Monday, December 31, 2012


by  31 Dec 2012, 11:29 AM PDT

This afternoon, in one of the more bizarre appearances of his presidency, Barack Obama gave a televised address to a room full of supporters on the "fiscal cliff." He broke no news, but mocked Congress, and hinted at future tax hikes. Observers worried that he may have deliberately scuttled a potential agreement.

Even though he has come off his last campaign for political office, President Obama acted like a candidate on the campaign trail--one prepared to use whatever political capital he had accumulated to take shots at the opposition in Congress at the very moment leaders from both sides are trying to work together.
Less a President, Obama behaved more like an ESPN talking-head making fun of RG III's knee injury. 
Obama's address, which you can watch below, was held basically to announce that some other people are working on solving the "fiscal cliff" crisis. They are close, Obama reported, but they aren't quite there yet. He then proceeded to make some jokes about Congress, to warm applause from his selected audience. Smug doesn't come close to capturing the true nature of his tone. 
What Obama's presser did reveal, however, was that never-ending tax hikes are on the table for the next four years. Obama said that, beyond any deal Congress may reach on the "fiscal cliff", we will have to take further steps to address our debt and deficit. That is obviously true, as any possible deal won't really deal with spending cuts. But, Obama said that, going forward, we will have to continue to have a "balanced" approach and ask the wealthy to contribute more. 
Obama said he will continue to ask for "shared sacrifice" for "as long as I'm President. And, I'm going to be President for four more years." Tellingly, this "sacrifice" always includes more taxes, rather than cuts in spending. 
To anyone who wondered whether Obama wanted the "cliff" talks to fail, this afternoon's presser provided the answer. If the GOP thinks it can cede some ground on taxes and then move on to debating spending, Obama, this afternoon, put that notion to rest. Obama will treat ALL future talks on deficit reduction as opportunities to increase taxes. Anything the GOP agrees to in the next 24 hours is simply a down-payment on what Obama wants. 
I have long noted that repealing the Bush-era tax cuts doesn't come anywhere close to plugging our deficit. Obama, today, agreed with that. He signaled that, as long as he's President, further tax hikes will always be on the table. In doing so, he undermined all the work that's been done in Congress this weekend. 
Obama may have just scuttled any real "fiscal cliff" deal.
and now, an interesting commentary with chart about the "fiscal cliff", posted to my FB:
If you want to know why the "fiscal cliff" and "tax and cut" debate ignores 95.59% of what is destroying America, then read on, because your favorite news source is not reporting the truth!! This is the most important post you will read today!! Please, New York Times or Harvard Rhodes Scholar economist, please try and refute this piece!! The attempt is to educate!! It is the truth that most voters do not understand!! To save the country from two party tyranny in Washington D.C. will require that a large percentage of voters understand what is written here!! Please trust that even your favorite politician and of course media are not educating you on the facts that follow!! Every year there are automatic increases built into the system for government growth!! The cut debate is just a slight decrease in the rate of growth, and they call it a cut, but its continued government growth, get it!! The tax debate is miniscule!! They will go up, slightly above what they already get every year anyway in revenue (taxes), about $2.5 trillion!! So the increase in taxes of maybe in the neighborhood of $1.2 trillion over ten years amounts to increasing taxes $120 billion/year!! Its nothing, taking what they already get every year from $2.5 trillion to $2.62 trillion/year!! Please understand this my friends!! The tax and cut debate is meaningless!! The "fiscal cliff" and "tax and cut debate" as scripted by media and politicians is just prime time theater, and about as important to the survival of the country as your favorite sitcom!! So in review there are no cuts in the current debate, and the tax increase debate in the paradigm where they already get $2.5 trillion in tax revenue every year anyway, is meaningless!! The big money, the issue destroying the country, the money that dwarfs everything currently being discussed, the money media and politicians do not want to talk about is the borrowing and counterfeiting!! During the time this stupid debate has progressed, both parties in government have been spending not only the dollar of revenue they receive, but also more than another dollar they get too!! That dollar is a combination of borrowed money, and federal reserve bank printing out of thin air!! So look at it this way!! Every year government spends the $2.5 trillion in revenue (tax receipts) they receive!! But every year that isn't enough for the government addicts!! They also spend, based on the last time both parties raised the debt limit in August of 2011, $2.4 trillion new deficit dollars!! So far government spent in 2012 about $2.5 trillion (revenue) + $1.7 trillion in borrowed money (based on the August 2011 raising of the debt limit)!! But that's not all!! The Federal Reserve Bank and Ben Bernanke are currently pumping $85 billion/month of printed money into their cartel banks and government!! So here we have it!! Government spends every year $2.5 trillion in revenue (taxes) + $1.7 trillion of borrowed money (based on the August 2011 debt ceiling raising agreement) + $1.02 trillion in counterfeited money from the federal reserve bank for a total of $5.22 trillion dollars every year!! $2.72 trillion of that amount is placed on We The People's and future generations credit cards every year!! Are you getting it yet!!! So in review, lets just forget the current debate about cuts, because there are no cuts!!! The tax amount they are discussing amounts to about $120 billion/year at the most!!! Meanwhile there is no debate about what is killing the country every year!!! That is the $2.72 trillion of deficit cash above revenue being spent every year by the egregious incompetence and felonious behavior of both parties!!! The amount being discussed in the current debate, is puny, $120 billion/year!!! The amount being ignored by media and both parties is $2.72 trillion/year, massive!!! The $120 billion/year is exactly 4.41% of the $2.72 trillion/year that is being ignored by media and both parties!!! Put another way, both parties and government are ignoring 95.59% of the problem, the amount that goes on the credit card of We The People and future generations!!! Getting it yet!!! The Borrowing Limit (Debt Ceiling) fight will emerge within a few days, the money that government really wants!! The debate, to this point, is just window covering so you cannot see inside the disaster that is the federal governments house of theft, money laundering, borrowing addiction, and counterfeiting!! Real cuts will only happen when the borrowing limit is attacked!! You cannot cut spending (cuts) unless you take the money away!! They already get the taxes, and they want a little more of that!! America could take a dollar away form government for every two dollars they currently spend, within a few weeks, by forcing republicans to vote nay on the vote to raise the Borrowing Limit!! If not a zeroing out of the borrowing limit, cut it by 50% from what you usually raise it to!! Then next year zero it out!! If you want to see government at the budget table within a few seconds, we must force republicans to do what is suggested here!! There is no other way to get cuts or for government to even consider a budget!! Why would they need a budget when they control the money supply every year, getting as much as they want!! The propaganda that government will shut down is a lie!! Government gets, as explained above, $2.5 trillion in revenue every year to spend!! If they shut down it would be their decision!! There is plenty of revenue to pay interest on the national debt, social security, medicare, and military, with billions left over!! If, for instance, they decided to pay for their unconstitutional welfare programs and worthless unconstitutional bureaucracies administering them, instead of social security, it would be their choice to do so!! To save America, We The People must force Republicans to attack the Borrowing Limit (debt ceiling)!! It will be the issue within a few days!! All the rest of this nonsense has been bad theater!!
~ by Warren Gillette

Obama Finally Admits He Wants Gun Control



By Douglas V. Gibbs
Barack Obama is the kind of politician that doesn't say anything until he thinks it is popular enough for him to say it.

In other words, he's pretty typical, when it comes to the rats of Washington DC.

If an issue is unpopular, he hides his true feelings, says a few not-so-specific things about the issue, and as a Senator he would vote "present" on such issues, just so as not to commit himself in case the polls head in a direction away from his position.  However, if you pay close attention, his rhetoric has always revealed he is an anti-gun kind of guy.

During Obama's first term I remember occasionally mentioning on this website Obama's desire to increase the federal government's regulations on firearms, and liberals would freak out, leaving comments asking me to name just once when Obama claimed he was for banning guns.  Obama's position was obvious, without him ever saying it, and the rhetoric I could come up with vaguely insinuated he was for gun control, but was dated prior to him leaping onto the national scene.  Things like the Fast and Furious scandal, where the Obama administration practically handed guns to the Mexican drug cartels in the hopes they would use them to murder thousands (of which they did), so that the democrats could create an anti-gun sentiment in the United States over it, were just not solid enough proof to convince these liberals that Obama wants to disarm America.

I would guess that most of those liberals wanted gun control, too, but understood that at the time it was a losing issue for the liberal left.

Obama was waiting for the right crisis, hoping that it would become popular to get on the gun control bandwagon - and the Newtown School Shooting was just the crisis Obama, and the democrats, were waiting for to politicize, and move America towards gun control.

Now, after all of the dust has settled, and it is looking like it might be time for him to let the clown out of the box, Obama has pledged to make gun control legislation his top priority.

According to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, federal gun laws restricting firearms in any way are unconstitutional.  Such illegal legislation would be met with fierce opposition, and could prove to be a battle that becomes more volatile than the democrats believe.

Those that oppose federal gun control legislation understand that the States, not the federal government, have an authority to regulate firearms as they see fit.  The State governments are closer to the people, and therefore are supposed to be more accountable to the people.  A centralized federal government is distant, and is not going to be sympathetic to the local needs, or unique culture.  Besides, when a centralized government bans firearms, it opens up the opportunity for tyranny.  An armed populace guards against the federal government becoming anything other than servants to the people.  A disarmed populace become nothing more than subjects that can be pushed in any direction the ruling elite thinks it sees fit.

Senator Feinstein has pledged to propose legislation a lot like her old anti-gun feather in her cap that banned assault-style weapons from 1994 to 2004.  She has stated she plans to add high-capacity magazines to that.

Obama, echoing his colleagues, because he refuses to ever take the lead, says his plan is to rally Americans around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding he supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity bullet magazines.

The wheels are in motion.  It won't be long before they go for confiscation.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama makes passing gun control measures a priority for 2013 - Fox News

Obama hopes to enact new gun-control measures in 2013 - The Hill

HAPPY 2013 NEW YEAR! (music videos)

Thursday, December 27, 2012

WaPo endorses Kerry, but....

Here's some rather curious language in the Washington Post's endorsement of John F.N. Kerry for Secretary of State. 
As secretary of state, Mr. Kerry would find himself most often carrying out policies forged at the White House rather than implementing his own vision. The senator is known for his conviction that the United States should do more to broker an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, but that worthy goal is looking more remote than ever as hard-liners on both sides gain ascendancy. A better focus for the next secretary would be trying to shape the direction of the turbulent Arab Middle East — starting with Syria, where U.S. leadership has been woefully lacking.
Mr. Kerry shares one of Mr. Obama’s greatest weaknesses: an excessive faith in the potential benefits of “engagement” with rogue regimes and dictators. In particular, Mr. Kerry’s repeated attempts to foster a dialogue with Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad offer a case study of how such diplomacy can go wrong. The cynical Mr. Assad convinced Mr. Kerry that he was a “reformer” who sought peace with Israel — conclusions that, as the past 18 months have shown, could not have been more wrong.
Mr. Kerry’s dedication to dialogue even with U.S. enemies makes some sense for a secretary of state. But Mr. Obama’s new Cabinet could also benefit from the balance provided in the first term by figures such as Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert M. Gates, who took a more skeptical view of “engagement” and favored steps such as the surge of troops in Afghanistan.
So who is going to provide the balance? Sadly, I see little balance in this administration, which seems to be following an Islamist agenda.  

By the way, I thought Hillary Clinton was responsible for tagging Assad as a 'reformer.'


Bee's Note:
For another article on Kerry, there is a good one at Dancing Czars:
John Kerry: Obama’s “Perfect Choice” For Secretary of State
 Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist and Patriot.The only thing perfect about John Kerry as a nominee for Secretary of State is like Obama he is a perfect fraud and has consistently put the position of United States interests behind that of the enemy.
John Kerry and Jane Fonda should still be prosecuted for treason.

Meat Cleavers, Hammers, and Knives Need to Be Banned in China

By Bernie on 26 Dec 2012

Chinese policemen show teachers and school workers how to defend themselves during an attack, at a school
Chinese policemen show teachers and school workers how to defend themselves during an attack, at a school in Beijing on April 29, 2010. Authorities across China have ordered stepped-up security at schools and increased police patrols near campuses after a wave of knife attacks targeting children. 

Photo Credit: ABC News

In my article Guns kill people and spoons made Rosie Fat, I wrote: "If guns kill people, then... Pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat."
In response, reader BOTA from New York left this comment which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article:
I noticed the lack of guns stopped WTC, Oklahoma city.
Sorry - just wrong.
This is how liberals attack gun ownership:

  1. Having guns doesn't protect us from attacks such as those against the WTC and Oklahoma City so why do we need guns?

  2. If there were no guns there would be fewer suicides.

  3. If there were strict gun controls we wouldn't have mass murders especially at schools.
Number one can be answered by noting that having polio vaccinations also does not protect us against attacks such as those against the WTC and Oklahoma City, however that does not diminish the need for such vaccinations.
As for number 2: as noted in my article Guns Do Not Kill People Ceiling Fans Do the major weapon used for suicide in India is a ceiling fan. In the absence of guns, the same number of people kill themselves only they do it with a different weapon.
As for number 3, our violent gun culture is blamed for the recent school murder rampage in Connecticut. But is that the case?
Consider that in China over the past two years the following mass murders occurred in schools in a country not noted for its violent gun culture:

  • Meat Cleaver: A man charged into a kindergarten in northwestern China with a cleaver Wednesday and hacked to death seven children and two adults 1.

  • Knife: a man used a knife to kill eight children and seriously wound five others in the city of Nanping 2.

  • Hammer: Wang Yonglai used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children 3.

  • Box Cutter: a female worker slashed eight children with a box-cutter at a daycare center for migrant workers 4.

  • Axe; two young girls and four adults taking their children to nursery school were killed with an axe 5.
China has in fact a huge problem with school killings, see Wikipedia's article School attacks in China (2010–2012). These were not caused by a culture that glorifies meat cleavers and axes. There are no video games in the apartments of the killers which center on killing people with sharp instruments. It is not their bland movies. The problem is mental illness, just as mental illness is to blame for the Connecticut shootings.
Banning meat cleavers, knives, axes, and hammers will not reduce school mass murders in China. They will use bricks, forks, sharpened tooth brushes, shovels, whatever. When you are sick you are sick. Focusing on the weapon instead of the killer steers you toward the wrong track to reducing such violence.


A man charged into a kindergarten in northwestern China with a cleaver Wednesday and hacked to death seven children and two adults — the fifth such rampage in less than two months. The attacker then went home and killed himself.
Sociologists say the recent attacks that have left 17 dead and scores wounded reflect the tragic consequences of ignoring mental illness and rising stress resulting from huge social inequalities in China's fast-changing society.
a man stabbed eight children to death and wounded five others at an elementary school in eastern China on Tuesday, local media said.
The suspect in the attack is a 41-year-old man who once worked as a doctor at a community clinic. Some news reports said he recently resigned from the position; other said he had been fired.
on April 30, a man barged into a village school in Shandong province, carrying a hammer and a can of gasoline. Wang Yonglai, a local farmer, attacked preschool students with the hammer, causing head injuries. He then set himself on fire and died. According to a Xinhua report, the local farmer went berserk after the local police told him that the family house he had just built using 110,000 yuan (US$16,110) of family savings had to be torn down because it had been built on farmland, which is illegal in China.
Eight toddlers, all aged four or five, were injured when a female worker at a privately owned daycare center in suburban Shanghai attacked them with a craft knife at lunchtime yesterday.
A man armed with an axe has killed two young girls and four adults in a Chinese city, media reports say.
The attack happened early on Wednesday on a street near a kindergarten in Gongyi city, Henan province.
A 30-year-old local farmer, who is suspected of being mentally ill, has been detained, officials said.

Blasphemy as a National Security Threat - by Daniel Greenfield

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Blasphemy as a National Security Threat

Spain has begun deportation proceedings against Imran Firasat, a Christian refugee from Pakistan, for making a documentary about Mohammed and thereby threatening the national security of Spain. If Firasat is deported back to Pakistan, he will face the death penalty proving that it's a short step from the Spanish Inquisition to the Pakistani Inquisition.

The United States has a man sitting in prison for making another blasphemous movie, which the government spent weeks blaming for worldwide attacks on American embassies. And he isn't the first man persecuted or prosecuted for offending Islam. Offending Islam has become a national security issue involving all levels of government.

When Bubba the Love Sponge, a Tampa DJ, proposed to burn a Koran, the commander of the Afghanistan war contacted his girlfriend, who would later be stalked by Petraeus' girlfriend, to contact the Mayor of Tampa to keep Bubba from burning a Koran. Instead of explaining how the American system works to the Lebanese temptress and her four-star general, the mayor wrote back that the city was working on it.

That month 50 percent more Americans were killed in Afghanistan in the long slow death march of the war, but a Koran was not burned in Tampa. Mission accomplished.

Muslims did not have to kill a great number of Americans to enforce blasphemy law in this country. Counting the various reactions to burnt Korans, rumors of a flushed Koran and assorted things of that nature, the number is still well below a hundred. Even counting every casualty in the war from September 11 onward, it took fewer deaths to make the United States give up on the Bill of Rights than it took to liberate it in the War of Independence.

But it's not really about the deaths, if it were then the United States wouldn't be senselessly squandering the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid offending the natives. It's not the death of men that our leaders are worried about, but the death of stability.

Knowing that a hundred men will die today in car accidents does not alarm anyone, but knowing that somewhere a dozen men might die in a bomb explosion, anywhere and at any time, can bring a nations to its knees. That is the difference between predictable and unpredictable death. Predictable death makes it possible for most everyone to go about doing what they normally do. Unpredictable death however erodes daily order.

Blasphemy makes terrorism seem predictable. It delivers that false sense of control that is at the root of Stockholm Syndrome, the seductive illusion that the thug can be reasoned with and that we can restore control over our perilous environment by accepting responsibility for the enemy's violence. If we meet a set of conditions then we will have peace. And what kind of lunatic wouldn't want peace? The kind who needs to be deported or locked up in the name of peace.

When an entire country goes Stockholm then it is no longer interested in winning the war, only in surviving the peace. In a Stockholm country, national security consists of locking up anyone who can be blamed for sabotaging the peacemaking. The less peace there is, the more the peacemakers go on the hunt for "extremists" who are to blame for the lack of it. The more their vision of a better world fails, the more stern measures they must take against their own people. Peace is always one more denunciation of extremism away.

The same countries whose leaders have spent a century and a half blathering incessantly about a truly progressive order under international law have shown no ability to cope with the old-fashioned kind of war. They can quote verbatim the laws of war, but understand poorly that war makes its own laws. War's simplest law is that you pick a pretext, any popular pretext, make your demands and then go on the attack. If the other side is foolish enough to meet your demands, then it has shown its weakness and must be attacked again and again.

Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence. Like Khrushchev banging his shoe on the United Nations delegate desk, they did their best to convince the rest of the world that they were violently irrational and liable to do all sorts of things if their demands weren't met. And their demands were met. Rather than going medieval on their asses, the civilized world instead went medieval on anyone who offended the medieval cult of Islam.

Muslim blasphemy, like the ghetto hood's respect is an assertion of supremacy by identity. It isn't a grievance, it's a right of violence, and if you give into it, then you accept the inferior status that comes from being weak in a system where might makes right and killing people, or threatening to, is what makes one man better than another.

Islam is submission. If you submit to Islam, then you're a Muslim. If you submit to a Muslim, then you're a slave. The western blasphemy trial is not the enforced submission of an Islamic legal system that would be crude and brutal, but at least comparatively respectable, it is the enforced submission to Muslim violence. The judges who preside over our blasphemy cases do not believe in Islam, they believe in the danger of Muslim violence. This is not theocracy, it is slavery. 

For the moment blasphemy prosecutions still involve trying offenders on some charge other than the obvious one. Low-hanging fruit like Imran Firasat or Mark Youssef are the easiest to deal with. Any man whose freedom depends on the whim of a judge can already be locked up or deported any time without the need for actual charges of heresy to be brought. When that isn't possible, there is always the ubiquitous hate crime which increasingly extends to anything that offends anyone regardless of consequences or intent.

These trials are a contradiction, 21st Century legal codes built on sensitivity and tolerance being used to prosecute deviations from a medieval code of insensitivity and intolerance. But that very same contradiction runs through the modern state's entire approach to Islam. It is impossible to embrace medievalism without becoming medieval. The need to accommodate Islamic medievalism is forcing the medievalization of the modern world's political and legal systems.   

The conflict between the modern world and the Muslim world is being waged by the modern rules of international law and peacemaking on one side and by the medieval rules of brutal violence, insincere offers of peace and bigoted fanaticism on the other. Rather than fighting it on its own terms, the modern world is instead trying to accommodate it on its own terms by accommodating its blasphemy codes.

Trapped in a long-term war, our leaders are looking for ways of making the conflict more manageable. If they can't win the war, they can at least limit the number of attacks. It's not the open book kind of appeasement, but the double book kind. The open book is still patriotic, but the second book in the bottom drawer is running payments to the terrorists and finding ways to accommodate them. And anyone who runs afoul of the second book, also runs afoul of national security.

War often compromises freedoms, but it rarely compromises the freedom to hurt the enemy's feelings. But this is a different sort of war. A war with no enemies and no hope of victory. A war whose only hope is that one day our enemies will become better people and stop trying to kill us. Our enemies are fighting to take away our freedoms and we are fighting to take away our own freedoms in the hopes that if we give up some of them to the enemy, he will settle for them and give up on the rest. 

In this sort of war, blasphemy is a serious national security threat, not because it truly is, but because our leaders desperately need their Stockholm control points of appeasement, they need to believe that if they crack down on Koran burnings then they can reduce the fighting by 5 percent or 8 percent and that gives them hope that they can one day reduce it by 100 percent.

The actual numbers don't matter. On the month after Bubba the Love Sponge did not burn the Koran, 50 percent more Americans died in Afghanistan, but the statisticians can always argue that if he had burned it, then 75 percent more or 100 percent more would have died. Islam runs on magical thinking and any effort to appease it must also embrace that same medieval magical thinking. Hoping that blasphemy prosecutions will reduce violence, is psychologically less of a strain than accepting that nothing will, that there is no magic bullet, only regular bullets.

The sort of men who deport filmmakers, when they aren't locking them up, and treat the stunts of shock jocks as a matter of national security, fail to understand that they are not fighting some vague notion of "extremism" which is fed by "extreme" language and actions, but an organized ideology whose goal is not merely preventing Bubba the Love Sponge from burning the Koran, but compelling the Mayor of Tampa and the American commander in Afghanistan to compel Bubba not to burn a Koran.

Islamists have not launched a thousand years war over Bubba; they have done it so that the cities and countries where Bubba and Imran live submit to Islam. Locking up filmmakers and warning off DJ's is not quite up to Saudi and Iranian standards of submission, but it's a start. Once the principle has been established, then the rest is a matter of negotiation. And the negotiations always begin and end with a bang. 

There are two laws that govern men; the law of faith and the law of force. The law of faith is followed when you do a thing because you believe it to be right. The law of force is followed when you compel others to do a thing or are compelled to do it by them. Faith at its strongest is more enduring than force, and yet force can be used to change faith.

America has lived under the law of faith, following the laws that it believed to be right. Islam conducts its affairs under the law of force, as it has since the days of Mohammed. American leaders are abandoning their laws of faith to force, giving up on freedom of speech to accommodate the violence of Islam, while forgetting that when you give up faith to force, then you also abandon any further reason to resist that force. Without faith, it is easier to let force win.

Sultan Knish blog - by Daniel Greenfield

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Video: We Love you Israel!

Rally, NYC - 2011

Published on Dec 6, 2012
Singer Stevie Wonder agreed to perform at the 2012 winter gala of the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, until anti-Israel groups pressured him to cancel. Stevie caved to their lies and propaganda and backed out. Stevie, this one is for you.

Show your love for Israel and stand up against the hateful boycott against Israel by signing this petition:

Lyrics (sing along!):

No Hannukah
For Stevie Wonder
No blue & white chocolate coins to give away

The Arab Spring
No cause to sing
In fact, for terror it's just an ordinary day

The rockets rain 
on Israel's bloom
No one stands up for Israel in her time of gloom

But what Israel is, 
is something true
No one can stop three words that we must say to you:

We just called to say we love you
We just called to say how much we care
We just called to say we love you
And we support you from the bottom of our hearts

Now's the time
To end the lies
To shine the Jewish light through the Arabian night

No Sabbath peace, 
while sirens ring, 
not even time for the few birds to fly through southern skies

Israel's the sun
The Mid-east Queen
She gets no thanks for all the bounty that she brings

But Israel, you're oh so good
Defend yourself as only you ever could

We just called to say we love you
We just called to say how much we care
We just called to say we love you
And we support you from the bottom of our hearts

This video was produced and created by:
Creative Zionist Coalition -
Israel in Context -

Concept: Orit Arfa
Lyrics: Orit and Sharon Arfa
Vocals: Orit Arfa
Direction: Lara Berman & Orit Arfa
Production: Lara Berman & Orit Arfa
Editing: Lara Berman

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Benghazigate Mirror Image Of Fast & Furious

The Nexus Between Cover Ups: Benghazigate Mirror Image Of Fast & Furious…

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

The same thugs-in-suits who ran guns through Mexico – killing a Border Agent and scores of kids in Mexico too – are guilty of covering up the BIGGEST gun running/weapons smuggling operation in US history.

And these goons would have Americans (and others too) believe that the kiddies in Newtown are their paramount concern; as they hide behind their cold, dead bodies to ram through gun control, contrary to the Second Amendment! Does it get any more twisted than that; those responsible for scores of deaths of youngsters in Mexico (‘Eric Holder Buries Another Fast And Furious Victim’- due to another deadly operation – Fast & Furious – also designed to grab American’s guns, are again spitting on the dead. They understand that an armed guard/administrator/teacher would have spared the carnage! And it was their decision to gut the funding, not once but twice, for school safety revamping.

So, as Obama and his radical/racialist AG hustle to ‘legalize’ the gutting of the Second Amendment, one has to ask: what will it take to finally bring down this unlawful duo? And this blogger is not the only one attempting to hold their feet to the fire. Not at all.
‘Another Benghazi / Fast and Furious parallel? State Department employees not allowed to talk’
by  on DECEMBER 13, 2012 
The parallels between Operation Fast and Furious and the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi continue to mount. The latest example comes courtesy of Kerry Picket. She is reporting that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who serves on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, says the State Department is not allowing him to talk to any of the survivors of the Benghazi attack.
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) told Breitbart News on Wednesday that he has been “thwarted” by the State Department from seeing any Americans who survived the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in  Benghazi. Many people forget that there were Americans who survived the Benghazi attack, some of whom were badly injured and are still recovering.
“My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I’d like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are,” Rep. Chaffetz said. I don’t know who they are. I don’t know where they live. I don’t know what state they’re from. I don’t even know how many there are. It doesn’t seem right to me.
So, how is this reminiscent of how the Fast and Furious investigation was handled?
Consider the names Kevin O’Reilly and William Newell. When the DOJ / ATF – led Operation Fast and Furious was at its peak, there were communications between Newell and O’Reilly, who at the time was Director of North American Affairs with the National Security Council (the White House). If one ATF employee could be placed at the center of Fast and Furious, Newell might be that guy.
Here is a very compelling exchange between Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Newell from July 26, 2011 in which Gowdy confronts the former SAC about an email between O’Reilly and Newell. Shortly after this exchange, O’Reilly was transferred to Iraq to work as a State Department employee:
Obviously, after O’Reilly’s name was brought into the Fast and Furious scandal, Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) wanted to talk to him. Here is an exchange between Issa and Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier a couple of months after the July 26th hearing:
More than one year later, O’Reilly returned from Iraq to work at the State Department.
Via CNS News:
Obama administration employee Kevin O’Reilly — who congressional investigators called “the link connecting the White House to the [Fast and Furious] scandal” — is back in the United States now after abruptly leaving his White House job to work in Iraq in 2011 after emails concerning him and Fast and Furious had surfaced.
O’Reilly left the United States in August 2011, shortly after his knowledge of the gun-walking program was publicized during a congressional hearing on July 26.
O’Reilly has so far refused to cooperate with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which recently threatened to subpoena him. He also refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, which investigated the program and recently released its findings.
Both the House committee and the Inspector General’s office sought to interview O’Reilly about Fast and Furious but the White House refused to grant him permission to be interviewed.
Another curious bit of timing involved the release of the DOJ’s Inspector General report just weeks before O’Reilly’s return from Iraq, meaning that O’Reilly left for Iraq shortly after he became a person of interest for the Oversight Committee and returned shortly after the DOJ IG issued its final report. Despite this, the White House said that was all coincidence:
In August 2011 — after the e-mails were first discussed at a July 26 congressional hearing — O’Reilly was named as the senior director of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Programs in Iraq, a State Department position.
The State Department official told that O’Reilly’s reassignment to Iraq from the White House “was a standard foreign service career rotation that had been planned for months in advance of his detail to the NSS.” The State Department could not confirm O’Reilly’s new title at the State Department.
So, what do Kevin O’Reilly and the survivors of the 9/11/12 attack in Benghazi have in common? All are State Department employees (presumptively); all were somehow connected to operations that involved the murder of American officials; and all are being prevented from speaking to Congressional committees who want and deserve answers.


Adding insult to grievous injury and pointed towards the direction of the American people, along comes another Capitol Hill investigation to get to the truth, but nothing of the sort is afoot. Far from it.
‘The wretched absurdity of the Benghazi report’ – Douglas Hagmann
“Only if this report was written with the blood of the dead Americans could it be more insulting to their memory, their families and to the intelligence of the American public.19 December 2012: Under the cover of the Newtown school shooting, an “independent” five member investigative panel quietly released an unclassified, 39-page report Tuesday night, detailing their findings of the attack that led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The report cites five main reasons for the loss of life, all primarily related to inadequate security for U.S. personnel.
However, the independent panel found that no “U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.” Stated another way, no one is to blame nor will be held accountable for the murders of Americans Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty, Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Chris Stevens., so just continue about your business.
The report was released in advance of closed door congressional testimony scheduled for today by two senior panel members, retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also scheduled to testify this week, but has declined to do so as a result of her recent fainting spell. Others are unavailable to testify or have not been asked, which is a common tactic when the outcome of an investigation is fixed from the beginning, and this, based on an extensive review of all available evidence, most certainly was.
2012 Game show panel: To Tell The Truth
It is an interesting bit of trivia, perhaps, that the popular television game show To Tell the Truthpremiered exactly 56 years to the day that the Benghazi report was released. The objective of the 2012 real world panel appears to be the antithesis of former game show, as ferreting out the truth did not appear to be the panel’s objective.
The panel report offers nothing more than obligatory eye candy in the form of a stinging rebuke of State Department management and leadership failures that led to the murder of four Americans. The panel deliberately convolutes the pertinent issues with unrelated historical accounts of security issues in Libya dating back to 1967, giving the reader a sense of thoroughness while leaving the main issues untouched by design.
Ironically, the report opens with a 1905 quote from George Santayanna: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Included perhaps to add legitimacy and a veneer of integrity to an investigative report unworthy of such a definition, it is an insult to those aware of the actual events leading up to the murderous attacks of 9/11.
To understand how the truth behind the murders and the events of the attack is being buried amid familiar terms and talking points suitable for both political parties and their spokespeople, it is vital to understand the origin and makeup of the “independent” panel. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton convened the Accountability Review Board (ARB) in the wake of the attacks, quietly appointing retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering to chair and direct the panel. His appointment unceremoniously appeared in the October 4, 2012 edition of the Federal Register.
As noted in a previous report by this author, Thomas Pickering is an obvious choice to direct an investigation that could have any negative implications to Iran or this administration’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood. Pickering is an advisory board member of the pro-Iranian organization known as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), and co-chairman of the board of directors of the International Crisis Group (ICG), whose executive committee includes the infamous George Soros. Pickering is also vice-chairman of Hills & Co., global consultants founded in 1993 by CFR and Trilateral Commission member Carla Anderson Hills.
The significance of Pickering’s appointment cannot be overstated or underestimated considering that the trail of blood from four Americans leads directly to Ansar al Sharia, a terrorist group funded by Iran. Who better to redirect or cover up the operational conspiracy that exists between Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and that Muslim Brotherhood that exists at the core of the 9/11 attack? Pickering is the obvious choice.
From the untouched to the absurd
Left untouched by the Pickering panel are the intrinsically sinister machinations of Obama, Jarrett and Clinton, as they as are methodically taking us to the brink of a new war in Syria through their weapons running operations in Benghazi. The report intentionally offered only a very narrow view of the events in Benghazi, limiting their scope to the already exposed security deficiencies that were secondary to the redefined Benghazi “consulate.” Using this tactic effectively diverts attention away from the real issue and thus, the actual cause for the attack.
Beyond the narrow focus of the security issues and the subsequent inconsequential wrist slap, the investigative panel descends further into the abyss of absurdity and insult by incredibly asserting that everything possible had been done to rescue and save our Ambassador and Sean Smith, and further asserted that “the interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”
That finding alone should alarm every thinking American based on open source intelligence and what is known, as well as what has yet to be disclosed. Only if this report was written with the blood of the dead Americans could it be more insulting to families of the dead and to the intelligence of the American public.
Perhaps Pickering and his cadre of co-conspirators would like to disclose to the American people the strange odyssey of a certain C-130 aircraft that left Croatia to Libya to provide assistance to the Americans under siege at the onset of the attack. The portal-to-portal flight time is about four hours, yet it did not officially “appear” on site for 23 hours. Perhaps it’s time to address the fact that the lie is different at every level, and for Pickering to stop being a firewall between his bosses and the truth owed to every American, and particularly to the families of those who were murdered.
It’s time to ask whether the crew of that C-130 was ever identified and interviewed. It’s time to locate and ask the personnel on board that aircraft how long it was, after they changed from their military uniforms into their street clothes to enact a rescue, were they forced to wait while the embattled Americans endured the attack and met their deaths. Oh yes, there is information known and crying out to be made public despite the contempt for the truth and equally important, the contempt for the American people by Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett.
Four Americans were murdered in Benghazi. Over forty thousand are dead in Syria. Soon, it will be four million dead as a result of the hidden agenda of our elected leaders, the complicity of a corrupt media, and the complacency of a brainwashed public. Today we cry over the deaths in Newtown, but tomorrow, our sobs will be for the masses.”
Their criminality and subterfuge is so out-sized in scope, the chief culprits understand that revelations, via private and public hearings, would lock them  up for life.
And this is why they will pull out all stops to keep the truth from seeping through, but it in no way obligates millions of patriotic Americans to go along with their subterfuge. And a million (or more) person march on Washington is not out of the question either. It’s at least as important as the ‘Million Man’ march cobbled together through Black hucksters not too long ago. You think?