly, as has the President and other officials in our government, deplored not only the content of this stupid, very offensive film… But we have to exercise more self-discipline… otherwise we’ll be in a vicious downward circle against everyone who has ever felt offended, particularly on the internet….”
Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides
Clinton’s telephone call with Amr also contained a curious reference to what the former secretary referred to as a “very successful investment visit led by my deputy Tom Nides, and on the very day they left this series of incidents began to unfold.” According to the Washington Post, Nides, who was deputy secretary for management and resources at the State Department, was at the same time responsible for “communications with donors” to the Clinton Foundation. Nides was also involved in the scandal involving Clinton’s efforts to provide special access to State Department officials for hedge fund clients of her son-in-law, Marc Mezinsky. The documents also show that Hillary referenced the “actions of a mob” to Tunisian Prime Minister Jebali on September 14. Jebali responded that he condemned “these terrorist actions.”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said:
“There are two scandals here. The first is Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack – including an admission that it was a terrorist attack. The second is the State Department’s cover-up of these documents. The State Department is forcing Judicial Watch to play ‘whack-a-mole’ with Clinton and Benghazi documents. It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.”
The Paradox of Violence | Tim Larkin | TEDxGrandForks
Published on Apr 6, 2015 Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is… it is the only answer. This provocative talk explores the uncomfortable realities of violence. There is no greater fear that being physically dominated by a bigger, faster, stronger attacker. Yet there is actually little good information on how to use the tool of violence. Here you will learn the surprising truth about violence and how we have stigmatized the study of violence to the point that only the criminal elements have access to it.
A former military intelligence officer, Tim Larkin was part of a beta group that redesigned how special operations personnel trained for close combat. He has a 25-year career, training people in 52 countries on how to deal with imminent violence. Over 10,000 clients are trained in his Target Focus Training (TFT) from military special operations units, special law enforcement teams, celebrities, and high profile business leaders on how to use physics and physiology to injure any human(s) trying to attack them.
The nation’s leading pro-victim rights and personal safety advocate as well as a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame, Tim’s numerous magazine covers and articles in the martial arts and self-defense industry are as controversial as his “pro-victim advocate” position on self-protection.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx
“Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.
This is elementary common sense.”
– George Orwell,
Pacifism and the War: 1941 essay “…if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
– Jesus Christ,
US Army tanks “training” in the streets of St. Louis, June 2012.
For two months beginning on July 15 to Sept. 15, 2015, élite members from all four branches of the U.S. military will launch a Special Operations exercise called Jade Helm 15 that even the military’s Army Special Operations Command admits would be unprecedented in its size and scope.
Some parts of the operational details have been disclosed, including the fact that there will be 1,200 troops participating, and according to CNN, “mainly Army Green Berets, but also a small group of Navy SEALS and Air Force special operations troops as well as conventional Army infantry.”
Command spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria said: “The nature of warfare is always changing and U.S. Army Special Operations Command’s mission is to make certain the Army’s various Special Operations Forces are trained, equipped and organized to successfully conduct worldwide special operations in support of our nation’s interests. Training exercise Jade Helm is going to assist our Special Operations Soldiers and leadership in refining the skills needed against an ever changing foreign threat.”
As reported by Dan Lamothe for The Washington Post, March 31, 2015, those elite service members will operate covertly among the U.S. public and travel in military aircraft. Jade Helm 15 will be conducted in Arizona, southern California, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah.
The exercise has prompted speculation and fear that Jade Helm is a preparation and prelude for martial law. In particular, some have expressed alarm about this map (see below) for the exercise, verified by Washington Post to be legitimate. The map designates Texas, Utah, and southern California as “hostile” and New Mexico as “uncertain” territories for the purpose of the exercise.
↓ Click map to enlarge ↓
The Washington Post points out that the military has routinely launched exercises in the past in which regions of the United States are identified as hostile for the purpose of training. Examples include:
Bold Alligator, a recent naval exercise that included amphibious landings to prevent insurgent groups in the fictional country known as Garnet — Georgia and part of Florida in real life — from launching attacks.
Robin Sage, an exercise in which U.S. Special Forces support fictional guerrilla forces in numerous counties across North Carolina to liberate the fictional country of Pineland. The soldiers operated in close proximity to civilians, who were warned they might hear blank gunfire.
Despite Washington Post‘s confidence that Jade Helm 15 is harmless, we the American people do have reasons to be concerned.
To begin, the U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs by two laws: 1. Insurrection Act of 1807 governs the ability of POTUS to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness,insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C.§ 331 – 10 U.S.C.§ 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection.
2. Posse Comitatus Act of 1878(PCA), a U.S. federal law (18 U.S.C.§ 1385) passed after the end of Reconstruction on June 18, 1878, and updated in 1981 to refer specifically to the U.S. Armed Forces, makes unauthorized deployment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act. The PCA does not apply to the U.S. Coast Guard (because the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Dept. of Homeland Security instead of the Pentagon), nor does the PCA apply to the National Guard (because the National Guard is under state authority and can act in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state’s governor). We are told that the only exception to the deployment of U.S. military troops within the United States is provided under Section 4 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which says:
“and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
In other words, Article IV requires the U.S. government to protect each state from invasion and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence. The reality, however, is more complicated than that. A U.S. Army document called ATP 3-39.33, April 2014, provides more nuances to when and when not the Posse Comitatus Act is applicable.
ATP 3-39.33 CIVIL DISTURBANCES (april 2014)
The purpose of ATP (U.S. Army Techniques Publication) 3-39.33 is to provide discussion and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS).
This is what ATP 3-39.33 says under the section titled “Legal Considerations”:
2-4. For the U.S. Army, conducting civil disturbance missions within the United Stateswill vary greatly when compared to conducting civil disturbance missions within a foreign country where the U.S. Army is conducting operations. Except as expressly authorized by the Constitution of the United States or by another act of Congress, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) prohibits the use of the Active Army as enforcement officials to execute state or federal law and perform direct law enforcement functions within CONUS.For OCONUS operations, especially when the HN does not have a legitimate government or law enforcement capabilities, the U.S. Army may have to perform these functions, including responding to civil disturbances and performing the tactics and techniques discussed in this manual.
2-6. Within CONUS, military operations would fall under the defense support of civil authorities (see ADP 3-28 and ADRP 3-28). Military support to law enforcement is one of two categories: direct and indirect support. When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, federal military forces may provide indirect support to law enforcement agencies; but support is limited to logistical, transportation, and training assistance except when emergency authority applies.State and territorial governors can use state National Guard forces for direct support to civilian law enforcement; however, such use is a temporary expedient and must be in accordance with state laws (see ADP 3-28).
2-7. The Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations, policies, and other legal issues limit the use of federal military personnel in domestic support operations. Any Army involvement in civil disturbance operations involves many legal issues requiring comprehensive legal reviews. However, federal forces are authorized for use in civil disturbance operations under certain circumstances. The following references pertain to the use of federal forces within the United States, therefore; commanders, staffs, and leaders must be familiar with, and adhere to, the parameters within them—
Insurrection Act (10 USC 333–334).
Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385).
32 CFR, Part 215.
DODI 3025.21. (This will be discussed below. Please make note of this!)
2-8. The Constitution of the United States provides two exceptions for which the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply. These exceptions are based upon the inherent right of the U.S. government to ensure the preservation of public order and to carrying out governmental operations within its territorial limits by force, if necessary. These two exceptions are—
Emergency authority. A sudden and unexpected civil disturbance, disaster, or calamity may seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that local authorities cannot control the situation. At such times, the federal government may use military force to prevent the loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore government functions and public order. In these circumstances, federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances(see DODD 3025.18).
Protection of federal property and functions. When the need for the protection of federal property or federal functions exists, and duly constituted local authorities are unable to, or decline to provide adequate protection, federal action, including the use of military forces, is authorized.
2-9. Laws passed by the U.S. congress include four exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.With the first threelaws discussed below (10 USC 331–333) there is a prerequisite that the President must take personal action, including the issuance of a proclamation calling upon insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably within a limited time. The four exceptions, based on law are—
10 USC 331. When a state is unable to control domestic violence and they have requested federal assistance, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
10 USC 332. When ordinary enforcement means are unworkable due to unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States, use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
10 USC 333.When a state cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens, due to domestic violence or conspiracy to hinder execution of State or Federal law, the use of the militia or Armed Forces is authorized.
House Joint Resolution 1292. This resolution directs all departments of the U.S. government, upon request of the Secret Service, to assist in carrying out its statutory duties to protect government officials and major political candidates from physical harm.
After reading the above on ATP 3-39.33, do you now have a clear, unambiguous understanding of when and when not the Posse Comitatus Act applies?
I don’t blame you. I don’t have a clear idea either!
But there’s a short-cut to all this which you will clearly understand. It’s a curious document by the Obama Pentagon, called the Department of Defense Instruction No. 3025.21 (or DODI 3025.21) of February 2013. Simply put, DODI 3025.21 throws out of the window all the carefully-made and carefully-worded exemptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.
DOD Instruction No. 3025.21
In February 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) unilaterally made a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” and in so doing, granted itself the authority to police America’s streets without obtaining prior presidential, state, or local consent, thereby upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
Pursuant to those changes, the DoD issued a 42-page Department of Defense Instruction (DODI), No. 3025.21, February 27, 2013. (Click here or here for DODI No. 3025.21 in PDF)
The most disturbing part of the DODI no. 3025.21 begins on page 15: “Enclosure 3: Participation of DoD Personnel in Civilian Law Enforcement Activities.” On page 16, under Section 1b’s “Permissible Direct Assistance” is a subsection (3), which states:
When permitted under emergency authority in accordance with Reference (c), Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbancesbecause:
(a) Such activities are necessary to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order; or,
(b) When duly constituted Federal, State, or local authorities are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for Federal property or Federal governmental functions. Federal action, including the use of Federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect Federal property or functions.
Jed Morey of the Long Island Presscites Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the DODI rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” which is “quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
Afran points out that Section 1b(3) of the DODI not only fails to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it also grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders” who have the same power to authorize military force as the president when the latter’s authorization is “impossible”— whatever that means.
As Afran puts it, “These phrases don’t have any legal meaning. It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.” Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes [DODI] have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here.The definitions are absurdly broad.”
Afran reminds us that, unlike the military, “the police operate under civilian control. They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.”
Jed Morey concludes: “for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention. […] As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.” (See “Boston Bombing: Getting the sheeple used to the police state”)
Add the name, Peter Schweizer, to the death watch list
Andrew Breitbart, Joan Rivers, Loretta Fuddy, Michael Hastings, Ron Johnson, Vince Foster…
President Lucifer and the Clintons have some things in common. People who become inconvenient to them have a tendency to die.
The author of a book hammering Hillary Clinton says he now has full-time security
by COLIN CAMPBELL
The author of a controversial new book about Bill and Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that he has arranged full-time security for himself.
Asked during a Bloomberg interview if he received any death threats over his controversial book, “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer would only say he has “security.”
“I’ll just say we have security. And that security is not something that just came because we decided to have security. And we’ll just leave it at that,” he said.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-cash-peter-schweizer-security-2015-4#ixzz3Yo5hqbko
http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/liberty/liberty/bdycount.txt Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to the Clintons. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.
http://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm Click the link above to check out the incredibly long list of suspicious deaths connected to Obama. I’ve removed the list out of mercy to the readers, but if you have time to spare, this will shock you.
Conclusion: Peter Schweizer needs to pray Psalm 91 daily.
Fox News: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott says he is declaring Feb. 2 as “Chris Kyle Day” in Texas to honor the late U.S. serviceman whose life is depicted in the blockbuster film “American Sniper.”
Abbott made the announcement Friday while speaking to a Texas Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Austin. Hundreds of veterans in a hotel ballroom greeted the news with a standing ovation.
Kyle’s hometown was the Fort Worth suburb of Midlothian. He was 37 when he was killed in 2013 at a North Texas gun range. A former Marine charged in his death goes on trial in Stephenville next month.
Abbott said the state will commemorate Kyle’s life on Monday.
Kyle did four tours in Iraq and is considered to be the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history.
American Sniper was number one at the box office again this past weekend! Check out my movie review here.
That is the assertion made not by some loony bin, but by the late investigative journalist Jack Anderson in 1981, back in those days when America’s reporters actually had the guts to investigate. Jack Northman Anderson (1922–2005) was a newspaper columnist, syndicated by United Features Syndicate, who is considered one of the fathers of modern investigative journalism. Anderson won the 1972 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for his investigation on secret Nixon administration policy decision-making between the U.S. and Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Anderson was a key and often controversial figure in reporting on J. Edgar Hoover’s apparent ties to the Mafia, the Watergate scandal, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the search for fugitive ex-Nazi officials in South America, and the savings and loan crisis. He also discovered a CIA plot to assassinate Fidel Castro.
Here’s a scanned image of a column Anderson wrote on the disinformation campaign waged against Americans by the CIA, which was published on September 22, 1981, in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. (Source: Activist Post)
↓ Click image to enlarge ↓
Here are excerpts from Anderson’s article:
… the Central Intelligence Agency is . . . trying to shut off channels of information to the electorate . . . and . . . spreading “disinformation” to news agency.
The most disturbing is the disinformation campaign. This poisons the well from which Americans draw the facts they need to govern themselves. The wise Thomas Jefferson sought to lay this issue to rest two centuries ago when he argued that the people’s right to know is more important than the officials’ right to govern.
Now along comes Bill Casey, the doddering CIA director, with the argument that the government has the right to mislead the public by planting phony stories in the press.
His purpose ostensibly is patriotic. He wants to build public support for the political, economic and military measures that the Reagan administration believes are necessary to counter the worldwide conspiracies of the Soviet Union.
Legal experts have warned that the CIA is forbidden by law from conducting operations within the United States and that disinformation aimed at the American public, therefore, would be illegal. But Casey has found a way that he thinks the CIA can get around the law. The disinformation will be planted with foreign news bureaus whose stories are routinely picked up by U.S. newspapers.[…] Trusted CIA sources have told my associate Ron McRae that the foreign press, in the words of one insider, “is already being manipulated directly.”
My question is:
What makes us think the CIA had stopped its disinformation campaigns?
Recall that last February in an interview with Lou Dobbs on the Fox Business Network, retired four-star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (1985-1987), the largest single military command in the world, said that the Benghazi attack on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, was a false flag “October surprise” that went horribly wrong.
According to Adm. Lyons, Obama intentionally had conspired with Muslim “terrorists” to stage a bogus attack against the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, and the bogus kidnapping of Ambassador Chris Stevens. If the plan had succeeded, Obama would successfully “negotiate” for Stevens’ release in a prisoner exchange for “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, which would bolster Obama’s then-mediocre approval ratings just prior to the 2012 election.
And so the Obama administration intentionally gutted security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi prior to the staged kidnapping of Stevens. But former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down. The two men raced to the U.S. compound and killed scores of attackers, but were themselves killed. Obama’s Muslim co-conspirators took Woods’ and Doherty’s heroism to mean Obama had reneged on the deal, so they took their anger out on Stevens by torturing him and dragging his body through the streets.
Tyrone Woods & Glen Doherty
Admiral Lyons’ assertions make sense. They would explain many of the oddities of the Benghazi incident, including: