Libya Terrorism Timeline: Truth and Obama Deception

Terrorism Timeline from Heritage Foundation reveals Obama Administration Deception

From Heritage Foundation

Watch Heritage video on the timeline of the Administration’s Libya response

The latest incriminating information on the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya indicates that the State Department turned down a request for additional security from concerned U.S. embassy staff.

New evidence shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.

And when the terrorist attack did take place, the Obama Administration peddled the ridiculous story that an offensive, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube video was to blame in order to avoid characterizing the murders of four Americans as terrorism.

On October 2, a letter was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R–CA) and Jason Chaffetz (R–UT), Chairman of the National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The letter detailed 13 known security threats against U.S. facilities in Libya in the six months prior to September 11.

On October 10, the committee  holds a hearing on events in Libya and seek answers from the State Department. Also on October 10, The Heritage Foundation  hosts a public panel discussion on the events in Libya titled, “Intelligence and Security Failure: Attacks in Benghazi and Across the Middle East Reveal Ongoing Threat of Terrorism.”

Timeline from Heritage Foundation

To help our readers follow the path to tragedy on September 11 and its aftermath, below is a chronology of key events:

April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.

April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.

May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.

May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.

May 3: The State Department declines a request from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.

May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.

June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”

June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.
Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.

August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.

September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security.

September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.

September 11: U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya is attacked, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed.

September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack was involved.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: Carney denies Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says, “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”
 

President Obama, Libya, Terrorism, and Truth

What is the Truth? Is there a Cover Up? Demand that Congress Investigate.

Sign a petition; Demand the Truth.

Steve Elliot, Grassfire Nation

Is the Obama administration intentionally withholding information about the terror attack in an attempt to cover up the truth about the killing of these four Americans? It's a question that must be asked ... and answered!

It's been more than two-and-a-half weeks since an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya killed four American diplomats, including widely respected ambassador Christopher Stevens. Yet, President Obama STILL has not publicly acknowledged that attack as terrorism.

Even though it has been widely reported that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the tragedy which transpired on the eleventh anniversary of September 11 was not a "spontaneous action" to an anti-Islam YouTube video, our "Commander"-in-Chief refuses to call this deadly attack what it is -- TERRORISM.

Why hasn't the President publicly acknowledged that the murders in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack? His Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in a Pentagon news conference on Thursday saying flatly: "It was a terrorist attack."

+ + Demand Congress Investigate the Libya Attack

Yet for more than two weeks, the White House stuck to its story that Chris Stevens' murder was committed in retaliation for the ridiculous and laughable "Innocence of Muslims" clip. Remarkably, the President still blamed the anti-Islam video for Stevens' death in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday.

Is the Obama administration intentionally withholding information about the terror attack in an attempt to cover up the truth about the killing of these four Americans? It's a question that must be asked ... and answered!

Go here now to take immediate action:

www.grassfire.com/278/petition.asp

+ + Americans Demand the Truth

Grassfire is moving quickly to mobilize 50,000 Americans who want to know exactly what the Obama administration knew before and after terrorists attacked our consulate and murdered our fellow citizens.

As Americans, we deserve answers to these and other critical questions that continue to surface about the Benghazi attack. Go here to sign our Grassfire petition and demand that Congress determine whether or not there's been a cover-up by the Obama administration:


P.S. You can do something to hold the Obama administration accountable. Demand that Congress investigate and reveal any efforts to cover up the deadly events in Libya. Go here now to sign our Grassfire petition and demand Americans learn the full truth about the Benghazi attack:

President Obama Executive Order Threatens Freedom of Speech

DHS: Obama Cyber Security Executive Order “Close To Completion”
Threatening Freedom of Speech and First Amendment

Tim Brown

Freedom Outpost

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs on September 19, 2012 and said that a cyber security executive order is “close to completion” that will grant the president broad and sweeping powers over the internet.

Napolitano said, “DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems.”
Joe Wolverton, II, at the New American, rightly points out the problem with the federal government’s exercising an authority they are not specifically given in the Constitution.
Precisely which clause in the Constitution grants to the president specifically or the executive branch (of which DHS is a part) generally authority to exercise any sort of oversight of such matters was not cited by Secretary Napolitano.

Naturally, a document written 225 years ago would not include a reference to cyber security, but the principles of enumerated powers and limited government apply to any program or project of the federal government. According to the contract that created the three branches of the federal government, none of those departments may do anything unless specifically granted that authority in the Constitution.

This is a principle of constitutional interpretation often overlooked. Those promoting a larger government with increasing influence on the lives of private citizens commonly defend government growth by insisting that “nothing in the Constitution forbids us from doing” whatever federal program they are advocating.

Had I been living at the time, I would have sided with the anti-Federalists. However, Wolverton goes on to point out that James Madison wrote in The Federalist,No. 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The reason this is all taking shape into an executive order is because the Congress shot down the overreaching powers of the federal government in the cyber security bill earlier this year. They did so with good reason. Not only was it a stealth bill to introduce more gun control, but back in July it was reported. . .

The updated version of the bill reflects changes to the provision to assign the Department of Homeland Security the role of creating mandatory cyber security standards for infrastructure industries.

The newer version of the bill does not include language for “mandatory, regulatory sections,” but still requires a creation of industry best practice standards for the purposes of protecting critical infrastructure, but rather than making the adoption of those standards mandatory, the owners of the critical infrastructure adopt “voluntary” standards. The bill offers incentives to adopt those standards, such as liability protection, and access to threat information.

Some contend that the revisions are not ideal, however, as it gives the government the power to deny threat information to critical infrastructure owners who choose not to comply with the voluntary standards. Likewise, the incentives are too insignificant to fully incentivize any company to adopt the standards.

My fellow Americans, do we really want the federal government to have this kind of power? Really? I know some will say “yes, we need this,” but before you move too fast, think about it. We’re talking about the incompetent Department of Homeland Security here, under the direction of the President of the United States.

See Complete article and Draft of the executive order

Obama Birth Certificate, Social Security Number, a Fraud?

You be the Judge: Is President Obama's Social Security Number a Fraud?

Fraud Investigation

Someone did some research on this from public sources and a little history. The documentation links are listed below. What do you think? If there is no fraud involved, why has there been such an ongoing Cover-Up?

A MUST READ for every US Citizen

Patriots.....THIS IS SIMPLY FIRST CLASS EASY TO READ, EASY TO

UNDERSTAND, DETECTIVE WORK....AND IT INCLUDES THE

LINKS TO DOCUMENTATION

HOW NO ONE GETS
A REASSIGNED SS NUMBER


An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama's current SSN) on or about March 1977.
Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that,
his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.
Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no
reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None
whatsoever! Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life Hawaii , where he died.
Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals. The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised. The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwig's Connecticut SSN for Obama.

Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "natural born" there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.
Let's all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists..
If the voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying, deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the
biggest and best news in decades for our country and the world.

****************************************************************************************************
Very Interesting Bit of Detective Work:
1.
Back in 1961 people of color
were called 'Negroes.' So how can the
Obama 'birth certificate' state he is
'African-American when
the term wasn't even used at that time?

2.
The birth certificate that the
White House released lists Obama's birth
as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack
Hussein Obama as his father.
No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth,
it also shows that his
father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's
father was born in
" Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't
seem like anything of concern,
except the fact that Kenya did not even
exist until 1963, two whole years
after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his
father's birth. How could
Obama's father have been born in a country that
did not yet exist? Up
and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was
known as the " British East
Africa Protectorate".

3.
On the birth certificate
released by the White House, the listed place of
birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity
Gynecological Hospital ". This cannot
be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961
were called "KauiKeolani
Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani
Maternity Home", respectively.
The name did not change to
Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
until 1978, when these two hospitals merged.
How can this particular
name of the hospital be on a birth certificate
dated 1961 if this name had
not yet been applied to it until 1978?

Resources:
http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
Why hasn't this been discussed in the major
media?????