Category Archives: Israel

Israel Developing New Technology



 The Israelis are developing an airport security device that eliminates the privacy concerns that come with full-body scanners. It’s an armored booth you step into that will not X-ray you, but will detonate any explosive device you may have on your person. Israel sees this as a win-win situation for everyone, with none of this racial profiling. It will also eliminate the costs of long and expensive trials. You’re in the airport terminal and you hear a muffled explosion. Shortly thereafter, an announcement: “Attention to all standby passengers, El Al is proud to announce a seat available on flight 670 to London. Shalom!”

H/T   Hujonwi

H/T Hujonwi


Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell Testifies. We Get Bubkus.

Folks in my opinion Mr Morell fell on the proverbial sword. I watched part of his testimony and a couple of things stuck out. First as any 30 year CIA dude he can speak out of both sides of his face and look good.  LOL He said something like 

” Our analyst here said it was because of protest, but I knew right away it was a terrorist attack” 

( Well Mike if you knew and you were the Boss why didn’t you say something? Oh you did)  Bottom line folks this was all done with politics in mind and we will probably never know.

Second thing and what I find kind of alarming is He said kinda 

“His station chief in in Libya emailed and said it “Was not about protests” he saw this, but his analysts here had seen a news report that it was about that vid”

( OK so why the hell do we have assets on the ground with eyes and ears if some analyst in some cubicle in DC is going to over ride him? )


WASHINGTON — Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell testified before Congress this morning that the CIA ignored a key piece of information that was the exact opposite of what then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N Susan Rice told the American public about Benghazi, Libya shortly after the attack on the U.S. embassy compound.

Michael J. Morell

Michael J. Morell

The CIA’s station in chief in Libya wrote an email on Sept. 15, 2012 to Morell that the attack was “not an escalation of protests” and there was no anti-American demonstration that sparked the attack.

That was one day before the White House dispatched Rice to tell several Sunday talk shows that the attack on Benghazi began as an anti-American protest against an anti-Islam video.

The talking points used by Rice were written by the CIA, but the email to Morell indicates the agency ignored the assessment of its own station chief inside Libya that what happened was an intentional assault and not an escalation of a protest.

Morell told the on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that once he received the station chief’s email he immediately recognized the discrepancy.

But, instead of immediately informing CIA analysts, Morell said he first asked for more information from the station chief, because the information so starkly differed with what the CIA had concluded.

Morell said once he received that more detailed email on Sept. 16, he forwarded it to CIA analysts, who got back to him in just one hour to inform him that they were rejecting that information and were sticking to their initial judgment.

The Deputy Director said the analysts told him they had seen press reports that there were, in fact, anti-American protests, and therefore they would stick with that version of events, even though it directly contradicted the information from their own man on the ground in Libya.

Morell said he also sent the information to then-CIA Director David Petraeus who responded that he did not know what to make of it.

( Nothing like kicking it down the road David )

Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., asked Morrell, knowing about all the previous attacks on the Benghazi compound, “How could you conclude it was anything other than a terror attack?”

Morrell said CIA analysts initially concluded on Sept. 13 that the attack began as a spontaneous protest. When he received the contradictory email on the 15th, he felt there were two reasons not to believe the email from the CIA’s own man on the ground.

One, he did not believe there had been no protests because there were press reports describing protests.

And, two, he did not find the information from CIA officers on the ground credible, because when they arrived at the compound to find no protests, the attack had already been underway for an hour.

Morrell also testified he was responsible for the changes to the final version of talking points used by Rice.

Rogers mentioned that when the committee asked Director of Defense Intelligence James Clapper why any reference to al Qaida was removed from the talking points he replied he did not know.

When Rogers asked Morrell if he knew why the references were removed, he also said he did not know.

In fact, a comprehensive report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that groups affiliated with al Qaida did participate in the attack.


Former USAF general says US govt knows missing Malaysian plane is in Pakistan

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (ret.)

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (ret.)

My first thought when news first came that a Malaysian passenger Boeing 777 is missing was: “Surely, with its massive surveillance capabilities, the NSA (National Security Agency) knows where it is.”


Note: The latest on the NSA’s spying is that its MYSTIC voice interception program, which began in 2009, is able to collect “every single” phone call of a targeted county and store the voice recordings for a month.


A retired U.S. Air Force general is claiming the U.S. government “knows a lot more” than it is publicly revealing about the Malaysian jetliner, flight 370, that went missing more than a week ago.

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney said on Fox’s “The Kelly File” last Friday night: “I know the U.S. government knows a lot more than they’re talking about. And clearly, the NSA has a lot of data they’re going through now … I’m confident that the U.S. government has a much better picture than the Malaysian government and the Chinese government.”

McInerney, 77, is a command pilot with more than 4,100 flying hours, including 407 combat missions during the Vietnam War. He also had served overseas in NATO, Pacific Air Forces, and as commander of the 11th Air Force in Alaska. Currently, he is a Fox News contributor and a member of the Iran Policy Committee.

Last night during “Hannity” on Fox News, Sean Hannity asked McInerney, “General, I’ve known you a long time, I know you too well to know that you’re not just making this up, this is not something you’ve concocted. You’ve spoken to a number of people, am I correct?”

“Yes, but that’s all I want to say, Sean, please,” McInerney responded.

McInerney said that while he has reason to believe the plane landed in Pakistan and is in the control of the Talibanhe has no idea about the fate of the passengers: “I don’t know anything about their status.”

McInerney pointed to the way the U.S. and Israeli militaries have acted in recent days to suggest that much more is known about the missing flight than has so far been revealed:

“First of all, let me say, when the U.S. Navy quits their search — their ship search — they must know something in the Indian Ocean. When the Israeli Defense Forces, when they increase their air defense alert, they must know something.

My concern is, if this airplane could be used as a bearer of a weapon of mass destruction or even conventional munitions that could attack a carrier, the Israelis, other allies, American Forces, for instance. We have to be very alert until we know exactly where this airplane is.”

Indeed, it was 3 days ago that, concerned that the missing Boeing 777 could be used in a terror attack, Israel boosted its air defenses. All approaching civilian aircraft will be asked to identify themselves far earlier. A plane filled with nuclear material would not need to be in Israeli airspace long to do catastrophic damage, even if shot down.

There are no reports yet that the U.S. is taking similar measures.

Isaac Yeffet, the former security chief of Israel’s national El Al airline, says he suspects Iran is involved in flight 370′s disappearance.

Sources: The HillThe Daily Caller, Breitbart


Foreign leaders openly scorn US President Obama

Dr. Eowyn:

While we may derive schadenfreude from the POS being scorned by foreign leaders, their ill regard for him reflects also on America’s overall national image and reputation.

Oh, woe.

Please, God, deliver from us from this scourge.


Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

Fallen idolSic transit gloria mundi.

Even before he was (first) elected President of the United States of America, like many adoring Americans, foreign leaders and peoples across the world heaped praises on Barack Obama.

Who can forget the tens of thousands of Germans who mobbed him like a rock star on July 24, 2008 in Berlin?

Obama in Berlin 2008Obama in BerlinThen is then, and now is now.

Along with his plummeting approval ratings in the United States (a new Gallup Poll low of 39% approval vs. 53% disapproval), those outside of America also are increasingly disenthralled.

More seriously, leaders of other countries have begun openly mocking Obama and his administration and, by extension, the United States.

Last Monday, Jan. 14, 2014, Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon mocked (and later apologized) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — and, by implication, Obama’s Middle East policy and his foreign policy in general  — as “messianic.”

View original 747 more words

Uproar over professor who advocates assassinating Obama

Both the Left and the Right are in a foaming-at-the-mouth uproar over an essay written by Georgetown University adjunct professor Michael Scheuer.

Scheuer is critical of the Middle East policy of Obama (and UK prime minister David Cameron) and seems to advocate political assassination when Scheuer advises the two men to pay heed to the writings of 17th century English republican Algernon Sidney, who had called for the execution of tyrants and glorification of their assassins.

From Wikipedia:

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States’ assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who was fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not “terrorism”)[2] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are “struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism.” Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed “the reasons for your losing the war against us”

In February 2009, Scheuer was terminated from his position as a senior fellow of The Jamestown Foundation. Scheuer has written that he was fired by the organization for stating that “the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security.

This is the essay in its entirety which Scheuer published on December 23, 2013, on his blog Michael Scheuer’s I’ve added the red color to highlight his words at the end which some have interpreted as advocating assassination.

Michael ScheuerMichael Scheuer

The desperate U.S.-UK relationship: Barack Obama, David Cameron, and the NSA/GCHQ issue

By MIKE | Published: DECEMBER 23, 2013

“We can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.” Titus Livy

Over the past months, media commentary on the massive and aggressively intrusive electronic collection effort being mounted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ, has focused on the constitutional issues raised by the two governments’ wanton violation of the personal privacy rights of hundreds of millions of their citizens. And this surely is an important aspect of the problem, although the Obama administration clearly has no use for the U.S. Constitution in any venue, preferring to simply enforce the laws it likes and let the rest molder, while simultaneously shredding the 4th Amendment and attacking the 1st and the 2nd Amendments. That Eric Holder and Barack Obama have not been impeached, moreover, suggests that the impeachment provisions of the Constitution are a dead letter; that they apply only to individuals named Nixon; or that they do not apply to Black Americans supported by such towering giants of fatuousness as Oprah, Chris Matthews, Fareed Zakaria, Piers Morgan, and Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and their band of American-killing Viragos.

But there is an equally important dimension of the NSA-GCHQ issue that has been discussed not at all either by the media or by the politicians in all U.S. and UK parties that abet the lies of President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron. Leaving aside the illegality of the collection for a moment, let us focus on the most basic motivation for the on-going, vacuum-like collection operation; namely, the UTTER DESPERATION engendered in Obama and Cameron by their being aware that much of the Muslim world is now either at war or supporting war against the West, and that the Islamist enemy is beyond their ability to control or contain, let alone destroy.

Obama and Cameron have followed the lie-strewn path toward the West’s destruction first blazed by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Obama and Cameron greatly exaggerate the supposedly disastrous impact of Bin Laden’s death on al-Qaeda and the Islamist movement, while, like their predecessors, maintaining that fountain of falsehood that spews forth nonsense about the motivation of the mujahedin being their hatred for liberty, Budweiser, freedom, and Iowa’s primaries. As this deceit flows, the Islamists and their war on the West have become much more popular in the Muslim world, as witnessed by their astounding geographical expansion and manpower growth since 2001, as well as by their easy defeat of the U.S. and British militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama and Cameron also know that their unquenchable thirst to intervene in the Muslim world has yielded lethal results for their own people. Foregoing an adult-like silence, they, like mindless adolescents, cheered on the “freedom-loving democrats” in Tahrir Square, promoting and deepening the chaos that led to the Islamists’ stripping Egypt’s arsenals of modern weaponry and freeing thousands of veteran and talented mujahedin who were incarcerated in Mubarak’s prisons. Those men and weapons are now in active service from Algeria to Afghanistan to Nigeria to Syria.

The Western World’s self-proclaimed leaders next joined with France’s Nicholas Sarkozy to intervene in Libya to bring freedom to the tens of millions of Libyan democrats, only to find that there were no democrats and that they had again augmented the Islamist movement’s weapons inventory and manpower, while leaving Libya on the edge of becoming an Islamic state.

Ever blind to the costs of unwarranted intervention in the Muslim world, Obama and Cameron backed the amateurish French invasion of Mali — which will further spread the Islamists’ war in Africa — and then acquiesced, with silent joy, as the Egyptian military overthrew the Islamist Morsi government after its victory in a free and fair election, thereby forever ending any possibility that the West can convince the Islamic world that it will allow Muslim self-determination. The West-approved Egyptian military coup revalidated al-Qaeda’s leader al-Zawahiri’s 2005 advice that self-determination for Muslims and the reinvigoration of their faith can only come out of an AK-47‘s muzzle.

Most recently, Obama and Cameron have shown Muslims that, for the West, Israel always has carte blanche to steal Palestinian land, as Netanyahu rapidly expands settlement building. And they have again demonstrated their willingness to condemn Americans and Britons to endless war by deciding to arm the Islamist insurgency that will eventually rule Syria. This self-defeating arming occurred because Islamist leaders there were smart enough to push forward a few Syrians who chirped some nifty phrases about the glories of democracy. As always, the U.S. president and the British prime minister took the bait, they remain — like Bush, Clinton, and Blair before them — the Islamists only indispensable allies.

The foregoing can only be called a world of trouble, one in which the Islamists’ war on America and its allies is gaining strength and geographical reach, and is brimming with confidence in Allah’s beneficence after He allowed the mujahedin to easily defeat the U.S. superpower in Afghanistan and Iraq. To confront this growing religious war, Obama and Cameron have decided not to use their militaries effectively — too much bloodshed for such effete, worldly wise sophisticates — but to rely on the basically defensive capabilities of their intelligence communities, such as electronic intercepts and the drone and Special Forces attacks they facilitate. Sadly, these tools are no more than irksome if lethal pinpricks to the growing Islamist movement, and do nothing to slow, let alone halt its growth.

For America, the UK, and their NATO allies a day of reckoning is meandering toward them; its approach is slow and steady because of the extraordinary patience bred in Islamists and Muslims generally by both the tenets of their faith and reliable Anglo-American military failure. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Cameron, and Blair, have eased the Islamists’ way by refusing to kill enough of the mujahedin and — as important — of their civilian supporters to persuade them that their game of religious war is not worth the candle. And, in any event, once NATO leaves Afghanistan, is not at all clear where Western military power can in the near term be brought to bear to deliver the requisite slaughter. (NB: Over the longer term, this will not be a question. The U.S. and British militaries eventually will be deployed to destroy the mujahedin operating inside the United States and the UK as a consequence of the non-enforcement of existing immigration and border-control laws, laws which, in America, Obama is now trying eliminate altogether.)

Thus, in the name of championing such Islamist-favoring concepts as human rights, interventionist foreign policies, politically correct speech, the war-prolonging proportionality of Just War theory; and the absurd goal of zero civilian casualties, Obama and Cameron know they are losing the war the Islamists are waging against their countries, and in their desperation they have few weapons to use save the above-cited ones, weapons that now and again kill a few mujahedin, and others — especially the universal electronic surveillance of citizens — that will inconvenience the Islamists but gradually destroy the civil liberties of Americans and Britons.

In their palpable desperation, Obama and Cameron will expand the use of those weapons and, by doing so, they will protect the growing power and durability of our Islamist enemies, while undermining the constitutional structure, the rule of law, and the civil liberties which, since England’s Glorious Revolution (1688-89), Anglo-Americans have built and defended against the despotic drift of their rulers with argument, protest, and — if at last needed — violence.

As they head further down the road of losing wars and wrecking Anglo-American liberties, Messrs Obama and Cameron and their supporters in all parties would do well to read the words of the great 17th century English republican Algernon Sidney, a man who was revered on both sides of the Atlantic, who greatly influenced America’s founders, and who was executed by the British Crown for what it described as sedition. “There must therefore be a right,” Sidney wrote,

“of proceeding judicially or extra-judicially against all persons who transgress the laws; or else those laws, and the societies that should subsist by them, cannot stand; and the ends for which governments are constituted, together with the governments themselves, must be overthrown. … If he [a political leader] be justly accounted an enemy of all, who injures all; he above all must be the publick enemy of a nation, who by usurping power over them, does the greatest and most publick injury that a people can suffer. For which reason, by an established law among the most virtuous nations, every man might kill a tyrant; and no names are recorded in history with more honor, than of those who did it. … They [the people] know how to preserve their liberty, or to vindicate the violation of it; and the more patient they have been, the more inflexible they are when they resolve to be so no longer. Those who are so foolish to put them upon such courses, do to their cost find that there is a difference between lions and asses; and he is a fool who knows not that swords were given to men, that none might be slaves….”*

*Thomas G. West (ed), Algernon Sidney. Discourses Concerning Government. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1996, pp. 221, 227, and 434.


Mallika Sen reports for Georgetown U’s newspaper The Hoya, that Scheuer’s essay has provoked outcry and condemnation from both left and right. As an example, the Daily Beast’s David Frum called Scheuer’s comments “advocacy of murder,” in a column entitled “Michael Scheuer’s Meltdown.” Frum is a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, whose administration’s war policy is a frequent Scheuer target.

To their credit, Georgetown University’s administration is standing behind Scheuer in the interest of the university’s commitment to the freedom of speech and expression. University spokeswoman Stacy Kerr wrote this email to The Hoya:

“Being committed to the free and open exchange of ideas does not mean that we approve of or endorses each and every statement made by members of our faculty. The views of every faculty member are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the University. The answer to speech that one finds disagreeable or controversial is not censorship but more speech and more dialogue. As such, we welcome everyone’s right to disagree and to express their opinions openly.”

H/t FOTM’ s josephbc69


Benghazi Transcripts Prove Obama, Hillary, Lied About Attack Being A Protest.

How much more before my head explodes I don’t know.   

I'm Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

“What does it matter?” I Testified, And 4 Died.

“What does it matter?”
I Testified, And 4 Died.


Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

By James Rosen

Published January 14, 2014
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama — were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.

Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The tense briefing — in which it was already known that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens had been targeted and had gone missing — occurred just before the two senior officials departed the Pentagon for their session with the commander in chief.

Skippy Knew

According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham — who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 — said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”

Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.

Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.

Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., sitting in on the subcommittee’s hearing with Ham last June, reserved for himself an especially sensitive line of questioning: namely, whether senior Obama administration officials, in the very earliest stages of their knowledge of Benghazi, had any reason to believe that the assault grew spontaneously out of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video produced in America.

Numerous aides to the president and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the public in the weeks following the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans that night — as Obama’s hotly contested bid for re-election was entering its final stretch — that there was no evidence the killings were the result of a premeditated terrorist attack, but rather were the result of a protest gone awry. Subsequent disclosures exposed the falsity of that narrative, and the Obama administration ultimately acknowledged that its early statements on Benghazi were untrue.

“In your discussions with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta,” McKeon asked, “was there any mention of a demonstration or was all discussion about an attack?” Ham initially testified that there was some “peripheral” discussion of this subject, but added “at that initial meeting, we knew that a U.S. facility had been attacked and was under attack, and we knew at that point that we had two individuals, Ambassador Stevens and Mr. [Sean] Smith, unaccounted for.”

Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.” 

The transcript reads as follows:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.” 

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.” 

Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied

This is the smoking Gun

Senior State Department officials who were in direct, real-time contact with the Americans under assault in Benghazi have also made clear they, too, knew immediately — from surveillance video and eyewitness accounts — that the incident was a terrorist attack. After providing the first substantive “tick-tock” of the events in Benghazi, during a background briefing conducted on the evening of Oct. 9, 2012, a reporter asked two top aides to then-Secretary Clinton: “What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?” 

“That is a question that you would have to ask others,” replied one of the senior officials. “That was not our conclusion.”

Ham’s declassified testimony further underscores that Obama’s earliest briefing on Benghazi was solely to the effect that the incident was a terrorist attack, and raises once again the question of how the narrative about the offensive video, and a demonstration that never occurred, took root within the White House as the explanation for Benghazi.

The day after the attacks, which marked the first killing of an American ambassador in the line of duty since 1979, Obama strode to the Rose Garden to comment on the loss, taking pains in his statement to say: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.As late as Sept. 24, during an appearance on the talk show “The View,” when asked directly by co-host Joy Behar if Benghazi had been “an act of terrorism,” the president hedged, saying: “Well, we’re still doing an investigation.” 

He Lied, and people Died, Repeat after me. He lied and people died.

The declassified transcripts show that beyond Ham, Panetta and Dempsey, other key officers and channels throughout the Pentagon and its combatant commands were similarly quick to label the incident a terrorist attack. In a classified session on July 31 of last year, Westrup raised the question with Marine Corps Col. George Bristol, commander of AFRICOM’s Joint Special Operations Task Force for the Trans Sahara region.

Bristol, who was traveling in Dakar, Senegal when the attack occurred, said he received a call from the Joint Operations Center alerting him to “a considerable event unfolding in Libya.” Bristol’s next call was to Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, an Army commander stationed in Tripoli. Gibson informed Bristol that Stevens was missing, and that “there was a fight going on” at the consulate compound.

WESTRUP: “So no one from the military was ever advising, that you are aware of, that this was a demonstration gone out of control, it was always considered an attack -”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir.”

WENSTRUP: “– on the United States?”

BRISTOL: “Yes, sir. … We referred to it as the attack.”

Staffers on the Armed Services subcommittee conducted nine classified sessions on the Benghazi attacks, and are close to issuing what they call an “interim” report on the affair. Fox News reported in October their preliminary conclusion that U.S. forces on the night of the Benghazi attacks were postured in such a way as to make military rescue or intervention impossible — a finding that buttresses the claims of Dempsey and other senior Pentagon officials.

While their investigation continues, staffers say they still want to question Panetta directly. But the former defense secretary, now retired, has resisted such calls for additional testimony. 

Never heard of a subpoena? 

“He is in the president’s Cabinet,” said Rep. Martha Roby R-Ala., chair of the panel that collected the testimony, of Panetta. “The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives – is that  the American people feel misled.”

“Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” agreed Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush and now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”

Neither Panetta’s office nor the White House responded to Fox News’ requests for comment.


Obama’s foreign policy: Abandon allies, appease enemies

Dr. Eowyn:

See also the lively debate over whether the POS is to be believed on who perpetrated the Syrian poison gas attack:


Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

Obama bows to China president Xi JinpingObama bows to China’s president Xi Jinping (not a photoshop)

Michael Barone writes for National Review, Dec. 10, 2013:

[...] Barack Obama brought to the presidency a different approach than the post–Cold War stances of his two predecessors.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, in different ways, maintained support for America’s longstanding allies while gingerly seeking rapprochement with former enemies Russia and China.

With China they established strong trade and financial ties, while discouraging Chinese military aggressiveness. When China shelled the waters off Taiwan in 1996, Clinton sent in the Sixth Fleet.

Clinton cooperated with Boris Yeltsin until the Russian president flamed out in 1999. Bush found that his initial faith in Vladimir Putin was ill-founded.

Barack Obama has put a radically different stamp on American foreign policy. Conservative critics perhaps exaggerate, but are on to something, when they characterize him as disrespecting America’s traditional friends and truckling to…

View original 507 more words

We are in the greatest tribulation-time in Christian history


The Catholic concept of the “Church Suffering” refers to Christians being martyred for their faith.

George Weigel writes for First Things, Oct. 30, 2013, that alas, few Christians in the West seem aware of the Suffering Church, much less have it weigh on their Christian conscience.

Christians today live in the greatest tribulation-time in Christian history. More Christians were killed for fidelity to Christ in the 20th century than in the previous nineteen centuries of Christian history combined.

Wiegel cites the following examples of persecution from a recent issue of Touchstone:

  • Some 1,200 Protestants are being imprisoned in shipping containers in Eritrean desert camps where “torture is routine”.
  • Mostafa Bordbar, a 27-year-old Christian convert, was arrested and charged with “illegal gathering and participating in a house church” in Iran.
  • Kazakh Christians, many of them converts from Islam, are “encouraged,” by the arrest and imprisonment of their pastors, to refrain from evangelism.
  • A Muslim leader in central Nigeria regularly abducts Christian girls and women and holds them captive in his home, to compel their conversion (or reversion) to Islam.
  • In Syria and Egypt, Christians live in daily fear for their lives where it’s open season on Christians.

Wiegel would not say it. But as you can see from the examples above, Muslims are doing many of the persecution.

Wiegel warns that at the rate Christians are being persecuted and martyred in the Middle East, within two decades, perhaps less, Christianity may well cease to be a living ecclesial reality in many of the places where Christianity was born, not to mention the cities where sub-apostolic and patristic Christianity developed.

The sole exception to this pattern throughout the Middle East and North Africa is Israel.

Thus Tom Holland, a popular historian and author of The Forge of Christendom (an intriguing book exploring the ways the late first millennium’s expectation of an imminent End Time shaped the West’s triumph in the second millennium), said recently at a London press briefing that “In terms of the sheer scale of the hatreds and sectarian rivalries” afoot in the Middle East today, “we are witnessing something on the scale of horror of the European Thirty Years War.”

At that same briefing, Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Religious Freedom Center in Washington, raised some pointed questions about western media ignorance—or worse—about this persecution. Shea noted that a fourth-century Coptic church dedicated to Our Lady was recently destroyed in Egypt, even though it was on a shortlist to be declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The church was 200 years older than the UNESCO-listed Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, whose destruction by the Taliban in 2001 was widely reported and universally condemned; yet the mainstream media treated this grotesque act of anti-Christian religious and cultural vandalism in Egypt as a non-event.

EGYPT-POLITICS-UNREST-CHRISTIANA picture taken on August 18, 2013 shows the Amir Tadros coptic Church in Minya, some 250 kms south of Cairo, which was set ablaze on August 14, 2013. Egypt’s Christians are living in fear after a string of attacks against churches, businesses and homes they say were carried out by angry supporters of ousted Islamist president Mohamed Morsi. As police dispersed Morsi supporters from two Cairo squares on August 14, attackers torched churches across the country.  (Photo credit: VIRGINIE NGUYEN HOANG/AFP/Getty Images)

So what is to be done?

  • Support those non-governmental agencies that work to sustain the pastoral life of Christianity in its historic birthplace.
  • Demand that U.S. diplomacy take religious freedom in the Middle East more seriously.
  • Pray for our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ.
  • And pray, publicly, for the conversion of the persecutors.

To that end, this blog, Fellowship of the Minds, will have a regular feature asking you to pray for a particular individual who is suffering from persecution somewhere in the world. Our first prayer request is for a 3-year-old Christian boy in Nigeria whose entire family was slaughtered by Muslims.

H/t my friend Sol


Forensic tests show Yasser Arafat was poisoned with radioactive polonium

Dr. Eowyn:

Interesting. But I can’t say I mourn Arafat’s death!

~Dr. Eowyn

Originally posted on Consortium of Defense Analysts:

Suha and Yasser ArafatSuha and Yasser Arafat

BBC Newsreports, Nov. 7, 2013, that Swiss scientists have confirmed that tests show the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had high levels of radioactive polonium in his body, 18 times higher than normal. However, they could not say whether polonium poisoning had caused his death in 2004.

Arafat’s widow, Suha, told the BBC the report proves he was assassinated, but she could not directly accuse anyone and refused to point the finger at Israel, saying Arafat had many enemies around the world.

Many Palestinians have long believed that Israel poisoned Arafat. There have also been allegations that he had AIDS or cancer. Israel has consistently denied any involvement.

The Swiss scientists were extremely cautious about their findings.

Testing for polonium 210 is fraught with difficulties because it is a very unstable element with a half-life of only 138 days. That means after four months…

View original 331 more words

Bombshell: Long-time Clinton associate says he killed people for Bill & Hillary

We’ve all heard of or read about the many people who, it is said, were murdered on orders of Bill and Hillary Clinton. (See, for example, the website Arkancide.)

But the deaths are the stuff of rumors — until now.

On September 24, 2013, on the Pete Santilli radio show, a former longtime Clinton associate named Larry Nichols admitted that he had killed people as the Clintons’ hit man or murderer-for-hire.

Larry NicholsI took this screenshot of Larry Nichols from one of his videos uploaded to YouTube in 2009.

Larry Nichols (LN), a former Green Beret, was a longtime associate of Bill Clinton (BC) and served as the marketing director of BC’s Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA), “the best kept secret in Arkansas.” The two men first met in the late 1970s when BC was an up-and-coming politician.


Shockingly (or maybe not), Wikipedia has no entries on Clinton associate “Larry Nichols” or “Arkansas Development Finance Authority,” except for a brief reference to ADFA as one of the entities investigated by the United States Senate Whitewater Committee, but without identifying or describing what ADFA is. So I did an Internet search for ADFA and discovered that it is actually an agency of the Arkansas State government. The ADFA website describes itself as “Arkansas’ largest source of low-cost financing for low-to-moderate income housing development, small industries, government, education, agricultural business enterprise & health care.”


On September 24, 2013, Nichols was interviewed by the Pete Santilli radio show for As introduced by Santilli, Nichols “has a lot of inside information on the Clinton crime family.” He published The Clinton Chronicles (a 1990 documentary subtitled “An Investigation Into the Alleged Criminal Activities of Bill Clinton”) on the Clintons’ “child trafficking,” Bill’s “sexual escapades,” and how Hillary “spent 30 years covering up Bill Clinton’s sexual and criminal activities.”

Here’s the audio of Nichols’ interview with Santilli:

Larry Nichols’ interview begins at the 1:11:08 mark in the YouTube audio. Here’s my transcription of what Nichols said. LN is Larry Nichols; PS is Pete Santilli.

LN: “I have actually beat up women and beat up husbands to protect the Clintons…. Not only have I killed people for [Bill Clinton], I’ve [never been in] jail.”

PS: “You’ve always been protected by the Clintons.”

Beginning at the 1:11:49 mark, LN says: “But now let’s call a spade a spade. I’ve been all over the world killing people for this country, some deservedly, some not. Ain’t matter to me. Just what I was paid to do…. Ronald Reagan sent me to El Salvadore. I did it for God and country.”

PS asks if, at the time when LN killed for the Clintons, did he do it patriotically, for the common good?

LN: “I didn’t give a shit. Some of these people, like Wayne Damond (?), needed to be dealt with. So I went to the jail, cut his nuts off, put them in a jar, put formaldehyde in it and left it there.”

PS asks what motivated LN in killing for the Clintons.

LN: “Just money. One minute I was doing something for the government, next minute I was doing something for the Clintons. What difference was it?”

PS asks how the Clintons presented “these [murderous] tasks” to LN.

LN: “Whenever I got an F2 call, that meant go and kill. State police are not trained to kill in … the late ’70s, early ’80s. There were no SWAT teams…. I had an F2 call, that meant go in and kill a guy. I didn’t give a shit…. When it [the order to kill] came from the president [Reagan], it was for God and country. When it came from Clinton, hell, I didn’t give a damn. I just go kill somebody, cut his nuts off.”

PS asks if LN was paid to murder.

LN answers that if the Clintons did not pay him, “they’d piss me off and they didn’t want to piss me off.”

At some point, however, the Clintons turned on LN and he had to defend himself. LN says: “I had to [defend myself] because I didn’t have a support group. The media weren’t going to cover it, so if I died, they’d just pour alcohol over me and say I was drunk and crashed on the side of the road.”

PS asks LN what kept him alive.

LN: “I’m a Green Beret. I’m trained … I’m skilled in staying alive. We have one rule: Kill back first. So if they send people to me, I’ll just kill them back first. I don’t ask questions. I deal with it.”

Larry Nichols was also asked about Hillary Clinton’s fitness to be president. His answer: “After the Benghazi debacle, No.”

Nichols claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a friend, told him what we already now know — that the Obama administration had been providing arms for Muslim terrorists in Syria (via Libya). When Netanyahu voiced his objection, the arms supply stopped, which enraged the al-Qaeda-connected terrorists to attack the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

What Nichols doesn’t say (doesn’t know) is that the Obama regime has NOT stopped supplying arms to the Syrian “rebels,” but is actually expanding the CIA’s training of the terrorists.

H/t Dean Garrison for Freedom Outpost and FOTM’s TnRick

See also: