Rand Paul should have pointed his filibuster finger at his colleagues to resolve the drone issue as only they can

Sen. Rand Paul dominated the news cycyle with his 13 hour filibuster of the Brennan nomination. Was it worthwhile even though the Brennan nomination will go through anyway? It does bring to light what limits the President has in dealing with terrorists.

This issue is front and center for two reasons. One, the Congress extended the President sweeping powers with little specification under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Second, such wide powers emphasize the importance of character and integrity by the President in exercising discretion as to the necessity of utilizing lethal force.

Sen. Rand Paul has emphasized the potential for abuse of power concerning American citizens. Simply put, President Obama’s track record is a disaster when it comes to character and integrity. Despite claims of the most transparent administration ever, it has been the exact opposite. His attitude toward the Constitution as the bedrock of this country has been apathetic. Hardly the resume one would want for the most powerful person in the world.

To address the first point, Sen Paul may wish to consult with his colleagues in Congress and ask why they don’t revisit the AUMF and perhaps modify the language to reflect the limitations on the President’s authority he wishes for. After all, the reason this President, or any future President, has such latitude on interpreting these authorizations for the use of lethal force is because Congress gave it to them.

Congress may have had the best of intentions when it passed the AUMF in order to give the Commander-in-Chief as many options as possible for dealing with terror threats to our country, but the so-called war on terror is essentially open-ended thus allowing normal wartime protocols in place at all times for as far as one can see. Any administration is going to take full advantage of the leeway provided just as Bush and Obama have done.

So I would disagree with the Senator in his approach. For it to be practical, we would need clarifying policy statements at the onset of each and every administration to cover all possible eventualities. Never happen. Administrations would never pigeon-hole themselves into any corner when taking office.

There is only one solution to this that will satisfy Congress. Modify the AUMF. The AUMF operates under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It is merely clarifying language for dealing with terrorists. With the likelihood that the war on terror will never cease, Congress needs to change the language concerning how an administration deals with domestic terrorists, detainment, and U.S. citizens on U.S. soil in particular.

The Attorney General, Eric Holder, was his usual tap-dancing self yesterday in his exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz. He is now on record in two distinctly different scenarios concerning American citizens. On the one hand, he finally conceded to Cruz that it would be unconstitutional to take out a terror suspect not posing any “imminent” threat on U.S. soil. Yet, on the other hand, his DOJ white paper made it clear that “imminent” does not mean what one would normally think it to mean.

If you read the white paper, you find that any potential suspect must meet other criteria including a “window of opportunity” and mitigating risk for harming other civilians. Yet, Congress gave the President no hard and fast rules on this. This brings back the character and integrity issue of the POTUS. We’ve all seen Obama attempt to sidestep law and other constraints in order to advance his agenda. Could you count on him to exercise the utmost in restraint when using lethal force on Americans on American soil? Could he be swayed into bending those rules in order to score political points? These are the types of concerns of Sen. Rand Paul.

Holder has already illustrated that no clear answer will be given. Only Congress can change the rules to force any administration to play by a set of rules.

By the way, do you recall when Adm. Mike Mullen declared that our national debt is the largest threat to our national security?


Gee, does that make Ben Bernanke a terrorist? At least helicopter Ben is used to the sound of a drone buzzing overhead.

Turkey will rise to lead the global Islamist Caliphate – will Obama play a role?

The realigning of the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region has long been prophesized. Former Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat explains in a posting yesterday. Recall that it was Turkey that was the first Muslim nation visited by President Obama when he first won election in 2008. This was no coincidence. Turkey is the lynchpin of the rise of global Islam which Obama supports. Many speculate that Obama is posturing to become the next Caliph after he leaves office in January of 2017. Shoebat doesn’t address this here. He does, however, predict a Caliphate as well as the appearance of the anti-Christ.

He predicts that the Ottoman Empire will arise again to see Turkey and the U.S. fighting the utlimate battle with Christ returning.

Eventually, the United States will fight against the Islamist nations. The good news (unlike what the modern prophecy buffs have taught) is that the U.S. will continue to be the strongest military power and will stand against Turkey in the end.

Shoebat also predicts a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

I have been saying it for years… “Hamas will recognize Israel” and become the dominant Palestinian force.

It’s a lengthy post, but one well worth reading.

Obama has the authority to kill Americans based upon precedent, but should he?

Now that we’ve had a day to digest the ‘leaked’ Justice Dept. memo concerning using lethal force on U.S. citizens, supporters and detractors have fallen in line pretty much as expected. This much we know for sure. There was nothing new in the memo. It contained many references to case law and other legal precedent for authorization. The bottom line is that if you’ve been a Bush doctrine supporter, you’ll agree that Obama is acting within his authority.

What makes many people upset is the hypocrisy involved. Obama as a state senator railed against the Bush doctrine and made his infamous proclamation about closing Gitmo within a year. He also pushed for due process rights and civil trials for foreign enemy combatants. Now he supports killing U.S. citizens without due process. Just an ideologue at work or a POTUS who had reality change his tune? Debatable to be sure. It really isn’t debatable that Obama is just continuing in lockstep with the Bush policies.

Then you have the hypocrisy of the hawks and other backers of the military-industrial complex. They support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, yet did not support the Obama case for indefinite detention of Americans under the N.D.A.A., and now must support the policy memo just released. Which is it? Can’t have it both ways.

Constitutionality is a quagmire. Article Two, Section Two, Clause One gives the President the authority to act as Commander-in-Chief. Article One, Section Eight, Clause Two empowers only Congress with the authority to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 put further limitations on the POTUS to engage in war without the consent of Congress and every President since has declared it unconstitutional. The Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 essentially ceded the authority of the legislative branch to the executive branch. It authorized the President to use force against nations, organizations or individuals in the war on terror.

Presidents violate their authority with impunity. Most recently, Obama displayed this in Libya yet there are no practical checks and balances any longer as the other branches refuse to act.

As always, we reflect back and realize that the founders could never have imagined all of the eventualities concerning war. War in the 1700’s was nation against nation. Would they have supported centralizing authority to one branch relating to an indefinite, global war against terror? Not at all likely after just fighting a war a decade prior to escape from under a tyrant.

The argument isn’t against Anwar al-Awlaki. His track record against the U.S. is long and verifiable. He was clearly an enemy of the state. BTW- this isn’t about drones either as the media has portrayed it. The memo clearly states that the policy is regarding “U.S. operations” utilizing lethal force which could include virtually any method. It also isn’t abroad or internationally or overseas or in a foreign country or any other way you wish to characterize it as being somewhere other than on U.S. soil. The memo also clearly explains that its authority extends globally without any geographical limitations. Furthermore, the memo details that “imminence”, as in an impending attack, doesn’t carry the meaning one might think.

Detractors of the Bush doctrine, the N.D.A.A., the AUMF, etc., are concerned with any concentrated, unchecked power. Due process rights are suspended even to U.S. citizens during wartime, always have been. The war on terror has extended the battlefield potentially to all places at all times and even to individuals without a traditional weapon (i.e. cyber terror). Are you comfortable with the idea that a mistake wouldn’t be made? Intelligence can easily be flawed (WMD’s in Iraq?). Mis-identifications occur with regularity (Sen. Kennedy routinely showing up on the no-fly list?). Innocent men and women spend time in prison and have been executed (pre-DNA technology?).

At the end of the day, Obama is acting within precedent and within the authority Congress has extended the executive branch by proxy. It’s unconstitutional in my book, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t policy. If the people don’t demand that the judicial or legislative branches check this power back to what was set in the Constitution, nothing will change. Can we effectively combat the war on terror under a conventional national defense structure? Another topic for another day.

Our unalienable right to self-defense cannot be taken away by any law or executive order

Here are the facts.

The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant us as human beings our right to self-defense, to self-preservation, to life.
The 2nd Amendment merely serves to insure that our government does not infringe upon our unalienable right to self-defense.
Our unalienable rights CANNOT be granted, stripped or altered in ANY way by any other human or government entity.
ANY executive action or order implemented by the President has no authority whatsoever if it infringes upon our unalienable rights.
No court at any level has the authority to uphold, diminish or modify our unalienable rights.
No level of government has any authority to legislate our unalienable rights.

This may be an uncomfortable truth for some to bear, particularly concerning the sensitivity with the mass shootings dominating the news cycle. However, regardless of the incomprehensible brutality of any of these events, no one has the authority to diminish my unalienable rights as a response. It isn’t a matter for debate or interpretation.

As far as any legislation or authoritative action being taken to control the manufacture, distribution, ownership or possession of guns no matter the caliber or magazine size, these actions are against natural law if they inhibit one’s ability to exercise their unalienable right to self-defense. Natural law is above common, civil or criminal law. It is above federal, state or local statutes. It is above our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Declaration of Independence. Natural law cannot be litigated, repealed or amended. Natural law is granted by God, our Creator, and is equal to the Word of God.

Natural law is more than the law of the land, it is the law of mankind. Does this mean it is practiced as such? Of course not. Natural law flies in the face of any authoritative or centralized form of government in existence. Efforts are always underway to diminish it, to suppress it, to deceive and disparage it. We see the efforts today to show the Constitution as outdated, as a living and breathing document subject to interpretation by the whims of activist judges. The day is not far off when the Constitution will be treated as natural law is. Barely even acknowledged. Mere history book material.

Nonetheless, natural law retains its standing. Any human being anywhere on the planet can at any time draw upon its authority to exercise their unalienable rights. Does this mean reality plays no role? Not at all. It’s more than a bit ironic that it will take a collective recognition of our natural law rights to garner the respect for those laws required to enable their implementation. The existence of any law does not insure its adherence. Which is at the heart of the argument of passing more laws against gun violence to go with the multitudes already existing that criminals pay no mind to.

Natural law is for the law-abiding, to give them the acknowledgement that they have the authority to hold their unalienable rights above all. If one wishes to carry a weapon for self-defense, no matter what it is, they have that right. Let’s remember what a right is. It only exists if by exercising it, it doesn’t infringe upon another’s right. If I carry a weapon for self-defense and then use it to execute a criminal action, I am nothing more than a criminal. What is the difference? I could have used any number of items to commit the criminal act, including my own hands. The weapon is irrelevant when it comes to intent.

This discussion isn’t even on the radar of the majority of Americans, most of who’ve never even heard of natural law. If they had, we wouldn’t be having a public discourse concerning to what extent we are willing to compromise our unalienable right to life in the interest of “doing something”. Obama and Biden may be taking advantage of what would appear to be a matter of common sense in claiming that these actions are “worth it” if they save even one life. Natural law says they CANNOT do any such thing regardless of the motivation if it in any way diminishes said law.

This is merely one example of the war on our liberty, and that’s exactly what it is, a war. There are an array of forces with differing agendas aligned against our rights. We are losing the war on all fronts and, unfortunately, generally surrendering without a fight in most cases in the interest of political correctness or just “doing something”.

Those who cherish liberty had better take a good look around and garner an accurate appraisal of who the enemy is and why we are losing. Think it’s just a matter of electing the right people? There are a number of “good” people in office right now. Can you point to any legislation they’ve introduced clarifying the fact that natural law is the true law of the land negating much of their work? It is quite clear that Obama has moved beyond the point of any concern over Constitutional adherence. The battles of decades past have been to diminish the Constitution. Now it is just to simply ignore it with no need to amend it. Do you see the SCOTUS with the will to step in and act as the intended check and balance against a tyrannical Executive branch?

As long as we continue to fight the war on their terms, we will continue to lose. Unfortunately, exceptionalism has led to apathy.

Our unalienable right to life is the only authority we need to own a gun for self-protection, the 2nd Amendment debate is a completely separate issue

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Here is a transcript of a letter I submitted to my elected officials concerning the debate over gun rights.

Dear _____________ ,

I am writing to you concerning the various efforts underway to legislate my ability to own a gun. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life included. That should end the debate right there. Gun ownership to protect ones right to life is not a 2nd Amendment issue. The right to life is granted by our Creator and cannot be extended nor denied by government. The Bill of Rights serves to ensure that government does not infringe upon my unalienable rights.

Government has absolutely no authority to dictate how I choose to exercise my right so long as in doing so, I don’t infringe upon any other person’s ability to exercise their right. The debate over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has always been the right to bear arms as an individual or as part of a well-regulated militia. A right to bear arms as an individual can have a multitude of interpretations, however, they are exclusive of the unalienable right to life granted and guaranteed by the Creator.

The debates over gun rights are two separate and exclusive debates. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment should have no bearing on defending ones right to life and vice-versa. The method I choose to defend my life is entirely mine. Restricting personal gun ownership in any manner under the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment can NOT infringe upon my choice for self-defense. The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights all serve to affirm that government will never infringe upon any unalienable right.

We have allowed the anti-gun lobby to create a strawman argument over gun control. My right to life is not a Constitutional issue so the attacks on the 2nd Amendment are irrelevant accordingly. Yet that is where the public debate is centered today. You could repeal the entire 2nd Amendment and that would in no way lessen my unalienable right to own a gun for the protection of my life.

This has been the mistake of all the stakeholders in defending our rights against the anti-gun crowd. We have allowed them to choose the battleground for debate. There is no debate when it comes to unalienable rights.

We need you and your fellow members to engage the public with a heavy dose of education as to the merits of this debate. They need to be aware that this is not a 2nd Amendment debate at all.

Thank you

When we allow the enemies of the Constitution to set the ground rules, they control the debate. Americans must defend their unalienable rights with complete conviction and not waver under emotional responses to people who are evil and commit evil acts. Allowing the anti-gun crowd to create confusion over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a diversionary tactic to strip away your rights under false pretenses.

Hopefully I have made my point completely clear. Owning a gun for self-defense is not a 2nd Amendment issue at all. It is an unalienable right and cannot be taken away by any government. Ever.

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.

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.

Should the GOP just give Obama whatever he wants?

It’s been interesting to read some of the opinions on what strategy the GOP should pursue in light of the re-election of President Obama. Many have called for a total surrender on the part of the GOP in order to better position the party for the 2016 election by forcing the democrat party to take total ownership of the results of its policies. Let Obama raise taxes, implement Obamacare and be fully responsible for the economy and the jobs situation without having the benefit of blaming Bush any longer. My oh my, has it really come to this?

This is wrong on many levels. Let’s start with our short memories. The democrat party had both chambers of Congress during the first two years of the Obama presidency. We got Obamacare, stimulus, bailouts, etc. In other words, they got what is being suggested now. They difference being it was absent any GOP caving in. The result? The democrats never had to own it and Obama was re-elected. This proposed GOP strategy of surrender would only make it worse because the democrat party could then point to bi-partisan approval of their destructive policies and eliminate any campaign advantage. In short, we’ve already seen it won’t work.

A GOP surrender supporter would likely take exception and say that it’s not the same as Obama was able to exploit the blame Bush narrative in 2012 and won’t have that option any longer in 2016. Really? Is having the option of blaming the entire GOP party for bi-partisan support any better than just blaming Bush?

Let’s move on to what is most important. Having principles. If the GOP attempts such a calculated purely politically motivated strategy, they will illustrate that the ends justify the means. Getting elected is more important than standing for what is right. Exactly the opposite of what the party has attempted to exploit as a major difference between them and the left. Which is what the alternative parties have claimed for years, that there is no difference between the left or right.

I would suggest that the backlash would be much worse than any perceived value in the short-term. The GOP would succeed in forever alienating those who have just been hanging on my a thread anyway. If I were a GOP supporter, which I am not, I would be mad as hell. To think that the party would play games at such a critical time is unforgivable. We know from history that once major government programs are instituted, they never go away. Give Obama carte blanche for 4 more years and one could only imagine what permanent destruction he could implement.

It’s been stated many times that for democrats, the party left them years ago and has been hijacked by the far left. The blue dogs who are fiscally responsible yet more open socially no longer have a voice in the party. Multiculturalism has seen to that. Encompassing all views has become more important than retaining any core values. The same is true for the conservatives hanging on to the idea that aligning with the GOP is still the best option for at least getting the bulk of their views represented by a national party. You’ve been left behind as well. But not because the party was hijacked by the far right. Rather, it has been taken over by the party of no identity. Just blowing in the wind listening to focus groups, polls, election results and their opposition in trying to determine what face to paint on today to look just a bit better than their opponent.

History is replete with examples of how compromising principles doesn’t pay off. Reagan learned that when he signed off on amnesty in 1986. The 1988 election still saw the usual percentage of hispanic voters stick with the democrats. Bush ‘abandoned’ his free market principles in 2008 in order to save the free market system. We’ve seen 4 years of the free market languishing rather than recovering.

All of this speculative strategizing leads one to wonder just who has become more desperate, the GOP or the conservatives. The GOP clearly has no clue as they’re left licking their wounds following what should have been an easy victory over a failed presidency. So we get reckless talk of adopting a policy of no policy. That should answer the question of whether or not the party will be in a position to capitalize upon another 4 years of failure under Obama. The question remains as to whether or not the conservatives still think it’s a good idea to hitch their wagon to the train to nowhere.

The Benghazi cover story is coming after the election

The Benghazi attack on 9/11 has many unanswered questions. One that hasn’t garnered much attention is the link between Turkey-Israel-Syria by way of the U.S.-Libya special mission/CIA annex in Benghazi.

We know that Ambassador Chris Stevens met with a Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin just prior to the attacks that evening. We also know that President Obama spent an hour on the phone with Israeli PM Netanyahu during the attack. Coincidence? Really? Perhaps Obama was giving Bibi a play-by-play while watching the live drone feed?

What do they have in common? They both want the al-Assad regime removed in Syria. Turkish-Israeli relations have been strained but Israel would still prefer Turkey rather than Syrian radicals to take charge in the region. Turkey has a very important reason to see regime change in Syria. Bashar al-Assad has a Four Seas policy goal to enable Syria as the energy pipeline crossroads of the Middle East and that pipeline will bypass, guess who? Turkey. This is the reason for the Syrian conflict. Energy. I’ll save it for another post but I’ve long been a proponent of the global war for energy access as being behind nearly all conflicts in the globe today.

I pose these questions because we still don’t have any credible evidence to explain why the U.S. decided to sacrifice the 4 Americans. Let’s not forget that there were up to 32 Americans present that night so it could have been far worse. There are many rumors and a persistent one is that this was supposedly a kidnap Stevens plot gone wrong by the 2 seals who disobeyed orders and tried to intervene. Stevens was supposed to be exchanged for the Blind Sheik. The problem with that is the mortar attack. Any mortar attack must be pre-planned in order to succeed. If it were only a kidnapping, why use mortars? Once Stevens was dead, why fight on for hours and extend it to the CIA annex? Just doesn’t add up.

I don’t buy the kidnap theory. It would have been far easier to take Stevens in a vehicle during transit than to orchestrate the compound plot. More likely Stevens signed his death warrant by the outcome of the meeting with the Turkish diplomat and everyone else involved just sat back and watched it play out including Obama. Doherty and Woods were the unfortunate “not optimal” casualties to the attack.

More questions. Ansar al-Shariah members had cordoned off the area at 8pm. Why was the Turkish diplomat allowed to leave? We know that the Libyan ship Al Entisar was in the Turkish port of Iskenderun just prior to the meeting between Stevens and Ali Sait Akin. The port is 35 miles from Syria and the ship was reported to be loaded with arms for Syrian insurgents.

Of course, no one has all the answers at this point that’s talking. Here’s my theory.

The “special mission” at Benghazi was clearly a front for the CIA. It was not set up properly as a consulate, not listed on the State Dept. website as one and thus did not have the normal security measures (fire suppression) nor security personnel in place. Designed to be low-key so as to not attract unnecessary attention. The CIA annex was set-up in February of 2011. The State Dept. was working with the CIA and established a diplomatic presence in mid-2011. Clearly, the Pentagon, CIA, State Dept. and the White House were all in the loop as to the mission here. After the election, we will be exposed to the disinformation campaign.

What you’ll see is the administration putting forth the narrative that the CIA presence was to counter proliferation and terrorist threats throughout the region. Why would they ‘come clean’ on this? That will sell to the American public. The CIA working undercover to stop the spread of weapons to the wrong people. They can then tie in all the necessary excuses for the non-response to the attack.

The truth, however, is the opposite. It was the CIA working with the State Dept. via Ambassador Stevens that was the conduit for funneling weapons and recruits to primarily Syria in an effort to destabilize the region and enable the removal of the Assad regime. Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia were all involved.

It’s likely that Ansar al-Shariah grew tired of seeing their spoils of war leaving the country. Losing both the weapons caches of Gaddafi as well as Islamist fighters to its neighbors was not palatable. Ansar al-Shariah paid off the Libyan February 17th Brigade and arranged for them to stand down during the attack. Stevens was a sacrificial lamb for a Fast and Furious style gunrunning program that had run its course.

The U.S. can’t tell that story for obvious reasons. Nor will you see it come out under the Romney administration when he takes over. The U.S. can’t be seen as the enabler of the insurgents that overthrow these governments and then become the problem afterwards (for example Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood). The powers that be decided it best to allow the attack in the hopes of wiping away the evidence along with them.

I said in a previous post that Obama has blood on his hands. Fortunately for him, the U.S. government is ‘too big to fail’ and he will escape accordingly.

Afghanistan bombing began 11 years ago today Oct. 7, 2001

U.S. bombing strikes of Afghanistan began 11 years ago today. The narrative has always been that this was in response to the 9/11 attacks. Do even some cursory research and you’ll find a plethora of evidence supporting the fact that the U.S. had pre-planned an Afghanistan invasion prior to 9/11. Read about Operation Steppe Shield. Read “The War on Freedom” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. Read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski. There’s plenty more if you’re interested. Fact is the Taliban refused to provide the stability required to develop access to the country’s natural resources which had been known about for many years despite news reports claiming this was a recent discovery. All 9/11 accomplished as far as Afghanistan is concerned is step up the timetable. When you consider the entire book of evidence it will then make sense as to why we are still in Afghanistan after so many years. You’ve been told it was simply to eradicate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and Usama Bin Laden. That was only part of the bigger picture which is known as the “New Great Game” for the regions natural resources.

If you’re interested in finding out more, here are a few of my research sources to get you started.