InfoWars.com created a video about democide which is death by government. Although some of the points are Conspiracy Theory accusations, pointing to modern despotic nations as the number one killers of people in the world are accurate figures. The point behind the video: democide loves gun control!
3/24/13 (Hat Tip: NoGuff)
VIDEO: Demand A Real Plan
Posted by TheAlexJonesChannel
Posted: Jan 3, 2013
NoGuff Share Date: 1/13/13
[NCCR Editor: Yeah I know it took me awhile to read my Youtube messages.]
!!! Write Your Demand In The Comments Below!!!
Sick and tired of watching celebrities who protect themselves with armed guards, calling for the government to outlaw your guns? Please forward this video to those who think they should take your guns and make you a victim.
Contact your Congress members today and tell them to stop attempting to dismantle our Constitution and steal our 2nd Amendment rights. Find out how here:
Democide: Murder by Government — University of Hawaii
Death by Gun Control — Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Benghazigate is an issue that has NEVER been resolved. This smacks of a HUGE cover-up by the Obama Administration. Americans are left with Conspiracy Theories based on the few facts that are available.
Thanks to the petition from Causes.com and the frequent updates that are sent I became aware of that Senator Lindsey Graham is exposing that the Obama Administration is intimidating survivors of the Benghazi massacre to NOT come forward with the facts that they know which could fill in the holes not provided by the BHO Administration.
Sign the petition:
Sen. Graham claims Benghazi survivors ‘told to be quiet’ by administration
Published March 15, 2013
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, in an extensive interview with Fox News, alleged that the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack have been “told to be quiet” and feel they can’t come forward to tell their stories — as he urged the House to subpoena the administration for details if necessary.
The South Carolina senator said he’s “had contact” with some of the survivors, calling their story “chilling.” He told Fox News that “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”
The White House is denying any attempt to exert pressure on the surviving victims.
“I’m sure that the White House is not preventing anyone from speaking,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, when asked about the survivors.
But Graham said he thinks the administration is “trying to cover it up,” citing the valuable information the survivors hold.
“The best evidence of what happened in Benghazi is not a bunch of politicians in Washington trying to cover their political ass,” Graham said. “This is the people who lived through the debacle, and I’m going to do all I can to get them before the Congress and American people.”
He continued: “We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story.”
Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.
But he had pointed words for the House Republican leadership, as he urged them to issue subpoenas if the administration does not release the names of the survivors.
“To our leadership in the House, you’re gonna have to up your game on Benghazi,” he said.
For his part, Graham vowed to “make life difficult in the Senate” in order to get the information he wants, suggesting that would involve holding up nominations.
“(The public needs) to hear from people who were on the ground, their desperate situation. They need to understand from people who were there for months how bad it was getting and how frustrated they were that nobody would listen to them and provide aid when they were requested,” Graham said. “This is a story of an administration deaf and blind to the reality of what people were living with every day in Libya.”
He said they should be able to “tell their story without fear,” accusing the administration of “hiding from the American people and Congress the primary source of truth in Benghazi – people who lived through it.”
A congressional source tells Fox News that Hill staffers investigating the attack believe about 37 personnel were in Benghazi on behalf of the State Department and CIA on Sept. 11. With the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, about 33 people were evacuated. Of them, a State Department official confirmed there were three diplomatic security agents and one contractor who were injured in the assault — one seriously.
A diplomatic security source told Fox News the State Department diplomatic security agent who was in the most serious condition suffered a severe head injury during the second wave of the attack at the annex.
This agent was described as the likely State Department employee visited at Walter Reed Medical Center by Secretary of State John Kerry in January.
While not denying the details, the State Department official offered no comment on the nature of the injuries or whether the agent was visited by Kerry or Hillary Clinton before she left office.
Leading Republicans in the Senate and House have been calling on the State Department to identify the injured and make them available to congressional investigators. So far, they say their calls have gone unanswered.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said the administration has provided “zero” documents on the matter and has not provided names of those attacked.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., has gathered about 60 signatures in support of a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack. Wolf has said the committee is the most thorough and efficient approach to resolving the lingering underlying questions rather than the competing and overlapping committee jurisdictions.
Wolf, along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and leading Senate Republicans Graham, John McCain of Arizona, and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have pressed the State Department for answers.
Fox News’ Bret Baier and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
©2013 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
John R. Houk
© March 1, 2013
I’ve been following the issue of various Federal agencies loading up on guns and ammo while the Dems and the Obama Administration are thinking of ways to watch gun owners and to limit the fire power that American citizens can own. Now I have discovered that Sarah Palin also believes the Dem led government of President Barack Hussein Obama is stockpiling guns and ammo to point them at U.S. citizens if civil unrest erupts and chaos ensues after an economic collapse:
John R. Houk
© February 23, 2013
TheTeaParty.net sent a paid advertisement from the Conservative Daily with the hook that Senator James Inhofe the Republican Senator from Oklahoma is calling for an impeachment investigation of President Barack Hussein Obama of Benghazigate because of a cover-up.
Since I believe BHO is the most crooked President since Slick Willie Clinton and Tricky Dick Nixon the word ‘impeachment’ caught my attention. Unfortunately a Google search did not turn up any articles or quotes in which Senator Inhofe intended to initiate or call for investigative hearings that could lead to impeachment of President BHO. However, I can see why the word ‘impeachment’ was used as a hook with Senator Inhofe’s name. Senator Inhofe did say Benghazigate had all the appearances of a nefarious cover-up on a scale that was worse on past Presidential scandals such as Watergate, Iran-Contra and so on:
One day after Senate Republicans held a press conference to question this week’s State Department’s report on the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe said the scandal is bigger than Watergate and Iran-Contra.
“I have made a study of different cover-ups – the Pentagon Papers, Watergate and Iran-Contra. I’ve never seen anything like it. I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,” the Oklahoma Republican said in an interview Saturday night on Fox News. (Emphasis Mine – Inhofe: Benghazi cover-up bigger than Watergate, Iran-Contra; by David Eldridge; Washington Times; December 22, 2012)
When a Senator uses such strong words in reference to an Obama cover-up like, “I think this is probably the greatest cover-up, in my memory anyway,” the implication is definitely a probe leading to impeachment. We are in late February and as I write this I have not heard if Inhofe has pursued a Senate investigation that would be on the scale of the Watergate investigation that brought down President Nixon.
As far as Benghazigate goes I have written or cross posted about the potential conspiracies of Benghazigate was about the Obama Administration working a deal to send arms to al Qaeda Syria and of the angle that the Administration got cold feet on supporting al Qaeda influenced Syrian rebels and was about to allow those arms to sift through Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and into the hands of Hamas.
I had heard of other conspiracy angles as well but have not paid close attention to those angles until I tried to find if Senator Inhofe actually said he was going to pursue an impeachment investigation into Benghazigate and President Barack Hussein Obama.
This is what I discovered:
The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”
But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.
Some will say that Admiral Lyons’ accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that’s exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.
Moreover, we firmly believe the problem with Admiral Lyons’ assertion is that he is only scratching the surface the full and complete truth may be much, much worse.
… We are dealing with something much more sinister… something potentially treasonous… and the following questions, posed in an article in The New American, go to the heart of the matter: (READ IN ENTIRITY - Is This The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down?; by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown; GOP USA; 1/11/13 6:53 am)
The conspiracy implication here is Admiral Lyons believes four Americans met their deaths because the Obama Administration made a deal with al Qaeda Libya to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens then use the kidnapping as the cover deal in a prisoner exchange between Ambassador Stevens and the Blind Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman who was convicted for brainstorming the first World Trade Center bombing.
I am guessing the Foreign Policy prerogative provided by the Constitution to the Office POTUS does not cover bogus deals to release convicted felons out of jail. The cover the backside of the deal would be not to outrage the public for giving up the Blind Sheik to a bunch of Islamic murdering terrorists; ergo create a situation that placates Obama’s Islamic pals and hides the deal from the public.
That indeed would be treasonous, right?
Adding to the Benghazigate prisoner exchange Conspiracy Theory is the mysterious relieving of command of military officers who either made the attempt to ignore orders to stand down or exposed those ‘stand down’ orders given when they felt they could rescue Ambassador Stevens who did ask for help:
I would call Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, who was removed from command of the USS Stennis Carrier Group, designated Carrier Strike Group 3 (CSG-3). Gaouette was replaced over “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment” after he refused to stand down when he ordered his forces to assist ground troops being sent on a rescue mission to Benghazi. According to several stories I have read it is extremely unusual for a commander to be removed from command while at sea. The usual action is to replace them when they return to port. Admiral Gouette is reported to be in the Obama dog house for refusing to “stand down” after hearing the call for help from Ambassador Stevens during the attack caused by “a video offensive to Islam”. I would ask Admiral Gaouette what he knew and when he knew it, what his actions were in regards to the attack, and finally, when he was told to stand down and who gave that order.
The second person I would call would be General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, the top commander on the African continent. General Ham was reportedly relieved of his command and detained by his second-in-command, General David Rodriquez, when he refused to stand down in his moves to provide support to Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans at the Benghazi consulate. Rodriquez quickly received a promotion for his loyalty to the regime rather than to his fellow Americans who were under attack. After General Ham I would pull Gen. Rodriguez in for a “consultation”.
The idea that we could not intervene in an attack that lasted for 7 hours is beyond preposterous. There is much that could have been done had the regime had the desire to save those who were killed. The two Navy Seals that died disobeyed orders to help. One had a laser designator “painting” a mortar crew firing on the compound. I know enough about special operations to know he would never “lase” a target if he knew there were no assets available. (READ IN ENTIRITY - The Benghazi Hearings: A Bipartisan Whitewash; by Bob Russell; Conservative Daily News; 2/9/13)
The Obama Administration is definitely hiding something. A different state of existence is with Obama than there was with the Nixon Administration cover-up scandal; viz., the Press loves Obama and hated Nixon. Obama has gone through to major election victories in 2008 and 2012 and there was plenty of questionable issues the Mainstream Media could have asked the tough questions on issues Obama has not been forthcoming. The MSM did not ask in 2008 and 2012. I doubt they will ask post-2012.
As long as the Dems control the Senate I have grave doubts that anything to do with impeachment will come from that chamber. EVEN IF the House manages to get the correct percentage to impeach Obama it would only take 51 Senate votes to acquit President Obama of wrong doing. Clinton pulled off an impeachment acquittal in the Senate and the GOP was the majority Party at the time.
Inhoffe (sic) Confirms Benghazi Cover-up; Impeachment Next?
By Tony Adkins
Sent: February 23, 2013 12:30 PM
Sent by TheTeaParty.net
Sent from: Conservative Daily
Original posting: February 13, 2013
Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
First off, we want to thank our readers for applying pressure to Congress and demanding hearings regarding the tragic events of September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. You sent thousands of faxes and emails to Congress and those in power were forced to listen. You demanded that Hillary Clinton and Leon Pannetta testify and after months of your voices demanding answers, they were forced to speak under oath, in front of the American people.
The families of those that lost their lives are surely thanking you for your actions. But as you will see, the job is not done. We must keep pushing Congress until we justice has been served on those in our government who refused to act and allowed our citizens to be murdered at the hands terrorist savages.
At Conservative-Daily, we have been keeping you abreast of the Benghazi massacre and the questions surrounding the White House’s response. We were one of the first theorize that the Obama Administration was engaging in a cover up and we reported this cover up contemporaneously; while President Obama and his Cabinet were lying to the American public, we were one of the few media outlets raising the alarm. Not because we wanted the scoop, but because we care about our fellow Americans abroad who sacrifice their safety on a daily basis to keep our families safe. We owe them a debt of gratitude. We owe them justice.
Last week, Secretary of Defense and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Leon Pannetta testified on Capitol Hill. His testimony was as shocking as it was heart breaking. The night Americans were under attack, the night Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed and their dead bodies desecrated in the streets of Benghazi, on the night that our Embassy was under siege for more than seven hours by terrorists, President Obama was AWOL as Commander-in-Chief.
Let us be incredibly precise: according to Sec. Pannetta, on the night that four Americans were killed and our embassy was attacked, neither President Obama nor ANY White House staff contacted the Secretary of Defense nor any other person or organization that was monitoring the situation in Libya.
Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
However, President Obama was in the White House and working that evening. He made an hour long politically motivated phone call. Even as Americans were under attack and being killed, Obama was more concerned about his own ambitions. He couldn’t be bothered to give the orders to send in Marines, who were only one hour away.
Let us say that again: it was a seven-hour siege and Marines were only one hour away. President Obama refused to contact the Secretary of Defense; he knowingly and willingly let our people die proving that he is as much of a moral coward as he is a dictatorial presence in the White House.
In the days and weeks following Benghazi, there was clearly a cover up. Senator Inhoffe (sic) (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated “as bad as everything that I’ve stated is, what I think is worse is the cover-up…It was obvious from the information we had on Sept. 11 that the second wave … of attacks on the annex was unequivocally a terrorist attack, and we knew it right at the time”.
For six months Americans have demanded to know what exactly transpired in Libya on September 11, 2012. We demand to know why our countrymen died defenseless, sacrificing their lives for their country. Of course the White House won’t comment. What? Did you expect Obama to tell the truth and relinquish power? The cover up was a knee jerk response from an Administration for which such un-American activities have become commonplace.
Obama’s purposeful obfuscation is easy to understand: he had an election to steal. He didn’t want the American people to know that the Embassy lacked armed security even though it resided in a nation known for harboring terrorists and has been historically antagonistic to the United States. He didn’t want us to know that the Embassy had petitioned for added security and had been denied. He didn’t want us to know that on the day of the attack, Ambassador Stevens had begged for more security, only to be denied and then killed by the very men he feared; betrayed by the country Ambassador Stevens swore to protect. Obama wanted so badly to win this election that he allowed Americans to be killed and created a cover up surrounding the attacks.
Effectively, he committed electoral fraud and stole the election; climbing on the backs of four dead American heroes. Now, Obama the Coward sends in his Secretary’s to speak for him since he is too scared to do it himself.
Click HERE to demand a Full Congressional Investigation into the Benghazi Cover Up, including the possibility impeachment hearings and criminal charges to be levied against President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Last month, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released a damning report on the Benghazi fiasco. The report says it all; in discussing the security of the embassy and the danger in the country, the report states that Benghazi was “increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely”. This information did not lead to increased security at the Benghazi consulate or closing the operation altogether. The report called both of these options “more than justified by the intelligence presented”. In fact, the report stops just short of placing all the blame for the failed security on directly on President Obama and Secretary Clinton.
Don’t believe that President Obama and Secretary Clinton were at fault for the security failures in Benghazi? The Senate Report goes on to state that “In the months leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented.”
Let’s not forget, Libya is the same country where President Obama spiked the football after former Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi was deposed and later killed. In typical Obama fashion, he took credit for the success of others. Unfortunately, after the celebration, he didn’t bother to properly secure the American Embassy. The US Ambassador killed in the attack, J. Christopher Stevens, wrote in his diary that he was on an Al-Qaeda kill list and feared an imminent terrorist attack. Did the President or Secretary Clinton pay attention to the Ambassador’s concerns? Nope. In fact, the week before the terrorist attack, Obama didn’t bother to attend a single intelligence briefing, despite actionable intelligence warning of a possible active terror cell in Libya ready to strike American interests.
Think that’s bad? Since President Obama was first inaugurated he has skipped over 66% of his intelligence briefings. Unbelievable! In a post 9/11 world, it is unfathomable that a sitting President would care so little for the lives of the American people that he would put their safety on the backburner so that he might keep his job.
There are even reports saying that there was actionable intelligence more than a week before the tragic events transpired. Yet Obama did NOTHING. He allowed Americans to die so that he could save his job. His Presidency will forever be marred with the blood of American martyrs.
Stand with us and demand a FULL Congressional investigation into the Benghazi cover up. President Obama must answer for his actions even if that requires impeachment. Lives have been lost, lies told, and injustice has been served. It is time Congress reigns in the Obama Administration. Barack Obama must not be allowed to use dead American patriots as cannon fodder. Demand CRIMINAL charges for any wrongdoing. We hope that you will stand with us. Our fallen patriots deserve better and we hope you will add your voice to ours so that their sacrifice won’t be made in vain. Fax Congress today and demand a full investigation!
Benghazigate and Impeachment
John R. Houk
© February 23, 2013
Inhoffe (sic) Confirms Benghazi Cover-up; Impeachment Next?
Shuffling Madness Media, Parker, CO 80134
Copyright 2012 Shuffling Madness Media. All rights reserved.
We are Conservative
We believe in “We the People of the United States”. Many areas in our government have gone awry. But we the people can fix it. We can exercise our rights to contact and influence our elected officials. We can vote. We can speak out; not with negative sound bites but with sincere love for our nation. At Conservative Daily, we are dedicated to the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States of America. We focus on the United States constitution and the Bill of Rights as our foundation. We are dedicated to maintaining freedom and liberty for all Americans and … READ THE REST
Copyright © 2012 – 2013 Conservative Daily. All rights reserved.
Yesterday I fumed over the imperious and contemptible fashion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton skated through Senate questioning about the Benghazigate failings. Joseph Farah voices the same observations about Hillary yet with a more polished journalistic style than I.
Yesterday I posted some ACLJ information that shares reasons that Senator Chuck Hagel should NOT be the next Secretary of Defense. Now here is some information that provides reasons that John Brennan is a horrible choice for CIA Director.
JRH 1/8/13 (Hat Tip: Danny Jeffrey)
Jihad-Denialist Nominated to Head CIA
January 8, 2013
President Obama’s determination to keep his Middle East outreach agenda alive, no matter how at odds with reality, continues. Yesterday, John Brennan, Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, was nominated to head the CIA, replacing scandal-scarred David Petraeus. “John knows what our national security demands,” Obama announced.
“John has an invaluable perspective on the forces, the history, the culture, the politics, economics, the desire for human dignity driving so much of the changes in today’s world…He knows the risks that our intelligence professionals face every day.”
At best, the 25-year CIA veteran’s record is a mixed bag. At worst, he becomes another link in the administration’s efforts to normalize relations with Islamic terrorists.
Brennan was considered to run the CIA after the president was elected for the first time in 2008. But he withdrew his name from consideration after critics derided his support for the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques, a charge he denied. “It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as the pre-emptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding,” Brennan wrote at the time.
In 2009, Brennan came under fire again, as the result of the colossal intelligence failure that allowed terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009, during which he attempted to detonate an underwear bomb. Abdulmutallab was able to board the fight despite several red flags, including intercepted conversations between Abdulmutallab and American terror cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a British visa rejection, and a warning from his own father, who went to the U.S. embassy in Abuja, where he told officials of receiving a letter in which his son talked about “sacrificing himself.”
After calls for his resignation, Brennan responded to the criticism in a USA Today editorial. “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda,” he wrote. ”Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill.” One suspects those on board Flight 253 might disagree. Yet Brennan doubled down, and insisted on treating Abdulmutallab as a criminal, rather than an enemy combatant, contending that it is “naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical,” Brennan contended.
Brennan further cemented his soft-on-terror credentials only days later in a February 13, 2010 speech at New York University law school’s Islamic Center. In front of a largely Muslim audience, he called for trying 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court. ”We are trying to push this forward as best we can, but we also need non-obstruction from certain forces in our government,” he contended. “There are stiff winds delaying us from bringing this man to justice.” Those stiff winds came from the Obama administration itself, which rejected a guilty plea from KSM in 2008, in order to try him in civilian court.
During the same speech, Brennan endorsed the administration’s determination to delete words like “jihadist” and “war on terror” from its lexicon. “They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing–absolutely nothing–holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan insisted. “We are not waging a war against terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic that will never be defeated, any more than a tactics of war will.” In another telling moment, Brennan’s first referred to Jerusalem as al-Quds, which is its Arabic name. ”In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together,” he said.
During the question and answer period, Brennan contended that a 20 percent recidivism rate for terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay prison “isn’t that bad” when compared to the American penal system. ”People sometimes use that figure, 20 percent, say ‘Oh my goodness, one out of five detainees returned to some type of extremist activity,’” Brennan said. “You know, the American penal system, the recidivism rate is up to something about 50 percent or so, as far as return to crime. Twenty percent isn’t that bad.” That Brennan could compare one-in-five hardcore terrorists returning to the task of waging war against the West with regular criminals of all kinds, demonstrates either a monumental level of naiveté, or a disingenuousness bordering on delusion.
In another speech given in May 2010 at the Nixon Center, Brennan upped the ante yet again, asserting that that “violent extremists” are victims of “political, economic and social forces.” Reuters reveals additional comments Brennan made, following his return from Lebanon:
“Hezbollah is a very interesting organization,” Brennan told a Washington conference, citing its evolution from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet. ”There is certainly the elements of Hezbollah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements,” Brennan said.”
Again, one might be forgiven for wondering what constitutes a “moderate” in an organization that has carried out a series of worldwide terror attacks over the course of decades, yearns for Israel’s annihilation and, prior to 9/11, was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organization in the world.
Unfortunately, Brennan’s infatuation with outreach is not limited to Hezbollah. In 2010, columnist Patrick Poole revealed that Hamas operative Kifah Mustapha was given a guided tour of the “National Counterterrorism Center and other secure government facilities, including the FBI’s training center at Quantico.” Mustapha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land foundation case, during which his colleagues were convicted of funding Hamas, yet another U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Center for Security Policy chief Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration official, demanded Brennan’s resignation as a result. ”The FBI gave a guided tour of one of our most sensitive counter-terrorism facilities to a known Hamas operative,” Gaffney said. “It is clear that the cluelessness fostered by Mr. Brennan is causing an empowering of the wrong sorts of Muslims in America and endangering the American people.”
Brennan penchant for revealing America’s secrets continued in 2012. When the United States thwarted another would-be underwear bomber last May, Brennan inadvertently revealed we had a double-agent working on the case when he briefed former counter-terrorism advisors who subsequently got work as TV commentators. He told them that the bomber was never a threat because America had “inside control” of the situation. The former advisors reached the inexorable conclusion shortly thereafter. May was also the month Judicial Watch finally obtained documents, via a Freedom of Information Act, from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA,) revealing that Brennan and Defense Department officials disclosed to Hollywood filmmakers the identity of the SEAL Team Six operator and commander involved in taking out Osama Bin Laden. A transcript of a meeting held July 14, 2011, reveals that ”documents seemingly reference John O. Brennan, Chief Counterterrorism Advisor to President Obama and Denis McDonough, who serves as President Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor.”
“These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected film makers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign.”
All of the above suggests that John Brennan is, at the least, an extremely dubious pick to head the CIA. But a story by Associated Press columnist Kimberly Dozier entitled, “Who Will US Drones Target? Who Will Decide?” paints an even more disturbing picture of Brennan, who she contends has “seized the lead in guiding the debate on which terror leaders will be targeted for drone attacks or raids, establishing a new procedure to vet both military and CIA targets. The move concentrates power over the use of lethal U.S. force outside war zones at the White House,” she writes. She further noted that while some intelligence officials are comfortable with the new process, others expressed concern about ”how easy it has become to kill someone.”
PJ Media’s Patrick Poole puts it more directly: “John Brennan is the man under whom President Obama has consolidated the unprecedented power of assassination. He directly controls and oversees all aspects of the program that had been previously divided between the Pentagon, the CIA, and other officials,” he writes.
A soft-on-terror approach, combined with an appetite for unprecedented powers, makes John Brennan a perfect fit for a president with the same proclivities. So does a dubious mixture of incompetence and arrogance. It remains to be seen whether the Senate thinks such qualities work for the nation as a whole. Since the Senate is controlled by Democrats, one suspects that Brennan’s confirmation will be little more than a formality.
Copyright © 2012 · FRONTPAGEMAG.COM
John R. Houk
© December 6, 2012
Have you ever heard of the Bilderbergers? A group powerful politicians and wealthy people primarily from Europe and the USA have a semi-secret and an absolutely closed meeting on an annual basis. This group that meets annually has derived its name because the first known meeting place was the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands.
A webpage that bills itself as the official website and is labeled Bilderberg Meetings can be read HERE. There is a huge amount of Conspiracy Theory websites that describe the Bilderbergers as a New World Order agenda group. I am using the Jeremiah Project merely because that is first the website I looked when I Googled “Bilderberger.” The Jeremiah Project writes about the nefarious nature of the Bilderbergers and can be read HERE.
Well check this out! Are you aware the Obama Administration has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a series of semi-secret meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to participate in “classified” (i.e. Closed Meetings) to negotiate about criminalizing criticism of Islam? The meetings are called the Istanbul Process. I found a good summary about the Istanbul Process on the Gates of Vienna. Read the entire article but I think you can get the idea of the Istanbul Process and its agenda. Hillary Clinton is negotiating compliance (translate as dhimmitude) to this process which is a threat to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The objective of my presentation is to explain the role plaid by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, OIC, and its several attempts to try to ban freedom of expression on Islam across the world.
First, I will explain what is the OIC and what are its goals
Secondly I will develop the freedom- killing Islamic concept of “defamation of religions” supported by OIC and partly by the UN;
Third I will finish with the “Istanbul process” and the western reaction against OIC anti-freedom and theocratic agenda.
Below is an email from ACT for America that is just as much a fund raiser as it is informative. The part I want you to really take notice of is the “informative.” ACT for America is sending an article by Nina Shea that I noticed was actually picked up by a number media websites. After reading the informative it would not hurt to add a bit of support for ACT for America.
State Dept., OIC assault on free speech
Sent by ACT for America
Sent: 12/5/2012 2:22 PM
Obama Administration cooperates with the OIC’s assault on free speech!
If you cherish our First Amendment right of free speech, we urge you, as strongly as we can, to read the article below by Nina Shea about the Istanbul Process (highlights added), which was recently posted on National Review Online.
For over 18 months now, the Obama administration has been working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on what is known as the Istanbul Process.
The Istanbul Process has evolved into an assault on our free speech so serious that next year ACT! for America will launch a national campaign to expose what is happening and fight back against it.
It’s simply not possible to overstate how serious a threat this is to our First Amendment.
You can help us prepare now for next year’s national campaign, by making a year-end contribution to ACT! for America’s 5th anniversary appeal, which we announced in September.
Simply go online here, make a $5 or more monthly commitment to ACT! for America’s Patriot Partner program, or a $30 or more single gift. When you do, you’ll be entered in a drawing to win one of two chances to have Brigitte Gabriel visit your community and meet with you and up to 25 of your friends.
You can also make a single gift by printing out a reply form here and mailing your contribution.
We urge you, please, read the article below and help us prepare for next year’s campaign to protect free speech with your most generous contribution.
Because even if America succeeds in preventing every future terrorist attack, if we lose our freedom to speak out against radical Islam, a central tenet of sharia law will prevail in America and put a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment.
Here’s just one quote from the column below:
Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West [to] give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam.
By Nina Shea.
Round three of the “Istanbul Process” opens today, December 3, and runs through Wednesday, at Canada House, in London, hosted by the U.K. and Canada. The Istanbul Process is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s major transnational law initiative, undertaken in partnership with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). It was established last year to “implement” measures against speech and expression that negatively “stereotype[s]” Islam and Muslims, with a particular emphasis on enacting them in the West.
This initiative was started as an inexplicable, gratuitous gift to the Muslim world following the March 2011 adoption of a non-binding U.N. Human Rights Council resolution (16/18) on the same theme. While the Obama administration claims that it doesn’t intend for the process to adopt regulations beyond the American free-speech standard, our partner, the OIC, is only too eager to do just that.
For over a decade within the U.N., the OIC has relentlessly pushed for a universal law to punish blasphemy, or “defamation,” of Islam. This 56-member-state organization, an essentially religious body, is in fact chartered to “combat defamation of Islam.” It issues fatwas and other directives to punish public expression of apostasy from Islam. Its current action plan calls for “deterrent punishments” in all states for “Islamophobia,” a term that encompasses a broad range of constitutionally protected speech, judging from the OIC website’s black list of Americans and other perpetrators of “Islamophobia.” The OIC’s stated understanding of the Istanbul Process is that it will “help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”
Corner readers will remember that the Istanbul Process’s first conference was co-chaired by Clinton and the OIC secretary general in July 2011, in Istanbul, with the foreign ministers of the Muslim countries in attendance. The second was held over three days of closed-door meetings last December, at the offices of the U.S. Department of State in Washington. That meeting drew enough controversy within free-speech circles to raise questions about whether the process would continue. But thanks to a leak last week by OIC head Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, we now know the event will go ahead, even if its agenda is still being treated like it’s “classified.”
Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam. This puts our diplomats in a tight spot: Unlike virtually every other country represented in the conference hall, America does not protect any religion or any other body of ideas from criticism and ridicule. However, when we’re in the dock this time around, the U.S., represented by Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook, the administration’s severely marginalized ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, will have some measure of “progress” to report.
For example, the U.S.’s top intelligence official and its top commander in Afghanistan were again deployed to suppress blasphemy against Islam in Florida and, this time around, they succeeded. Last year, the efforts of our top authorities to stop Florida micro-church pastor Terry Jones from desecrating a Koran ended in failure. But this year, their resort to the “good offices” of Tampa socialite Jill Kelley proved an effective strategy. Her persuasive emails resulted in Florida talk-show host Bubba the Love Sponge’s standing down from deep frying a Koran, something he had threatened to do on-air. The OIC’s Ihsanoglu would likely rule Bubba was about to “abuse” freedom of expression by not being able (incontrovertibly, I should note) to pass a “responsible use” test.
That leads to our next plea: The administration has also adopted the OIC’s own standard of condemning the “abuse of free expression.” Or at least that is what it appeared to do on the website of the pivotal U.S. embassy to Egypt on September 11 this year. Our embassy declared on its homepage: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
But perhaps, the best evidence of America’s “implementation” in response to the Istanbul Process is the Justice Department’s dispatching the FBI a couple months ago to investigate Mark Basseley Youssef (a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or Sam Bacile), the California Coptic filmmaker of “Innocence of Muslims,” the YouTube trailer that blasphemed the Muslim prophet. As Ambassador Cook can point out, this investigation has resulted in a creative criminal conviction of Youssef, and his being sentenced by a federal court to a year in prison. All the better for the U.S.’s reputation as implementers is that it will be lost on the conferees that Youssef has been imprisoned on a probation offense, à la Al Capone — though, unlike Capone, his underlying offense, without which he would not have been investigated, was making a crude, insulting video, which is hardly equivalent in American law to gangland massacres or racketeering. It, in fact, is not a crime at all. Thus, most important, the OIC’s take-away will be that in defense of Islam the U.S. government can and will regulate speech.
Nevertheless, none of this is likely to impress the Istanbul Process gathering. On its opening day last December, Saudi Arabia — headquarters to and godfather of the OIC — beheaded a Sudanese woman for “sorcery.” Last week, Egypt sentenced to death Youssef, Terry Jones, and six other Americans implicated in the blasphemous YouTube trailer. For the Istanbul Process that’s “best practices” for “implementation.” Thus, again, America will be judged to have fallen short, indignation will rise, and the Istanbul Process will need to ramp up its pressure.
— Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and co-author with Paul Marshall of Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide.
Obama Rendering Constitution to Dhimmitude to the OIC
John R. Houk
© December 6, 2012
State Dept., OIC assault on free speech
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Tony Newbill does not often dwell on the danger of Radical Islam and its offshoot Islamic Terrorism, but below he delves into the heinous scandal that the Obama Administration is trying to cover-up.
The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate?
Sent: 10/23/2012 7:03 AM
The Real Reason Behind Benghazigate? President Obama why can’t you tell us the truth? Is it because you misjudged who it was you are trying to build an alliance with in the Middle East???
President Obama’s sign of Foreign Policy inexperience?
Sent: 10/23/2012 7:56 AM
President Obama’s sign of Foreign Policy inexperience: Is US Foreign Policy an Act of Strength or Appeasement in the 21st Century? A Red Carpet for Radicals at the White House:
Obama Makes an Issue of Romnesia yet Forgets Own Lack of Memory
Sent: 10/24/2012 9:18 PM
With President Obama making a big spectacle out of Romnesia it’s only fair that we consider the Commander in Chiefs own issue of remembering his affairs …..
From the Website of Arlen Williams – Gulag Bound
If you’re up half the night due to terrorism that kills 4 of your best people and the next day go campaigning & blaming a film, you might have HUSSEINESIA!
If YOU blurt out the USA has 57 states, which is the number of nations in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) YOU may have HUSSEINESIA!
If you say the man who worked with you & promoted you the most in Chicago is “just a guy~ in my neighborhood,” you may have HUSSEINESIA!
If you constantly accuse your opponent of lying, when it is you telling the nasty tale, you may have HUSSEINESIA!
If you keep forgetting where your real Birth Certificate & Passport are, you may have HUSSEINESIA!
If in an interview, YOU blurt out “my Muslim faith,” & the interviewer has to correct you, saying “my Christian faith,” YOU may have HUSSEINESIA!
If YOU travel around the world apologizing for “arrogant” America but forget to drop by Israel in your entire presidency YOU may have HUSSEINESIA!
Sent: 10/26/2012 8:53 AM
WOW we cannot let these HEROS just be Casualties of an 8 Hour FIRE FIGHT that NO ONE came to their Aid after days weeks and months of Requests were made for Help with Their Security!!
Obama Foreign Policy, Muslim Brotherhood and Selling U.S. Soul for Appeasement
Sent: 10/26/2012 10:24 AM
This President’s Foreign Policy is all about appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood and selling our Nation’s Soul to that appeasement Cause and it’s time for Change!!!!!
It’s TIME to expose this Lack of leadership for what it is; viz., the attempt to the assimilation the Western Nations into what is perceived as a Society of Radical Islamists who this President and his Party is afraid. And rather than stand for Individual Liberty Rights they think it would be better to just submit to the Threat of War with these Ideologues and call it a Peace policy!!!
Look at the Pattern this President is creating. Every time Obama makes a Gain in the War of Respect between these Radicals and the USA effort to secure stability, they turn the other way and some Atrocity occurs. Like the SEALs that got wasted [The Conspiracy Theory] after the Bin Ladin raid or this time when these SEALs were chasing down the [chemical] weapons that Qaddafi [The Conspiracy Theory] had and that these radical Islamists wanted. That’s what this is all about, the proof is out there. [Editor: Links in this paragraph provided by John R. Houk]
Appeasing the radical Islamists’ desires to draw Blood like pawns in the chess game of Liberty versus Domination is traded back and forth. Enough is enough of this appeasement parade of Foreign Policy!!!!!!
Edited by John R. Houk
Here are some images the Mainstream Media will not show to protect their Left Wing President from the fall out of the American voter on November 6, 2012. Think cover-up!
JRH 10/22/12 (Hat Tip Vicki)
U.S. Ambassador Stephens
Sent by Vicki
Sent: Oct 14, 2012 at 3:46 PM
It appears to me that the White House Staff – doing nothing – is unforgivable!!!!
These are pictures you will not see in the Obama media. Our US Ambassador to Libya was being dragged through the streets before his death. Here is our American Ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, diplomat, father, husband, and American Citizen, being dragged through the streets of Benghazi, and your President does NOTHING! – Except Obama did go to Las Vegas for a fund raiser plus two more afterwards.
PHOTO: STEVENS DRAGGED THROUGH BENGHAZI STREETS
PHOTO: STEVENS DRAGGED THROUGH BENGHAZI STREETS 2
To most Americans this is an act of war. To our President it’s just another act of office violence like Fort Hood. He and the Secretary of State have already apologized and will soon send them another $6.3 Billion in foreign aid. This is as sad as it gets.
God bless that brave Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died after being dragged through the streets by people we put in power.
John R. Houk
© October 3, 2012
Recently WorldNetDaily posted a two part audio interview with Nonie Darwish. Darwish is an ex-Muslim turned Counterjihad writer and speaker. It is quite fascinating that Muslim Apologists and Leftist pundit are all about spewing junk about former Muslims that have turned to exposing the darker nature of Islam. These guys twist and/or fabricate facts to give themselves the soapbox to call ex-Muslims liars. Muslims of the purist fashion and Leftists lack credibility. Muslims are instructed in taqiyya and Leftists lie to fool people to believe their utopia ends without notifying the means usually require a total transformation of society by a combination of slow sucker changes and/or deadly violence.
Nonie Darwish is one of those people loathed by Leftists and Muslim Apologists alike. There is never any proof about falsehood about any ex-Muslim Counterjihad writer, rather the accusation of faker or hoax is surmised by people that have a reason to lie or facts are so twisted as to be unrecognized as valid.
LoonWatch.com is no friend of Conservatives or Counterjihad writers. Here is an example of trash talking about Darwish which is obviously a stretch in drawing conclusions of liar:
We are going to have an explosive breakdown of the clownish Nonie Darwish, another charlatan akin to Wafa Sultan [SlantRight Editor: undoubtedly same unsubstantiated drivel that is here about Nonie Darwish] who is milking the Islamophobic cash cow for all it’s worth. Jim Holstun, a professor at SUNY Buffalo wrote this great piece in 2008 that lays bear (sic) Nonie’s excessive Islamophobia, as well as her contradictions and lies.
… Darwish interweaves stories of her Egyptian girlhood with potted accounts of female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, polygamy, veiling, domestic abuse, honor killings, sharia law, jihad, censorship, hate-oriented education, the rejection of modernity, the cult of martyrdom, Islamic imperialism, and the pathological, groundless hatred of Israel. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun is insinuating that the Egypt of the 1950’s did not have the described degenerate thinking. History and current events proves this was the truth then as much as now]
In her interviews and in her book, she insists that she is not anti-Arab or anti-Islamic, and even suggests from time to time that she is still a Muslim. Then she pivots nimbly and attacks “the Arab mind,” “the seething Arab street,” and “the Muslim world,” with its “culture of jihad,” “culture of death,” and “culture of envy.” [SlantRight Editor: Holstun confuses lack of animosity to former fellow Egyptians and criticism of Arab-Islamic culture as one and the same thing. This is pure manipulative propaganda by Holstun because criticism and a lack of grudge can be two separate things] There are “no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims,” and no significant differences within or among Arab or Muslim cultures: for Darwish, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s secular Arab nationalism was essentially jihadist. Darwish is allergic to social history: “I realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a crisis over land, but a crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity.” Instead of history, scholarship, and footnotes, she gives us a watered-down version of Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind: a dictionary of Islamophobic [SlantRight Editor: Typical of Muslim Apologists and Leftists if one presents facts that are critical of Islam the conclusion that person is ‘Islamophobic’]commonplaces underwritten by the authority of an ex-Muslim native informant: I was there — I know.
Darwish’s portraits of Israel and of the US, to which she emigrated in 1978, are diametrically opposite but equally fatuous: Israeli Jews are tolerant, pragmatic, and peace-loving. From 1967 to 1982, they made the Sinai bloom. Americans are honest, charitable, industrious, self-sufficient, intellectually curious, and benevolent toward the foreign nations to whom they bring liberty. They err only in their excess of credulous goodness: because of “the simplicity of American values such as truthfulness,” they risk falling prey to duplicitous jihadist immigrants and dangerous professors, who “indoctrinate American young people with the radical Muslim agenda.” [SlantRight Editor: I see that sarcasm and raise the truth to Holstun: Compare the lifestyle of an Arab-Muslim living inside Israel or America with the lifestyle of a Jew or Christian living in Egypt. What a putz]
Her outsider’s view of America complements her insider’s view of the Arab and Muslim world, for imperial states want not only other people’s land and labor, but their love. Here, we may compare Now They Call Me Infidel not only to recent anti-Islamic conversion narratives like Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel (her conversion was to neoconservative atheism and the American Enterprise Institute), but to earlier works in the genre. In her 1964 Editions Gallimard autobiography, O mes soeurs musulmanes, pleurez! (O My Muslim Sisters, Weep!), Zoubeida Bittari recounts her escape from Algerian Muslim patriarchy to French Christian bliss as a domestic servant to a Pied-Noir family; Nonie Darwish finds friends, family, and faith in southern California, including a Republican women’s group, an American husband, and Christian fellowship in Pastor Dudley Rutherford’s Shepherd of the Hills Church. As Bittari helped French colons feel better about their ungratefully rebuffed civilizing mission in Algeria, so Darwish helps Americans feel better about the long and bumpy road to global democratization. [SlantRight Editor: She may have become a Neocon – I don’t have a problem with that – it is a pure lie that she became an atheist. Although I longer believe Western representative democratic values will take in a land dominated by Islam, take not that Holstun writes of ‘global democratization’ as if it was a bad thing. When you get to the end of this quote you will understand why.]
There are occasional flashes of something more individual and authentic in Darwish’s book. For instance, her reiterated heartfelt attack on Nasser’s rent control laws (her mother lived partly off of her Cairo rentals) helps us understand why she feels so much more at home in southern California, where she arrived with enough money to buy a house with a swimming pool. But as a whole, the book is tedious, predictable, and badly edited — born to be bought, scanned and displayed, not actually read. But this will not diminish the demand for Darwish as a lecturer, which derives not from her writing but from her parentage: her father was Colonel Mustafa Hafez, head of Egyptian army intelligence in the Gaza Strip in the early ’50s, who was killed by an Israeli letter bomb in July 1956. Every lecture notice, every interview, even the title page of her book announces her as “a Muslim Shahid’s Daughter.” [SlantRight Editor: Note Holstun’s cynicism toward the gains of Capitalism. Also note the hubris of I’m better than Darwish because of I have a Left Wing college education – Leftist elitism.]
Throughout her book, Darwish struggles to maintain love and loyalty both to the father she lost at age eight and to the Israeli state that killed him. In a parting flourish, she says that “My father — and potentially my whole family — was sent to his death in Gaza by Nasser, who was consumed by his desire to destroy Israel,” and she fondly imagines him surviving and flying with assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to Israel. But this argument sometimes requires a torturous chronology: “When, on January 16, 1956, Nasser vowed a renewed offensive to destroy Israel, the pressure on my father to step up operations increased. More fedayeen groups were organized, and their training expanded to other areas of the Gaza Strip. Often my father was gone for days at a time. In an attempt to end the terror, Israel sent its commandos one night to our heavily guarded home.”
The problem here is that this early, failed assassination attempt occurred in 1953, when Hafez was struggling to prevent destabilizing Palestinian infiltration from Gaza into Israel. Things changed dramatically in February 1955, when then military commander Ariel Sharon’s Gaza raid killed 37 Egyptian soldiers and wounded 31. This raid brought shocked international condemnation, the end of Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett’s ongoing negotiations with Nasser, mass demonstrations of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, and Nasser’s decision to have Hafez organize and arm Palestinian fedayeen for cross-border forays. Israeli historians Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris see the raid as a turning point in Israeli-Arab relations. Darwish never mentions it. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun would have you believe Sharon’s commando raid was an unprovoked slaughter of Arab-Muslim men, women and children:
The year 1955 heralded a significant increase in border tension and bloodshed. On February 28 1955, in an operation named Black Arrow, the IDF killed thirty-six Egyptian troops (plus two civilians) and wounded thirty others during a raid on an Egyptian military barracks in Gaza in direct response to the murder of an Israeli cyclist, not far from Rehovot. Identity papers accidentally dropped by the Arab intruders indicated that they were in the service of Egyptian intelligence.
Regardless of the criticism to which Israel was subject, there is no gainsaying the fact that it was the murder of a Jewish cyclist near Rehovot, by Egyptian intelligence agents illicitly reconnoitring in Israeli territory, that finally sparked the Gaza confrontation. As the historian David Tal remarked, “it is probably safe to say that without the murderous attack that preceded it, the Gaza raid would not have eventuated.” The killing of the cyclist was not an isolated occurrence. Since May 1954, the Egyptian army had been sending its men into Israel with malicious intent. Just over a month before the Gaza raid, that is on January 21, an IDF soldier was killed by a twelve-man Egyptian army unit and a few days later two Israeli tractor drivers were fired upon, leading to the death of one of them and the wounding of the other. Benny Morris, a scholar well known for exposing negative aspects of the IDF, viewed the Egyptian raids as demonstrating “a growing belligerency and adventurousness among Egyptian officials.” Morris’ version is in keeping with Glubb’s summation that from 1954 onwards, “incidents in the Gaza strip became far more numerous than those on the Jordan front.” This was because “the Egyptian revolutionary government were desirous of incidents, for they were posing as the great military power which was about to defeat Israel.”
Kennet Love, a confidant of Nasser insisted that the Gaza raid “transformed a stable level of minor incidents between the two countries (Israel and Egypt) into a dialogue of mounting fear and violence.” What he did not explain was why Israel ought to have tolerated the continuation of “a stable level of minor incidents,” when the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement committed both sides to a total cessation of hostilities. In any case, it would seem that the Egyptians had every intention of ultimately escalating the border conflict into a full-scale war. Confirmation for this was forthcoming from Major Saleah Saleh a member of the Egyptian Government. On January 9, 1955, nearly two months before the Gaza raid, he declared that “Egypt will strive to erase the shame of the Palestine War even if Israel should fulfil all UN resolutions. It will not sign a peace with her. Even if Israel should consist only of Tel Aviv, we should never put up with that.” (The Source of Arab Infiltration; by Leslie A. Stein; Think Israel, 2009)]
Continuing with her discussion of the earlier undated raid on her family’s home (it actually occurred on 28-29 August 1953), she says, “My father was not at home that night, and the Israelis found only women and children — my mother, two maids, and five small children. The commandos left us unharmed. I personally did not even wake up or know of the incident until later in life, when I read a book written about my father. After I read it, I called my mother immediately, and she confirmed the story. The Israelis chose not [to] kill us even though the Egyptian-organized fedayeen did kill Israeli civilians, women and children.”
Young Nonie must have been a very sound sleeper, since one squad blew the gate off her house, injuring several civilians, and, by one account, proceeded to demolish the house. Grown-up Nonie seems not to know that the Israeli commandos were part of Ariel Sharon’s newly-organized Unit 101. While the one squad attacked her house, Sharon’s was cornered nearby in al-Bureij refugee camp. He decided they would bomb and shoot their way through the camp rather than retreat from it. General Vagn Bennike, the Danish UN Truce Chief, reported to the Security Council on the ensuing massacre: “Bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons. The casualties were 20 killed, 27 seriously wounded, and 35 less seriously wounded.” Other sources estimate from 15 to 50 fatalities.
The Israeli army blamed the raid on rogue kibbutzniks, and Ariel Sharon tried to reassure his men, telling them that all the dead women were camp whores or murderous Palestinian infiltrators. But some of them remained shocked at what they had done. Participant Meir Barbut said they felt as if they were slaughtering the pathetic inhabitants of a Jewish transit camp: “The boys threw Molotov cocktails at [innocent] people, not at the saboteurs we had come to punish. It was shameful for the 101 and the IDF [Israel army].” Another asked, “Is this screaming, whimpering multitude … the enemy? … How did these fellahin sin against us?” In 2006, Palestinian journalist Laila El-Haddad interviewed a survivor for Al Jazeera English:
“Mohammad Nabahini, 55, was two at the time and lived in the camp. He survived the attack in the arms of his slain mother. ‘My father decided to stay behind when they attacked. He hid in a pile of firewood and pleaded with my mother to stay with him. She was too afraid, and fled with hundreds of others, only to return to take me and a few of her belongings with her,’ he said. ‘As she was escaping, her dress got caught in a fence around the camp, just over there,’ he gestured, near a field now covered with olive trees. ‘And then they threw a bomb at her, Sharon and his men. She tossed me on the ground behind her before she died.’”
Though Darwish never mentions it, the al-Bureij Massacre hasn’t exactly been a secret — both Zionist and anti-Zionist historians have described it clearly, with little disagreement save the number of fatalities, with the high-end estimate coming from an Israeli history. If it tends not to loom large in Palestinian historical memory, that’s because it was overshadowed just two months later by the Qibya Massacre, during which Sharon’s Unit 101 killed 67, women and children, demolishing buildings over their heads and shooting them down when they tried to flee — the tactic pioneered at al-Bureij. Given its propensity for civilian soft targets, this daredevil elite unit might be better described as a death squad. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun demonstrate just how ignorant on how the Middle East uses deterrents to influence families, tribal affiliations and governments. If harm is perpetrated vengeance is required on a scale to influence the perpetrators to refrain from harm because of the consequences.
Honour in feuding societies, thus, became a kind of heritage that passes from generation to generation and if any damage is caused, it may authorize family or community members to retaliate against an offender pending the restoration of the initial ‘balance of honour’ that preceded the perceived injury. This cycle of honor traverses its margins and brings at first family members and then the entire community into the brand-new cycle of revenge that may pervade generations.
Unlike Western countries, the Middle East ‘cultivates a collective existence,’ 34 and thus any affront leads to a collective responsibility that is shared by all the members of the community. Collective revenge may be implemented against nations or groups, blaming them for the perceived damage and ignoring the personal responsibility of each member individually. Revenge of this type can be an instrument in leaders’ hands that may use it as an excuse to act in accordance with their own interests. (Revenge-the Volcano of Despair: The Story of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; by Helena Yakovlev Golani; Excerpts; Academia © 2012)
We contend that three main factors may induce a dynamic link between violent incidents on the two sides of the con!ict (sic). First, violence by one side can have an incapacitation effect, if it limits the other side’s capability to react. For example, Israeli targeted killings of key Palestinian leaders might reduce Palestinians’ ability to carry out further attacks against Israel; this is the stated Israeli rationale for such actions. Second, violence can have a deterrent effect, when one side refrains from using violence in fear of the other side’s reaction. Finally, violence by one side can lead to a reaction by the other side through a vengeance effect, to the extent that one side wishes to dispense retribution in response to the fatal casualties it suffers. (The Cycle of Violence? An Empirical Analysis of Fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict; II. Theoretical and Empirical Framework; By David A. Jaeger & M. Daniele Paserman; American Economic Review 2008, 98:4, 1591–1604)]
We probably shouldn’t expect Nonie Darwish to alter her campus presentations anytime soon. The bookings by StandWithUs might dry up if she were to start supplementing her cautionary tales about sharia law, jihadi immigrants, and female genital mutilation with a serious discussion of Israeli massacres at Deir Yassin, Tantura, al-Bureij, Qibya, Kfar Qasim, Sabra and Shatila, and Beit Hanoun. [SlantRight Editor: As I said before Israeli attacks are responses to Islamic Terrorism with the intention to show that Israel has the ability to smack Jew-haters with extreme prejudice if Jew-haters continue in acts of terrorism. This sounds harsh by Western standards but it is the way of life in the Middle East especially by a society constructed by Islamic Supremacism over the old Christian Culture replaced by conquest.] In any case, Darwish prefers simple cultural generalities and intimate personal reflection to historical analysis. But since that’s the case, someone at her next lecture might ask if she remembers playing with any of the refugee children murdered at al-Bureij, and why the kindly Israeli commandos who spared her family decided to blow up Mohammad Nabahini’s mother.
Jim Holstun teaches world literature and Marxism at SUNY Buffalo and can be reached at jamesholstun A T hotmail D O T com. [SlantRight Editor: Take note that Jim Holstun teaches Marxism and I suspect Holstun’s teaching of world literature is through the eyes of Marxism as well.]
LoonWatch.com is just one example of how Leftist and Islamic Apologists warp the truth about Conservative and Counterjihad writers and speakers.
Here is a Nonie Darwish bio found on the Directors’ page of Former Muslims United (Just scroll down a bit and Darwish is the first bio).
I had to go through all this justification to get to the WorldNetDaily article that has two audios of an interview with Nonie Darwish. Here at SlantRight 2.0 I am posting the WND text followed by two audio links. WND has one audio at the top and part two on the bottom.