Exploding National Debt Explained

A summary of what our so-called leaders have gotten us into

Gaza Mom Chooses Israel Hospital

Gaza Mom Chooses Israeli Hospital to Save Baby
After losing 3 babies to rare birth defects at Egyptian hospitals, a Gaza mother followed doctors' advice and took her fourth to Israel.
By Chana Ya'ar
First Publish: 9/30/2012, 12:25 PM

A Palestinian Authority mother from Gaza is home with a healthy baby thanks to Israeli doctors in Kfar Sava, after a complicated surgery.

After losing three babies to rare birth defects at Egyptian hospitals, Jian Abu Agram, 31, was faced with a difficult decision last year after another child was born last April with the same condition.

After speaking with her doctors, Agram took their advice and traveled through the Erez crossing with her infant daughter to Israel, where doctors at Meir Hospital performed intestinal surgery on the little girl.

"When the doctors told me of her condition and suggested that we bring her to Israel, I didn't think for a moment of the conflict between the two peoples,” Agram told the Hebrew-language weekly local Sharon region edition of the Yediot Acharanot newspaper.

“What I considered was only one thing: to save my girl. I couldn't allow myself to lose another child.”

The infant has since recovered from the intricate life-saving treatment that she needed, and two weeks ago returned to her home

WAKE UP !

− This is SCARY AS HELL: WARNING FROM A FORMER MUSLIM. And the last sentence is a correct description of Islam.

I was born and raised as Muslim. My whole family is still Muslim. I know every genetic code of Muslim. I know Islamic brain. I live and breathe with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The following are the Islamic message to the West.
To the infidels of the West:
...
The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction.
We will fight the infidel to death.
- Meanwhile American laws will protect us.
- Democrats and Leftist will support us.
- N.G.O.s will legitimize us.
- C.A.I.R. will incubate us.
- - The A.C.L.U. will empower us.
- Western Universities will educate us.
- Mosques will shelter us
- O.P.E.C. will finance us
- Hollywood will love us.
- Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses.
Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools. We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.
We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost. Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest.
We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US.
Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mixed with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?
We are the “sleeper cells”.
We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary.
At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armor. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine,… Imagine the news in the world “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”.
We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. “Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies”. “Jews killed two women”,
Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can't use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bomber against you. Visualize the news flash all over the world, …Moslem mother is sobbing, ….crying.
….Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad.
West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper.
You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us?
On the camera:
- We will always say, “Islam is the religion of Peace.”
- We will say, “Jihad is actually inner Jihad.”
- Moderate Muslim will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the West will believe it because the West is so gullible.
- Moderate Muslim all over the world will incubate Jihadist by their talk by defending Islam.
- Using Western Legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely.
- We will increase in number. We will double again.
You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbor, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us.
You will find us well mannered, polite, humble that will make you say, “wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people”, But, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911.
There will be more 9/11 in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.”
Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organization will unite. We will partner with Leftist, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun.
We will recite Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender - ISLAM means surrender.

They Knew It Was Terrorism

US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm

Published September 27, 2012

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/%3chttp:/email.foxnews.com/t?r=5&c=14196&l=35&ctl=283E7:394BD1DAA3B0BB1894043893D803F824

FoxNews.com

U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.

The account sharply conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.

Two senior U.S. officials said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The officials said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.

Further, an official said, "No one ... believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob -- no one."

Yet a congressional source told Fox News that CIA Director David Petraeus, during a briefing with members of the House Intelligence Committee three days after the attack, espoused the view that Benghazi was an out-of-control demonstration prompted by the YouTube video. According to the source, this was "shocking" to some members who were present and saw the same intelligence pointing toward a terrorist attack.

In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault.

The claims that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who from the beginning have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.

"I think we should have answers right away. ... I think they're reluctant to tell us what this event really was probably because it's an election year. But the American people deserve to know answers about what happened at our embassy in Libya," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., told Fox News.

One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.

"It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.

Curiously, Obama referred to "acts of terror" in his first public remarks about the attack. But from there, administration officials went on to blame the anti-Islam film.

Rice was the most explicit in that explanation, insisting on a slew of Sunday shows that the attack was not pre-planned and was tied to the film.

Obama still has not publicly and specifically described the Benghazi attack as terrorism.

But top administration officials have gradually walked back Rice's version of events.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly suggested Wednesday to foreign leaders visiting the United Nations summit in New York that the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa was involved.

"Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions," Clinton told the group, according to The New York Times. "And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."

She was referring to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

Clinton earlier this week called the attack terrorism, two weeks after the fact. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also said that Obama now believes it is terrorism as well.

How To Invent A War

How to Invent a War
by Jack Murphy · September 28, 2012 · Posted In: SOF History, SOF News, Special Operations

On August 5th, 1964 three fast moving patrol boats of the North Vietnamese Navy’s 135th Torpedo Squadron sped across the black waters of the Gulf of Tonkin towards the United States Navy’s USS Maddox which was conducting an intelligence gathering operation off the coast of communist controlled shores in South East Asia. Taking evasive maneuvers, the USS Maddox expended thousands of rounds of ammunition as a counter-attack, firing on enemy radar signatures in the night. This was the spark the ignited a full blown conflagration in Vietnam, leading to the US military deploying half a million troops into the country, 58,000 coming home in body bags and many more never coming home at all, still listed as Missing In Action.

The problem with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the inciting action that led to the Vietnam war, is that it simply never happened. A top secret study penned under the auspices of the National Security Agency was recently declassified stating, “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night” (Hanyok 177). With the passage of time, new information had gradually come to light revealing that the USS Maddox was firing at phantom radar signatures, or as Navy pilot James Stockdale who was circling over head that night said, “our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets…there were no PT boats there…there was nothing there but black water and American fire power” (Stockdale 17).

In Goulish’s, “39 microlectures in Proximity of Performance: Criticism” the author endeavors to provide several helpful tools for thinking critically, one of them being the metaphor of a glass window being a slow moving liquid rather than a solid.

Goulish writes how it was found that the windows in old cathedrals allowed more light to pass through at the top than the bottom. Upon further study, it was found that the glass was slowing running towards the bottom, carried by gravity. “As creative and critical thinkers, we may find it rewarding to attempt works of criticism, which, over time…follow[ing] the example of glass.” (44) Goulish tells the reader that the glass exercise helps us not only understand how time changes perceptions but also how to understand understanding itself. This is a curious claim, but worth looking at through a historical context for relevancy if nothing else.

When a window is first made, less light shines through the thick glass, much as the truth surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin incident was obscured from public, and even government, scrutiny. It was only with the passage of time that gravity thinned the glass and allowed light to be shown on how events actually unfolded.

President Johnson addressed the nation on August 4th 1964, “…today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoes. The destroyers, and supporting aircraft, acted at once on the orders I gave after the initial act of aggression. We believe at least two of the attacking boats were sunk” (President Johnson, August 4th 1964). A year later, Johnson is said to have remarked to his press secretary, Bill Moyers, “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” It seems that even the leader of the free world is susceptible to the fog of war. The situation was so convoluted that while Secretary of Defense McNamara almost certainly knew that the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax, he and his staff put off briefing President Johnson until he had already committed himself to the war.

Newspapers across the country parroted government press releases. “Johnson Puts Air Arm in Action-Destroyers Repulse Another PT Attack” (Augusta Chronicle, August 5th 1964), “Torpedoes of Tonkin” (Springfield Union, August 4th 1964), “Action in Tonkin Gulf” (Time Magazine, August 15th 1964). When the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, or didn’t as it turned out, there was a rush to judgment. Facts were not checked or verified, assumptions were made. Swept up the the clamor of patriotism, Congress was quick to authorize military action in Vietnam.

While we have the benefit of hindsight, emotions ran high in 1964, the looming threat of the communist menace was at the forefront of the minds of both defense planners and the American public. Where there should have been a thorough, deliberate investigation there was instead a hasty military intervention. Goulish comments, “…we sometimes feel the desire to reject intellectuality altogether in favor of passionate expression” (43) such were President Johnson’s actions in his rush to expand US involvement in South East Asia as he ordered bombers to attack North Vietnamese targets in retaliation for an attack that never happened.

While Goulish’s metaphor for the opaqueness of human perception during initial analysis relates to art and art criticism, it relates equally as well to the political and military arena. We use the melting glass comparison as an analytical mechanism to help us understand how to initiate the process of understanding. “Such acceptance requires a softening of the dividing lines between traditional differences” (44). Reciting press releases simply will not suffice, not in a world cast in the shadows of real politek, simple people, misunderstanding, and outright subterfuge. As Goulish reminds us, “the softening of the dividing lines does not however imply the disintegration of difference” (44), and thus the complex mind but think not just vertically but laterally while wading through the gray areas of international politics.

At the time of this non-event, the truth was anything but self evident. Mission creep and long term political objectives took precedence, hijacking the actions of the USS Maddox and using them to initiate the Vietnam War. While the press refused to conduct their due diligence, this illustrates that our first impression may not be our most accurate or honest one. As Goulish warns us, we should never sacrifice our ability to reason for an emotionally satisfying expression be it political, military, or in his example, artistic. While the glass may be thick in the immediate aftermath of the event, it will thin with time, revealing a truth that is entirely different from initial reports. On August 7th, two days after the supposed attack, a resolution passed through Congress with only two dissenting votes, providing the Johnson administration with a de facto declaration of war.

Following the social and political turmoil of the 1960′s and 70′s, it seems that gravity began to pull away at the facade that was the Gulf of Tonkin myth just as it does with the windows in the cathedral, allowing the light of day to expose the truth. The passage of time allows us to reflect on the same event but through a different, and more accurate, perspective.

Compare more recent headlines regarding the same incident, “Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks” (AFP, January 8th, 2008), “Vietnam War Intelligence ‘Deliberately Skewed,’ Secret Study Says” (New York Times, December 2nd, 2005), “30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War” (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, July 27th, 1994). The gap in analysis between the 1964 headlines and the 30 to 40 year retrospectives is vast as it is disturbing but what caused this change in perspective?

In 1964 much more was at stake than just the Vietnam War, support for the war was also equated to support for other antiquated government injustices such as racial segregation, the suppression of women, and a host of other social and culture issues. So convoluted was American culture that it became impossible to separate one issue from the other and look at the war from an objective, non-prejudicial perspective. As society has changed, so has our ability to see the Vietnam War clearly. Nothing less than time itself has allowed us to take a second look at the Gulf of Tonkin and expose the lies that surround the alleged attack on the USS Maddox.

The shift in cultural values may have impacted our ability to see the war through a different lens, but it took the actual passage of years for America to come to grips with the incident and see through the glass clearly. Those who made the political decisions at that time have largely passed on, the men who fought in the war are older and learning how to deal with their war time experiences, those who vigorously opposed the war have long since quieted themselves and allowed space for more reasonable debate, and previously classified documents have been released under the Freedom Of Information Act.

Time was the key factor that has led to a true representation of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is now widely acknowledged that the entire episode was a pseudo-event that only took place the mind of a few over zealous sailors who thought they saw the radar blip of approaching communist torpedo boats. There was no attack, the crew of the USS Maddox fired their weapons at an empty sea, and Johnson initiated the Vietnam War under false pretenses. Like Goulish’s glass window, what initially appeared as a solid as dripped away with time, to reveal itself as also being a liquid.

Such intense retrospectives can be dangerous as well. “As creative and critical thinkers we may find it rewarding to attempt works of criticism, which, over time, reveal themselves as works of art…” (44). War as creative expression on an international scale, body count included, is indeed the most dangerous type of reflection. And yet, the criticism of Hanyak and Stockdale have shown themselves as works of art, revealing nuances and truth as intensely as any musician or painter. If we look into the past and note how skewed our perceptions were, how wrong we were both individually and as a nation, it calls into question our current paradigm. If the cultural juggernaut that was the Vietnam turned out to be initiated on a lie than what are we to believe about the wars we fight today? Do we still cast aside intellectuality for emotional satisfaction?

It becomes impossible to ignore today’s headlines when Goulish’s paradigm is brought it its conclusion as applied to the Vietnam war. Even as journalists tear down the fraud that was the Gulf of Tonkin in major newspapers across the country, they publish new headlines, justifying new wars. “Bush: Get Ready for a Long Struggle” (San Jose Mercury News, September 16th, 2001), “It’s War” (New York Daily News, September 12th, 2001), “’Curveball’: I lied about WMD to hasten Iraq war” (MSNBC, February 15th, 2011). Goulish writes that glass cannot exist without time, it is both liquid and solid depending on the year in which observer views it.

In time, what will the retrospectives say about our war in the year 2050? When George Bush and Barack Obama have passed on, when the primary source documents get leaked or declassified, when the anti-war protestors move on to something more topical for their time, when the veterans ease into old age, how will we then see the War on Terror when the facade has melted way?

Read more: http://sofrep.com/11833/how-to-invent-a-war/#ixzz27mDeSW5h

Obama's UN Spin

The spin we can expect from Obama at the UN
By Anne Bayefsky
Published September 24, 2012
FoxNews.com

President Obama is fond of boasting about his foreign policy prowess and is anxious to use his UN General Assembly address on September 25 to amplify that claim. His competence took a hit this past week after he pontificated on CBS – less than 24 hours after the murder of our Libyan ambassador – that as president he’d “learned” you have “to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts.” It turned out that he didn’t have the facts, but he and his officials kept yakking anyway.

One of those sent out to face the fire, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, will be front and center at the American desk in the Assembly Hall as the president makes his UN pitch. Rice’s implacable insistence that the ‘video-done-it’ has been widely ridiculed, and is now disputed by the White House itself. In fact, the administration’s video-fixated apologies appear to have been fueling the flames.

So last Friday, during a television appearance Daily Beast columnist and Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers asked the right question: “Why was Susan Rice lying?”

The answer will be clearer after hearing the president’s speech, but the answer – to borrow a word from White House Press Secretary Jay Carney – is self-evident. She was taking her cue from the top.

For over three years, the president has burnished his international affairs credentials via a steady stream of misinformation, much of it generated from his diplomatic corps. Bogus UN “success” stories can therefore be expected to factor into tomorrow’s oration.

Here are some possible chestnuts.

There’s the one about the glories of the UN Human Rights Council – which 2012 state department fact sheets say is an “effective and credible multilateral forum for promoting and protecting human rights.”

Given that the UN’s top human rights body counts Cuba, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia among its members, and starting in 2013, Venezuela, Pakistan and Kazakhstan, it isn’t obvious to Americans how this move promotes or protects their values.

Enter Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations and storyteller extraordinaire. Addressing a crowd in Washington, D.C. on September 18, 2012, she said: “[S]ince 2009, the United States and our partners on the Human Rights Council have expanded international mechanisms to monitor and protect core human rights, including freedom of expression…”

Actually, the Council has ceased adopting a substantive resolution on freedom of opinion and expression altogether. While the Canadians shepherded such a resolution through the UN Human Rights Commission (the Council’s predecessor) for twelve successive years to 2004, team Obama agreed to set aside the detailed free speech resolution after October 2009 and turn its attention to a new annual UN standard-bearer.

The name of today’s American-backed paradigm? “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.” Needless, to say, Obama officials cut that raw deal with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Many months later in 2011, Obama diplomats begged none other than the Egyptian government to help them resurrect a substantive freedom of opinion and expression resolution. Egypt refused.

Another tale concerns Israel, and the Human Rights Council’s ongoing attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state. With an agenda reserving one item on Israel and one item on the remaining 192 UN states, 40% of all condemnations directed at Israel alone, and a new witch hunt (aka “fact-finding mission”) launched last March, Israel ceased all cooperation with the Council this year and asked the Obama administration to stop validating the institution.

Instead, the administration decided to run for a second three-year term while dispatching Susan Rice and her state department colleagues during election season to Jewish venues in Florida. Clearly a pro at her game, here’s Ambassador Rice last spring: “Not a day goes by — not one — when my colleagues and I don’t work hard to defend Israel’s security and legitimacy at the United Nations.”

Then there’s the success story about UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, reappointed in May with the approval of the Obama administration. Opening the Council’s latest session on September 10, 2012 she discussed stoning in Iran in the same paragraph as executions in the United States. The woman who questioned the legality of killing Usama bin Laden, went on to tell the world “I am distressed by recent executions carried out in Belarus, China,… Saudi Arabia and the United States.”

One more foreign policy charade which is sure to make its way into the President’s General Assembly speech – more finger-wagging at Iran. Be prepared for the familiar lingo about “strongest sanctions ever” – albeit that beefy Security Council hasn’t imposed a new round of sanctions on Iran in over two years. We might also hear a variation of this oft-repeated formula for getting tough on Iran: “nuclear weapons are really really bad, but the door is still open if Ahmadinejad should take my hand and walk through it.”

President Obama will also remind the nuclear weapon have-nots in the crowd that he has consistently placed the nuclear disarmament of the United States and other democracies on a par with the evils of nuclear proliferation by genocidal dictators. So why did Susan Rice lie? Because President Obama fully intends to appear before the UN General Assembly and tell the world his priorities are: preserving American values like free speech not undermining it, educating merely misinformed Muslim rioters not appeasing them, strengthening alliances not weakening our allies, protecting American security not disabling our defenses, and assuring American voters that our “tiny” enemies are on the run and we’re now well-loved notwithstanding a spontaneous murder here and there.

In other words, she is not alone.

Anne Bayefsky is director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/24/spin-can-expect-from-obama-at-un/#ixzz27ULYtEtX

A Word To Rioting Muslims

Stick A Sock In It ...

Sermon By Rabbi Schlomo Lewis

Sermon delivered by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of Atlanta

I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share. We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel. We want to be shaken and stirred – but not too much. We want to be guilt-schlepped – but not too much. We want to be provoked but not too much. We want to be transformed but not too much.

I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants. We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people.

We did not apologize for Dresden , nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein , nor for D-Day.

Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna , not just Casablanca . It was the entire planet. Read history and be shocked at how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germana on every continent.

Not all Germans were Nazis – most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night. But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense – I didn’t know.” Too many were silent. Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well. Fault was not just with the goose steppers but with those who pulled the curtains shut, said and did nothing.

In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win….. to rid the world of malevolence.

We are at war… yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don’t put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers. We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.

Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London , from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza , the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.

A few years ago I visited Lithuania on a Jewish genealogical tour. It was a stunning journey and a very personal, spiritual pilgrimage. When we visited Kovno we davened Maariv at the only remaining shul in the city. Before the war there were thirty-seven shuls for 38,000 Jews. Now only one, a shrinking, gray congregation. We made minyon for the handful of aged worshippers in the Choral Synagogue, a once majestic, jewel in Kovno.

After my return home I visited Cherry Hill for Shabbos. At the oneg an elderly family friend, Joe Magun, came over to me.

“Shalom,” he said. “Your abba told me you just came back from Lithuania .”

“Yes,” I replied. “It was quite a powerful experience.” “Did you visit the Choral Synagogue in Kovno? The one with the big arch in the courtyard?” “Yes, I did. In fact, we helped them make minyon.” His eyes opened wide in joy at our shared memory. For a moment he gazed into the distance and then, he returned. “Shalom, I grew up only a few feet away from the arch. The Choral Synagogue was where I davened as a child.”

He paused for a moment and once again was lost in the past. His smile faded. Pain filled his wrinkled face. “I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul” (Jabotinsky was Menachim Begin’s mentor – he was a fiery orator, an unflinching Zionist radical, whose politics were to the far right.) Joe continued “When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming. Jews abandon your city.’ ”

We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right -- his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not.”

We are not in Lithuania . It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island . No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

Now before some folks roll their eyes and glance at their watches let me state emphatically, unmistakably – I have no pathology of hate, nor am I a manic Paul Revere, galloping through the countryside. I am not a pessimist, nor prone to panic attacks. I am a lover of humanity, all humanity. Whether they worship in a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or don’t worship at all. I have no bone of bigotry in my body, but what I do have is hatred for those who hate, intolerance for those who are intolerant, and a guiltless, unstoppable obsession to see evil eradicated.

Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided. The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well. The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square , in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeena condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.

Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.

I recall a conversation with my father shortly before he died that helped me understand how perilous and how broken is our world; that we are living on the narrow seam of civilization and moral oblivion. Knowing he had little time left he shared the following – “Shal. I am ready to leave this earth. Sure I’d like to live a little longer, see a few more sunrises, but truthfully, I’ve had it. I’m done. Finished. I hope the Good Lord takes me soon because I am unable to live in this world knowing what it has become.”

This startling admission of moral exhaustion from a man who witnessed and lived through the Depression, the Holocaust, WWII, Communist triumphalism, McCarthyism, Strontium 90 and polio. – Yet his twilight observation was – “The worst is yet to come.” And he wanted out.

I share my father’s angst and fear that too many do not see the authentic, existential threat we face nor confront the source of our peril. We must wake up and smell the hookah.

“Lighten up, Lewis. Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. You’re sounding like Glen Beck. It’s not that bad. It’s not that real.”

But I am here to tell you – “It is.” Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not. Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris , fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration. Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target – pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.

Ask them, ask all of them – ask the American GI’s we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package. Ask them if it’s bad. Ask them if it’s real.

Did anyone imagine in the 1920’s what Europe would look like in the 1940’s. Did anyone presume to know in the coffee houses of Berlin or in the opera halls of Vienna that genocide would soon become the celebrated culture? Did anyone think that a goofy-looking painter named Shickelgruber would go from the beer halls of Munich and jail, to the Reichstag as Feuhrer in less than a decade? Did Jews pack their bags and leave Warsaw , Vilna, Athens , Paris , Bialystok , Minsk , knowing that soon their new address would be Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau and Auschwitz ?

The sages teach – “Aizehu chacham – haroeh et hanolad – Who is a wise person – he who sees into the future.” We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.

We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping. We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul. We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders. Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top. From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America ? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America ? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America ? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness.

The mystifying litany of our foolishness continues. Should there be a shul in Hebron on the site where Baruch Goldstein gunned down twenty-seven Arabs at noonday prayers? Should there be a museum praising the U.S. Calvary on the site of Wounded Knee ? Should there be a German cultural center in Auschwitz ? Should a church be built in the Syrian town of Ma’arra where Crusaders slaughtered over 100,000 Muslims? Should there be a thirteen story mosque and Islamic Center only a few steps from Ground Zero?

Despite all the rhetoric, the essence of the matter can be distilled quite easily. The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish. I don’t buy the argument – “When we can build a church or a synagogue in Mecca they can build a mosque here.” America is greater than Saudi Arabia . And New York is greater than Mecca . Democracy and freedom must prevail. Can they build? Certainly. May they build? Certainly. But should they build at that site? No -- but that decision must come from them, not from us. Sensitivity, compassion cannot be measured in feet or yards or in blocks. One either feels the pain of others and cares, or does not.

If those behind this project are good, peace-loving, sincere, tolerant Muslims, as they claim, then they should know better, rip up the zoning permits and build elsewhere.

Believe it or not, I am a dues-paying, card carrying member of the ACLU, yet from start of finish, I find this sorry episode disturbing to say the least.

William Burroughs, the novelist and poet, in a wry moment wrote – “After one look at this planet, any visitor from outer space would say – “I want to see the manager.”

Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys. Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U’Magog. The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel . It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank . It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobblestoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street . It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses. It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater – in every place of innocence and purity.

Israel is the laboratory – the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.

In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy. Today too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank . Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Iran , Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathesome evil.

As Israel , imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel ’s galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel ’s galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. We are the trial balloon. The canary in the coal mine. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from “good guys” then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda.

Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is a message sent and consequences when our president visits Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia , and not Israel .

There is a message sent and consequences when free speech on campus is only for those championing Palestinian rights.

There is a message sent and consequences when the media deliberately doctors and edits film clips to demonize Israel .

There is a message sent and consequences when the UN blasts Israel relentlessly, effectively ignoring Iran , Sudan , Venezuela , North Korea , China and other noxious states.

There is a message sent and consequences when liberal churches are motivated by Liberation Theology, not historical accuracy.

There is a message sent and consequences when murderers and terrorists are defended by the obscenely transparent “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

John Milton warned, “Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible.”

A few days after the Gaza blockade incident in the spring, a congregant happened past my office, glanced in and asked in a friendly tone – “Rabbi. How’re y’ doing?”

I looked up, sort of smiled and replied – “I’ve had better days.” “What’s the matter? Is there anything I can do to cheer you up?” he inquired.

“Thank you for the offer but I’m just bummed out today and I showed him a newspaper article I was reading.

“ Madrid gay pride parade bans Israeli group over Gaza Ship Raid.” I explained to my visitor – “The Israeli gay pride contingent from Tel Aviv was not allowed to participate in the Spanish gay pride parade because the mayor of Tel Aviv did not apologize for the raid by the Israeli military.”

The only country in the entire Middle East where gay rights exist, is Israel . The only country in the entire Middle East where there is a gay pride parade, is Israel . The only country in the Middle East that has gay neighborhoods and gay bars, is Israel .

Gays in the Gaza would be strung up, executed by Hamas if they came out and yet Israel is vilified and ostracized. Disinvited to the parade.

Looking for logic?

Looking for reason?

Looking for sanity?

Kafka on his darkest, gloomiest day could not keep up with this bizarre spectacle and we “useful idiots” pander and fawn over cutthroats, sinking deeper and deeper into moral decay, as the enemy laughs all the way to the West Bank and beyond.

It is exhausting and dispiriting. We live in an age that is redefining righteousness where those with moral clarity are an endangered, beleaguered specie. Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago – “Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v’Laila, yome – Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day.” We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom . It is a frightening and maddening place to be.

How do we convince the world and many of our own, that this is not just anti-Semitism, that this is not just anti-Zionism but a full throttled attack by unholy, radical Islamists on everything that is morally precious to us?

How do we convince the world and many of our own that conciliation is not an option, that compromise is not a choice?

Everything we are. Everything we believe. Everything we treasure, is at risk.

The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn’t get it is baffling. Let’s try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading.

Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death.

I was no great fan of George Bush – didn’t vote for him. (By the way, I’m still a registered Democrat.) I disagreed with many of his policies but one thing he had right. His moral clarity was flawless when it came to the War on Terror, the War on Radical Islamist Terror. There was no middle ground – either you were friend or foe. There was no place in Bush’s world for a Switzerland . He knew that this competition was not Toyota against G.M., not the Iphone against the Droid, not the Braves against the Phillies, but a deadly serious war, winner take all. Blink and you lose. Underestimate, and you get crushed.

I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off. But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw , Riga , Berlin , Amsterdam , Cracow , Vilna. I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun.

Enough rhetoric – how about a little “show and tell?” A few weeks ago on the cover of Time magazine was a horrific picture with a horrific story. The photo was of an eighteen year old Afghani woman, Bibi Aisha, who fled her abusive husband and his abusive family. Days later the Taliban found her and dragged her to a mountain clearing where she was found guilty of violating Sharia Law. Her punishment was immediate. She was pinned to the ground by four men while her husband sliced off her ears, and then he cut off her nose.

That is the enemy (show enlarged copy of magazine cover.)

If nothing else stirs us. If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha’s mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism. Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naïve among us. In the holy crusade against this ultimate evil, pictures of Bibi Aisha’s disfigurement should be displayed on billboards, along every highway from Route 66 to the Autobahn, to the Transarabian Highway . Her picture should be posted on every lobby wall from Tokyo to Stockholm to Rio . On every network, at every commercial break, Bibi Aisha’s face should appear with the caption – “Radical Islamic savages did this.” And underneath – “This ad was approved by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by Taliban, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, by Islamic Jihad, by Fatah al Islam, by Magar Nodal Hassan, by Richard Reid, by Ahmanijad, by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, by Osama bin Laden, by Edward Said, by The Muslim Brotherhood, by Al Queda, by CAIR.”

“The moral sentiment is the drop that balances the sea” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Today, my friends, the sea is woefully out of balance and we could easily drown in our moral myopia and worship of political correctness.

We peer up into the heavens sending probes to distant galaxies. We peer down into quarks discovering particles that would astonish Einstein. We create computers that rival the mind, technologies that surpass science fiction. What we imagine, with astounding rapidity, becomes real. If we dream it, it does, indeed, come. And yet, we are at a critical point in the history of this planet that could send us back into the cave, to a culture that would make the Neanderthal blush with shame.

Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis. We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.

A rabbi was once asked by his students…. “Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?” Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”

During WWII and the Holocaust was it business as usual for priests, ministers, rabbis? Did they deliver benign homilies and lovely sermons as Europe fell, as the Pacific fell, as North Africa fell, as the Mideast and South America tottered, as England bled? Did they ignore the demonic juggernaut and the foul breath of evil? They did not. There was clarity, courage, vision, determination, sacrifice, and we were victorious. Today it must be our finest hour as well. We dare not retreat into the banality of our routines, glance at headlines and presume that the good guys will prevail.

Democracies don’t always win.
Tyrannies don’t always lose.
My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. “ER KUMT.”

What They Didn't Want You To Hear

As expected, there was more within the context of the 47%. Mitt Romney was expanding on the tax revenue concerns and the economic impacts from tax policy combined with federal “Monetary Policy.” Here is the audio they did not want you to hear.

Iran Threatens US

Iran Threatens to Bring War to U.S. Shores
by Gail Tenzer

I have been arguing for a very long time that Iran and Russia will attack the US through their proxy, Venezuela, and have been preparing to do so for a very long time. Chavez declared war against the US in a video in Spanish which I sent through then Sen. Norm Coleman's office to the US State Dept. back in the early 2000's, when I was still living in Bakersfield, CA. Sen. Coleman's legal aid called me back with the message that State thanked her for the video and that they didn't know about it --- and to "keep them in the loop!" Since then, nothing has been done to stop Venezuela.

I am in touch with people from the Venezuelan underground as you can see from my FB page. I have been informed that the Iranians have built a missile base in Venezuela and the Russians have built a kalyeshnikov factory there.

In the last election cycle, when Sen. Lieberman was here as a surrogate for McCain, at Sinai Temple on Sheridan, I asked Sen. Lieberman about my concern that we could suffer an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack from Venezuela and Lieberman answered that this is indeed a problem. Again, nothing seems to have been done!

I have been the canary in the coal mine and initially, many thought I was a "radical right wing nut!" When you are Second Generation Holocaust Survivor, you have a developed instinct of trouble brewing before it hits --- and that seems to be where my intuition comes from.

I believe that as soon as Israel attacks the Iranian nuclear installations, which it must, we will be hit over here! Let us not forget that Iran refers to Israel as the "little Satan" and the US as the "big Satan!"

What astounds and disappoints me is that this government (both administrations) has done nothing to prevent Venezuela and Iran from getting this far --- and has also not done anything about preparing the civilian population for such an eventuality as have the Israelis, where every home has a "safe room/bunker!" We are completely exposed while the Obama Administration spends money like drunken sailors on nonsense instead of creating jobs to retrofit our homes for security, for example! Instead, Obama's and the State Dept.'s posturing has portrayed us as weak, emboldening our enemies and rendering us even more vulnerable than we already are!

I am at a loss as to what to say about "Jews" who despite Obama's policies regarding Israel and his very obvious pro-Arab leanings (inline with those of the US State Dept.), who cannot vote for Romney over the "abortion issue" which seems to take precedence over our survival as Jews not only in Israel, but everywhere! Why do they not take Ahmadinejad and his threats at his word --- as they apparently didn't take Hitler, until it was too late? Must history repeat itself?

We are on the brink of WWIII. I believe it will start in October. Our enemies are ready --- I don't believe we are! We are in grave danger both as Americans and as Jews! Unfortunately, like the Jews in Germany who believed that they were Germans first and then Jews, our American brethren either don't know history or have learned nothing from it! I will say once more what I wrote years ago and that was published by the Freemanlist: IF YOU ARE BORN A JEW, YOU DON'T GET TO DEFINE YOURSELF! YOUR ENEMIES DEFY YOU!

We cannot escape this, regardless of how much we may want to or try to! Arab hatred for us is endemic! It is in their hadiths and in the Koran! They will investigate our backgrounds and condemn to death anyone who has even a trace of Jewish blood in him/her!

Our civilization is on the precipice of being blown out of existence and if the fall of Rome resulted in the Dark Ages which lasted 500 years, should anyone survive the Nuclear Holocaust Ahmadinejad believes will usher in his Mahdi, the resultant Dark Age will be of unknown duration spanning at least a millennium! The Limurians became extinct 25,000 years before the beginning of our civilization. Pray that we succeed in voting Obama out of office! The survival of civilization itself is at stake! I believe Iran would not be so brazen against a Romney Administration!

This Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur we have much to pray for! Pray that Hashem hears our prayers and protects Israel, the US and the Jewish People everywhere! Shana Tova to all.

Gail Tenzer

Libyans Attack Compound In Backlash

Libyans storm Ansar Al-Shariah compound in backlash after attack on US Consulate Published September 21, 2012 Associated Press

BENGHAZI, Libya – Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building Friday.

In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar Al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.

Ansar Al-Shariah fighters initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was overrun by waves of protesters shouting "No to militias."

"I don't want to see armed men wearing Afghani-style clothes stopping me in the street to give me orders, I only want to see people in uniform," said Omar Mohammed, a university student who took part in the takeover of the site, which protesters said was done in support of the army and police.

No deaths were reported in the incident, which came after tens of thousands marched in Benghazi against armed militias. One vehicle was also burned at the compound.

For many Libyans, the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the last straw in one of the biggest problems Libya has faced since the ouster and death of longtime dictator Moammar Qaddafi around a year ago -- the multiple mini-armies that with their arsenals of machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades are stronger than the regular armed forces and police.

The militias, a legacy of the rag-tag popular forces that fought Qaddafi's regime, tout themselves as protectors of Libya's revolution, providing security where police cannot. But many say they act like gangs, detaining and intimidating rivals and carrying out killings.

Militias made up of Islamic radicals like Ansar Al-Shariah are notorious for attacks on Muslims who don't abide by their hardline ideology. Officials and witnesses say fighters from Ansar Al-Shariah led the attack on the U.S. consulate, which killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

After taking over the Ansar compound, protesters then drove to attack the Benghazi headquarters of another Islamist militia, Rafallah Sahati. The militiamen opened fire on the protesters, who were largely unarmed. At least 20 were wounded, and there were unconfirmed witness reports of three protesters killed.

Earlier in the day, some 30,000 people filled a broad boulevard as they marched along a lake in central Benghazi on Friday to the gates of the headquarters of Ansar Al-Shariah.

"No, no, to militias," the crowd chanted, filling a broad boulevard. They carried banners and signs demanding that militias disband and that the government build up police to take their place in keeping security. "Benghazi is in a trap," signs read. "Where is the army, where is the police?"

Other signs mourned the killing of Stevens, reading, "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Military helicopters and fighter jets flew overhead, and police mingled in the crowd, buoyed by the support of the protesters. The march was the biggest seen in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and home to 1 million people, since the fall of Qaddafi in August 2011. The public backlash comes in part in frustration with the interim government, which has been unable to rein in the armed factions. Many say that officials' attempts to co-opt fighters by paying them have only fueled the growth of militias without bringing them under state control or integrating them into the regular forces.

Residents of another main eastern city, Darna, have also begun to stand up against Ansar Al-Shariah and other militias.

The anti-militia fervor in Darna is notable because the city, in the mountains along the Mediterranean coast north of Benghazi, has long had a reputation as a stronghold for Islamic extremists. During the Qaddafi era, it was the hotbed of a deadly Islamist insurgency against his regime.

A significant number of the Libyan jihadists who travelled to Afghanistan and Iraq during recent wars came from Darna. During the revolt against him last year, Qaddafi's regime warned that Darna would declare itself an Islamic Emirate and ally itself with Al Qaeda.

But now, the residents are lashing out against Ansar Al-Shariah, the main Islamic extremist group in the city.

"The killing of the ambassador blew up the situation. It was disastrous," said Ayoub al-Shedwi, a young bearded Muslim preacher in Darna who says he has received multiple death threats because has spoken out against militias on a radio show he hosts. "We felt that the revolution is going in vain."

Leaders of tribes, which are the strongest social force in eastern Libya, have come forward to demand that the militias disband.

Tribal leaders in Benghazi and Darna announced this week that members of their tribes who are militiamen will no longer have their protection in the face of anti-militia protests. That means the tribe will not avenge them if they are killed.

Activists and residents have held a sit-in for the past eight days outside Darna's Sahaba Mosque, calling on tribes to put an end to the "state of terrorism" created by the militias.

Militiamen have been blamed for a range of violence in Darna. On the same day Stevens killed in Benghazi, a number of elderly Catholic nuns and a priest who have lived in Darna for decades providing free medical services, were attacked, reportedly beaten or stabbed. There have been 32 killings over the past few months, including the city security chief and assassinations of former officers from Qaddafi's military.

Darna's residents are conservative, but they largely don't fit the city's reputation as extremists.

Women wear headscarves, but not the more conservative black garb and veil that covers the entire body and face. In the ancient city's narrow alleys, shops display sleeveless women dresses and the young men racing by in cars blare Western songs.

And many are impatient with Ansar Al-Shariah's talk of imposing its strict version of Islamic law. The group's name means "Supporters of Shariah Law."

"We are not infidels for God sake. We have no bars, no discos, we are not practicing vice in the street," said Wassam ben Madin, a leading activist in the city who lost his right eye in clashes with security forces on the first day of the uprising against Qaddafi. "This is not the time for talk about Shariah. Have a state first then talk to me about Shariah."

"If they are the `supporters of Shariah' then who are we?" he said. "We don't want the flag of Al Qaeda raised over heads," he added, referring to Ansar Al-Shariah's black banner.

One elder resident at the Sahaba Mosque sit-in, Ramadan Youssef, said, "We will talk to them peacefully. We will tell them you are from us and you fought for us" during the civil war against Qaddafi. But "if you say no (to integrating into the) police and army, we will storm your place. It's over."

Officials in the interim government and security forces say they are not strong enough to crack down on the militias. The armed factions have refused government calls for them to join the regular army and police.

So the government has created a "High Security Committee" aimed at grouping the armed factions as a first step to integration. Authorities pay fighters a salary of as much as 1,000 dinars, around $900, to join -- compared to the average police monthly salary of around $200.

However, the militias that join still do not abide by government authority, and critics say the lure of salaries has only prompted more militias to form.

Officials and former rebel commanders estimate the number of rebels that actually fought in the 8-month civil war against Gadhafi at around 30,000. But those now listed on the High Security Committee payroll have reached several hundred thousand. "All these militia and entities are fake ones but it is mushrooming," said Khaled Hadar, a Benghazi-based lawyer. "The government is only making temporarily solutions, but you are creating a disaster." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/21/libyans-storm-ansar-al-sharia-compound-in-backlash-attack-on-us-consulate/#ixzz27CelKVb9

Obama's Incompetent Libyan Deception

Did he lie or is he merely incompetent?

Watch Video

Fed Announces Huge Increase In Stimulus Spending

'What will printing money do for jobs?'


Watch Video

Obama Signs Order For Complete Control

Allan West On Libya

Allan West

Road To Ruin

Preaching To The Choir

In principle, the ideal country would provide all needed goods and services to it's people. This is the goal, or at least the promise, of the Democratic Party.

And how does the Democratic Party plan to finance all these benefits? Well, by heavily taxing anyone who actually earns a lot of money and putting it in a slush fund for hand outs.

Do you see a problem here? I see a bunch of problems.

The Republican Party thinks that each of us, rich or poor, should pay a little into taxes to keep up our infrastructure, roads, bridges, and so on plus provide essential services such as fire, police, emergency health care, etc. That way there would be more job opportunities created rather than less, and the treasury would stand a better chance of not being drained.

Oddly, the Democratic Party doesn't see this inevitable outcome and continues to press for higher taxes, higher spending limits, more debt, and less opportunity. They have always insisted this is how life should be and they always will.

Does this remind you of any place you know of? How about Cuba ... the Cuba where strangers are forbidden to visit and citizens are forbidden to exit, at least without leaving behind healthy collateral. Cuba is a Communist country led by a dictator (and his brother). In Cuba, if you own a car it is most likely a 1954 Chevy held together with duct tape and bailing wire. This is the country Senor Obama would dearly love to create.

Vote, Dammit!!

Definition Of Insanity

QE3: The definition of insanity returns
By Herman Cain

Einstein may have been a genius, but it doesn’t take a genius to see the wisdom of one of his most famous sayings: Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, is the definition of insanity.

That’s how you know that the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve have lost it. The Fed announced last week that it plans another round of “quantitative easing,” which means keeping interest rates artificially low and printing a lot more money (technically through the buying of mortgage-backed securities - $40 billion a month’s worth).

This is known as QE3, and it follows the highly unsuccessful QE1 and QE2, but it is different in one respect: QE3 is forever. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says he will put no sunset date on this plan. The Fed will keep doing it until the economy improves, no matter how long it takes.

Bernanke’s announcement got immediate results, too, although not the type he wanted. The credit rating agency Egan-Jones immediately responded to QE3 by downgrading America’s credit rating from AA to AA-. Explaining their decision, Egan-Jones said what anyone should be able to figure out: All this pump-priming is not going to raise America’s gross domestic product, but what it will do is deplete consumer purchasing power.

Remember last year when Standard & Poors downgraded the United States from AAA to AA+? Democrats and the media insisted that Standard & Poors had taken this action solely because Tea Party Republicans had demanded budget cuts as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, thus introducing a short-term risk of default on the debt.

In fact, Standard & Poors cited the dysfunction of the policymaking process in general, and rightly so. Rating agencies don’t care how you reduce your debt – cut spending, raise taxes – they just want you to do it. What they saw is what anyone with common sense can see. Our fiscal situation is so out of control that we have to borrow money just to pay the interest on the money we’ve already borrowed. When the debt ceiling showdown resulted in no serious action on the deficit, Standard & Poors had seen enough. Even so, Democrats and their media allies did everything they could to blame the Tea Party – as if the people who want put a stop to out-of-control debt are the ones upsetting the credit agencies.

So then, how will they find a way to blame the Tea Party for Egan-Jones’s latest downgrade of the U.S., which is it second this year? The first downgrade resulted from the utter failure of Congress and the White House to deal with the debt. This time, Egan-Jones recognizes that devaluing our currency will do nothing to make the situation better. The only way to do that, after all, is to achieve robust and sustained economic growth.

So why won’t QE3 do that? In buying up all those mortgage-backed securities, they’ll certainly pump a lot of capital into financial institutions. The banks will turn around and lend it, and Main Street will suddenly be cash flush, right?

Wrong. That was the theory behind QE1 and QE2, as well. Why didn’t it work? Because of a little thing called Dodd-Frank, the “reform” through which Democrats presumed to crack down on big banks. Dodd-Frank has introduced so many new regulations and restrictions, big banks are scared to death to make risky loans of any kind. So sure, there’s going to be money, but they’re only going to lend it to the safest loan applicants – people who would almost certainly have gotten loans even without the pump-priming.

So we devalue our currency for nothing, and we’re going to do it endlessly!

I don’t know how we maintain a credit rating as good as AA- when we maintain policies like this. These people have no idea what they’re doing.

'Nothing Will Remain'

Iran commander: 'Nothing will remain' of Israel if it takes military action
Published September 16, 2012Associated Press

TEHRAN – The top commander in Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that "nothing will remain" of Israel if it takes military action against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program.

Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iran's response to any attack will begin near the Israeli border. The Islamic Republic has close ties with militants in Gaza and Lebanon, both of which border Israel.

Iran has in the past made reference to the destruction of Israel but his comments at a Tehran news conference were unusually strongly worded and detailed.

He also said that Iran warned that oil shipments through the strategic Strait of Hormuz will be in jeopardy if a war breaks out between Iran and the United States. Iranian officials have previously threatened to close the waterway, the route for a fifth of the world's oil, but less frequently in recent months.

Gen. Jafari also told a news conference in Tehran Sunday that if it is attacked, Iran will no longer be committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under whose terms U.N. inspectors visit Iranian nuclear sites. He said however that this does not mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon.

The U.S and Israel have both left open the possibility of a strike on Iran if diplomacy fails to stop what it says is a push for a nuclear weapon. Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Gen. Jafari however said that Iran believes the United States won't attack Iran because it is very vulnerable and its military bases in the Middle East are within the range of Iran's missiles. Jafari also said Israel is very unlikely to take unilateral action.

Israel believes that any attack would likely unleash retaliation, in the form of Iranian missiles as well as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on its northern and southern borders.

Jafari's comments come as U.S.-led naval forces from the West and Arab allies gather for naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf that include mine-sweeping exercises.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/16/iran-commander-nothing-will-remain-israel-if-it-takes-military-action/#ixzz26e3R3DQm

The Abandonment

The abandonment

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: September 14

There are two positions one can take regarding the Iranian nuclear program: (a) it doesn’t matter, we can deter them; or (b) it does matter, we must stop them.

In my view, the first position — that we can contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union — is totally wrong, a product of wishful thinking and misread history. But at least it’s internally coherent.

What is incoherent is President Obama’s position. He declares the Iranian program intolerable — “I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” — yet stands by as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearization.

A policy so incoherent, so knowingly and obviously contradictory, is a declaration of weakness and passivity. And this, as Anthony Cordesman, James Phillips and others have argued, can increase the chance of war. It creates, writes Cordesman, “the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real.”

This has precipitated the current U.S.-Israeli crisis, sharpened by the president’s rebuff of the Israeli prime minister’s request for a meeting during his upcoming U.S. visit. Ominous new developments; no Obama response. Alarm bells going off everywhere; Obama plays deaf.

The old arguments, old excuses, old pretensions have become ridiculous:

(1) Sanctions. The director of national intelligence testified to Congress at the beginning of the year that they had zero effect in slowing the nuclear program. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency reports (Aug. 30) that the Iranian nuclear program, far from slowing, is actually accelerating. Iran has doubled the number of high-speed centrifuges at Fordow, the facility outside Qom built into a mountain to make it impregnable to air attack.

This week, the agency reported Iranian advances in calculating the explosive power of an atomic warhead. It noted once again Iran’s refusal to allow inspection of its weapons testing facility at Parchin and cited satellite evidence of Iranian attempts to clean up and hide what’s gone on there.

The administration’s ritual response is that it has imposed the toughest sanctions ever. So what? They’re a means, not an end. And they’ve had no effect on the nuclear program.

(2) Negotiations. The latest, supposedly last-ditch round of talks in Istanbul, Baghdad, then Moscow has completely collapsed. The West even conceded to Iran the right to enrich — shattering a decade-long consensus and six Security Council resolutions demanding its cessation.

Iran’s response? Contemptuous rejection.

Why not? The mullahs have strung Obama along for more than three years and still see no credible threat emanating from the one country that could disarm them.

(3) Diplomatic isolation. The administration boasts that Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. Really? Just two weeks ago, 120 nations showed up in Tehran for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — against U.S. entreaties not to attend. Even the U.N. secretary-general attended — after the administration implored him not to.

Which shows you what American entreaties are worth today. And the farcical nature of Iran’s alleged isolation.

The Obama policy is in shambles. Which is why Cordesman argues that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran without war is to establish a credible military threat to make Iran recalculate and reconsider. That means U.S. red lines: deadlines beyond which Washington will not allow itself to be strung, as well as benchmark actions that would trigger a response, such as the further hardening of Iran’s nuclear facilities to the point of invulnerability and, therefore, irreversibility.

Which made all the more shocking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s dismissal last Sunday of the very notion of any U.S. red lines. No deadlines. No bright-line action beyond which Iran must not go. The sleeping giant continues to slumber. And to wait — as the administration likes to put it, “for Iran to live up to its international obligations.”

This is beyond feckless. The Obama policy is a double game: a rhetorical commitment to stopping Iran, yet real-life actions that everyone understands will allow Iran to go nuclear.

Yet at the same time that it does nothing, the administration warns Israel sternly, repeatedly, publicly, even threateningly not to strike the Iranian nuclear program. With zero prospect of his policy succeeding, Obama insists on Israeli inaction, even as Iran races to close the window of opportunity for any successful attack.

Not since its birth six decades ago has Israel been so cast adrift by its closest ally.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

© The Washington Post Company

The Sandman

Forensic profiler: Meet Obama – the 'sandman'

Eminent psychiatrist reveals mysterious code in which America’s leader speaks

WASHINGTON – An eminent psychiatrist and forensic profiler suggests Barack Obama is “confessing” to the American people who he is and what he wants to do to the country, but most citizens are just not trained to decode his messages.

Dr. Andrew G. Hodges, in his new book “The Obama Confessions,” makes the case that, because of the hurts he experienced in his young life, Obama has overcompensated with a sophisticated communication system that can be understood by reading between the lines of what he says.

What does that decoding reveal?

“Obama reveals the completely secret trauma that controls his life, resulting in his deep misguided fury expressed toward America,” writes Hodges.

To understand Obama, says Hodges, one must see him as “the sandman” – the way he views himself because of the trauma in his life.

It was author and commentator Thomas Sowell who first drew the allusion to Obama as “the sandman.”

“The track record of Obama’s pronouncements on a wide range of issues suggests that anything he says is a message written in sand, and easily blown away by the next political winds.”

But Obama has referred to himself as “the sandman.” What does he mean?

At a Jan. 19 fundraiser at Harlem’s legendary Apollo Theater, Obama took to the stage toward the end of the evening and broke out in song.

“It had been a particularly musical occasion and the president’s appearance followed several performers including soul singer the Rev. Al Green, whom Obama acknowledged,” Hodges explains in his book. “But the entertainers were expected to sing – Obama was only expected to speak. Without warning, however, he delivered a surprisingly pleasing falsetto lyric, ‘I’mmm … sooo in love with you’ – the opening line from Green’s 1972 hit ‘Let’s Stay Together.’ Not believing their ears, the audience bursts into applause. After the ovation subsides, Obama takes it all in, then hesitantly glances toward his staff off stage right. Talking directly to them but also to America, he blurts out, ‘Those guys didn’t think I would do it. I told you I was going to do it.’”

But Obama added a comment most reporters missed.

“The sandman did not come out,” Obama said. “Now don’t worry, I can’t sing like you, but I just wanted to show my appreciation.”

Hodges says “the sandman” did indeed come out that night – and it was Obama, because that’s how he sees himself. It’s part of a pattern in his speech of denying the truth, saying the opposite of what he means.

“Blatant denials often imply the exact opposite – especially following Obama’s emphasis on overcoming denial – suggesting ‘the sandman did come out tonight.’ Indeed, he’s saying, ‘I am the sandman who came out on the stage tonight.’”

What is “the sandman” metaphor all about?

“The vivid image initially suggests something soft and yielding, something lacking a solid foundation,” explains Hodges. “There are other immediate possibilities, but in fact he leads in this very direction of weakness and something not real, not strong – something lacking in character – such as a president who would flippantly take a dare. Also ‘coming out tonight’ suggests coming out with a secret. Is he advising us to look closely at his character and ask fundamental questions to unearth the secret? Surely the character question also fits with telling Americans he has done something unimaginable, gotten elected president in spite of major character flaws.”

Previously, that same evening, Obama denied what he would do – insisting, “I’m not going to sing.” Then he sang. Then he insisted “the sandman” did not come out.

What does all this mean? Hodges writes:

In a Fathers’ Day speech on June 15, 2008, Obama addressed the congregation of the Apostolic Church in Chicago. This wasn’t just any Fathers’ Day but one on which he was campaigning to be America’s leader – the father of our nation.

Obama delivered the speech virtually spontaneously, almost off the cuff, and – on such a personal day for him – he surely wrote it himself. He opens with a striking story, a New Testament parable no less. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.”

But Obama stops there, leaving out the second part of the parable about foolish builders erecting a house on a foundation of sand, but he refers to it extensively by implication – the centerpiece of his speech: “Now everyone who hears these sayings of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand: and the rains came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it fell. And great was its fall.”

A violent storm challenges the foundation of both houses. The home built on rock stands while the home built on sand collapses. Underscoring this parable on Fathers’ Day, Obama depicts fathers as crucial builders of homes, men who structure their children’s very foundations.

And he particularly emphasizes a son’s foundation. “Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives,” Obama tells us, “we are reminded today … that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation.”

Obama then goes on to talk about his own absentee father.

“Obama compares two types of fathers, the involved father who builds solid-rock foundations in his kids and the absent father who builds weak foundations for his children, foundations ‘made of sand,’” writes Hodges. “Yet Obama, by omitting the second part of the biblical parable, shows that he simply cannot bring himself to say the words ‘sand foundation.’ Why? For him, that phrase hits too close to home.”

Obama continues: “I know what it means to have an absent father.”

“His words strongly suggest that the parable could be titled ‘How Obama Sr. built Obama Jr.,’” writes Hodges. “He was unconsciously pressured to tell us about that absent father, the foolish builder who left him with a worrisome foundation. Obama makes repeated scathing references to absent fathers – selfish, unavailable, irresponsible, immature, and destructive. He underscores lost boys who have no father to show them how to be a man. He then describes how such absent fathers produce sons with ‘behavioral problems’ which mirror their own. In short, Obama tells us that he is the sandman son of a sandman father, a father who failed to build a solid foundation of character in him but instead left him with nothing but sand inside. Obama in essence warns America that he would be like his father, lacking in integrity and prone to bad behavior which undermined the community. This according to the role model rule Obama so carefully establishes.”

Hodges continues: “Between the lines Obama has verified that an extremely painful trauma constantly lives inside of him. It doesn’t take much to reopen such a wound – ‘a hole’ in himself created by his absent father. That’s exactly what Obama later labeled it, ‘a hole,’ an emptiness within his inner self. Right off he has revealed the motivations that have controlled him his entire life. At the same time, he remains consciously in denial about his personal pain.”

Who is Hodges to draw such conclusions?

He has identified killers by studying ransom notes, emails, letters and police interviews to spot secret confessions. He decoded O.J. Simpson’s “suicide note” to confirm he had committed a double murder. He deciphered the JonBenet ransom note to identify the child’s killer. He studied statements by Joran van der Sloot and Deepak Kalpoe to tie them to the slaying of Natalee Holloway. He showed how Casey Anthony secretly confessed to killing her daughter in 200 letters written to a jail mate. He even decoded Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky confession-apology on TV, revealing the awful pain which led to Clinton’s self-sabotaging behavior. Hodges employs a unique psycholinguistic technique he calls “ThoughtPrint Decoding” to “read between the lines” of people’s statements – called “the cutting-edge of forensic science” by expert investigators.

Hodges examines Obama’s entire life story from his controversial and mysterious birth, to his Muslim childhood, to his earliest indoctrination by radical left-wing activists and finally to his historic ascension to the White House.

“Wherever we look, Obama demonstrates another major boundary violation – more disruption of America’s foundation,” explains Hodges. “His inaugural address again foreshadows the specific boundary he will attack next – in another caution to America. Here he repeatedly insisted on the preeminence of the rule of law and the Constitution, ‘Our Founding Fathers … drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man. … Those ideals still light the world.’”

It sounds good – on the surface. But that’s not what Obama meant, suggests Hodges. He meant exactly the opposite and was telegraphing, in Obama code, that he would follow a path that is the opposite of was the Founders had in mind.

“Of course, Obama himself remains in denial about the full extent of his intentionally destructive motivations, but we can be sure he is consciously aware of significant deception,” says Hodges. “There is a famous phrase therapists use that applies here; we employ it to describe unconsciously intentional motives and actions: ‘accidentally on purpose.’”

Hodges contends Obama’s mind is secretly a master at describing such motives.

WWIII Fuse Is Lit

Middle East Analysis: WWIII fuse has been lit

By Doug Hagmann Saturday, September 15, 2012

After extensive investigation and analysis of the events on September 11, 2012, in Libya and Egypt, there is only one conclusion I am able to reach: the official narrative of the details of these attacks, provided by U.S. officials and parroted by a complicit, unquestioning media, are being deliberately misrepresented with regard to what actually happened.


Simply put, we are being lied to. But it’s much deeper and much more sinister than a simple lie, and it’s not over yet. In fact, what we are seeing is just the beginning.

Since early Wednesday, I have received numerous e-mails asking why I have failed to report about the murder of a U.S. Ambassador and the other attacks at our embassy in Cairo. After all, nearly all other columnists, especially those on the conservative side, have already written pages upon pages of material about the “tragic” events. Some with hysteria, others with rage, but all blinded by partisan politics and emotion that prevents them from seeing the larger agenda at play, which is exactly what the power players want. Meanwhile, the unsettling truth eludes all but a few.

The following represents a summary of my investigative findings, followed by what I suspect will happen next. The timing of the future events is anyone’s guess, and such events could even be modified or stopped completely by exposing the agenda of those who are actually behind the scenes.

Libya & Egypt attacks: Well planned & coordinated

The attacks against the U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt were planned far in advance by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in the U.S. It would appear that the Egyptian president had, at the very least, foreknowledge of these attack plans. The White House and State Department were warned of impending attacks on or about September 4, 2012, a full week before the attacks were carried out. A logical question to raise is why, then, was nothing done to prevent or at least mitigate the effects of these attacks? The answer is not as simple as the question, and not what everyone appears to be asserting.

The Obama-Carter comparison

Nearly everyone is using the warnings and subsequent lack of preparation as an indication of the incompetence of Obama and his people, even comparing Obama to former President Jimmy Carter, and September 2012 to November 1979. While such comparisons can be made, they are not completely correct and deliberately limit the scope of analysis. Carter’s activities were much more passive and overt with regard to the 1979 embassy crisis and the events leading up to it. (For historical purists reading this, additional information can be obtained by researching Iran’s ex-president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr role in the hostage crisis).

Obama, by comparison, is actively engaging in reshaping the geo-political structure of the Middle East, creating an Islamic caliphate from North Africa to Syria. The goal is to isolate Israel and push that nation into a confrontation with its Arab neighbors. Therefore, comparing Obama to Carter and 1979 to the present is not only naive, but dangerously so.

Obama, lies and videotape

According to the official government narrative perpetuated by news reports, the motive behind the embassy attacks is an obscure film called Innocence of Muslims. Investigation of that production by an alleged Israeli-Jew finds that the film was produced in such a fashion that it was never intended for any other purpose than to be used as a stage prop and fodder for media consumption.

Originally, erroneously but deliberately linked to an “Israeli-Jew,” this low budget video is itself a lie. According to an analysis of the trailer, the video was hastily created on a low budget with bad costumes and fake backdrops. According to cast members, they believed the film to be about something entirely different than their lines portray - lines they never said. The offending audio was dubbed over.

Tentatively, the creation and “distribution” of video has been linked to three people: Nakoula Bassily Nakoula, 55, an Egyptian native on conditional release from prison, 65-year-old Alan Roberts, and outspoken Florida pastor Terry Jones. The controversial Jones appears to be the most vocal supporter of the film.

It is interesting to note that the film itself possesses certain features are notably similar to some of the old Osama bin Laden videos circa 2003-2006. As my investigation into this is continuing, further information about this production and others who might also be associated with it will be withheld - for now.

My investigation determined that the film, which remains accessible on You Tube despite its alleged volatility, could not possibly have been the motive for the 9/11 multi-national embassy attacks. The fact that it remains accessible on You Tube suggests something so sinister that I will refrain from going there - for now. Using the Danish cartoons and other similar controversies that led to violence as a historical template for comparison, all elements reviewed were inconsistent with previous incidents of provocations and subsequent violence.

At this point, all investigative evidence suggest that this film is not the motive behind the initial violence, yet it continues to be used by members of the U.S. government and the media to point the masses away from the real motive. It has served its intended purpose well, and will ultimately result in conforming our First Amendment rights to a larger UN body. All criticism of Islam will eventually be illegal on a global scale.

The Obama motive(s)

The reshaping of the geopolitical structure was done at the hands of Obama by design. To understand the reasons behind it, one must understand exactly who Obama is, understand his roots and origins, his proclivities and biases, which will then reveal not only his motives, but the intentions of the people who groomed him to take the seat of U.S. power. As everyone knows, we’ve got a major problem with this as the American people have been denied access to the most basic documentation about Obama’s past, from his actual birth certificate to his college and passport records.

It is important to understand that the reason for sealing off Obama’s past is to prevent people from seeing the larger agenda of the man and the people who rose in an inexplicable meteoric fashion to the highest levels of public office - and entities and people behind him. Not only have we been denied the most basic access to his records and background, the top levels of our government have been concurrently infiltrated by both members of the Muslim Brotherhood and card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) under his watch and with his imprimatur. While this did not begin under his watch, the process was exponentially and even overtly increased to unbelievable levels the minute he assumed office.

Lacking his bona fides, compliments of both sides of the false right-left political paradigm, we can learn much about Obama from the company he keeps, such as his advisors and associates. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s most visible handler, has a personal stake in the outcome of Middle East events to the point of actively shaping them.

I have previously written and spoken about Obama’s 2012 contingency plans, and we are seeing them play our before our very eyes. The fuse for WWIII, as well as societal chaos in Western nations - and soon coming to urban areas in the U.S.- has been lit. The question is whether the plan will be exposed for what it is, or whether the facilitators and those complicit in this morass will continue their activities as instructed.

The future of the civilized world hangs in the balance.

Copyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

Wake Up And Smell The Jihad

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, it's time to wake up and smell the global jihad
By Christian Whiton
Published September 14, 2012
FoxNews.com

When the men who killed our ambassador to Libya were in the final stages of their preparation, Hillary Clinton was in the Cook Islands, being regaled by locals in traditional dress. Her seemingly endless world tour has prioritized symbolism and pageantry over substance. So too has the administration of her boss, Barack Obama, and the costs are now becoming clear.

This explains why Obama’s chief diplomat said of the Libya attack: “I asked myself—how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”

Madam secretary, it is time for you and your boss to wake up and smell the global jihad.

There are people in this world—and not a small number of them—who share the vision bin Laden had and have the will and means to act. No amount of apologizing for America, embracing our adversaries or mistreating our allies will change that.

It is worth recalling that Cairo, the city where a mob entered the US embassy compound and burned an American flag, was the epicenter of what critics call Obama’s “apology tour.” It was there that he apologized for critical steps American officials took in the Middle East to defend against the Soviets eight years before Obama was born. It was there that he criticized his own nation’s response to 9/11.

That was the reason US diplomats in Cairo instinctively put out an apologetic condemnation of those who “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” They were simply channeling the Obama view of the world.

Hillary also said that the attack was the result of a “small and savage group.”

Wrong again.

Viewed correctly, the attack was perpetrated by a very large group. Terrorism as we have known it since 9/11 is but the violent vanguard of the Islamist political ideology. This ideology unifies diverse terrorists from Jemmah Islamiyah in Indonesia to Al-Shabaab in Somalia to Boko Haram in Nigeria to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the Haqqani network in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While the groups are diverse and at times antagonistic toward each other, their hatred of America unites them, and they work toward a generally common goal. Behind them is a large body of people who cheer on and support Islamists—a minority of Muslims, but hardly a body of people we should ignore.

The American people have instinctively understood this threat since Islamists took over Iran and took our diplomats hostage there in 1979. Our political class has never understood this.

Instead, our foreign policy establishment, led by presidents of both parties, has spoken of “violent extremists” as if they had no common thread or clear ideological motivation. More recently, President Obama has thumped his chest about killing Al Qaeda’s founder and implied that Al Qaeda is our only real enemy. This is convenient and politically correct—but it is wrong.

If we killed everyone in Al Qaeda tomorrow, we would still have a problem that Obama, Hillary and the Washington foreign policy establishment refuse to recognize. There is a tyrannical political force in the world that is waging war on us wherever it can—both politically and militarily.

On Obama’s watch, the Islamists have done very well. They have taken over Egypt and are set to take over Syria and its chemical weapons arsenal without a change in US policy. They look ahead to the day U.S. forces leave Afghanistan—which Obama has conveniently announced to them. And in the country where modern Islamism first came to life at the nation-state level, Iran, the government is set to gain a nuclear weapons capability—another Obama legacy.

Hillary ought to park the plane and understand that diplomacy—or more accurately statecraft—ought to be about recognizing and fighting these problems. Pageantry, apologies and photo ops are obviously not getting it done.

Christian Whiton was a State Department senior adviser from 2003-09 during the administration George W. Bush administration. He is principal at DC International Advisory.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/13/mrs-clinton-and-mr-obama-it-time-to-wake-up-and-smell-global-jihad/#ixzz26XaNtJop