Skip to content

The Headchopper Next Door




The Headchopper Next Door


Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish blog – 09.14.2014


Every week another lad or lass from St. Louis, Toronto or Sydney makes the trip through Turkey to the Islamic State. A reporter dispatched by a local paper to talk to the neighbors scribbles down the same recollections about how nice and normal Jihad Joe or Jihad Jane was.

Classmates remember a loud partier or a shy student. Neighbors mention that everything seemed normal until those last few years when he began wearing a robe and she began wearing a burka.




The Somali and Algerian immigrants, the German and American converts, the black burkas and dyed beards, headed into the dying summer to kill Christians and Kurds, Turkmen and Shiites, to behead babies and crucify critics, don’t seem like monsters. They loved their parents. They posed for jokey snapshots on Facebook. They had dreams of becoming biologists or boxers. Until they began killing people, they seemed just like the rest of us.

And with one difference, they were.

The forensic examinations of their lives rarely reveal anything of significance. The extensive digging into the lives of the Boston bombers told us nothing about why they would plant a bomb near a little boy.

The answer lay in the topic that the media carefully avoided. As with the other Muslim terrorists, the meaning of their motives was in the little black book of their religion which commanded them to kill.

The Jihadist isn’t a serial killer. While there are some converts attracted to Islam for its violence, the Muslim convert usually doesn’t convert for the killing, he kills because he converted. Likewise the nice Muslim Jihadist next door might well be moderate by inclination and immoderate by faith.

As the Koran says, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah knows, while you know not.” (Quran 2:216)

Allah knows you have to kill. Even if you think you shouldn’t.

The nice Jihadists flocking to rape Yazidi girls in Mosul are convinced that Allah knows best and his Caliph knows best. The worst of them are acting on impulse. The best of them are acting on faith.

Faith is irrational. Believers believe without understanding and act without thinking. The holy men of our religions acted on faith. So do the holy men of Islam. It’s what they have faith in that is the problem.

Charles Manson’s girls, Jim Jones’ followers and Mohammed’s companions all believed in much the same things. They saw the world as a fundamentally hostile place and they believed that only one man could change the world. And they believed that people had to die for that change to come about.

In a multicultural environment in which we believe that all religions are the same, we don’t like to think about what might have happened if Charles Manson had a million groupies instead of a few elderly women locked up in prison. Nor do we like to think about how we would handle Jim Jones if he were running California, instead of just being closely linked to the political infrastructure of the men like Governor Brown and Harvey Milk who did run it.

It’s easy to dismiss a small enough religion as a cult because its leader sleeps with young girls and its members are willing to kill for him. But when the cult grows big enough, we say it’s a religion of peace and hope that its followers believe the peaceful version of Islam that the infidels preach to them.

And they never do. Why should they?

Mohammed was quite clear about what he wanted. For all the abrogations, the Koran is reasonably clear on what it expects its followers to do. Mohammed’s history was that of a man who tried to convince the Arabs that he had seen an angel by telling them and failed, and who succeeded only when he killed enough of them, not to mention the Jews and any other infidels hanging around the place.




That is the history of Islam.

Germany was not a nation of monsters. It was a nation that behaved monstrously. The average German would not stick his neighbor in an oven in his basement or chain him up as a slave. He would however do these things in Poland because he was contextually contaminated by a monstrous ideology.

As an individual he was a nice man who loved his children, petted his dog and enjoyed street fairs. As a loyal member of a system run by the Nazi Party, he would do monstrous things. And then when the Nazi machine was switched off, he would go home to his wife and children without ever killing anyone else.

He was not a good man. Good men don’t do the things he did. But he wasn’t a budding serial killer. He was just doing what a death cult told him to do.

The problem isn’t “radicalization”. What Western governments call radicalization is the process by which the Muslim becomes aware of the dictates of his faith and their relevance to his life. It’s not the internet preachers with their fatwas. They are just the vectors for that awareness. The problem is Islam.

The current misguided thinking is that we can win a debate between a “good Islam” and a “bad Islam”. The good Islam will tell Muslims to refrain from joining ISIS, to work for social change, to embrace diversity and to champion democracy. But this “good Islam” is just a liberal’s conception of what religion should be. Its only real followers are liberal non-Muslims and it has little to do with what Islam really is.

Within the historical context of Islam and in the words of the Koran, our idea of the good Muslim is actually a very bad Muslim. And our idea of the bad Muslim is the best of all Muslims. When we argue that Islam is a religion of peace, we are pushing against the full weight of over a thousand years of history and religious ideas and counting on Muslims to be too ignorant of them to know any better.
[Related Article: The Mirage of Moderate Islam]

Those who genuinely want to change Islam will not do it by lying to Muslims about their religion. Trying to convince the nice Jihadist next door that Mohammed would have rejected his expedition to rape and pillage non-Muslims in Syria is futile. The nice Jihadist may not be a scholar, but he knows his Koran.

If they want to change his mind, they will have to be honest about what Islam is.

Mohammed would have been as happy rampaging around Iraq and Syria as a pig rolling around in dung. ISIS is Islam. It’s the naked religion. There are no angels or djinns, no revelations, just piles of mutilated corpses and children playing with severed heads while other children are raped in prison cells.

It’s Mohammed, but it’s also Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad and Gaddafi. Islam doesn’t end the cycle of tyranny and oppression. It is the reason that the cycle continues.




“Deradicalizing” the nice ISIS Jihadist by lying to him will fail in the long run. Telling him the truth and offering him a clear choice is the only way.

Americans were brutally honest about the evils of Nazism, but failed to equally condemn Communism. Germany hasn’t had another Fuhrer, but Russia is back to acting a lot like the Soviet Union. And while Nazism is confined to trailer parks, sympathy for the red devil is prevalent among Western elites. ISIS is exposing its own evil to the West in a way that neither the brownshirts nor the flyers of the red flag did. If we destroy ISIS without exposing the ideology behind it, then we will have won a Pyrrhic victory because we will still be fighting the nice Jihadist next door for the next thousand years.

The Mirage of Moderate Islam




The Mirage of Moderate Islam


Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish blog – 08.19.2012

Travelers across the vast stretches of the Arabian Desert have been known to get lost and, in their thirst and exhaustion, hallucinate oases with palm trees and flowing water. Western policymakers lost in the vast stretches of madness that define the Muslim world are even more wont to hallucinate the oasis of a moderate Islam to take refuge in. Whether you’re dying for a drink or a way to reaffirm your reality, a mirage is sometimes the only way you can find it.




Moderate Islam is a mirage, a projection by desperate Westerners of their own values and culture onto an entirely different religion and culture. It is a mirage that many Muslims are eager to uphold, in the same way that desert merchants might sell goblets and bowls of sand to passing travelers foolish enough to confuse water with dust. And, like travelers who think they are drinking water, when they are actually swallowing sand, it is a deception that will eventually kill the deceived.
[Related Article: What Is Islam?]

When the Western cultural elite look at Islam, they see what they have to see to avoid falling into crisis mode. Like the traveler who would rather choke on sand, than face up to the fact that he is lost in a desert, they would rather keep most things as they are, even at the cost of the extinction of the nations they preside over, than confront the full scope of the threat surrounding them. A threat that they had a hand in nurturing and feeding in the name of goals that seemed to make sense at the time.

It is easier to segregate a “Bad Islam” composed of a tiny minority of extremists from the generally “Good Islam” of the rulers of the Muslim world and the waves of Muslim immigrants washing up on their shores. This segregation has no objective reality, and is nothing but a psychological defense mechanism against experiencing the full reality of a disaster. From the Titanic to World War II, there are numerous similar situations in which the people in charge chose to ignore a growing crisis at a horrific cost.

The two primary paradigms through which Western political elites see Islam, are that of tyranny on the right, and that of the evils of Western foreign policy on the left. Bush employed the former when he defined the problem as being one of tyranny, rather than Islam. Having defined the problem in terms of a majority of “Good Muslims” oppressed by “Bad Tyrants”, Bush tried to liberate the former from the latter, only to discover that there was a good deal of overlap between the two. Under Obama, we have seen the left implement its own construct of Islam, as popular resistance movements against colonial oppression, who are reacting to the evils of American foreign policy. This knee-jerk Marxist formula goes one worse than the Bush Administration by defining terrorists as “Good Muslims” and moderates as “Yankee Puppets”.

But the only item of true significance to emerge from the contrast of these worldviews is the revelation that American political leaders from both sides of the spectrum still view Islam in terms of the old Cold War struggle between Communism and Capitalism. Like many generals who fight every war in terms of the last war, the political leaders of the West still see Islam in Cold War colors, which prevents them from seeing it for what it is.

While Islam shares some common denominators with Communism, as well as Nazism, it is also a quite different entity than either one. For one thing it is not Western in any sense of the word. It does not rely on a centralized leadership. It has had over a thousand years to seep into the culture of the regions it has conquered. That has made Islam into an identity in a much more profound way, than Adolf or Vladimir could have ever managed with their own crackpottery.

Islam predates the political movements such as Communism and Nazism that arose to fill a vacuum of faith in a secularizing West with dreams of racial and economic utopias. It is the original sin of the East, a ruthless religion based on stolen beliefs and stolen property. Its moment of religious transcendence was not that of the law or the spirit, but the sight of tribal rivalries uniting under a single green banner. The banner of Islam.

The powerful appeal of Islam has been rooted in that dream of unity, an idea that is hard for more civilized peoples to understand because they take unity for granted. Yet any European need only turn to the fierce struggle for an independent and united German nation in the 19th Century, or for an independent and united Italy around the same time. An eventual outcome in which both nations ruled by nationalist regimes faced off together against England and France during WW2 could be traced back to that false sense of destiny which papered over national insecurities with blood.

But nationalism requires meaningful national identities, while the Muslim world only has artificial borders drawn by colonial administrations, differences in Arabic slang and bitter familial rivalries. Despite the best efforts of Arab Socialist autocrats like Gamal Abdel Nasser or Saddam Hussein, the vaunted unity of the Arab nation failed to materialize. While Nasser admired Hitler and Hussein admired Stalin, neither was able to turn their respective countries into anything even as barely functional as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Instead, Nasser got by on Soviet aid and Saddam Hussein on oil money.

Glance at a map, and you will see the Muslim world defined in terms of borders and politicians, but, as Allied troops along the Afghan-Pakistani border are discovering, the actual Muslims on the ground define themselves in terms of tribe and family, not nation. The Muslim world is a hodgepodge of dispossessed ethnic groups crammed into artificial nation states created by the UK and the UN. Nation states that have a vote at the UN, an embassy off Turtle Bay and little tangible reality.
[Related Article: Two Great Fissures In the Global Jihad]

If that sounds farfetched, consider that there is an actual debate among foreign policy experts over who really runs Pakistan. Many European observers of Turkey have a similar debate going there as well. Most of the Muslim world is run by families, like the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Some are run by dictators who took part in military coups and hold power using the military and the secret police. These are the only forms of stable government in the Muslim world that matter.

Without a dictator or a powerful ruling family, or clique of them, civil war follows. Yemen has been torn apart by such tribal civil wars for a long time now, the latest phase of the war is being conducted with the participation of Al Queda. Anwar Al-Awlaki, the infamous Imam, did not join Al Queda merely out of anger or ideology, he did it because his Awlaki family is allied with the local Yemeni Al Queda. Think about that for a moment, and you begin to see the byzantine maze of loyalties and alliances in the vast desert of the Muslim world.




Empires and kingdoms combined church and state in order to insure that there would be no contradiction between religion and the authorities, that the will of the king would also be the will of god. Mohammed tried to make the same leap in the multicultural environs of Mecca, eliminating all religions but the one he had newly created in order to glue together the warring families and tribes. That act was and is the essential basis of Islam. Everything else is borrowed glamor from the other religions that he had subjugated and destroyed to make way for Islam.

For Muslims, that initial bloody butchery is the only true act of religious significance that matters. Because for a brief shining moment, the internecine quarrels were brutally suppressed, and thousands of backstabbing desert tribesmen came to see themselves as something larger and greater. Of course that false unity collapsed back into warring families and tribes. Which has made it all the more of an unattainable dream. It is why Jihad is the ultimate religious act for a Muslim, and why the Caliphate is the great religious goal.

In the face of this understanding, any talk of a moderate Islam is nothing but a farce. To Muslims, Islam is what the Thousand Year Reich was to Nazis and a New World Order is to Progressive Socialists. A perfect form of global unity that must be achieved at any cost.

A moderate Muslim might pursue such a goal “peacefully” through Dawa or missionary work, but successful Muslim mass conversions have taken place either directly or indirectly through the sword. Even Muslim missionary successes in the West take place in the context of Muslim terrorism. There is no Islam without the sword, because it has no meaning or identity without violence. A non-violent Islam is nothing but a collection of tribal mores and borrowed religious ideas. It quickly recedes to the secular and the cultural, driving the Islamists to revive its core ethos through acts of violence and terror.
[Related Article: Islam's Peace]

This is what Western political and cultural leaders do not understand. The Right is correct that Islam, like Communism, can be weakened by capitalism, but it cannot be destroyed that way. Because Islam is not incompatible with business; it originated among merchants after all. The fruits of capitalism can help secularize Islam, but not without empowering the very same type of merchants who helped create it. That is why American capitalism has helped create the terrorist threat by enriching the new rulers of Mecca, the House of Saud, which has expanded its own power by funding a new Islamic invasion against its best customers in the West. And so history repeats itself again.

The Islamists have shown that they can quite effectively exploit Capitalism and Democracy to further their aims. Capitalism brought down the Soviet Union, but it could not give Russians a meaningful identity. Instead, it financed the rise of a new Russian totalitarian regime of KGB bosses and oligarchs who had grown wealthy on the profits from Western business. Even Communist China has shown that it can incorporate Capitalism and only become more of a threat by doing so.

The fundamental error conservative American political leaders made was to assume that Capitalism and Democracy were absolute forms of good, in reality they’re simply tools and prisms which different cultures use to express their potential in different ways. The Bush Administration showed the limits of applying Cold War rhetoric to Islamic realities. Or treating 1.5 billion Muslims as the demographic equivalent of 1500 nuclear bombs, without ever admitting the attitude behind the diplomacy.

The Left, however, is even more wrong, falling back on its old habit of treating all enemies as resistance movements against capitalism, globalism and all the isms that they associate with First World nation states. If the Right is still echoing Ronald Reagan, the Left is still stuck on the Philippine–American War of the 19th Century. And while the Right has shown that it can learn, the Left has only shown that it can shout the same self-destructive thing even louder. The Obama Administration is an exercise in national self-hatred. A ritual purging for the sins of Western success similar to an anorexic vomiting after every meal.

If the Right has some ideas for dealing with Islam, the Left has decided that Islam is right. There is no logic behind this, but that of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, along with unhealthy doses of orientalism and the fetishization of the Noble Savage.

American foreign policy triggers Muslim rage, as do cartoons in Europe, Jewish housing in Israel, Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, British female tourists in Dubai, a teddy named Mohammed in Sudan, and countless other “irritations”. But none of these excuses is the true cause. The chief cause of Islamic outrage is that these displays of anger allow Muslims to feel a sense of power. Anger empowers small men, whether they are beating their wives or blowing themselves up in cafes. The excuses, “She made me do it”, “She shouldn’t have walked in front of the TV” or “She should have had dinner ready”, are just that. Excuses. The real cause is the sense of power that comes with the anger. The sense of suddenly being larger than life. That anger is its own cause and its own reward. And that is what Islam gives to the Muslim. The Jihad. The Caliphate. Anger in the name of Allah.

In America, Democratic and Republican leaders primarily differ on how tiny that “tiny minority of extremists” really is, and who’s to blame for their extremism. The reality that their entire view of Islam is based on a mirage is not something they are willing to accept. But to talk of the Taliban or Al Queda without speaking of Islam is as absurd as discussing the Gulags without mentioning Communism. It means that not only can the problem never be solved, but it can never even be addressed. Because we have never stated the cause.




Instead, we try to fight Islamic terrorism by cultivating alliances among the constantly churning factions of governments, militias, warlords and tribal elders, hoping to use them– only to be used as pawns in their own games instead. That is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has happened among the Palestinian Arabs and the Yemeni government, in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and anywhere else we try to apply Western policy-making.
[Related Article: The Muslim Brotherhood: Origins, Efficacy, and Reach]

The Muslim world has technology, but no civilization. Western nations have given to the Islamic East, the appearance of nationhood and the fruits of industry, without ever acknowledging that they were tossing pearls before swine. A pig wearing a pearl necklace is still a member of the porcine family. Only now it is a well-dressed pig. We have dressed up the Muslim world, but underneath it is not so different from the warring tribes that Mohammed tried to glue together with Islam. And that is why Islam retains the power that it does. Islam does not have a separation of Mosque and State, because there is really no state, only the mosque. The great dream of over a millennium of a transcendent global Muslim unity. A Great Leap Forward across the chasm of tribal savagery and into a Caliphate, which will undo all the achievements of all other peoples, and demonstrate once and for all that the Muslim is supreme over all the rest of the world.



The Narrow Path


Author: Ron Graham
Source:Rapture Ready[B]

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it,” [B](Matthew 7:13-14)

In the days when Jesus walked the shores of Galilee it was notable that the roads leading into the larger cities were broad allowing a huge throng of travelers to enter together. There were also narrow pathways with even narrower gates for entering such cities unobserved, and according to Jesus’ statement few enter in through that narrow gate. What Jesus is alluding to here is that many people will choose to travel the wide path, that’s those that are of the world. People who are unconcerned with God or their eternal salvation are who Jesus is talking about. They are only concerned with the daily grind of getting ahead, what they can glean out of this life, “what’s in it for me” type of attitude. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:18. They are blinded from the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They see no benefit in following Jesus’ teachings. They pay no attention to the idea of dying someday. They only wish to pursue pleasures that keep them content for the day. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness,” 1 Corinthians 3:19.
[Related Article: Praying for the Sedgefield Community]

The highway which leads to death is broad and multitudes travel that path. It is a great highway in which most people will never come to realize its destructive powers. They fall into following that destructive path easily and they are persuaded of its allure by others who have already made it their life’s path. Leaving that path takes a special kind of thinking. Those who are perishing for the most part have no concept what awaits them at the end of that wide path.
[Related Article: Praying for Richmond, VA]




Christ has laid out for us in advance how we are to enter into Heaven, we must enter through Him, and He tells us it won’t be easy to follow His path, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution,” 2 Timothy 3:12. Following Jesus won’t be a cake walk. We must understand that entering in through the narrow gate and following Jesus Christ will lead to persecution and hatred from those who are still on the wide highway, many of which may well be family members of whom we love.




Everyday we are fed lies that are designed to keep us off the straight path and away from the narrow gate; this is in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Through movies and television, the leftist news media, the internet, and our humanistic public schools, we are taught there is no such thing as God. In the view of secular scientists there is no other path to take other than the wide path. In their way of thinking the straight path and the narrow gate aren’t even an alternative. “There just isn’t any truth in the Bible” they say. “It’s antiquated and not reliable, stay away from it.” As you can see, people are programmed from an early age to travel the path that leads to destruction.
[Related Article: Hell Bound]

With Jesus’ words taken from Matthew 7, it is clear that for a huge multitude of people what awaits them is everlasting torment once they leave this world. Why? Because they couldn’t reconcile themselves to the truth and make a lane change. For a select few in comparison, there will be everlasting life in Heaven with our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. This is so, because we followers of Jesus Christ persevered in the face of adversity. We are admonished to hold fast to the faith. “Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised),” Hebrews 10:23.

There is a joy that goes along with our salvation which is frankly difficult to explain to non believers. But aside from that joy, we have God’s assurance that for those of us who have elected to travel the straight path and enter in through the narrow gate, Heaven awaits.




Hell, on the other hand doesn’t conjure up any joy whatsoever. Some foolish people make the comment, “Oh well, I’ll be with friends.” Nowhere in the scriptures are we told that Hell will be an everlasting keg party in the park. No, Jesus tells us in the Gospel of Matthew what Hell is, The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity… And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:41, 42. Jesus uses this phrase (wailing and gnashing of teeth) six times in the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore it must be quite significant. Hell is described as a lake of fire created for Satan and his angels. Hell was not created for man nor will God send anyone there. Those whose final destination is Hell will only have themselves to blame, not God. Adam and Eve’s rebellion led to Gods creation being cursed, and because man sinned, God dealt with it. God gives everyone on the face of this planet ample advance notice of the two destinations of which one or the other awaits us all.




In Heaven we will be surrounded by indescribable beauty and a magnificence that is beyond our wildest dreams. There will be no sorrow or pain, and shortly after our arrival, no more tears, we’ll have no complaints, only pure joy and splendor with the one and only true God of the universe.

Hell on the other hand is the ultimate in everlasting suffering. It is a place where no one in their right mind would ever choose to go. Yet it’s a place where everyone, through their own resolve, will end up for eternity if there is no repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. For those who don’t get the concept of an eternity in Hell let me explain. Going to Hell isn’t just a life sentence such as going to prison; it’s an eternal sentence with no possibility of a reprieve from the Governor, or in this case Jesus Christ our LORD. Since we’re told its everlasting that’s what I believe. Some will try to say that everlasting only means for a while. Jesus Himself uses the word everlasting four times in the Gospel of Matthew. The Greek word is ainios, when translated into English we get the following meanings: for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity. Therefore there’s no reason to assume that those who find themselves in Hell for eternity, all because of their foolish pride, arrogance, lack of faith will ever be released from that horrible torment.
[Related Article: Is Punishment Eternal?]

Narrow path or wide highway, it’s a choice we must make and there is no middle ground. It’s kind of like the television game show the Price Is Right only there’s just two doors to choose from, door number 1 and door number 2. But unlike the game show, what’s behind each door is in plain view for everyone to see, and everyone on the face of this planet will play.




“Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me,” John 14:6. If we choose to travel that wide path, that worldly path, that path that will lead us to destruction, we have no excuse because it was our choice. Just like the game show above, we made our choice freely. Wouldn’t it be better to choose the strait path and enter in through the narrow gate that is Christ Jesus our Lord in whom we receive eternal life?

When we die our choices are over. The very instant we die we will either be with our Lord Jesus in Heaven or in Hell for all of eternity. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that our paths are pre-determined; we must decide for ourselves which course we are going to take, and nothing is more important than our eternal salvation. Remember this no one knows what tomorrow will bring. As fragile as these bodies of ours are, today could be the very day we enter into eternity.
[Related Article: A Fly For Oscar]

“He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God,” John 3:18.


Which path will you take?





The wise choose Jesus. The foolish choose…well, you know.




Hillary Doomed Ambassador Stevens with Poor Decisions


Hillary decision likely doomed U.S. ambassador
Newly presented evidence refutes her account

Source: – 09.09.2014


A security decision finalized personally by Hillary Clinton may have unwittingly doomed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, charges a new book.

The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know, by New York Times bestselling author Aaron Klein, documents Clinton herself signed waivers that allowed the facility to be legally occupied, since it did not meet the minimum official security standards set by the State Department.

One waiver in particular may have been crucial regarding the ultimate fate of Stevens, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, all of whom were killed during the initial assault on the U.S. special mission.

This view has been given even more credence in light of new testimony by Benghazi survivors.

Klein shows that while some required waivers technically could have been issued by lower-level State Department officials, several other waivers could only have been approved by Clinton herself, including what is known as the “co-location” requirement.

The “co-location” requirement refers to the unusual housing setup in Benghazi in which intelligence and State Department personnel were kept in two separate locations.

The waiver legally allowed the CIA annex to be housed in a location about one mile from the U.S. special mission.

According to new accounts from Benghazi survivors, the delayed response time by those at the CIA annex may have cost the lives of Stevens and the three other Americans killed at the special mission.

If the CIA annex had been co-located with the U.S. special mission a rapid response team would have been on site during the initial assault in which Stevens was killed. Clinton’s waiver allowed the CIA annex to be housed at the separate location.

Last week, the Fox News’ Channel’s Bret Baier interviewed three security operators who were at the separately located CIA annex. The three essentially served as first responders to any attack on the mission.

The security contractors – Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen – told Fox News they wanted to depart for the mission but were delayed by the commanding CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to as ‘Bob’.

The three said that after a delay of about 30 minutes, the security team departed without orders and asked their superiors to request air support, assistance which never arrived.

The security team further told Fox News the delay may have cost Stevens his life.

“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said, with team member Tiegen agreeing.

“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” he continued.

The Fox News report was based on the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi by Mitchell Zuckoff with the annex security team.

Hillary ‘caught misleading public’

In The REAL Benghazi Story, meanwhile, further charges Clinton misled the public about her role in helping to secure the U.S. special mission in Benghazi and may have even deceived lawmakers during her public testimony probing the attacks.

The book breaks new ground on events leading to the attacks and cites information that contradicts the Obama administration’s version of what took place that ill-fated night.

One major topic addressed in the book is Clinton’s personal part in the scandal.

To start with, Klein’s new book challenges Clinton’s own narrative as set forth in her recent memoir, Hard Choices, where the former secretary of state claims she was not personally involved in security decisions at the U.S. special mission in Benghazi.
Clinton wrote she did not see cables requesting additional security. She claimed any cables related to the security at the compound were only addressed to her as a “procedural quirk” and didn’t actually land on her desk.

Klein shows she personally signed those waivers that allowed the facility to be legally occupied.

Asks Klein: “[By signing the waivers,] did Clinton know she was approving a woefully unprotected compound? If not then at the very least she is guilty of dereliction of duty and the diplomatic equivalent of criminal negligence.”

Further, Clinton’s top deputies, including officials known to be close to her, were responsible for some major denials of security at the compound.

In one example, it was Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy who canceled the use in Tripoli of a DC-3 aircraft that could have aided in the evacuation of the Benghazi victims.


Kennedy also denied permission to build guard towers at the Benghazi mission and approved the withdrawal of a security support team, or SST, that special U.S. forces specifically maintained for counter-attacks on U.S. embassies or threats against diplomatic personnel.

Klein contends it defies logic that Clinton was not informed of the general nature of security at the Benghazi facility, especially since she was known to have taken a particular interest in the compound. She reportedly called for the compound to be converted into a permanent mission before a scheduled trip to Libya in December 2012 that eventually was canceled.

More problems with ‘Hard Choices’

Klein dedicates an entire section to pointing out what the author says are misleading statements in the Benghazi chapter of Clinton’s “Hard Choices.”

Clinton suggests that Stevens traveled to Benghazi before the attacks and implies he had meetings at the U.S. special mission the night of the attack on his own initiative.

Clinton writes: “U.S. ambassadors are not required to consult or seek approval from Washington when traveling within their countries, and rarely do. Like all chiefs of mission, Chris made decisions about his movements based on the security assessments of his team on the ground, as well as his own judgment. After all, no one had more knowledge or experience in Libya than he did.”

She writes that Stevens “understood Benghazi’s strategic importance in Libya and decided that the value of a visit outweighed the risks.” She does not provide the actual reason for Stevens’ visit to the Benghazi compound.

Klein relates Clinton failed to mention Stevens may have gone to Benghazi for a project that she specifically requested.

Gregory Hicks, former State Department deputy chief of mission and
chargé d’affaires in Libya, center, testifies before a congressional hearing.

According to congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affaires who was in Libya at the time of the attack, Stevens went to the compound that day in part because Clinton wanted to convert the shanty complex into a permanent mission in a symbol of the new Libya.

Hicks said Clinton wanted to announce the establishment of a permanent U.S. State Department facility during her planned visit there in December 2012. Apparently Stevens was up against a very specific funding deadline to complete an extensive survey of the mission so the compound could be converted.

Toward the end of the hearing, the chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked Hicks to summarize his testimony on why Stevens went to Benghazi.

“At least one of the reasons Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and that he was also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Hicks reiterated. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people the establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”

Whitewashes her own Benghazi statement

At about 10 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 11, 2012, Clinton was one of the first Obama administration officials to make a public statement about the Benghazi attacks.

In her book, Clinton writes: “As the cameras snapped away, I laid out the facts as we knew them – ‘heavily armed militants’ had assaulted our compound and killed our people – and assured Americans that we were doing everything possible to keep safe our personnel and citizens around the world. I also offered prayers for the families of the victims and praise for the diplomats who serve our country and our values all over the world.”

Clinton fails to mention that in her initial statement she also first linked the Benghazi attacks to an infamous anti-Islam film.

Her brief official statement included this: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Location of Special Forces

Clinton wrongly writes that the closest U.S. Special Forces that could have responded to the attacks were “standing by in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but they would take several hours to muster and were more than five thousand miles away.”

She continued: “Critics have questioned why the world’s greatest military force could not get to Benghazi in time to defend our people. Part of the answer is that, despite having established United States Africa Command in 2008, there just wasn’t much U.S. military infrastructure in place in Africa.”

Klein notes it has been confirmed Special Forces known as C-110, or the EUCOM CIF, were on a training mission in Croatia the night of the attack. The distance between Croatia’s capital, Zagreb, and Benghazi is about 925 miles. The C-110 is a rapid-response team that exists for emergencies like terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies abroad.

Instead of being deployed to Libya, the C-110 was told the night of the attack to return to its normal operating base in Germany.

Best intelligence?

Clinton defended the actions of then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, infamously appeared on five morning television programs to offer the official Obama administration response to the Benghazi attack. In nearly identical statements, Rice asserted that the attack was a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Writes Clinton: “Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time. That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”

Clinton’s claim that the intelligence community believed the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video” is called into question by numerous revelations.

Hicks testified he knew immediately it was a terrorist attack, not a protest turned violent. According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”

The CIA’s station chief in Libya reportedly emailed his superiors on the day of the attack that it was “not an escalation of anti-American protest.”

Writes Klein: “The claim of a popular protest also defies logic. Spontaneous protesters do not show up with weapons, erect armed checkpoints surrounding the compound and demonstrate insider knowledge of the facility while deploying military-style tactics to storm the U.S. mission.”

“Nor do spontaneous protesters know the exact location of a secretive CIA annex, including the specific coordinates of the building that were likely utilized to launch precision mortar strikes. Spontaneous protesters are not thought to be capable of mounting a fierce, hours-long gun battle with U.S. forces stationed inside the annex.”

Blames talking points on the CIA

Clinton placed the blame for the controversial talking points squarely with the CIA without mentioning the State Department contributed to the manufacturing of the points.

“The extensive public record now makes clear that Susan (Rice) was using information that originated with and was approved by the CIA,” she writes. “That assessment didn’t come from political operatives in the White House; it came from career professionals in the intelligence community.”

But it has been confirmed that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland played an active role in crafting the talking points as did Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan.

Klein goes on to document numerous other problems with the Benghazi chapter of “Hard Choices,” such as promoting the questionable Obama administration narrative of a lull in fighting.

The issues in “Hard Choices” are just the start of possible problems for Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack.

Weapons to rebels

Klein explains the compound itself was deliberately set up with minimal security so as not to attract attention to what the author reports were secretive activities taking place inside the mission, activities for which Clinton herself was a central player, relates “The REAL Benghazi Story” book.

Klein utilizes public sources in a systematic connect-the-dots exercise indicating both the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi were involved in coordinating U.S. aid transfers to rebels in the Middle East, with particular emphasis on shipping weapons to jihadists fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

Klein cites evidence Stevens himself played a central role in coordinating arms shipments to the gunmen fighting Assad’s regime, even helping an arms dealer named Marc Turi secure approval from the State Department to sell at least $200 million in weapons that were shipped via Qatar. Qatar was known to have helped to arm the rebels.

“The REAL Benghazi Story” cites public reports showing Clinton, together with then CIA Director David H. Petraeus, were the architects of a plan to arms the Libyan and Syrian rebels. The Clinton plan called for rebel groups to be vetted, trained and armed utilizing countries like Turkey and Qatar.

Even the New York Times, in February 2013, described Clinton as one of the driving forces behind advocating a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. The newspaper quoted White House officials claiming they rejected the plan.

“It is difficult to believe the White House rejected a plan proposed and supported by the Secretaries of State and Defense plus the CIA chief to boot,” writes Klein.

Indeed, the particulars of Clinton’s plan for rebel groups to be vetted, trained and armed seems to have been implemented. The Times itself confirmed American-aided arms were shipped to the rebels since at least November 2012.

The Times description of the arms shipments mirrors the exact plan as reportedly concocted by Clinton.

The Times reported that since at least November 2012, the U.S. had been helping “the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.”

Lied in testimony?

Clinton’s plan to arm the rebels was seemingly put into action, Klein notes.

If this is the case, and “the evidence points there,” writes Klein, then Clinton has even more explaining to do because she claimed during her Benghazi testimony that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. asked Clinton a direct question: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”

“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, as her voice suddenly jumped an octave. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

Clinton replied: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”

That is not the only instance of possibly inaccurate testimony cited by Klein in “The REAL Benghazi Story.”

She may have erred when she said no one within the government ever recommended the closure of the U.S. facilities in the Libyan city.

In her testimony, Clinton stated: “Well, senator, I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi.” Clinton was responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Clinton’s testimony is contradicted by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally recommended the Benghazi mission be closed, as documented in the 46-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attack. Page six of the report cites security concerns, including over 200 attacks in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi, including against the U.S. mission there.

States the Republican report: “These developments caused Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether.”

Continued the report: “Lt. Col. Wood explained that after the withdrawal of these other organizations, ‘it was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.’”

Book breaks “REAL” Benghazi story

Besides the Clinton material, the extensively sourced book breaks news on significant issues related to the Benghazi attack.

A sampling of what the publisher says is contained in the book:

- Everything is covered from the secretive activities transpiring inside the doomed facility to shocking new details about the withholding of critical protection at the U.S. special mission.

- Information that raises new questions about what really happened to Ambassador Chris Stevens that night.

- Answered for the first time is why the State Department hired armed members of the al-Qaida-linked February 17 Martyrs Brigade to “protect” the facility.

- New reasons are revealed for not sending air support or Special Forces during the assault, while extensively probing jihadist groups behind the attack.

- How Benghazi has implications that go beyond the Sept. 11, 2012, attack and may have created major national security threats we now face, fueling conflicts from Mali to Syria to Gaza and beyond.

It’s finally here: “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know.” Get it now at the WND Superstore!

Guns, Hollywood, and Hypocrisy




The Hypocrisy of Hollywood


Author: Derrick Wilburn
Source: American Thinker – 1.10.2014

That Hollywood is no longer a source of entertainment but now a source of (liberal) propaganda isn’t exactly news. Even avowed leftists will admit that film and television are solidly the domain of progressive liberalism and that progressive messaging is embedded in just about everything Hollywood produces. From children’s programming to the gratuitous “awards shows” that basically feature writers, actors, and producers giving awards to one another, it’s either bold and in-your-face or latent and just beneath the surface — but its there. The overt liberalism that is the entertainment industry is indisputable.

The entire state of California is radically blue (from a legislative point of view), and the segment of it known as “Tinseltown” is basically a caricature of itself. These people have a very high pulpit from which to preach and they habitually use is to its full advantage.

The entertainment industry is full of famous and infamous individuals who wholly support and verbally tout the most extreme of liberal policies and causes. More remarkable than their slavish devotion to all things progressive is how these people either cannot see or chose to ignore the massive flames of hypocrisy raging all around them. For instance, global warming and the need for a “green” planet.

These mouthy Hollywood stars are millionaires many times over and as is the case with most human beings, their homes, automobiles and lifestyles tend to reflect their income and personal net worth. Turn on E!, MTV’s “Cribs”, pick up a magazine or tabloid sometime and take a look. They virtually all drive huge luxury SUV’s or exotic sports cars that get nine miles-per-gallon (downhill, with a tail wind), live in 20,000 square foot, 12-bedroom mansions with theaters, bowling alleys, indoor pools, multiple kitchens, etc., which require heating, air conditioning, lawn maintenance, and generally suck up massive amounts of power — mostly from coal-fired power plants (which the politicians they’re supporting are trying to eliminate.) They travel on privately-chartered jets and get around city streets in limousines large enough for 10 occupants but carrying just one.

Moreover, many of these entertainers are motion-picture action stars. Could anything be more environmentally unfriendly than the production of today’s action flicks? All are rife with car chases and massive explosions. The size and scale of stuff blowing up gets bigger and bigger. In each of these movies huge plumes of thick black smoke goes billowing into the sky to supposedly eat away at our ozone layer. But apparently that’s okay if there’s a paycheck in it for the actor. But you and I? These same people want you and me to upgrade to a 90% efficient furnace, drive a car the size of a shoebox, and heat our homes to no more than 68 degrees to help save the planet.

Virtually all of the Hollywood elitists march in lockstep with the Democrat Party and its freakishly cultish devotion to abortion and gun-control legislation. They scream bloody murder when a deranged person walks into a building and shoots the place up, but look the other way when it comes to the million a year who are liquefied and sucked out of their own mother’s wombs. “We’ve got to get rid of the guns to save lives”, but we’ve got to keep “choice” so we can keep on destroying lives. Talk about having it both ways. They will volunteer time to support a cause trying to save the eggs of the Dusky Seaside Sparrow but would not lift one finger to save a human being in the same state of existence.

These same people produce the most ultra-violent movies imaginable, filled with more gun violence in an hour than the United States sees in a year. You’d think them the most pro-gun, pro-2nd amendment, NRA-friendly people on the planet. In these movies (and games) they’re grabbing guns and shooting people to death at a breakneck pace. Yet, they come out in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership and take zero responsibility for so much as the possibility that the products they produce and feed our society may at least in some way be contributing to the ill people who go out and do in real life what they see these Hollywood stars do on the screen.



Jamie Foxx achieved an amazing feat in back-to-back months in 2012. So wholly bought into the president’s vision and agenda that in November of that year he used his speaker’s platform at the annual Soul Train Awards show to publicly announce Barack Obama “our lord and savior.” The very next month, in what could be one of the sickest gifts ever given the American public, Django Unchained was released on December 25th. Perfect for getting families into the holiday spirit, the Quentin Tarantino movie features an over-the-top amount of violence and deaths by gunshot even by mega-death movie director Tarantino’s lofty standards. Fox plays the title role of Django, who engages in a grisly, blood-soaked gore fest resulting in 64 people being killed in its 165-minute run time. Not only did this bloody, shoot ‘em all violence-fest rack up such an appalling body count, Hollywood then saw fit to bestow upon it not one but two Academy Awards.



Then there’s Sean Penn. An actor to the ideological left of President Obama (if that’s possible) who’s known for chumming up to such global do-gooders as deceased Venezualan dictator Hugo Chavez. Penn is another one who walks in lockstep with all aspects of the left’s agenda, including sweeping gun-control measures. However, those bold ideals didn’t seem to stop him from making and raking in millions from the massive kill count of his 2013 film, Gangster Squad. In all, 55 people get shot and killed from the front, shot from behind, shot in cars, shot on the street, shot in theaters, shot pretty much any and every way a person can get shot. All with grisly, blood, guts, and brain-spattering effects. Originally scheduled for a September 2012 release, the date was moved back in the wake of the deadly theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Apparently showing a movie in a theater depicting everyone being shot was deemed inappropriate so close to the date when so many went to a theater to see a movie and were shot. But somehow showing it a little later mitigated any inappropriateness. Upon its release for months later, one critic noted, “…the opening scenes play chicken with the audience as they lead up to uncomfortably gory conclusions.”



No discussion of Hollywood’s wildly liberal outspoken Obama and gun control supporters would be complete without mention of Matt Damon. Mr. Damon is well known as a Hollywood leftie who’s movies frequently venture into the (not so) veiled realm of delivering political messages. He is one who, like Senator Diane Feinstein of California would legislate “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in” (guns) in a heartbeat if he could. Damon has made tens of millions portraying Jason Bourne. In his Bourne trilogy of movies he’s seen shooting myriads of people but the gunplay and violence of his latest film, 2013’s wholly anti-capitalist Elysium was summed up by one writer thusly, “True, Elysium’s body count does not rival the average slasher film, but few of those films celebrate wanton mortality as deliberately as Elysium.” Translation? “While only a few dozen people get shot and killed, the deaths are really, really great.”

The Hollywood mega-millionaire population is rife with double-speak, preaching to us by day and going home to their Malibu mansions by night and seemingly not realizing their own hypocrisy (or not caring). Popular conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham wrote a book not so long ago titled Shut Up & Sing essentially saying, “You’re paid to sing or act, quit with all the political discourse already.” Here’s a better idea: Just shut up.



Stand and Fight; Big Brother Is A Slaver

Big Brother is a Slaver


Author: J.R. Nash
Source: American Thinker – July 4, 2013




Imagine, for more than half a century, American preachers were being told what not to say from their pulpits by an all-powerful IRS. And too many disinterested souls forgot that in politics, continuing to ignore what happens to others may put a noose around your own neck. Now we find that some of our government agencies are monsters under the bed with revelations coming out every day that should wake up the sleeping masses.

People in America, especially the younger crowd, must begin to think hard about what is happening in our government and how it affects them as individuals else they may see the good side gone forever. All conservative thinkers must re-examine their approach to prospective voters.

First, conservatives have to take off the gloves and become more aggressive. And it’s time for conservative intellectuals to stop ignoring the religious heritage of our nation. It is that heritage, after all, that gave us a great nation with a determination to do the right thing, no matter the circumstances, and all conservative thinkers need to recognize and respect that part of our history. It is our religious and moral heritage which gives the most credence to our arguments.

We have the best product to sell that the world has ever seen and we can confidently use that fact to counter the leftists’ love for ridiculing those who disagree with them. No one should refrain from asking them repeatedly, “Why are you so afraid to discuss the issues openly without personal insults?” And no one should be reluctant to ask an immigrant, “Do you really want a society that is like the one you fled?” We are in a fight for the nation’s survival now and fortunately, both the facts and good reasoning are on our side.

Second, we must find new ways to make all potential voters aware that the ever increasing centralization of power in Washington contributes more than anything else to a kind of enslavement for individuals. No doubt, America’s age old concern about slavery seems to have become a thing of the past. We must change that. One way is to seize the simplicity of statements that will get the attention of those who have ears to hear. There are none more timely than this:

Big Brother is a slaver. There is nothing American about him.




Certainly, we should never be so staid in our thinking that we cannot learn from the left, at least in the art of communications. We too can use key words and slogans that will convey the conservative message as precisely and as directly as possible. For instance, when the subject of socialism comes up, only about a dozen liberals know that the word NAZI is an abbreviation for National Socialist Party. So tell them. Tell them all.

Third, and most important for the long term, the young people should hear plainly that there are few moral concepts on the left that would prohibit lying for the cause. The best example is the deliberate misrepresentation of American History. On this subject leftist lies are endless.

For instance, we have heard the pronouncements that America is not a Judeo/Christian nation and that its governing authorities must honor godlessness. Yet, if that is so, why does our three-hundred-years-old culture present overwhelming evidence otherwise? And why do leftist organizations hide behind doublespeak and spend most of their funds and employ most of their effort to erase our religious heritage from the nation’s history?

Simply said, strong evidence of the existence of a fact can often be established merely by the extent and the aura that surround its denials. Consider a few of the most obvious examples: “Creator” and “Nature’s God” recognized in the Declaration of Independence, statements by the founders such as John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, the use of Bibles for swearing in of presidents, the use of Bibles for swearing witnesses in our courts, Bibles in our public schools, the Ten Commandments in our public schools and our courthouses, prayers in Congress, FDR’s prayer on D-Day, Christian prayers in our public schools, chaplains in the military, Easter vacation, Christmas vacation, In God We Trust on our currency, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, God Bless America, and veterans’ crosses at Arlington, Normandy, everywhere.

The left’s rejections of these proofs are so specious and sometimes so meanspirited that you wonder what really drives them. Obviously, their enormous use of duplicity and doublespeak goes hand in hand with the leftist stance on morality. Moreover, to ignore the tragic history of the nations that have evolved into societal godlessness is to lie to one’s self. Liberals do that a lot.

Most certainly, it is a time to force some straight talk about citizenship for illegal immigrants. First of all, American generosity to other people is well established; that should not be a part of the issue. Here, liberals lie on two points. One, they make their effort appear to be for purely humanitarian aims. Two, they consistently misrepresent their opponents as being against the poor. Yet, in the face of such blatant duplicity, only a few conservatives are willing to openly accuse the leftists of trying to build a one party system by increasing the size of their voter base. Buying votes with tax money? Why the timidity on such an extremely important point?




One of their most successful prevarications is the claim that liberals believe in diversity. In truth, they know that people who are all the same can be treated like little robots and therefore are easier for the elite to rule. North Korea comes to mind. Individualism has always been a threat to the elite so they demand that our cultural differences be melted together and that the designs of our lives must all be court approved.

Thanks be to God that in this country some of our basic legal precepts are aimed at protecting our true diversity. Though the people and their culture in Massachusetts are vastly different from the people and their culture in Texas, America’s custom of decentralizing federal power with the Tenth Amendment has often protected some fascinating differences in the land of the free.

Want to argue workable gun control in America? We can resolve most of the Second Amendment concerns just by removing the issue from the eager purview of the federal government. Here, the left should be forced to kick the habit of using every American tragedy as an excuse to center more power in Washington. Let Massachusetts outlaw guns, knives, and bombs and let Texas outlaw outlaws.

Clearly, such concepts, thoughts and arguments are not all that worrisome just now to liberals, socialists, and the so-called moderates who secretly salute the leftist cause. But the more that a person is forced to actually think about such things, the scarier it all becomes. Think about this for a moment: with the increasing talk about the computer games that are going on in Washington, how far are we now from someone playing those games with the software in our voting machines? Worst scenario: that conservatives not say a discouraging word.

There is so much at stake now. And it’s not just a job for the political figures or the professional communicators in the media. Rather, the responsibility lies with every single one of us. Lest we forget, many thousands have given their lives just so each of us could have the right and the responsibility to do our duty.

Meanwhile the nation’s clock is ticking.



A Failure To Respond Demands Our Response


The utter failure of our political class
to respond to mortal danger



Author: James Lewis
Source: American Thinker – 09.13.2014



Nations are much like living organisms. One fundamental function of life is to tell the difference between friends and foes. When a nation fails to do that it will soon die.

For more than two centuries the United States has known how to tell friend from foe, because we’ve had a robust sense of identity — we understood how “a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” would be tested over and over again, by enemies foreign and domestic, to see “whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.”

The West today is infected with a psychic parasite, the parasite of the radical Left that rose to power starting in the 1960s. Simultaneously, media ownership in the US has become concentrated in a handful of Big Corporations with no visible love or loyalty to the United States.

After politically primitive Persian Gulf nations became obscenely rich starting in the 1970s with the OPEC oil monopoly, the parasite of Islamic reactionary indoctrination combined with radical leftism into a new “Red Black” alliance, so that Europe imported what are now 44 million Muslims from backward political cultures to serve as welfare-dependency votes for the Left.

Recent media exposures show that Pakistani Muslims in the UK also imported criminal habits like massive child sexual abuse, “honor killings,” and ethnic hatreds that the West has not seen since the Nazis. For years the most prestigious “news organ” in the world, the BBC, was literally run by a politically powerful child-abuse ring, led by children’s program presenter Jimmy Savile — but by no means only him. Estimates of the number of sexually abused children at the BBC range above a thousand. That is only possible in a closed culture that operates by secrecy and blackmail to maintain its power. For years, Hollywood was run by a similar pedophile-and-blackmail network.

New exposures in the English town of Rotherham show another Pakistani child abuse ring with 1,400 young victims. The London Parliament has not been immune to this Black Plague either. Other European countries have had similar invasion of Muslim badlands culture into the West. Massive pedophile rings can easily be used for blackmail by enemy intelligence agencies, the way the KGB recruited homosexual rings in Cambridge in the 1930s.

The “Cambridge Spies” essentially exposed all British secrets to Moscow starting in the 1930s. Because pedophilia has been commonly practiced in Muslim history, importing reactionary Muslim jihadist cults from Arabia and Pakistan necessarily means the import of all their “cultural habits.” Because the West throws such criminals in jail, pedophile gangs give natural fodder for political blackmail.

That may be why Britain is one leading example of Western political paralysis in the face of clear and present danger. The UK has witnessed an astonishing rise in Islamic political power in a very short period of time — a male-dominated political culture that utterly rejects British and American tradition.




The United States shows a similar rapid rise in Muslim power grabs, both domestically and especially in foreign affairs. Domestically, “multiculturalism” imposed a massive taboo on the American people, who were no longer allowed to be critical of media-boosted “victim” groups. Muslim power seekers were the beneficiaries of a phony campaign against “Islamophobia” that never existed. It is clear that the radical left (like David Axelrod) and the Muslim Brotherhood (among other wealthy and insidious forces) combined to exercise vast power in American life, far out of proportion to their actual numbers. In the African American community the rise of the Black Muslims, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan extended the left-Muslim alliance into the black community.

All these African-American string puppets covered up the basic truth that African slaves were kidnapped by native chiefs and sold to (white) Arab slave traders in the thousands, to be shipped across the Atlantic. Black slavery in Africa has always been run by Muslim raiders and traders, just as the Islamist gang Boko Haram in Nigeria today specializes in kidnapping hundreds of children from their homes to sell into sexual slavery. African Americans can see on their television screens precisely what happened to their ancestors — and nobody seems to say a word about it.




Around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Empire and Communist China, Gulf oil regimes amassed immense power, both in wealth and in price-setting power on the international oil market. If Jimmy Carter wanted to be re-elected in 1980, for example, he had to ensure that the OPEC oil price did not suddenly rise in the weeks before the election.

Islam has always been an imperialistic faith, from the first canonical version of the Koran, written down a few centuries after Mohammed. Conquest by the sword, or by the threat of the sword, has been its most effective missionary tool. What we see on the web today from ISIS and its criminal ilk has been a Muslim tradition for 1,400 years. It is the Saudis who have spread Wahhabi war theology all around the world, not ISIS, not even the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. The Saudis made it happen, and you can see their billion dollar hate campaigns on the outstanding website even today. Today King Abdullah disclaims responsibility for ISIS, but he and his family started it all, along with the mullahs across the Gulf.

Muslim nations have always waged aggressive jihad at several levels. When they could not coerce a neighboring tribe or nation into converting to Islam, they used all the methods that are so familiar from the history of conquest since ancient days: threats, bluff, propaganda, infiltration, blackmail, influence buying, mass migration, sabotage, and the like. Yes, there were genuine high points of Muslim culture in history, influenced by the Persian and Byzantine Empires, for example, but these were destroyed after a few generations when the harsh and totalitarian priesthood took over again. We saw the identical process happening in 1979 when Jimmy Carter allowed the primitive war cult of Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran, quickly destroying the flourishing and modern-minded era of the Shah of Iran. Jimmy Carter and his national security Machiavelli colluded in turning over a flourishing Iran over to a primitive suicide cult. Obama has just colluded in allowing them to develop nuclear weapons.

There is no serious question that the Democrats — after the Boomer Left took over — colluded en masse with the primitive political culture of radical Islam. If we survive this period historians will pin the tail on the Democratic donkey: Carter, the Clintons and Obama were in tacit collusion with radical Islam, notably Khomeini in Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) in Egypt, Jordan and elsewhere. It was the Ikhwan that assassinated President Anwar Sadat, an extraordinary patriot and the greatest peacemaker in history between Arabs and Israel. Sadat’s successor President Hosni Mubarak was finally brought low by the Ikhwan, with the active and pernicious assistance of the Obama administration. Only an extraordinary revolt of Egypt’s modernist elites was able to reverse the near-lethal damage Obama inflicted upon the peaceful trend in Egyptian politics.

The United States is therefore saddled with a double near-lethal political infection: The America-hating left, and their Islamofascist allies. These forces are so strong that they hardly bother to lie about their intentions any more.

I can’t read Barack Obama’s mind, but there is no serious doubt that in his consistent actions he has served as an agent for the Left-Islamist subversive alliance in America. In that respect he echoes European socialism, which has followed exactly the same set of priorities and policies.

In 1944 the United States avoided a Communist-inspired near coup d’etat, when Henry Wallace was dropped from the Vice Presidential nomination at the Democratic Convention in favor of Harry Truman, who soon inherited the presidency from ailing Franklin D. Roosevelt. The American Labor movement split between pro-American and anti-American unions as part of that rending of the Left. The AFL-CIO became a strong force for national unity, while others, like the International Longshoreman’s Union, stayed under Stalinist control. At the same time Stalin exploded the first Soviet nuclear bomb, with plans openly stolen from the Manhattan Project.

Americans were scared. The GI’s were just beginning to come home from Europe and Japan, and were in no mood to go to war again. Stalin’s Bomb shook Americans awake, with a resulting furor against Communist-led unions, schools, universities, newspapers, and politicians. The hard left was purged, and the country was saved. The Left, which controls history teaching in American schools, calls this the McCarthyite period, with blacklists in Hollywood and Congressional hearings that lost people their jobs. These days, under the taboos of PC we routinely fire, trash, scapegoat, and bankrupt people and corporations that do not, for example, agree to drop the name “Redskin” for a football team. When it comes to the black arts of mob scapegoating McCarthy had nothing on the commissars of PC today.

Purges and scapegoating are bad. But they are not as fatal to the life of a nation as the failure to recognize and mobilize against a clear and present danger to our national existence.




The next few elections will decide whether we are to survive as “a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Constitutional government in the world is only two centuries old, and the US Constitution is the longest-lasting and most benevolent one in existence. Lincoln truly did not know “whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” In 1860 the Constitution was only seven decades old. But today, under the combined assault of enemies domestic and foreign, we still cannot guarantee whether constitutional government will survive. It has many, many enemies.

Ronald Reagan said that each generation must decide again to choose freedom or tyranny. We are ultimately responsible for failing to teach our political history to our children, who are abysmally ignorant and misled. The future of liberty, electoral legitimacy, political balance of powers and rationality is by no means assured. Unlike the Founding generation, the generation of Lincoln, and the Greatest Generation of World War 2 our people today are steeped in folly and self-indulgence.

We can win against the Left-Islamist alliance just as we won the Cold War. But so far we have done little but retreat in confusion, for lack of clear leadership and unity.

Today our future is as unsure as it was in 1944 when Harry Truman won the Democratic nomination for Vice President. The Cold War ended two decades ago. Today we must mobilize our resources for another life-and-death struggle or give in to the forces of barbarism.

The next elections will decide our fate.

The Mind of RD REVILO

Conscious Thought: Driven by Intelligent Awareness


Just another site

Arlin Report

Telling You What The News Won't.


Holding Forth The Word of God to a Wicked Generation

End Times Prophecy Report

End Times Bible Prophecy and News, End Times Deception, Societal Collapse, Apostasy, False Teachers, whore of Babylon Church, Demonic Attacks, War, Rumors of War, Famine, Pestilence, Salvation in Jesus Christ, NWO, UFOs, Earthquakes, IHOP, False Christs, All Roads Lead to Rome, New World Order, Conspiracies, Nephilim, Giants, New Apostolic Reformation, heresies, Signs and Lying Wonders

Global Geopolitics

A Geopolitical Looking Glass into the Real World Around You


Taking the World one soul at a time

The Fourth Crown

Make Your News Count.

The Right of the People

Raise the Standard of Liberty

Voting American

God Bless The United States of America

"“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill

early church revival

A site dedicated to the revival of early Christianity

With All I Am

Think. Reason. Follow

Life: Not A Rehearsal

Faith is now; Salvation is now; Life is... NOW - No Opportunity Wasted.


~ Lessons, Love, Laughter, & Life ~

The Truth Exists

Strengthening, Educating, and Supporting Christians in the Race Set Before Them

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”~Thoreau


justice, law, human rights

Christian Spook

THE KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY !! Exposing the false teachings of those purporting to be Christian's, exposing new false doctrines and practices,and sharing as much information on cults as possible.Including, Jehovahs Witnesses,roman catholicism,Islam,mormonism,christadelphians, Jesuits, Illuminati,i.e....The Whore of Babylon. Please send me posts to relevant articles, and useful websites. Thank You.


~ Lessons, Love, Laughter, & Life ~

Sally's Special Services

Webmaster and Social Media Manager

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!


Helping You Survive Your Next Outdoor Adventure!

In Love With The Lord Poetry and Prose

By Martha L Shaw - Charleston SC - Poet, Writer, Artist


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,180 other followers

%d bloggers like this: