01/31/15
Omar Qaddafi

Qaddafi was willing to step down peacefully but Hillary prevented it

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

 

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi revealed last year that Qaddafi was willing to step down peacefully and was in negotiations with the U.S. Government, but those negotiations ceased. AIM’s Roger Aronoff quotes their findings, “Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed.”

The Washington Times has revealed that Hillary Clinton stepped in to quash the discussions. She would have never done this without Obama’s express permission. Now why, I ask you, would two diehard liberals dedicated to “world peace” for their entire lives miss a perfect opportunity to avoid a civil war? Was it a blood lust desire to see Qaddafi murdered by revolutionaries as payback for Pan Am 103? Nothing of the sort. Obama has shown himself more than willing to shed American blood when it serves no useful purpose. If America has something to gain, only then will he back off.

Believe it or not, Qaddafi had become somewhat of an ally in the war on terror. Why would this nothing of a president want to lose that small foreign policy advantage? When the so-called “Arab Spring” began in 2011, I said that “we are witnessing the collapse of the Middle East“. Events since have proven that exactly correct. All this instability set the stage for the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that is now part and parcel of the Obama administration. Obama wants to implode the Middle East in order to set the stage for the destruction of Israel, our last remaining ally.

Rep. Gowdy or some other congressman needs to conjure the courage to call Obama out. He is engaged in a deadly betrayal of our country and people. This is high treason and these people are monsters.

01/31/15
Communists Protesting In Ferguson

Hatin’ on the Police – an Old Communist Strategy

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

The second half of 2014 was marked by a very intense anti-police campaign from the US left.

In an obvious attempt to destroy public confidence in local police forces, every black death at the hands of uniformed officers was trumpeted across the nation as proof of endemic police racism.

Revolutionary Communist party signs at "Ferguson" protest

Revolutionary Communist Party signs at “Ferguson” protest

This is an old communist game, but unfortunately not enough people know history.

Below are extracts from the testimony of Mr. Bellarmino Joe Duran, a plasticizing press operator and an FBI informant, working in the West Side Mexican Branch of the Communist Party of Denver, Colorado.

Mr. Duran was active in the Denver Communist Party from 1948 to 1956.

This testimony was given to the “Investigation of Communist activities in the Rocky Mountain area.” Hearings conducted May 15 and 16, 1956, by the COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Note what Mr. Duran has to say about the Communist Party’s campaign against the Denver police in response to government investigator Arens:

Mr. ARENS. Now may I invite your attention to an organization known as the West Side Fair Play Committee and ask you what you know about that organization.

Mr. DURAN. The West Side Fair Play Committee was an organization which to my knowledge was started in sincerity of a mother trying to defend her son against police brutality. The Communist Party of Denver heard about it and entered the case. When I heard about it Virgil Akeson, of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union was active in it. Morris Wright was active in it, Alfredo Montoya, of the Mine-Mill was active in it, Alfonso and Rose Sena were active, and Jesus and Judith Sauceda were active in it. These people I have identified before as members and leaders of the Communist Party.

In 1954-55 there was a meeting to disband ANMA (another Communist front, the National Association of Mexican-Americans). A Communist Party meeting was called. Present at this meeting were Alfredo Montoya, Martha Correa, Alfonso Sena, Morris Wright, and myself.

Immediately after that Harold Zepelin, early in 1954, instructed me as member of the Communist Party to penetrate the West Side Fair Play Committee and that I was released from my ANMA duties and therefore it would be my main responsibility directly to the party to develop the juvenile delinquency issue and fight the police in the West Side Fair Play Committee.

The directive from Harold Zepelin, and I quote him, was that it is time that the members of the Communist Party start fighting other individuals and organizations, and direct their fight against the government locally, either State or Federal. Our responsibility was to fight the Denver Police Department as part of that tactic of fighting the Government, to set the Denver Police Department against the people and the people against the police department.

The activities of the West Side Fair Play Committee were outright controlled and dictated by the Communist Party, and by that I mean this : There were people there who wanted other activities other than just juvenile delinquency and fighting against the police. They didn’t want to fight against the police. The Communists in there were less in number than the active people, but they would combine and bombard these people with their propaganda until they convinced them that they should fight the police.

In Denver, Colo., a Communist by the name of Martha Correa witnessed a policeman beating a Spanish American man. I cannot testify whether he was in the wrong or not. 1 do not know the situation.

She raised it. This man said he was wrong, and he wanted to forget about it. Later on the members of the Communist Party of Colorado convinced this man to sue Officer Burke, of the Denver Police Department for $45,000. This was continuously agitated to divide the people from their local government and specifically within the police department. That is the general activity of the West Side Fair Play Committee.

Does any of this sound familiar people?

In those days, America had two significant Marxist-Leninist parties. Now the country has at least ten.

Almost all of them have been active in the recent anti-police rioting and demonstrations. They are working overtime, right now in Black and Latino communities, to make the next wave of violence even bloodier and more destructive.

Some of them are actively working with Russian and Middle Eastern communists and Islamic radicals.

Federal, state and even city governments were once able to keep a lid on communist agitation, because they held regular public hearings which kept the public on guard against subversive activities. They also actively ran informants inside radical groups.

Now the government and the media are largely complicit with the radicals, so the public are almost completely unaware of the threat.

The next Republican administration must re-open Congressional and Senate hearings into internal subversive activities.

If they don’t, there will be significant blood on the streets. That’s a guarantee.

01/31/15
Hillary Clinton

Washington Times’ Bombshell Tapes Confirm Citizen Commission’s Findings on Benghazi

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

As Hillary Clinton further delays the announcement of her 2016 run for the White House, more news has broken regarding her role in the 2011 disastrous intervention in Libya, which set the stage for the 2012 Benghazi attacks where we lost four brave American lives.

Two new stories from The Washington Times expose some of the infighting among government agencies and branches of government on this controversial decision, and highlight the key role that Clinton played in initiating the war. You can listen to tapes of discussions between Pentagon staffers, former Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and the Qaddafi regime for yourself.

This news also validates the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) 2014 interim report, which exposed that Muammar Qaddafi had offered truce talks and a possible peaceful abdication to the United States, which Washington turned down.

“[The article] also makes it clear that the Benghazi investigation needs to be broadened to answer the question: ‘Why did America bomb Libya in the first place?’” commented Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic (Ret.), a key source for the CCB’s interim report who was also quoted by the Times.

“Despite the willingness of both AFRICOM Commander Gen. Carter Ham and Muammar Qaddafi to pursue the possibility of truce talks, permission was not given to Gen. Ham from his chain of command in the Pentagon and the window of opportunity closed,” reads Kubic’s statement for our report from last year. You can watch here, from a CCB press conference last April, as Admiral Kubic described his personal involvement in the effort to open negotiations between Qaddafi and the U.S. government.

Now we learn that the likely source of the stonewalling came from the State Department—and Secretary Clinton—herself. “On the day the U.N. resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal,” reported the Times on January 29.

Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates indicated in his book, Duty, that he was opposed to the war for national security reasons. He highlighted a division among White House advisors—with Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, and Samantha Power “urging aggressive U.S. action to prevent an anticipated massacre of the rebels as Qaddafi fought to remain in power.” Add to that list the former Secretary of State.

“But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention,” reported The New York Times on March 18, 2011, the day after UN Resolution 1973 authorizing a “no fly” zone in Libya was voted on and passed.

“Within hours, Mrs. Clinton and the aides had convinced Mr. Obama that the United States had to act, and the president ordered up military plans, which Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hand-delivered to the White House the next day.”

The Washington Times now reports that “In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya ‘is all Secretary Clinton’s matter’ and that the nation’s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed” about a humanitarian crisis that didn’t exist. However, one must wonder just how much President Obama implicitly supported Clinton in her blind push to intervene in what was once a comparatively stable country, and an ally in the war against al Qaeda. While this new report is certainly damning of Mrs. Clinton’s actions, and appears to place the blame for the unnecessary chaos in Libya—which ultimately led to Benghazi—on her shoulders, President Obama shares the blame as the ultimate Decider-in-Chief.

“Furthermore, defense officials had direct information from their intelligence asset in contact with the regime that Gadhafi gave specific orders not to attack civilians and to narrowly focus the war on the armed rebels, according to the asset, who survived the war,” reports The Washington Times in its second of three articles. Saving those in Benghazi from a looming massacre by Qaddafi seems to have been a convenient excuse made by the administration for political expediency. Could it be, instead, that President Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton, put greater value on the rise to power of an “Arab Spring” government with Muslim Brotherhood connections? And, as the CCB interim report shows, the U.S. government was willing to go so far as to facilitate the provision of arms to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya in order to ensure that Qaddafi fell.

Will the mainstream media pick up on these new revelations, or will they cast them aside as another “phony scandal” to throw into their dustbins filled with other stories that might possibly embarrass the Obama administration, or prove to be an impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s path to the White House?

“It’s critical to note that Qaddafi was actively engaged with Department of Defense officials to arrange discussions about his possible abdication and exile when that promising development was squashed by the Obama White House,” noted CCB Member Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer, regarding the failed truce talks. “The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi has been asking, ‘Why?’ for well over a year now.”

“It is time the American people and the families of those who fought and gave their lives at Benghazi in September 2012 were told why those brave Americans had to die at all, much less die alone with no effort made to save them,” she said.

Clinton, through House Democrats, has indicated that she is willing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. But Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) recently indicated that the Committee must first examine her emails from the State Department before questioning his witness. This complicates the issue of her testifying, since Mrs. Clinton is in the process of calculating when she will announce her presidential run.

Do the emails that Gowdy has requested from the State Department even extend back to 2011?

Chairman Gowdy identified three “tranches” that his potential questioning would fall under in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren:

  • Why was the U.S. Special Mission Compound open in the first place?
  • What actions did Clinton take during the attacks?
  • What was Clinton’s role during the talking points and Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show visits?

A fourth tranche should be: Clinton’s push to intervene in Libya and how it set the stage for an insecure country and strong jihadist movement willing—and able—to attack the Americans posted there. And while he’s at it, Rep. Gowdy should ask Mrs. Clinton to explain why all of the very legitimate requests for increased security in Benghazi were turned down, and why were Ambassador Chris Stevens’ personal security staff, from the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) directed to store their weapons in a separate location—not on them—on the night of September 11, 2012?

01/30/15
Taliban

Is the Taliban a Terrorist Group?

White House Doubles-Down – Says Taliban Not Terrorist Org Same Day They Slaughter 22 in Terror Attacks [Video]

Brooke Goldstein NAILS IT on why the Obama admin won’t call the Taliban a TERRORIST group

Brooke Goldstein Slams Admin’s ‘Inability to Call Evil What It Is’

01/30/15
American Islam

Protesters Declare That The US And Texas Will Never Submit To Islam

Hat Tip: BB

CHRISTIAN HIJACKS PODIUM AT ISLAMIC EVENT: ‘False Prophet Mohammed Will Never Dominate Texas!’

‘ISLAM WILL NEVER DOMINATE TEXAS!!’ – FULL VIDEO of sweet protester at ‘Texas Muslim Day’

Texas Rep. Tells Muslims at Austin Rally to Take Loyalty Oath

01/30/15
Shariah Will Dominate

U.S. Courts of Law – Sharia Courts?

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

Shariah Will Dominate There’s a news item on the internet about Sharia courts being used in Texas.  It would appear that what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander; or something like that.  Having read the article it would appear these ‘Sharia’ courts are well within the framework of religious courts, similar to those used by other religious orders.

“Brietbart Texas confirmed Tuesday that “an Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law” is indeed operating in Texas.  But not to worry: an attorney for the tribunal assures us that participation is “voluntary,” and one of the Sharia judges, Dr. Taher El-badawi, says it’s devoted only to “non-binding dispute resolution.”’

That sound less than threatening to our justice system; however, some folks aren’t entirely at ease, saying this is “just the first step”.

This is how it starts. This is how it started in the United Kingdom. When Sharia courts were instituted there, Muslim and non-Muslim officials alike all assured the British public and the world that they would be voluntary, restricted to matters involving non-criminal matters, and subject to the British courts. Any areas in which British law and Sharia law conflicted would be referred not to the Sharia courts, but to the British courts.

That is not how it worked out…”

The article goes on to indicate that, “Many Sharia law bodies rule on a range of disputes from domestic violence to child residence all of which should be dealt with by UK courts of law.” Instead, “they operate within a misogynist and patriarchal framework which is incompatible with UK legislation.”

The solution to these issues becomes self evident, pardon the use of an antique phrase.  If Sharia courts are in violation of the law of the land then enforce the law of the land; it’s that simple.

I’m not at all sure how Sharia Courts operate; but if they are similar to a Bishop’s Court, as are conducted to hold members accountable in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), then their purpose is not to usurp powers designated to the State and serve only to improve the lives of members of the church. 

In the LDS Church, if someone has been unfaithful to their marriage vows, less than ‘up front’ in dealings with others or some other character flaw which requires more than a simple apology; and, if that individual wishes to repent and resume his/her eternal progression toward becoming more like Jesus, then a Bishop’s Court is convened. 

Priesthood courts of the Church are not courts of retribution. They are courts of love. Oh, that members of the Church could understand this fact.”

The Bishop’s Court is not a replacement for Civil or Criminal Courts.  Bishops are required to notify the proper authorities when it becomes apparent that state law has been broken, such as rape, incest or bodily injury.  The purpose of a Bishop’s Court is to permit the repentance process to take effect, an opportunity for individuals to ‘get right with the Lord’; not hide violations of law. 

Sharia Courts should not pose a threat to society, if they are indeed what they claim to be…and yet…

There is a certain amount of distrust generated toward Islam/Muslims; and rightly so.

The Koran teaches its followers that to lie is permissible under a variety of circumstances. (Such as swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States?) 

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.”

When a representative of the “religion of peace” tells us there is nothing to be concerned about, a religion that calls for and murders innocent Christian women and children, sends drugged up teenagers on suicide bombing missions and beheads those who don’t ‘voluntarily’ join their ranks…let’s just say I have my doubts as to the sincerity of their promises.

There’s an old Russian proverb that comes to mind, “Trust, but verify”.   In the case of Sharia Courts being held anywhere in the United States I’d prefer Lady Justice not be blindfolded.

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”.

01/30/15
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin Is Right: Go on Offense, Tout Conservatism

By: Lloyd Marcus

Sarah PalinForty years ago when my Aunt Nee was the pastor of the Holy Temple Church of Truth, an east Baltimore storefront, during testimony service Sister Davis or Sister Cleary would spontaneously lead the tiny congregation in singing, “We’re Livin’ In the Last Days.” “They’re calling wrong right. They’re calling right wrong. Surely, we’re livin’ in the last days!”

As I listened to Sarah Palin’s speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit, I was elated that she once again displayed her exemplary leadership by not joining the chorus of those on our side who believe touting true Conservatism is a loser. Palin said we should expose the Left’s false premises and educate the public to the benefits and virtues of Conservatism. http://bit.ly/1z1jW8y Wow! How simple and right on target is that?

Many Republicans believe we have lost the argument and the only way to win votes is to abandon core principles, surrender and campaign according to the Left’s/Democrats’ false premises. In essence, they want the GOP to call wrong right and right wrong.

For example: Dems argue that requiring a photo ID to vote disenfranchises blacks. A GOP presidential contender suggested that the GOP drop the requirement to show a photo ID to vote, citing that it offends African Americans. http://bit.ly/1K1KpEp Well, as an American who happens to be black, I find the absurd assumption that it is too challenging to ask blacks to find their way to the DMV to acquire a photo ID extremely insulting and offensive. Showing a photo ID is a reasonable common sense solution to combating rampant Democrat voter fraud. The GOP line should be the same for all Americans. If you want to vote, show a photo ID. Period.

Some on our side are pandering to Obama’s lie that raising the minimum wage will help fix income inequality; once again calling wrong right and right wrong. http://1.usa.gov/15N4Tmy As Palin suggested in her speech, the GOP should be educating voters to the truth; explain why free market solutions are most beneficial to all Americans and the right thing to do.

Some GOP presidential contenders have embraced Common Core, big government overreaching control of the education of our kids. http://bit.ly/1uyWoC8

I get a bit queasy when members of the GOP start using liberal lingo and embracing premises such as man-made climate change, income inequality and white privilege. My “danger Will Robinson” alert goes off when GOP members start talking about fixing Obamacare, despite winning the election on their vow to repeal it. Shockingly, many in the GOP secretly want to allow Obama’s outrageous executive amnesty to stand. http://bit.ly/1Df0GDO

Man-made climate change is a hoax. Period. http://bit.ly/1EpwKsd

Allowing absurd evil liberal Democrat premises to gain momentum have dire consequences. Their lie that white cops routinely murder blacks lead to the assassination of two NYPD officers. White privilege is another Democrat made-up crisis.

Remarkably, a St. Paul, Minnesota school district spend $60k of taxpayer dollars attending “White Privilege” conferences. Talk about the bigotry of lowered expectations, the conferences suggest that black students should not be expected to be on time or work hard because neither concept are a part of their culture. Give me a break. http://bit.ly/1yMf4nb

It is vital that our 2016 presidential candidate be over the “Obama is black thing”, unafraid to deal with Obama as an arrogant lawless tyrant.

Terrified of being called racist, the GOP has allowed Obama to act like a far left radical kid in America’s candy store; insulated from criticism and rebuke by his black-skin coat of armor.

Over the past six and a half years, a socialist/progressive zealot has crept out of the Left’s handsome well-spoken black man Trojan Horse. http://bit.ly/1EqjBzd His mission is to destroy America as founded from within; the Constitution, the law, congress, the senate and the American people be damned. Obama’s strategy is to federalize as much of our land http://bit.ly/1yNGtFf, economy and lives as possible, thus repealing as many of our freedoms as possible.

From the beginning, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party tried to warn America about Obama, only to be marginalized in the minds of many by the mainstream media. They branded Palin and the Tea Party stupid, crazy and a bunch of redneck racists hating on our first black president.

The mainstream media game plan to defeat us in 2016 is quite simple. First they hammer us with the notion that any GOP candidate who defends the Constitution and advocates for limited government is extreme. Thus, to win, we must embrace liberal Democrat false premises.

The MSM then selects a “moderate” candidate which they praise to the hilt. But once we fall for their con and make the moderate RINO our official presidential nominee, they launch a vitriolic campaign portraying our candidate as the devil incarnate.

As Palin has stated, in 2016 only a presidential candidate who inspires, pleasantly educates and boldly articulates Conservatism will do.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee