Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Time to Out Sinister Valerie Jarrett

Time to Out Sinister Valerie Jarrett

Opening the Benghazi Window:

- Judi McLeod (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, October 30, 2012 

The deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, demand the outing of President Barack Obama’s Iranian-born,  chief advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Three times Stevens and his staff were denied help to save their lives on the day of their death.
While the courageous serving America were denied help, private citizen Valerie Jarrett seems to have a 24-hour, around-the-clock security detail, with five or six Secret Service agents at her disposal at home and abroad.  (former Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell, Breitbart News interview. )
“At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission.” (Richard Miniter, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.)
Valerie Jarrett gave the order for the bin Laden kill.  Was it Jarrett who advised Obama to refuse help to Americans under sustained terrorist attack in Benghazi?
The ‘Happy Gang’ membership of the Two-Obamas-Plus-Valerie is one of the most peculiar relationships to ever make a home of the White House.
Jarrett never lets either Obama out of her sight and reportedly even follows them home to the White House at the end of each day.
Why is this private citizen afforded full security at taxpayer expense while heroes die in Benghazi?
It was Jarrett more than any other who made a manchurian candidate out of radical community organizer Barack Hussein Obama, having first hired his fiance Michelle Robinson back in 1991 when she was still Deputy Chief of Staff to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.
Jarrett took Michelle, now Mrs. Barack Obama, with her when she left the mayor’s office to head Chicago’s Department of Planning & Development.
Until joining the Obama administration, Jarrett was CEO of the Habitat Co, a real estate development and management company, where she found notoriety as a slum landlady.
It was Jarrett who secured the contacts and money essential to Mr. Obama’s long-shot Senate victory. (U.S. News &World Report post, “10 Things You Didn’t Know About Valerie Jarrett”.?
‘Valerie Jarrett ’74’ recounts that “after the historic election, President Obama named Jarrett his senior advisor, assistant to the president for intergovernment relations and public liaison, and head of a new panel on women and girls.
One could easily ponder how a mostly municipal realm employee could rise to the power of intergovernment relations, public liaison and women and girls issues.
These positions of power fade in comparison to what Valerie Jarrett has been up to during the lead in to the November 6 election:
While the magician on stage activated the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the activities behind the scenes were in full swing.” (Doug Hagmann, Canada Free Press, Oct. 29, 2012).  “Concurrent with the appointment of (Thomas) Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian-born Senior Advisor, jetted to the nation of Qatar.  Although her activities were concealed by the magician’s accomplice—the dutiful Western media—it was reported by the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.
““Talks about any such meetings or potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.

A break in the magician’s fog

While the creation of an October surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots - or events - come into view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those looking for the clues.
It was on July 31, 2012, about a month before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.
It is here that I rely on my well-placed intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage. According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were gone.
It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”
Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly, inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.
Rumors inside the intelligence community suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.”
Tuesday’s election is the reason why the Obama regime works feverishly to close the window on the tragedy in Benghazi.
Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, should wedge the window wide open.
It is time to out the Secret Service protected, private citizen Valerie Jarrett.

Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Older articles by Judi McLeod

Romney a George Wallace ‘White Supremacist,’ GOP Women are ‘Battered’

Romney a George Wallace ‘White Supremacist,’ GOP Women are ‘Battered’

Cornel West went on to compare Romney to 1960's segregationist George Wallace

- Warner Todd Huston (Bio and Archives)  Wednesday, October 31, 2012 

Unfortunately, hate is the main selling point on the National Public Radio distributed radio show and last week we got a big dollop of bile spewed against Republicans in general and GOP nominee Mitt Romney in particular.
The October 26 episode featured host Cornel West, a long-time radical lefty from Princeton, and substituting for West’s co-host Tavis Smiley was Julianne Malveaux, a woman well-known for spewing racist, hate at every opportunity.
Naturally, Malveaux felt that the only reason anyone would vote against Barack Obama is because they are sheet-wearing racists. When West asked why the election was so close, Malveaux said, “the underlying fact is in my opinion is racism.”
Curiously, Malveaux didn’t try to explain how, if all whites are racists, Obama was elected in the first place, nor did she explain how Mr. Obama got the biggest white vote of any Democrat presidential candidate since the early 1960s. But, there you have it.
Granted, Malveaux isn’t the only one to throw a preemptive race card at the 2012 election. Only two days after Malveaux spewed her hatred,Andrew Sullivan similarly claimed that those voting for Romney are only doing so because they are racists.
What we are seeing here is the creation of the coming explanation of why Obama will have lost the 2012 election. Haters like Sullivan, Cornel West, and Malveaux are warming up the excuse that the only reason Obama might lose is because the nation is suddenly, once again filled with abject racists.
As to Malveaux, she has made many other hateful comments over the years. Just a few years ago, in 2010, Malveaux wrote an op ed for USA Today noting how she hates the Fourth of July. Then, back in 2007, Malveaux said that the wrongly accused students at Duke university were “hooligans” that “do not deserve an apology” even though they were proven innocent of the charges of rape leveled against them. And, further back, in 1994, Malveaux announced that she hoped U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would die of heart disease.
But that wasn’t the only nonsense disgorged by Malveaux during the show. She also claimed that Republican women suffer “battered women syndrome.”
“One of the statistics that frightened me was that a number of white women after the first debate because they felt that Romney was strong and Obama was weak. So, I mean I’m out of order her, but I’m saying, do these women engage in battered women syndrome? Do you want a bully in your face? This man (Romney) who’s pushing his finger and acting like you know Robo-Man, is that what you prefer?”
It gets worse. As Tim Graham notes, Bell Hooks, another guest of the show, upped the ante on hate.
Hooks is also pretty well known for having built a career spewing her hate of whites as often as possible. As her book Killing Rage begins, for instance, she wrote that she was “sitting beside an anonymous white male” that she longed to murder. Hooks was also one of those many leftists that claimed it was the U.S. that was the real terrorist nation in the aftermath of 9/11.
So, on the show, feminist Hooks one-upped Malveaux saying that Romney is a “white supremacist.” About Romney, Hooks said, “Well did you think we would ever live to see a white man running on a white supremacist ticket for Presidency?”
Cornel West went on to compare Romney to 1960’s segregationist George Wallace.
This is, of course, utter hogwash. But this is consistently what passes for “intellectual” discussion on Smiley & West.
Remember, folks. This is the sort of garbage that our tax dollars go to support on National Public Radio.

Warner Todd Huston’s thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based, is featured on many websites such,,,,,, among many, many others. He has also written for several history magazines, has appeared on numeruous TV and radio shows and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture,” which can be purchased on He is also the owner and operator of Publius’ Forum. Warner can be reached at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Obama Met With Panetta and Biden at WH As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded

Obama Met With Panetta and Biden at WH As Benghazi Terror Attack Unfolded

Barack Obama
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

( - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Sept. 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM—just 55 minutes after the State Department notified the White House and the Pentagon that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack.
The meeting between Obama, Panetta and Biden had been scheduled before the attack took place, and the Department of Defense is not commenting now on whether the three men were aware when they met that day of the ongoing attack or whether Obama used that meeting to discuss with his defense secretary what should be done to defend the U.S. personnel who at that very moment were fighting for their lives in Benghazi.
“Secretary Panetta met with President Obama, as the White House-provided scheduled indicates,” Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, told on Tuesday. “However, neither the content nor the subject of discussions between the President and his advisors are appropriate for disclosure.”
The fact that the president had been scheduled to meet with Vice President Biden and Defense Secretary Panetta at 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 11 had been publicized  in the Washington Daybook--a planning service to which news organizations subscribe--and included on the official White House schedule posted online by the White House itself.
The State Department email notifying the White House and Pentagon of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack was obtained by CBS News and reported by Sharyl Attkisson on Oct. 23, almost six weeks after the attack.
The terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began at about 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time—or about 3:40 p.m. Washington, D.C. time. “The attack began at approximately 9:40 p.m. local time,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in written testimony submitted Oct. 10.
About 25 minutes after the attack started—at 4:05 p.m. Washington, D.C. time—the State Department sent an email that went to multiple recipients, including two at the White House and one at the Pentagon.
The subject line on this email said: “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack.” The text of the email said: “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and our COM personnel are in the compound safe haven.” It went on to say: “The Operations Center will provide updates as available.”
In her testimony to the Oversight Committee, Charlene Lamb indicated that soon after the attack started, she was able to monitor it from Washington, D.C., in “almost real time.”
“When the attack began, a Diplomatic Security agent working in the Tactical Operations Center immediately activated the Imminent Danger Notification System and made an emergency announcement over the PA,” Lamb testified. “Based on our security protocols, he also alerted the annex U.S. quick reaction security team stationed nearby, the Libyan 17th February Brigade, Embassy Tripoli, and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. From that point on, I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.”
According to Lamb, three U.S. agents used an armored car to approach the safe haven at the U.S. consulate to rescue a U.S. security agent on the roof of the facility and also to try to retrieve Amb. Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, an Air Force veteran and State Department communications specialist.
“Despite thick smoke, the agents entered the building multiple times trying to locate the Ambassador and Mr. Smith,” Lamb testified. “After numerous attempts, they found Sean Smith and, with the assistance of members of the U.S. quick reaction team, removed him from the building. Unfortunately, he was already deceased. They still could not find the Ambassador.”
It was not until 11:00 p.m. Benghazi time—or just as Obama’s 5:00 p.m. meeting with Panetta and Biden was starting in Washington, D.C.—that the U.S. agents in Benghazi decided to abandon the main consulate facility there.
“At 11 p.m. members of the Libyan 17th February Brigade advised they could no longer hold the area around the main building and insisted on evacuating the site,” Lamb testified. “The agents made a final search for the Ambassador before leaving in an armed vehicle."
But the battle was far from over.
“Upon arriving at the annex around midnight, they took up defensive positions, including on the roof,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after their arrival, the annex itself began taking intermittent fire for a period of time.”
The battle continued, with the attackers now using mortars, and it was only in the “early morning” that two more Americans were killed and two more were wounded.
“In the early morning, an additional security team arrived from Tripoli and proceeded to the annex,” Lamb testified. “Shortly after they arrived, the annex started taking mortar fire, with as many as three direct hits on the compound. It was during this mortar attack that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed and a Diplomatic Security agent and an annex quick reaction security team member were critically wounded.”
Doherty and Woods were both former Navy Seals who served in both the Iraq and Afghan wars. They were working as U.S. security personnel in Libya.
When exactly did Obama learn that the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi was under attack and whom did he order to do something about it? The White House is not saying.
“I can tell you, as I've said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives,” Obama told KUSA TV in Denver on Friday. “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”
Fred Lucas of asked the White House on both Monday and Tuesday to reveal exactly when Obama learned the U.S. mission in Benghazi was under attack and who exactly Obama directed to "make sure that we are securing our personnel" there. The White House did not respond.
At an Oct. 25 Pentagon press briefing, a reporter noted that “there was, in fact, a drone over the CIA annex [in Benghazi] and there were intelligence officials fighting inside the annex.” He then asked Panetta: “Why there wasn't a clear intelligence picture that would have given you what you needed to make some moves, for instance, flying, you know, F-16s over the area to disperse fighters or dropping more special forces in?”
“[T]here's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on here,” Panetta said.
“We quickly responded, as General [Martin] Dempsey [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said, in terms of deploying forces to the region,” Panetta continued. “We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.
“But the basic principle here--basic principle--is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place,” said Panetta. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
A reporter followed up: “So the drone, then, and the forces inside the annex weren't giving enough of a clear picture is what you're saying.”
“This happened within a few hours and it was really over before, you know, we had the opportunity to really know what was happening,” Panetta said.

Guess who U.S. Muslims are voting for

Guess who U.S. Muslims are voting for
Editor’s note: This is another in a series of “WND/WENZEL POLLS” conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Nearly half of 600 Muslim-American citizens polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election believe parodies of Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious violators should face the death penalty.
The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.
The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Shariah standards.
And the big winner among Muslim-Americans in the presidential election is Barack Obama, the poll found. More than 72 percent said they are definitely supporting Obama, and another 8.5 percent are leaning that direction. Only 11 percent are for Romney.
Nearly 55 percent of the American Muslim voters say the U.S. is on the right track, and another 13 percent are uncertain. Virtually all of the respondents (98 percent) are American citizens and 97 percent are registered to vote.
“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.
“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said.
Wenzel said even the 9 percent “undecided” on that particular question is alarming.
“Seldom in survey research does a response of ‘not sure’ carry such significance, but the response to this question certainly is a surprise, given the severity of the question, and offers insight into the conflict that some Muslims appear to face in making the ideals under-girding American society fit into their religious lifestyle,” he said.
Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree.
While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five Muslims across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty.
More Muslim women (10.4 percent) than Muslim men (4.9 percent) said they strongly agree with the idea, while 12.4 percent of the women and 7.1 percent of the men were uncertain about the issue involving Muhammad.
Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law.
“A much smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.
While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation, they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution.
American Muslims, Wenzel said, “show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.”
“These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here, but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters,” he said.
“While 39 percent of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should consult Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims, a plurality of 45 percent said they do not agree with this idea. Asked if the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslim, 21 percent said it should. Two-thirds of respondents – 66 percent – said that separate courts are not necessary to adjudicate Muslims.”
While 9 of 10 of the Muslim respondents said they agree with the First Amendment, they are also in conflict with it, Wenzel said, citing evidence in answers to “another question in the survey which found that one-third of Muslims – 32 percent – believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States,” Wenzel said.
“Another shocking finding from the survey is how Muslims view the religious freedoms of Christians. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, just 30 percent agreed Christians have such a right. Another 42 percent said they do not have such a right, while 28 percent said they were unsure on the question.”
One in five say Muslim men should be allowed to follow their religion in America and have more than one wife, and 58 percent said criticism of their religion or of Muhammad should not be allowed under the Constitution.
While 43 percent said they disagreed with the idea of Christians evangelizing Muslims, another 27 percent said they were undecided. Only 19 percent said they “strongly agree” with the idea that Americans have a right to invite Muslims to consider another faith.
Nearly one in three said Israel either has no right to exist or they were uncertain whether it does.
Robert Spencer, author of “Stealth Jihad” and “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?,” told WND the survey is a “disquieting indication that Muslims in the U.S. support Shariah blasphemy laws and want to bring them to the U.S.”
“This should not surprise anyone,” he said. “There is no reason to believe that Muslims in the U.S. believe in a different form of Islam from that which prevails everywhere else. But it underscores the need for Americans to defend, forthrightly and without apology, the freedom of speech, as it is increasingly embattled today, and to revive and enact anti-Shariah laws nationwide.”
Spencer has authored 12 books on Islam and has led seminars about jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and others.
Pamela Geller, author of ”Stop the Islamization of America” and a WND columnist, said: “Restrictions on free speech are part of Shariah. This poll does nothing but show that Muslims in this country adhere to Shariah in large numbers. What is surprising is that the percentage of those who oppose free speech isn’t higher. But probably many of the respondents already know better than to say what they really think to non-Muslim pollsters.”
Walid Shoebat, who “used to be a radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of jihad” before he adopted Christianity in 1994, was a member of the PLO and was recruited to plant a bomb in Bethlehem. The author of ”God’s War on Terror” told WND it is not right that Muslims have a “double standard.”
He said to be fair, any Muslim who “says the Bible is corrupt or the Christians corrupted the Bible” should be penalized in the way they want to punish Christians who mock or ridicule Muhammad.
“The world should appreciate the way the West deals with hurt feelings,” he said, citing America’s rejection of a single individual who recently wanted to make an issue of burning a Quran.
“[Muslims] should be demonstrating how great America is,” he said. “They should be saying, ‘Allah bless America.’”
The Pew Research Center estimates America is home to some 2.6 million Muslims.
See the results:
    Can observant Muslims be good Americans?
    Loading ...

    #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam

    #1 News Site on the Threat of Radical Islam
    Clare Lopez
    Data points continue to accumulate about the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. The picture that is beginning to emerge from connecting those dots is deeply concerning on multiple levels. Two related issues dominate this analysis: The stripping of security protection from the Benghazi mission prior to the 9/11 anniversary attack and the refusal to send or even permit local help on the night of the attack.
    As Fox News Bureau Chief of Intelligence Catherine Herridge suggested on the “Mike Huckabee” show on Oct. 27, both of these critical subjects may have been driven by a perceived need to cover up the existence of the role being played by the U.S. mission in Libya to serve as a command hub for the movement of weapons out of Libya to Syrian rebels fighting to bring down the Bashar Al-Assad regime.
    It has now been established through the persistent work of Congressional leadership figures and such investigative journalists, media and talk show hosts  including Fox News, Michael Coren at Canada’s Sun News, Aaron Klein at World Net Daily and Diana West that the Benghazi mission played a central role in a U.S. government policy of “engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East,” as Center for Security Policy president, Frank Gaffney, put it.
    Benghazi Staffed by CIA Operatives: What Was Their Role?
    According to media reporting, Benghazi was staffed by CIA operatives whose job may have been not just to secure and destroy dangerous weapons (like RPGs and SAMs) looted from former Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s stockpiles during and after the 2011 revolution, but also perhaps to facilitate their onward shipment to the Al-Qaeda- and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition.
    President Barack Obama signed an intelligence finding sometime in early 2012 that authorized U.S. support for the Syrian rebels and by mid-June 2012, CIA operatives reportedly were on the Turkish-Syrian border helping to steer weapons deliveries to selected Syrian rebel groups. According to an Oct. 14, 2012 New York Times article, most of those arms were going to “hard-line Islamic jihadists.”
    One of those jihadis may well be Abdelhakim Belhadj, former leader of the Al-Qa’eda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and head of the Tripoli Military Council after Qaddafi’s ouster. During the 2011 revolt in Libya, Belhadj was almost certainly a key contact of the U.S. liaison to the Libyan opposition, Christopher Stevens.
    In November 2011, Belhadj was reported to have met with Syrian Free Army (SFA) leaders in Istanbul, Turkey, as well as on the Turkish-Syrian border. Further, Belhadj’s contact with the SFA comes in the context of  official policy adopted by the post-Qaddafi Libyan “government,” which sent a delegation to Turkey to offer arms and possibly fighters to the Turkish-backed Syrian rebels. "There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria," according to a Libyan source quoted in a November, 2011 Telegraph report.
    The Libya-Syria Arms Funnel
    The multilateral U.S.-Libya-Turkey agreement to get weapons into the hands of Syrian rebels – which were known to be dominated by Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood elements -- by working with and through Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist figures like Belhadj, seemed confirmed by the appearance of a  Libyan-flagged vessel, Al-Entisar, which docked at the Turkish port of Iskanderun on September 6, 2012.
    Suspected of carrying weapons bound for the Syrian rebels, the ship’s cargo reportedly included Russian-designed, shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS, RPGs and surface-to-air missiles—all of them just the sort of weapons available in Libya.
    Stevens’ last meeting in Benghazi the night he was killed was with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, who is variously reported to have been there to discuss a weapons transfer or a warning about the possible compromise of the Libyan weapons pipeline to Syria. Whatever the topic of Ambassador Stevens’ discussion with Akin, he clearly and knowingly put himself in harm’s way to be there, in Benghazi, on the night of September 11.
    Why Stevens Travelled to Benghazi the Night of the Attack
    The urgency that compelled Stevens to Benghazi that night seems especially difficult to understand given what was known to him as well as to senior levels of the Obama administration about the extremely dangerous situation in post-Qaddafi Libya.
    It is all the more baffling then that, in view of the obvious priority that the U.S. government had placed on its Libya-to-Syria weapons pipeline operation, such a systematic effort in the weeks leading up to the September 11 attack was dedicated to stripping the Benghazi base of the security protection it so desperately needed in a deteriorating Libyan security environment and despite the repeated pleas of Ambassador Stevens and others in both Tripoli and Benghazi for more security.
    Increased Security Requests Turned Down
    From at least February, 2012 onward, the Regional Security Officer (RSO) at the U.S. Tripoli Embassy, Eric Nordstrom, had urged that U.S. security measures in Libya be expanded, citing dozens of security incidents by “Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)…”
    In August 2012, Stevens reported that the security situation in Benghazi was deteriorating, yet in spite of this, the 16-man Site Security Team assigned to Libya, comprised of Special Forces led by SF LTC Andy Wood, was ordered out of Libya, contrary to the Ambassador’s stated desire that they stay.
    Note that, at any time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have ordered the deployment to Benghazi of additional security experts from the Department of Security (DoS) Bureau of Diplomatic Security (or Diplomatic Security Service—DSS), but apparently chose not to do so.
    Instead, DoS hired a British firm, Blue Mountain, to manage its security in Benghazi, and Blue Mountain subcontracted the job to a local jihadist militia called the February 17 Martyrs Brigadewho have known Muslim Brotherhood ties.
    Furthermore, Nordstrom testified at the October 11, 2012 Congressional hearings that “indeference to sensitivity to Libyan practice, the guards at Benghazi were unarmed"-- an inexplicable practice for a place as dangerous as Benghazi.
    Then, in what may have been the attack “green light,” on September 10, 2012, AQ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who had been killed in a June, 2012 drone strike in Pakistan. The timing suggests that al-Zawahiri may have given the attack go-ahead after receiving word that Stevens had arrived in Benghazi that day—further suggesting that perhaps AQ knew of Stevens’ travel plans.
    Gov. Sees Attack in Live-Stream Video
    Once the attack unfolded at the Benghazi base, it quickly became apparent that the minimal number of U.S. and local security staff was completely unequal to the scores of heavily armedjihadist attackers swarming the compound. And yet, despite a live-streaming video from an overhead drone, plus cables and cell phone calls that, altogether, must have been received by hundreds of administration diplomatic, intelligence and military officials (including the U.S. President, Vice President, Secretaries of Defense and State, and Directors of National Intelligence and CIA), military support from regional bases was denied repeatedly to the besieged Benghazi defenders.
    Worse yet, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, who was providing security for CIA operatives at the Benghazi annex facility, and Glen Dougherty, who had arrived on a rescue flight dispatched by the CIA Chief of Station in Tripoli, repeatedly were denied permission by their CIA chain of command on the ground to go to the aid of Ambassador Stevens and the others.
    Eventually, they went anyway, and succeeded in saving many lives because of their moral and physical courage. Once back at the CIA annex, they all came under heavy fire there too. Again, Dougherty and Woods requested military backup, at least to silence the mortar fire that they had been able to identify by laser painting it. They fought on alone for hours, but when no help came, that mortar barrage eventually took both their lives and seriously injured others.
    Sec. of Defense Panetta Claims of "No Knowledge" Questionable
    When asked why he didn’t authorize military assets to scramble to Benghazi’s defense, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta claimed that he didn’t know what was going on and “could not put forces at risk in that situation.” This is patently false on both counts: Panetta most certainly did know that an American Ambassador and other staff were under military assault by jihadistforces who had invaded the sovereign territory of a U.S. diplomatic facility. Whether U.S. military assets -- either air support or Special Forces -- could have arrived in time to save lives is unknown at this point, but the administration’s refusal to say when the president first learned that Benghazi was under attack, that the ambassador was in peril and that the Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan jihadist group, Ansar al-Shariah, had taken credit for the attack invites speculation.
    The White House refusal to comment on when exactly the president first met with the National Security Council after the attack began doesn’t help either. (And the weeks of deliberately false statements from a range of administration figures who tried to claim that an obscure trailer for a film no one had ever seen was to blame for the Benghazi debacle only confirms suspicions about the administration capitulation to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) demands for limits on free speech.)
    For his part, CIA Director David Petraeus has denied that either he or anyone else at CIA refused assistance to Dougherty and Woods, saying that "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate." This leaves only the president himself responsible for the decision to allow the Benghazi base to fall and four Americans to die.
    Tough Questions
    How could he or any of those present when this momentous decision was made not have tried to make every effort imaginable to defend American territory and save American lives? House Government Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa believes President Obama had a political motive for rejecting Ambassador Stevens’ security requests because he wanted to show that conditions in Libya were improving, possibly to justify U.S. intervention in the Libyan revolution or even help pave the way for oil company investment.
    Whatever the thinking that left a U.S. mission abroad so undefended that it practically constituted an open invitation to Al-Qaeda, and then, in cold blood, refused to launch military support in defense of Americans fighting and dying to defend U.S. sovereign territory from jihadiassault, the cover-up is fast becoming the worse failure. It is time for administration leaders, from the president on down, to explain both their actions and their failures to act.
    Clare Lopez is a senior fellow at and a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism. Lopez served for 25 years as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    3.000 doctor death in the United Kingdom « News that matters

    3.000 doctor death in the United Kingdom « News that matters

    3.000 doctor death in the United Kingdom

    In the UK 3,000 doctors are set to place many thousands more patients on so-called “death registers”.
    Many doctors let people die simply because they do not want to work “for free”. Mammon is their god.
    The face of government-run socialized medicine just keeps getting uglier in Britain, where as many as 3,000 doctors are set to place many thousands more patients on so-called “death registers” where they are ultimately denied treatment – all to save a buck.
    Being placed on the registers means those patients have been singled out “to be allowed to die in comfort rather than be given life-saving treatment in hospital,” Britain’s Daily Mail reported.
    Some 3,000 doctors are expected to draw up lists of patients they expect will die within a year, according to Department of Health data the paper reviewed, noting that the registers were part of an unpublicized program that has been endorsed by government ministers.
    Source: Natural News
    My comment:
    Post-Christianity in Europe has not much to offer when it comes to moral and ethics.  Today, most of the Europeans have returned to some kind of paganism, and putting a curse down on their own heads.
    On of the curses, is less respect for human life.
    In India, Hinduism makes it difficult for the poorer sections of girls to survive infancy.  Old traditions linked to dowery, makes a girl child unwanted.
    Parents have to pay through their teeth to get each daughter married. A man who gets only daughters, is facing an economical disaster.
    When a son is sick, the family will even sell their gold to get the best medical treatment. When a daughter is sick, they do not even call the doctor. The death is registered as ‘natural death”.
     1 Timothy 6:10
    For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
    In Europe, barbarism has returned. Based on an increased demand for profit, even medical companies and hospitals let their patience die. It gives a boost to the shareholders.
    Jesus the Messiah told plainly why many human beings will reject His call to repentance.
    John 3:19
    This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
    In Hell, many wicked doctors and health staff will get unlimited time to reflect on the extreme evil they accepted in their clinics.
    Written by Ivar

    Obama’s Wars Aren’t Over

    Obama’s Wars Aren’t Over
    On the campaign trail of a war-weary nation, Obama is running as the man who successfully concluded three wars. This assertion, like so many others, only works if you close your eyes, stick your head deep in the sand and count to a few million.
    Wars, unlike elections, do not begin and end on schedule. They begin and end when the enemy says they do. While Obama asserts that three wars are over, Al Qaeda has a different point of view on the matter. And as long as it remains able to carry on its war, then the war isn’t over.
    Obama’s boasts of quickly and cleanly wrapping up the Libyan War with no loss of American lives ended on September 11, 2012, when four Americans were murdered by the Islamic militias that he had allowed to take over in Benghazi. The threat of the militias was well known, but disregarded, because it interfered with the image of a quick and successful war.
    In his own mind, Obama was still running against Bush, and Libya was a demonstration that, unlike Bush, he could pull off regime change without offending Muslims or alienating the international community.  But like Iraq, the Libyan War did not end with any of Obama’s Mission Accomplished speeches. With no serious plans made for what would happen after the fall of Gaddafi, the real power ended up not in the hands of the government that he expected to take over, but in the hands of the jihadists who had done most of the real fighting.
    The Libyan War is not over. The Benghazi consulate attack is a down payment on a conflict that now appears likely to top the Iraq War. The fall of Gaddafi has already led to an Al Qaeda takeover of half of Mali. France is pushing to lead an intervention in Mali and there has been some discussion of American trainers coming back to help the Mali government.
    If the Islamists not only retain their hold on Benghazi, but succeed in taking Tripoli, then Libya along with Mali will become a new Afghanistan, except with oil revenues and a favorable location for launching attacks on Mediterranean shipping and on neighboring Europe. And at that point the US will be forced to refight a Libyan War that will look less like Yugoslavia and more like Afghanistan.
    And what of Afghanistan, the one remaining conflict that Obama promises us will end on 2014? Like most of Obama’s promises, not only can’t you take it to the bank, but if you write it as a check it will bounce higher than his unemployment numbers.
    Obama isn’t really ending the Afghanistan War; he’s ending his part of the war. Obama will have all the troops from his failed Afghanistan surge home by 2014 while leaving behind an estimated 25,000 troops there to try and protect a corrupt Afghan government that is in no shape to hold off the Taliban.
    If that seems like a lot, it’s more than the number of troops that Bush had in Afghanistan in 2006. When Obama says that he will end the war and bring all the troops home in 2014, what he really means is that he will bring home the extra troops that he sent there with while keeping all the troops that Bush had there.
    Despite what Obama has said in debates and on the campaign trail, the Taliban are not beaten and the Afghans are not ready to take over. The only reason that the Taliban haven’t taken Kabul is because of the ISAF forces. We can’t pull out without handing a victory to the Taliban, and after Obama’s attempts at winning over the “moderate” Taliban failed, he has no choice but to stay in, while lying about it.
    There is no actual timetable for ending the War in Afghanistan because there is no plan for defeating the Taliban. Without either defeating or co-opting the Taliban, the only remaining option is a complete unilateral withdrawal followed by the Taliban taking over.
    Finally there’s Iraq. Obama built his political career on attacks on the Iraq War. And unlike Afghanistan and Libya, he did eventually withdraw from Iraq. But just because the United States withdrew from Iraq, did not mean that Iraq withdrew from the United States.
    Obama falsely claimed that his Iraq to Afghanistan pivot was motivated by a need to focus on battling Al Qaeda. In truth, Al Qaeda had a much larger presence in Iraq than it did in Afghanistan and its Iraqi franchise has continued carrying out large scale suicide bombings and has even found ways to continue murdering Americans after Obama’s botched withdrawal.
    A core group of the Benghazi consulate attackers were from Al Qaeda in Iraq, according to reports, and AQI bomb makers prepared explosives for a massive attack on the American embassy in Jordan.
    The ghosts of Baghdad caught up to Obama in Benghazi and that won’t be the last attack on Americans carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq. Nor are we through with Iraq as a country. While nothing that happens there makes the news anymore, Iraq has joined the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis of Shiite terror. And Iraq’s recent purchase of Russian aircraft will give it the freedom to attack American manufactured aircraft.
    If Obama attempts to intervene in Syria, the result is likely to be a second or third Iraq War. But even if he doesn’t, the growing tensions between Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shiite federal government may drag us in anyway. For now, Obama has backed the Shiite federalists in their dispute with the Kurds, but as Maliki moves into the Russian orbit, we will have a choice between opposing Iran’s Iraqi clients in the coming Iraqi civil war or abandoning our Sunni and Kurdish allies to a Shiite slaughter.
    Obama will have the option of staying out of the Iraqi civil war, but not of pretending that everything was wrapped up neatly with a pink ribbon when he pulled out.
    Whatever one’s opinion of these three wars may be, Obama’s claims that these wars are over is insultingly dishonest. Wars only end when an enemy is defeated or no longer has the incentive to fight. Neither of those conditions obtains in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. Not only have our enemies not been defeated, but they have been given more power and scope for planning the next wave of atrocities.
    September 11, 2012, was a wake up call. If we don’t pay attention to it, there will be worse things waiting for us than burning embassies.
    Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

    The Ignorant Fishermen Blog: 666 - The Number of the Beast!

    The Ignorant Fishermen Blog: 666 - The Number of the Beast!


    666 - The Number of the Beast!

    As a young unsaved man I was very much into the heavy metal scene, not just participating in the lifestyle and culture, but also in the playing of this music. A song that we use to play and listen to was a song by Iron Maiden called, “The Number of the Beast”. The intro of this song begins with a man with a very ire voice quoting Revelation 12:12, 13:18.
    "Woe to You Oh Earth and Sea
    for the Devil sends the beast with wrath
    because he knows the time is short
    Let him who have understanding
    reckon the number of the beast
    for it is a human number
    its number is six hundred and sixty six"

    Today millions of heavy metal fans across the world KNOW this intro of this song as they know their very own names. They can quote this passage verbatim as unsaved religious folks can quote the Lord’s Prayer. I truly wonder how many - lost and saved today - fully comprehend the full magnitude, weight and depth of this exponential super abounding time called the Great Tribulation; in which there will be the exponential demonic oppression and tyranny of the "Devil" and his anti Christ (i.e., the Beast)(Rev. 9, 12:7-17). The very ones who can quote these same Scriptures fused into this Iron Maiden song (Rev.12:12, 13:18) will most likely be alive when this very Satanic institution goes into full affect (Matt. 24:15). What this song has done is to take the sting out of Almighty God's horrific warning and has neutered these Bible verses by twisted them to subtly promote the acceptance of the demonic agenda of 666, which will reign over the world very shortly until the Lord returns (Rev. 12:12; 13:18).

    The very ones who can quote these same Scriptures fused in this Iron Maiden song will most likely, be alive when this very Satanic intuition goes into effect.
    The words despotic, authoritarian, tyrannical, autocratic etc. with all of their deepest and fullest descriptions, fall so exceedingly short when seeking to describe the Satanic tyranny and oppression during these last 3 ½ years called “The Great Tribulation” (Matt. 24:21-22). So horrific a time this will be that the Lord Jesus stated that, “if the days were not cut short NO ONE (flesh) WOULD EVER SURVIVE” (Matt. 24:22)! This "time period" is experientially far more horrific then all the world wars and global pestilence ever put together. To add to man’s global woes during this time, the inhabitants of the world will have a supernatural oppressor and tyrant whose power, strength and genius exponentially surpasses the limited confines of mankind. 

    This fallen evil genus (Lucifer - aka. Satan) and his rebellious host of untold millions of fallen angels will be - because of their explosion from any access to the third heaven - confined and concentrated to this little o’l planet called earth (Rev.12:7-17). Planet earth will become their new temporal prison cell (Rev. 18:2) till Christ’s glorious return to earth in which these demonic hordes will be placed back in the abyss until they are assigned into the Lake of Fire FOREVER(Matt 25:41, Rev. 19:11-21). It has been this very time and hour that has been the most haunting and dreadful thought in the minds of the fallen angelic hosts, for they now know indeed that their time is very short (Matt. 8:29, 25: 41 Mark 1:24, 5:7, Luke 4:34, James 2:19).

    No other medium has been more powerful a tool to Satan (i.e., Lucifer) than the the godless music industry.
    In this last century - with all of the new mediums available to mankind - no other medium has been more powerful a tool in the hand of Satan (i.e., Lucifer) thanthe godless music industry. By it he has single handedly changed the course of history and the landscape of the world's global social order (Luke 4:5-6, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Eph. 2:1-2, 6:12). The youth of today are totally hardwired to their Ipods receiving the indoctrination of the "Do as thou wilt" from the god of this world.

    My friend, put away all such forms of evil and indoctrination and by faith place your trust in Almighty God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ and receive Him in to your heart as your personal Savior (John 1:12, 3:16-17, Acts 4:12, Rom. 6:23, 10:4, Gal 1:4) That my friend, is what this whole little life is about! Satan's godless system is but for a moment when compared to the vast expanse of ETERNITY future (Matt. 25:41, Rev. 20:11-15).

    My friend, place your trust in the Savior today and instead of drinking and singing from Satan's musical kool - aid selections. You will truly know what true happiness is and what comes from a heart that has been forgiven. You will be singing "Amazing Grace" all the live long day. May it be even so for you!

    The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

    DJP I.F.

    Good Fight Ministries - A must view for all music fans. See what is behind the music!

    The Ignorant Fishermen Blog: Trick or Treat or the TRUTH

    The Ignorant Fishermen Blog: Trick or Treat or the TRUTH


    Trick or Treat or the TRUTH

    The Trick is quite evident. It is to deceive, fool, pull the wool over and make as many Americans as possible drink their deceptive socialist Kool-aid. By the use of these tactics, they are manufacturing crisis after crisis, creating events to cause panic and attempting to win over individuals to full reliance and dependence on the State. This is the sole desire and fascist game plan of the Democratic Party of today. They will seek to maintain these efforts until all citizen's rights and liberties here in America have dissipated into thin air. The Constitution stands in the way and the rule of Law only hinders the furtherance of their fascist designs for America.

    The Trick is working quite well, but little do these Leftists in the Democratic Party comprehend that they themselves are being played by the Master Politician, and that the trick is being played on them for their very souls (2 Cor. 4:3-4, Jude 1:10,18-19). These Leftists today are just pawns on a chessboard being played by the god of this world, Lucifer (Matt. 25:41, Luke 4:5,6, Eph. 2:1-2, Rev. 20:11-15). When he is done with them, he will just simply discard them as he has others in the past (Nimrod, Alexander, Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, etc). These - at present - are just Lucifer's slaves setting the stage for the Man of Lawlessness, Lucifer’s Global Fascist government due to come onto the world scene very shortly (Matt. 16:26, 2 Thess. 2:3-12, Rev 13, 17:14). Lucifer's sole desire and main goal is to establish the global worship of himself and his anti - Christ (Is. 14:12-17, Ezek. 28:12-19 Rev. 13:4,8,12,15, 14:11, 2 Thess. 2:4) The Left in this country are warring not just against family values, moral absolutes, natural laws and our Founding father's vision for this country but chiefly against the Very One that so Loved the World, and whose Son died for their sins. For a brief moment of prestige and power, these have sold their very souls only to meet their ultimate and final doom(Ez. 18:23, Eccl. 1:1-3, Jude 1:10, 18-19). The Trick is on the Tricker, it would seem (2 Tim. 3:13).

    For a brief moment of prestige and power, these have sold their very souls only to meet their ultimate and final doom. The Trick is on the Tricker, it would seem.

    The Treat is all the promises and concessions that are made by conservatives to the citizens of the United States. By implementing conservative values we should be able to some what sustain a fallen world with relative harmony, prosperity, freedom and liberty. Even so, such a peaceful, desirable state might endure for a while, but even the Conservative treat in the end is loaded with razor blades and vile poison. It is a delusion - a false hope - in light of the realities of this world of fallen humanity and the consequences of its transgressions against the laws of Almighty God. In and by themselves, Conservative values have NO redeeming value and can never bring about the righteous perfection demanded by Almighty God for each individual, i.e., sinners (Rom. 3:23, 5:12-21). Conservatives are also pawns on the chessboard of time and must be eliminated to bring about Lucifer’s Man of Lawlessness (Eph. 2:1-2, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, 2 Thess. 2:2-10; Rev. 13), who is surely at hand.

    In and by themselves, Conservative values have NO redeeming value and can never bring about the righteous perfection demanded by Almighty God for each individual, i.e., sinners.

    There is no human savior in the “Trick or Treat” realm of humanity. They are ALL flawed and full of lies about the realities of time and ETERNITY(Rom. 3: 10-20), and thus all are doomed who remain in their natural fallen estate apart from God (Is. 45:21-23, Jer. 17:5-9, John 8:44).

    The Truth is Biblical Reality, as found in the Book wherein is quoted, “Thus saith the Lord!”. In the end, Conservative ideology will be totally eliminated (Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 2:3-12, Rev. 13) so that lawless, socialistic fascism will reign in the earth (Dan. 7: 25, Rev. 13). The Man of Lawlessness (the anti-Christ) must and will reign during the seven-year Tribulation period, and despotically for the last 3 1/2 years. He and his legions will then be destroyed at the return of the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 13:5). It is at this time that Almighty God’s Son will establish His 1000-Year Kingdom in true righteousness and justice (Is. 11:1-9, Zech. 14, Rev. 19: 20:2-4). That is the reality of what is to be.In this fallen world there can NEVER be peace and harmony (Is. 57:20, 64:6). The world in which we live in is a broken-egg world and there is absolutely no one in the world to repair it. Six thousand years of human history has shown us that. Sadly, even America with its godly heritage will show that it also cannot survive in this fallen world. The unbridled passions of men have won the day, as our Founders knew that it eventually would..

    The unbridled passions of men have won the day, as our Founders knew that it eventually would.

    Only the Creator and Sustainer of all - Almighty God - has the remedies and power to restore the lost and broken condition of all things caused by man (Is. 45:21-23, Mark 10:26-27). Only He can put the egg back together again through Christ, the Savior of the world! God alone is the only Savior.

    He ALONE can fix the unfixable, and He alone will accomplish it completely at the end of Christ’s 1000-year Reign (Mark 10:26, 1 Cor. 15:20-28, Rev. 21, 22:1-7).

    "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:24-28)

    "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isaiah 65:17)

    In this day and hour of mass deception and cunning craftiness, may your source for light come only from Almighty God’s Word of Truth. He alone has the answers to life’s mysteries. May your eyes be fixed on Him alone -The Faithful and True One (Heb. 11:2, Rev. 1:5) - and not to the cesspool of politics in Washington D.C.

    The Kingdom of Heaven is truly at hand!

    DJP I.F.

    The Gospel of John Challenge 
    What is Sin?.
    Operation Slander