Conservative Political Views



Shocking Benghazi Report Blames State Dept.: U.S. Gov’t ‘Failed Tragically’ to Protect Americans

A shocking new Senate report on the Benghazi, Libya, attack that claimed the lives of four Americans on Sept. 11, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, contends that the State Department is at fault for failing to tackle security threats in the days and months leading up to the deadly assault. Additionally, the document concludes by noting that the horrific event is evidence that the U.S. battle with “Islamist extremists and terrorists is not over.”

The report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi,” which came from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, charges that, considering unpredictable chaos in the region, the State Department did not adequately protect the compound or respond to challenges facing it leading up to the attack. While no specific threats were waged against U.S. staffers in Libya prior to Sept. 11, the report essentially charges that the U.S. government, taking information and developments into account, should have taken grander steps to protect workers.

Senate Report Blames State Department on Benghazi, Failed to Protect Americans

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) presents a Common Ground Award to Anne Stevens (L), sister of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, during a ceremony at the Carnegie Institution for Science November 8, 2012 in Washington, DC. Anne Stevens accepted the award on behalf of her late brother, who was killed in the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya September 11, 2012. Credit: Getty Images

“In the months leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely,” the study’s first finding contends.

The report went on to claim that information about threats was shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key personnel at the Department of State. However, despite knowledge that the situation was worsening, it “did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there.” These actions, the Senate committee claims, would have been justified by the intelligence findings.

Another of the statements in the document reads, “The absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack should not have prevented the Department of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi.”

With the Libyan government unable to provide adequate security, the need for greater U.S.-led provisions was obvious, but according to the study — not undertaken. In addition to laying out its findings, the report also provides recommendations to prevent future events like the Benghazi terror attack from unfolding.

“We hope this report will help contribute to the ongoing discussion that our nation must have about how best to protect the brave men and women who serve our country abroad and how to win this war that will continue for years to come,” the document concludes, noting that the U.S. government “failed tragically” to protect Americans serving abroad in Libya.

Read the document in its entirety here. This report follows an independent investigation earlier this month that found systematic management and leadership failures in the wake of the Benghazi attack.




NRA fingerprints in landmark health-care law

Handout/Reuters – Wayne LaPierre, CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, appears on “Meet the Press” in Washington D.C. in this December 23, 2012 photo.

By Peter Wallsten and , Published: December 30

The words were tucked deep into the sprawling text of President Obama’s signature health-care overhaul. Under the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” was a brief provision restricting the ability of doctors to gather data about their patients’ gun use — a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.

The language, pushed by the National Rifle Association in the final weeks of the 2010 debate over health care and discovered only in recent days by some lawmakers and medical groups, is drawing criticism in the wake of this month’s schoolhouse massacre of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Some public health advocates, worried that the measure will hinder research and medical care, are calling on the White House to amend the language as it prepares to launch a gun-control initiative in January.

A look back at 10 quips that defined the election year that was.

NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.

But physician groups and researchers see the provision as part of a decades-long strategy by the gun lobby to choke off federal support for studies of firearms violence.

The research restrictions began in the 1990s, when the NRA urged Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division that studied gun violence. In 1996, Congress sharply limited the agency’s ability to fund that type of research.

More limits came last year in a spending bill setting restrictions on the National Institutes of Health after complaints from gun rights advocates about an NIH-backed study drawing links between alcoholism and gun violence. The provision, added by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), prohibits the NIH from spending money to “advocate or promote gun control” — language that researchers say does not explicitly forbid studies but sends a signal to federal research agencies to steer clear of the topic.

The NRA push has extended into state capitals as well, with Florida lawmakers last year crafting a plan to impose jail time on doctors for inquiring about their patients’ gun ownership. Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed a scaled-back version of the proposal requiring health-care workers to “refrain” from asking patients about their ownership or possession of firearms unless the providers believe “in good faith” that such information would be relevant. A federal judge this year declared the law unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement, but the ruling was appealed by the state and is under review.

Undercutting gun laws

Physician groups and public health advocates say the cumulative effect of these restrictions undercuts the ability of the White House and lawmakers to make the case for new laws, such as an assault-weapons ban, in the face of opponents who argue that there’s no evidence such measures are effective. Advocates for regulating guns lament that reliable statistics are limited in part because physicians and health researchers who could track these patterns are being inhibited.



National_Rifle_Association (Photo credit: ChrisWaldeck)

Unless a gun is used to commit suicide, or if a gun owner’s weapon has injured him/her, it is none of the doctor’s business if one owns a gun!!  The NRA is a free society’s last line of resistance and defense against tyranny.


Related articles


MSNBC Host Thinks Calling Romney ‘Negro’ Is Hilarious

Breitbart News: Breitbart TV via @sharethis

Apparently black racism against whites is acceptable.  Stand up people in outrage!



Politico: Breitbart Leads the Opposition

by Joel B. Pollak 31 Dec 2012, 5:52 AM PDT

The left-leaning, DC-based Politico news outlet has named–or blamed–Breitbart News as the leader of the opposition to Speaker of the House John Boehner: “The main anti-Boehner grumbling is coming from conservative media outlets like Breitbart and Hot Air, and outside groups such as American Majority Action.”

In fact, Breitbart News has not opposed Boehner’s speakership as such, but has reported on possible challenges stemming from his apparent weakness in “fiscal cliff” negotiations with President Barack Obama, his purge of conservative members from key leadership positions, and his failure to unite the Republican caucus behind “Plan B” proposals to raise takes on the highest earners–proposals the President and his party had already rejected.

Breitbart News has also proudly and comprehensively covered opposition to tax hikes from the conservative grass roots, as well as pointing out the failure of such policies in “blue” states such as Illinois and California.

We are not alone. In addition to the other outlets and groups mentioned by Politico, conservative talk radio–much detested by Beltway journalists–has played a significant role, with host Mark Levin urging listeners to call their representatives to voice objections to “Plan B,” and featuring interviews with members opposed to the deal.

While adopting a critical posture towards Boehner’s initiatives, Breitbart News has also allowed for the possibility that “many of his failures are not his fault,” given President Obama’s intransigence and detachment from talks. It is partly for that reason–and not because he enjoys unanimous support–that Boehner received a standing ovation yesterday from members of the GOP caucus when he announced that the Senate had to forge a deal.

However, Andrew Breitbart would no doubt be proud that his website continues to lead the conservative opposition to Obama–and that it remains as feared as ever by the “Democrat-media complex” in Washington.



Assault Rifles Selling Out

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) The feverish demand for military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines is outstripping supply, ahead of legislative efforts to ban them in the wake of mass shootings. “Our phones are ringing every 10 seconds and people are saying, ‘Do you have any assault rifles?'” said Dennis Pratte, owner of My Gun Factory in Falls Church, Va., a store that also sells products online. “They’ve sold out of just about every gun shop nationwide and just about every distributor is out of stock.” Online retailers are running out of semiautomatic rifles — known variously as assault weapons, tactical rifles or modern sporting rifles — and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Brick-and-mortar gun shops are also working furiously to meet demand. Semiautomatic rifles, which fire one round for every pull of the trigger, and high-capacity magazines are flying off the shelves. “The retail market is completely sold out of anything with high-capacity magazines,” said Pratte. “We get people 20-deep waiting to buy.” Pratte said that he sells AR-15s as soon as they arrive at his store, before he even has the time to display them on the wall. Handguns are also hot commodities, especially from popular makers such as Smith & Wesson (SWHC), he said. He said that prices are soaring, and not just for guns. High-capacity magazines, particularly the popular 30-round magazines, are going for $100 apiece on, a bidding site like Ebay (EBAY, Fortune 500). He said they used to sell for $15. “Ammunition is hard to come by, as well,” Pratte said, noting that ammunition for military-style semiautomatic rifles has tripled in price to about one dollar per bullet.

Gun flashback #3

by Tom Tomorrow for Daily Kos

As a small reminder of how long we’ve been having the exact same conversation about guns, I’m posting a few of the cartoons I’ve written on the topic over the years.  This one is from 1999.




December 31, 2012 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

BREAKING NEWS – Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.

English: This is the long form birth certifica...

English: This is the long form birth certificate showing that the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born at 7:24 pm, on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Forged Obama COLB December 29, 2012

As reported to AL HENDERSHOT, Editor of The Obama Hustle.

Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.

Many of you have replied to concerned constituents that the matter is settled by the public statements of Hawaii officials, the HDOH birth index list, the newspaper birth announcements, and Obama’s posted short-form and long-form birth certificates.  Onaka’s disclosure – the only one made by a HI official under oath –negates all that and fits the vast legal and forensic evidence collected so far, some of which is in my affidavit (privately posted at for NE criminal case #B2-119. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Commander, Mike Zullo  (both of whom initially disbelieved the skeptics) have both signed affidavits saying there is legal-quality FORENSIC evidence that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and draft registration are forged. Onaka has now revealed the REASON for the forgery: to hide the non-validity of the birth record. Evidence in my affidavit proves (among other things) that the 1960-64 birth index includes non-valid records.

Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible.  EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th. As with the Sandusky case, those with knowledge have legal responsibility to act, and that is now you.

Even if the majority in Congress wrongly certifies the electoral vote, that only makes Obama the President-elect. The 20th Amendment says that if the President-elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th, the Vice-President-elect must “act as President”. Without any legally-determined birth date, birth place, or birth parents, there is no way that Barack Obama could have qualified by Jan 20, 2009 – or can qualify by Jan 20, 2013, unless his birth facts ARE legally determined. The biggest favor any one of you can do for this whole process (and for Obama himself if he is to become President LAWFULLY) is to file a lawsuit (with standing) challenging Obama’s eligibility so that the records will be presented as evidence to a JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE person or body (not legislative, according to Hawaii statute 338-17, so Congress is powerless on this issue) and birth facts determined. That’s the only way Obama can “qualify” by Jan 20, 2013.

Our President has committed perjury 6 times by swearing (in AZ, NC, and WV) that he is eligible, knowing that he has no valid HI birth certificate (and claiming a Kenyan birth in his bio until 2007), and let his spokesmen pass off two forgeries as genuine on his behalf. He knowingly allowed a decorated military surgeon to lose his life’s savings and retirement and spend 6 months in prison for simply wanting to know if his combat orders were lawful, or whether they Constitutionally had to come from Joe Biden instead – who OPPOSED the “surge”.

It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law – without which, none of your life’s work even matters because the laws you make will only be enforced when politically expedient to the powerful. A banana republic.

December 30, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Picture of Language Lover wearing U.S...

English: Picture of Language Lover wearing U.S.A.F.-issued “birth control glasses”, to illustrate the entry for that word at wiktionary (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Scandal! ‘Religious’ nuts snatching birth control

ACLU refuses to identify culprits in outrageous letter pleading for money

Published: 20 hours ago

author-image by Bob Unruh

rss feed Subscribe to feed

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

“Religious extremists” are withholding birth control from American women!

Or are they?

A fundraising email from American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero tried today to put the fear of “religious extremists” in organization supporters, warning that those people have been denying contraceptive coverage to women.

When WND asked the ACLU to provide further details to substantiate its claims, the ACLU sent a polite note to WND refusing to explain the fundraising email reference to those “religious extremists” who have been denying contraceptive coverage to women, and also those who have been instituting “outrageous voter suppression tactics.”

A war against God? See what the ACLU has championed since its founding in 1920.

WND had asked for an explanation, as the issue of contraception coverage remains undecided by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it will likely end up.

But in an early indication of that group’s attitude, Sonya Sotomayor, one of Barack Obama’s appointees, decided just this week that a company owned by religious people and operated on their Christian principles must, in fact, pay for those coverages or face crushing penalties.

Sotomayor ruled in a case elevated to the high court by Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., and Mardel Inc, and five members of the ownership family that Obamacare’s requirements that they pay for contraceptives such as the abortifacient morning-after pill take precedence over religious beliefs.

Among the court documents in the 40-some cases already brought against Obamacare’s “abortion mandate,” the president’s team repeatedly has claimed the companies must pay for the services, arguing that they have no religious expression rights where a corporation exists.

Hobby Lobby – long known for abiding by its owners’ Christian principles to the point that stores are closed on Sundays so workers may attend church and spend time with their families – argued that “to provide insurance coverage for certain drugs … [that] … can cause abortions” would violate the owners’ religious rights.

Nonsense, wrote Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. She said the applicants didn’t meet the standard required for such relief.

Sotomayor added that they must pay up or face penalties while they continue arguing in lower courts for their religious rights.

Several other district judges have ordered that abortion mandate not be enforced against individual companies until the dispute is resolved, but the government is appealing those decisions.

So who are the “religious extremists” denying coverage?

“Thanks for the inquiry, but we have to pass,” the ACLU told WND.

Romero also noted that his organization fought “for people targeted by outrageous voter suppression tactics,” but the ACLU provided no details to support that claim.

In fact, WND’s comprehensive report on vote fraud noted that Democrats “took liberties with the law Republicans would never dare attempt and obstructed voter-integrity efforts at every turn, while the vast political-media-entertainment-education-union-nonprofit complex went all in to promote Obama’s narrative.”

It explored those reports of Obama getting 100 percent of the vote in some precincts, the use of absentee ballots, and documented reports of 24 million invalid or inaccurate voter registrations, 1.8 million dead voters and 2.75 million registered to vote in more than one state.

The report said, “Countless cases of confirmed vote fraud were reported in this cycle and the Obama team repeatedly rode the razor’s edge of legality in pushing voters to the polls.”

It cited Democrat Patrick Moran, son of longtime U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, who was caught on video by James O’Keefe’s Veritas Project telling an undercover journalist how to commit vote fraud.

Other Veritas videos showed Obama campaign officials in Texas, New Jersey and New York providing multiple forms to journalists posing as voters so that they could vote in two or more states.

Fox News is reporting on a number of cases involving Democrats who may end up in jail because of vote fraud.

“So is vote fraud real? Yes. Did it occur in this election? Yes. Was it enough to steal the election? In reality, although no single instance or aspect of vote fraud was likely enough to tip the election for Obama, the aggregate of their corrupt activities – including illegal campaign donations, taking advantage of states without voter ID requirements, military ballots delivered too late, as well as the laundry list of elements identified in this report, may well have been,” the WND report said.

“Even had there been no vote fraud at all, the Obama administration stole this election: By virtue of the media monopoly Obama and his team enjoy, they have been able to lie, deceive and suppress damaging information throughout Obama’s entire first term. They have taken countless billions in taxpayer dollars to enrich their friends and union allies under the pretext of ‘stimulating’ the economy and conducted a campaign of unprecedented viciousness against the Republican candidate while protesting vociferously in those few instances when Obama received richly deserved criticism.”

Romero also wrote that he fought for “same-sex couples trying to reverse the inequality and injustice that has persisted for far too long.”

But he didn’t mention the hundreds of other “philias,” such as pedophilia and necrophilia, which Congress noted during its debate over America’s “hate crimes” law or explain why advocacy would be on behalf only of same-sex couples and no one else.

He told constituents, instead, he’s confident of the fights “we can take on … and win” in 2013.


December 28, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Reblogged from October 5, 2011

Obama, the Hitman: Killing Due Process

By John Griffing

One of the many unfulfilled aims of the Obama administration has been the criminalization of political opponents via the machinery of U.S. anti-terror statutes and other devices.  So far, President Obama and his cronies have stopped at saber-rattling, confronted by an extremely heightened public awareness and growing anger amongst average Americans at the Obama agenda.  Many will recall the innumerable statements of regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and his call for banning “falsehoods,” as well as the infamous DHS reports attempting to tar conservatives as potential terrorists.  More recently, the TSA has sought to make all Americans traveling for the holidays into terror suspects, attracting significant public outrage.  The direct approach has arguably failed.

But where the direct approach has failed, a more silent approach is poised to succeed.  No constitution has an unconditional right to life — except the U.S. Constitution.  In the United States, no man can be deprived of life without due process — i.e., a trial by a jury of his peers.  However, using shady CIA “hit lists” designed to thwart American-born terrorists, President Obama claims the power to capriciously do away with this most fundamental of American freedoms.  Through a new clandestine assassination program targeting selected citizens, Obama will void due process.  The list of targeted Americans is currently not available to the public.  The New York Times and the Washington Post both report that Obama has approved the assassination of U.S. citizens engaged in terrorist acts overseas.  U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed pursuant to this new program.

Yes, Awlaki was evil, and his behavior was criminal and treasonous.  But before the dust settles and his assassination becomes precedent, a few questions come to mind: Islamic terrorists may be the object, but what happens if this power is selectively turned against political opponents?  Is there any accountability?  Who decides who is and isn’t a terrorist?  America cannot allow the precious right to life to fade without a fight.  No compromise can be tolerated on a freedom this basic.

Ironically, this highly unconstitutional protocol has been lauded by Republican Americans ever-concerned with the spread of Islamic terrorism.  The sentiment among many is one of relief, that finally President Obama takes the threat of Islamic terror seriously.  Could this magical change be the salvation of America in the War on Terror?

Obama’s habitual actions until the present point speak to the contrary.  President Obama gives Miranda rights to foreign terrorists without first attempting to garner information that could save American lives.  President Obama delays an investigation of the atrocities at Fort Hood.  President Obama posts the TSA playbook online for the all the world to see.  President Obama makes strategically damning declarations like “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.”  President Obama appoints officials who publicly advocate Islamic sharia law.  President Obama says that the aims of Hamas are fine as long as they are achieved “peacefully.”  And finally, President Obama has sought to grant foreign enemy combatants not even protected by the Geneva Convention the privileges of U.S. citizens.

And now we are supposed to believe that because President Obama is willing to trash the fundamental right of Americans to due process without so much as an amendment, he is somehow turning up the heat in the War on Terror?  This is typical liberal-style “warfare.”  War becomes a means to gain power at home instead of protecting freedom abroad.  As the sage Abraham Lincoln would remark in a letter to law partner William Herndon:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Lincoln viewed unlimited war as the “most oppressive of all kingly oppressions,” and yet in the present state of affairs, we have given to the presidency the awesome power of fighting a protracted and ill-defined war, by any means necessary.  Obama is now the equivalent of an elected king.

Consequently, the present move of the Obama administration towards KGB-style assassination of U.S. citizens should be regarded with close scrutiny.

Many warned that one day very soon, the PATRIOT Act and its sister legislation would be used against American citizens.  The broad and ambiguous language found in the PATRIOT Act gives the president, whoever that may be, the power to determine what is and is not “terror.”  Section 411, G, vi, II of the PARIOT Act defines a terrorist as anyone “designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General”[1].

Everything that follows is contingent on this loose definition — i.e. warrantless wiretapping, warrantless entry, human tracking, access to bank statements and phone records, access to internet records, “enhanced” interrogation, and now assassination.  Predictably, as a result of this accountability vacuum, the definition of terrorism is subject to frequent and conspicuous change — e.g., the DHS report labeling pro-lifers “terrorists”[2].  President Obama’s preferred definition of terrorism generally involves Christian bigots and White Supremacists [3].  In fact, Obama’s counterterrorism advisor wants to delist “jihadists” as security threats.

Even the philosophical basis of the PATRIOT Act is flawed.  If citizens are found conspiring against the United States, a provision already exists in the Constitution to address it.  It’s called “treason.”  As long as due process is afforded, treason is punishable by death.  Recall the trial and execution of the Rosenbergs in the last century.

By ordering the CIA to shoot and kill American citizens if classified as “terrorist,” a power the White House now wields [4], both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are violated, since the Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” and the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]”  The “person” and “life” of American citizens are clearly breached by such an order.  The exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are arguably infringed by the entering of homes without warrant — a practice sanctioned by the PATRIOT Act — since “hot pursuit” is not always a factor, and because the home has traditionally been a place where individuals possessed a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”  The courts have held that warrantless wiretapping, also a power found in the PATRIOT Act, is illegal and usurps constitutionally guaranteed liberty [5].

These breathtaking powers all fall under the vague and limitless definition of terrorism now in the hands of one of the least trustworthy men ever to sit in the White House.

It was Benjamin Franklin who once said, “They that surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.”  America may be “safer” looking up little girls’ skirts, but at what cost?  If freedom vanishes to guarantee peace of mind at airports, can al-Qaeda not claim de facto victory in the War on Terror?  Put simply, if constitutional rights can be removed by mere statute, then they are not rights.

Nothing is more certain than that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The power by which we are “safer” today will be our ruin tomorrow.

Trust in a powerful leader is not the American way.  “Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism,” Thomas Jefferson once said.  Americans must not trust that President Obama will use this new power responsibly.  We must “bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.”  Only then will all Americans, and not merely those who embrace Obama’s radical agenda, be secure in their liberty.

[1] USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 107th Congress, 1st sess., (26 Oct. 2001).

[2] “Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism,” FoxNews, 14 April 2009,, (Accessed 4 Mar. 2010).

[3] “Errol Southers Ranting about Christian Identity Terrorist Groups,” YouTube, 11 Jan. 2010,, (Accessed 18 April 2010).

[4] Glenn Greenwald, “Presidential Assassinations of U.S. Citizens,” Salon, 27 Jan. 2010,, (Accessed 18 April 2010).

[5] Charlie Savage and James Risen, “Federal Judge Finds NSA Wiretaps Illegal,” NYT, 31 Mar. 2010,,  (Accessed 18 April 2010).

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook



Congressman blasts Obama’s decision to ‘arm’ extremists

Calls decision to give Muslim Brotherhood F-16s ‘unwise’

Published: 19 hours ago

author-image by John Griffing

John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.F-16s

Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, says it is irresponsible for Barack Obama to be “arming” a country that may be aiming for the destruction of Israel with a shipment of 20 F-16 fighter jets.

“It is reckless and unwise for the U.S. to give F-16s to Egypt and its new president/dictator, controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he told WND. “This extremist group is notoriously anti-American and anti-Israel. The United States should not be arming a country ruled by a group that has the destruction of Israel in its charter.”

Poe’s comments fall in line with other critics of the move, confirmed recently by federal officials.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan said, “American tax dollars must not be used to aid and abet any dictatorial regime that stands with terrorists,” and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said, “We should also be cautious about the arms we provide.”

Obama is proceeding with his plan to gift Egypt with 20 brand new F-16 fighter jets as part of a $450 million aid package promised to Egypt in 2010 when it was led by the U.S.-friendly Hosni Mubarak regime.

Now Egypt is governed by the openly hostile Muslim Brotherhood, which has called for the destruction of America and Israel. The new President Mohammed Morsi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recently joined in a public prayer to the effect of “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, disperse them, rend them asunder.”

Poe, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, wasn’t pleased. Nor was Gen. Jim Cash, the former director of NORAD, who believes Obama’s actions just plain wrong.

“In my opinion, continuing to support them financially through foreign aid is criminal. I say that to emphasize how I feel about providing any type of weapon system to them. We have an out-of-control government right now, and this will cost this nation greatly in the long run,” he told WND.

Find out what Obama really is planning, in “Obama’s America: 2016.”

America in the past frequently has withdrawn promises of arms shipments when instability seems evident.

But the promised delivery is going ahead for Morsi, whose regime recently began talks with Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is known for his virulent calls for the overthrow of the West and his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

He has said he wants to “wipe Israel off the face of the map” and that “We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”

Critics believe that by doing business with Ahmadinejad, Morsi has forfeited his right to military help from the U.S., most certainly Obama’s gift of 20 F-16s.

But Obama’s pursuit of his own plan falls on the heels of other situations where critics contend he has given aid to those who are not America’s friends.

Among those incidents:

  • Obama proposed granting civilian protections to Islamic terrorists.

  • Obama indirectly funneled $20 million to terrorist organization Hamas. Obama has publicly stated that the aims of Hamas are fine, so long as they are achieved “peacefully.”

  • Obama reneged on missile defense pledges to Eastern European allies in a leaked deal with the Russian Federation, and used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip in the face of British.

  • Obama delayed investigation of the Fort Hood massacre for months, warning of “political theater,” and yet wasted no time classifying any domestic violence as the result of conservative opposition to his policies as “terrorist,” even having the DHS release reports to that effect.

  • Obama has sought cuts to the U.S. nuclear deterrent that would reduce deliverable warheads to 300, which could leave America critically exposed to possible nuclear attack.

  • Obama has begun announcing once secret U.S. missile tests and satellite launches.

  • Obama unilaterally ended a strategic practice called “calculated ambiguity,” considered crucial by defense insiders, publicizing the exact number of warheads in America’s arsenal.

  • Obama has pledged to “de-MIRV” all American ICBMs – dramatically reducing options if an exchange ever took place between the United States and Russia – as there were some 3,000 strategic targets listed in the former Soviet Union at the close of the last decade.

  • Obama has allowed Iran to acquire top secret U.S. drone technology. Drones have self-destruct capability and, as Dick Cheney pointed out, can alternatively be destroyed by U.S. fighter-jets from the air – preventing acquisition by U.S. enemies. Former NORAD Director Jim Cash, when contacted by WND, said he did not believe the drone acquisition to be accidental.

  • Obama has publicly stated that Iran has the right to attain “nuclear energy.”

  • Obama has sent guns to Mexican drug cartels, not for tracking purposes, but in an apparent move to transfer weapons across international borders.

  • Obama has proposed awarding medals to soldiers in Afghanistan for “restraint,” saying he wants to avoid words like “victory,” and announced his intent to give the Taliban (the organization that trained and equipped al-Qaida prior to 9/11), a formal role in Afghanistan.

  • Obama removed “jihadi” from the national security lexicon.

  • Obama is vocally critical of America’s “superpower” status.

  • Obama ordered the creation of a “citizen assassination” program, attends “kill committee” meetings for the same, all while advocating Miranda rights for foreign terrorists.

In addition to the list, which is not exhaustive, there are structural issues, like intelligence leaks earlier this year or the leak of the TSA playbook, which could conceivably enable American enemies to exploit weaknesses in current transportation infrastructure.

There are also the more philosophical issues that are thought by some to represent an inherent anti-American default position on the part of the president. The Muslim Prayer Day in 2009 is one such example.

Imams were permitted by Obama to hold a Muslim Prayer Day near White House premises in 2009, the same year Obama prohibited a similar Christian “Day of Prayer” despite the longstanding precedent for such gatherings. One of the speakers at the event is on record saying, “We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become … Muslim house.”

Similarly, Siraj Wihhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings, was invited to deliver the “Juma,” an Islamic prayer, at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Wihhaj once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”

The invitation later was withdrawn after media coverage made the issue the focus of controversy.


December 28, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment



LIBERALISM ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE…………..Hate-A-Rama: The Vulgar, Sexist, Racist, Homophobic Rage of the Left (Photo credit: SS&SS)


David Gregory Mocks NRA Leader for Proposing Armed Guards in Schools But Sends His Kids to a School with 11 Armed Guards

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, Rep. Louie Gohmert told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that he wished the principal had a gun to prevent the carnage from taking place. NRA leader Wayne LaPierre agreed with the idea of having armed guards in our schools, saying that, “It’s the one thing we can do immediately that can make our children more safe.” NBC’s David Gregory mocked LaPierre’s proposal, however, which brings to light (yet again) the blatant hypocrisy of some of the most vocal proponents of gun control.

But when it comes to Gregory’s own kids, however, they are secured every school day by armed guards.

The Gregory children go to school with the children of President Barack Obama, according to the Washington Post. That school is the co-ed Quaker school Sidwell Friends.

According to a scan of the school’s online faculty-staff directory, Sidwell has a security department made up of at least 11 people. Many of those are police officers, who are presumably armed.

Moreover, with the Obama kids in attendance, there is a secret service presence at the institution, as well.

It’s safe to say the school where Gregory sends his kids is a high-security school. It’s just odd he’d want it for his kids, but wouldn’t be more open to it for others.



TSA Whistleblower: Agents Laugh at Naked Body Images

(The point of inexperience, with respect to any job, is that it allows for the molding of those employees–on the job training, so to speak.  In the TSA case, it molds those who require a sense of superiority, over others, in order to function in the world.  They are easily molded into despicable Big Brother drones.   JM)

posted on December 26, 2012 by

There’s a former TSA agent turned whistleblower that’s created a blog called Taking Sense Away (TSA). His blog postings reveal that he was just as much or more incensed as many passengers have been about all the ridiculous policies that the TSA employ as part of their security theater. In fact, he confesses that he tried as often as he could as a screener to bypass some of the more stupid polices like banning snow globes and peanut butter. He said he used common sense in those cases to allow passengers to be on their way without being subjected to silly bag searches. But such common sense was not appreciated, and perhaps that is why he is no longer employed by the TSA.

His blog postings are usually responses to readers’ questions. One such question had to do with what actually happens in the TSA “private room.” The anonymous blogger differentiated between the “private room” and the image operator room. Here’s an excerpt:

“Now, the I.O. Room (the image operator room, where your nude images are viewed at airports that still use the backscatter x-ray full body scanners), that, my friend, is a whole different story. In the image analysis room, no one is permitted to leave or enter without ample warning (part of TSA’s promise to the public that officers “would never see the passenger whose nude image they just viewed,” although I did occasionally witness this being violated, see Confession #1) and, like the private screening room, recording devices of any kind are prohibited. So in summation: what you have are one to two to three TSA officers locked in a room, viewing nude passenger images, with a guarantee that no one can barge in on them, and that no surveillance cameras can legally be present.”

“Just use your imagination on the stories among TSA officers of what has gone on in the I.O. room.”

“Personally, in the I.O. room, I witnessed light sexual play among officers, a lot of e-cigarette vaping, and a whole lot of officers laughing and clowning in regard to some of your nude images, dear passengers. Things like this are what happens (at the very least) when you put people who are often fresh out of high school or a GED program (although there are actually a few TSA screeners with PhDs, which I guess is sad on so, so many levels) with minimal training and even less professionalism, into the position of being in charge of analyzing nude images of people in a hermetically sealed room.”

 So, there you have it. Not that we didn’t already know. The wannabe counterterrorist unit that is the TSA laughs at your body behind closed doors in an effort to protect us all from the existential threat of terrorism.

Read more:

Read more:



Sam Donaldson Thinks He Wants a Revolution

Sam Donaldson has been in Washington too longer. He’s been infected with the belief that his observations are holy writ. Prime evidence is his attack on the Tea Party. “The greatest slogan that I hated during this last campaign was ‘We want to take back our country.’ Guys, it’s not your country anymore — it’s our country and you’re part of it, but that thinking is going to defeat Republicans nationally if they don’t get rid of it.”

Where have we heard that message before? Donaldson’s rhetoric led to blood literally running in the streets when used by people who weren’t straddled by moral constraints.

The French Revolution is still celebrated in France and is often compared to our War for Independence. The storming of the Bastille was a catalyst for what became known as the reign of terror. “French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from left-wing political groups and the masses on the streets.” How bad was it?

“Internally, popular sentiments radicalized the Revolution significantly, culminating in the rise of Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins and virtual dictatorship by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror from 1793 until 1794 during which between 16,000 and 40,000 people were killed.

Did you get that? Between 16,000 and 40,000 French citizens were killed for a better France. Consider the following:

Ordered by the king [Louis XVI] to surrender, more than 600 Swiss guards were savagely murdered. The mobs ripped them to shreds and mutilated their corpses. “Women, lost to all sense of shame,” said one surviving witness, “were committing the most indecent mutilations on the dead bodies from which they tore pieces of flesh and carried them off in triumph.” Children played kickball with the guards’ heads. Every living thing in the Tuileries [royal palace in Paris] was butchered or thrown from the windows by the hooligans. Women were raped before being hacked to death.

The Jacobin club . . . demanded that the piles of rotting, defiled corpses surrounding the Tuileries be left to putrefy in the street for days afterward as a warning to the people of the power of the extreme left.

This bestial attack, it was later decreed, would be celebrated every year as “the festival of the unity and indivisibility of the republic.” It would be as if families across America delighted in the annual TV special “A Manson Family Christmas.”[1]

In time, the just cause of the revolutionary mobs got out of hand, and people began to notice. “During the Reign of Terror, extreme efforts of de-Christianization ensued, including the imprisonment and massacre of priests and destruction of churches and religious images throughout France. An effort was made to replace the Catholic Church altogether, with civic festivals replacing religious ones. The establishment of the Cult of Reason was the final step of radical de-Christianization.” It was at this point that the people became disillusioned with the revolutionary ways of the radicals, but not before more atrocities were committed for the salvation of the people and the nation. As revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat declared, “Let the blood of the traitors flow! That is the only way to save the country.”

Once the mob starts down the road of violence to justify the first “just cause,” there is no way to stop the radical remedy because there’s always one more thing that needs to be changed. They already had killed tens of thousands, what’s ten thousand more?

Mitt Romney’s not my first choice by any means, but he’s all we’ve got at the moment. We need a four-year reprieve from what will certainly be a radically changed America if Obama and his cronies get back in power. He won’t have to moderate an uneasy electorate since he can’t run again, although a called state of emergency could change that. All the stops will be pulled out.

Don’t say it can’t happen here. The people in France, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela probably said the same thing.

Read more:

Read more:


Christmas Surprise: Senate Allows Warrantless Search of Email

While the news has been focused on the “fiscal cliff” and the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, the Senate has taken their gift back from the nation. They’re like Scrooge, except Scrooge was just a private business man, not a civil government who could own people who had the misfortune to live in his dominion. Bah, humbug!

Back after Thanksgiving, the Senate gave us all reason to hope.

“A Senate committee on Thursday unanimously backed sweeping digital privacy protections requiring the government, for the first time, to get a probable-cause warrant to obtain e-mail and other content stored in the cloud. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, amends the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The amendment would nullify a provision that allows the government to acquire a suspect’s e-mail or other stored content from an internet service provider without showing probable cause that a crime was committed. The development comes as e-mail privacy is again in the spotlight after FBI investigators uncovered an affair between then-CIA chief David Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell after gaining access to e-mail accounts used by Broadwell. Currently, the government can obtain e-mail without a warrant as long as the content has been stored on a third-party server for 180 days or more, and only needs to show, often via an administrative subpoena, that it has ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ the information would be useful in an investigation.”

There was still reason to believe there would be a struggle on the Senate floor, but no one expected that struggle to take place until 2013.

Instead, we find coal in our stocking. While the struggle to get the protection in the bill was loud and public, no one knew about the Senate’s decision to drop the provision until the Bill was already headed to the White House.

Of course, we know the Obama White House is exactly like the Bush White House on these issues, or worse.

I’m not sure how much longer we can last pretending that we have any real political will in Washington to respect the rights of the people. A few Senators might want to score votes with their constituents, but they obviously don’t believe stripping us naked to government eyes will get them in any real trouble with the electorate. The TSA still proves that we will literally allow them to do that to us.

By their actions, Congress shows that they simply take it for granted that, to some degree or other, all our windows and doors and walls are supposed to be removable so that one of the government’s best and brightest can walk in and search through any area of our life that he finds interesting. The Fourth Amendment is respected by any three branches of government about as much as the President and Congress respect the debt ceiling.

Sadly, until voters really show they punish candidates who spy on them and reward candidates who are serious about the Fourth Amendment, the situation will only get worse.

Read more:

Read more:


Northeast Intelligence Network

Pursuing the truth to preserve our nation

The latest from “DHS Insider” (Part I)

By Douglas J. Hagmann


23 December 2012: After a lengthy, self-imposed informational black-out, my high-level DHS contact known as “Rosebud” emerged with new, non-public information about plans being discussed and prepared for implementation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the near future. It is important to note that this black-out was directly related to the aggressive federal initiative of identifying and prosecuting “leakers,” at least those leaks and leakers not sanctioned by the executive office – the latter of which there are many.

Due to those circumstances, my source exercised an abundance of caution to avoid compromising a valuable line of communication until he had information he felt was  significant enough to risk external contact. The following information is the result of an in-person contact between this author and “Rosebud” within the last 48 hours. With his permission, the interview was digitally recorded and the relevant portions of the contact are provided in a conversational format for easier reading. The original recording was copied onto multiple discs and are maintained in secure locations for historical and insurance purposes.


The following began after an exchange of pleasantries and other unrelated discussion:

DH: Do I have your permission to record this conversation?

RB: You do.

DH: I’ve received a lot of e-mail from people wondering where you went and why you’ve been so quiet.

RB: As I told you earlier, things are very dicey. Weird things began to happen before the election and have continued since. Odd things, a clampdown of sorts. I started looking and I found [REDACTED AT THE REQUEST OF THIS SOURCE], and that shook me up. I’m not the only one, though, that found a [REDACTED], so this means there’s surveillance of people within DHS by DHS. So, that explains this cloak and dagger stuff for this meeting.

DH: I understand. What about the others?

RB: They are handling it the same way.

DH: I’ve received many e-mails asking if you are the same person giving information to Ulsterman. Are you?

RB: No, but I think I know at least one of his insiders.

DH: Care to elaborate?

RB: Sorry, no.

DH: Do you trust him or her. I mean, the Ulsterman source?

RB: Yes.

DH: Okay, so last August, you said things were “going hot.” I printed what you said, and things did not seem to happen as you said.

RB: You’d better recheck your notes and compare [them] with some of the events leading up to the election. I think you’ll find that a full blown campaign of deception took place to make certain Obama got back into office. The polls, the media, and a few incidents that happened in the two months before the election. I guess if people are looking for some big event they can point to and say “aha” for verification, well then I overestimated people’s ability to tell when they are being lied to.

DH: What specific incidents are you referring to?

RB:  Look at the threats to Obama. Start there. The accusations of racism. Then look at the polls, and especially the judicial decisions about voter ID laws. Bought and paid for, or where there was any potential for problems, the judges got the message, loud and clear. Then look at the voter fraud. And not a peep from the Republicans. Nothing. His second term was a done deal in September. This was planned. Frankly, the Obama team knew they had it sewn up long before election day. Benghazi could have derailed them, but the fix was in there, so I never saw anything on my end to suggest a ready-made solution had to be implemented.

DH: What’s going on now?

RB: People better pay close attention over the next few months. First, there won’t be any meaningful deal about the fiscal crisis. This is planned, I mean, the lack of deal is planned. In fact, it’ necessary to pave the way for what is in the short term agenda.

DH: Wait, you’re DHS – not some Wall Street insider.

RB: So you think they are separate agendas? That’s funny. The coming collapse of the U.S. dollar is a done deal. It’s been in the works for years – decades, and this is one of the most important cataclysmic events that DHS is preparing for. I almost think that DHS was created for that purpose alone, to fight Americans, not protect them, right here in America. But that’s not the only reason. There’s the gun issue too.

DH: So, what are you seeing at DHS?

RB: We don’t have a lot of time, tonight – our meeting –  as well as a country. I mean I have heard – with my own ears – plans being made that originate from the White House that involve the hierarchy of DHS. You gotta know how DHS works at the highest of levels. It’s Jarrett and Napolitano, with Jarrett organizing all of the plans and approaches. She’s the one in charge, at least from my point of view, from what I am seeing. Obama knows that’s going on and has say, but it seems that Jarrett has the final say, not the other way around. It’s [screwed] up. This really went into high gear since the election.

But it’s a train wreck at mid management, but is more effective at the lower levels. A lot of police departments are being gifted with federal funds with strings attached. That money is flowing out to municipal police departments faster than it can be counted. They are using this money to buy tanks, well, not real tanks, but you know what I mean. DHS is turning the police into soldiers.

By the way, there has been a lot of communication recently between Napolitano and Pistole [TSA head]. They are planning to use TSA agents in tandem with local police for certain operations that are being planned right now. This is so [deleted] important that you cannot even begin to imagine. If you get nothing else out of this, please, please make sure you tell people to watch the TSA and their increasing involvement against the American public. They are the stooges who will be the ones to carry out certain plans when the dollar collapses and the gun confiscation begins.

DH: Whoa, wait a minute. You just said a mouthful. What’s the agenda here?

RB: Your intelligence insider – he knows that we are facing a planned economic collapse. You wrote about this in your articles about Benghazi, or at least that’s what I got out of the later articles. So why the surprise?

DH: There’s a lot here. Let’s take it step by step if you don’t mind.

RB: Okay, but I’m not going to give it to you in baby steps. Big boy steps. This is what I am hearing. Life for the average American is going to change significantly, and not the change people expect. First, DHS is preparing to work with police departments and the TSA to respond to civil uprisings that will happen when there is a financial panic. And there will be one, maybe as early as this spring, when the dollar won’t get you a gumball. I’m not sure what the catalyst will be, but I’ve heard rumblings about a derivatives crisis as well as an oil embargo. I don’t know, that’s not my department. But something is going to happen to collapse the dollar, which has been in the works since the 1990′s. Now if it does not happen as soon as this, it’s because there are people, real patriots, who are working to prevent this, so it’s a fluid dynamic. But that doesn’t change the preparations.

And the preparations are these: DHS is prepositioning assets in strategic areas near urban centers all across the country. Storage depots. Armories. And even detainment facilities, known as FEMA camps. FEMA does not even know that the facilities are earmarked for detainment by executive orders, at least not in the traditional sense they were intended. By the way, people drive by some of these armories everyday without even giving them a second look. Commercial and business real estate across the country are being bought up or leased for storage purposes. Very low profile.

Anyway, I am hearing that the plan from on high is to let the chaos play out for a while, making ordinary citizens beg for troops to be deployed to restore order. but it’s all organized to make them appear as good guys. That’s when the real head knocking will take place. We’re talking travel restrictions, which should no be a problem because gas will be rationed or unavailable. The TSA will be in charge of travel, or at least be a big part of it. They will be commissioned, upgraded from their current status.

They, I mean Jarrett and Obama as well as a few others in government, are working to create a perfect storm too. This is being timed to coincide with new gun laws.

DH: New federal gun laws?

RB: Yes. Count on the criminalization to possess just about every gun you can think of. Not only restrictions, but actual criminalization of possessing a banned firearm. I heard this directly from the highest of my sources. Plans were made in the 90′s but were withheld. Now, it’s a new day, a new time, and they are riding the wave of emotion from Sandy Hook., which, by the way and as tragic as it was, well, it stinks to high heaven. I mean there are many things wrong there, and first reports are fast disappearing. The narrative is being changed. Look, there is something wrong with Sandy Hook, but if you write it, you’ll be called a kook or worse.

DH: Sure

RB: But Sandy Hook, there’s something very wrong there. But I am hearing that won’t be the final straw. There will be another if they think it’s necessary.

DH: Another shooting?

RB: Yes.

DH: That would mean they are at least complicit.

RB: Well, that’s one way of looking at it.

DH: Are they? Were they?

RB: Do your own research. Nothing I say, short of bringing you photographs and documents will convince anyone, and even then, it’s like [DELETED] in the wind.

DH: So…

RB: So what I’m telling you is that DHS, the TSA and certain, but not all, law enforcement agencies are going to be elbow deep in riot control in response to an economic incident. At the same time or close to it, gun confiscation will start. It will start on a voluntary basis using federal registration forms, then an amnesty, then the kicking-in of doors start.

Before or at the same time, you know all the talk of lists, you know, the red and blue lists that everyone made fun of? Well they exist, although I don’t know about their colors. But there are lists of political dissidents maintained by DHS. Names are coordinated with the executive branch, but you know what? They did not start with Obama. They’ve been around in one form or another for years. The difference though is that today, they are much more organized. And I’ll tell you that the vocal opponents of the politics of the global elite, the bankers, and the opponents of anything standing in their way, well, they are on the top of the list of people to be handled.

DH: Handled?

RB: As the situations worsen, some might be given a chance to stop their vocal opposition. Some will, others won’t. I suppose they are on different lists. Others won’t have that chance. By that time, though, it will be chaos and people will be in full defensive mode. They will be hungry, real hunger like we’ve never experienced before. They will use our hunger as leverage. They will use medical care as leverage.

DH: Will this happen all at once?

RB: They hope to make it happen at the same time. Big cities first, with sections being set apart from the rest of the country. Then the rural areas. There are two different plans for geographical considerations. But it will all come together.

End of Part I

The latest from “DHS Insider” (Part II)

DH: Wait, this sounds way, way over the top. Are you telling me… [Interrupts]

RB: [Over talk/Unintelligible] …know who was selected or elected twice now. You know who his associates are. And you are saying this is way over the top? Don’t forget what Ayers said – you talked to Larry Grathwohl. This guy is a revolutionary. He does not want to transform our country in the traditional sense. He will destroy it. And he’s not working alone. He’s not working for himself, either. He has his handlers. So don’t think this is going to be a walk in the park, with some type of attempt to rescue the country. Cloward-Piven. Alinsky. Marx. All rolled into one. And he won’t need the rest of his four years to do it.

DH: I need you to be clear. Let’s go back again, I mean, to those who speak out about what’s happening.

RB: [Edit note: Obviously irritated] How much clearer do you want it? The Second Amendment will be gone, along with the first, at least practically or operationally. The Constitution will be gone, suspended, at least in an operational sense. Maybe they won’t actually say that they are suspending it, but will do it. Like saying the sky is purple when it’s actually blue. How many people will look a the sky and say yeah, it’s purple? They see what they want to see.

So the DHS, working with other law enforcement organizations, especially the TSA as it stands right now, will oversee the confiscation of assault weapons, which includes all semi-automatic weapons following a period of so-called amnesty. It also includes shotguns that hold multiple rounds, or have pistol grips. They will go after the high capacity magazines, anything over, say 5 rounds.

They will also go after the ammunition, especially at the manufacturer’s level. They will require a special license for certain weapons, and make it impossible to own anything. More draconian than England. This is a global thing too. Want to hunt? What gives you the right to hunt their animals? Sound strange? I hope so, but they believe they own the animals. Do you understand now, how sick and twisted this is? Their mentality?

The obvious intent is to disarm American citizens. They will say that we’ll still be able to defend ourselves and go hunting, but even that will be severely regulated. This is the part that they are still working out, though. While the plans were made years ago, there is some argument over the exact details. I know that Napalitano, even with her support of the agenda, would like to see this take place outside of an E.O. [Executive Order] in favor of legislative action and even with UN involvement.

DH: But UN involvement would still require legislative approval.

RB: Yes, but your still thinking normal – in normal terms. Stop thinking about a normal situation. The country is divided, which is exactly where Obama wants us to be. We are as ideologically divided as we were during the Civil War and that rift is growing every day. Add in a crisis – and economic crisis – where ATM and EBT cards will stop working. Where bank accounts will contain nothing but air. They are anticipating a revolution and a civil war rolled into one (emphasis added by this author).

Imagine when talk show hosts or Bloggers or some other malcontent gets on the air or starts writing about the injustice of it all, and about how Obama is the anti-Christ or something. They will outlaw such talk or writing as inciting the situation – they will make it illegal by saying that it is causing people to die. The Republicans will go along with everything as it’s – we have – a one party system. Two parties is an illusion. It’s all so surreal to talk about but you see where this is headed, right?

DH: Well, what about the lists?

RB: Back to that again, okay. Why do you think the NSA has surveillance of all communications? To identify and stop terrorism? Okay, to be fair, that is part of it, but not the main reason. The federal agencies have identified people who present a danger to them and their agendas. I don’t know if they are color coded like you mentioned, red blue purple or peach mango or whatever, but they exist. In fact, each agency has their own. You know, why is it so [deleted] hard for people to get their heads around the existence of lists with names of people who pose a threat to their plans? The media made a big deal about Nixon’s enemies list and everyone nodded and said yeah, that [deleted], but today? They’ve been around for years and years.

DH: I think it’s because of the nature of the lists today. What do they plan to do with their enemies?

RB: Go back to what Ayers said when, in the late 60′s? 70′s? I forget. Anyway, he was serious. But to some extent, the same thing that happened before. They – the people on some of these lists – are under surveillance, or at least some, and when necessary, some are approached and made an offer. Others, well, they can be made to undergo certain training. Let’s call it sensitivity training, except on a much different level. Others, most that are the most visible and mainstream are safe for the most part. And do you want to know why? It’s because they are in the pockets of the very people we are talking about, but they might or might not know it. Corporate sponsorship – follow the money. You know the drill. You saw it happen before, with the birth certificate.

It’s people that are just under the national radar but are effective. They have to worry. Those who have been publicly marginalized already but continue to talk or write or post, they are in trouble. It’s people who won’t sell out, who think that they can make a difference. Those are the people who have to worry.

Think about recent deaths that everybody believes were natural or suicides. Were they? People are too busy working their [butts] off to put food on the table to give a damn about some guy somewhere who vapor locks because of too many doughnuts and coffee and late nights. And it seems plausible enough to happen. This time, when everything collapses, do you think they will care if it is a bullet or a heart attack that takes out the opposition? [Deleted] no.

DH: That’s disturbing. Do you… [interrupts]

RB: Think about the Oklahoma City bombing in ’95. Remember how Clinton blamed that on talk radio, or at least in part. Take what happened then and put it in context of today. Then multiply the damnation by 100, and you will begin to understand where this is going. People like Rush and Hannity have a narrow focus of political theater. They’ll still be up and running during all of this to allow for the appearance of normal. Stay within the script, comrade.

But as far as the others, they have certain plans. And these plans are becoming more transparent. They are getting bolder. They are pushing lies, and the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell to the people. They will even try to sell a sense of normalcy as things go absolutely crazy and break down. It will be surreal. And some will believe it, think that it’s only happening in certain places, and we can draw everything back once the dust settles. But when it does, this place will not be the same.

DH: Will there be resistance within the ranks of law enforcement? You know, will some say they won’t go along with the plan, like the Oath Keepers?

RB: Absolutely. But they will not only be outnumbered, but outgunned – literally. The whole objective is to bring in outside forces to deal with the civil unrest that will happen in America. And where does their allegiance lie? Certainly not to Sheriff Bob. Or you or me.

During all of this, and you’ve got to remember that the dollar collapse is a big part of this, our country is going to have to be redone. I’ve seen – personally – a map of North America without borders. Done this year. The number 2015 was written across the top, and I believe that was meant as a year. Along with this map – in the same area where this was – was another map showing the United States cut up into sectors. I’m not talking about what people have seen on the internet, but something entirely different. Zones. And a big star on the city of Denver.

Sound like conspiracy stuff on the Internet? Yup. But maybe they were right. It sure looks that way. It will read that way if you decide to write about this. Good luck with that. Anyway, the country seemed to be split into sectors, but not the kind shown on the internet. Different.

DH: What is the context of that?

RB: Across the bottom of this was written economic sectors. It looked like a work in progress, so I can’t tell you any more than that. From the context I think it has to do with the collapse of the dollar.

DH: Why would DHS have this? I mean, it seems almost contrived, doesn’t it?

RB: Not really, when you consider the bigger picture. But wait before we go off into that part. I need to tell you about Obamacare, you know, the new health care coming up. It plays a big part – a huge [deleted] part in the immediate reshaping of things.

DH: How so?

RB: It creates a mechanism of centralized control over people. That’s the intent of this monster of a bill, not affordable health care. And it will be used to identify gun owners. Think your health records are private? Have you been to the doctor lately? Asked about owning a gun? Why do you think they ask, do you think they care about your safety? Say yes to owning a gun and your information is shared with another agency, and ultimately, you will be identified as a security risk. The records will be matched with other agencies.

You think that they are simply relying on gun registration forms? This is part of data collection that people don’t get.  Oh, and don’t even think about getting a script for some mood enhancement drug and being able to own a gun.

Ayers and Dohrn are having the times of their lives seeing things they’ve worked for all of their adult lives actually coming to pass. Oh, before I forget, look at the recent White House visitor logs.

DH: Why? Where did that come from?

RB: Unless they are redacted, you will see the influence of Ayers. Right now. The Weather Underground has been reborn. So has their agenda.

DH: Eugenics? Population control?

RB: Yup. And re-education camps. But trust me, you write about this, you’ll be called a kook. It’s up to you, it’s your reputation, not mine. And speaking about that, you do know that this crew is using the internet to ruin people, right? They are paying people to infiltrate discussion sites and forums to call people like you idiots. Show me the proof they say. Why doesn’t you source come forward? If he knows so much, why not go to Fox or the media? To them, if it’s not broadcast on CNN, it’s not real. Well, they’ve got it backwards. Very little on the news is real. The stock market, the economy, the last presidential polls, very little is real.

But this crew is really internet savvy. They’ve got a lot of people they pay to divert issues on forums, to mock people, to marginalize them. They know what they’re doing. People think they’ll take sites down – hack them. Why do that when they are more effective to infiltrate the discussion? Think about the birth certificate, I mean the eligibility problem of Obama. Perfect example.

DH: How soon do you see things taking place?

RB: They already are in motion. If you’re looking for a date I can’t tell you. Remember, the objectives are the same, but plans, well, they adapt. They exploit. Watch how this fiscal cliff thing plays out. This is the run-up to the next beg economic event.

I can’t give you a date. I can tell you to watch things this spring. Start with the inauguration and go from there. Watch the metals, when they dip. It will be a good indication that things are about to happen. I got that little tidbit from my friend at [REDACTED].

NOTE: At this point, my contact asked me to reserve further disclosures until after the  inauguration.

December 27, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


The Campaign To Remember Our Benghazi Heroes

A project of The Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes

Our mission

READ OUR LATEST BLOG POST: Who, specifically, briefed Susan Rice? BY DAN CURRY

On Sept. 11, 2012, a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

As a journalist and former special operations pilot, I am disappointed by the way the media has covered the Benghazi terrorist attack.  The media conversation has been focused on sex scandals and political intrigue, and not on the most important part of this story – what really happened that night in Benghazi?  This is the Blackhawk Down of our generation, and the media has largely ignored it.

Along with other patriotic and concerned Americans, I have launched a national campaign to hold the media accountable. We will redirect the conversation back to the pursuit of the true story of what happened in Benghazi.  To honor the memory of the four Americans who died, and prevent something like this from happening again, we demand that the tough questions are asked, and that this story is not abandoned until the truth is told.  This is what we owe the families of the fallen, and what the American people deserve.

We are working with renowned Washington, DC media producer, Rick Reed, who created the famously successful Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth media campaign in the 2004 presidential race, to launch a national campaign to honor our Benghazi heroes by holding the media accountable to the American people.  Press release.

Our national campaign will demand that journalists ask the following questions:

1.     Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and not at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli?

2.     Why was the U.S. consulate in Benghazi denied the extra security it requested?

3.     Was General Ham relieved of command of AFRICOM because he intended to send a rescue mission to the U.S. consulate facility in Benghazi?

4.     Why were U.S. military assets in the Mediterranean not put on alert for the Sept. 11 anniversary? U.S. F-16s on alert at Aviano AFB, Italy could have been in Benghazi in less than two hours – if they had been on alert.

5.      Why did Defense Secretary Panetta wait five hours before issuing orders to deploy special operations forces to respond to the Benghazi attack?

6.     Why did it take 24 hours for the first U.S. troops to arrive in Libya after the attack?

7.     Why have we not heard testimony from the survivors of the Benghazi attack?

8.     Why did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not publicly answer questions about the Benghazi attack and why did Ambassador Rice go in her place?

9.     What support was requested by ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty?  Why did Woods and Doherty paint targets with a laser designator if no aviation assets were available?

10. Was there an AC-130 gunship on scene in Benghazi, and was it refused permission to engage?

We need patriotic citizens to help us by donating as generously as they can so that we can launch a national media campaign on all fronts.

Your donations will help us reach millions of Americans by funding radio and television advertisements. We want to create a Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth style media campaign to honor these heroes.  Every $100 we receive will enable us to reach more than 1000 Americans with the truth about who these heroes were, and what took place that night in Benghazi.

Our mission isn’t about politics.  We only care about honoring the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods.  Their bravery has been overshadowed by political spin.  We want to tell the world the truth about what they did that night, and make sure that their story is not forgotten.

As Ronald Reagan said, If not you….who? If not now….when?”

We need you – now.



Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes “Campaign To Remember Our Benghazi Heroes” Announces Questions That Must Be Answered For Our Heroes To Be Honored & Illuminated

The “Campaign To Remember Our Benghazi Heroes”, a Project of the Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes, a 501(c)3 educational and charitable foundation, announced a list of questions that must be answered for the four heroes of the Benghazi attack to be honored and illuminated with the truth.


Quote startWe want to redirect the conversation back to the pursuit of the true story of what happened in Benghazi in order to honor the memory of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Consulate Info Officer, Sean Smith; and Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen DohertyQuote end

McLean, VA (PRWEB) December 13, 2012

Nolan W. Peterson, Director of the Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes National “Campaign To Remember Our Benghazi Heroes”, announced today a series of questions that must be addressed in order to properly honor the four heroes of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate on September 11, 2012.

“As a journalist and former special operations pilot, I am disappointed by the way the media has covered the Benghazi attack,” Peterson said, “The media conversation has been focused on sex scandals and political intrigue, and not on the most important part of this story, which is—what really happened that night in Benghazi? This is the “Blackhawk Down” of our generation, and the media has largely ignored it.”

“Along with other patriotic and concerned Americans, I have launched a national campaign, as a project of the Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes,” ( Peterson said, “We want to redirect the conversation back to the pursuit of the true story of what happened in Benghazi in order to honor the memory of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Consulate Info Officer, Sean Smith; and Navy SEALs, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who died in that attack, and to prevent something like this from happening again. We demand that the tough questions are asked and this important story is not abandoned until the full truth is told. This is what the families of the fallen, and what the American people deserve.”

“Our national campaign will demand that journalists ask and seek answers to the following questions,” Peterson stated:
(1)    Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi on the night of September 11, 2012 and not at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli?
(2)    Why was the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi denied the extra security it requested?
(3)    Was General Ham relieved of command of AFTRICOM because he intended to send a rescue mission to the U.S. Consulate facility in Benghazi?
(4)    Why were U.S. military assets in the Mediterranean not put on alert for the September 11th anniversary? U.S. F-16s on alert at Aviano AFB, Italy could have been in Benghazi in less than 2 hours—if they had been on alert.
(5)    Why did Defense Secretary Panetta wait five hours before issuing orders to deploy special operations forces to respond to the Benghazi attack?
(6)    Why did it take 24 hours for the first U.S. troops to arrive in Libya after the attack?
(7)    Why have we not heard testimony from the survivors of the Benghazi attack?
(8)    Why did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not publicly answer questions about the Benghazi attack and why did Ambassador Rice go in her place?
(9)    What support was requested by ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty? Why did Woods and Doherty paint targets with a laser designator if no aviation assets were available?
(10)    Was there an AC-130 gunship on scene in Benghazi, and was it refused permission to engage?
“These questions and getting answers to them is the goal of the massive national media campaign which was announced by the Foundation through a press release two weeks ago, to insure that the heroes of Benghazi are not forgotten and that the truth be told”, said Peterson.

Founding Board Member and executive director of the Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes (, David C. Jamison, stated: “The national media campaign of our Benghazi heroes project will utilize all forms of media; radio and television spots, the internet, YouTube videos, newspapers and magazines, media interviews and hopefully an eventual television documentary. All of this is necessary to insure that our four heroes of the Benghazi attack are not forgotten and that the truth be told—getting truthful answers to the essential questions that Nolan Peterson has announced here today.” “This is the goal of the national media campaign of the “Campaign to Remember Our Benghazi Heroes”(

“We want to tell the stories of these heroes, utilizing all of the media avenues available to us”, Jamison said, “Our efforts to tell the world what these four heroes did on that fateful night will only be limited by the amount of donations the Foundation receives for this project.”

“The Goal of our media campaign is to redirect the national conversation back to what actually happened in Benghazi,” he said. “The Foundation’s campaign is designed to insure that these heroes of the Benghazi attack are not forgotten,” he added. “Our memories of them, who they were, what they heroically did and how important they are to us and our country will be kept alive through this massive national media campaign, using radio and television spots, the internet, interviews, articles in popular magazines and a possible future documentary. You can help tell their story by your donations to this project. Only in this way can we truly honor the lives of these four fallen heroes.”

Rick Reed of Rick Reed Media is an International Advisory Board Member of the Foundation and the co-producer of the famously successful Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth media campaign, which had such a profound effect on the Presidential race 8 years ago. Mr. Reed will be actively involved in the Foundation’s massive national media campaign, “To Remember…To Honor…and To Illuminate Our Heroes of Benghazi” so that they are not forgotten and that the truth be told.

The Foundation is offering the opportunity to all patriotic American donors to participate in illuminating the inspiring story of these four American heroes through the tax-deductible, charitable Foundation which will enable their heroic story to be told to America and the world.(

The Foundation is also making a personal appeal to all patriotic Americans to virally spread the word of this this National “Campaign To Remember Our Benghazi Heroes”–To Remember, Honor & Illuminate Our Four Heroes of Benghazi who heroically lost their lives in the terrorist attack on our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. at, through all social media; sharing a link to this press release with their best contacts and members of the media they know; and to email links to their Twitter accounts and on their Facebook pages.

For further information and/or questions about the Heroes of Benghazi Campaign, please contact Nolan W. Peterson, Director of The Campaign To Remember Our Benghazi Heroes, at nwp04(at)hotmail(dot)com or at (941) 993-7939. Please also visit our special project at

Contact information:
The Foundation to Illuminate America’s Heroes, Inc.



FBI questions Tunisian man over Benghazi consulate attack

This file photo taken on September 11, 2012 shows a vehicle and the surrounding area engulfed in flames after it was set on fire inside the US mission compound in Benghazi. (AFP Photo)

This file photo taken on September 11, 2012 shows a vehicle and the surrounding area engulfed in flames after it was set on fire inside the US mission compound in Benghazi. (AFP Photo)

A Tunisian man has been questioned by the FBI in connection with the September 11 bombing of the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four diplomats. After months of failed attempts, he was examined as a “witness” – without legal counsel.

­Ali Harzi was extradited to Tunisia after being arrested in Turkey in October, under strong suspicion of involvement in the terrorist attack in which US Ambassador Christopher Stephens was killed.

He had since refused to be questioned by the FBI without the presence of his lawyer.

“They wanted to interrogate him as a witness, but he has refused,” his lawyer Abdelbasset Ben Mbarek explained to AFP, adding that authorities attempted to question him “in secret” without his lawyers.

Fadhel Saihi, an advisor to the Tunisian Justice Ministry, told AFP that Tunisian authorities are cooperating with the US investigation.

However delays with the questioning of Hazri have led to calls for sanctions in the U.S.

In early December Republican representative Frank Wolf urged Congress and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to cut off financial aid to Tunisia until it allowed the FBI to interview Hazri. Tunisia has received over $320 million in US aid since January 2011.

After months of wrangling, the Tunisian court allowed three FBI agents to question Hazri before a judge and through a Moroccan interpreter. Hazri’s legal counsel was not allowed to be present, on the basis that he was being questioned as a “witness” and not a defendant.

Nevertheless, Hazri was charged for “membership of a terrorist organisation” under Tunisian law, which he denies.

Hazri was also questioned about the attack on the US Embassy in Tunisia, reported AP.

The September 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is believed to have been carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, a militant Islamist group with strong ties to Al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However, the investigation in Libya has made little progress.

Several days later, the US Embassy in the Tunisian capital of Tunis was also attacked by a mob, which destroyed property and a nearby American school. Four people were killed in the attacks which were carried out by a local group, also calling itself Ansar al-Sharia.

Ansar al-Sharia was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the US Department of State and the United Nations Al Qa’ida Sanctions Committee on October 4.

The Obama Administration has faced repeated criticisms over its investigation of the Benghazi attack, after a report by the Accountability Review Board blamed the US State Department for inadequate security measures at the consulate. The report cited systematic mismanagement that left the Benghazi diplomatic mission vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Following the release of the report, the US State Department’s security chief and two other senior officials tendered their resignations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was expected to be questioned by a Senate committee on the attack, but her appearance was cancelled due to health issues.

Source: RT

More at –



And the biggest lie of 2012 is .. Benghazi

This entry was posted on December 26, 2012, in Benghazigate, Libya, Obama and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment

JERUSALEM – Information surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks against the U.S. mission in Benghazi has been so distorted by the Obama administration and so misreported by the news media that the issue was selected as WND’s “Biggest Lie of the Year.”

Immediately following the attacks, President Obama and other White House officials notoriously blamed supposed anti-American sentiment leading to the violent events on an obscure anti-Muhammad video on YouTube they claimed was responsible for supposedly popular civilian protests that they said took place outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi – protests, they claimed, that devolved into a jihadist onslaught.

However, vivid accounts provided by the State Department and intelligence officials later made clear no such popular demonstration took place. Instead, video footage from Benghazi reportedly shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, the officials said.


Media coverage of the events has been so dismal that even the most basic understanding of what happened is being distorted. The vast majority of all news media coverage worldwide refer to the U.S. facility that was attacked as a “consulate,” even though the government itself has been careful to call it a “mission.”

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security sources describing the mission in Benghazi as serving as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East.

Among the tasks performed inside the building was collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, the officials said.

Whether the news media report on what was allegedly transpiring at the mission or not, their calling the building a “consulate” is misleading.

A consulate typically refers to the building that officially houses a consul, who is the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another. The U.S. consul in Libya, Jenny Cordell, works out of the embassy in Tripoli.

Consulates at times function as junior embassies, providing services related to visas, passports and citizen information.

On Aug. 26, about two weeks before his was killed, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens attended a ceremony marking the opening of consular services at the Tripoli embassy.

The main role of a consulate is to foster trade with the host and care for its own citizens who are traveling or living in the host nation.

Diplomatic missions, on the other hand, maintain a more generalized role. A diplomatic mission is simply a group of people from one state or an international inter-governmental organization present in another state to represent matters of the sending state or organization in the receiving state.

However, according to a State Department report released last week, the U.S. facility in Benghazi did not fit the profile of a diplomatic mission, either.

According to the 39-page report released this week by independent investigators probing the attacks at the diplomatic facility, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was set up without the knowledge of the new Libyan government, as WND reported.

“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states. “This resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted from office facility standards and accountability under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB).”

The report, based on a probe led by former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, calls the facility a “Special U.S. Mission.”

The report further refers to the attacked facility as a “U.S. Special Mission,” adding yet another qualifier to the title of the building.

Violated international law?

WND also exclusively reported the facility may have violated the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which governs the establishment of overseas missions.

Like most nations, the U.S. is a signatory to the 1961 United Nations convention.

Article 2 of the convention makes clear the host government must be informed about the establishment of any permanent foreign mission on its soil: “The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.”

According to the State report, there was a decision “to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility,” likely disqualifying the building from permanent mission status if the mission was indeed temporary.

However, the same sentence in the report notes the host government was not notified about the Benghazi mission “even though it was also a full-time office facility.”

Article 12 of the Vienna Convention dictates, “The sending State may not, without the prior express consent of the receiving State, establish offices forming part of the mission in localities other than those in which the mission itself is established.”

If the Benghazi mission was a “full-time office facility,” it may violate Article 12 in that the mission most likely was considered an arm of the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, which served as the main U.S. mission to Libya.

Rice in hot water

Obama was not the only White House official to mislead on Benghazi.

As WND reported, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice may have deliberately misled the public when she went on television news shows and called the facility that had been targeted a “consulate.”

Much of the media attention and political criticism has been focused on Rice’s other statements immediately after the Benghazi attacks, primarily her blaming an obscure YouTube film vilifying the Islamic figure Muhammad for what she claimed were popular protests outside the U.S. mission.

Video and intelligence evidence has demonstrated there were no popular protests outside the Benghazi facility that day and that the attack was carried out by jihadists.

However, in defending itself against recent claims that the White House scrubbed the CIA’s initial intelligence assessment on the Benghazi attacks of references to al-Qaida, Obama administration officials might have unintentionally implicated themselves in another, largely unnoticed scandal.

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes contended the White House made only small, factual edits to the CIA’s intelligence assessment, referring to one edit in particular.

“We were provided with points by the intelligence community that represented their assessment,” Rhodes said aboard Air Force One en route to Asia. “The only edit made by the White House was the factual edit about how to refer to the facility.”

Rhodes said the White House and State Department changed a reference in the CIA report from “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”

“Other than that, we were guided by the points that were provided by the intelligence community,” Rhodes said. “So I can’t speak to any other edits that may have been made.”

Further, Politico reported Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was adamant that the White House only changed the reference to the Benghazi facility.

“There was only one thing that was changed … and that was, the word ‘consulate’ was changed to ‘mission,’” Feinstein said. “That’s the only change that anyone in the White House made, and I have checked this out.”

If the White House intentionally changed the reference to the Benghazi facility from a “consulate” to a “mission,” why did Rice repeatedly refer to the facility as a “consulate” when she engaged in a media blitz in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi attack?

In a Sept. 16 interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Rice twice labeled the facility a “consulate”:

In a subsequent interview on CBS’s “This Morning,” she again referred to the facility as a “consulate.”

CBS, Reuters implicated in misleading, hiding info

The news media, meanwhile, may have been complicit in covering up the Benghazi tale.

Two days before last month’s presidential election, CBS posted additional portions of a Sept. 12 “60 Minutes” interview where Obama made statements that contradicted his earlier claims on the attacks.

In the finally released portions of the interview, Obama would not say whether he thought the attack was terrorism. Yet he would later emphasize at a presidential debate that in the Rose Garden the same day, he had declared the attack an act of terror.

Reuters was also directly implicated by WND in possibly false reporting.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Reuters filed a report quoting a purported civilian protester by his first name who described a supposedly popular demonstration against an anti-Muhammad film outside the U.S. building – a popular protest that reportedly didn’t take place and thus could not have been related to the film.

Aid to al-Qaida, other jihadists?

WND has published a series of investigations showing the Benghazi mission was highly involved in the rebel-led Mideast revolutions to which Pickering is tied.

WND was first to report the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi served as a meeting place to coordinate aid for rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, according to Middle Eastern security officials.

In September, WND also broke the story that the slain ambassador, Christopher Stevens, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime, according to Egyptian security officials.

Last month, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Most news media outlets covering the results of Pickering’s investigation did not note the possible non-diplomatic nature and status of the Benghazi mission.

The group reportedly concluded that systematic management and leadership failures at the State Department led to “grossly” inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi.

“Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the panel said.

The report pointed a finger at State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs, charging a lack of coordination and confusion over protecting the Benghazi mission.

WND’s reporting showed how the distinction of the special status of the mission may help explain why there was no major public security presence at what has been described as a “consulate.” Such a presence would draw attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly used for sensitive purposes such as coordinating aid to the opposition.

The security officials divulged the building was routinely used by Stevens and others to coordinate with the Turkish, Saudi and Qatari governments on supporting the insurgencies in the Middle East, most prominently the rebels opposing Assad’s regime in Syria.

Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

Questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.

Similarly, the Obama administration has aided the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army.

During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy, and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”by Aaron Klein

December 26, 2012 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Killer of 2 NY firemen bragged in note he liked ‘killing people,’ death toll rises to 3

Posted on December 25, 2012 by Cowboy Byte

An ex-con killed two firefighters with the same caliber and make military-style rifle used in the Connecticut school massacre after typing a note pledging to burn down his neighborhood and “do what I like doing best, killing people,” police said Tuesday as another body, believed to be the gunman’s missing sister, was found.

William Spengler, 62, who served 17 years in prison for manslaughter in the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother, set his house afire before dawn Christmas Eve before taking a revolver, a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle to a sniper position outside, Police Chief Gerald Pickering said.

The death toll rose to three as police revealed that a body believed to be the killer’s 67-year-old sister, Cheryl Spengler, was found in his fire-ravaged home.

Authorities say he sprayed bullets at the first responders, killing two firefighters and injuring two others who remained hospitalized Tuesday in stable condition, awake and alert and expected to survive. He then killed himself as seven houses burned on a sliver of land along Lake Ontario.

Police recovered a military-style .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber weapon used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26, including 20 young children, Pickering said.

Read more:


NY firemen’s killer mapped out plan for slayings

By By JOHN KEKIS, Associated Press

December 26, 2012


Before we have an ah-ha moment regarding those danged guns, let us first look at the match.  That’s right-the fire starter’s friend.  If we’re going to ban the semi-automatic firearms, we are going to have to take down the MATCH!  Those things are ubiquitous, and there are much more matches in the world than there is ammo, especially when one subtracts the millions of bullets this government has placed in Social Security building across the nation.  This was a while back.  Didn’t know about that?  Well, now you know, and it’s time to start asking questions about that little maneuver.  Why would any government warehouse millions of firearm ammunition in the first place?  If the purpose is to arm our military then why not store such items with the military?  Could it be to arm that civilian army Obama talked about forming in his first term?  If you want to watch that speech, do a search on keywords “Obama-civilian army,” and there you can see for yourself.  There is something more going on here, and it’s our job to find out what that is.  Don’t let the red herrings, being thrown out to us, to distract our attention from the real issues we must deal with.

Do not lose sight of the fact that there is a law that does not permit ex-cons to own weapons, and the fact that this murderer had them, speaks volumes to the lack of enforcement of that law and not to the existence of firearms made available for law-abiding citizens who are not evil, nor clinically psychotic.  This man was clearly delusional, or he was truly evil, and he was either of those things, very likely for most of his adult life, if not longer, and the shooters in the recent past were also psychotic or evil.  Psychosis is the inability to think, feel, and see reality, and pure evil is just that.

Just Me

Fire Shooting

This 2006 image provided by the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department shows William H. Spengler Jr. Authorities say Spengler, 62, set a house and car ablaze Monday, Dec. 24, 2012 in Webster, N.Y., and then opened fire, killing two firefighters and wounding two others. Spengler, who served 17 years in prison for the 1980 slaying of his grandmother, later killed himself after a shootout with police. (AP Photo/Monroe County Sheriff’s Department )

WEBSTER, N.Y. (AP) — The ex-con turned sniper who killed two firefighters wanted to make sure his goodbye note was legible, typing out his desire to “do what I like doing best, killing people” before setting the house where he lived with his sister ablaze, police said.

Police Chief Gerald Pickering said Tuesday that the 62-year-old loner, William Spengler, brought plenty of ammunition with him for three weapons including a military-style assault rifle as he set out on a quest to burn down his neighborhood just before sunrise on Christmas Eve.

And when firefighters arrived to stop him, he unleashed a torrent of bullets, shattering the windshield of the fire truck that volunteer firefighter and police Lt. Michael Chiapperini, 43, drove to the scene. Fellow firefighter Tomasz Kaczowka, 19, who worked as a 911 dispatcher, was killed as well.

Two other firefighters were struck by bullets, one in the pelvis and the other in the chest and knee. They remained hospitalized in stable condition and were expected to survive.

On Tuesday, investigators found a body in the Spengler home, presumably that of the sister a neighbor said Spengler hated: 67-year-old Cheryl Spengler. Spengler’s penchant for death had surfaced before. He served 17 years in prison for manslaughter in the 1980 hammer slaying of his grandmother.

But his intent was unmistakable when he left his flaming home carrying a pump-action shotgun, a .38-caliber revolver and a .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression, the same make and caliber weapon used in the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26.

“He was equipped to go to war, kill innocent people,” the chief said of a felon who wasn’t allowed to possess weapons because of his criminal past. It was not clear how he got them.

The assault rifle was believed to be the weapon that struck down the firefighters. He then killed himself as seven houses burned on a sliver of land along Lake Ontario. His body was not found on a nearby beach until hours afterward.

Residents of the suburban Rochester neighborhood who left their homes during the fire were allowed to return Tuesday. Police SWAT team members had used an armored vehicle to evacuate more than 30 residents.

Spengler’s motive was left unclear, Pickering said, even as authorities began analyzing a two- to three-page typewritten rambling note Spengler left behind.

He declined to reveal the note’s full content or say where it was found. He read only one chilling line: “I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down, and do what I like doing best, killing people.”

Pickering added: “There was some rambling in there and some intelligence we need to follow up on.”

It remained unknown what set Spengler off but a next-door neighbor, Roger Vercruysse, noted that he loved his mother, Arline, who died in October after living in the house in a neighborhood of seasonal and year-round homes across the road from a lakeshore popular with recreational boaters.

Pickering said it was unclear whether the person believed to be Spengler’s sister died before or during the fire.

“It was a raging inferno in there,” Pickering said.

As Pickering described it and as emergency radio communications on the scene showed, the heavily armed Spengler took a position behind a small hill by the house as four firefighters arrived after 5:30 a.m. to extinguish the fire: two on a fire truck; two in their own vehicles.

Several firefighters went beneath the truck to shield themselves as an off-duty police officer who came to the scene pulled his vehicle alongside the truck to try to shield them, authorities said.

The first police officer who arrived chased and exchanged shots with Spengler, recounting it later over his police radio.

“I could see the muzzle blasts comin’ at me. … I fired four shots at him. I thought he went down,” the officer said.

At another point, he said: “I don’t know if I hit him or not. He’s by a tree. … He was movin’ eastbound on the berm when I was firing shots.” Pickering portrayed the officer as a hero who saved many lives.

The audio posted on the website also has someone reporting “firefighters are down” and saying “got to be rifle or shotgun — high-powered … semi or fully auto.”

Spengler had been charged with murder in his grandmother’s death but pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter, apparently to spare his family a trial. After he was freed from prison, Spengler had lived a quiet life on Lake Road on a narrow peninsula where Irondequoit Bay meets Lake Ontario.

That ended when he left his burning home Monday morning, armed with his weapons, a lot of ammunition and a measure of hate.

“I’m not sure we’ll ever know what was going through his mind,” Pickering said.

Services were set for the two Rochester-area volunteer firefighters. Calling hours will be held at Webster Schroeder High School on Friday and Saturday. A funeral service for Chiapperini was scheduled for noon Sunday at the high school, with burial in West Webster Cemetery.

A funeral Mass for Kaczowka will be held at 10 a.m. Monday at St. Stanislaus Church in Rochester. Burial will be at Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Rochester.


Esch reported from Albany. Associated Press writer Larry Neumeister in New York City also contributed to this report.

Related articles




DC Police Investigating NBC’s Gregory for Brandishing Illegal Magazine

by Warner Todd Huston 25 Dec 2012

Washington D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has confirmed that the department is looking into allegations that NBC’s David Gregory violated D.C.’s gun banning laws during a recent taping of Meet the Press.

In a discussion about gun control, host David Gregory brandished a 30-round magazine purportedly for an AR-15 or similar “assault rifle.”  The discussion took place on December 23, during the broadcast of NBC’s Sunday morning political talk show.

Washington D.C.’s gun laws, however, state that even possessing such a device is a violation. Meet the Press is filmed at NBC’s D.C. studios.

The law in question is titled: DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01, and reads (my bold):

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Breitbart contacted the office of the police chief and asked if there were any plans to look into this apparent violation of the District’s gun laws. In response, Chief Lanier replied, “Yes, we are investigating the incident to determine if the magazine was in fact real.”

We will continue to watch this developing story.



President Barack Obama was to cut his holiday short and head back to Washington on Wednesday to try to address the “fiscal cliff,” a set of tax hikes and spending cuts to take effect next year.








obamacare mobile unit





Liberals Panic As They Lose the Gun Narrative

Click if you like this column!

Liberals Panic As They Lose the Gun Narrative

So, the politicians’ actions have spoken louder than their words, but what of the media? We lawyers always say that when your case is strong, pound on the law and the evidence, and when your case is weak, pound on the table. The furniture is splintering in Liberalland.

Their post-Newtown strategy was always to prevent an effective response from the pro-gun freedom side by both rapid action and by demonization. But the holidays and the kabuki theater that is the fiscal cliff drama meant that legislative action, their Holy Grail, would have to wait. That gave people time to think and the gun freedom side the time to react.

Demonizing those who support gun freedom was always intended as a weapon to silence them. It was also critical that we, law-abiding gun owners, become the Other. By dehumanizing us and painting us as evil, it is that much easier to strip us of our rights.

But gun freedom advocates fought back. Using the mainstream media, conservative media and especially social media – we need to understand its huge significance here – gun freedom advocates countered liberals’ bogus “facts.” Media reports about “automatic” weapons were corrected, clownish statements about “high caliber magazines” and “large capacity round” were mocked. The struggle raged over millions of Facebook posts. The average citizen saw gun banners ask “When will America control access to weapons?” and then saw several experts among his or her friends post about the significant hurdles one needs to get over to get a gun. Truth bypassed the mainstream media and became a weapon for the side of fundamental rights.

The banners overplayed their hand, losing credibility with every distortion, evasion and smear. The cries of “Blood is on your hands!” failed to resonate – reasonable Americans just did not blame the actions of a single sociopath on millions of their fellow neighbors. And it did not help when third-string celebrities and wizened literary has-beens took to hoping gun rights advocates would be shot for daring to oppose disarmament.

The gun banners also counted on a narrative that portrayed a respect for the Second Amendment. They sought only “reasonable restrictions” – why, no one wants to ban or confiscate your guns! The problem was one of memo distribution – not everybody got that memo. Mayor Bloomberg was putting out that what few guns he might graciously deign to leave in the hands of the unworthy would be starved of bullets, while Governor Cuomo acknowledged that confiscation was one of the options.

Oops. “Gun control” is a process that is designed and intended to lead to a total gun ban, and the banners are counting on people not realizing it.

Their credibility and motives already in question, the gun banners became vulnerable to a shift in the paradigm from depriving law-abiding citizens of effective defensive weapons to the idea of protecting kids with armed personnel in schools.

Suddenly, the gun banners had to argue two ridiculous positions. The first was that allowing trained educators or police having weapons in schools is a danger. The problem is that people generally like and trust teachers and cops. The second position was even worse, that armed personnel or police are somehow utterly useless against untrained, amateur creeps who seek to confront six-year olds. All over America, millions of parents noted how none of the wealthy gun banners were disbanding their personal security teams and thought, “You know, I think I’d like having a cop around my kid too.”

Frustration at the fact that their argument had not been unquestioningly accepted morphed into faux moral outrage that their opponents had dared offer any alternative proposal at all. E.J. Dionne of the WaPo was a prime example. He had to “grope for words to describe the National Rifle Association’s proposal,” yet he managed to find some: “Absurd, unbelievable, tragic, obscene,” as well as “insane.”

Note that Dionne’s righteous fury does not apply to the armed guards at the Post’s front door, surrounding President Obama, or to anywhere else other than in the vicinity of regular people’s children.

Particularly amusing are the liberals who transform into green eyeshades misers with the public purse when it comes to cops in schools. The folks who can’t spend enough dough on fudge-smeared, patriarchy-challenging performance artists suddenly become thrifty Scotsmen when it comes to doling out a few shillings to put a cop on campus.

They have been unable to articulate any coherent argument opposing putting cops in schools because there is no coherent argument against putting cops in schools. But more than anything, the mommies at the affluent Los Angeles-area school my kids attend have convinced me that the narrative has escaped the gun grabbers.

Knowing our reputations as proud conservatives – we represent diversity for our liberal friends – a pal of my wife remarked, out of the blue, that “I think my husband and I need to buy guns.” Whoa.

And as third graders sang holiday songs at their pageant while I surveyed the packed, vulnerable room, I blurted out to another mommy that I wished I could legally carry a weapon to protect those kids. And she told me that she wished that I could too. Whoa.

Gun banners, you lost the President, the senators, the social media, and now you’ve lost liberal LA mommies. You’ve lost everything. Again.


Media News

David Gregory Under Police Investigation Over Gun Magazine On ‘Meet The Press’

Posted: 12/26/2012 9:16 am EST  |  Updated: 12/26/2012 1:41 pm EST

UPDATE: NBC News had requested and was denied permission to use a high capacity magazine on “Meet the Press.” Legal Insurrection’s William A. Jacobson looked into an email allegedly from the Metropolitan Police Department which said that the network contacted the police before the segment. The MPD’s Aziz Alali confirmed it, telling Jacobson:

“NBC contacted the Metropolitan Police Department inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for this segment. NBC was informed that that possession of a high capacity magazine is not permissible and the request was denied.”

EARLIER: David Gregory is being investigated by police over the gun magazine that he showed on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.”

Gregory held up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine during his contentious interview with the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre. He was asking LaPierre whether fewer victims would have died in the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School if the gunman had not had access to so many bullets.

Araz Alali, police officer and spokesman, confirmed to Politico on Tuesday that the Metropolitan Police Department is looking into “The ‘Meet the Press,’ David Gregory incident.” “There are D.C. code violations, D.C. code restrictions on guns, ammunition. We are investigating this matter. Beyond the scope of that, I can’t comment any further,” he said.

The code in question says, “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm,” and has been mentioned by numerous conservatives making the argument against Gregory.

CORRECTION: The headline has been updated to say that Gregory was holding a gun magazine, not a clip, on “Meet the Press.”

December 26, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

samer alHamwi Halfaya

December 23, 2012 Posted by | Must See, Videos | , , , , , | 1 Comment





Sketch of Sayid Qutb (also Seyyid, Sayid, Saye...

Sketch of Sayid Qutb (also Seyyid, Sayid, Sayed; also Koteb, Kutb) (Arabic: سيد قطب; 9 October 1906[1] – 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian author, Islamist, and the leading intellectual of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 60s. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)





Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

<iframe src=”; width=”400″ height=”254″ frameborder=”0″>Your browser does not support iframes.

The following is an overview of each of the Islamist figures who have found their place — in some way, shape or form — at the Obama administration’s table.

(Related: Want to Know More About the Islamist Group Exposed in Rumors of War III?)

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Arif Alikahn, Former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Policy Development:  Now a Distinguished Visiting Professor of DHS and Counterterrorism at the National Defense University, Alikahn also served as Deputy Mayor for Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles where he reportedly derailed the LAPD’s efforts to monitor the city’s Muslim community — particularly its radical mosques and madrassas where certain 9/11 hijackers were said to have received support. He is affiliated with MPAC, which has called the terrorist group Hezbollah a “liberation movement.”

 Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

The Muslim Brotherhood, The Coptic church, The...

The Muslim Brotherhood, The Coptic church, The elites and The SCAF are trying to control the Jan25 youth. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Salam al-Marayati, Founder and Executive Director of Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC): Marayati is an Iraqi immigrant who drew national attention over a decade ago when then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt nominated him to serve on the National Commission on Terrorism. Backlash over al-Marayati’s defense of Hezbollah and other Islamic groups prompted a withdrawal of the nomination. The Center for Security Policy reports that MPAC was formed in 1986 as the Political Action Committee for the Islamic Center for Southern California, one of the largest Wahhabi mosques in the country. While MPAC later fractioned-off, one of the founders of the Islamic Center, Hassan Hathout, was a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood who also spent time in Egyptian prison.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Mohamed Elibiary, Homeland Security Advisory Committee Member: He is the former president of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, which was billed to ”promote a Centrist Public Policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community.” He spoke at a 2004 conference in Dallas praising the “Great Islamic Visionary” Ayatollah Khomeini.  Most recently he is famous for leaking highly sensitive intelligence documents to a media outlet in Texas.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?Rashad Hussain, State Department Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation: The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report uncovered that Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. An internal Brotherhood document dubbed the Social Scientists as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Hussain also spoke at the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which reportedly receives Saudi funding and is directed by Muslim Brotherhood advocate, John Esposito. In 2004, Hussain also participated in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference, a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood and known as one of its front-groups. The report also asserts that many of the Student Associations’ nearly 600 college chapters “have engaged in extremism and the group closely collaborates with the other Brotherhood fronts.”

Other Brotherhood sympathizers involved  in the administration but who tend to travel beneath the radar include:

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Imam Mohamed Magid, Homeland Security Countering Violent Extremism Working Group Member : He is a Sudanese-born president for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) with alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA’s parent is the Muslim Student Association. ISNA completed a $21 million headquarters in Indianapolis using funds raised in part from Muslim Brotherhood.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Eboo Patel, Obama Administration Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships: Patel spoke at a Muslim Students Association and ISNA convention, appearing on a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder, and Siraj Wahhaj, who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and has defended the convicted WTC bombers. Wahhaj allegedly advocates the Islamic takeover of America.

Want to Know Just How Close the Muslim Brotherhood Is to the Obama Admin?

Huma Abedin, Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: Perhaps most famous for being wife of the disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin appears to have family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In an interview with FrontPageMag, anti-Islamist author Walid Shoebat explained that Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, is involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and that Huma’s brother, Hassan, sits in on the board of the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies (OCIS) where he is a fellow and partners with other board members including “Al-Qaeda associate, Omar Naseef and the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi; both have been listed as OCIS Trustees.”






December 22, 2012 Posted by | Home | Leave a comment



The Blog


Obama Uses Funeral Service to Talk About Himself

10:34 AM, Dec 22, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

President Barack Obama used the funeral for Hawaii senator Daniel Inouye to talk about himself. In the short 1,600 word speech, Obama used the word “my” 21 times, “me” 12 times, and “I” 30 times.


Obama’s speech discussed how Inouye had gotten him interested in politics. “Danny was elected to the U.S. Senate when I was two years old,” he said.

Speaking to the audience at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., Obama talked about his family and their vacations. “Now, even though my mother and grandparents took great pride that they had voted for him, I confess that I wasn’t paying much attention to the United States Senate at the age of four or five or six.  It wasn’t until I was 11 years old that I recall even learning what a U.S. senator was, or it registering, at least.  It was during my summer vacation with my family — my first trip to what those of us in Hawaii call the Mainland,” said Obama.

So we flew over the ocean, and with my mother and my grandmother and my sister, who at the time was two, we traveled around the country.  It was a big trip.  We went to Seattle, and we went to Disneyland — which was most important.  We traveled to Kansas where my grandmother’s family was from, and went to Chicago, and went to Yellowstone.  And we took Greyhound buses most of the time, and we rented cars, and we would stay at local motels or Howard Johnson’s.  And if there was a pool at one of these motels, even if it was just tiny, I would be very excited. And the ice machine was exciting — and the vending machine, I was really excited about that.


Who gives a rat’s ass what Mememememe Obama was doing, where, and to whom during Mr. Inouye’s political career, as well as his life, unfolded?  Only a genuine narcissist would, or could, puff himself up while giving a eulogy for Senator Inouye!  By now, we should all know how dangerous narcissists can be, and all we have to do is look at the rulers in North Korea, China, Egypt, Syria, and eventually the United States of America, if this one gets his way.  I believe, even as I write this, that our President is creating a plan, a duplicate of the one Egypt’s leader, Mohammed Morsi, used to usurp that country.  Even Egypt’s Vice President couldn’t take Morsi’s nerve and effrontery, so he quit!


English: Daniel Inouye, senator from Hawaii

English: Daniel Inouye, senator from Hawaii (Photo credit: Wikipedia)







December 22, 2012 Posted by | Home, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


English: Israeli child injured from Hamas Grad...

English: Israeli child injured from Hamas Grad rocket fired at Beer Sheva civilian area from Gaza is taken to hospital (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


December 21, 2012

Jews in the Judean Desert?


Clifford D. May –


The European Union is outraged


More than 40,000 people have been slaughtered in Syria and the death toll rises daily. The European Union does not appear to be particularly concerned. North Korea’s rulers have launched a three-stage rocket, moving closer to their goal of developing a nuclear-tipped ICBM, and they’re sharing nuclear weapons technology with the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism in Iran. The EU does not seem to be worrying about that either. Israel is considering building homes on barren hills adjacent to Jerusalem. The EU’s 27 foreign ministers said they were “deeply dismayed,” and warned Israel of unspecified consequences if the plan is carried out.


The European Union – recent winner, I should note, of the Nobel Peace Prize — has its priorities. So let’s talk about what the Israelis are doing to so distress them.


The area in which Israel may build covers 4.6 square miles. For the sake of comparison, Denver International Airport is 53 square miles. Known as E1, this area lies within a territory that has a much older name: the Judean Desert. Might Jews think they have a legitimate historical claim to the Judean Desert? This question is rarely asked.


For Israeli military planners, E1′s strategic value is more germane than its history. Developing it would help in the defense of Jerusalem, and connect Jerusalem to Maaleh Adumim, an Israeli town with a population 40,000. Media reports note that both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. Media reports often fail to note that right now both Jews and Arabs live in Jerusalem — for the most part peacefully, with both populations growing – while Hamas vows to forcibly expel every Jew from Jerusalem. Such threats of ethnic cleansing also do not trouble the EU much.


It has been widely reported that if Israel should build in E1, the possibility of a two-state solution would be shattered. The New York Times was among those reporting this but, to the paper’s credit, it later published a correction, stating that building in E1 actually “would not divide the West Bank in two,” nor would it cut off the West Bank cites Ramallah and Bethlehem, from Jerusalem. Anyone looking at a map would see that.


People forget, or perhaps choose not to remember, that Israelis always have been willing to give up land for peace, including land acquired in defensive wars. Historically, that has not been a common practice for a very sound reason: Aggression can be deterred only if it carries substantial risk. Nevertheless, Israelis gave up Gaza and the Sinai, and have offered to give up more land — at least 97 percent of the West Bank, retaining only those areas absolutely necessary for national security.


Israelis do want something in exchange: an end to the long conflict they have been fighting against those who insist that the Jewish people, uniquely, has no right to self-determination, no right to independence, no right to self-rule within their ancient and ancestral homeland.


What Israelis have received instead: Missile and terrorist attacks and, last week, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal at a rally in Gaza proclaiming that “jihad,” armed struggle, will continue until Israel is defeated, conquered, and replaced – every square mile — by an Islamist theocracy.


“Since Palestine is ours, and it is the land of the Arabs and Islam,” he said, “it is unthinkable that we would recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of it. Let me emphasize that we adhere to this fundamental principle: we do not recognize Israel . . . The Palestinian resistance will crush it and sweep it away, be it Allah’s will.” He added: “We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone. Israel has no right to be in Jerusalem.”


Within the EU there was a debate about whether to comment on that. Eventually, pressure from Germany and the Czech Republic led the EU to issue a mild rebuke to Hamas — a single paragraph in a three-page statement focusing on Israel’s “dismaying” behavior.


Mahmoud Abbas, regarded as a moderate Palestinian leader, could not bring himself to call Mashaal’s latest threats wrong – or even unhelpful. Instead, Azzam Alahmed, a senior official in Abbas’ Fatah organization described Mashaal’s speech as “very positive,” because it stressed the need for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. Such reconciliation would be achieved not by Hamas softening its positions, but by Fatah more explicitly agreeing that Israel’s extermination – rather than a two-state solution – remains the Palestinian goal, the final solution, if you will.


Just after the conclusion of the truce halting the most recent Hamas/Israel battle, Abbas went to the UN General Assembly to request that Palestine be recognized as a “non-member state.” The outcome was never in doubt – the UNGA, which cannot with a straight face be described as a deliberative body, has a reflexively anti-Israeli majority. Abbas’ action was a blatant violation of the Oslo Accords under which any change in the Palestinian status is to come about only through negotiations with Israel.


New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman laments that “the Europeans in general, and the European left in particular, have so little influence” in Israel. He is puzzled as to why that is. He insists that, “it’s incumbent on every Israeli leader to test, test and test again – using every ounce of Israeli creativity – to see if Israel can find a Palestinian partner for a secure peace” Only by so doing, he adds, can Israel “have the moral high ground in a permanent struggle.”


If “creative” Israelis were to find such a partner, would Friedman be able to arrange a life insurance policy for him? And between those threatening their neighbors with genocide – which is, indisputably, what Hamas is doing — and those offering to negotiate peace with its neighbors – which is what Israel is doing — can there really be ambiguity about who holds the moral high ground?


Evidently, there can – at least for Friedman and the EU and, I’m afraid, lots of other folks around the world. Israelis, and their few friends around the world, may just have to learn to live with that as best they can.



December 22, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments



 Email Article

Print Article Send a Tip

by Matthew Boyle 21 Dec 2012

Several conservative House Republican members are contemplating a plan to unseat Speaker John Boehner from his position on January 3, Breitbart News has exclusively learned. Staffers have compiled a detailed action plan that, if executed, could make this a reality.

The Republicans, both conservatives and more establishment members alike, are emboldened after the failure of Boehner’s fiscal cliff “Plan B” on Thursday evening. Dissatisfaction with Boehner is growing in the House Republican conference, but until now there hasn’t been a clear path forward.

Those members and staffers requested anonymity from Breitbart News at this time to prevent retaliation from Boehner similar to what happened to those four members who were purged from their powerful committee assignments a few weeks ago. Their expressed concern is that if Boehner knew who they were, his adverse reaction toward them would be much more brutal than losing committee assignments, such as a primary challenge in 2014 by a leadership-sponsored candidate.

The circulated plan is a comprehensive multi-step process.

According to the plan as drafted, the first step is to re-establish the election of the Speaker of the House by secret ballot, rather than by a public roll call vote. That’s because the members who would oppose Boehner, if there ended up not being enough votes to achieve their desired result or if Boehner scared via threat or coaxed via prize some of the opposition into voting for him, would be sitting ducks for retaliation in the near future.

As one hill staffer considering this path told Breitbart News, the members involved in an unsuccessful coup d’etat would be “toast.”

To establish a secret ballot election for Speaker of the House, one Republican member will need to step forward and introduce a resolution on the House floor on the morning of January 3, 2013, before any other business takes place. Those close to this plan are convinced that a member will step forward and introduce this resolution.

On January 3, the House of Representatives will convene for the first order of business for the 113th Congress. Normally, the first order of business is for the House to elect a Speaker.

But if a member introduces that resolution for a secret ballot, the whole House will vote on that first. That vote will need to have a public roll call, meaning the American people, the press, and Boehner will know who voted which way. Even so, those who are considering this path forward to unseat Boehner know that Boehner and other establishment Republicans can’t legitimately oppose the concept of a secret ballot election for a leader of a political body.

Why’s that? In a 2009 op-ed Boehner himself wrote for U.S. News and World Report, the then House Minority Leader bashed unions for their failure to employ secret ballot elections to protect those voting. Boehner’s op-ed was an attack on the Democrats’ Employee Free Choice Act, also known as “card check” – legislation that would have hurt the sacred concept of elections so badly that, in Boehner’s own words, “it would leave them [workers voting in union elections] open to coercion and intimidation.”

Card check legislation would have made unionization elections public – meaning everybody involved would know whether employees voted in favor of or against unionization. Boehner called such elections “undemocratic” because even “all 535 members of the United States Congress hold their offices thanks to a secret ballot.”

Boehner’s op-ed helped kill the Democratic effort for card check, as he warned that some who have “spoken passionately in favor of secret-ballot elections” have done so “only when it serves their interests.” Those hill staffers who drafted this plan note in their planning documents that a secret ballot against Boehner “is likely the ONLY WAY the Speaker can be ousted,” and find it ironic that the election for House Speaker isn’t done by secret ballot right now.

At the beginning of the Congress, the House will only have one officer: the Clerk of the House. House rule documents compiled by those staffers considering this plan show that the Clerk of the House is required to keep the legislative body’s secrets. The clerk takes an oath to “keep the secrets of the House.”

Since at that point the House would have just passed a resolution requiring who votes for whom as Speaker to be secret, the Clerk – who would keep track of such a vote – would be required by his oath of office to keep the roll call secret.

If a secret ballot election for House Speaker is established, step one of this plan against Boehner is complete.

The second step of the circulated plan would require enough GOP members to band together and vote for somebody other than Boehner as Speaker. Since Illinois Democratic Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., has resigned his position, there will be 434 voting members on January 3. For someone to win the Speaker election, they’d need to secure 217 votes – or a majority of everyone voting.

Since there are 233 Republicans heading into the next Congress, only 17 Republicans would be needed to unseat Boehner. The House would continue having multiple elections throughout the day on January 3 until it agreed upon a new Speaker.

Republicans need not worry about handing the Speakership over to Nancy Pelosi or some other Democrat in this process, either. “Don’t worry about Speaker Boehner losing GOP votes in a secret ballot,” the House rule document compiled by staffers obtained by Breitbart News read.

It is still not possible for Pelosi to become Speaker even with 100 % of Democrats united behind her and a split GOP vote. The reason is to become Speaker it is not enough to win a plurality. One must win an absolute majority of all votes cast for an individual.

So even if all 201 Democrats vote Pelosi, Boehner gets 1 vote, and the remaining 233 Republicans each vote for a different individual, Pelosi does not win. Pelosi would need 218 to reach a majority of the 435 votes cast for an individual. Since Republicans have a 33 vote advantage in the House, the only way Pelosi wins is if 17 Boehner opponents affirmatively vote Pelosi or abstain rather than simply vote for an alternative candidate. Both these scenarios are easily avoided.

The same argument applies if fewer than 435 Members show up to vote. The magic number would be less than 218 but Pelosi still cannot get there so long as there are more Republicans in the room than Democrats and they don’t abstain or voter [sic] for her.

Those planning to oust Boehner know that there will likely be multiple elections taking place next. They expect to have a series of elections in the House throughout the day on January 3, as they’re pretty sure they won’t get a new Speaker on the first try.

If Boehner loses on that first election try, he’ll be battered. For now, this is a leaderless movement – an “Anybody but Boehner” charge. But after that first secret ballot election wouldn’t have earned him his speakership back, those planning this ouster expect viable alternatives to emerge at that point.

One of those alternatives, they think, will unite the party and take the speakership.

If these conservatives aren’t successful in removing Boehner – but get close – they expect Boehner to cave and give them several concessions. Those concessions would include “that Boehner should move for it himself to decentralize power to the members, re-establishing trust and his legitimacy as the leader of the party.”

They argue Boehner might be able to reach those concessions by allowing committee chairmen to bring resolutions and legislation to the House floor for votes, and by stopping his continual dealing with President Barack Obama outside the regular order of House business through the committee system.

Read the documents for yourself:

December 22, 2012 Posted by | Home, Political Corruption, Videos | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


Anti-Gun Advocates are Out for Blood

One would think that people who are opposed to gun ownership would be a peaceful lot. Well, you would be wrong.

Let’s get something straight. Guns are already regulated in America. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of laws on the books, just like there are probably thousands of laws against murder, theft, rape, sex with children, and driving while intoxicated. Even so, tens of thousands of people break these laws every year.

“The Newtown gunman was a monster who slaughtered his own mother, five heroic educators and 20 angel-faced schoolchildren. He ignored laws against murder. He bypassed Connecticut’s strict gun control regulations, and he circumvented the Sandy Hook Elementary School’s security measures. Every decent American is horrified and heartsick by this outbreak of pure evil.”

Believing that even more laws will stop the deaths, anti-gun advocates are going for the throat. Here are some choice comments from University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis who teaches U.S. environmental history, the Civil War, late 19th and early 20th century America, labor history, and the American West in the university’s history department. Keep in mind that our tax dollars help to pay his salary:

“This week, the nutty professor took to Twitter to rail against law-abiding gun owners and the National Rifle Association. ‘Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children,’ Loomis fumed. ‘Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,’ he added. (LaPierre is executive vice president and CEO of the NRA.) Loomis was just warming up.

“‘F**k the National Rifle Association and its policies to put crazy guns in everyone’s hands,’ Loomis tweeted. ‘You are g*dd*mn right we should politicize this tragedy. F**k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison,’ he spewed.

‘Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?’

“If all that wasn’t clear enough, Loomis also re-tweeted the following message from a fellow left-winger: ‘First f**ker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death.’”

People kill other people for a variety of reasons. Deep down in their darkened souls they offer justification for their actions. In what way is Professor Erik Loomis’ rationale for wanting to beat to death a pro-gun activist any different from the various reasons people put forth as to why shooters kill and maim people in schools, at political campaign events, and in movie theaters?

Doc Loomis is not alone. John Cobaruvvias, the Texas Democratic Party leader, tweeted violence against NRA members: “Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them?” Of course, later he said that he was not really serious.

The sad fact is, many people are serious. Will some disturbed person act on the above irresponsible statements and kill in the name of “Whatever?” If it happens, the gun rather than the person will be blamed. Maybe it’s time that we blame the rhetoric.

Read more:


December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home, The United States of America Constitution | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Dear Editor

I am positively appalled at two of your choices of people of the year!  The Egyptian dictator and the US Socialist usurper?  There are millions who agree with me and disagree with Time. We can’t imagine how you would risk sacrificing your subscriber numbers in exchange for this up close and personal suck-up to those two men.  What were you thinking??


December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , | Leave a comment


Armed Citizen Saves Cop’s Life

Read more:

Sgt. Steven Means of the Early Police Department in Texas, is one law enforcement officer that is thankful for the Second Amendment right for citizens to bear arms.

Early is a small community in central Texas with a population of just under 3,000. Back in August of this year, several residents of the Peach House RV Park got into a squabble.  Seems one of the residents, 58 year old Charles Conner took issue to his neighbors’ dogs doing their business in his yard.

On that hot summer day, Conner got into an argument with 58 year old David House, one of the dog owners.  Conner eventually left the argument and went to his RV only to return with a gun that he used to shoot House dead with.  Hearing the gun shots, the other dog owner, 53 year old Valentina Calaci ran from her RV screaming.  That’s when Conner turned and shot her dead also.

In his fit of rage, Conner then turned and shot both the dogs that he felt started the whole confrontation.

Shortly thereafter, Sgt. Means responded to the shots fired call.  The moment he got out of his car, Conner opened fire on him and then took cover behind a large tree.  Means tried to return fire with his AR-15, but Conner had the better position.

Hearing all the gunfire outside, another resident of the RV park, Vic Stacy, looked to see what was happening.  When he saw that Conner had the better position, he felt that the officer’s life was in jeopardy.  Having a clear side view, he decided he needed to help the officer, so he took a shot from his vantage point and hit Conner in the thigh.  Although wounded, Conner was not giving up, so Stacy shot him again.  Sgt. Means was also able to get some shots off and eventually Conner was killed and the officer’s life was saved.

After other officers arrived at the scene and investigated what happened, they deemed Stacy to be the hero.  Brown County Sheriff Booby Grubbs commented, saying:

“The citizen that fired these shots did a tremendous job out there. Had he not had a gun and the presence of mind to do this, we don’t know what the outcome would’ve been.”

This is just one of hundreds of cases where legally armed citizens have used their guns to protect themselves, their families and others.  In this case, it was a police officer whose life was saved by an armed citizen.  Tomorrow, it could be you or one of your loved ones, that is if Obama doesn’t steal them all away from us.

Read more:


December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



See Terry Jones’ Inflammatory, 71-Minute Anti-Muhammad Movie Portraying the Prophet as a ‘Child Molester’ & ‘Assassin’

Imran Firasat & Terry Jones Release The Innocent Prophet | Islam, Muhammad

Photo Credit: YouTube

Pastor Terry Jones knows a thing or two about drumming up controversy. The Koran-burning preacher has attracted international attention over his involvement in inflammatory activities and his intense rhetoric against Islam. Last month, TheBlaze told you about his latest project, a film called, “The Innocent Prophet,” a movie he completed in collaboration with an ex-Muslim named Imran Firasat.

Earlier this week, the full movie, which stretches 71 minutes in length, was released on YouTube. Much like Jones’ past projects, the film holds the potential to infuriate Islamist groups across the globe. But because it also takes particular aim at the Prophet Muhammad, even the most moderate of Muslims may take offense.

As previously reported, the name and purpose of the “The Innocent Prophet” mirrors that of the ever-infamous “Innocence of Muslims,” which was blamed for widespread protests in the Middle East earlier this year. The connotative connection between the films is intentional, at least in title, message and tone, especially considering that Jones was also a supporter of the “Innocence of Muslims” project.

“We are trying to give a factual life of Muhammad,” Jones told TheBlaze of his new film last month. “His life was one that was pretty perverted in comparison to the life of Jesus.”

The pastor said that Muhammad promoted violence and that, even on his deathbed in 632 A.D., he called for his followers “to cleanse the Arabian Peninsula of non-believers” — something that he contends adherents have done for the past 1,400 years.

Imran Firasat & Terry Jones Release The Innocent Prophet | Islam, Muhammad

Pakistani Muslim demonstrators react beside the portrait of Florida pastor Terry Jones during a protest against an anti-Islam film in Quetta on September 24, 2012. More than 50 people have died around the world in violence linked to the low-budget movie, which mocks Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, since the first demonstrations erupted on September 11. (Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images)

These sentiments are also captured in an official description that accompanies the film on YouTube. It reads:

The Innocent Prophet is the film that will help Muslims know the true face of Muhammad, as the creator of the false religion of Islam to achieve his own goals. It’s time to clear all doubts and accept that Muhammad was not a prophet but was a mobster, murderer, abuser of children and a self-proclaimed prophet.

A warning at the beginning of the movie reads, “Warning: Not Recommendable.” Bullet points note that “The Innocent Prophet” shouldn’t be viewed by anyone who is underage, by people who don’t believe in free expression and by “religious fanatics.”

In the first few minutes of the film, Islam is dismissed as a violent and intolerant religion. You can watch the fill 71-minute film, below (caution: disturbing content and themes):

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

As for Firasat, a Pakistani-born Christian who now lives in Spain, he is facing legal ramifications for his participation in “The Innocent Prophet” (he led the project and is the film’s narrator). In an interview with The International Business Times (IBT), he said that the Spanish government has threatened to deport him (an action that he contends could lead to the death penalty for apostasy).

Here’s a portion of that dialogue:

IBT: I understand you have postponed the release date. When might be the tentative release?

Firasat: Seven years ago I was granted refugee status in Spain for the reason that I used to criticise Islam. It has been seven years since that I have taken the fight against Islam very far. And my right to freedom of expression was always respected by this great country. But now suddenly for doing the same thing which I have been doing since for the last seven years, I have been threatened by the authorities [and told] that my refugee status will be revoked, I will be deported back to Pakistan where the death penalty for blasphemy is waiting for me and that I may be detained if I continue with the plans to release the movie.

That is the reason I have decided to postpone it temporarily.

While he initially decided to postpone the release (this IBT interview was published Dec. 13), Terry Jones’ organization, Stand Up America!, published it on time on its YouTube page on Dec, 15, the release date that was solidified last month.

In the same IBT interview, Firasat was asked why he believes Spanish authorities have gone after him. He expressed surprise and appeared to be dumbfounded over the alleged governmental crack-down:

Firasat: That’s a very funny, interesting and surprising question for me even. Why now? I was granted asylum because of my criticisms of Islam. I have formally asked the Spanish government for the prohibition of Koran in Spain. I have given thousands of interviews to radio and TV channels. I wrote articles in newspapers.

But I was never told by anyone that what I am doing is illegal. Now suddenly they try to revoke my refugee status, detain me and prosecute me for offending Muslims’ religious sentiments. Why? There may be two reasons: Fear of violence by Muslims abroad and in Spain, and conflicts in diplomatic relations with Islamic countries which are investing in Spain.

All of what [the] Spanish authorities are doing is not according to the law but according to their personal desires. Ministers are human, not god.

Firasat maintains that Spain has changed dramatically during his seven years living there and that his personal rights have been eroded of late. He noted that the nation is not the same as it was when he originally arrived and was granted “complete liberty of expression.” You can read the entire interview here.

Now that the film has been released, there’s no telling what will happen to Firasat. Furthermore, the reaction within Muslim communities will be intriguing to watch.

What do you think about inflammatory films like “Innocence of Muslims” and “The Innocent Prophet?” Should free speech trump fears over inciting radical factions — or should this sort of speech be restricted in an effort to save lives? Let us know in the comments section below.

December 21, 2012 Posted by | Here And Now | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



‘Violated’: Women Subjected to ‘Roadside Body Cavity Search’ During Routine Traffic Stop (And Dash Cam Caught It All)

Angel and Ashley Dobbs Suing Texas State Troopers After Being Given Roadside Body Cavity Search

Two women from Irving, Texas are suing state troopers and the head of their department in federal court after they say they were forced to endure an illegal and humiliating “roadside body cavity search” during a routine traffic stop, The Dallas Morning News reports.

The case is currently under investigation by the public integrity division of the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office and will go before a grand jury in January.

The dash-mounted camera on a trooper’s vehicle reportedly captured the entire incident on video. Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece Ashley Dobbs, 24, say the unlawful search happened on the night of July 13 along a state highway.

Watch the video below via The Dallas Morning News (Content Warning!):

In their lawsuit, the women allege that a female trooper, identified as Kelley Helleson, used her fingers to search both their anuses and vaginas with the same latex glove. To add to their horrific experience, the women say they were on the side of the road in full view of passing vehicles.

The video from the car’s dash cam clearly shows a female officer feeling around both women’s breasts and then sticking her hand down the front and back of their pants, wearing latex gloves.

Angel and Ashley Dobbs Suing Texas State Troopers After Being Given Roadside Body Cavity Search

Angel and Ashley Dobbs Suing Texas State Troopers After Being Given Roadside Body Cavity Search

According to the lawsuit, David Farrell, a Texas state trooper, pulled the car over after seeing the women throw cigarette butts out of the window. He reportedly questioned them about marijuana and then called Helleson to the scene to assist him.

Farrell requested the search because he said the women were “acting weird,” the suit said.

More from The Dallas Morning News:

Farrell searched their vehicle for marijuana but didn’t find any, they said. He then tried to “morph this situation into a DWI investigation,” the lawsuit said. Angel Dobbs passed a roadside sobriety test and the women were given warnings for littering, the suit said.

During the search of Angel Dobbs’ anus, Helleson irritated one of the cysts she suffers from, the lawsuit said, causing her “severe and continuing pain and discomfort.”

“Angel Dobbs was overwhelmed with emotion and a feeling of helplessness and reacted stating that Helleson had just violated her in a most horrific manner,” the lawsuit said.

The women also are suing Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, saying he was aware of previous problems and complaints about “unlawful strip searches, cavity searches and the like” yet failed to do anything about it.

While the Texas Department of Public Safety refuses to discuss pending court cases, DPS spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger issued the following statement:

“Following the traffic stop that occurred in July of this year and based on a citizen’s complaint, the Texas Rangers conducted an inquiry surrounding the events, and has since turned the results over to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office for review.”

Scott H. Palmer, an attorney representing the women, told the Dallas Morning News that the entire ordeal was caught on video from one of the trooper’s dash cams.

“You can see what’s happening clearly,” he added.

Palmer blasted the troopers’ conduct, saying the searches were basically “sexual assault” on the side of the road. “No one’s ever seen the likes of this…We can’t let them get away with it.”


December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Piers Morgan at CES 2011.

Piers Morgan at CES 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



‘Hate speech’ targets 2nd Amendment supporters

Television host insults guest while he explains right to self-defense


Published: 16 hours ago


author-image by Michael Carl Email | Archive


rss feed Subscribe to feed


Michael Carl is a veteran journalist with overseas military experience and experience as a political consultant. He also has two Master’s Degrees, is a bi-vocational pastor and lives with his family in the Northeast United States.

“If this hate speech leads to hate crimes, people like Piers Morgan and Chris Matthews will be partly responsible.”

That’s the word from Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb on the issue of the vitriol that is being directed both at gun owners and firearms rights organizations in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting tragedy.

Gottlieb said the hostile tone against gun owners may lead to actual “hate crimes,” and some of the communications that have come into his office have been “vulgar.”

“We have received some vulgar e-mails from people that want us to vanish for the sake of a civilized world,” Gottlieb said. “This kind of rhetoric does not contribute to any rational discussion.”

He said the level of dialogue is only heightening a violent atmosphere.

“Vitriol like this only promotes hate, but apparently it’s OK to perpetuate bigotry so long as you are an anti-gunner, and a liberal. If anyone is harmed as a result of this hate campaign, we expect them to be prosecuted under the hate crimes laws,” Gottlieb said.

The Examiner reported Texas Democratic Party leader John Cobaruvvias tweeted that NRA supporters should be shot.

“Can we now shoot the NRA and everyone who defends them?” he asked.

Cobaruvvias is not the only one to post an angry tweet. From a Democratic Party Twitter feed came “Murder every NRA member” and another too vile and violent to reproduce here.

Ironically, the NRA reports that in the days following the Connecticut school shootings, the gun group gained membership. One report said that the NRA has gained 8,000 new members each day since the Connecticut shootings.

But the rhetoric on television and in columns has been strident.

One of the clearest examples of the tone in the dialogue is the exchange between Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt and CNN host Piers Morgan.

In the interview Pratt said, “I think we need to ban gun control laws that keep people from being able to protect themselves. The problem is not going to go away if we ban this or that gun. We’ve tried that. That doesn’t work. Doesn’t even work in England. You have mass murders there all over Europe. There have been mass murderers.”

The dialogue:

Morgan: “You’re talking complete and utter – you are talking complete and utter nonsense. ”

Pratt: “The solution is for people to be able to defend themselves at the point of the crime and not wait for 20 minutes for the police to come after everybody is dead.”

Morgan: “What you’ve just said, Mr. Pratt, was an absolute lie. The gun murder rate in countries like Britain or Germany or Australia, who’ve all suffered massacres many years ago, similar nature, have – there are 35 people killed a year. Your country has 12,000.”

Pratt: “Your murder rate has – your murder rate is lower than ours, that is true. Your violent – ”

Morgan: “Lower? It’s 75 against 12,000 in Australia. ”

Pratt: “Your violent crime rate – ”

Morgan: “They had a massacre. And they got rid of these assault weapons.”

Pratt: “Your violent crime rate is higher than ours as is the violent crime rate in Australia. America is not the Wild West that you are depicting. We only have the problem in our cities, and unhappily, in our schools where people like you have been able to get laws put on the books that keep people from being able to defend themselves.

“I honestly don’t understand why you would rather have people be victims of a crime than be able to defend themselves. It’s incomprehensible. ”

Morgan: “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?”

Pratt: “It seems to me that you’re morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. And I don’t know why you want to be the criminal’s friend. ”

Morgan: “What a ridiculous argument. You have absolutely no coherent argument whatsoever. You don’t – you don’t actually give – ”

Pratt: “You have no – ”

Morgan: You don’t give a d—, do you, about the gun murder rate in America? You don’t actually care. All you care about – ”

See the exchange:

Salon editor Jacob Sugarman contributed to the tone by his report on Pratt’s interview with Chris Matthews. Sugarman compared Pratt to a snake in his article.

“The reptilian executive director of Gun Owners of America, last seen telling gun control advocates that ‘they have the blood of little children on their hands,’ argued that we are less free without automatic rifles and need to stay prepared,” Sugarman wrote, inserting the quote from Pratt.

“Does this mean that the Gun Owners of America’s 300,000 members are preparing to revolt?” Sugarman also wrote.

Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Communications Director Dave Workman says the current atmosphere isn’t helping the situation and that his group wants to open a real dialogue.

“We want to really study the issue of what causes violence in America. We want to examine the issue of mental health in America and take a hard look at violent video games and television shows,” Workman said.

Workman says his group’s interest is to bring the discussion back to the factors that really cause violence.

SAF President Joseph Tartaro said focusing on guns alone “to the exclusion of possible other causative factors is doomed to failure.”





December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


December 20, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Steven Crowder Releases Unedited Union Assault Footage

(Content Warning: Extreme Language)

This is further documentation of the violent acts committed against Conservative Writer Stephen Crowder on behalf of union members in Lansing, MI. A police report has been filed.

Several points
1. The media has been complicit in supporting the unions violating the 1st amendment, by intimidating/assaulting those practicing free speech.
2. Lansing was an overwhelmingly violent/disruptive protest. Period.
3. The mainstream media has LIED in an attempt to slander me as a fight-starter. This video removes any and all doubt, making those who accused the accuser, look very stupid and dishonest.

Read more:

December 21, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, Videos | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment



Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to State Militias? Liberals Are Making the Case — But We Look at the Evidence

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Whenever the subject of gun control comes up, supporters of the practice (generally of the liberal persuasion) inevitably run up against one major roadblock to pushing sweeping laws — specifically, the United States constitution, and its second amendment, which protects a sweeping right to keep and bear arms.

Thus, experts have read the amendment in a way that hasn’t banned the ownership of weapons altogether. This reading has only been strengthened by recent Supreme Court cases such as District of Columbia vs. Heller, and McDonald vs. Chicago, which have codified the right to keep and bear arms as being as important as other rights such as the right to free speech.

Undoubtedly, this is frustrating to many opponents of gun rights, since even in moments of widely felt national tragedy like the present moment, their agenda requires a constitutional justification as well as a political one – a fact that puts them at a permanent disadvantage relative to gun rights supporters.

Which is why opponents of gun rights have seized on a well-worn constitutional argument in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. That argument – an old chestnut of the anti-gun community – is that the second amendment doesn’t actually grant every American a right to keep and bear arms, and is in fact obsolete because it only applies to members of state militias. This argument focuses on what legal scholars call the prefatory clause of the second amendment, bolded below for emphasis:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So since the amendment itself mentions the maintenance of “well regulated” militias as the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, the argument goes, gun control is perfectly permissible so long as it only targets private citizens and not state militias. In fact, the liberal Daily Beast published an article on Tuesday making this exact argument.

The Argument for “Militia-Only” Gun Ownership

So well-worn is this argument that Justice John Paul Stevens used it in his dissent in District of Columbia vs. Heller ​(emphasis added):

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

As did Justice Stephen Breyer in the same case (emphasis added):

 The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

Of these two Justices, Breyer remains on the court, and would presumably be all too happy to resurrect this argument to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. So at the level of legal strategy, it is easy to see where this argument – that the Second Amendment is much narrower in scope than a generalized right to bear arms – might be appealing.

Liberals Say Second Amendment, Right to Keep and Bear Arms Only Applies to Militias, Supreme Court Disagrees

Illinois gun owners and supporters file out NRA applications while participating in an Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day convention before marching to the Illinois State Capitol Wednesday, March 7, 2012 in Springfield, Ill. Credit: AP

The Argument Against the Liberal Interpretation

But does this interpretation actually follow from the text? Certainly, the majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, does not find this reasoning persuasive (emphasis added):

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

Scalia’s reasoning is fairly easy to understand. That is, simply saying why a right is necessary to protect before claiming that it is a right does not obviate the existence of the right once that reason ceases to be in effect.

For instance, one can imagine the founders drafting the First Amendment’s protection of “freedom of the press” in order to protect the distribution of anonymously authored pamphlets, or to allow people to use privately purchased printing presses. Yet if the first amendment were phrased, “A robust distribution of political pamphlets being necessary to the maintenance of a free society, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would anyone seriously argue that such a right would not cover laser printing or online news organizations? Certainly, Justice Scalia (who has found that the first amendment covers things the founders never could have imagined, such as video games) would not accept such an interpretation.

Yet still, legal scholars argue over the meaning of the text. Christiane Amanpour’s show on CNN featured a segment recently on this very topic:

The Context

So what’s the reality of the argument?

The answer  varies depending on whether one is talking about historical or legal reality. Historically, the question of what the Second Amendment is supposed to mean is almost certainly never going to be solved, because conflicting sources exist on both sides of the issue, and conflicting interpretations of those sources have already proliferated. The reason for this is partially that the gulf between militias and ordinary people was not nearly so large in 1790 as it is now, and partially because arguably the most obvious original purpose of the Second Amendment (giving citizens the means to resist the government by force) would be impossible to fulfill without extending gun rights far beyond what even their most friendly supporters would allow. In short, like the homemade printing press example above, the reasons the amendment was originally ratified are difficult to translate to a modern context.

However, in terms of the present legal regime, the answer to how the Second Amendment is likely to be interpreted for the foreseeable future is fairly easy to answer.

Legal Reality

For now, at least, the legal reality regarding the Second Amendment is that it does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms of some kind to individual citizens. Barring a massive shift in power on the court, this is unlikely to change, as five of the sitting justices voted to hold that the right exists and protects citizens against both state and federal law in the two cases cited above.

Moreover, even cases that the majority of justice disagree with are not always changed after the fact, given the varying attitudes of various jurists towards the importance of upholding precedent. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is a fixed reality of the American legal and constitutional landscape.

However, in practice, this tells us very little about how far that right extends, which is where the current (and future) legal debate is likely to focus. A right to own a handgun is one thing, after all, but what about the right to own rocket launchers? Miniguns? Anti-tank ordinance? An actual, physical tank? Are all of these things protected by the right to keep and bear arms? They are, after all, arms.

Fortunately for those worrying about their neighbors acquiring weapons grade helicopters, even the most stringent supporters of gun rights admit that the law allows for limits on what sort of weapons are protected, or on how those weapons might be obtained. For his part, Scalia would limit the amendment solely to weapons that can be carried by an individual human being, knocking such armaments as tanks and missiles out of contention, and admitted in the majority decision in Heller that regulations such as background checks and concealed carry permits almost certainly pass constitutional muster (emphasis added):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

This leaves gun control advocates with some degree of leeway legally in terms of what they can do to control access to weapons. For instance, it is possible to interpret that the Constitution permits bans on certain types of magazines, and given that the court has declined to invalidate a previous assault weapons ban, this too would be possible.

Is There a Bigger Issue Than Guns?

What is less clear is whether these policies would have the desire effect of stopping incidents like Sandy Hook from happening. The Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle has already written a lengthy post explaining why this is almost certainly not the case (emphasis added):

You can, to be sure, name one or two things that might make a marginal difference: ban extended-capacity magazines, and require background checks for private sales.  As a proponent of reasonable gun control that in some ways goes farther than current rules (I’d like to require that people pass a shooting and gun safety test before they can own a gun), these rules don’t strike me as crazy.

But we are back to generic solutions. These “reasonable controls” would not, in fact, have done much to stop the horror at Newtown; Lanza’s problem was not that he didn’t know the four rules of gun safety, or that his aim was bad. And Lanza didn’t buy the guns, so a background check would not have stopped him.

Could we go bigger?  Should we ban the relatives of anxious sad sacks from buying guns?  How about family friends? (Michael Carneal broke into a friend’s house while they were away for Thanksgiving and stole the guns he used to shoot up his Kentucky school.)  The question answers itself; the kind of all-knowing surveillance regime that this would require would be both impossible, and intolerable.

Reducing the magazine sizes seems modesly more promising, but only modestly. It takes a few minutes of practicing to learn how to change a magzine in a few seconds.  Even if you banned magazines, forcing people to load the gun itself, people could just carry more guns; spree shooters seem to show up, as Lanza did, with more guns and ammunition than they actually need.  In this specific case, it might well not have helped at all. Would Lanza really have been gang-rushed by fast-thinking primary school students if he stopped to reload?

Indeed, McArdle concludes, the only policy that would absolutely stop this sort of thing would be to ban all guns, categorically. And that is both politically and constitutionally impossible, and in all likelihood will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, it is not clear that guns are the issue so much as mental health is. In writing this article, we reached out to the National Rifle Association for comment, and while they declined, they did suggest David Kopel of the University of Denver as a source to talk over the constitutional niceties of this question. Dr. Kopel did not respond to a request for comment, but as it happens, he did publish a Wall Street Journal op ed on this topic recently, which we excerpt below (emphasis added):

 Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend “gun-free zones,” such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch’s study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.[…]

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.

So while the law may permit many different remedies that involve the restriction of access to guns (while staying well shy of the “Second Amendment is inoperable because of militias” theory), these remedies may not be the correct ones, according to some critics. As to what remedies would be correct, that is a topic more thorny than even the question of the original meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore possibly beyond the powers of even the most brilliant court to solve.

December 19, 2012 Posted by | Home, Must See, The United States of America Constitution, Videos | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...


Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution


Smile! You’re at the best site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart


Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: