Apparently, it has been confirmed that this was said by Valeri Jarret, reportedly in a Tweet last week. It seems that this one is not among those many made-up quotes we find on the internet.
So, why should you care? Well, for one thing, this is the woman who might as well be Obama’s right arm. I ask you, how do you remain life-long best friends with and even chose them to be your closest adviser if you do not agree with and/or feel kinship with the things a person believes? This is strong reason to believe that Obama actually agrees with the sentiment in this tweet; but then, so are some of his actions since obtaining office. Obama has already shown a propensity to “punish” those who oppose him, so there is no reason to believe things will not get worse if he is re-elected — just like Jarret has promised.
But there’s a more important reason to be concerned by this tweet: because this is the substance of dictatorships. It belies the character and heart of those who would say such a thing. Anyone who would openly declare their intention to exact vengeance on people by inflicting tangible harm on them simply because they oppose their ideas: well, they embody the operative definition of a tyrant.
This tweet reveals true evil, and, if it is returned to office,it is difficult to see how this nation survives.
I thought tweets had to be short.
I doubt that these were tweets, as 140 characters is the limit. So, confirmed by whom?
“confirmed by whom.”
That is a legitimate question.
Let’s stick to the known facts.
Blaming an innocent US citizen for a terrorist attack is enough for me. Melfamy, do you understand the message that this sends to the world? It says, attack Americans, and you will be rewarded. How can this be justified, Melfamy? How?
Crickets.
This is the question we must ask every single Democrat.
This is the question that Congress must ask the President and everyone in his administration.
Justin – I’m confused. Which innocent US citizen was blamed for Benghazi? Are you referring to the producer of the Benghazi video ? Are you referring to Chris Stevens? Are you referring to Obama? Which facts are we sticking to?
The Benghazi video.
Jay Carney: “It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”
This is the line they repeated for weeks. A man was put in jail, on what most consider a flimsy pretext.
Take this for what you will: We have the father of one of the Seals saying that Hilary told him they were going to get the person responsible for the film.
I ask again, how can this be justified?
Correction: Innocence of Muslims; not, The Benghazi video.
Justin,
It can’t, but then, these Leftists believe things like that only happen when a Republican is in office. They have re-written history so often they no longer remember Wilson put thousands in jail for opposing him politically and that FDR is the only President to have ever interned people based on group identity.
If you try to remind them, they will tell you you have lost touch with reality because none of that ever happened.
Sad
Nonsense, B3A. We deserve answers.
Maybe so, but don’t hold your breath. You’ll have as much luck getting honest answers from a liberal on something like this as you will have nailing jello to the wall.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (a convicted meth manufacturer) was arrested for violation of his probation stemming from bank fraud charges (2010) which he pleaded no contest to. He violated his probation by using alias(es). He knew the terms of his probation, yet he brought attention to himself. That the Obama administration used him as a scapegoat in their coverup is the travesty. His arrest can be easily be justified.
“That the Obama administration used him as a scapegoat in their coverup is the travesty.”
Precisely. They lied. To borrow from Bolton, it wasn’t just a cover-up; it was a stupid cover-up.
But more importantly.
President Obama took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, including the First Amendment.
In front of the United Nations, Obama has said that the future does not belong to the blasphemers of Islam.
President Obama is in clear violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution. His words and actions that are there for the world to see pose a clear and present danger to the safety of this nation and the sanctity of our rights.
I don’t care if it’s conspiracy or cluelessness. How can we trust this man to defend our country?
How old are you?
Immaterial, your honor.
Just kidding. You are (I’m guessing from your photograph) a young idealist. I, on the other hand, am an old realist. If you are waiting for any president, D or R, to uphold his oath, you have a long wait and many disappointments ahead of you. Obama isn’t the first to skirt (or even flagrantly violate) the Constitution, nor will he be the last. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold him accountable, though.
RE Below:
I know what you mean, Florida.
Now, let me just ask, when was the last time any President did anything close to this? It is drawing a lot of comparisons to Bush from 9/11 Truthers who say that Bush was in on it. I have not done my homework on that issue. If the evidence is strong against Bush, then it really hurts our case. Some are bringing up Reagan on Beirut, which is probably ridiculous. The cover-up aspect surpasses Nixon, in my opinion. Bush never really had to cover up, because I don’t think enough people took the accusation seriously.
Bear in mind that we are talking about real steps towards enforcing UN anti-blasphemy laws within our borders.
That is what I find inexcusable.
That is what makes me believe that every American who believes in this nation should outraged right now, and I imagine that has to be true for a lot of Democrats.
That is what makes me believe that we need to seize this moment and send a clear message to Congress that this is unacceptable. We need answers. Personally, I think there is more than enough to impeach him. We have until November 15th to make the case. After that, c’est la vie.
We are talking about a clear existential threat to our liberty. We should at least be making an effort.
I agree with you 100%, Justin.
What in God’s name are you talking about?
Blaming an innocent US citizen for a terrorist attack. Melfamy, do you understand the message that this sends to the world? It says, attack Americans, and you will be rewarded. How can this be justified, Melfamy? How?
What is who talking about, g.?
justin and his stark ravings
Good one, Melfamy.
Just, please explain this to me.
While the consulate in Benghazi was being attacked, the Obama administration told the American public that it was a spontaneous demonstration in response to the video, Innocence of Muslims. This proved to be false. In addition, the President knew it to be false. Yet, the Administration repeated the claim.
How is this justified?
Justin,
He’s not going to answer you, he never does. All you will get is a red herring rabbit chase or an ad hominem attack. If he’s really feeling convicted, then you might get a “your guy did it first” justification/defense, but you won’t get a civil reply.
B3A, please.
Melfamy?
“B3A, please. Melfamy?”
Hehehehe, gosh I hope you are not holding your breath. Hypoxia is not going to be good for you.
Augger,
I like Justin, and I understand where he is coming from because I started where he is at now, myself: he thinks you can reason with the left using reason
Justin,
I like you, man, really I do, but, DUDE, are you in for a long hard lesson. Oh, I won’t begrudge it to you, I had to learn the hard way myself. Just know we’ll be here for you if you need us. Augger and I don’t leave our wingmen — especially the cherries
Alright, B3A, Augger, thank you. I am getting a little exasperated, for sure, so I am not going to press this anymore.
If anyone sees the point I am making, please speak up, because I think this is critical. I am talking about the difference between getting through to enough sheeple to make a difference, or having to just throw down the gauntlet.
Justin,
Just now catching up, so others may have already said what I am about to say.
Many of us do understand the point you are trying to make — we do. We have been where you are now, which is why you may detect a bit of a sarcastic attitude from us. It isn’t that we disagree with you, it’s just that we know the road you are on and the disappointment you’re going to encounter.
Look, in a year or so, whe you have beat your head against the wall of liberalism, you’ll look back on today and understand. But, for now, just accept that those who have gone before you are going to have to fight the urge to chuckle a bit as we know what’s coming. But it doesn’t mean we are not on your side
Justin, I answered your question below. Scroll down.
I know Augs, I skimmed it.
You’re talking about the true believers.
I am talking about people who are not that strong in their convictions … a sizable percentage …
Either way, people respond to kindness and openness and patience. Ask any salesman. I am suggesting the same approach that the media experts recommend. It doesn’t matter what your convictions are, the same rules apply across the board. People have to be sold on an idea.
Case in point: Obama is losing because he is vicious. Romney is winning because he is kind.
Now tie that together with everything else I have said on this thread, let go of all cynicism, envision the outcome you desire, then we will be on the path to some serious victories.
Trust me.
“Plus, you seem to have an agenda, and the truth doesn’t play a major part in it, unless you can blame Obama for something.”
Justin, you tell me how that is in anyway helpful. Seriously.
“Case in point: Obama is losing because he is vicious. Romney is winning because he is kind.”
Like Greg, I am not so sure that Obama is losing my friend. (and damn you for forcing me to agree with Greg).
“Trust me”.
If there is any one thing this old physician has learned …. never trust anyone that says “Trust me.”
Did I just say ‘Trust me’? Whoops!
Alright, listen, this is the sort of material we need to be looking at. Look. Just the facts. We don’t need scandalous conjecture. We need the basic facts to put together a case. We ought to be following what Congress is doing.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/11/02/buchanan-the-smoking-gun-of-the-benghazi-cover-up/
Ahhh, but define “facts,” grasshopper. Once you start dealing with Leftists, you are going to find the word means many different things. Whereas you and I and likely Augger and Utah could all settle on a common definition, when you take that definition to the Leftists, you will find each of them rejects it for their own defintion.
This is one of the central problems you have in dealing with the post modernist Leftist: they do not care about established language. To them, words mean only what the reader believes them to mean. Established definitions are inoperative concepts in their world.
So again, I’ll ask you: What do you mean by “facts?”
(note: you may not believe this, but I Am trying to help you here).
B3A, thanks for your patience.
Personally, I have to agree with Greg that the Vallerie Jarrett stuff was a little National Enquirer, as is the Ulsterman report. It might be plausible or even true, but we cannot be sure, and therefore it would not stand up in court. File under right-wing hype.
Now, like I said, in order to be credible, we must deal in irrefutable facts. If we are not 100% sure that someone said something or did something, then we must throw it out.
We should be looking for, and discussing, the most credible reports. Likewise, we should be following the actions of Congress, who have the best information and are the ones with the ultimate power to act on this.
OK, I’ll give you that.
So, how do we deal with this:
In Oct, 2011, U.S. military and intelligence personnel testified in an open Congressional committee that there were “echoes” of Al Qaeda in with the Libyan rebels.
Obama armed them, gave them military aid and political support anyway.
After the Libyan revolt, those same intelligence sources reported confirmation that Al Qaeda was part of the rebel forces.
Today, they are telling us that Al Qaeda is part of the rebel force in Syria.
We also have reliable reports that the Obama Administration is arming the Syrian rebels, which would constitute a clear act of treason.
Why is this not “credible enough” for the Left to want to investigate further?
As you have pointed out, we KNOW the President knowingly and intentionally lied about the video being the cause of the attack, and that he and Hillary ran ads on Pakistani TV that amount to “aid and comfort” to Al Qaeda. Why are we dismissing this?
We KNOW that Obama went to the UN and advocated AGAINST the Constitution. You are on this, but where is the Left?
We have a President who has openly declared his intention to go around the Congress in violation of the Constitution and has shown his willingness to do so through illegal “regulatory” action. the various bureaucracies were never intended to legislate, yet this is exactly what he is doing. How about that?
How about the Czars? they are extra constitutional (i.e. unconstitutional)
How about the fact that this President murdered, assassinated a U.S. citizen without trial. What about that?
BUT I WILL GO YOU ONE BETTER! Why are the Republicans NOT going after him on ALL of these IMPEACHABLE charges???
Now, tell me, where do you propose we begin with all of this?
B3A,
From what I have seen, Republicans ARE going after the Administration, big time … even McCain, who would have thought? McCain looks angriest of all. Also look up the senior Marine Vet in Congress, he is hot, as well. Chaffetz, Issa, Rand Paul, to name a few. John Bolton has some good stuff. The Seals are angry. There are intelligence experts who find this very suspect. So let’s put the spotlight on the people with the most credibility. And let’s see what kind of objections they are running into.
For our purposes, I think we should start small, just look at the day of the attack itself, and the weeks before and after. Without a rock solid case there, we have nothing.
Now I am going to sleep on it.
Justin,
Then why haven’t the Republicans impeached Obama? Do you know what an impeachment is, and how it actually works?
And, if you think you are going to make a “rock solid case” against Obama without actually impeaching him, I believe you are in for a disappointment.
Finally, “noise” does not equal action. The Republicans making noise about this are doing so to keep “reasonable” people such as yourself from picking up pitch forks. They are doing to you what you propose to do to the liberals you see as reasonable.
I know I am being skeptical, but I do not expect anything to happen from Benghazi — except maybe some low level sacrifices being tossed under the bus. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Thanks for the shout out, B3A. That means a lot.
I think I said my piece, so I am just going to take a step back and see where the chips fall.
Thanks for the excellent conversation. What you guys are doing on here is great.
It was deserved and I meant it.
Too few of us speak up for what is right and for those who try to say/do the right thing; and those of us who do, do so far too seldom. I do not want to be among the number who sat silent while evil prevailed — even if it means making mistakes along the way.
I don’t know that your account is all that accurate, son. Plus, you seem to have an agenda, and the truth doesn’t play a major part in it, unless you can blame Obama for something.
You see, people? Melfamy is being helpful. If you can convince him, you can convince anyone.
“While the consulate in Benghazi was being attacked, the Obama administration told the American public that it was a spontaneous demonstration in response to the video, Innocence of Muslims. This proved to be false. In addition, the President knew it to be false. Yet, the Administration repeated the claim.”
I thought I was staying pretty close to the facts. For starters, I am blaming him for willful deceit.
Justin,
See what I mean? Either Augger or myself could have predicted Melfamy’s reply with reasonable accuracy. To be sure, it isn’t because we are any smarter than anyone else, only that we have had the experience of many, many, many, many, many similar replies in the past.
But, hey, if you manage to succeed where I have failed, then rest assured, I WILL study and adopt your technique. You can bet on it!
What I’m agreeing with is that all Presidents (and elected officials) should be held accountable for all of their actions, period. I believe there is enough evidence on the Benghazi incident for a formal investigation of the presidential office and staff. Something went terribly wrong there, and Obama and Co. did try to cover it up by blaming this video. Saying the word “terrorist” in his initial statement on the incident does not mean he was stating this was a terrorist attack. He/they did, in fact, blame the video for two weeks while they knew all along it was a terrorist attack associated with 9-11. The Fast & Furious incident is the same thing. Simply saying, “Bush did it, too.” doesn’t justify what happened in Mexico. I believe Eric Holder is dirty on this deal, either directly or by negligence. Yes, Nixon did not uphold his constitutional duties and was forced to resign, then was let off the hook by G. Ford. That was wrong, too, but how are you going to prosecute a president? We’ve got to hold these people accountable, and to just let them lie their asses off and go unpunished or unscathed is not right.
Right.
But we aren’t getting anywhere preaching to the choir.
We need to take this to the Democrats.
“We need to take this to the Democrats.”
And you better believe we have been … for about 4 years now.
And I respect that Augger. I am new to the game, for sure.
Let’s see if you can help me out.
There are bull-headed Democrats like Melfamy with whom you are used to tangling. I am just getting acquainted with Melfamy, so I don’t have a full appraisal of this strange individual. Melfamy can be useful, because he can point out the weaknesses in your argument, as he did on this post.
Then there are your every day Democrats who hear rumors about ‘Tea Party types’ and are convinced we are just a bunch of bigots. These are the people to reach.
Everybody knows about Benghazi. I don’t think I have met a Democrat yet who does not think it was at least a little scandalous that Obama blamed “Innocence of Muslims.” So many are on the verge of realizing, ‘oh no, the messiah is taking us on a dangerous path.’ In addition, we have Congressional hearings coming up on Nov 15th. In other words, the iron is hot.
Now, it’s all about perception.
If we show these everyday Democrats the Ulsterman report and other spooky stuff, they are going to believe the rumors about us.
But, if we can simply frame it in a way such as to say, look, Obama tried, but he doesn’t get it, and unfortunately his actions are putting the country in danger. That is something that Democrats will be more receptive to. The logic is simple, difficult to refute, and won’t offend them too much. Plus, it will open up dialogue so that they will be more receptive to the more scandalous aspects of the story.
In conclusion, let’s stick with the basic, widely known facts. As more information comes out, they will begin to connect the dots for themselves, and we might have an honest chance of bringing this regime to an end before it can execute EPA laws and release jihadist prisoners.
Justin,
I do appreciate your faith in the liberals, really I do. Occasionally a few have their purpose, and sometimes have a reasonable point to make. I get it. However, the Democratic Party is not the Democratic party you may have studied about during your education. Let’s examine a post I had made before concerning the titles: Communists, Socialists, Leftist, and Liberals, and how those various titled have stuck through out history:
Now you just sit back, and watch for any flippant responses, or just an avoidance of the statement all together. It will be spun 180 degrees. Everyone from Bush to Reagan, and possibly Washington will be blamed for everything. And in the end, you are left with nothing but a series of liberal false syllogisms.
And that is exactly why you are never going to truly appeal to the what I have come to call “The Free Sh*t Army”. Their whole contemporary platform starts with a false premise as handed to them from Carter, to Clinton, and now to Obama.
B is getting as bad as Sawdust.
please share the evidence this has been confirmed.
Gee, I wonder what he said before this that caused people to boo, and Obama to mention revenge.
Yep, absolutely NO reason to believe that Obama and his right hand (Jarrett) would hold a similar mindset.
Oops, I just posted this with Romney’s reponse, and see you put it in a comment.
They have this thing called “Twitlonger” where one can continue a tweet for much more than 140 characters.
It is also being reported that she parroted this same sentiment in an internal memo. I didn’t include that information because it is based on “leaks inside the Administration.”
That said, I am more and more willing to accept these “leaks” as they are starting to become a real flood. I believe it is because the few decent people remaining inside are aware of how bad things are and are doing what they can to get the word out before it is too late.
It looks as if this was not a tweet , but an overheard conversation. If Valerie said this, then Obama is ill-served by her, she needs to go.
Why do you just assume Obama doesn’t agree with the attitude and intent behind her words?
If Obama is competent, then he chose to put her where she is and keep her there, and it cannot be argued he doesn’t know her. They have been close friends for many, many years. So the reasonable conclusion is that Obama knows what she thinks and still keeps her where she is.
now, what is the most reasonable explanation for THAT? Hmmm
Wow, and not even a little context to go by. good work, Goebbels, jr.
If you can find a way to put those words into an acceptable context, YOU will have taken over for Joseph — not me.
Ah, you silly benevolent liberals, and your caring, “I love everybody” premises. Greg, McPherson, CCF, drugsnthings, and any other liberal visiting this site … is this the liberal movement and party you subscribe to, or has it changed in to something else?
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/11/01/valerie-jarret-after-we-win-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-wsi/
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/who-is-valerie-jarrett-valerie-jarret-after-we-win-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-video-2467496.html
You can also see it at Snopes if you do not like those links.
Augger,
All these reports and no denial except from the liberal kool-aid drinkers who have shown they will defend Obama when caught standing over dead puppies and kittens with with bloody club in hand.
I would say that is an admission of fact, wouldn’t you?
augs – Not to be argumentative, but your links don’t confirm Jarrett said this (even though I don’t put it past her for one moment). Everything I can find references a 3rd party “rep” that supposedly heard this and has repeated it. I checked snopes as well and I can’t find mention of this particular statement there. Give me a link showing snopes verification, or a link where a named person quotes Jarrett.
Florida is right. That dog won’t hunt.
So it’s only believable once Fox News, Huffington Post, MSDNC, ABC, NBC, or CBS report on it?
My point is, how many times have we grabbed a story, only to have it reported by the mainstream media two days later?
That dog … just might hunt after all.
I’ll say it again: they have not denied it.
“I’ll say it again: they have not denied it.”
Precisely. But I cannot help wonder if the next Christian girl slain in a muslin country is going to cause this writer to be blamed by quoting … and placed quietly behind bars.
MSDNC – I like that!
Hey, gotta call a spade a spade you know.
Justin, I hope we can dialogue more in the future, You are a smart man, and I feel you will be a welcome contributor here. Forgive my earlier snarkiness.
For sure, Greg. Thank you for the gracious compliments. The snark didn’t bother me at all, but I will forgive it, anyway.