12/19/13

McClatchy Reporter Changes Tune on Benghazi

By: Bethany Stotts
Accuracy in Media

CBS’ Lara Logan has been roundly criticized for using Dylan Davies as a source, and by all accounts he was a fraudulent one. This does not, however, mean that all other elements of her report were entirely false, a theory that was put forward by Nancy A. Youssef, a reporter at McClatchy News. Youssef’s reporting seems to indicate that she’s changed her thinking over the past month. Either that, or she’s operating in a strange world of doublethink. And Logan, who was placed on leave for her retracted “60 Minutes” report, is now set to return early next year.

Youssef penned a piece on November 13 that took apart Logan’s reporting and her hyper-reliance on the idea that al Qaeda took part in the Benghazi attacks and guarded the hospital where the Ambassador’s body was taken. “Logan claimed that ‘it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault,’” in her 60 Minutes feature, wrote Youssef. “But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator,” she continued.

Al Qaeda may have never been named the sole perpetrator of the attacks, but the 100 pages of emails released by the Obama administration show the CIA and FBI fingering core al-Qaeda operatives as early as September 14, 2012—just two days after the attack. In an email sent that day from the CIA, a staffer wrote “Thanks… Fyi FBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pushing that theory.”

“So we are not ahead of law enforcement now.”

This clearly establishes that, internally, at least, the FBI and CIA were pointing to core al Qaeda for the attacks.

“While Logan had multiple sources and good reasons to have confidence in them, her assertions that Al Qaeda carried out the attack and controlled the hospital were not adequately attributed in her report,” concluded Al Ortiz in his internal investigation of Logan’s “60 Minutes” report.

Youssef’s account is hardly unbiased. She continues, “Rather, it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah, as well as attackers angered by a video made by an American that insulted Prophet Muhammad” (emphasis added). “The video spurred angry protests outside the U.S. embassy in Cairo hours beforehand.”

So, according to Youssef, al Qaeda’s role in the attacks was overblown by Logan, and the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims,” truly did help spark the attack on the Special Mission Compound. Must the false YouTube video narrative be re-litigated time and again before the media?

According to Youssef, “The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack.”

“While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims—al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state,” she reports.

That’s not the impression the U.S. government gave in August 2012, shortly before the attacks. And that’s not the impression “experts” give in Youssef’s December 2013 analysis, either. The 2012 report, al Qaeda in Libya: a Profile, stated that “Al-Qaeda has established a core network in Libya, but it remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name.”

And, the authors wrote, “Ansar al-Sharia (Supporters of Sharia), a militia group led by Sufian Ben Qhumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, could be the new face of al-Qaeda in Libya despite its leader’s denial” (emphasis added). The report speaks of an al-Qaeda “clandestine network” which has infiltrated the Libya Salafist movement “with which it shares a radical ideology and a general intent to implement sharia in Libya and elsewhere.” In other words, al Qaeda in Libya isn’t going to operate officially under the umbrella of al Qaeda, it’s just going to act like it.

In fact, the report characterizes Ansar al Sharia as an extension of al Qaeda, a fact Youssef quickly forgets. “Two of these local Islamist-oriented militias—Ansar al-Sharia and al-A’hrar Libya—are the tip of the iceberg,” write the authors. “They broadcast typical al-Qaeda-type propaganda on the Internet, and they have adopted the black flag, which symbolizes commitment to violent jihad promoted by [Al Qaeda senior leadership].”

In a different direction, Ansar al-Sharia may become the new brand name under which jihadist groups in the Arab world seek to organize,” the report states (emphasis added). These are strong words to describe a locally oriented group.

Ironically, Youssef is the author of a more recent December 12 piece on Islamist militants in Libya, where international jihadis are being trained before shipping off to other countries. Her own reporting proves that Ansar al Sharia is not just locally oriented. “It also raises questions about the role of Libya’s homegrown militia, Ansar al Shariah, in the global jihadi movement,” Youssef writes, in a dramatic reversal. “Ansar al Shariah has its roots in the anti-Gadhafi uprising and it’s thought to have participated in the attack last year on U.S. facilities in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.”

“Any effort to train al Qaida-linked fighters here is unlikely to have gone forward without the backing of Ansar al Shariah, experts in the organization say” (emphasis added). If only Youssef would have said that much in November. What a difference just one month makes in her reporting.

Bethany Stotts is a freelance writer and former staff writer for Accuracy in Academia. She blogs at http://bethanystotts.wordpress.com/.

12/19/13

The ‘Uber-Presidency’: Time for a ‘Vote of No Confidence,’ Time for a ‘Recall’

Gulag Bound
By MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)
Stand Up America

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret.)

Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history. It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence, it’s time for a ‘recall’.

We are only surviving now, not thriving, and it is clear that the country is demanding new leadership; not the ones the media and the entrenched political machines force upon us.

America is seeking proven leaders, those who are experienced, trustworthy, and loyal; people like our retired military officers. These are the only ones unsullied by political debt or tainted by monied obligations. At this crucial moment, these are the only people who can do the job.

It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people. We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder.

Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved ObamaCare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the Tea Party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.

Vote+Of+No+Confidence+424127_226493830782362_1728183Power likes to stay in power; we need to remove that power. The party in power under Obama has synchronized itself to one party rule, no other voice is permitted. It has also synchronized to a ‘single payer system.’

It is also time we reminded the Republican establishment that if not for the Tea Party, Nancy Pelosi would still be wielding the gavel in the House and Obama would be unrestrained beyond our wildest fears.

It has been just over one year since Obama was re-elected; do you think he would win if he had to face another election today with what we know now? Of course not! In less than a few months it is all unraveling and America has lost confidence in him.

Many who once supported him are now running for the hills. We were defrauded, America, and people are finally noticing and understanding what we have been telling you for five years.

Promise after promise, fraud after fraud, lie after lie, deception after deception, and then there are all those hidden items and the complete joke about being the most transparent administration ever. Even photographic journalists are now mad at how little access they get. Then there is the complete lack of accountability and stark ineptitude, home and abroad.

Let’s look at some of these examples

boehner-pelosi-gavel-6390459ec62786beaa7e7ddb24240052a1d8c7d7-s6-c30Excerpted from Obama’s Long List of Broken Promises. By Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine.

(This is obviously not all of the examples, but certainly it is a good sampling of the more outrageous ones. Some items were shortened for space.)

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (It’s not.)
  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on day one and continues.)
  • And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
  • His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
  • To treat super-PACs as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
  • His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
  • To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • To identify all those “shovel-ready” jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
  • To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistence that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of the oceans. (It hasn’t.)
  • To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
  • To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
  • To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year–and nothing of consequence happened.)
  • That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
  • gty_eric_holder_obama_thg_120620_wgAnd of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of Gallup polling.)
  • Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
  • And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

In his latest treatise on these subjects, Impeachment Lessons, Andy C. McCarthy tells us:

“Just as there is no mystery in Obama’s disregard for the Constitution, there is no secret about the Constitution’s answer to executive imperialism.

The Framers recognized that presidential abuse of power carried the greatest potential to wreck the republic.

Adamant that the presidency they were creating must not become a monarchy, they carried on debates over the Constitution that were consumed with precluding this very real possibility.

In the end, the Framers armed Congress with two responsive weapons: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment.

As we have seen through the years, the power of the purse is not a practical check on Obama. In the main, this is because the Framers, notwithstanding their prescient alarm over the problem of factions, did not anticipate the modern Left.”

Obama-constitution-burningAndy further states:

While Democrats quite intentionally defy the Framers’ design, Republicans frustrate it by aggressive passivity. The Constitution divides power by subject matter, not percentage of governmental control.

Nevertheless, Republicans incessantly tell supporters that, since they control only the House (just one-half of one-third of the government,” as the tired refrain goes), they are impotent to rein in Obama’s excesses.

Republican leadership turns on those conservatives with a ferocity rarely evident in their dealings with the president.

Two things, however, are certain. Absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up.

…and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed. (Read the whole column here.)

This “ferocity” was never more revealing than in a statement John Boehner made yesterday (excerpt from Fox News):

Ahead of the vote, Boehner sparred with the right flank of his party over the bill, produced out of weeks-long bipartisan negotiations. He specifically criticized conservative advocacy groups trying to pressure the rank-and-file to block the budget.

quotes-about-motivational_16828-1“Frankly, I think they’re misleading their followers,”… “I think they’re pushing our members into places where they don’t want to be. And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”

To which Matt Kibbe at Freedom Works responded:

“Speaker Boehner may not care about what fiscally conservative groups do, but grassroots Americans still care about what he’s doing in Washington…

When it comes to ‘credibility,’ actions speak louder than words. And right now, it looks like the Speaker is leading the charge for spending increases and recruiting Democrat votes in the House to help get it done.”

Time for a vote of “NO CONFIDENCE,” time to “RECALL” such faux leadership

A prominent Washington, D.C. insider with whom Stand Up America is coordinating — and who prefers to remain under the radar for the moment while conferring with potential House co-sponsors on both the basic rationale and the detailed content of such a House Resolution of NO CONFIDENCE — offers the following justification for this novel course of action:

First, in most of the world’s so-called “democracies” – actually, multi-party constitutional republics – a formal vote of “No Confidence” by the Lower House suspends or greatly limits the governing authority of the Party in power and, in a “Recall” of sorts, mandates new elections within 30-60 days.

Although we have no such instrument in our Constitution or in existing law, there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for Contempt of Congress, violations of Oath of Office and of the Constitution itself – for all of the reasons stated in such a Resolution.

Second, while most of the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” cited in pending Resolutions of Impeachment (and perhaps in new resolutions seeking Judicial Relief) would also be included in this Resolution, many lesser and largely “non-impeachable” reasons for disappointment, doubt, distress, distrust and detestation would be entirely appropriate – and would not require the high levels of legal proofs for a formal Impeachment by the House or for a formal Trial and Conviction by the Senate.

wpid-UFPnews-tea-party-patriot-american-conservative-freedom-liberty-research-revolution-speech-universal-free-press-people-Obamacare-1In effect, it would be much easier to cosponsor, to report to the House, to be formally adopted by the House and to achieve what might be called Obama’s “Conviction without Eviction” – in which wholesale repudiation by the House, loss of control of the Senate and a substantial diminution of power and influence during his remaining time in office would be the penalties.

Third, the “no confidence” targets of the Resolution will be so numerous as to require a dozen or more categories – within each of which several particular offenses will be briefly described and become what lawyers call the “Bill of Particulars” – which might number an incredible 60-75 items in all.

The credibility of our current leadership is gone, and now we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies, and all manner of chicanery. We know there is no ‘legal standing’ in a vote of “No Confidence” that would come of this act, but at least one thing will certainly occur; we take back the power of discourse.

We strangle those in power with our words loudly drowning out the tortured logic of their rhetoric and seize the day now. This includes the media.

What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama Administration?

How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?

What are we to do now that Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, has abolished the filibuster through the use of the ‘nuclear option’, effectively allowing yet another power grab by the executive branch?

These are but a few points to ponder as our nation races headlong into tyrannical centralized rule if we do not act now.

disciplinary procedure guide-resized-600Our nation is being kidnapped and we effectively have only a few ways to stop it. But these ways have many road blocks, and they take way too long to affect change. The founders never envisioned career politicians running any government, let alone a complicit media openly favoring one ideology.

They also did not anticipate technological advancements that created a 24-hour news cycle and such ease of communication. Therefore they did not give the people enough ‘teeth’ in the Constitution. This effectively allows groups to monopolize the discourse and apply tactics to further weaken the people.

The current administration and the Democrat Party know this and manipulate the system to prevent the people from gaining recourse for grievances. Republicans, although less nefarious by orders of magnitude, engage in some of these tactics, but they do not have the will to fight, especially against such entrenched enemies of the state.

This prevents the people from ultimately recouping their power so eroded these past 100 years, and specifically these past five despite the success of 2010 that gave the House back to Republican control.

Though the actual voting booth is less than a year away, does anyone have any confidence that this time, their vote will actually matter? Even if the Republicans retake the Senate, Obama is still the President, and his cabinet and appointees still remain in power.

A veto proof majority is very likely not in the cards as well, so who knows what the Republicans would be able to do, let alone ridding America of the destruction the ObamaCare has wrought upon us. Obama vowed that it would never be overturned while he remains in the Oval Office.

Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator.

Where that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.

He will also further escalate the placement of his ideological kin into permanent positions within government, each able then to permanently run their operations ideologically as has been done in the IRS, DHS, DOJ, and more.

There are ways to rid America of these types but short of the vote we speak of, would they work?

Lie of the YearOn Tuesday, December 3rd, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the president’s duty to uphold the law. Why? Well the committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, said:

“President Obama has blatantly disregarded the Constitution’s mandate to faithfully execute the laws…

He has changed key provisions in Obamacare without congressional approval, failed to enforce our immigration and drug laws, and ignored his constitutional duties for the sake of politics.”

In that hearing, four witnesses testified and one in particular has spurred much talk of the word that shall not be spoken, the “I-word,” or impeachment. He was none other than Georgetown Law Professor, Nicholas Rosenkranz. He said:

“The ultimate check on presidential lawlessness is elections and, in extreme cases, impeachment.”

Jonathan-TurleyIn his well crafted piece in the National Review Online, Jonathan Strong added the following:

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a frequent guest of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow during the Bush years, described the situation in severe terms.

“I really have great trepidation over where we are headed,” Turley said. “We are creating a new system here…The center of gravity is shifting, and that makes it unstable.

Within that system you have a rise of an uber-presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. And I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift.”

The situation, Turley later said, is the “most serious constitutional crisis, I believe, in my lifetime.”

Impeachment however is not an option. Why, because Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s days, forget about a finding of guilt. Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same. What else is available?

Some call for a set of Constitutional amendments, a process that can take place without Congress as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon tells us:

“There is a procedure in the Constitution that allows the people to amend the Constitution without going through Congress. That is another method where the people can try to restrain the executive.”

Once again however, what confidence can we have in securing that device for use to correct Obama’s misdeeds and lies? Besides, it would take a very long time; a luxury we just do not have if we are going to save our Republic.

That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option.

This is an option we abhor and do not support in the least. Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route. So what do we do? We conduct a national “Vote of No Confidence.”

Like the parliamentary procedure that Great Britain uses, a vote of no confidence means a new election must take place there.

The Prime Minister is powerless after such a vote, and though our vote would not have that full effect, it would at least tell those who live behind the “Iron Curtain” that is the DC Beltway that ‘we are not pleased,’ as the Queen would say.

It would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!

Join us at Stand Up America US, it is time for a vote of “No Confidence!”

____________________

CONTACT Information:

For comment or request for interviews, please send an email to [email protected].

12/19/13

My Announcement Tonight on the Andrea Shea King Show

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

Microphone-Yeti-USBIt will be on her program, which begins at 9pm ET.

This is the link to The Andrea Shea King Show.

It’s about America and a 2014 campaign.

—–AW—–

And a bonus…for Christians to consider:

Who are the supreme governing authorities in America?

“For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”
– Romans 13:1b-2

What happens when governing authorities resist carrying out their roles and carrying them out righteously?

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”
– James 4:14

12/19/13

Lawless Law Enforcement

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

Reading some of the headlines makes this old retired cop cringe on a regular basis. Take for instance the following, “Texas judge: Search warrants can be obtained based on predictions of future crimes.”

If that’s the only part of the article you read then it’s entirely possible you also saw images of Tom Cruise waiting for the little ball to roll down after the Pre-Cogs envision a future crime, organize the ‘evidence’ on that neat wall sized viewing screen and then drop out of the sky with his team of Future Crime Officers in those futuristic pods to sweep up some poor schnook moments before he murdered his wife (or is that murders, so hard to figure out since it has yet to happen) murders his wife who has been cheating on him moments after he leaves for work in the morning.

Here’s what readers were presented:

“The incident began during the summer of 2010, when police in Parker County, Texas, staked out Michael Fred Wehrenberg’s home for a month. According to the Dallas Observer, authorities allegedly received a tip from a confidential informant stating Wehrenberg and his associates were “fixing” to cook meth in the home. Without obtaining a search warrant, they walked into the home and arrested the people inside.

It was only after arrests were made that police sought out the warrant necessary to confiscate the meth-making material in the home, including boxes of pseudoephedrine, stripped lithium batteries, and other items. On the warrant application, however, police declined to mention that they had actually been in the house prior to obtaining authorization for the search, mentioning only the informant who tipped them off.”

My question; not that a retired cop would ever question the actions of fellow law enforcement officers, if they had all the information from a month long investigation why didn’t they obtain a warrant PRIOR to engaging the suspects in their home?

Obtaining a valid search warrant is done PRIOR to entering a house and looking for evidence or don’t they teach that at the police academy anymore? The same holds true for going through someone’s vehicle; a warrant must be obtained PRIOR to looking for incriminating evidence. If the law isn’t followed then anything found can’t be used in a court of law as evidence, it’s that simple; …or is it?

The Texas Appeals Court found in favor of the police citing a Federal ruling which permits infringements on the 4th Amendment. I’m not making this up; apparently the Federal government threw away the 4th Amendment some time back and has gotten away with it ever since.

“In the dissent, Judge Lawrence Meyers wrote that the only reason police decided to apply for the warrant is because they had previously entered the house illegally.” (…and he got it right; shame on the other judges)

Judge Meyers’ dissenting remark was followed by a sarcastic explanation of the slippery slope we are now rapidly falling down as the courts now permit lawless law enforcement practices to prevail.

“Search warrants may now be based on predictions of the commission of future crimes,” the judge wrote.”

We now have lawless law enforcement with the blessing of the courts. Next thing you know Homeland Security will think they can set up check points on our nation’s highways in order to search, without warrant, random motorists.

News Flash… Homeland Security already does this.

It’s time to turn the computer off and watch an old Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Stewart movie; yea, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. With any luck I’ll fall asleep recalling a time when government respected limitations placed on it by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”

12/19/13

28 Pages Later: Shrouding an Act of War

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Cross-Posted at Right Side News

A scandal that spans three presidencies and more is coming to light. In a non-defined conflict against terrorism, we have lost over 6,750 U.S. service members who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. American blood spilled in wars that do not attack those who attacked us on 9-11. To put this in perspective, fewer died in Pearl Harbor and we nuked the Japanese. We were told after 9-11, that it was al Qaeda, with no other state sponsors. If the allegations prove accurate, 9-11 was nothing less than an act of war by Saudi Arabia.

“It’s classified because if it were released, the people would demand war against Saudi Arabia, and the entire US policy of having the Sunni Arabs price their oil in US dollars in exchange for supporting their dictatorships would fall apart.”
– Comment left at Hot Air (Hat Tip: The Radio Patriot)

According to the New York Post, Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch and Republican Rep. Walter Jones have come forward with solid accusations claiming that 28 pages from the 2002 report on 9-11, were not only redacted, they were blank except for an on-going ellipsis. The 28 pages were purportedly removed by President Bush when the report was released, but are now leaking out 12 years later:

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out, the intel Sperry cites will eventually be discredited or the executive branch will be implicated in the interference with one or both reports.

Three Strikes And You Are Out

Buck Sexton at TheBlaze last night said that he thought that the redaction was either to cover embarrassment for incompetency on the part of our intelligence agencies (the fact that no one was minding the store), or that our government was complicit in aiding and abetting the Saudis. Here are some facts for you:

1. Clinton and his intelligence agencies knew full well what bin Laden intended. Bin Laden stated it in 1998 and carried it out in 2001. I see no way that our agencies didn’t know it was a grave possibility.

2. Bush put the Saudis on a plane right after 9-11 and sent them home. No questions asked, right after the murder of 3,000 Americans and the largest terrorist attack on US soil ever.

3. At least one Saudi was involved in the Boston bombing. He was hurt and hospitalized. Michelle Obama visited him in the hospital. He was given safe passage back to Saudi Arabia and he visited the White House afterwards.

Three strikes and you are out.

I believed in President Bush when 9-11 happened. He seemed a hero for his actions right after the attack. Now those actions are clouded and it would seem that those branded conspiracy nuts on both sides of the aisle, were in part right. I still don’t buy the wackier conspiracy theories that you will find out there and I will never be a Truther. But, I have for a long time pointed out the involvement of Saudi Arabia and Iran as well in the attacks. Now there seems to be strong evidence against Saudi Arabia who has denied their involvement since the beginning. Denials that were suspect to begin with since 15 of the 19 bombers were from Saudi Arabia.

The New York Post has laid out the now expanding evidence that Saudi agents, officials and operatives in several states, including Virginia, Florida, California and DC, gave funding and/or intelligence to the hijackers in 2001. If true, explain to me how that is not an act of war?

Karl Denninger put it better than I can and got right to the heart of the matter:

It’s obvious given what happened, the logistical and funding requirements and where the hijackers came from along with inexplicable actions immediately following the attacks – unless our government explicitly let certain people flee.

Yet we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan while helping the Saudis — the very people who attacked us.

And Obama, to this day, kisses the Saudi King.

[…]

It makes a very convincing case that the Saudi Government was involved in an act of war against the United States. Not simply terrorism — remember, the Pentagon, a military target, was one of the locations hit. The other intended target for the plane that went down in PA was the Capitol.

You awake yet America?

You damn well should be.

It’s about damn time that the mainstream media started talking about this — you’re only a decade late, *******s. And no, people like myself who have been saying this all along are not nuts.

We’re right.

And American blood flows, while we protect those who kill us. Sheer insanity. Obama literally bows to the Saudi King and it would appear that Bush and Clinton did as well. I can’t get the image out of my head of Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia. That blood is as black as oil. No one has ever solved or revealed who made the killing in the stock market by shorting airline stocks during all this. That needs to be answered.

Eight Trillion has been spent on security since 9-11 and we are less secure now than we were then. Does anyone really believe this is not on purpose? Incompetency only goes so far; evil intent is forever. We have been lied to over and over and over again. We see it going on every day and feel helpless to stop it. We must put a stop to this. These elite Progressives are getting wealthy off the deaths of our people and are redistributing every last dime America has. By design, they are bringing us to our knees and forcing us into a dictatorship. They have no reverence for the Constitution, for our laws or our branches of government. Do you trust our government anymore? I don’t – not on either side of the political spectrum.

Inside The Saudi 9/11 Coverup

Read the New York Post’s investigative piece in its entirety: Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup. I would very much like to know what is in those 28 pages. I want to know if this is another contrived attempt to smear Bush and Republicans, or if they were complicit in aiding the Saudis. I want the truth:

Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”

Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.

Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.

Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a “coverup beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.

Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.

Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.

But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The information is still relevant ­today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.

As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States.”

Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.

Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.

If any of this is true, America will never be the same. Our leaders should be forewarned that the public will not be pleased – the woodshed will have a long line on this one and tar and feathers will be handed out judiciously. We always knew that Saudi Arabia was involved, but this takes it to a new level. When a country’s government sanctions and helps with a terrorist attack of another country, ally or not, it is an act of war. Thanks to Obama, we are too weak after gutting our military to go to war. But if Saudi Arabia’s government was involved, then America needs to clean out our government now, beef up our military and go on a road trip to the land of oil and do a smack down of epic proportions.

The enemies within and without seem to have been shrouding an act of war and Americans need to wrest control of our Republic back into the hands of patriots. As Judson Phillips says, we should remember there are certain crimes that have no statute of limitations.

12/19/13

The Silencing of the Ducks

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Hat Tip: BB

I did not start viewing Duck Dynasty until a few months ago. It has since become our favorite show and we can’t get enough of it. Christian values, real people, guns and hunting – what’s not to love? But it would seem that being a Christian and espousing your beliefs in America is now becoming ever more dangerous. As RedState pointed out, ultimately you will care and you will have to take a stand and take sides.

Phil Robertson, the patriarch of Duck Dynasty, just did a GQ interview where he stated his Christian beliefs, which included those concerning Gays. This whole blowup is not so much about the Gay issue, but far more about the Constitution and the First Amendment. In the interview, Phil was asked if he thought homosexuality was sinful:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he told GQ, before paraphrasing the Bible in Corinthians. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

For telling the truth and stating what he personally believed, A&E put him on indefinite hiatus. They fired him. I would be very surprised if the family did not tell A&E to stuff it. They managed to take THE most popular rated show ever and scuttle it. Phil had told A&E earlier that if they insisted he remove God or guns from his show, they were through:

On May 9, Greensboro, NC country station 93.1 The Wolf reported that after receiving complaints over prayers to God and the frequent use of guns on air, Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson said, “God and guns are part of our everyday lives [and] to remove either of them from the show is unacceptable.”

Sarah Palin came to Phil’s defense with the following quote:

Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.

She’s right and this will backfire on A&E and all the others out there that are anti-Christian. Phil Robertson just became a warrior for God and the Constitution and I am sure he is up to the task. An attack on one Christian, is an attack on all of us. Time to draw our line in the Marxist sand.

Drudge headlined this whole shameful turn of events on his site this morning with: “Roasted ‘Duck’ – Leader Fired After Gay Rant. The title is misleading as I don’t consider Phil’s statement as a rant, but a confirmation of his beliefs and faith. He has a right according to the First Amendment to state his views. And while A&E has a right to run their channel as they see fit, they obviously care more about the rights of Gays than they do of Christians and they fear the backlash from the LGBT community and their supporters. They don’t give a crap about Constitutional rights and evidently they are willing to throw away millions in revenue to placate a certain segment of society. That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? A&E chose sides with GLAAD, took a stand and walked off a cliff. It’s okay for militant Gays to attack Christians and hunt them down, but when a Christian stands up and says what he believes… well, that’s hate don’t ya know.

From Gateway Pundit:

A&E has placed Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson on indefinite hiatus following anti-gay remarks he made in a recent profile in GQ.

“We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty,” A&E said in a statement.

“His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

The news comes after Robertson compared homosexuality to bestiality in an interview with the magazine. He’ll likely appear in season four, which bows Jan. 15, since production is largely wrapped.

I’m not a boycotter, but in this case, I’m definitely willing to make an exception. I’ll do my shopping at the Duck Commander site, thank you very much.

A&E and Phil Robertson both put their beliefs ahead of profits. One for God, the other for political correctness. Through tolerance, evil progresses. Many Christians are afraid to state what they believe because of a politically correct, 1984 environment imposed on America by our Marxist leaders.

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy

Christians should remember that quote, because you must take a stand, just as Phil Robertson and his family have done.

The dishonest and criminal faction of GLAAD is now on a Christian hunt for Duck Dynasty. GLAAD called Phil’s comments vile and stereotypically outdated – so Christianity is passe according to GLAAD? Color me not surprised. GLAAD has no idea what a true Christian believes. Red State has this to say:

The secular left believes otherwise. GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz, in a laughably ridiculous statement, responded to Robertson by saying, “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.”

Actually, Robertson said precisely what true Christians believe and anyone, including A & E, letting GLAAD be an arbiter of true Christian thought is pretty quickly destined for hell fire.

A & E has now joined much of mass market culture in the Western World in picking sides in a fight — tolerance for gay rights, but not for Christians expressing honest answers to questions asked of their faith. The only surprise is that the Christians of Duck Dynasty could last there as long as they did. A&E has as much right to do this as you have to turn the channel. But they have clearly aligned themselves against us in the culture wars.

The world is at war with Christ and those who put their faith in Christ. The silver lining of this act is that many Christians who decided they could sit on the sidelines and not have to care will have a wake up call — particularly millennial Christians.

The Church, however, must show it will stand with those who stand with Christ and not shy away from this fight lest too many weak and new Christians go wobbly and silent.

You will be made to care. You will not be given the option of silence or sitting on the sidelines.

Rhymes With Right also made an astute observation that A&E just violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act by suspending Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

I wouldn’t hold your breath that Obama and the DOJ will do anything on this though. They are quietly cheering on the sidelines as this happens. They are just about as anti-Christian as they come – you will find the Obama Administration in support of Islam, but not Christianity… period.

Phil Robertson has released his own retort:

“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior,” he said. “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

Let me tell you something… I have walked with God all my life. That doesn’t mean I didn’t stray – a lot. I have a colorful history to say the least. But I am a Christian now and forever and I share Phil’s views. There should be room out there for everyone to have their own views and lead their own lives. Whatever choices one makes is between them and God. It is not for our leaders and politicians to decide for us what is right and what is wrong. A&E made a horrific, knee jerk reaction which will cost them dearly.

I believe that GQ is complicit in all this. I think they set Phil up and he knew it and did not care. He’s a man of faith and principle. Traits so foreign to the Left as to be alien in their strangeness to them. But if they were rocked by Duck Dynasty, they better hold on to their hats. Things are about to get interesting.

Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and possibly Rush Limbaugh, are teaming up. That’s right folks. They are talking, working together and appearing together. Despite the attempts of the Left and many on the Right to keep them apart, an alliance has formed and Progressives should be very, very concerned.

I also would have to believe that Glenn Beck would find a home for Duck Dynasty with TheBlaze. That would be funny and ironic. I certainly hope that happens. Glenn Beck believes in the Constitution and religious freedom as does the Duck Dynasty family. It’s a match made in, well you know… The silencing of the ducks has just turned into the resurgence of Christianity.

Update:

Verily, It Is A Clusterduck

Bookworm Room – Thoughts on the Robertson kerfuffle

The Right Planet – The Silencing of the Ducks

Joshua Pundit – The Duck Dynasty Witchhunt

Larry Correia – Angsty Emo Outrage and Ducks

Doug Giles – BREAKING: Robertson Family Tells A&E They Can’t Imagine Going On Without Phil “At The Helm.”

Allen West – Who defines our rights, and why I stand with Phil.