Tea Party Christianists vs. Tea Party Islamists

Obama Islam extremist advisor Mohamed Elibiary, a former DHS Advisory Council member, has once again shot off his Twitter finger to blame Christians for what ails us. Elibiary is somewhat infamous for calling on America to support the inevitable Caliphate.

Actually, that’s mischaracterizing a bit. Elibiary doesn’t blame Christianity, he blames the leftist created Christianists. What is a Christianist?

“So let me suggest,” Sullivan pontificates in Time, “that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian andChristianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque.”

This time around, Elibiary is touting the Christianist culture wars as PJ Media breaks down nicely with a greatest hits collection of prior Elibiary rants – http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/28/homeland-security-adviser-mohamed-elibiary-goes-on-hate-filled-anti-christian-rant-attacks-jindal-as-bottom-feeder/

More on who Mohamed Elibiary is – http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/06/19/hold-for-gorka-who-is-mohamed-elibiary/

So what is the takeaway according to Elibiary? If you are a Christian and are so bold as to even have an opinion on politics, you have crossed over to the dark side and become a Christianist. Equated to an Islamist. Assuming that to mean where radical Islamist extremist terrorists originate.

Perhaps the White House Press Secretary should call on Elibiary to help clarify just what a terrorist group is defined as since the Taliban don’t qualify under current Obama-Merriam-Webster definitions. Maybe he would call them Tea Party Islamists? There you go. I’ve now created a new moniker of my own. Perhaps I’ll now be in line for an Administration Advisory Council position.

Global warming science settled – just ask the forecasters who blew the forecast in the Northeast

H/T – http://refreshingnews99.blogspot.in/2015/01/new-cartoon-perfectly-illustrates-why.html

The White House tells us the Taliban are just warm and fuzzy teddy bears

Why is it so important for the White House to avoid calling the Taliban terrorists? Is it the because the CIA helped to create them? Is it to mince words and be able to call the Obama Administration decision to formally end combat in Afghanistan a success?

There are many articles written on the Taliban. Here’s one that does a good job discussing the history of the Taliban – http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/367.

How about that? It’s from a leftist organization to boot. Apparently no one told them they can’t tie-in Islam with terrorism.

The Taliban is a far-right, strict Islamic militant organization that emerged in the early- to mid-1990s under the spiritual leadership of Mullah Mohammad Omar.

They also weren’t told that the Taliban aren’t even a group, merely an insurgency.

On Wednesday, ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl asked deputy press secretary Eric Schultz whether Jordan’s announcement it would deal with ISIS to win freedom for a captured pilot was analogous to the U.S. trading five Taliban members for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Schultz responded: “As you know, this was highly discussed at the time and prisoner swaps are a traditional end-of-conflict interaction that happens. As the war in Afghanistan wound down, we felt like it was the appropriate thing to do. The president’s bedrock commitment as commander in chief is to leave no man or woman behind. That’s the principle he was operating under.”

Karl noted that like ISIS, the Taliban continue to carry out terrorist attacks, so “you can’t really say the war has ended as far as they’re concerned.”

Schultz, however, suggested that Karl had overlooked an important distinction. “I would also point out that the Taliban is an armed insurgency,” he stated, the Free Beacon reports, while ISIS “is a terrorist group. So, we don’t make concessions to terrorist groups.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/white-house-word-games-terror/2015/01/29/id/621586/#ixzz3QIMLBpvX
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

So, insurgency good, group bad? The White House has played word games since day one, as all Administrations do, but this one really has taken it to a new level.

No surprises here. Obama was well aware that the Taliban would resume their role as the majority influence in Afghanistan after our ‘official’ pullout. They will once again in essence be a state. Call them terrorists and you then have state sponsored terrorism. That means no negotiations or recognition.

Why is this a problem? One of the primary reasons we occupied Afghanistan for over a decade was to lay the groundwork for natural resource development and distribution through the region. Shut out the Taliban and we cut ourselves off from access and control. Do that and the military-industrial-corporate complex can’t benefit and that’s a big no-no in beltway politics.

People still ask all the time why we were ever in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who benefitted from all the lost blood and treasure? The answer is the same people who stand to benefit going forward. The military-industrial-corporate complex. Some still hate that as a reason. Too simplistic. Doesn’t factor in so many other reasons. However, as the years go by and we look in the rearview mirror at the landscape littered with our conflicts that seemingly defy reason, it becomes clear that the almighty buck still is king.

A covert CIA op to arm Syria went awry? Which one, the they take credit for or the one still being covered up?

Covert CIA Mission to Arm Syrian Rebels Goes Awry – http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582?mod=e2fb

Really? Who would’ve guessed that?

All sides now agree that the U.S.’s effort to aid moderate fighters battling the Assad regime has gone badly.

Some Obama administration officials say the covert effort accomplished about as much as it could considering the chaotic circumstances in northern Syria and policy disagreements in Washington and elsewhere.

While the initial goal was to help moderate rebels fight the Assad regime, officials at the White House and CIA didn’t anticipate the rapid rise of Islamic State, which has upended rebel alliances and become the U.S.’s top priority in Syria.

This account of the CIA’s program is based on interviews with U.S., Turkish and Arab officials involved in the effort, as well as current and former trusted commanders. CIA officials have trained nearly 5,000 fighters in Syria, but the financial cost is classified and few details have been disclosed publicly.

The CIA program had a rocky start. President Barack Obama balked at the idea in 2012. Officials say he was concerned about a slippery slope that could lead the U.S. into another war. A CIA analysis delivered to the White House predicted the program would make little difference.

Mr. Obama gave the go-ahead in 2013 to proceed on a limited basis, partly in response to prodding from key Arab allies, former U.S. officials say.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers shared the administration’s ambivalence, with some warning they would hold the CIA responsible if guns fell into the wrong hands, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official. The warnings deepened the agency’s cautious approach.

Those are a few quotes from the article. If your head is spinning like mine after reading this, you may ask this question. Since the publicly announced, non-secretive, covert CIA weapons campaign to arm Syria hasn’t worked, why not go back to the unannounced, totally covert campaign they were running previously which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi?

You know, the one in which republicans and democrats alike are complicit in the knowledge and cover-up of the fake State Dept. Special Mission and secret CIA compound that ran weapons and fighters through Turkey to Syria? The same one that Trey Gowdy is now investigating which will never result in anything but political smear for the 2016 election?

Makes one wonder if this campaign was a designed failure. Perhaps to take the focus off any investigations into the real Benghazi story? At any rate, we certainly seem to have more success when we conduct illegal, covert ops with a full cover-up than when we do things transparently.

How free are you?

“O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?” According to the national anthem of the U.S., we are. But are we really? Well, we can set the baseline for comparison with ease. Nowhere in the world are you truly free. Nowhere can just do as you please, everyone else be damned. Even Dear Leader himself has limitations despite his best efforts. Lets take a look at how we stack up according to some interpretations.

When it comes to economic freedom, The Heritage Foundation says we rank 12th.

The United States does not rank among the Top 10 countries in the world for economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation’s 2015 Index of Economic Freedom.

Instead, the U..S. ranked only 12th–after Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Estonia, Ireland, Mauritius, and Denmark.

Estonia was formerly a part of the Soviet Union.

The Index rates economic freedom for countries on 10 quantitative and qualitative factors that are based on four pillars of freedom: rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency and open markets.

Freedom House does an annual ranking on a more generic basis. They claim we are one of 45% of the world’s free countries. This was the eighth straight year of overall declines.

The state of freedom declined for the eighth consecutive year in 2013, according to Freedom in the World 2014, Freedom House’s annual country-by-country report on global political rights and civil liberties.

Particularly notable were developments in Egypt, which endured across-the-board reversals in its democratic institutions following a military coup. There were also serious setbacks to democratic rights in other large, politically influential countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Venezuela, and Indonesia.

The Richest takes a look at debt realizing the implications on an economy and the drag on people’s standard of living. Turns out there are only 5 countries in the world that are debt free.

$53,008,208,452,765. In the madness of this much debt, how do you even begin to tackle such a giant. This is certainly a much bigger giant then David was up against. There is said to be between 189 and 196 independent countries worldwide. According to the United Nations right now there are currently 192 active members. So who’s been able to avoid this economic insanity of debt? Macao, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Liechtenstein and Palau.

The Fraser Institute is a leading Canadian think tank. They claim to examine the ‘characteristics of freedom’.

“Our intention is to measure the degree to which people are free to enjoy classic civil liberties-freedom of speech, religion, individual economic choice, and association and assembly-in each country surveyed. We also look at indicators of crime and violence, freedom of movement, legal discrimination against homosexuals, and women”s freedoms,” said Fred McMahon, Dr. Michael A. Walker Research Chair in Economic Freedom (Fraser Institute) and editor of Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom.

“The classical ideas of freedom from the time of the Enlightenment included economic freedom as essential to other freedoms, yet all the indexes available up to now either measure civil and political freedoms, often confusing what freedom actually is, or economic freedom alone. This is the first index that brings together these classic ideas of freedom in an intellectually consistent index.”

The initial freedom index ranks New Zealand as offering the highest level of human freedom worldwide, followed by the Netherlands then Hong Kong. Australia, Canada and Ireland tied for fourth spot, with the United States and Denmark tied for seventh, Japan and Estonia tied for ninth overall. The lowest-ranked countries are Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Syria.

How about measuring corruption? Transparency International ranks them.

Poorly equipped schools, counterfeit medicine and elections decided by money are just some of the consequences of public sector corruption. Bribes and backroom deals don’t just steal resources from the most vulnerable – they undermine justice and economic development, and destroy public trust in government and leaders.

Based on expert opinion from around the world, the Corruption Perceptions Index measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption worldwide, and it paints an alarming picture. Not one single country gets a perfect score and more than two-thirds score below 50, on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).

Corruption is a problem for all countries. A poor score is likely a sign of widespread bribery, lack of punishment for corruption and public institutions that don’t respond to citizens’ needs. Countries at the top of the index also need to act. Leading financial centres in the EU and US need to join with fast-growing economies to stop the corrupt from getting away with it. The G20 needs to prove its global leadership role and prevent money laundering and stop secret companies from masking corruption.

Denmark led the list (on the good side) followed by New Zealand, Finland, Sweden and Norway. The United States? 17th. The worst? Somalia and North Korea tied.

How about if there was a way in which you could rank freedom based upon what is important to you? Freeexistence.org has done that for you with their meta index called the Freedom Index. Simply plug in your own preferences – http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml

The fact is that freedom in its truest sense is not possible in the world we live in. We merely experience some fashion of it depending upon some set of protocols. Depending upon whether you’re a glass half-full or half-empty type dictates whether you call that a measure of freedom or serfdom.

Did farming curse civilization?

Who wouda thunk it? Here all along I thought it was the progressives that have done us in as a civilized society. Yet, after watching a History Channel story about the history of mankind, I now know it was the farmers that did us in. How is this possible you might ask? After all, don’t they feed the masses and allow this wonderful progression of humanity? Not so fast. Here is the story of mankind with some of my own observations as well thrown in for good measure.

Turns out once we discovered farming and evolved from hunter/gatherers, several things happened. It allowed our population to expand from mere millions to the overcrowded billions we now must accommodate. Since we had poor civil planners, this led to the overcrowded urban areas we now suffer with. An industrial revolution later and we end up with death by carbon emitters. Al Gore just told us so when he proposed $90 trillion in infrastructure spending to get rid of those nasty cars before global warming kills us all.

The story also tells us that growing our food is what led to the transmission of infectious diseases as they are easily spread throughout the distribution system. This of course led us to Big Pharma and the scourge of society they have become. Development of modern medicine became necessary to cure these diseases that would have otherwise laid dormant and the greedy capitalists of our health care system forced President Obama to invent Obamacare to save us all from ourselves.

In fact, the invention of farming is to blame for greed itself. Farming created a system of the haves and have nots whereby those with farming skills and the land held an unfair advantage over their less fortunate brethren. This led to violence as the have nots tried to steal what the haves had. Farmers had a shorter lifespan than their hunter/gatherer ancestors accordingly.

Last but not least, farming turned us into nomads in search of our own piece of fertile land so we could become a have as well. We turned our back on community and became individuals no longer searching for the common good but instead intent upon personal gain. We abandoned our redistributive mindset of community first replaced by the profit motive to sell our crops for maximum gain.

You know, I used to think that the progressives just blamed those wascally republicans for what ails us, but in reality they should be blaming the farmers. As you can see, farming started the downfall of society. They said it on tv so it must be true. I mean, come on. Global warming, the health care debacle, overpopulation, greed, disease, urban decay, capitalism and elevating the individual over the collective? Death to farming I say! Return to hunting! Although that may be a bit tougher this go round since they want us to turn in our weapons since they make otherwise good people turn violent.

America’s defense forces are conducting ops in well over a hundred countries – was that on the nightly news?

The Spellchek blog has been in existence for a few years now. We tend to meander all over the landscape with our blog topics, however, one area that we return to often is national defense. In particular, America’s national defense priorities. We’ve pointed out to you the important role natural resources play in our national defense strategy. But I don’t think we’ve spent enough time covering the ways and means by which those priorities are executed. Enter USSOCOM.

USSOCOM is the acronym for the United States Special Operations Command. Headquartered out of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa,FL, and currently commanded by Adm. William McRaven. Essentially, USSOCOM is still in its infancy having just been formed in 1987. Their various commands comprise a force of approx. 66,000 and they deploy all over the globe. On any given day, they will be conducting ops in excess of 75 countries.

USSOCOM is the current, and for the foreseeable future, go to defense force protecting America and its interests. Both the budget and the role of the traditional forces are in decline.  The time of deploying a national defense capable of fighting two major wars at once are gone. The Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force are an outdated model more suited for repelling invasions or conducting occupational wars abroad, neither of which appear to be likely in the future. No, they won’t be disbanded anytime soon, but their role will increasingly modified to become more of a support role rather than the primary role they’ve been accustomed to for so many years.

The USSOCOM is the preferred vehicle for national defense for very basic reasons. Their operations and budgets are largely shielded from meddling by Congress. They also tend to be quicker and more mobile in response to constantly changing conditions in the global war theater. They are essentially joined at the hip with the NSA for intelligence. They also are the beneficiaries of Section 1208 of the Defense Budget Aid Program which gives them $50 million dollars annually to dole out to foreigners. This can be for any reason they want if there is a perceived intelligence value or simply to give direct aid to foreign fighters.

As Adm. McRaven points out in the Posture Statement of the USSOCOM given to Congress, Sec. 1208 is crucial.

Additionally, Section 1208 authority has been absolutely critical to our current and future efforts against al-Qa’ida and organizations of their ilk. It provides us the ability to apply a modest portion of our annual budget to deliver critical enablers to select irregular forces, groups or individuals, directly involved in the terrorism fight. This authority uniquely provides USSOCOM with access and skill sets in locations where the SECDEF has granted specific operational authority. This authority uniquely provides USSOCOM with access and skill sets in locations where we may not otherwise be able to operate, subject to SECDEF granting specific operational authority. The strategic value of enabling and leveraging such forces to carry out tactical operations alongside, or even in-lieu of, U.S. forces cannot be overstated. We are appreciative of Congress’ support for this authority since 2005, and are hopeful for continued support.

USSOCOM is the Army Green Berets and Rangers, Navy SEALS, and Air Force and Marine Special Ops units as well as many other sub-units. In short, they are the best of the best from the most advanced military the world has ever seen. They are known as ‘The Quiet Professionals’. Staffing numbers are increasing to nearly 70,000 not including the international support they receive around the globe working with partner agencies.

The USSOCOM fact book will give you all the details including a mention of the ultra-secretive JSOC. They are the elite even amongst USSOCOM agencies and get the most crucial assignments. With black budgets and classified staffing and operational details, this is the Presidential dream team.

The headline conflicts are Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet USSOCOM operates in many more countries everyday that simply aren’t in the mass media news. For example, it is precisely their behind the scenes existence that factors in to recent foreign policy decisions such as ending the Cuban embargo. Cuba is a valuable intelligence asset for Russia and the best way to combat that and keep abreast of Russian activities is to enable access for our intelligence agencies.

We have to keep in mind that U.S. national defense policy is a very dynamic, multi-faceted web that is always changing to reflect different administrations and ever-changing global events. Decisions such as the Cuba decision come from evaluating all aspects of our national defense priorities and if it makes sense to accomplish as many agenda items as possible, it gets the green light.

The days of show of strength displays as the world’s policeman are becoming more limited and likely less necessary. The fact is that there are logistically far too many conflict zones to ever deploy assets in even a minority of them. The U.S. could always post a Navy carrier fleet or conduct exercises and war games nearby to give a warning to any potential aggressors in the past, but a drone flying overhead is likely to strike more fear in the heart of a terrorist today.

If you’re a reader of TomDispatch, then head over there and read up on even more detail concerning USSOCOM – http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175945/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_a_shadow_war_in_150_countries/

The bottom line is expect to see less and less of the classic Normandy beach pictures of American national defense accomplishments. Despite the recent high-profile events with the SEALS and the killing of Bin Laden, you can expect ‘The Quiet Professionals’ to stay in the shadows. The federal government is moving at an ever faster rate to nationalize our nation’s police forces. They will be the high profile presence we’ll see in combating terrorism.

Obama to make Bibi pay for visit to Congress, or all smoke and mirrors?

Certainly sounds ominous, doesn’t it?

‘There will be a price’: Obama team reportedly fuming over Netanyahu visit – http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/23/there-will-be-price-obama-team-reportedly-fuming-over-netanyahu-visit/

There is absolutely no story here whatsoever. Just politics as usual. The GOP is simply taking advantage of a chance to embarrass Obama by refusing to meet with Bibi. And there is nothing new here either. The United States backs Israel as a de facto policy standard regardless of the fact that Obama has such disdain for it. Furthermore, Bibi will make his standard speech claiming Iran is poised to have nuclear weapons capabilities soon and that we can’t allow them to cross the red line.

Too late. The red line has been crossed. Spellchek touched on this a year ago – https://spellchek.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/nuclear-capable-iran-schools-the-world-in-diplomacy/. We were hardly the first. It’s been a well-known fact that Iran already has the bomb for years. Here’s another from another source early last year – http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/iran_has_the_bomb.html. Please consider this.

We should know from our own experience that Iran probably already has the bomb. During its World War II Manhattan Project, when nuclear weapons were only a theoretical possibility, and working with 1940s era technology, the U.S. built two atomic bombs of radically different design that both worked perfectly — in a mere three years.

Iran, with access to copious unclassified information on nuclear weapon designs, working with 21st Century technology, helped by the A.Q. Khan network, North Korea, Russia, and China, supposedly has been unable to build the bomb — after thirty years of trying. This is an implausibly optimistic assessment.

Per usual, do your own research. There’s a plethora of evidence to back this up. Iran has the bomb and has had it for years. So what is the X factor as far as the United States is concerned? The usual suspect, the military-industrial complex. There is far more money to be made with fear-mongering than acceptance of the fact that Iran is a nuclear power. We, as well as Israel, already possess the required nuclear deterrent capability for a nuclear threat. The real money to be made is in the proxy wars in the region to ‘prevent’ Iran from going nuclear.

The grandstanding concerning Bibi and Boehner and Obama is just good theatre. And the target audience is the good old taxpayer to keep the pseudo ‘debate’ going to justify spending the money. As always friends, just follow the money.

The Charlie Hebdo cover so egregious that CNN/MSNBC refuse to air it

CNN refused to show the above cartoon from Charlie Hebdo.

Of course, CNN is no stranger to controversy. They even have a Wikipedia page dedicated to it – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies.

They had an incident as well in which they refused to air paid ads due to their policy “of not airing ads centered on controversial public policy subjects”. Freedom Watch set the record straight – http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/28/cable-ratings-bottomfeeders-refuse-pro-war-ads/.

For example, the Networks aired an advertisement entitled “Shameless Politicians” sponsored by Move America Forward regarding the war on terror in October 2004. In November 2006, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the American Medical Association entitled “Patient Voice” concerning the controversial issue of access to health care and coverage for the uninsured. During July 2007, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition. Your history of airing other issue advocacy advertisements makes the denial of FW advertisements troubling and raises the issue of whether your denial is based on an editorial disagreement with FW’s message.

These ads are about important issues that will shape our national security policies for years to come. These ads present a point of view that your viewers are not now receiving.

Makes one wonder what the agenda will become once our black Muslim President leaves office and a different leftist gets elected.

Obama response to French terror attacks? Blame the Islamophobes

In light of the Islamist terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo in France, President Obama apparently feels the appropriate response on behalf of America is to re-educate.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced that the Obama administration would prioritize fighting Islamophobia in the aftermath of the terrorist attack onCharlie Hebdo in France – http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/08/6-times-the-obama-administration-said-its-job-was-to-promote-islam/

As you can say, the President views the most pressing problem to be any misunderstanding of his Muslim faith. I would remind Dear Leader of what his number one priority is. That is the oath he took upon entering office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing about defining Islam in there. Merely a reference toward his duty to defend America. Doesn’t matter if it’s a threat from another state or a terrorist. Doesn’t matter if it’s a terrorist who operates under their perception of a religious mandate be it skewed or mainstream.

Of course, this is hardly the first time the President has directed his energies toward defining the enemies of America. You may recall the list of 72 types of Americans that are considered “potential terrorists” according to official government documents – http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents

No room for common sense here. Ideology trumps duty. But give the President the benefit of the doubt. In his world, and that of so many other elitists like him, any threat to their imperialist behemoth government machine really is a danger to their way of existence. Threats to America from abroad, or even terrorists who’ve infiltrated domestically, are not threats to the government machine. In fact, they only serve to strengthen it as the public demands protection. Thus the continuous advancement of potential threats from boogeymen around the globe by the government and their entrenched media. It’s good business.

So Spellchek and countless others who attempt to expose the threat liberty faces from within are included in lists like the one above. How many of the 72 does Spellchek qualify for? Haven’t counted but you can be sure it’s the majority. Is Spellchek going to actively lead violent actions against America as these lists would have you believe? Of course not but this blog as well as all the other voices that beam sunlight onto the true threats liberty loving Americans face truly are the biggest threat ideologues like Obama and his cronies face.