the truth : May 2014

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Will Obama succeed in creating a United States of Islam in the Middle East?

Something very big is going on in the Middle East. This is not about an inflammatory film or a political assassination in Libya. Rather, recent events confirm that throughout the Muslim world, radical Islam is on the march. The radical Muslims have figured out a much better strategy than the Al Qaeda strategy of the past decade. Instead of terrorist acts aimed at directly wounding the “far enemy,” namely the United States, Islamic radicals are using democracy and public protest to defeat the “near enemy,” namely their own autocratic governments, and seize power. Remarkably President Obama seems to be responding in a way that helps the Islamic radicals, and the vital question is why.

To understand Obama, we need to back up and observe his Middle East policy since he took office in early 2009. There is a weird double standard in the way that President Obama has been acting in region. In Libya, he used force to prevent “genocide” but he has refused to use force to prevent much greater genocide in Syria. What makes Obama’s conduct especially odd is that he undertook Libyan military intervention after a civil struggle in which Muammar Qaddafi had killed around 250 people. In Syria, however, tens of thousands have been killed by the regime and still Obama refuses to use direct military force.

A similar inconsistency defines Obama’s actions in Egypt and Iran. In Egypt, Obama used diplomatic pressure to oust the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, clearing the way for the Islamic radicals, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, to win the subsequent parliamentary and presidential elections. Using the rhetoric of democracy, Obama allied himself in Egypt with the democracy protesters. Yet when there were equally massive demonstrations in Iran a year and a half earlier, aimed at ousting the regime of the mullahs, Obama urged caution and restraint. He refused to embrace the protesters. Essentially he did nothing. Eventually the Iranian police crushed the uprising and the Iranian rebellion dissolved.

So we have a dual anomaly here. How can we explain why Obama uses force here but not there, getting rid of one ruler but keeping others in place? Even now Obama’s conduct in response to the latest Muslim agitation is ambiguous. Far from standing up forthrightly for American interests, Obama seems equally resolute in protecting the reputation of the Islamic agitators and their newly-installed leaders.

To date, the best attempt to account for Obama’s strange conduct is Walter Russell Mead’s theory that Obama is “the least competent manager of America’s Middle East diplomatic portfolio.” In other words, Obama is an amateur and a bungler. Mead notes that “he has committed our forces in the strategically irrelevant backwater of Libya,” that he has “strained our ties with the established regimes without winning new friends on the Arab street” and that he has “infuriated and frustrated long-term friends but made no headway in reconciling enemies.”

But surely Obama knows that Libya is strategically irrelevant; surely he can see that he is antagonizing America’s friends and strengthening America’s enemies. So Mead’s analysis begs the question: why would Obama continue to act this way when the results are as obvious to him as to Mead and the rest of us?

I believe I can answer these questions and explain Obama’s double standards. The key is to realize that Obama isn’t a fool. He isn’t getting results opposite to the ones he intends; rather, he intends the results he’s getting. He said during his inaugural speech that he wanted to remake America and transform its place in the world, and this is exactly what he is doing.

Obama’s is an anti-colonialist, an ideology he adopted from his Kenyan father. Recall that Obama’s autobiography is titled ”Dreams From My Father” In that book, Obama details how he got his aspirations, his values, even his core identity, from his absentee father. In a sample passage, Obama writes, “It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”

While anti-colonialism may be an unfamiliar word to many Americans, it is a very popular ideology even today in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East. Anti-colonialism is the doctrine that holds that America and the West are the rogue nations of the world. Having adopted his father’s anti-colonial way of thinking, President Obama has oriented his foreign policy not so much toward containing Iran or North Korea but rather toward containing America.

I’m not suggesting Obama is a traitor, that he hates America, or that he’s anti-American. Rather, he subscribes to an ideology that considers it a good thing for America’s influence to be reduced. Obama wants to reduce America’s footprint in the world because he believes we have been stepping on the world.

How is Obama doing this? Two dictators are out–Qaddafi and Mubarak–and two dictatorial regimes–that of Assad in Syria and the mullahs in Iran–remain in power. What do Qaddafi and Mubarak have in common? They were both doing business with America. Mubarak was America’s most reliable ally in the region, not counting Israel. Qaddafi was not exactly an ally, but he had been behaving himself since America’s Iraq invasion, outing terrorists, paying reparations for the Lockerbie bombing, and so on.

Now both Qaddafi and Mubarak are gone.

In Libya, it’s hard to say what the new regime will do. We have heard both Islamist rumblings and secular rumblings, and now the Islamic rumblings are getting louder. But undeniably in Egypt, we are seeing the consolidation of a regime that is vastly more anti-American and anti-Israel.

It’s important to realize that in Egypt Obama is actively facilitating the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. No one is suggesting that Obama caused the Arab Spring. The Brotherhood won a free election. But now there is a power struggle under way between the Brotherhood and the Egyptian military. As a recent AP story reported, the Obama administration has been warning the military: step aside and turn over power to the Brotherhood, or America will cut off military and economic aid.

This could be explained as reflecting Obama’s unshakeable commitment to democracy, but this commitment was absent during the massive popular demonstrations in Iran in 2009. Then Obama stayed out, even praising the reaction of the Iranian Supreme Leader, and eventually the democracy movement was crushed. Similarly in Syria, Obama has shown himself clearly reluctant to get involved, providing only modest support to the rebels even in the wake of a massive military crackdown and tens of thousands of casualties.

So Assad continues to hang on, and the mullahs remain secure in power in Iran. What do these regimes have in common? They are both hostile to the United States, and allied with each other in subverting America’s interests in the region. Both are also state sponsors of terrorism. If the regimes in Syria and Iran were to fall, we can’t be sure what would replace them, but we can be reasonably confident that the new governments would be less hostile to America than the ones that are there now.

Thus Obama’s double-standards in the region can be explained by an underlying single-standard. He wants to undermine America’s allies and leave in place regimes that are indifferent or hostile to America. This is what the anti-colonial ideology predicts he would do, and this is what his actions show he is doing. No wonder that in recent days Obama seems more concerned with containing America than with acting decisively against the hostile forces of radical Islam in the Middle East.

Now what? If Obama gets a second term, what might be the next pro-American regime to fall? In my view, Saudi Arabia. If Obama is re-elected he could demand that the Saudi royal family put itself on the ballot against the Muslim Brotherhood. That is an election the Saudi royals would most likely lose. If that happens then the three most important countries in the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) would all be in the grip of the radical Muslims.

We are seeing in the region a powerful bid for the restoration of Islam as a global power. One Muslim Brotherhood official put it bluntly. What the radical Muslims seek, he said, is “a country called the United States of Islam.” Remarkably this radical Muslim dream going back to the 1920s is now being advanced by President Obama, who seems to think it is somehow consonant with the dream from his father.

Just as history will credit Ronald Reagan with helping to produce the dissolution of the Soviet empire, history might credit Obama with helping to produce the United States of Islam.

Dinesh D’Souza, narrator and co-director of the film “2016: Obama’s America,” is the author of the bestselling new book “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream.” For more visitwww.DineshDSouza.com

Busted!… State Department Scrubs Damning Memo From Website Following Deadly 9-11 Consulate Attacks

On Wednesday September 12, 2012 blogger Speak With Authority discovered that five days before 9-11, the US State Department sent out a memo announcing no credible security threats against the United States on the anniversary of 9-11.
The Overseas Security Advisory Council, who posted the memo, is part of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the U.S. Department of State.
Here is a screengrab of the memo at the OSAC website:

The OSAC memo said:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012
OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

But now it’s gone.
The State Department scrubbed the letter from its OSAC website.

The damning memo is gone.
How convenient. They flushed the damning memo down the internet memory hole.
Dan Riehl has more.
We heard the reports about the chaos at the State Department.
But we had no idea they were scrubbing documents.
Related… Libyan Officials Claim US Was Warned 3 DAYS BEFORE Deadly Benghazi Consulate Attack

Posted by Charlene Zechender at 12:17 PM

Governments From Around the World ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror

Preface: Please skip to the end of this essay (entitled “Why Should I Care?”) if you want to see why this issue is important to the economy, civil rights, and the political causes which are most important to you.
Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson

The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister

Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)

The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred)

As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that – only nine months before – the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country

An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)

According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings

As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

Why Should I Care?
You may ask yourself “why should I care?”
You should care because terrorism harms the economy. Specifically, a study by Harvard and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) points out:

From an economic standpoint, terrorism has been described to have four main effects (see, e.g., US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2002). First, the capital stock (human and physical) of a country is reduced as a result of terrorist attacks. Second, the terrorist threat induces higher levels of uncertainty. Third, terrorism promotes increases in counter-terrorism expenditures, drawing resources from productive sectors for use in security. Fourth, terrorism is known to affect negatively specific industries such as tourism.

The Harvard/NBER concludes:

In accordance with the predictions of the model, higher levels of terrorist risks are associated with lower levels of net foreign direct investment positions, even after controlling for other types of country risks. On average, a standard deviation increase in the terrorist risk is associated with a fall in the net foreign direct investment position of about 5 percent of GDP.

Moreover:

Terrorism has contributed to a decline in the global economy (for example, European Commission, 2001).

And see this.
In addition, you should care because terror causes governments to strip liberties and civil rights from the people:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
- Plato
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
- U.S. President James Madison
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
- Adolph Hitler
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
- Josef Stalin

Indeed, the political causes you hold most dear will be derailed if false flag terror is carried out. To see that this is true, let’s take a step back ..
Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the example of false flag terror by the Nazis discussed above had occurred. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from invading Poland by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties? Do you think that you could have convinced people that protecting the environment, or addressing human or civil rights, or helping the poor, or education, or equality, or any other political crusade was more important than “protecting the Fatherland” when Germans were terrified for their safety?
Please think about it.
The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by Poles and other “bad guys”. The German’s were in shock, and rallied around their “strong” leader (it wasn’t just the bad economy). Without first exposing the truth that the attacks were false flag attacks – which were largely the source and root cause of the German people’s fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power – the sweeping away of good political causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.
Moreover, the Nazis might have been derailed and perhaps brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the false flag hoaxes had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and positive political changes might have prevailed in 1940′s-era Germany.
Please think about it . . .
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Benghazi Terrorists Were Armed By Obama

Rebels guard the front line on the road between Ajdabiyah and Brega as forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi threatened to push them further away from strategic oil refineries in eastern Libya March 31, 2011. (REUTERS/Finbarr O’Reilly)
As early as March 2011 there were reports that as many as 1,000 Al-Qaeda members had infiltrated the rebel forces in Libya.
But the Obama Administration chose to arm these rebels.
One year later US Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered by Al-Qaeda rebels in Libya.
Eurasia Review reported:

In spite of the threat of American weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups, President Barack Obama secretly approved an arms transfer to Libyan rebels through Qatar at the height of the rebellion against Moamar Khadhafi, a knowledgeable source noted on Friday.
However, American counterterrorists are discovering that some of those U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of radical Islamists including associates of al-Qaeda, according to a law enforcement source who trained police in the Middle East.
Some Americans who are retired from the military, as well as intelligence and law enforcement agencies, believe there should be an investigation into possible connections between the weapons provided by the Qataris back then and the attack that killed an American ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
During the months leading up to the terrorist attacks, the Obama administration worried about its part in helping to arm the Libyan rebels who were members of terrorist organizations especially so close to Election Day.
Experts believe that Obama’s experience with arming Libyan rebels is why his administration is nervous about arming the rebels in Syria, where money and weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries. It’s widely believed that al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups are active in the Syrian rebellion.

CAIR Protests US Exclusion of Saudi Radical Who Encouraged “Harming the Jews”

The head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) vows to complain to U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials after they blocked a radical Saudi cleric from entering the country this week to attend a national Islamist conference in Chicago.
Sheikh Ayed al-Qarni was scheduled to speak twice during the Muslim American-Society (MAS)/Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) national convention Dec. 22-25. But a statement released during the convention expressed “the unpleasant and saddening news” that al-Qarni had been removed from his flight from Saudi Arabia despite having a visa from the U.S. embassy, and that he appears to be on the U.S. “no-fly list.” Al-Qarni is described as “one of our great speakers” and as someone known “for his logical discourse and balanced views, he promotes understanding and collaboration between all people, regardless of their faith, background, or language.”
Al-Qarni has advocated jihad in the past and his preaching on the subject has been described as influential among al-Qaida followers.
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told an Arabic news outlet that he would protest al-Qarni’s exclusion with DHS and State Department officials. “We defend all Muslims who are subject to arbitrary measure, and by this logic, we will act but not formally plead, unless we obtain authorization from him.”
It’s an ironic protest to make in light of a public relations campaign orchestrated by CAIR’s Chicago chapter. “MyJihad” aims to show non-Muslims that the term jihad is more about peaceful, personal attempts at overcoming challenges than about calls for violence and terror.
Through Awad, also a listed speaker at the convention, CAIR is fighting to bring a Saudi cleric into the United States who has argued the exact opposite message. During a 2005 sermon flagged by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), al-Qarni called the jihad against American forces in Fallujah “a source of pride … downing their planes, destroying equipment, slaughtering them, taking them hostage, and proclaiming ‘Allah Akhbar’ from the mosques, and the worshippers and the preacher cursing them in their prayers, and then come others begging for forgiveness, and requesting a dialogue and a ceasefire and negotiations. Who can say even one word against this true Jihad against these colonialist occupiers?” [Emphasis added]
He belittled Muslims who failed to take action, including “harming the Jews.” He invoked Israel’s targeted killings of Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, saying he prayed that Allah “will destroy the Jews and their helpers from among the Christians and the Communists, and that He will turn them into the Muslims’ spoils. I praise the Jihad, the sacrifice, and the resistance against the occupiers in Iraq. We curse them all of them every night and pray that Allah will annihilate them, tear them apart, and grant us victory over them…”
“Throats must be slit and skulls must be shattered,” al-Qarni said. “This is the path to victory, to shahada, and to sacrifice.”
This was no one-time rant.
A 2005 interview published in the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi March 2005 quoted Nasir Ahmad Nasir Abdallah al-Bahri, one of Osama bin Laden’s personal bodyguards, saying al-Qarni was among the Saudi clerics whose preaching influenced bin Laden’s followers.
“We were also influenced by the sermons delivered by some speakers in the mosques in Jedda about jihad in Afghanistan. The cassettes on jihad that influenced us most were those by Shaykh A’id [Ayed] al-Qarni, especially the first cassette, titled ‘Nights in Afghanistan,’ and the second cassette, ‘The Afghanistan I saw. Al-Qarni used to speak, enjoin, and call for jihad in an astonishing way.”
Al-Qarni also attracted Western attention in 2004 when he called it a sin for women to drive cars in Saudi Arabia. The practice would spread corruption and lead to “mingling between the sexes, men being alone with women and the destruction of the family and society in whole.”
On top of all that, he has been accused of intellectual dishonesty. Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Culture and Information fined al-Qarni 300,000 Saudi riyals earlier this year for allegedly plagiarizing chapters from a book by a Saudi woman.
But even with al-Qarni’s absence, the MAS-ICNA conference still featured speakers who advocate violent jihad. Among them, Kifah Mustapha spoke at, and promoted the event, saying, “It’s about learning from the scholars and the teachers who are coming from all over the world to be with you in these few days.”
Mustapha was a paid fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which in 2008 was convicted of funneling more than $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. He also performed at HLF and other events in a singing troupe known as the al-Sakhra band. In one video among many similar ones entered into evidence at the trial, Mustapha joins in singing:
O mother, Hamas called for Jihad.
Over mosques’ loudspeakers, with freedom.
Every day it resists with stones and the dagger.
Tomorrow, with God’s help, it will be with a
machine gun and a rifle.
Other exhibits – internal records seized by FBI agents – showed that officials from both CAIR and the Holy Land Foundation were part of an umbrella group known as the “Palestine Committee.” That group, records show, was created by the Muslim Brotherhood in America to help the Hamas terrorist group politically and financially.
MAS, one of the convention sponsors, also has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as documented by the Chicago Tribune in 2004, and as described in sworn testimony last spring by Abdurrahman Alamoudi, once the nation’s most influential Islamist activists, who is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence in a terrorism financing case.
In addition, convention speaker Jamal Badawi is a MAS founder and is listed on the first page of a 1992 telephone directory of Brotherhood members admitted into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
Badawi praised the jihad of Gaza-based terrorists during a February 2009 speech on “Understanding Jihad and Martyrdom,” at the Chebucto Mosque in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He also criticized Muslims who considered attacks on Israelis to be terrorism.
“They [moderate Muslims] made this accusation, but they did not even stop at accusations, they did cooperate with the enemies of humanity, to kill their own brothers and sisters,” he said.
He led an Islamonline.net dialogue session three years earlier called “Martyrdom in Islam: Let’s Discuss it.” In it, he compared suicide bombers to “freedom fighters” fighting the Nazis or the Japanese kamikazes fighting the Americans.
He also has openly questioned whether Islam and democracy are compatible. “The Qur’an and Prophetic tradition are the ultimate constitution,” he wrote in 2004.
Yet another MAS-ICNA convention speaker urged Muslims to help finance jihad. Ragheb Elsergany‘s past convention speeches were so extreme, organizers promised not to invite him back. But this year’s appearance is at least the second since that pledge was made.
During the 2009 conference, Elsergany spoke of jihad as one of the greatest acts to please Allah, “and one of the greatest of them is supporting the fighters, and the mujahideen [Islamic warriors] and the besieged, and those in need there in Palestine,” he said in an Arabic session entitled “The Gaza Struggle.”
Elsergany then pushed people to donate money to the cause. “Allah has entrusted us with the money for our brothers and sisters, to confer upon the people of Palestine the surplus of our money. This is their right,” he said. “They are the ones who face the Zionists with their chests, their nerves, their lives, their children, their holy places and their sacred places. They are the ones standing [in] front of us and we are standing behind them. You Muslims are abandoning this role.”
In the 2011 conference, Elsergany predicted a day when “all of Palestine” would be liberated. The rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East and North Africa was clearing the way for “the Zionist entity” to “vanish absolutely,” he said.
The United States government may have kept al-Qarni out of the country, but the MAS-ICNA convention still featured speakers who have called for the destruction of an existing nation, who have praised jihad as the use of violence to praise Allah, and who have documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Awad’s pledge to take al-Qarni’s case to decision-makers in Washington so far has been made only in Arabic media with no accompanying release for U.S. audiences. It’s no wonder

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations

CBS

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."

The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
Read the email
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.

CBS

Complete Ultimate In Depth Guide to CCleaner by Britec

Virus Removal Guide 2014

Monday, May 5, 2014

Supreme Court to decide if passports can say ‘Jerusalem, Israel’

Comment(s)

Size: + / -

| Reprints

By Jessica Chasmar

The Washington Times

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Enlarge Photo
** FILE ** In this Dec. 13, 2013, file photo, the Western ... more >

Story Topics

Follow Us On

Facebook

Question of the Day

Do you think more sanctions will impact Russian President Valdimir Putin?

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would decide if U.S. passports could acknowledge Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.
The historic holy city is claimed by both Israelis and Palestinians and has been a hotly contested issue for decades.
In an effort to appear neutral, the U.S. State Department has allowed passports to list Jerusalem as a place of birth, but without a country name, Reuters reported.
Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky have been suing since 2003, seeking to change their son’s passport to say he was born in Jerusalem, Israel.
The decision to address the issue goes against the wishes of President Obama’s administration, which said in court papers that taking sides “critically compromise the ability of the United States to work with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the region to further the peace process,” Reuters reported.
Oral arguments and a decision are due in the court’s next term, which begins in October and ends in June 2015.
Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations weighed in with the New York Post: “We believe it would be best not to rock the boat, in terms of promotion of political agendas from the United States.”

Obama Gave $500 Million In Weapons To Al-Qaeda Terrorists In Benghazi

The Citizens Committee on Benghazi, an independent group of former top military officers and CIA members stated on Tuesday that if the U.S. hadn’t been arming al-Qaeda militias the Benghazi attack that killed 4 Americans could have been prevented.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ stated Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez also claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ stated former CIA officer Wayne Simmons.
Basically, Obama armed al-Qaeda to topple Gaddafi, WHILE Gaddafi was verifiably surcumbing to US demands. Obama prefered to give arms to his terrorist buddies, which they used to kill Americans, rather than allowing for a peaceful resolution that was already in progress.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report.
Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria.’
‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’
In March 2011, Kubic said, U.S. Army Africa Commander General Carter told NBC News that the U.S. military was not actively targeting Muammar Gaddafi. That, Kubic revealed, was a signal to the Libyan dictator that there was a chance for a deal.
Gaddafi responded by ‘verifiably … pull[ing] his forces back from key rebel-held cities such as Benghazi and Misrata.’
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration’s unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, ‘led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)’ when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,’ the commission told reporters.

The White House and the National Security Staff did not immediately respond to questions about the group’s findings.
‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.
‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’

Source: SOURCE NAME

Investigation Finds Obama Financing Mosques Worldwide With U.S. Taxpayer Dollars

Investigation Finds Obama Financing Mosques Worldwide With U.S. Taxpayer Dollars

Sep 14, 2012 Comments Off Pat Dollard WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with the United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.
“We are spending money we don’t have. This is all on a gigantic credit card right now,” said Jared Thomas, a taxpayer advocate.
Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars.
“I think it is very hard to explain to the American taxpayer right now whose having an extraordinary time paying bills and making ends meet that this is why we took this out of your paycheck, so we can fund this,” said Thomas.
The State Department declined a Channel 2 Action News request for an interview. We wanted to ask why are we using tax dollars to refurbish religious buildings overseas. The State Department did send Channel Two Action News an e-mail saying that they are fighting Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders.
Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish told Channel 2 Action News anchor Justin Farmer that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.
“This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it’s showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank,” said Darwish.
Darwish was born in Egypt and is now a former Muslim. Darwish told Farmer that she moved to America and has written several books critical of radical Islam. Darwish said that most of the mosques in Egypt are run by extremists who have ordered former Muslims like herself to be killed.
“We are rebuilding mosques to support the radicals, not to support the moderates. We are building mosques to issue fatwas of death against people like me,” said Darwish.
Your tax dollars also fund computers and mosques in places like Tajikistan and Mali. At an ancient mud brick mosque in Mali, the State Department has provided Internet service and computer equipment to local imams.
Taxpayer watchdogs wonder how the State Department can explain paying for Internet service while Americans struggle through the worst recession in decades.
“To the average person who has probably seen their paycheck shrink and not grow, this could be an insult to them,” said Pete Sepp, President of the National Taxpayers Association.
With radical websites inciting violence and extremism worldwide, there are concerns that the taxpayer-funded Internet service could be misused.
“That is not the job of the U.S. because giving them Internet access to imams and Muslim preachers who hate America,” said Darwish.
Critics say that it is time to review funding for all federal programs that do not directly benefit taxpayers.
“We are spending money we don’t have and certainly we can cut items like this,” said Thomas.
The Deficit Commission announced it would look at slowing the growth of foreign aid. Channel 2 Action News is not aware if there will be cuts in this particular U.S Aid program.

Our Prez has gained respect around the would..... Not!!!!!!!

Protesters burn a US President Barack Obama effigy during an anti-US protest near Malacanang palace in Manila on April 28, 2014.

See How Hillary Clinton Blatantly Insults Jesus Christ

The Patriot May 5, 2014 See How Hillary Clinton Blatantly Insults Jesus Christ2014-05-05T05:36:27+00:00 News Comments

Recently, Hillary Clinton met with women from the United Methodist Church, and the statements that have come out of the meeting is shocking.
Hillary, who has never been publicly religious, told the group that she adored church as a child and that Jesus taught her about compassion.
“The disciples come to Jesus and suggest they send away the people to find food to fend for themselves. But Jesus said, ‘No. You feed them,” Clinton said, “He was teaching a lesson about the responsibility we all share.”

Not surprisingly, Hillary was twisting Biblical passages to fuel her liberal agenda.
What do you think? Are Hillary’s comments offensive?

Sharpton Caught On Tape Spewing Slurs: ‘Homos, Nggers, And Fggots’

The Patriot May 2, 2014 Sharpton Caught On Tape Spewing Slurs: ‘Homos, N*ggers, And F*ggots’2014-05-02T05:27:21+00:00 News Comments

If you’re a reverend, you should probably practice what you preach. Still, sources have shown that Reverend Al Sharpton, who is extraordinarily vocal when it comes to matters of race and discrimination, may be nothing more than a hypocrite.
A recently released montage shows Rev. Al Sharpton using some racial and homophobic slurs of his own. In fact, some may argue that his comments are more blatant and aggressive than those he constantly condemns.
The video initially shows Rev. Al Sharpton talking about Donald Sterling, owner of the LA Clippers, who is in the middle of a controversy after a private, but racially charged, conversation with his girlfriend was leaked.

Moments after the video starts, Sharpton is heard using language like “n*gger, chinamen, homos, and faggot.”
What do you think? Should someone call Sharpton out for being two-faced?

More accusations that Veterans Affairs let veterans Die In Line.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | May 5th, 2014 at 05:00 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

This time, in Colorado.

A VA investigation of one of its outpatient clinics in Colorado reveals how ingrained delays in medical care may be for an agency struggling to rapidly treat nearly 9 million veterans a year amid allegations that dozens have died because of delays.

Clerks at the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Fort Collins were instructed last year how to falsify appointment records so it appeared the small staff of doctors was seeing patients within the agency’s goal of 14 days, according to the investigation.

The VA decided to implement ‘retraining and weekly audits’ in response, despite the fact that the exact same thing happened in Arizona – and despite the fact that several deaths may be linked to the delay in services. Which makes me wonder how many other states are having similar cover-ups. As well as make me wonder what Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki thinks about the entire situation.
Wait. No, I can probably guess that one already. After all, he hasn’t resigned yet.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: As I was writing this, I was made aware that the American Legion is currently going ballistic on this issue: Dying In Line. And they want Shinseki out, too.

Tags: american legion, Colorado, dying in line, Eric Shinseki, veterans' affairs