WHY THE LEFT…

The Left accepts men as women, but not terrorists as Muslims.  “No. Not a single terrorist has ever been Muslim,” they assure us of this−despite the fact that the majority of terrorism in the world is done in the name of Allah.   To put it another way, all other religions in the world combined do not account for a minuscule fraction of the terror done in the name of Islam.

Why have I waded into this explosive topic? Actually, this is the beginning of a series of blogs that draw attention to clear threats to innocent believers. This issue is at the heart of church life now and will become even more so in the immediate future.

I will never regret this blog. In fact, I know that in future days I will deem this one to be among the most important things I have written.  I will always remember that while I was able to say something—I did say something.

How many innocent people have died because we refuse to face radical Islam?  Atrocities—unheard of before in history—are being committed against women and children.   But, according to the Left, not one of them is a Muslim—not even one!

It even gets silly. Politifact said that the photos of two Muslims who were laughing as Notre Dame was burning was a Photoshop fake. Forensics proved it to be genuine. Somali teens went on a rampage with hammers on a bus in Minnesota and the media totally ignored the entire incident!

Hillary Clinton actually said: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”  NOTHING? Take a deep breath—and read that again—then answer this question: In what universe is that possibly true?

“Liberals Accept Men as Women, But Not Terrorists as Muslims. Liberals are perfectly happy to accept a man who “presents” as female, as a woman, and vice versa, but they won’t admit a terrorist who “presents” as Muslim is indeed a Muslim,” says talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Anything but Islam: Limbaugh cites the fact that liberals in government and media blamed the attack on the PULSE nightclub and gaybar in Orlando on Republican opposition to same-sex marriage and other issues, rather than the truth, that the attack was inspired by radical Islamists. Those on the Left completely ignored the fact that Omar Mateen, whose massacre left 49 dead and 53 injured, was heard to pledge allegiance to ISIS during the shooting.

Obama fixated on gun control laws in light of the Orlando shooting but didn’t want to get to the root of Islamic influence (of course not).   Focusing on the inanimate object used by a madman only prevents innocent people from being able to defend themselves and tips more situations in favor of terrorists.

Limbaugh said, “Men and women who want to “present” as the opposite sex can tell Democrats that that’s who they are, and there’s no doubt whatsoever,” Limbaugh said. “Somebody comes along and says, “I’m a Muslim! I don’t like you! I don’t like the fact you’re an infidel. I’m gonna blow up every institution of yours I can.” Then the Democrats say, “I’m not sure that we’re dealing with Muslims.” Limbaugh adds, “Isn’t it amazing?”

On the other hand—Limbaugh observed—when religion is blamed, it is Christians who come under fire. In fact, when a religion must be blamed it can always be Christianity, but never Islam.

“Yes, Christians, whether they know it or not, threaten homosexuals,” Limbaugh said. “Threaten! Heck, Christians threaten everybody, and that’s why people are not ‘themselves.’  Christians are to blame for every aberration taking place in this country.”

Are you looking for an explanation for this insanity?  Do you want to understand why Obama, while President, imported one million Muslims into America? Are you ready to grasp the reason why we can’t take steps to uncover the growing network of terrorists in our nation?

Need I explain why Biden would do for America what Obama did for our embassy in Benghazi?  He would ignore cries for help.  He would deny a security problem exists.  He would blame a video, or Christians−anything other than Islam.

So why do Democrats protect Islam at all cost, and accuse Christianity at every turn?

Why, you ask?  Because 85% of Muslims vote Democrat…

 

JOIN ON FIRE BELIEVERS FROM ALL ACROSS AMERICA. BE PART OF A NEW AMERICAN MIRACLE.  IT’S FREE BUT YOU MUST REGISTER CLICK HERE NOW: 

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/living-proof-world-convention-reno-tickets-55681078605

 

Marathon Bombing Suspect Captured In Watertown

Marathon Bombing Suspect Captured In Watertown

April 19, 2013 8:00 PM

Share on email253

View Comments

Police surround suspect in Watertown. (Photo by Jim Armstrong/WBZ-TV)

Police surround suspect in Watertown. (Photo by Jim Armstrong/WBZ-TV)

Latest News
Photos: Marathon Bombings Manhunt
Photos: Show Of Support
Donate: One Fund

WATERTOWN (CBS) – A flurry of applause at the scene of a standoff between police and Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev signaled his capture Friday night.

After a nearly two-hour standoff in a Watertown neighborhood, Tsarnaev was taken from the scene by ambulance to a local hospital.

The standoff began just before 7 p.m., minutes after Massachusetts State Police announced that they had completed their door-to-door search in Watertown without locating Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

WBZ-TV’s Jim Armstrong was in the area of Franklin Street when he heard what he described as 15-20 seconds of rapid gunfire. He was forced to take cover, and was quickly moved back to safety by police.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino confirmed to WBZ-TV that police had surrounded the bombing suspect inside a boat in the backyard of a home on Franklin Street. Sources say that a resident called police to report finding blood by the boat.

WBZ NewsRadio 1030 reported that authorities were able to confirm there was a person inside by using a thermal camera from a helicopter.

 

On the ground, Armstrong described a flurry of police activity that erupted moments after police wrapped up a press conference in which they lifted a day-long lockdown in Watertown, Boston and several surrounding communities.

Police were seen carrying small children to safety. Because the lockdown had been lifted, there were people out on the streets when the gunfire started.

Additional loud bangs were heard around 7:50 p.m. – approximately one hour after the first gunshots were heard in the neighborhood.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, had been on the run since very early Friday morning, when he and his brother were involved in a gunfight with police near Dexter and Laurel streets in Watertown. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was killed in that encounter.

Photos of the two men were released Thursday evening by the FBI. The photos showed the brothers at the Boston Marathon, carrying backpacks. Those backpacks are believed to have contained the pressure cooker bombs that killed three people and injured more than 180 marathon spectators.

Associated Press drops use of “illegal immigrant” and “Islamist.”

‘Illegal Immigrant’ Banished From AP Stylebook

The news wire service says it’s removing ‘labels’ as critics seethe

By STEVEN NELSON

April 3,2013

Humberto Gonzales, busted for illegally residing in the U.S., rides aboard a bus abound for the Texas-Mexico border, May 25, 2010.Humberto Gonzales, busted for illegally residing in the U.S., rides aboard a bus bound for the Texas-Mexico border, May 25, 2010.

The Associated Press decreed Tuesday afternoon that the term “illegal immigrant” is no longer appropriate to describe people who reside in the United States without legal permission.

An update the AP’s influential stylebook was blasted out in an email to subscribers of the guide’s online version, saying in part, “Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant.”

A blog post the AP’s senior vice president and executive editor, Kathleen Carroll, elaborated that the news organization “had in other areas been ridding the Stylebook of labels” and ultimately decided it was best to only label specific behaviors as illegal.

Debate over the term is highly political. Opponents of illegal immigration fear softening the language is a move to subtly shift the policy debate over immigration reform away from enforcing current immigration laws.

Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the nation’s foremost anti-illegal immigration hawks. Arpaio told U.S. News Wednesday, “If a person enters the United States illegally, that’s how we should refer to their status and not try to soften the crime of entering illegally by calling it something else.”

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration,told the Los Angeles Times that the AP’s “Big Brother” style update was “political correctness on steroids.” Gheen told the Times his group will begin using the term “illegal invader.” On Tuesday evening late-night TV host Jay Leno joked that he would use the term “undocumented Democrats.”

The AP previously defended its use of the term “illegal immigrant.”

AP Deputy Managing Editor Tom Kent wrote in an October 2012 memo excerpted by the Poynter Institute: “Terms like ‘undocumented’ and ‘unauthorized’ can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.”

Following the AP’s Tuesday announcement, the public editor of The New York Times disclosed that it too was preparing to announce a revision this week to its stylebook entry for the term “illegal immigrant.” That change “will probably be more incremental” and introduce a more nuanced offering of terminology, rather than an outright ban on the term, according to The Times.

More News:

The Associated Press Revises Another Politically Charged Term

Stylebook entry for ‘Islamist’ revised two days after ‘illegal immigrant’ dropped

By STEVEN NELSON

April 4, 2013 RSS Feed Print

Jordanian demonstrators burn an Israeli flag and shout slogans in Amman, Feb. 23, 2007.Jordanian demonstrators burn an Israeli flag and shout slogans in Amman, Feb. 23, 2007.

Following on the heels of the Tuesday decision by The Associated Press to discontinue use of the term “illegal immigrant,” the news agency on Thursday revised its stylebook entry for another politically charged term.

The term “Islamist,” the AP clarified in a Thursday afternoon alert to online stylebook subscribers, should not be used as “a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals.”

[DEFIANT: Some Lawmakers Will Still Say ‘Illegal Immigrant’]

“Islamist” is frequently used as a label for conservative Islamic political movements, particularly Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the group’s Palestinian offshoot. It generally carries a negative connotation.

The AP first added the term to its stylebook in 2012. The definition initially read:

Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an American advocacy group sometimes labeled “Islamist” by critics, previously lobbied for the AP to drop the term. In a January op-ed CAIR’s communications director, Ibrahim Hooper, wrote the term “has become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like'” and “is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context.”

As of Thursday’s update, the AP definition reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

CAIR praised the AP’s update. “We believe this revision is a step in the right direction and will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims,” Hooper said. “The key issue with the term ‘Islamist’ is not its continued use; the issue is its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

The AP’s decision to discontinue “illegal immigrant” was part of an ongoing process of “ridding the Stylebook of labels,” the organization’s senior vice president and executive editor, Kathleen Carroll, said in a blog post. It was immediately criticized by opponents of illegal immigration, including Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who told U.S. News he objected to efforts “to soften the crime of entering illegally.”

 

Update (04/05/13): This article has been updated with a statement from Ibrahim Hooper.

  • Nelson, Steven

    Steven Nelson is a producer at U.S. News & World Report. You can follow him on Twitter or reach him at snelson@usnews.com.

    Read more stories by Steven Nelson

An explosion deep within Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility has destroyed much of the installation.

Fordow

An explosion deep within Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility has destroyed much of the installation and trapped about 240 personnel deep underground, according to a former intelligence officer of the Islamic regime.

The previously secret nuclear site has become a center for Iran’s nuclear activity because of the 2,700 centrifuges enriching uranium to the 20-percent level. A further enrichment to weapons grade would take only weeks, experts say.

The level of enrichment has been a major concern to Israeli officials, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly has warned about the 20-percent enriched stockpile.

The explosion occurred Monday, the day before Israeli elections weakened Netanyahu’s political control.

Iran, to avoid alarm, had converted part of the stockpile to fuel plates for use in the Tehran Research Reactor. However, days after the recent failed talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iranian officials announced the enrichment process will not stop even “for a moment.”

The regime’s uranium enrichment process takes place at two known sites: the Natanz facility with more than 10,000 centrifuges and Fordow with more than 2,700. The regime currently has enough low-grade (3.5 percent) uranium stockpiled for six nuclear bombs if further enriched.

 

However, more time is needed for conversion of the low-grade uranium than what would be needed for a stockpile at 20 percent. It takes 225 kilograms of enriched uranium at the 20-percent level to further enrich to the 90-percent level for one nuclear bomb.

According to a source in the security forces protecting Fordow, an explosion on Monday at 11:30 a.m. Tehran time rocked the site, which is buried deep under a mountain and immune not only to airstrikes but to most bunker-buster bombs. The report of the blast came via Hamidreza Zakeri, formerly with the Islamic regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and National Security,

The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran-Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast, the source said. As of Wednesday afternoon, rescue workers had failed to reach the trapped personnel.

The site, about 300 feet under a mountain, had two elevators which now are out of commission. One elevator descended about 240 feet and was used to reach centrifuge chambers. The other went to the bottom to carry heavy equipment and transfer uranium hexafluoride. One emergency staircase reaches the bottom of the site and another one was not complete. The source said the emergency exit southwest of the site is unreachable.

The regime believes the blast was sabotage and the explosives could have reached the area disguised as equipment or in the uranium hexafluoride stock transferred to the site, the source said. The explosion occurred at the third centrifuge chambers, with the high-grade enriched uranium reserves below them.

The information was passed on to U.S. officials but has not been verified or denied by the regime or other sources within the regime.

Though the news of the explosion has not been independently verified, other sources previously have provided WND with information on plans for covert operations against Iran’s nuclear facilities as an option before going to war. The hope is to avoid a larger-scale conflict. Israel, the U.S. and other allies already have concluded the Islamic regime has crossed its red line in its quest for nuclear weapons, other sources have said.

However, this information was not revealed for security reasons until several days ago when sources said the regime’s intelligence agency, through an alleged spy in the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, had learned of the decision to conduct sabotage on Iran’s nuclear sites on a much larger scale than before.

As reported, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called an urgent meeting Tuesday with the intelligence minister, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and other officials to discuss the threat, and now it’s clear the meeting included the sabotage at Fordow.

Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years. Last year, saboteurs struck the power supply to the Fordow facility, temporarily disrupting production. And a computer worm called Stuxnet, believed to have originated in the U.S., set Iran’s plans for nuclear weapons back substantially.

The 5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany) hope to resume talks with Iran over its illicit nuclear program. The talks ended last year after regime officials refused to negotiate.

Why Obama has still not labeled the attack on Benghazi a terrorist attack.

Obama has yet to formally declare the Benghazi Attack a terrorist act.  You heard right.  After all of the brouhaha and the double talk he is still avoiding putting the label of Terrorist Attack on the night that four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al Qaeda.

Not only this, but he has yet to label the attack in 2009 at Fort Hood a Terrorist Attack.  Today, the families and victims took action:

“Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre released a new video this week calling on the government to classify the November 2009 shooting as a terrorist attack rather than “workplace violence,” a change that would make them eligible for specific combat-related benefits.

In the video, uploaded on YouTube Wednesday, witnesses to the shooting, some of whom were wounded in the attack, voiced their frustration with the government’s labeling of the attack in which 13 people died and 32 others were wounded in a shooting rampage allegedly carried out by a fellow soldier, Maj. Nidal Hasan. The FBI said Hasan had corresponded with a high-profile al Qaeda recruiter and discussed the merits of jihad months before the massacre.

“Looking at the red tape you’ve got to get through, we put the video together to try to raise awareness,” one of the victims, Army Staff Sgt. Alonza Lunsford, told ABC News.

In the video, police officer Kimberly Munley, who was shot multiple times, says, “It was discovered, has been discovered, re-discovered that this was part of a terrorist activity.”

“[The Fort Hood victims] were killed and wounded by a domestic enemy — somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying,” another victim, Army Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning says in the video. Manning was shot in the chest. “If that’s not an act of war or an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.”

The Coalition of Fort Hood Heroes, the organization that released the video, said in a statement that unless the government labels the attack terrorism, victims and their families will be “denied the recognition and benefits they are rightfully due,” in particular eligibility for the Purple Heart Medal, along with which comes veterans’ medical benefits and higher priority for veterans’ disability compensation.”

I am convinced that it is at the behest of President Obama that the Fort Hood Massacre remains a case of “Workplace violence”

 

Even though Nidal Hasan screamed “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, Obama still could not admit it was radical Islam.  At the time of the shooting he said, “we should not rush to judgment.”   Yet that same week a black college professor was mistakenly arrested because it appeared to neighbors he was breaking into the house.  Obama’s reaction to that before he had any facts was, “the police behaved stupidly.”In the psychology of Obama there is no radical Islam.  He simply cannot bring himself to confess the existence of a worldwide force of hatred and evil against the United States.

Whenever terror comes Obama must deny it. He must first blame America, a video, or anything that buys him time to deflect criticism of Islam.   Even after he had proof that Al Qaeda had killed Americans in Benghazi, he stood in the well of the United Nations and said that “those that denigrate the prophet of Islam should have no future.”  Yet, he has no such outrage when the National Endowment of the Arts pays for an art exhibit of a Crucifix in a jar of urine.

Why are we surprised? He wrote “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” This quote comes from age 261 of the paperback edition of The Audacity of Hope.

To Obama there is no war on terror because there is no radical Islam.  Again and again, he has shown his true loyalties and priorities.  One of the tenets of Islam teaches, “lie when it advances the cause of Islam.”  Indeed, he is following this to the letter.

Even now, he cannot admit that he lied to us all about Benghazi.  To this day, he will pivot, deflect and obfuscate whenever it pertains to radical Islam.   This is how he justifies the avalanche of misery he has allowed on the American public.  This is how he can cast aside the failure upon failure of his administration.  He lives in his own dangerous world.  Think of the damage he has done so far and think of what America will look like in four more years if he is still in office tearing us apart?

Why is this man still smiling? He has been caught lying at every turn.

Why is this man still smiling?   He has been caught lying at every turn.  He was completely destroyed by Romney in the debate.  He has failed at everything and I mean everything.  What he has done to healthcare is disastrous.  He promised an Arab Spring what he gave us is a nuclear winter of global Islamic jihad.   So why is he still smiling?

But wait!  Now  we have news of his most breathtaking irresponsibility.   He low balled his estimate for the deficit this year by half a trillion dollars!  To underscore how astounding this is the Washington Times said: 

“In May 2009, President Obama released his updated budget estimates, which projected that the federal deficit for fiscal year 2012 would be $557 billion. The Congressional Budget Office now says that the deficit for fiscal year 2012 (which ended on September 30) was about $1.1 trillion — or about twice what Obama said it would be. In other words, Obama’s estimate was off by more than half a trillion dollars.

To put this colossal error into perspective, at the time that Obama was elected, the United States had never once had a deficit as large as Obama’s error would prove to be. Our largest deficit as of November 4, 2008 (the day that Obama beat John McCain) had been $459 billion. Since 2008, we’ve now run up more than $1 trillion in deficit spending for four consecutive years, totaling more than $5 trillion.”

How can anyone bungle the economy that bad?  No one can point to a single benefit from his presidency.  Everyone will feel the damage of his arrogance for years to come.  Yet, there he is undeterred and unmoved.  Why?  Because he believes he is going to win no matter what he says or does.

He knows that he owns the vilest political confederacy ever inflicted on the United States.  His confederacy includes, corrupt unions, a compliant news media, Islamic leaders, foreign money and the most dangerous gang of all:  Americans addicted to government handouts.

 There are good signs however.   The debate broke the hedge around Obama.   According to John Nolte, “In 2008, President Barack Obama won the independent vote over John McCain by a margin of eight points, 52-44. This morning, a new Battleground Poll has Mitt Romney massacring Obama among indies by a whopping 16 points, 51-35.

Then he shows us the how the lap dog can media can still spin this in Obama’s favor. Polls:  “That’s a 24-point swing among independents since 2008, a group that makes up anywhere from a quarter to a third of voters, and yet Battleground still has Obama in the lead 49-48…?

But if I’m skeptical of those bottom-line numbers, our journalist overlords who have chosen to palace guard instead of question will declare me a “truther.”  The Battleground Poll also shows an 13 point enthusiasm gap in Romney’s favor. Only 73% of Obama’s supporters are “extremely likely” to vote, compared to 86% of Romney’s supporters.

Obama owns the vilest political confederacy ever inflicted on the United States.  His confederacy includes, corrupt unions, a compliant news media, Hollywood, Islamic leaders, foreign money and the most dangerous gang of all:  Americans addicted to government handouts.

I am as giddy as you that Obama was finally exposed before 67 million people for the incompetent leader he is but we still need a miracle.   Our nation is not facing a takeover; she was taken over 4 years ago.  We are fighting to get our freedom back. This election can be stolen and manipulated.

It will take the most intense effort ever.  Let every preacher understand that your silence and inaction at this crucial time will be remembered.   Under normal circumstances we should not be political, but these are not normal circumstances.  Obama will drive the church underground and he will turn America into a wasteland that is controlled by global powers.

What do we need to do to stop him? 

  1. Pray for the spirit of deception over the nation to be obliterated in Jesus’ name.
  2. Vote and take someone to vote with you.  Do not be afraid to challenge believers about their vote.  If they are voting for Obama ask them how that is possible.
  3. Talk to your pastor. If he is still on the fence respectfully disagree.  Remember the quote from Bonhoeffer “Silence in the face of evil is evil.  God will not hold us guiltless.  Not to speak is to speak.  Not to act is to act.”  Tell your pastor that you and many others will back him all the way.
  4. Understand that not voting is a vote for Obama.

Obama administration’s first instinct was to sympathize with attackers

 

Romney is right: In embassy incidents, Obama administration’s first instinct was to sympathize with attackers

An instant consensus appears to have developed among reporters and commentators that Mitt Romney made a mistake when he released a statement last night condemning the Obama administration’s response to attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt.  At Romney’s hastily-arranged news conference in Florida Wednesday morning, nearly every question was predicated on the assumption that Romney’s statement was a miscalculation.  Also on Wednesday morning, journalist Mark Halperin, a reliable indicator of media insider sentiment, tweeted that Romney’s decision at the news conference to repeat his criticism of the Obama administration’s action could be the “most craven and ill-advised move of ’12.”

But Romney was, and is, right.  As events in Benghazi and Cairo unfolded, the Obama administration’s first instinct was to apologize for any offense Muslims might have taken from an Internet video, made in America, that mocked and ridiculed the prophet Mohammed, and which the radicals cited as the cause for their actions.  In his original statement last night, Romney said, “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”  Then, on Wednesday morning, Romney said the administration “was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt instead of condemning their actions.”

And that is exactly what the administration did.  First, when embassy staff in Cairo knew there was trouble but before Islamist radicals overran the walls, the embassy released this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

That was before the most serious problems.  Afterward the radicals had breached the walls, torn down the American flag and replaced it with an Islamist banner, the embassy sent out a tweet (now deleted), which said: “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”  It is not clear if the embassy actually sent out a statement condemning the breach, but it most certainly sent out a statement condemning any possible offense against Muslim sensibilities.

Then, early Thursday morning, after the extent of the violence in Libya and Egypt was known, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a three-sentence statement, the first two sentences of which addressed possible offense to Muslims.  “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” Clinton said.  “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.” Clinton’s statement was: Regret, affirmation, condemnation, in that order.

So after the initial statement of apology for the video, there were two statements in which the Obama administration reacted apologetically to the attacks in Libya and Egypt.  When Romney took to the microphone in Florida, he was careful to say that the administration “was wrong to stand by” its original pre-attack apology.

To the Romney campaign, the events reveal an administration that is too eager to apologize for the United States.  “When you have a situation that is unfolding rapidly, a lot of times people fall back to first instinct, and in that first instinct, which is more reflex than strategic thought sometimes, you get to see what they think is most important,” says former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a prominent spokesman for the Romney campaign.  Pawlenty says that one might assume the administration would instantly condemn such attacks, “but it takes them three statements and the better part of a day to get to that point.”

About 7:20 Wednesday morning, President Obama released a statement that first and foremost condemned the attacks.  Only after that condemnation did Obama add, “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally opposed the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

 

Later Wednesday morning, both the president and Secretary of State Clinton made second statements, both tough condemnations of the violence.  But Romney remains right: the administration’s first instinct was to express regret for hurting any Muslim feelings, and not to strongly condemn attacks against the United States.