Senate security committee releases Benghazi report – review board report reviewed here

The U.S. Senate homeland security committee has released its report on Benghazi. You can read it here –

It differs little from the report released earlier by the State Dept. Accountability Review Board (ARB) report. You can read it here –

Both reports conclude the U.S. State Dept. was at fault for failing to respond to mounting security threats. Both reports also conclude that the intelligence community didn’t provide specific “actionable” intelligence prior to the attacks. In contrast, Libyan interim President Mohammed el-Megarif contends his government passed on information regarding a “credible threat” 48 hours prior to the attacks –

The Senate report findings include these seemingly contradictory claims. First it lists this finding.

Finding 3. 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.

Then within the same finding it states this based upon a 1985 committee report finding included in the Inman Report.

it would be foolhardy to make security decisions on the basis of an expectation of advance warning of peril

Lets see if we can keep up with their logic to this point. Both reports cite numerous accounts of security incidents and threats in the months leading up to the attacks. Both reports cite no specific or actionable intelligence immediately prior to the attacks. Then the Senate report finds that an absence of that specific intelligence shouldn’t have prevented the implementation of more security. Then immediately thereafter the report states “it would be foolhardy to make security decisions on the basis of an expectation of advance warning of peril”.

Got that? Lots of previous security threats none of which are specific which aren’t required to increase security but would be foolhardy to rely upon to increase security. If that’s not a clear example of clear as mud, I don’t know what is. That’s your taxpayer dollars at work for you folks.

The Senate report goes on in finding 4 to cite the responsibility of the host nation to protect “consular” (key word) facilities and quotes the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Yet, both reports highlight that this was no diplomatic facility. It was a U.S. special mission, or mission, and an annex used by another government agency (read CIA). Why should the host country be required to protect a non-diplomatic facility? Of course when you’re conducting a covert, multi-agency operation in overseas facilities, you shouldn’t expect highly visible host country security, should you? No, that’s why you employ contract security such as the “February 17 Brigade, a Libyan militia deputized by the Libyan government but not under its direct control” as the report stated previously.

The report goes on to detail the reasons why the February 17 Brigade was utilized and the concerns surrounding their abilities throughout 2012. This is where reports such as this are less than useless. The attempt is made to show a pattern of security concerns and the lack of action taken in response to said concerns to mitigate the blame for the administration taking action once the attacks commenced. The reports can’t address the nature of these non-diplomatic missions because it’s classified. Security wasn’t increased because it would draw attention where none was wanted. So blaming the State Dept. or the host country is like blaming the dog for eating your homework after you used it to wrap your leftover steak.

The rest of the report is merely protocol reviews and recommendations for reviewing security at other locations globally. Again, a waste of time and your taxpayer dollars because none of that applies to covert ops as this was.

It does address the botched media narrative of not labeling a terrorist attack as such in finding 9 claiming the administration was “inconsistent”. Really? There was nothing inconsistent whatsoever. The administration was nothing but consistent in distributing its talking points to ensure this event was not labeled a terrorist action. It was only after the video cover-up story imploded and third-party accounts finally pressured administration officials to abandon the non-terrorist labeling.

Here is part of the conclusion.

Conclusion The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans at the hands of terrorists is a tragic reminder that the fight our country is engaged in with Islamist extremists and terrorists is not over. U.S. and Western diplomats, and other personnel operating in the Middle East and other countries where these terrorists use violence to further their extremist agenda and thwart democratic reforms are increasingly at risk.

How many ways can I say “bullshit”? When you engage in arms trafficking to Al-Qaeda as well as regime destabilization as in Syria, you’re playing a dangerous game. The tragedy of the deaths of 4 Americans needlessly is blood on the hands of this administration pure and simple.

The truth behind Benghazi will blow you away!

Despite Congressional hearings, review board reports and much speculation from the pundits, no one yet has been able to answer the biggest question of all concerning Benghazi. Why was Stevens targeted? The focus remains on who knew what and when concerning the timeline and cover-up. Those are merely political angles. Not that they aren’t important when you have potential treason as well as 2016 Presidential race implications. However, we need the same commitment to uncover why Stevens was targeted and why he was allowed to die with three other Americans. I believe I have the answer and you won’t find it anywhere else but here.

We need to go back to Oct. 23, 2011. That is the day the National Transition Council declared the liberation of Libya after Muammar Gaddafi had been captured and killed three days earlier. The following months created  tremendous chaos in security in Libya in which the huge weapons stockpiles acquired by Gaddafi were subsequently transferred out of Libya.

Move forward just a few weeks later to November, 2011. That’s when Ambassador Chris Stevens established the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. Officially, we are told the purpose of the special mission was to bolster the democratic transition in eastern Libya. The Accountability Review Board report made no attempt to investigate the true purpose of the special mission, rather it focused on the inadequate security throughout the timeline.

Let’s step back for a moment to Oct. 24th, 2011. On that night, the Yarmouk Industrial Complex in Sudan was bombed. Much of the complex was destroyed including an ammunition plant and approx. 40 shipping containers. Israel was identified as most likely responsible. The Yarmouk complex was where the WMD’s of Saddam Hussein were alleged to have been stored and in recent years Iran has been utilizing it to transfer arms to Hamas in Gaza via Egyptian tunnels. The loss of the stockpiles at Yarmouk was substantial and the newfound Libyan supply helped to fill that void.

Ibrahim Menai is the Bedouin leader of the Swarke tribe in Egypt and owns the majority of the smuggling tunnels used to supply arms to Gaza via the Sinai Peninsula. He gave an interview to CNN Nov. 19, 2012 and made this statement.

 “Weapons that are smuggled to Gaza come mostly from Sudan and recently from Libya during the security vacuum that followed the revolution in Egypt.”

Let’s go backward again to February of 2012. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave an interview to CBS reporter Wyatt Andrews. She said this concerning arming the Syrian rebels.

“First of all, as I just said, what are we going to arm them with, and against what? You’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. That’s not going to happen.

So maybe at the best, you can smuggle in automatic weapons, maybe some other weapons that you could get in. To whom, where do you go? You can’t get into Homs. Where do you go? And to whom are you delivering them? We know al-Qaida. Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaida in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?”

The Secretary of State does not openly wonder if our arms transfers intended for Syria are ending up with Hamas. She would know. So far we have Gaddafi overthrown in Libya and his weapons caches exposed. Within weeks, the U.S. establishes its “Special Mission” in Benghazi headed by Amb. Stevens. Stevens was a known Islamist sympathizer. He was admired by the Palestinians and also coveted the non-existent role of Ambassador to Iran. Stevens was alleged to have been the coordinator of shipping both arms and Jihadist recruits to Syria.

You’re probably seeing where I’m going with this by now. Stevens was coordinating arms to Hamas. That was a red line for Israel. Sept. 6, 2012, just five days prior to the Benghazi attacks, a Libyan flagged ship named Al Entisar docked in a Turkish port just 35 miles from the Syrian border. It carried a massive shipment of Libyan arms headed for the Syrian rebels. It was Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin that Stevens met with on 9/11 just hours before the attacks commenced. Reports have centered on the idea that the meeting with the Turk Diplomat was to discuss stopping Libyan arms shipped via Turkey to Syria from ending up in the hands of Libyan extremists as reported by Fox. I contend the opposite. Both Stevens and Turkey favor Hamas.

Bear with me. We need to cover some ground before we can tie it all together. We know the special mission was never a consulate and that the CIA operated an annex just a short way from the special mission. Speculation has been that the CIA held and interrogated prisoners there. This explains the low-profile mission and related security denials to keep it so. From the Fox report.

A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan  militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was  being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and  annex that night.

According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there  were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA  contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners  from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this  location.

The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks  prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners,  according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks  earlier.

The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has  not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was  issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is  uninformed and baseless.”

I addressed the CIA denial of detention authority in this post. They did have it under an exemption in the President’s executive order. You now have a motive for the attack. You also have an explanation for the lax security. The video cover-up was purely for political purposes. The question of why Obama would let four Americans die has yet to be answered. First I have to include another question.

Why did Obama spend an hour talking to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, a man Obama despises from a country he refuses to visit due to ideological differences, during the Benghazi attacks? What was so important that the call couldn’t be rescheduled so Obama could focus on the attacks in the situation room with the live drone feed provided? The answer to that is why all of this must be covered up at all costs.

We have a lengthy record of additional security request denials. We had intel 48 hours prior that the attacks would take place. There was a dry run attack on June 6th. The Red Cross had recently been attacked close by. The British Consulate motorcade was attacked forcing the Brits to close their Consulate. Lots and lots of prior warnings, part of 230 security incidents in Libya with 48 in Benghazi alone. The CIA had already moved the prisoners out in preparation (do you wonder why no one is allowed to conduct an interview with the 30+ survivors in a German hospital?). Yet we allowed the attacks to go forward and 4 Americans died. That doesn’t happen by accident.

I believe Stevens was coordinating both arms and fighters to Syria and Hamas with the full knowledge of the White House. Israel is the sworn enemy of Hamas and it’s no secret our President is pro-Islam and supports the reshaping of the Middle East at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the President has signed off on $900 million in aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip as part of an overall $5.2 billion dollar international aid package. To suppose that you can separate Gaza from Hamas is ludicrous. Hamas has been at the center of a bidding war for control of Gaza between Iran and a coalition of players including the U.S. and Qatar. Hamas is no longer Damascus based and the Iran-Hamas-Hezbollah alliance isn’t what it was. Hamas is more than happy to whore itself out to the highest bidder as it plays both sides.

It only makes sense. The U.S. now has the richest Middle Eastern states helping to lure Hamas away from Iran. However, Iran still supplies the bulk of its arms so reallocating Libyan heavy arms to Hamas to further strengthen its position against Iran was a no-brainer particularly with the weapons already in the region. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, would have become aware of the U.S. covertly arming Hamas (and possibly Hezbollah or other factions of Al-Qaeda). That was not acceptable. So what happened?

Obama knew the attack was coming. He also knew that Israel was aware of arming Hamas. He, or his advisors, calculated that they could finger Stevens as having gone rogue on arming Hamas (his record backs it up) and thus the lack of response during the attacks. I would bet that Obama was on the phone with Bibi giving him a play-by-play via drone feed that he wasn’t going to stand for Steven’s treasonist activities and he let him die to get off the hook with Israel.

Very damning assertions to be sure. But it explains all facets of Benghazi. Why it happened, why we allowed it to happen, the Turkish connection, the Israeli connection, the video cover up, the survivor stonewalling, and the cover up at all costs approach the administration is conducting still today. The fall guy list is ever-expanding. CIA Director David Petraeus, AFRICOM Gen. Carter Ham, 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, 3 State Dept. members. Whatever it takes to keep a lid on this. The strong likelihood exists that the U.S. has funneled arms to Al-Qaeda as well as Hamas. They may have been used against Israel as well as against us in Benghazi.

There are also assertions that leftover WMD’s from Gaddafi, such as mustard gas, were moved from Libya to Syria by the CIA. Was Stevens involved here as well? Could the WMD’s also have been transferred to Hamas? Remember the cryptic message given by Paula Broadwell’s father about something much bigger?

There really should be no real surprises here. The CIA has been conducting covert ops forever and destabilizing regimes is everyday business. Those with ties to Islamist extremists fully support the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region and like it or not, that includes Obama and Stevens. Obama is the POTUS and recognizes he must maintain an outward support for Israel so Stevens became a victim of circumstances.

Conviction for treason is very difficult and highly unlikely in the case of Benghazi. All the players are being systematically shut down. Barring some new revelation, Benghazi will likely end up in the dust bin of history as just another scandal without justice. History will also show the true ambitions of a treasonous President whose ideology and core commitment to Islam are now official U.S. foreign policy, which this blogger renewed recently.

So there you have it. President Obama let 4 Americans die to cover his tracks of transferring arms and soldiers to Al-Qaeda and Hamas and get him off the hook with Israel. Let’s not forget that Obama could have easily chosen the path of hero and moved assets in to save the 4 Americans. He still would have destroyed the evidence at the 2 Benghazi locations, he could have still run the video cover-up narrative, and we would have an entirely different outcome. Why not? He needed a sacrificial lamb for Israel so Stevens had to die.

There are many other theories out there as to what really happened in Benghazi, however, I don’t think you’ll find another one that answers every question, including the Israeli and Turkish angles. We’ll let history decide.

Seasons Greetings and a glimpse at the inner workings at the North Pole

It’s been a well-guarded secret that we here at Spellchek are the official spell checkers for Santa and his sometimes illegible wish lists he gets annually. No small feat when you consider the tally has now exceeded 7 billion worldwide seeking rewards for being good all year. So I thought I’d give you a glimpse of what we’re up against in deciphering these lists. For example, here’s one from Steve at Motor City Times.

Dear Santa,

I’ve been really, really, really good this year. Could you please send me a Vette for Christmas this year? Thanks in advance.


Without Spellchek running interference, Steve would have received this gift.


Thanks to Spellchek, Steve will instead be receiving this gift.


Here’s another. Everyone’s favorite Robot at Mind Numbed Robot had a little glitch in his list.

Dear Santa,

I’ve been awesome again this year Santa. Please send mucho lube. Thanxx.


Based on that, the Robot was going to get this.


More appropriately, the Robot will be receiving a case of this instead.


As you can see, we provide an invaluable service to Santa in making sure that everyone gets what they really want for Christmas. With that in mind, we’d like to wish all a very Merry Christmas!  To those who have linked or commented on Spellchek, a hearty thanks to all. In particular, thanks to the following.

To Jim at Conservatives on Fire,

To Larry at Political Realities,

To John at Sentry Journal,

To Matt at Conservative Hideout,

To Mike at The Classic Liberal,

To Chris at WyBlog,

To Mike at That Mr. G Guy,

To Doug at Doug Ross Journal,

To Doug at The Daley Gator,

To Phillip at Texas Conservative News,

To Linda at No one of any import,

We’d especially like to wish a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah and say thanks for contributing to Spellchek.

p.s. No guarantees on the gifts, I’m just the spell checker. Talk to Santa.

Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) report analysis

Here is a link to the entire report of the State Dept. role in the Benghazi attacks –

As a public service, I will save you the time of reading through the report and summarize it here with this statement.


There you go. Nothing much worth reading as it says nothing more than we could have done better, sorry dead guys. I suppose it does confirm what many of us have been saying for months, that the Benghazi facility was not and never was a Consulate, it was a U.S. Special Mission Compound (SMC). Of course, the report doesn’t delve into just what that ‘special mission’ was most likely because fronts for arms trafficking don’t go over so well.

So there you go. Today we saw the fall guys resign and the next Democrat Presidential nominee, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, walks away scot-free with no messy stains to deal with in the 2016 campaign.

Limiting gun clip sizes to stop mass shootings is a typical misguided government solution

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is leading the charge to get the 1990’s assault weapons ban revised and reinstituted in response to the Newtown, CT school shootings. Via the Huffington Post.

“Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?” Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. “These weapons are not for hunting deer — they’re for hunting people.”

On Sunday Feinstein laid out details of the bill.

“It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively,” and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. “The purpose of this bill is to get… weapons of war off the streets.”

This is pure symbolism designed to make the public feel as if the government is doing ‘something’ and keeping them safe. Similar to the creation of the TSA which was never designed with real security in mind, only to give the appearance of security so people would keep flying. It was an economic policy, nothing more.

Banning assault weapons is the same ludicrous logic, particularly concerning limits on clip sizes. Think that limiting a clip to ten bullets will slow down a madman? Watch this video clip.

This fact is not lost on the anti-gun crowd. They realize that the path to banning all privately owned guns requires steps and this is just one of them. When future mass shootings still occur even after a new assault weapons ban is implemented, we’ll then move another step toward an outright ban on sales.

Should we ban schools to prevent another Sandy Hill? Home schooling for all?

The public knows very, very little official information surrounding the Sandy Hill school shootings in Connecticut. Outside of the names and ages of the deceased, most of what we hear is just speculation and accordingly the story seems to change by the hour. However, there are some things we can comment on such as the reactions of people.

We know that those who call for gun control measures aren’t even serious about a solution. These are ‘feel good’ solutions for those who believe we must do something, that even an ineffective measure is better than doing nothing. That’s not true. An ineffective measure that infringes upon my right to protect myself and my family is worse than doing nothing.

There are various efforts underway to ban assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and enact ever stricter gun control laws across the country. These are steps designed to minimize the casualty count, not anything to address the core issue and prevent an attack from ever occurring.

The fact is this. If you are serious about preventing the use of firearms in a crime, you must not only ban the sale of any and all firearms, you must also confiscate all privately owned firearms across the country as well as securing our borders to insure none can be transported in. Are you in the anti-gun crowd also willing to secure the borders? Any measure short of this is merely symbolic. Background checks, registering ammo, trigger locks, gun safes, gun free zones, or limits on types or amounts of guns or ammo are all window dressing. Regulating the manner in which legal gun owners obtain or use their weapons is nothing more than punitive. Criminals pay no regard to the laws that affect lawful gun owners.

Unless the country is willing to undertake a civil war in which you can find enough members of law enforcement willing to go door-to-door and shoot their fellow Americans who will refuse to give up their guns willingly, gun control is futile. I suspect that most in the hard-core anti-gun crowd would not also be willing to undertake border security. After all, if you can’t ensure that ANY weapons ever enter the country and end up in the hands of criminals, what is the point?

The contention from the anti-gun crowd is that limiting accessibility will prevent otherwise lawful people from the temptation to use them in a panic or out of character situation. That is the Bob Costas argument in the case of the NFL player who recently killed his girlfriend and then himself. Would he have used some other potential weapon like a baseball bat to accomplish the same result? We’ll never know. Would he have then killed himself if he didn’t have a gun? If one’s mindset is to take your own life, driving your car into a brick wall would suffice, wouldn’t it? Detractors will say if he didn’t have easy access to a weapon in that moment of panic, he likely would have chosen a different course even just moments later. Maybe, maybe not.

Which gets to the core issue. Gun violence is a result of a mindset. There are many factors that go into that mindset. Society, culture, parental upbringing, values, morals, ethics, surroundings, etc. establish the mindset. A propensity for violence must exist even if that person hasn’t outwardly acted upon it. That’s why we can see people who don’t fit the profile suddenly snap much to the shock of their closet family and friends who will tell you they have never exhibited that type of behavior before.

Banning guns certainly isn’t about safety and saving the lives of innocent children. If true, we would have no cars for fear of drunks getting behind the wheel. Why not prohibition instead? Why allow cigarette production? In fact, wouldn’t banning schools solve the problem? Home schooling for all. Problem solved! If it’s really the children we’re trying to protect, why not ban skateboards and trampolines and any other device you can think of not necessary to life that could potentially cause harm?

Why do we allow people to rebuild their homes in flood prone areas? In tornado alley? Why isn’t little league football banned yet because of the concussion problems? How far should we go in protecting ourselves from ourselves? Sound ridiculous? Should we ban the name Sandy since it’s common with the school shootings and the hurricane this year? Now that’s ridiculous. But so are advertised gun-free zones which only serve to comfort the criminal by providing the satisfaction that they will not face any resistance in conducting their criminal act in places like schools and malls and movie theaters and other places of large gatherings of defenseless people.

Is there a one size fits all solution for preventing violence? Of course not, we’re imperfect humans. By focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, we’ll never successfully minimize violence to everyone’s satisfaction. Wouldn’t it seem logical that the place to start is the family unit? Where children have their morals and values instilled upon them by their parents? Which leads to the larger issue of the breakdown in society of family values. And the sanctity of marriage. And not relying upon the public school system to raise our children. Yes, the types of arguments that drive you progressives out there nuts. It’s taken a village to get us to this point. It will take just two people at a time to undo it. The parents.

The most politically incorrect message ever?

For those with nothing but time on their hands, a hidden message exists somewhere amongst the 228,810 words in this post. Good luck finding it!

UPDATED 12/13/12 – We have a winner! The Mind Numbed Robot is our Grand Prize winner for being the first to locate the hidden message. Congratulations Robot!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Continue reading “The most politically incorrect message ever?”

Are the progressives the greatest threat to liberty in America?

I was going to write a post on multiculturalism creep and the way it is following the path the progressives have taken over the last century (certainly pays to study your history when drafting a plan of action). While researching, I came across this recent interview in the Catholic World Report that summed up the religious aspect perfectly so I’ll just refer you to it. Please read it all. It really is deja vu all over again and if we learned any lessons from allowing the progressives to so thoroughly infiltrate our society, it should be easy to recognize when it is happening again with Islam.

I am not a Catholic myself, but as the interview illustrates, the threat is to all that don’t subscribe to the teachings of Islam. Here’s a quote from the interview.

One thing that the West doesn’t grasp is that Islam is a political religion with political ambitions. Omar Ahmad, the co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, has said that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith but to be dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

We are becoming keenly aware these days of just how much progress the progressives have achieved in remodeling our society. We are currently occupied with how to reverse this, and rightly so, but we shouldn’t be so pre-occupied with the progressives so as to not notice an even more sinister long-term movement underway to subjugate America to Sharia Law. Expect to be denigrated in a similar fashion as the progressives have done to their detractors if you attempt to expose the true agenda of Islam.