Obama saved a deserter?

Revealed: Bowe Bergdahl left letter telling comrades at Afghan base he was ‘leaving to start new life and didn’t want to fight for America’ as Army announces he DOES face desertion charges

 

 

  • Sgt Bowe Bergdahl left a note for his comrades in which he said he did not want to fight for America any more and was leaving to start a new life
  • Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff today said ‘it’s premature’ to think there will be no charges against Bergdahl
  • Will put Obama under more pressure after Susan Rice said he served with ‘honor and distinction’ and freed five Taliban commanders
  • Former comrade who was there when Bergdahl disappeared five years ago broke a military gagging order to speak to MailOnline
  • He said: ‘As far as I’m concerned Bergdahl deserted his men and should face the firing squad’
  • ‘Everyone looked at me like I was crazy but I was right, he had walked off’

By DAN BATES

 

Bowe Bergdahl left a note saying he had gone to start a ‘new life’ and a former comrade broke his military gagging order today to tell MailOnline of the jaw-dropping moment he discovered the Taliban POW had walked off from their Afghanistan base.

The soldier, who requested anonymity as he is still in the military, said: ‘Everyone looked at me like I was crazy but I was right, he had walked off.’

The New York Times reported Bergdahl also left behind a note in which he said he did not want to fight for America any more, did not believe in the war – and was leaving to start a new life.

The revelation came as it emerged the Army may still pursue charges against Sgt Bergdahl for desertion.

AWOL: Bowe Bergdahl, pictured with pipe in mouth manning an observation post months before his disappearance, left a note telling his fellow soldiers that he was leaving to start a new life, did not want to fight for America and did not believe in war

AWOL: Bowe Bergdahl, pictured with pipe in mouth manning an observation post months before his disappearance, left a note telling his fellow soldiers that he was leaving to start a new life, did not want to fight for America and did not believe in war

 

Trial? Bergdahl (in T-shirt)faces the threat of desertion charges, the Army announced just days after Obama's national security advisor Susan Rice said he served with 'honor and distinction'

Trial? Bergdahl (in T-shirt)faces the threat of desertion charges, the Army announced just days after Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice said he served with ‘honor and distinction’

 

Penalty: A former comrade of Bergdahl's (seated with Blackfoot Company, 1st Battalion 501st infantry Regiment (Airborne) 25th Infantry Division in Afghanistan) said he should face the firing squad for what he did

Penalty: A former comrade of Bergdahl’s (seated with Blackfoot Company, 1st Battalion 501st infantry Regiment (Airborne) 25th Infantry Division in Afghanistan) said he should face the firing squad for what he did

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said military leaders have been accused of ‘looking away from misconduct, and it’s premature’ to think they will not look into it.

This comes just days after Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser said he served with ‘honor and distinction’.

There are a variety of offenses related to an absence without proper approval, and a number of potential actions could be taken by the military.

He could be tried by court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for desertion; he could be given a non-judicial punishment for a lesser charge, such as being away without leave. And he could be given credit for time already served while he was a prisoner.

 

It will pile further pressure on Obama over his judgement in releasing five top Taliban terror leaders from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a soldier who now faces charges for abandoning his unit and his oath to the U.S. Army.

The soldier who spoke to MailOnline made his feelings and those of his comrades very clear.

He said: ‘As far as I’m concerned Bergdahl deserted his men and should face the firing squad. People died trying to save him. He was a deserter’.

Bergdahl’s platoon anxiously searched the observation post they had set up a remote area of Afghanistan but only found Bergdahl’s sleeping bag that had been neatly folded up.

It also claimed that he did not breach the perimeter wire and left by possibly hiding in a contractor’s vehicle meaning that he would have planned the escape in advance.

A huge search ensued during which time at least six US soldiers are said to have died while hunting for Bergdahl, 28, who has just been released from five years in captivity with the Taliban.

Premeditated: Soldiers claim Bergdahl (pictured in proof of life video) planned his desertion. He sent belongings home, learned the language, did not breach the perimeter fence on the day he disappeared and would spend his time learning the local languages. He even told them he wanted to walk to China

Premeditated: Soldiers claim Bergdahl (pictured in proof of life video) planned his desertion. He sent belongings home, learned the language, did not breach the perimeter fence on the day he disappeared and would spend his time learning the local languages. He even told them he wanted to walk to China

Killed in the search: Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen, 29, (left) and Private First Class Morris Walker, 23, (right) were killed in an IED explosion on August 18, 2009

Killed in the search: Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen, 29, (left) and Private First Class Morris Walker, 23, (right) were killed in an IED explosion on August 18, 2009

Killed in the search: Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen, 29, (left) and Private First Class Morris Walker, 23, (right) were killed in an IED explosion on August 18, 2009

 

 

Staff Sergeant Kurt Curtiss, (left) a 27-year-old father of two, who died in a firefighter on August 26, 2009. Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey, 25, (right) was killed in an IED blast on September 5, 2009

Staff Sergeant Kurt Curtiss, (left) a 27-year-old father of two, who died in a firefighter on August 26, 2009. Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey, 25, (right) was killed in an IED blast on September 5, 2009

Staff Sergeant Kurt Curtiss, (left) a 27-year-old father of two, who died in a firefighter on August 26, 2009. Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey, 25, (right) was killed in an IED blast on September 5, 2009

Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews, 34, (left) and Private First Class Matthew Michael Martinek, 20, (right) died after a rocket-propelled grenade ambush on September 4, 2009

Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews, 34, (left) and Private First Class Matthew Michael Martinek, 20, (right) died after a rocket-propelled grenade ambush on September 4, 2009

Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews, 34, (left) and Private First Class Matthew Michael Martinek, 20, (right) died after a rocket-propelled grenade ambush on September 4, 2009

 

Bergdahl was serving with the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment in Paktika province near the Pakistani border with Afghanistan when he went missing in the early hours of 30 June 2009.

He had been at part of an Observation Post with 28 colleagues men and a few trucks set up in a defensive position to protect themselves.

Some of the men were sleeping in the trucks they had driven in on and others were camped out with their sleeping bags in the open. It was not until the 9am roll call that they realized he was gone.

Up until this point Bergdahl had been seen as a strange loner who wouldn’t socialize with the other men. Instead, he would stick to his bunk, learning Pashto and Arabic with Rosetta Stone.

A week earlier he had sent his belongings and computer home to his parents after setting out in an email to his father that he was ‘ashamed to be an American’ after what he had seen in Afghanistan – including soldiers laughing at running over an Afghan boy with an armored vehicle.

Specialist Gerald Sutton, 31, Sutton remembered Bergdahl talking with him and a third soldier just a few days before he walked away.

‘As far as I’m concerned Bergdahl deserted his men and should face the firing squad. People died trying to save him. He was a deserter’
                    – former Platoon comrade

‘He was asking us what it would be like to get lost in the mountains …  and he asked me personally if I thought he could make it to China or India on foot. At the time we thought he was joking.

‘About a week or two before he left he mailed some of his stuff home,’ he said. ‘including his Apple laptop. He sent that home to his parents. That didn’t seem suspicious to us at the time, but it made sense after the fact.’

‘He left his weapon that day. The only thing he had with him was his diary – that none of us actually saw, so I have no idea what was in there – 2 MREs [‘Meals Ready to Eat’ rations], his knife, a bottle of water and his compass.’

The soldier who discovered him missing, said: ‘The first I heard was when one of the guards said he could not find Bergdahl.

‘I asked him: “What do you mean you can’t find him?’ He said he couldn’t find him anywhere. We sent two guys to the top of the observation post in case he was sleeping between two trucks, I thought maybe he’s sleeping down there.

‘We also sent one of the men to see if he was drinking tea with the Afghans. We looked at his sleeping bag and it was nicely folded.

Provisions: Bergdahl walked off without his gun, but with water, a compass and two days of rations

Provisions: Bergdahl walked off without his gun, but with water, a compass and two days of rations

 

Desperate hunt: The soldiers began a frantic search costing millions of dollars using drones, military tracking dogs and dozens of men for eight days, although the wider operation to find him went on for three months

Desperate hunt: The soldiers began a frantic search costing millions of dollars using drones, military tracking dogs and dozens of men for eight days, although the wider operation to find him went on for three months

‘I said what do we have missing here and one of the younger soldiers said that there were four or five bottles bottles of water missing from a crate that he had. It was chaos. We all knew what would happen if we couldn’t find him.

‘Bergdahl’s backpack was missing, so was his knife. I knew right away he had not been captured – he had walked off.’

The soldier was told by an Afghan boy they spoke to that told them he had seen an American soldier walking away through the fields.

The soldier said: ‘Everyone looked at me like I was crazy but I was right, he had walked off.’

The soldiers began a frantic search costing millions of dollars using drones, military tracking dogs and dozens of men for eight days, although the wider operation to find him went on for three months.

Captain Travis Sorenson, the co-pilot of one of the first F15 aircraft sent up to hunt for Bergdahl, said that he heard on intelligence briefings in the next couple of days that he was thought to have been taken East straight away.

‘Everyone looked at me like I was crazy but I was right, he had walked off’

The plan was to get him into a cave system over the border with Pakistan because it was away from US soldiers, he said.

Captain Sorenson, 36, who has now left the military, told MailOnline: ‘The operation to try and find Bergdahl must have cost millions.

‘We had F-15s flying constant missions for 48 hours and had 52 planes doing search runs. There were A-10s, Apache helicopters, British Tornadoes, British Navy Harriers and German Tornadoes.

‘When we found out that he had walked off the base we were all extremely angry and could not understand why he did it. We spent a couple of days looking for him when other soldiers were getting bombed, we couldn’t support Navy SEALs and other people.

Backfired: The court of public opinion has swung dramatically away from joy and celebration at Bergdahl's release since the weekend when Obama welcomed his parents, Jani and Bob, to the Rose Garden

Backfired: The court of public opinion has swung dramatically away from joy and celebration at Bergdahl’s release since the weekend when Obama welcomed his parents, Jani and Bob, to the Rose Garden

 

Anger: The military ordered members of Bergdahl's unit to sign non-disclosure agreements but they have since spoken out about his 'desertion' and how it cost the lives of those searching for him

Anger: The military ordered members of Bergdahl’s unit to sign non-disclosure agreements but they have since spoken out about his ‘desertion’ and how it cost the lives of those searching for him

‘We couldn’t do our jobs because we were looking for this guy’.

Leaked military communications on Wikileaks show the complete military signal traffic relating to Bergdahl’s release.

The text says that one of the last sightings of him was when he was in a black Toyota Corolla with a bag over his head being escorted by three to five motorcycles.

In intercepted chatter Taliban fighters could be heard asking themselves: ‘Is it true that they captured an American guy?’

The men joke about it and one of them responds that they should ‘cut the head off’.

Soldiers in Bergdahl’s platoon have claimed they were forced to sign a highly unusual nondisclosure agreement covering his disappearance in an apparent attempt to cover up what happened.

Two soldiers who spoke to MailOnline said the letter was passed around by commanders to those close to Sgt. Bergdahl.

The ploy backfired, however, as a number of soldiers spoke out regardless in angry Facebook messages and media interviews.

But the irregular action by the military raises fresh and disturbing questions about attempts to control the flow of information about the incident.

Sgt. Evan Buetow, who fought in Sgt. Bergdahl’s platoon, said: ‘I never signed it. I know there were a couple of soldiers who were closer to Sgt. Bergdahl as friends.

Beheading: Wikileaks files on intercepted Taliban comms showed that they wanted to 'cut his head off'

Beheading: Wikileaks files on intercepted Taliban comms showed that they wanted to ‘cut his head off’

‘I know a couple of them signed the official nondisclosure letter. We did not have to sign an NDA for other missions.’

Others who have spoken out anonymously on the Facebook page ‘Boweisatraitor’ have also referred to such a letter.

Another soldier from Sgt. Bergdahl’s unit who is still in the military told MailOnline: ‘The nondisclosure letters were handed around.’

‘Everyone signed them who was told to – they were just following orders.’

NDA letters are usually signed by soldiers who have security clearances or are working on sensitive missions.

The standard form is called SF312 and is known as a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement. It prevents those who sign it from speaking about a specific event because it is in the interest of national security for them not to do so.

 

Susan Rice: No regrets on Benghazi description.

Susan Rice: No regrets on Benghazi description

US National Security Advisor Susan Rice speaks about the situation in Syria at the New America Foundation in Washington,DC on September 9, 2013.  NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

National Security Advisor Susan Rice said Sunday that she doesn’t regret blaming the September 2012 attack a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic video when she first spoke publicly about the attack.

That description has since been undermined by evidence that the incident was not spontaneous, but the result of a concerted terrorist effort.

Republicans have spent over a year accusing the administration of orchestrating a cover-up to minimize the political fallout, but Rice has insisted she was simply voicing the best intelligence assessment available at the time.

“The information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues, and indeed, to Congress, by the intelligence community,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And that information turned out, in some respects, not to be 100 percent correct. But the notion that somehow I or anybody else in the administration misled the American people is patently false. And I think that that’s been amply demonstrated.”

Asked about Rice’s comments Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the administration’s most persistent critics on the issue, said they left him “almost speechless.”

“She read talking points that we are now beginning to believe came from the White House, which were absolutely false,” McCain explained. “We now know that the director, that the C.I.A. station chief on the ground sent a message immediately saying, ‘Not spontaneous demonstration.’ And of course, the information was totally misleading, totally false. And for Susan Rice to say such a thing, I think it’s a little embarrassing, to tell you the truth.”

In her appearance on NBC, Rice also said the U.S. is making headway on finding those responsible for the attack.

“The investigation is ongoing, and it has indeed made progress,” she said. “But the point is we will get the perpetrators. And we will stay on it until this gets done.”

‘There’s No There There’

Obama on Benghazi

THE BLOG

Obama on Benghazi: ‘There’s No There There’

12:07 PM, MAY 13, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

At a press conference today at the White House, President Obama said “There’s no there there” on criticism of how his administration handled the Benghazi terror attack:

“And suddenly three days ago this gets spun up as if there’s something new to the story,” Obama said in response to a question about Benghazi. “There’s no there there.”

The president continued, “Keep in mind by the way these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice, five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing.”

OOPS!  There is some there there.

The Benghazi Scandal Grows

The State Department, the CIA, the White House . . .

MAY 20, 2013, VOL. 18, NO. 34 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

WhistleblowersANDREW HARNIK/THE WASHINGTON TIMES/LANDOV

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments, providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or “low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists, with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply “Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that “extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided. Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have rewritten the talking points.

Republicans call for depositions in Benghazi probe, amid revelation Clinton barely interviewed.

hillary26n-1-web

Republicans call for depositions in Benghazi probe, amid revelation Clinton barely interviewed.

 

 

Congressional Republicans on Sunday pressed their investigation into the Benghazi attacks, suggesting depositions for high-ranking officials and more whistle-blowers testifying amid further questions about why then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not thoroughly interviewed about the issue.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told “Fox News Sunday” that more potential and self-proclaimed “whistle-blowers” might come forward after three of them – career State Department foreign service employees – testified last week before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

“We have had people come forward because of the (hearing) and say we would also like to talk,” the Michigan Republican told “Fox News Sunday.” “I do think we’re going to see more whistle-blowers. Certainly my committee has been contacted; I think other committees as well.”

Rogers’ remarks came as Thomas Pickering, the former U.S. ambassador who helped write a report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, defended his assessment but absolved Clinton.

“We knew where the responsibility rested,” Pickering told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”  “They’ve tried to point a finger at people more senior than where we found the decisions were made.”

Pickering said he and retired Adm. Mike Mullen had to work within the legal scope of the investigation and that they “knew and understood” Clinton’s role based upon “talking to other people at meetings.”

Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost.

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

Congressional Republicans have since led efforts to learn whether the Obama administration provided adequate security and if the explanation of events was altered as part of a possible political cover-up.

Among the lingering questions are whether Clinton was involved in changing a CIA memo about how the attacks started and was she at least partially responsible for the apparent lack of adequate security.

The Accountability and Review Board, led by Pickering and Mullen, did not question Clinton at length about the attacks but concluded the decisions about the consulate were made well below the secretary’s level.

However, Pickering’s defense Sunday of the panel’s conclusions appeared to do little to quiet Republicans’ calls for more accountability for the attacks, which killed Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House oversight committee, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” he would like to interview under oath Pickering and Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein told NBC that Congress’ review seems aimed at discrediting Clinton and her potential 2016 presidential bid.

Pickering and Mullen’s report, released in December, found that “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department meant that security was “inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

The House oversight committee hearing last week included testimony from Gregory Hicks, a former deputy chief of mission to Libya.

Hicks, a self-proclaimed whistle-blower, detailed his phone conversations from Tripoli with Stevens, who died during the two nighttime attacks.

Hicks and two other State Department witnesses criticized the Pickering and Mullen review. Their complaints centered on a report they consider incomplete, with individuals who weren’t interviewed and a focus on the assistant secretary level and lower.

The hours-long hearing produced no major revelation but renewed interest in the attacks that happened during the lead-up to the November 2012 presidential election.

Five days after the attacks, in the final weeks of President Obama’s re-election bid, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on Sunday talk shows and said the attacks were “spontaneous” and sparked by protests elsewhere in the Middle East over an anti-Islamic video.

However, new reports show the original CIA memo on the incident was scrubbed of the mention of “Islamic militants” and early intelligence about Al Qaeda in the region.

The series of emails that circulated between the State Department and the CIA led to weakened — and, in some cases, wrong — language that Rice used to describe the assault.

Issa also said he will on Monday request private testimonies from Pickering and Mullen and that his oversight panel has not been provided sufficient details on the State Department review.

Pickering, who was sitting next to Issa during “Meet the Press,” said he wanted to appear at the Republican-led hearing Wednesday but was blocked.

Issa said Democrats could have invited their own witnesses, such as Pickering, but did not.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Sunday renewed congressional Republicans’ call for a House select committee on Benghazi — like the one used to investigate Watergate — and called the Obama administration’s handling of the terror attacks “a cover-up.”

“I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information, which was obvious,” McCain said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Rahm Emanuel said that Obama is like Lincoln.

comparison blog copy

I almost suffocated with laughter when I heard Rahm Emanuel compare Obama to Lincoln.

Especially now when Spielberg has a movie out on Lincoln that does nothing but drive home the point that if Lincoln was the Messiah of presidents,  Obama is the antichrist. 

Lincoln unified Obama divides. 

Lincoln put people on his cabinet that disagreed with him.  Obama is a ventriloquist that feeds lines to his cabinet i.e. Susan Rice on Benghazi. 

Lincoln worked to heal wounds even if it meant losing face.  Obama would rather drive the nation off a cliff than admit his economic policies are nothing but the wild wrangling of a community organizer.

 Lincoln used his popularity to help the people.  Obama uses people to sustain his popularity. 

Lincoln told the nation that they would not make it without sacrifice.  Obama hands out goodies and says only the 1% will have to sacrifice. 

Lincoln worked to put God in Government.  Obama is trying to put the government over God. 

Lincoln created the national day of prayer.  Obama has skipped every one of them.   

Lincoln said, “ I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.”

Obama forces the Catholic Church to violate its conscience by offering contraceptives and he said, ““I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Lincoln  believed America was exceptional.  He said, “All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”

In France Obama said that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive toward Europe.”

Lincoln said of brave Americans, “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. “

Obama said, “you didn’t build that,”

Lincoln freed the slaves.  Obama is expanding slavery to government. 

obama like lincoln blog

Lincoln was assassinated by an actor.  Obama was reelected by actors.

Lincoln was a Republican.  Obama is a Democrat. 

Will Obama be embarrassed by a comparison to Lincoln and seek to wave it off?  Of course not.  He has already remained silent about a painting that depicts him as Christ.   And there lies the most glaring difference between the two men.   In Obama we see unjustified arrogance.  In Lincoln we see  true humility.

If you listen real carefully you will hear the voice of American History uttering these words,  “I knew Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln was a friend of mine, and you Obama are no Abraham Lincoln.”

Mario

P.S. Feel free to add your own comparisons in the comment page.  Remember nothing vile gets approved.

Why race baiting will backfire and why conservative Christians must hold their ground.

Listen to these statements by Jonathon Capehart of the Washington Post defending his view that the only reason that white members of the  House are against Ambassador Susan Rice is because she is a black woman.  Here are his words:

“On Friday, The Post editorial board took on “The GOP’s bizarre attack on Susan Rice,” the U.N. ambassador who is in the running to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Blasting a letter from 97 House Republicans to Obama warning against Rice’s possible selection as a “blatant disregard of established facts,” the piece gets to the heart of why the controversy over Rice rankles African Americans.”

“Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.”

“The blatant disrespect of a black woman by McCain and other Republicans won’t soon be forgotten by African Americans, no matter how soft McCain’s rhetoric gets.”

Nothing is off limits for this man; he even brings up the Civil War and reminds us that some of the Republicans come from “States of the former Confederacy.”

How can anyone think that questioning Susan Rice after she deliberately misled the American public on Benghazi is a “Bizarre Attack”?

Mr. Capehart smells blood in the water.  I believe that it is his conviction that Obama’s reelection is a mandate that allows for using racial rhetoric against any voice of dissent.  In his words, “It will not soon be forgotten”

Remember people, Obama refused to offer aid to Americans begging for their lives.  Obama covered it up and continues to cover it up.  It is a crime far worse than Watergate.   Is it racist to want justice?

However there is an even greater evil going on in this.  Mr. Capehart goes on to offer a chilling explanation of why he wants to save the Republican Party: “The Republican Party has a lot to do to redeem itself. And I hope it succeeds because a hobbled GOP could lead to a self-satisfied and complacent Democratic Party.”

The code message is that Conservatism and Christian values no longer have a place in our culture.  In order for Republicans to survive they must abandon traditional marriage, the Bible and every vestige of conservatism.  The people will not agree to anything else.

The New York Times put it this way, ““If Republicans are serious about repairing their party’s standing among women, gay and Hispanic voters, they need to adjust some policies and stop sending hostile messages.”

What if the opposite is true?  What if we are really supposed to be clearer on our conservative convictions and more deeply aligned with the Word of God?   What if the election is a total misreading of America and the people of God are supposed to hold their ground just a little longer?

Let me explain by harking back to the election of William McKinley.  That election was bought and paid for by J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.  McKinley outspent his opponent William Jennings Bryan by a margin of 5 to 1.

These titans of industry hated Bryan because he wanted moral reform, and at that time it was bad for business.

Mckinley won alright but it was a rigged election.  The only other man that the big three feared was Teddy Roosevelt.  They made him vice president in order to hold him at bay.  What they could not have predicted was the assassination of McKinley which was a horrible tragedy.    It was the worst way for Teddy Roosevelt become president.   However, under his leadership the nation enjoyed prosperity and greatness.

In the last election, the big three were not in oil, steel, or railroads they are a much stranger conglomeration.  They are ABC, NBC, and CBS.  They  worked to forge a narrative in cahoots with labor unions, and foreign money that no opposing candidate could have defeated.  We do not know how much was funneled into Obama’s war chest from outside the United States because it was never disclosed.

We also do not know how much the unions helped count the votes: 91 districts in Philadelphia without even single vote for Romney?  Was the last election rigged?   I will leave that for you to decide.

What I do know the election does not mean that America wants race baiting, or radical centralization of power to the White House.     I know that socialism will not work in America.  We still believe in big dreams and hard work.  We do not want government to take our freedom so that we can have a nanny state.   When Obamacare and all of the other extreme programs become reality the nation will recoil against the bankruptcy and inefficiency of government programs.  Hello FEMA!   Most of all I know that there are millions of Americans who still love God and the Bible with all of their hearts

America is going to get sick of all of the handouts and we will hate it when we are forced to work hard to pay for others who will not work.  The Constitutional Republic based on Christian values still has a chance for a big return.  Let’s all stand our ground.  Let them call us any name they want we know what we really are…Americans.