VIDEO Satan and the GLBT Demons, Part 1

girl standing
28 February, 2015 by Linda Wall

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev.12:9)

Ever ask yourself where these characters are today? Well, they are here and will be here until the day they are thrown into the lake of fire. Lurking behind many disguises and some very sweet looking masks are the enemies of the cross and of the Living God.

Apostle Paul advised us to “put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” He took the teaching moment much further when he added; “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph.6:11-12)

Should you have difficulty in accepting these two truths, pray for the opening of your spiritual eyes so you can see through heaven’s eyes rather than earthly eyes or just don’t bother reading any farther.

Ask yourself who would take the Creator’s “rainbow in the sky,” a promise to mankind, copy it and make it the logo for sexual perversion?

Who would counterfeit the holy institution of marriage, one man and one woman, and re-write it to mean men can marry men, and women marry women?

Who would dare challenge God’s creation of male and female and offer the use of chemicals and sex surgery so some can masquerade opposite of their birth sex?

It is none other than Satan himself. His task is to make war with the remnant that keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ. He still comes as ‘an angel of light.’ He knows scripture and can add to it and twists it so that the elect would be deceived if that were possible.

During the years Satan had me bound by the demons of homosexuality, I saw enough into the world of darkness to understand its reality. While living in Norfolk, I was employed by the owner of an art gallery who also managed rental properties. My job was to freshen up the paint in houses and apartments for the next tenant after someone moved out.

On one occasion, while my employer was out of town, one of my tasks for the week was to clean out the basement of his house. I put that task off until the very end of the week, because I was actually afraid to go down in the earthen floor basement to rid it of the homeless squatter’s belongings.

The night before I was due to accomplish this dreaded assignment, I did something I had not done in fifteen years or more; I got on my knees to pray. Somehow I knew I was about to face the rulers of the darkness of this world.

After asking God to be with me and protect me, I jumped into bed. What happened next must have been a vision because not enough time had passed for me to be asleep and dreaming. I saw the pile of junk I was to remove from the basement and watched a snake crawl out from beneath it. In my ignorance of the dark side of the supernatural I thought God was telling me to watch out for the snake, but He was warning me about a much bigger serpent!

The next day I gathered some 50 gallon trash bags, a spotlight and an iron pipe and headed into the cellar. Entry to the earthen floor basement was an exterior entrance much like a tornado shelter. As I swung the heavy wooden cellar doors open my heart raced with fear. While I climbed down the steps I began banging the pipe on anything that would make a noise in hopes of scaring off any snake. Once my feet were on the ground I began shining the spotlight all around.

I felt like I had stepped into a live horror story. Enormous spider webs were hanging everywhere. The place was damp and cold. What was this place of darkness I had entered? All through the basement were wooden stalls with doors that one might keep animals behind. My imagination went wild as I could only imagine what was going to take place in this basement behind these “cages.”

Humanly, I was alone in the basement, but I could sense there were many eyes watching me. I began to sing hymns I use to sing as a kid in church. I couldn’t remember all of the words, but what came to mind I sang out loudly. I knew my only line of defense was God’s Word from those “old –timey” hymns.

As in fast forwarding a movie, I began to stuff the unwanted items into the plastic bags and in a flash the task was completed. What a relief when I exited the cellar and slammed the door. I had been expecting to be captured and locked up any moment the entire time I was down there.

I caught my breath and immediately entered the house to retrieve my car keys and sunglasses. Before leaving, I noticed all of the eyes in the pictures glaring at me. Often I had studied the art work, but for the first time I understood what they all had in common. It was the eyes. It was Satan himself glaring at me.

All of a sudden my brain put little incidences together to paint a bigger picture. Many times I had been invited to attend the “calling of the dead” that occurred weekly in the room of this house where the windows were painted black. It seemed that every time I turned around my employer was trying to get me to drink something or eat something that was described as “good for you.” There had also been an ongoing campaign at the gay bar I frequented to convince me to be hypnotized. I had a feeling I had truly encountered the occult.

On Sunday, I visited the Unitarian church where my employer was also a preacher. He had supposedly been away all week at a seminar for pastors to be alone with God. Even though the dots were connecting to indicate satanic activity, I was still curious enough to attend the service. It ended up being my last.

When he began to preach he went into a “trance” speaking with a different accent and under the name of St. Benedict. As I watched this unexplainable happening, I saw the devil’s head on his body and knew God Almighty was intervening and saying, “get out!”

In Part 2 of Satan and the GLBT Demons I’ll share how I escaped.

Charlene Cothran – Gay Activist Finds Christ

Ex-Gay Was “Swallowed By Satan”

If I were the devil

Transgender Bully

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO GOP Responding To War On Preppers And Liberty: MB Obama Unconstitutional Ammo Ban For Most Popular Rifle In America

Barack Obama has apparently decided to rule by decree for the rest of his time in the White House
February 27, 2015 by Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse

Because he can’t get Congress to approve the things that he wants to do, Barack Obama has apparently decided to rule by decree for the rest of his time in the White House. One of Obama’s latest moves is to try to ban some of the most popular ammunition for the most popular ri – fle in America. Previously, the Obama administration attempted unsuccessfully to ban the AR-15. That didn’t work, so now Obama is going after the ammunition. This is yet another example of the war on preppers that is going on all over the nation. Whether you are a gun owner or not, this assault on our constitutional rights should disturb you greatly. Barack Obama has promised to try to squeeze as much “change” as possible out of his last two years, and in the process he is “fundamentally transforming” America. But what will our country look like when he is done?

At the top of the Drudge Report today, there was a story from the Washington Examiner detailing this ammo ban…

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

And here is more on this ammo ban from the NRA…

As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.

In an effort to thwart BATFE’s attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.

According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the American tradition of lawful firearms ownership, as protected by the Second Amendment.” This includes due consideration of “the many legitimate uses Americans make of their firearms including target practice, hunting, organized and casual competition, training and skills development, and instructional activities.“ The letter concludes with several pointed questions for B. Todd Jones, BATFE’s director, including why the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedures Act in proposing such a radical change to its prior interpretation and enforcement of the law.

The crazy thing about all of this is the fact that this ammunition has never met the legal definition of being “armor piercing”. So what the Obama administration is attempting to do is outside the law.

A recent Infowars article broke this down…

The ATF is trying to ban M855 AR-15 ammunition by declaring it “armor piercing,” despite the ammo containing lead which exempts it from the classification according to law.

To be considered “armor piercing” under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17)(B), a bullet must have an entirely metal core or have a jacket weighting more than 25% of its weight, which wouldn’t include M855 roundsbecause their bullets are partly lead.

The definition in full:


(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means- (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

Needless to say, this ban is creating quite a bit of panic among gun owners.

Many gun owners are stocking up on this ammo while they still can…

Word of ATF’s proposal sparked a run on ammo at some Springfield gun stores, and steep price spikes for steel-tipped military surplus ammo at some online ammo dealers. Rounds that sold for 25 to 30 cents apiece tripled at some some stores after BATF posted its proposal on its web site.

“We sold out of what we had in stock,” said Ryan Cook, manager of Eagle Armory in Springfield. “We didn’t have a lot in the store but I might have sold four or five cases after ATF’s statement came out. I called our suppliers but they said there was none available to order. It’s like the ammo shortage before. People are going to panic.”

Like I said earlier, even if you are not a gun owner you have got to be extremely concerned about this erosion of our constitutional rights.

We have a man occupying the White House that seems absolutely determined to stretch the limits of presidential power as far as they can possibly go.

And at this point he has become so arrogant that he doesn’t even care if Congress believes that what he is doing is legal. Just consider what he said during one recent speech…

Pres. Obama is daring Republicans to vote on whether or not his executive actions are legal.

Discussing opposition to his executive amnesty orders at an immigration town hall Wednesday, Obama said he would veto the vote because his actions are “the right thing to do”:

“So in the short term, if Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do.”

This is how republics die. When one man starts grabbing more and more power and nobody stops him, eventually a dictatorship is born.

This is not what our founding fathers intended. If they could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves.

And a lot of Americans are getting fed up.

In fact, according to one recent survey only 47 percent of Americans still believe that Obama loves this country…

While the creepy #ILOVEOBAMA continues to trend on Twitter, fewer than half of American adults, 47 percent, say they believe that the president loves his country.

According to a survey conducted by Huffington Post/YouGov and released this week, a whopping 35 percent of Americans, more than one in three, believe that Obama doesn’t love the United States, while 17 percent said they weren’t sure.

The poll was conducted in the wake of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani telling a gathering in Manhattan that “I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.”

So what do you think?

Do you believe that what Obama is trying to do is legal?

And do you believe that Obama actually loves this country and everything that it is supposed to stand for?

Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…

BATF Ammo Ban Violates Federal Law As Well As The Constitution
gun We The People
Why would we expect the feral government to care about the law?
February 27, 2015

Obama and the BATF are collaborating to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms by banning ammunition.

The founders knew it would be a gradual process of infringement, and the process takes the next step with an attempt at an unconstitutional ban on “armor piercing” bullets that don’t match the legal definition. But why would we expect the feral government to care about the law?

Here’s How Republicans are Responding to Obama’s Unlawful Ammo Ban Proposal
By Jason W. Stevens

<strong>We reported on the Obama administration’s proposed ammo ban. The American people and lawmakers in Congress are definitely upset about the President’s recent executive actions, and they’re firing back in EPIC fashion.

The first thing to do, however, is to understand fully what the law actually aims to accomplish.

Powerline blog provides this thoughtful analysis:

This gets rather technical, but briefly, what we are talking about here is the projectile, or bullet. The M855 bullet has a lead core and a steel tip. It is commonly used in 5.56 and .223 cartridges. ATF proposes to ban the M855 as an armor-piercing projectile under the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. These laws generally prohibit the sale of armor-piercing ammunition in order to protect law enforcement personnel who wear bullet-proof vests. …

ATF classified the M855 projectile as armor piercing some time ago. Until now, it has been legal because the 5.56 and .223 cartridges in which the M855 is used have been exclusively rifle ammunition, and the definition of armor piercing ammunition includes the requirement that it “may be used in a handgun.” What has changed, according to ATF, is that 5.56 and .223 cartridges that include the M855 steel-tipped bullet can now be used in AR-15-style handguns[.] …

Does ATF’s action make sense? Not really. The point of the statutes at issue is to protect law enforcement personnel against armor-piercing bullets fired from concealable handguns. …

AR-15-style pistols are not small or concealable. [The] SIG Sauer’s P516 pistol…is 23″ long[.]

No one is going to take a police officer by surprise with a 23″ long weapon. The Washington Examiner quotes a former officer:

“Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo. and a 17-year veteran police told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Here’s a photo of the SIG Sauer’s P516 “handgun”:

gun SIG Saur P516

In response to the Obama administration’s unlawful proposals, Republicans and even some Democrats (!) are coming together to put a stop to it.

From Fox News:

Word of the proposal by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to ban .223 M855 “green tip” ammunition came out on Thursday and prompted an immediate backlash from sportsmen. House members from both parties and some law enforcement officials were not far behind.

“[The ban] will interfere with Second Amendment rights by disrupting the market for ammunition that law abiding Americans use for sporting and other legitimate purposes,” reads the letter signed by lawmakers and addressed to ATF director Todd Jones. …

[T]he congressional letter notes that the ATF provides no evidence of the bullet’s danger to law enforcement.

“ATF has not even alleged – much less offered evidence – that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” the letter reads.

Many police organizations are also not in favor of the ban.

“The notion that all of a sudden a new pistol requires banning what had long been perfectly legal ammunition doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to many officers,” William Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, told

NAPO represents over 1,000 police units and associations and 241,000 law enforcement officers around the country.

Johnson added that the bullets currently banned under the law deserve to stay banned. …

Gun-rights groups also worry that the ban – if allowed to stand – won’t stop with this type of bullet.

“Almost any hunting rifle bullet will go through body armor, so you could prohibit almost any rifle bullet with this. This is the administration redefining the law on its own,” Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation, told

The lawmakers also dispute the ATF’s legal authority to ban the bullets, saying that the proposed ban “does not comport with the letter or spirit of the law.”

You can download the letter from lawmakers at the link below

My Gun Permit TFernandez
Never Forget  Tyrant Said guns tfernandez

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Soros, The Web’s New Net Minder – GOP ‘pretty fired up’ about blocking ObamaNet

28 February, 2015 By Tony Perkins

The government took over health care, and we all know how that turned out. Now Washington is trying to get its hands on the Internet — another power grab that’s spooking people in every corner of cyberspace. Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) went a long way to accomplishing the Left’s next power grab, voting 3-2 to give their agency the authority to swoop in and regulate one of the few markets still free of government intervention.

Although there are strong feelings on both sides of the debate, one thing Americans should all agree on is that this decision — involving the federal government in one of the most productive areas of our economy should have come from Congress. Instead, three political appointees have decided to entrust a government agency with control of the Internet. (To see where an over involved government can lead, see communist China.) As many have argued, the reason the web has prospered and grown so quickly is because the government isn’t involved. Still, Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman, insists that we “finally have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the Internet stays fast, fair and open.” Fast, maybe. But “fair” and “open” aren’t exactly watchwords of this administration. Forbes, one of the outlets weighing in, was quick to say that “net neutrality,” as the FCC calls it, is anything but. “It’s not party neutral. It’s not government-branch neutral. It’s not consumer-neutral.”

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) piled on, refusing to mince words about what he sees as more overreach from an out-of-control and inefficient government. “This unprecedented move by the FCC is not only an egregious seizure of regulatory power and a clear violation of the 1996 Communications Act… It also begins in earnest the slow, suffocating, inevitable demise of the Internet as we know it today — the open and expansive universe and source of information, innovation, entertainment, and communication. What was previously bound only by our imagination and the frontiers of our technology will now be suffocated by Washington bureaucrats…”

“Today, the FCC made clear that it has no interest in governing within the authority given to it by Congress, and that it is eager to discard the objectivity that is expected of an independent, non-partisan agency in favor of rank partisanship carried out on behalf of our imperious President.”

Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to ‘net neutrality’ groups, staff to White House
February 26, 2015 By Paul Bedard

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

And now, as the Federal Communications Commission nears approving a type of government control over the Internet, the groups are poised to declare victory in the years-long fight, according to the report from MRC Business, an arm of the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center.

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

It quoted critic Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, saying, “The biggest money in this debate is from the liberal foundations that lavish millions on self-styled grassroots groups pushing for more and more regulation and federal control.”

Groups funded by Soros and Ford include the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Media Matters for America. They received a total of $54,226,097 from the Ford and Open Society Foundations.

Both the Ford Foundation, not affiliated with Ford Motor Co., and Open Society support the initiative.

Some of those supported by the two groups’ funding have also worked the White House, notably John Podesta, former Center for American Progress head and now expected to run Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

MRC Business regularly follows the spending and activity of Soros, and even has an initiative to keep an eye on his advocacy called the Soros Project.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at

Soros & Ford Foundation Donated Nearly $200 Million to Help Push New Internet Regs

Goodbye Internet, Hello ObamaNet – FCC Approves “Net Neutrality” Bill – Internet Takeover Begins

GOP ‘pretty fired up’ about blocking ObamaNet

Congresswoman: ‘Time to nip this in the bud before they put it on the books’
Feb 28, 2015 by Greg Corombos

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., is leading the first legislative effort to roll back the federal government’s decision to start regulating the Internet as a utility, calling Thursday’s action by the Federal Communications Commission the start of the “Obamanet” and a guarantee of more taxes for Internet consumers.

On Thursday, by a party line 3-2 vote, the FCC approved a plan commonly known as net neutrality, but which critics like Blackburn see as unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector.

“This is the day the ObamaNet was born,” said Blackburn, who is vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “The Internet is not broken. It does not need the FCC’s help and assistance in order to be productive or profitable.”

Coverage and analysis of the FCC’s net neutrality decision has been fairly limited, with both experts and consumers finding the issue very complicated. Blackburn said the impact of this is clear and very significant.

“The FCC will now reclassify broadband services from an information service to a telecommunications service. They will do this under a 1930s-era law, the Telecommunications Act. They will thereby subject the Internet to taxes, regulation, international considerations that are now put on our wire-lined phones. So this is a step backward; it is not a step forward,” said Blackburn, who stresses that the private market was serving consumers just fine.

“It’s a sad day when you see the Federal Communications Commission coming in and preceding your Internet service provider, your ISP, in the governance of the Internet,” she said. “Basically, what you’re going to see is the FCC will now be able to assign priority and value to content because they will be in charge of controlling pricing and fees.”

Blackburn said higher taxes on Americans’ Internet bills are not a possibility but a guarantee. And how much more will Americans be paying?

“You’ve got estimates that run from a few billion dollars in additional taxes to as high as $15 billion,” she said. “So at this point, I think it’s ‘pick a number,’ but everybody agrees the cost is going to go up because of taxes and fees.”

In short, Blackburn said the government is stepping in to control something that didn’t need rescuing.

“Whether it is packaging and pricing or the availability of broadband, you now have given the control over this to the FCC to decide what areas of the country get what speeds, what type of businesses get access to what speeds,” Blackburn said. “It allows the FCC to now begin picking winners and losers.”

Blackburn is launching the first piece of legislation aimed at rolling back the FCC plan, joining with Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., to repeal a specific provision that trumps their states’ laws on broadband service. The FCC upheld petitions from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, that would allow their broadband rules to be placed on residents outside their jurisdictions.

“Let’s say you have County A that goes in and they work with the FCC and they get a grant that helps them stand up a municipal broadband network. Well, they decide, ‘We need more customers on this network,’ so they go into adjoining counties B, C and D and say, ‘We will provide this service for you. What you have then done is to make counties B, C and D subject to the governing body of County A,” said Blackburn, noting that county would then have the power to set pricing and speed levels for people who do not live within its borders.

Her bill with Sen. Tillis would block that.

“The legislation that Sen. Tillis and I filed [Thursday] would prohibit these municipal broadband networks from going into these other areas and expanding their footprint,” she said, while again slamming the federal government for needlessly trying to trump state law.

“If they want to do it for their own constituents within their own footprint, then fine,” she said. “But it doesn’t take the federal government coming in and pre-empting state law and pre-empting local law to do that. They have no right to do that and they ought not to be doing that.”

The net neutrality controversy comes at the same time members of Congress are fiercely debating whether President Obama had the power to unilaterally approve the legalization of five million adults in the U.S. illegally. Blackburn, who calls the FCC a group of “unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats,” sees a disturbing pattern.

“It is more of this overreach and, quite frankly, I think the American people are growing weary of this,” she said. “They don’t think one city ought to be able to override another and get into the broadband business competing with the private sector.”

While she isn’t sure if the Senate will find the votes to pass her bill or others likely to be drafted in response to the FCC, Blackburn said Republicans are ready to fight over her bill and the larger issues at stake.

“I think they’re pretty fired up, and you’re going to see us move forward with our legislation,” she said. “Of course, I’ve had the bill that would block net neutrality for about three-and-a-half years, so it’s time to move it forward now so we can nip this in the bud before they get a chance to put it on the books.”

Obama Keystone Internet
soros map

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Smoking Guns Confirm Benghazi Cover-up – Benghazi Timeline – Emails prove Hillary ‘terror’ lie in Benghazi

hillary 9 11 Benghazi
28 February, 2015 by Roger Aronoff

We have repeatedly exposed how the mainstream media consistently ignore the “phony scandal” of the multiple terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, and the unnecessary deaths of four brave Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Indeed, the mainstream media shy away from covering this scandal or, alternatively, dismiss efforts to expose the ongoing government cover-up as an attack on Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances.

But the media should be furious because they—alongside of the American public—were sold a lie by the Obama administration. And the media became one of the tools through which that lie was disseminated. The latest disclosures have come to light thanks to the ongoing efforts of Judicial Watch.

Document after released document shows that the Secretary of State, the Defense Secretary, the head of AFRICOM, and the President of the United States himself, were informed, shortly after the attack began, that Benghazi was an attack by terrorists. Yet most of the media, such as New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick, defensively maintain the official narrative years later that the attack “was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well,” states an email forwarded to Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff at the time, as well as Clinton’s deputy chief-of-staff for policy and her executive assistant. It is dated September 11, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. EST, about a half hour after the attack in Benghazi began. The argument that senior State Department personnel did not inform their direct superior, Mrs. Clinton, of the facts surrounding the unfolding situation strains credulity.

State Department emails released through a lawsuit by Judicial Watch show that then-Secretary Hillary Clinton knew as the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi was under way that it was being carried out by terrorists,” reports Jerome Corsi for WorldNetDaily. Yet, “Clinton blamed the attack on ‘rage and violence over an awful Internet video’” just days later when “she spoke at a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base on Sept. 14, 2014” as the remains of those slain returned to the U.S. She also made similar assertions on September 12, 2012.

Andrew McCarthy, writing for National Review, connected the dots, detailing the anatomy of the attempted cover-up.

While the attacks were still going on, “Secretary Clinton issued an official statement claiming the assault may have been in ‘response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,’” McCarthy writes. He continues, “Secretary Clinton’s statement took pains to add that ‘the United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others’—further intimating that the video was the cause of the attack. I have previously recounted that this official Clinton statement was issued shortly after 10 p.m.—minutes after President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke briefly on the telephone about events in Benghazi, according to Clinton’s congressional testimony. The White House initially denied that Obama had spoken with Clinton or other top cabinet officials that night. The president’s version of events changed after Secretary Clinton’s testimony.”

The new emails from Judicial Watch also show that Clinton’s top officials were trying to get third parties to echo false information that they were fully aware was incorrect, according to the group’s President Tom Fitton, who spoke at a press briefing on February 26. And they stopped talking to the press so that statements about the video would receive more coverage.

Mills asked the State Department to stop answering press inquiries after Mrs. Clinton’s statement about “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” was “hanging out there,” writing, “Can we stop answering emails for the night Toria [Victoria Nuland] b/c now the first one is hanging out there.”

Fitton also said that the released emails leave no doubt that Clinton’s closest advisors knew the basic facts about Benghazi immediately, and that Clinton knowingly lied about the YouTube video’s role in Benghazi. He cited the failure of the media to have any curiosity about this issue and condemned Congress for not holding the administration more accountable.

The Select Committee on Benghazi contacted Judicial Watch a day before the press briefing regarding its documents and specialized knowledge about Benghazi, said Fitton. Yet the Select Committee began interviewing State Department officials earlier this month, without these documents.

The cover-up by the administration, including by Mrs. Clinton, has only become more apparent with the release of Judicial Watch’s most recent “smoking gun” emails from the State Department. Will the media continue to look the other way in an attempt to save Mrs. Clinton’s reputation and her White House bid, or will it finally begin to demand real accountability? Unfortunately, I think we already know the answer to that, leaving it up to Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) committee, and groups like Judicial Watch, and our Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

Related in the article

Benghazi Timeline The long road from “spontaneous protest” to premeditated terrorist attack
May 2, 2014

The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

-There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

– Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

– Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

– Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Much More (19 printed pages) At the link below

Emails prove Hillary ‘terror’ lie in Benghazi
Clinton claimed ‘response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet’

Feb 26, 2015 by Jerome R. Corsi

WASHINGTON – State Department emails released through a lawsuit by Judicial Watch show then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew while the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi was under way that it was being carried out by terrorists.

Clinton blamed the attack on “rage and violence over an awful Internet video” when she spoke at a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base on Sept. 14, 2014, as the remains of the four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were returned to the United States.

The emails were made public Thursday by the Washington, D.C., legal watchdog group.

“These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about ‘inflammatory’ material being posted on the Internet,’” Fitton said.

He said the “contempt for the public’s right to know is evidenced not only in these documents, but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them.”

“The Obama gang’s cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information,” Fitton said. “Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills and every other official in these emails under oath.”

Fitton criticized the current House Select Committee investigation on Benghazi headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R- S.C.

“Never once has Gowdy or the House Select Committee asked Judicial Watch to turn over the many bombshell documents Judicial Watch has obtained from the Obama administration by FOIA request, “ Fitton told WND.

“I would have thought a serious congressional investigation into Benghazi would have started with the documents we had, since Judicial Watch has led in exposing the White House cover-up,” he said.

On Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. EST, as the Benghazi attack was going on, Maria Sand, then a special assistant to Clinton, forwarded an email from the State Department’s Operations Center titled, “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack,” to Cheryl Mills, then chief-of staff to Secretary Clinton, as well as Jacob Sullivan, then-deputy chief-of-staff for policy, Joseph McManus, then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant, and other special assistants in Clinton’s office.

The email read:

The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.

Then, at 4:38 p.m. Eastern, State Department Foreign Service Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus an email from Scott Bultrowicz, the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, one of four senior State Department officials who was ousted in December 2012 after the publication of the State Department’s Advisor Review Board final report of the Benghazi attack.

With the subject line “Attack on Benghazi,” it read:

DSCC [Diplomatic Security Command Center] received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire.

Nearly seven hours later, at 12:04 a.m. on Sept. 12, Randolph sent an email with the subject line “FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location “Also Under Attack,” to Mills, Sullivan and McManus that had several updates about the Benghazi attack:

I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center.

The email also contains a chain of earlier email updates:

Sept. 11, 2012, at 11:57 p.m. EST. Email: “(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff.”

Sept. 11, 2012, 6:06 p.m. EST. (Subject: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): “(SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli”

Sept. 11, 2012, 4:54 p.m. EST: “Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel.”

The State Department emails released Thursday by Judicial Watch reveal the first official confirmation of the death of Ambassador Stevens.

On Sept. 12, 2012, at 3:22 a.m. EST, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, which was later forwarded to Mills and McManus, with the subject line “Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi.”

It read:

Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi.

Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Ambassador Stevens’ death to officials in the State Department Legislative Affairs office with instructions not to “forward to anyone at this point.”

Despite her three top staff members being informed that a terrorist group had claimed credit for the attack, Clinton, issued an official statement, also produced to Judicial Watch, claiming the attack may have been “a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Download- Judicial Watch Special Investigative Report The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012 – Analysis & Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent

brave men cowards benghazi
Benghazi Tfernandez
Benghazi sticker

Related previous posts on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO An Eye for an ISIS – Franklin Graham on DC and Islam! – bin Laden’s Ties With Iran – Tea Party “Coexist” Bumper Sticker

Pentagon walks back plans for spring offensive against ISIS stronghold Mosul
isis destroys mosul artifacts
28 February, 2015 By Tony Perkins

It’s the stuff of Old Testament times: God’s people taken into captivity, sold into slavery, or worse — slaughtered in cold blood. Their villages conquered, their people taxed, the thousands of Assyrian Christians suffering in the Middle East today share more than a language with the people of Jesus’s time. They also share the deep pain of an ancient war now ripping through Syria and northern Iraq.

While U.S. warplanes rain down strikes from above, reports suggest that an estimated 300 Christian hostages sit frightened in an unknown location, prisoners of a primitive hatred. After just two days, their numbers are already dwindling, as Islam’s terrorists are said to have viciously executed another 15 innocents. For its part, the Obama administration finally acknowledged the Christian faith that ISIS is targeting in a statement from his National Security Council, insisting that the world’s leaders stands “united and undeterred” in its resolve to bring an end to the terrorists’ “depravity.” But the same officials still refuse to label what ISIS is doing in Iraq as what it is: genocide.

In a sobering piece from the New York Times, Anne Barnard chronicles the onslaught in these religious communities, which date all the way back to Mesopotamia. No longer content to massacre people, ISIS is

systematically killing their culture too. At the crossroads of Syria and Iraq — a land as meaningful for its history as it is strategic for this battle — terrorists are smashing locks into libraries, museums, and churches. Shattering 3,000-year old pieces of art, the militants are exchanging their knives for power drills and hammers, which they take to priceless pieces.

Wielding sledgehammers, men in black masks are intent — not just on mangling populations but erasing every trace of them. It is, says anthropologist Amr al-Azm, “A tragedy and catastrophic loss for Iraqi history and archaeology beyond comprehension.” So now ISIS is systematically destroying the cultural evidence that followers of Jesus Christ have inhabited this land since the founding of the Church.

While they sell art to finance their bloodlust, other believers run for their lives. In the sliver of land that connects Syria and Iraq, only fighters are left behind from the 1,200 families lucky enough to escape without capture. At least 33 villages from the area have been raided in the gruesome march through Iraq — with some radicals even crossing the rivers by night.

The Christians who have survived are still paying a steep price. “Early in February, according to Assyrian groups inside and outside Syria, came a declaration from the Islamic State that Christians in a string of villages… in Syrian Hasaka Province would have to take down their crosses and pay the jizya (a tax for religious minorities), traditionally in gold.” Some say they’re staving off ISIS’s wrath with money.

One of the Christians with hopes of returning to his Ninevah home said, “I made a vow, when I return I want to kiss the soil of my village and pray in the church.” It’s a powerful reminder that ISIS can destroy a lot of things — but the hope of those who follow the risen Savior is not one of them.

Franklin Graham’s Shocking Revelation About Washington and Islam!
Former Presidents Bush And Clinton And Carter Attend Opening Of Billy Graham Library
By Russ Hepler

Appearing recently on the O’Reilly Factor, Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham and president of Samaritan’s Purse Ministries, made a shocking disclosure about why the U.S. has been ineffective so far in dealing with Islamic terrorism in the world. Charisma News reports:

“One of the problems we have in the West is our governments, especially in Washington, have been infiltrated by Muslims who are advising the White House,” Graham tells O’Reilly.

Western Journalism continues Franklin Graham’s statement:

“And we see this also in Western Europe. They have gotten into the halls of power.”

These shocking statements did not go unchallenged by Bill O’Reilly, however. Western Journalism reports:

O’Reilly interrupted and refuted, asking Graham to name names, Graham said he would get the names to O’Reilly but had been informed by several people that they are indeed there.

But, Graham stood firm in his allegations. Charisma News continues:

“I’m not saying they’re sitting next to the president whispering in his ear, but they are in the halls, and they are speaking to the staffers.”

Graham has added further to his assertions via his Facebook page:

Why is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu being shunned by the liberal media, congress, and President Barack Obama? I believe it’s because this administration has been heavily influenced by Muslims speaking into and giving advice in various areas of the White House.

They are anti-Israel and anti-Semitic—and they are influencing the president who as we all know was raised with a strong Muslim influence in his life. His father and his stepfather were Muslims and he attended Islamic schools.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a friend to the US and deserves our respect. They’re treating our friend and ally as an enemy.

Many people believe what Graham has said is true given President Obama’s reluctance to call ISIS an Islamic terrorist organization. He has also defended Islam multiple times while at the same time criticizing Christianity.

Perhaps one of the people Graham was alluding to was special Presidential advisor – Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett. But, she is hardly the only one. Even Bill O’Reilly admitted that there are Islamic lobbying groups active in Washington.

Graham was conciliatory to Muslims in the interview, however. He reassured them of God’s love for them and said that he prays for them.

It has been a very curious thing that the President seems to trip over himself to rush to defend the religion of Islam despite all of the recent brutality and savagery done in the name of Islam. We’ve never had a President before who has been so pro-Islam and anti-Israel; not even Jimmy Carter.

Let’s hope Graham’s declaration is further investigated and the truth exposed about what influences are at work in Washington – both at the Capitol and the White House.

Tea Party Re-Creates Politically Incorrect Version of “Coexist” Bumper Sticker – The Result is EPIC!
isis infidels
By Jason W. Stevens

How many times have you seen the popular “Coexist” bumper sticker? It seems to be just about everywhere nowadays.

The point that the image is trying to make is that peoples of all faiths should tolerate one another and get along in peace. I don’t necessarily disagree with that message.

Of course, members of all the various faiths depicted, except one, already practice toleration as it is. They don’t need to be told to “coexist.”

The image was created in the first place because some members of one particular group refuse to coexist with others. So, the bumper sticker tells us that we must tolerate those who refuse to extend the blessing of toleration to others.

From Mad World News:

We’re all familiar with the term “coexist,” which our friends on the left love to preach we need to do in order to stop the ever-growing threat of radical Islam, and we likely all agree that it’s the biggest load of bologna imaginable. Well, a member of the Tea Party decided to create a short video that shows the inherent flaw in the left’s never-ending plight to get us to tolerate people who would gladly chop our heads off…

TPNN first published the roughly 30-second animation, and it’s a comical way to show a very serious problem we face in the world – the “religion of peace” isn’t exactly as peaceful as we’re told. …

See also this.

The Tea Party isn’t being fooled. Their clever politically incorrect spin on the “Coexist” image is now taking the internet by storm.

From TPNN:

You know those people; the ones riding around with that Coexist bumper sticker on their car, right next to the Obama Biden one.

They’re the same folks who regularly assert that Islam is a “Religion of Peace” and “Can’t we just all get along?”

A tea party supporter has come up with a brilliant video, demonstrating for these naive peaceniks exactly what radical Muslims think about coexisting with the rest of us infidels.

Watch the short 30 second video below and let us know what you think! Is it pretty accurate?

Pentagon walks back plans for spring offensive against ISIS stronghold Mosul
February 28, 2015 by RT

Facing criticism, the Pentagon announced it has pushed back plans by Iraqis to mount a major attack to regain Mosul from the Islamic State. The Pentagon now says the assault might occur in the fall, but even that date is tenuous.

According to a new report by the Daily Beast, military officials said Friday it is more realistic for Iraqi and Kurdish troops to try and retake Mosul from the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL) in the fall.

“I can’t put a date certain…nor say April is out,” said Defense Department spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby to the website. “I don’t think we are there yet. There are gaps and seams that need to be closed.”

A group within the US government pushed for a spring offensive out of concern that the next opportunity to launch such a campaign would not be until the fall, but policymakers were trumped by concerns that Iraqi forces were nowhere near ready for an attack.

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that it would be “six to nine months, best estimate” before Iraqi forces could launch a counter-offensive against ISIS.

“It is an Iraqi decision but we don’t want to do anything until they are ready and can win decisively,” a military official told the Daily Beast. “They cannot now.”

Earlier this month, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) briefed reporters on a plan to retake the northern city of Mosul, an ISIS stronghold, with the US providing air support for Iraqi and Kurdish troops in the “April, May timeframe.” The goal was to capture the city before Ramadan began on June 17.

Iraqi officials and prominent Republican Senators were stunned the offensive was being telegraphed in advance to the enemy. They were equally appalled when Pentagon officials leaked specifics of the number of fights and configuration – “five Iraqi brigades and three brigades of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters composing a total force of 25,000 troops.”

Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled Obeidi, in a televised briefing this week, wouldn’t confirm the timeline.

“This is urban warfare and we have civilian populations. It is very important to take time and accuracy in setting the plan for this battle,” said Obeidi.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) blasted CENTCOM’s announcement in a letter to President Barack Obama, calling the disclosure a risk to “the success of our mission, but could also cost the lives of US, Iraqi and coalition forces.”

New Docs Reveal Osama bin Laden’s Secret Ties With Iran
osama bin laden
Show availability of Iran for al Qaeda training, plotting.
February 27, 2015 by Thomas Joscelyn

This week, prosecutors in New York introduced eight documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan as evidence in the trial of a terrorism suspect. The U.S. government accuses Abid Naseer of taking part in al Qaeda’s scheme to attack targets in Europe and New York City. And prosecutors say the documents are essential for understanding the scope of al Qaeda’s plotting.

More than 1 million documents and files were captured by the Navy Seals who raided bin Laden’s safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May 2011. One year later, in May 2012, the Obama administration released just 17 of them.

While there is some overlap between the files introduced as evidence in Brooklyn and those that were previously made public in 2012, much of what is in the trial exhibits had never been made public before.

The files do not support the view, promoted by some in the Obama administration, that bin Laden was in “comfortable retirement,” “sidelined,” or “a lion in winter” in the months leading up to his death. On the contrary, bin Laden is asked to give his order on a host of issues, ranging from the handling of money to the movement of terrorist operatives.

Some of the key revelations in the newly-released bin Laden files relate to al Qaeda’s dealings with Iran and presence in Afghanistan.

A top al Qaeda operative asked bin Laden for permission to relocate to Iran in June 2010 as he plotted attacks around the world. That operative, Yunis al Mauritani, was a senior member of al Qaeda’s so-called “external operations” team, and plotted to launch Mumbai-style attacks in Europe.

As THE WEEKLY STANDARD first reported, the al Qaeda cell selected to take part in al Mauritani’s plot transited through Iran and some of its members received safe haven there after the planned attacks were thwarted.

In the memo to bin Laden, a top al Qaeda manager wrote, “Sheikh Yunis is ready to move and travel.” The file continues: “The destination, in principle, is Iran, and he has with him 6 to 8 brothers that he chose. I told him we are waiting for final complete confirmation from you to move, and agree on this destination (Iran). His plan is: stay around three months in Iran to train the brothers there then start moving them and distributing them in the world for their missions and specialties. He explained those to you in his report and plan.”

Bin Laden’s reply is apparently not included in the documents.

Other intelligence recovered in the raid on the al Qaeda master’s home show that al Qaeda and Iran were at odds in some ways. Iran detained a number of senior al Qaeda leaders and members of Osama bin Laden’s family. Al Qaeda forced Iran to release some of them by kidnapping an Iranian diplomat in Pakistan. Some of the newly-released files provide hints of these disagreements as well, including a suggestion that one of bin Laden’s sons may complain about the jihadists’ treatment in Iran once he was freed.

The same June 2010 memo to bin Laden that includes Yunis al Mauritani’s request also includes a section on the al Qaeda leaders who had returned to Pakistan from Iran. One of them is Abu Anas al Libi, a bin Laden lieutenant who was captured in Tripoli in 2013. Upon being freed, al Libi was reassigned to al Qaeda’s security committee and asked to move to Libya to take part in the anti-Qaddafi revolution. Al Qaeda granted al Libi’s request.

Although Iran and al Qaeda have had significant differences, there is much intelligence showing that the two continue to collude.

During President Obama’s administration, the Treasury and State Departments have repeatedly exposed the formerly “secret deal” between the Iranian regime and al Qaeda that allows the terrorist organization to shuttle operatives around the globe. Some of those operatives included Yunis al Mauritani’s men.

The June 2010 memo to bin Laden indicates that al Qaeda had a significant presence in Afghanistan at the time.

“Our groups inside Afghanistan are the same as for every season for many years now,” bin Laden’s subordinate wrote. “We have groups in Bactria, Bactica, Khost, Zabul, Ghazni and Warduk in addition to the battalion in Nuristan and Kunz.” (Bactria and Bactica may be transliterated incorrectly and actually reference other provinces.)

“We have very strong military activity in Afghanistan, many special operations, and the Americans and NATO are being hit hard,” the memo continues.

The author, who is likely Atiyyah Abd al Rahman (later killed in a U.S. drone strike), says that al Qaeda had recently cooperated with the Haqqani Network in a major operation in Bagram. “We cooperated with Siraj Haqqani and other commander down there (Kabul/Bagram),” Rahman writes to bin Laden. Siraj’s father, Jalaluddin Haqqani, was one of bin Laden’s closest allies. The Haqqani network and al Qaeda have fought side-by-side for years and the Haqqanis continue to provide shelter for al Qaeda’s men in northern Pakistan.

Al Qaeda’s description of its own presence in Afghanistan is directly at odds with the assessments made by U.S. military and intelligence officials, who have portrayed the group as having only a small number of fighters and being geographically isolated.

Other revelations include the following:

Senior al Qaeda leaders discussed potential negotiations with Al Jazeera over the copyrights for the jihadists’ propaganda films and footage. Al Qaeda also wanted to play a significant role in an upcoming documentary produced by the channel.

Al Qaeda believed the British were ready to cut a deal to get out of Afghanistan. If al Qaeda left the Brits alone, one file contends, the UK was willing to pull out from the country.

Al Qaeda was in direct contact with Al Tayyib Agha, a Taliban leader who has served as Mullah Omar’s emissary. The U.S. government has held direct talks with Agha in an attempt to broker a peace deal in Afghanistan. The Taliban has rejected the goals of those talks, however.

Al Qaeda was monitoring the situation in Libya, and noted that the “brothers” in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) were operating in Benghazi, Derna and elsewhere in eastern Libya. Members of the LIFG went on to help form Ansar al Sharia in Derna and other al Qaeda-linked groups, some of which took part in the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack.

Bin Laden advised his subordinates that they should contact Abu Mohammad al Maqdisi, a well-known jihadist ideologue, to see if Maqdisi would agree to have one of his books shortened before being more widely disseminated. Bin Laden’s words show how much respect he had for Maqdisi. The Jordanians have routinely imprisoned Maqdisi, but recently let him out of detention so that he could denounce the Islamic State, which has emerged as al Qaeda’s rival. This shows how al Qaeda is using the Islamic State to portray itself as being more moderate.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Muslim Obama Image1

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO What Country Is This?, Forced Blood Draws, DNA Collection and Biometric Scans

fourth amendment 1
February 24, 2015 By John W. Whitehead

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.

Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.

Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are all guilty until proven innocent.

Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.

For example, David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, during which a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.

Close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. However, because they cannot be used as the basis for arrest, breathalyzer tests are still required. And for those who refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, there are forced blood draws. One such person is Michael Chorosky, who was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.

Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now the police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone. That’s what is called an end-run around the law, and we’re seeing more and more of these take place under the rubric of “safety.”

The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. When faced with a request for a DNA sample by police during a mandatory roadblock, most participants understandably fail to appreciate the “voluntary” nature of such a request. Unfortunately, in at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. The remaining states collect DNA on conviction. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Indeed, the United States has the largest DNA database in the world, CODIS, which is managed by the FBI and is growing at an alarming rate.

Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.

Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.

As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”

As these police practices and data collections become more widespread and routine, there will be no one who is spared from the indignity of DNA sampling, blood draws, and roadside strip and/or rectal or vaginal searches, whether or not they’ve done anything wrong. We’re little more than economic units, branded like cattle, marked for easy identification, and then assured that it’s all for our “benefit,” to weed us out from the “real” criminals, and help the police keep our communities “safe” and secure.

What a bunch of hokum. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, these databases, forced extractions and searches are not for our benefit. They will not keep us safe. What they will do is keep us mapped, trapped, targeted and controlled.

Moreover, what if you don’t want to be forced to trust the government with your most intimate information? What if you don’t trust the government to look out for your best interests in the first place? How do you protect yourself against having your blood forcibly drawn, your DNA extracted, your biometrics scanned and the most intimate details of who you are—your biological footprint—uploaded into a government database?

What recourse do you have when that information, taken against your will, is shared, stolen, sold or compromised, as it inevitably will be in this age of hackers? We know that databases can be compromised. We’ve seen it happen to databases kept by health care companies, motor vehicle agencies, financial institutions, retailers and intelligence agencies such as the NSA. In fact, 2014 was dubbed the Year of the Hack in light of the fact that over a billion personal data records were breached, leaving those unlucky enough to have their data stolen vulnerable to identity theft, credit card fraud and all manner of criminal activities carried out in their names.

Banks now offer services —for a fee—to help you in the event that your credit card information is compromised and stolen. You can also pay for services to protect against identity theft in the likely event that your social security information is compromised and misused. But what happens when your DNA profile is compromised? And how do you defend yourself against charges of criminal wrongdoing in the face of erroneous technological evidence—DNA, biometrics, etc., are not infallible—that place you at the scene of a crime you didn’t commit?

“Identity theft could lead to the opening of new fraudulent credit accounts, creating false identities for criminal enterprises, or a host of other serious crimes,” said Jason Hart, vice president of cloud services, identity and data protection at the digital security company Gemalto. “As data breaches become more personal, we’re starting to see that the universe of risk exposure for the average person is expanding.”

It’s not just yourself you have to worry about, either. It’s also anyone related to you—who can be connected by DNA. These genetic fingerprints, as they’re called, do more than just single out a person. They also show who you’re related to and how. As the Associated Press reports, “DNA samples that can help solve robberies and murders could also, in theory, be used to track down our relatives, scan us for susceptibility to disease, or monitor our movements.”

Capitalizing on this, police in California, Colorado, Virginia and Texas use DNA found at crime scenes to identify and target family members for possible clues to a suspect’s whereabouts. Who will protect your family from being singled out for “special treatment” simply because they’re related to you? As biomedical researcher Yaniv Erlich warns, “If it’s not regulated and the police can do whatever they want … they can use your DNA to infer things about your health, your ancestry, whether your kids are your kids.”

These are just a few of the questions we should be asking before these technologies and programs become too entrenched and irreversible.

While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking.

Once again, technology has outdistanced both our understanding of it and our ability to adequately manage the consequences of unleashing it on an unsuspecting populace. As for all of those databases being sold to you for your safety and benefit, whether or not they’re actually effective in catching criminals, you can be assured that they will definitely be snatching up innocent citizens, as well.

In the end, what all of this amounts to is a carefully crafted campaign designed to give the government access to and control over what it really wants: you.

fourth amendment

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO IRS Watchdog ‘Potential Criminal Activity’ in Disappearance of Lois Lerner Emails, Found

What was once lost has been found…32,000 of them…
Malik Montage Lerner
February 27, 2015

The IRS is being investigated for hiding emails linked to one of its largest scandals in its history.

A watchdog group is looking into criminal activity surrounding missing emails that federal investigators have been searching for but the IRS claims it lost.

At the center of the controversy is Louis Lerner, the former head of the IRS accused of targeting conservative groups and refusing to give tax exempt status to a number of Tea Party affiliated organizations.

“The news that there is potential criminal activity is very important,” Chris Frates said.

Thursday night, news broke that officials found more computer backups with more supposedly missing IRS emails on them.

Lerner has been under scrutiny and investigation since the 2013 scandal first broke. Her excuse related lost emails only raised more suspicion. To make matters worse for Lerner, in one of the more than 32,000 emails found from her “missing hard drives,” not even Lerner thinks her story is believable.

“No one will ever believe that both your hard drive and mine crashed within a week of each other,” Lerner sent to a colleague in 2011.

more believable  lerner emails

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment