On Benghazi and 'Expendible Faggots'

Ann Barnhardt ^ | May 10, 2013 | Ann Barnhardt

[Marathoner]

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with the rest of the regime players, murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens. It was a hit. It wasn't incompetence. It wasn't deer-in-the-headlights collective inaction. It wasn't a kidnapping plot gone wrong. It was a hit.

The whole incompetence argument is simply the domain of moral and intellectual cowards who insist upon seeing the world through rose colored glasses and deny objective reality. My contempt for these people knows no bounds. It's one thing to be stupid. It is quite another to be a coward. Cowardice is a pure moral choice. This is why courage is the fruit of the Third Sorrowful Mystery (the crowning with thorns). If courage was a genetic phenotype, as baseline intelligence largely is (as opposed to willful ignorance), then Our Lord would not desire that we pray for the grace of courage every day. Show me someone arguing that the Obama regime is incompetent and I'll show you a quivering little coward.

Next is the whole "kidnapping plot gone wrong" argument. Sorry. It doesn't hold water. First, the theory that Obama wanted to do a prisoner exchange of Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik right before the election in order to look like some sort of hero is simply ludicrous. Americans would have been repulsed and disgusted by such a move. Americans don't cotton to capitulation to kidnappers. And releasing the Blind Sheik? No, this would have worked against Obama in public opinion. The fact of one of our Ambassadors being kidnapped at all would have come off as a sign of profound weakness, and releasing the Blind Sheik would have pegged the needle on the ol' wimp-o-meter.

Next, this kidnapping scenario assumes that the Obama regime was relying on fairly contested elections, had no election fraud teams in place in the major metro areas of the swing states, and/or was truly Nixonian in its desire for a unanimous victory. Again, nope. They clearly weren't going for a unanimous or near-unanimous electoral college sweep as Nixon was trying to do. They were all about targeted fraud in the swing states. They had no care or concern about winning Kansas, Wyoming or Oklahoma. The motives simply don't match up.

Finally, we have to ask why the Clintons were co-conspirators in the murder of Stevens. WHY are the Clintons a.) participating in the initial murder of Stevens and b.) not throwing Obama and Jarrett under the bus? The Obama machine stole the 2008 primaries from Hillary, and both Bill and Hillary personally loathe Obama and his Chicago crew. Why this unholy demonic alliance?

Because Chris Stevens was a lynchpin in the running of arms by the Obama regime and Clinton's State Department in full cooperation with each other to the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda through Libya. And yes, it is absolutely sane and appropriate to assume that Huma Abedin (Hillary's consigliere and daughter of high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood leaders) figures into this. Both Obama's White House and Hillary's State Department were mutually and equally tied to this arms running, and both of their bacons were equally in the fire. The Obama White House, I am convinced, has plans for the retention of power beyond 2016 (Michelle?), and Hillary thinks she is going to be POTUS from 2017-2025. The bottom line is that the duumvirate of the most dangerous, evil psychopaths on the face of the earth decided for slightly different reasons that Ambassador Stevens needed to be dead in order to cover the gunrunning to the Muslim Brotherhood, and so together, they killed him. They withdrew all of his security (at the behest of the State Department), told the Muslim Brotherhood that it was all-clear, guaranteed that there would be no response or retaliation to an attack (only the Oval Office could issue the stand-down order), and even put the cherry on top by instantly framing the entire hit as some sort of musloid blasphemy propaganda. That was just gratuitous. Sickeningly gratuitous.

If it had been a kidnapping plot, Chris Stevens would have been KIDNAPPED. Remember, he had almost no security in the end. He wouldn't have been gang raped, killed and then had his dead body gang raped again.

The Clintons have a long history of having people murdered, all the way back into the early 1980's in Arkansas. Vince Foster. Ron Brown. These people are psychopaths and murderers. You have to deal with this.

The Obama machine, being neo-Stalinist, is also murderous, having seen to the assassination of at least three of Barry's sodomy partners from Trinity UCC cult on the South Side of Chicago. Purely as an aside, don't you think that it is odd that an attention whore like Jeremiah Wright saw three members of his cult murdered within just a few weeks of one another and never said a WORD publicly about that? No demands for a full FBI investigation on the front steps. No march through the streets with Jesse Jackson and Fr. Pfleger demanding that justice be done and that the targeted killings of his flock be given the highest priority by law enforcement. Nope. Nothing. It's almost as if Wright was neither surprised nor alarmed by the rapid serial killing of his "parishioners". I wonder what POSSIBLE EXPLANATION there could be for that?

Sadly, Chris Stevens was just another "expendable faggot" in the eyes of the Obama-Clinton machine. He was a dead man the day he accepted the position. And doesn't it seem odd that the Obama-Clinton machine would send a known sodomite man to be the ambassador to an unstable, backward muslim country to begin with? Again, it was probably done intentionally as a last-ditch hedge, an ace-up-the-sleeve as it were. Stevens could be killed, and then turned into some sort of sodomite martyr as a last-ditch plan. But, they didn't need that. They had the "blasphemy video". Eyeroll.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that the ultimate "expendable faggot" is Barry himself. I worry. I worried terribly after he showed up stoned to the first debate. I continue to worry now. Barry the man is in no way any sort of intellectual driver behind the regime. He is a puppet, a facade, a lazy imbecile and sodomite and nothing more. If the drivers decide that he is worth more dead than alive, assassinating their "expendable faggot" would be the mother of all Reichstag Fires, and would likely result in instant suspension of the Constitution and martial law. IF BARRY IS ASSASSINATED, THE FIRST THING THAT A TEXAS, A KANSAS, AND ANY OTHER REMNANT STATES LOYAL TO THE CONSTIUTION SHOULD DO IS SECEDE. LIKE, WITHIN MINUTES.

And you people keep paying taxes into this.

[little jeremiah]

Don’t worry about answering me - looks as though the whole article is here.

[gaijin]

Whaddya think? Revisions to that document, or do we put you up in stirrups and cut off, oh, THIS MUCH of your member? Whaddya say? Whassit gonna be?

[little jeremiah]

For some reason link doesn’t work, I use Firefox. But no worry it’s here in entirety.

I read a long time about that Stevens got to Libya on some strange freighter with arms for the jihadists.

[who knows what evil?]

That is weird, as I use Firefox, and the link works just fine. Gremlins?

[Mamzelle]

I was aware that Stevens was openly, obviously gay since the incident. It's all over Chicago, where he was photographed and known.

And Steven sounded like an OK kind of guy, except very naive.

They execute homosexuals regularly throughout the Middle East just for being homosexual.

Why would they send an openly gay man in harms way where his life would be forfeit? It smacks to me that he was expendable, too.

[longfellow]

I would like to reiterate that the ultimate “expendable faggot” is Barry himself.
whoa! Have some respect, he is our c@cksucker and chief.

[Mamzelle]

To the media who would call use "haters" for resisting the wholesale destruction of marriage, they won't tell the story of this man who was killed in such a vicious and awful way. What must his family be going through? Why has no mention been made that he was homosexual?

Like I said, everything I read about him pointed to a naive but decent man, a little addled in what he thought he could accomplish in a place like Libya, but hardly deserving of being abandoned to this fate.

And they call us haters...

[drypowder]

that all sounds plausible and may even be true but help me out here; if it was arms smuggling as apposed to a kidnapping what was to be gained by killing Stevens before anyone ever knew obozo hussein and the hildahag were smuggling arms and especially during an election cycle? Was the military arms market in Libya and Syria full up by 9/11/2012 so Steven's was no longer necessary? I think that scenario is a stretch. Sure Stevens was set up, that's clear by what we now know of the consulate's security that was hired by the US State Dept (hildahag). Aside from the date of 9/11 as being significant, why would this administration take out Stevens prior to an election when logic tells us that the timing of a murdered US Ambassador in and of itself was not going to bode well for the obozo hussein?

[PieterCasparzen]

This is idiotic.

a) The “hit” did not cover up the gunrunning. The gunrunning came out anyway.

b) The gunrunning was published months before the attack in mainstream news sources (you’ll have to search my old posts, I think I posted a link to one here on FR). So there was nothing to cover up in regards to gunrunning.

c) The exchange of the blind shake for the Ambassador is not a given; the negotiations would have been secretive and would not necessarily include an exchange. Personally, I never have thought or posited that the blind shake exchange was part of the plan. A simple “apology from the President” would have sufficed to get the Ambassador home in time for nice election photo ops for the President.

d) Establishment / faux outsider conservatives, sharply aligned with Wall Street, are now rushing to put stories out into the public sphere which take over the narrative, trying to grab the attention of the conservative base by having conservative media whip them up into a frenzy of indignation about a whole list of “we want to know” items, and thereby helping them to lose focus on the simple point that Obama ordered a stand down and Hillary does not have a record of requesting, directly from Obama, a FEST team response. Everyone in the chain of command should have requested FEST response up the chain of command. DB, Thompson’s boss, must be interrogated under oath to find out who gave him the order to prevent Thompson’s FEST team from doing their jobs.

e) The conservative establishment is desperate to hide the fact that the top level State Dept and White House top level staff and the President are tools of international banking. It is international banking that wanted Qadaffi gone in order to bring Libya into the dollar fold. Since international banking runs both the liberal and conservative establishments, they are desperate to maintain the facade of ideological differences and to hide central banking’s efforts that are implemented by USAID, CIA and NGOs (Soros is a main NGO network in the mideast). If the conservative establishment is revealed to not be conservative at all, but simply just another front for banksters, the Republican party could split in two, which would actually be good for conservatives. What’s much worse for the establishment fronts, however, is if the public finds out about the simple link between CIA, international banking (Wall Street), drugs and money laundering. If it became widely known that our Afghanistan war is simply guarding international banking’s poppy fields... morale would go in the toilet. Bags of money are all over the place in Afghanistan, opium is flowing like water, corporate jets are transporting it. FDR’s grandpa Delano would be proud.

[arthurus]

I heard early on in this that Stevens died of smoke inhalation before the attackers got into the building. If the kidnap property has expired then the deal can’t be done anyway. Might as well do what you wanna do.

[PieterCasparzen]

And they call us haters...

Can you see how that response is exactly what this article is designed to evoke ?

This article whips up the conservative base (it's psychological "engineering"):

a) the word faggot in the title draws people who are against the sin of sodomy to read the story, and read it while they have the emotional reaction to rejecting sodomy in their mind

b) the word "expendible" tells us the angle of the story

c) Christians who hate sin but love the sinner feel that this story precisely demonstrates the fact that even though they are against sodomy, it being a sin, they do not support the idea of setting up a person for execution by a mob.

d) the story reinforces in the Christian's mind that they have the right stance on the issues; we would tend to then agree with the article as a whole since we would agree on the very significant points mentioned above. The Christian reader is then very susceptible, in their "blanket agreement" with the article, to think that since the blind shake release would not go over well publicly, that therefore the idea of a kidnapping must be false. All they have to do is forget that the exchange would not be necessary and they can fall for this ruse.

e) The telltale sign is that this article is very well-designed ruse; great effort was put into engineering it - all to break down the kidnapping idea.

Red flags should be firing off in our logic units like crazy.

Liberal intelligentsia say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

Conservative intelligentsia say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

Politicians say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

The news media say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

Pundits and bloggers all over the internet say - it was NOT a kidnapping plot

But the simple facts are - the Executive Branch stopping the FEST team hurt the administration politically. The Ambassador dying hurt the administration politically.

It defies all logic that the topmost politicians in our country would hurt themselves politically when sending in a rescue team was as easy as just saying "ok".

Especially considering the Bin Laden killing has shows running on Advance Publications, Inc.'s Military Channel that tout dear leader as being one who can make these tough decisions so well.

Even if the rescue team was unable to save all four of those that were killed, it still would have been very politically helpful for the President's reelection campaign to have everyone rally 'round the flag. The propaganda media could have had a field day - the work is almost done, don't change horses in the middle of the stream.

Even conservatives would have been politically stuck supporting the President's order. If it failed, no way could conservatives start blaming the military; they simply did all they could. And the Secretary and dear leader would have no blame themselves - the media would have the same covering line it does now, except they'd not have to answer questions about why the order to stand down was given. That's the biggest embarassment.

[Louis Foxwell]

I do not get that this is an embarrassment. It is much, much worse than a fart at the podium.

[PieterCasparzen]

Of course; I’m saying embarassment in the sense that it’s a big political problem for Hill and Bama. In truth, of course, it appears treasonous.

All they had to do was say “Yes” to activating the FEST team.

If they did, the no one would be blaming anything on them other than perhaps some complaining about the security requests for the months leading up being denied.

But as long as they gave the order for FEST to do its thing, there would be basically nothing scandalous to talk about.

Seeing as how they told FEST (and apparently all military, CIA, contractors, etc.) to stand down, they are in the extremely awkward position of having to explain WHY they did that. Awkward, cuz, well, it looks like dereliction of duty at best, and treasonously aiding and abetting America’s enemies at worst.

[Mamzelle]

Except that I have been aware for several months that Stevens was gay and have been wondering all this time why it was never in *any* news story. And I do not credit the author with much more than drawing that salient fact to light.

It ought to be, sending Stevens into that part of the world was both foolish and cruel--or it was despicable...

[PieterCasparzen]

This is a subtle yet key part of this propaganda operation.

By the mainstream news media keeping quiet about the Ambassodor being a sodomite, it allows for the conservative part of their machine (which is outside the mainstream), to scream about the fact. This makes the conservative internet media justified in having righteous indignation.

A key part of the tactic is to put conservatives on a “high horse” - with complete justification. The conservative pundits are, in fact, correct in pointing at the hypocrisy of the left and news media in that they are not “standing up” for the sodomite in this instance. If the left stands up for sodomy, to be consistent they’d have to stand up for it in every instance.

Once a pundit gets the conservative “righteous indignation” going, the typical conservative will jump in and lend positive support to the pundit.

And again, this is a powerful tool, because the righteous indignation is coming from a valid point. Ambassador Stevens was a sodomite and it is being swept under the rug; this isn’t some imagination or conjecture, it’s actually happening. This author, like others, is pointing out hypocrisy in the media; that part of the story is factual.

This sweeping under the rug is very important to Fox news, which tows the line on not condemning sodomy. If Fox pointed out that the Ambassador was a sodomite, the on air personalities would have to either condone or condemn it and would thus either offend the social conservatives in their audience or the powers that be (in that case likely resulting in legal action). Fox can avoid the whole thing by just not mentioning it. The rest of TV media, of course, does not want to highlight for their sodomite audience that dear leader and Hillobeans left a sodomite in the field to be brutally murdered; not exactly the PR the administration is looking for.

As to the question of why Ambassador Stevens would be sent there, he’s just a minion of interntional banking - a minion.

When the Soros NGOs send people into a middle eastern country I don’t think George loses much sleep over whether they live or die. When JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BNP Paribas, etc., send people into dangerous countries to set up shop, I don’t think anyone think “oh my, this is too dangerous, we should not send people there”. On the contrary, history has shown that when minions perform in a stellar manner in dangerous situations, they are amply rewarded by their masters. Herbert Hoover found himself in the middle of Boxer Rebellion; many new world order figures did all sorts of dangerous missions in WWI and WWII as young men, then went on to rise up through the ranks of business/politics working for the same shadowy power interests.

[little jeremiah]

placeamark