Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails; Material on Radical Islam “Purged,” Outstanding Army Officer “Disciplin ed,” – TMLC Enters Case

In effect, our own government is applying Islamic Sharia law to prevent any criticism of Islam. The chill on instruction is already happening at the Joint Forces Command College of the National Defense University, to which LTC Dooley is assigned.

Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert, recently commented on General Dempsey’s order:

“The final bastion of America’s defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam.

All U.S. military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau and Joint Staff are under Dempsey’s Muslim Brotherhood-dictated orders to ensure that henceforth, no U.S. military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive (or just too informative). To all intents and purposes, DoD Secretary Leon E. Panetta likewise has acquiesced to a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of U.S. military education.”

In an astonishing and unprecedented Pentagon News Conference on May 10, 2012 carried nationally on C-SPAN, General Dempsey, with Secretary of Defense Panetta sitting at his side, personally attacked LTC Dooley, a subordinate Army officer who honorably served our Nation, and was subsequently prohibited from publicly defending himself.

Once LTC Dooley’s name was publicly revealed, immediate threats to him and his family prompted security measures to be taken for their protection.

The administrative disciplinary procedures against LTC Dooley included removal from his teaching assignment and withdrawal of an outstanding Officer Evaluation Report (OER) concerning the elective course he had been teaching at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC) entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism. However, the course content critical of Islam as an ideology, the guest speakers and their methods of instruction were all pre-approved by the JFSC years ago.


It Begins: Reid Proposes Changing Filibuster Rules

By Guy Benson


No one should be the least bit surprised; Reid’s been talking about this for awhile, and even moved unilaterally to alter long-standing Senate rules to shield his members from difficult votes last year (mission accomplished). Filibuster "reform:" Coming soon to a Senate near you?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills. Speaking in the wake of Tuesday’s election, which boosted Senate Democrats’ numbers slightly, Mr. Reid said he won’t end filibusters altogether but that the rules need to change so that the minority party cannot use the legislative blocking tool as often. “I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,” he told reporters. “Were not going to do away with the filibuster but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place.” Republicans, who have 47 of the chamber’s 100 seats in this current Congress, have repeatedly used that strong minority to block parts of President Obama’s agenda on everything from added stimulus spending to his judicial picks.

A filibuster takes 60 senators to overcome it. Leaders of both parties have been reluctant to change the rules because they value it as a tool when they are in the minority. But Mr. Reid said things changed over the last few years when he repeatedly faced off against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who had said his chief political goal was defeating Mr. Obama. Mr. Reid said that led the GOP to abuse the filibuster.

Reid’s rationale is faulty and hypocritical. I suspect he knows this, but doesn’t care — after all, his underhanded tactics and dereliction of duty was rewarded at the polls. The historic uptick in attempted and threatened Republican "filibusters" (or some variant thereof) has correlated directly with Reid’s strong-arm tactics as majority leader. To an unprecedented degree, Reid has denied the minority the right to even offer amendments to legislation, meaning that Republicans would have no input in the structure or content of these laws. Reid has employed this maneuver, known as "filling the amendment tree," more than his six immediate predecessors combined. The reason he’s done so is to prevent the GOP from advancing amendments that would paint Democrats into difficult political corners, a check on power that Senate minorities from both parties have used for decades. Republicans essentially argued that if Reid insists on shutting them out of the legislation-crafting process, their only remaining recourse is threatening to block the entire bill, hence their filibuster "abuse." The best solution to this problem would be for the Senate leadership to hammer out a compromise that would significantly curb the majority "filling the tree," in exchange for the minority curtailing their filibuster posturing. Are our leaders capable of this? Four final points:

(1) Even if Republicans were itching to "abuse" the filibuster to shut down a Democratic budget, they couldn’t. Budgets only require a simple majority to pass. Democrats have held a simple majority in the Senate for six years. They haven’t even attempted to pass a budget for the last three. The purpose, again, was to avoid putting their own unpopular ideas on paper, thus liberating them to simply criticize the other side’s solutions. This cynical ploy was vindicated on election day, sadly.

(2) Democrats cite Republicans’ inexcusable obstruction of President Obama’s judicial appointments as a pressing cause for change. In fact, the GOP has used the judicial filibuster sparingly (their frustration over this form of filibuster nearly triggered filibuster changes in 2005), adhering to the bipartisan "Gang of 14" compromise, as well as the so-called Thurmond/Leahy rule (under which the opposition blocks judicial appointments in the months leading up to a presidential election).

(3) When some Republicans proposed the "nuclear option" to limit filibusters of judicial appointees by changing the rules during the Bush years, Democrats melted down. This idea amounted to a mortal threat to the republic, they argued in hysterical floor speeches. California’s Diane Feinstein gravely warned that the Republican plan would put the Senate on a slippery slope — ultimately leading to tampering with the sacred legislative filibuster…which is precisely what Reid is moving to do now.

(4) Maybe Reid can also work on abolishing the House of Representatives while he’s at it.

WND: Obama’s Benghazi investigator tied to Libya bombing


JERUSALEM – The Obama administration’s lead investigator into the Benghazi attack, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, previously held clandestine meetings with Hamas aimed at opening U.S. dialogue with the terrorist group, according to informed Middle Eastern security officials.

Sources within Hamas previously disclosed to WND the June 2009 meeting. The gathering allegedly took place in Geneva with two Hamas leaders, Bassem Naim and Mahmoud al-Zahar. Naim is Hamas’ health minister, while al-Zahar is one of the main Hamas leaders in Gaza.

Pickering is further tied to the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa through his role as a member of the small board of the International Crisis Group, or ICG, one of the main proponents of the international “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.

The doctrine is the very military protocol used to justify the NATO bombing campaign that brought down Moammar Ghadafi’s regime in Libya.

Gareth Evans, president emeritus of the ICG, is the founder and co-author of the doctrine.

Billionaire activist George Soros is on the ICG’s executive board. Soros’ Open Society Institute is also one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, the group that devised the doctrine.

The ICG itself has long petitioned for talks with Hamas as well as normalized relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, for years urging the Egyptian government to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party, as WND previously reported.

The crisis group has petitioned for the Algerian government to cease “excessive” military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Get Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice,” the New York Times bestseller called the most important book of the election season

Pickering’s meeting with Hamas in 2009 served as an “important step” to open eventual dialogue between the Islamic group and the Obama administration, Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, Ahmed Yousef, told WND that year.

At the time, the State Department told the Jerusalem Post the meeting between Pickering and Hamas was not sanctioned by the White House and that official U.S. policy regarding the group remained unchanged: Hamas first must recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements as a precondition for dialogue with the U.S.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stressed Pickering acted as a private citizen. Kelly said he was unaware of any prior U.S. governmental coordination with the former diplomat about the meeting with Hamas.

Pickering is not the only member of the ICG that was accused of serving as a conduit between the Obama administration and Hamas.

Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He resigned after it was exposed he had communicated with Hamas. WND reported Malley long had petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.

Other ICG board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security adviser to Jimmy Carter; and Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security adviser.

Military doctrine used to bomb Libya

The ICG is one of the main proponents of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, championing the doctrine in its official mission statement.

Doctrine founder Evans is the ICG’s president emeritus.

President Obama’s national security adviser, Samantha Power, helped to found Responsibility to Protect, which was also devised by several controversial characters, including Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Powers, last April, was named the head of the new White House Atrocities Prevention Board.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, founded by Power, had a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect.

The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.

The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Power was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Soros funded

The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world’s leading champion of the military doctrine.

Soros’ Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Several of the doctrine’s main founders sit on boards with Soros.

The committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Ashrawi.

Two of the global group’s advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the doctrine, with the duo even coining the term “responsibility to protect.”

Thakur and Evans sit on multiple boards with Soros.

The Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated: “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are … instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa.”

Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’ borders’

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”

In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

“In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”

More Soros ties

“Responsibility” founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chairmen, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term “responsibility to protect.”

In his capacity as co-chairman, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to “sovereignty as responsibility.”

Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a “crisis management organization” for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

‘One World Order’

Doctrine founder Thakur has advocated a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”

In a piece in March 2011 in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote, “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”

He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote.

“A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train,” he added.

Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”

Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ western power.”

Globalist doctrine employed to depose Gadhafi regime

Published: 22 hours ago

by Aaron Klein Email | Archive

Aaron Klein is WND’s senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York’s WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Report: Sudan air raid Oct 23 was Israeli test run for Iran strike

Tuesday, October 30, 2012 | Ryan Jones

Israel Today

The alleged [real] aerial bombardment of a weapons factory in Sudan last week [Tuesday October 23] was indeed carried out by Israel, and was seen as a test run for a larger strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a report in London’s Sunday Times.

Citing unnamed Israeli and Western military sources, the British newspaper reported that eight Israeli fighter jets, one refueling plane, one electronic warfare plane and two helicopters carrying commando teams had taken part in the long-range mission.

Four of the fighters actually bombed the factory, while the other four provided cover. The commando teams were kept in reserve in case a pilot was downed. But that scenario was unlikely due to the capabilities of the electronic warfare plane, which apparently succeeded in totally masking the Israelis’ penetration of Sudan’s air defenses.

According to the sources, in addition to eliminating a major link in the Iran-to-Gaza arms smuggling operation, the Sudan air raid had sent a very clear message to Iran of what Israel is capable of, even against distant enemies.

Israeli officials believe that by next spring, it will be too late to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, and that international diplomatic efforts have already failed, making military action all but inevitable.

Voter Fraud– Glen Beck program on “Spigot Cities” – Sun Nov 4th 8pm EST

Have You Heard About ‘Spigot Cities’ That May Pump Votes to Obama?

Editor’s Note: This article is based on “The Machine,” a documentary on that aired on TheBlaze TV Nov. 1 as the first of an occasional news magazine series called “For The Record.” An encore broadcast is scheduled for Sunday, Nov.4th at 8pm ET.

President Barack Obama’s campaign team could have more control over the outcome of the 2012 election than you think, according to a report by TheBlaze documentary team that reveals the potential for highly targeted voter fraud in key cities that could determine who gets the electoral votes from many swing states.

The potential fraud would be focused on major, decisive cities that are believed to help keep states blue, and therefore earning them the electoral college’s votes. They’re called “spigot cities.”

J. Christian Adams, an author and former attorney for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, spoke about the spigot cities on the BlazeTV documentary — “The Machine” — which delves into various forms of voter fraud and how it’s being perpetuated. Many believe it is ultimately resulting in a loss of freedom through a corrupt voting system.

Adams believes spigot cities are managed by the Obama campaigned with some involvement by the Voting Section of the Justice Department.

“Without the spigot being opened in Philly, without the spigot being opened in Saint Louis, without the spigot being opened in Detroit and Fort Lauderdale and– and– and places around the country like that, Milwaukee– Cleveland, Cincinnati, those states would not go blue,” Adams said on “The Machine.” “It requires massive turnout– in large unopposed numbers in those urban centers for those states to remain in– in the blue column. What you have, unfortunately, is pervasive systemic voter fraud in many of those places. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”

Calling upon the 2008 election, Adams pointed out that Republican Sen. John McCain’s campaign had a policy to not call the Justice Department’s voting section. The campaign for then-Senator Barack Obama, on the other hand, is believed to have made frequent calls to the department requesting these cities have an adequate number of voting machines in case a precinct received a large amount of voters at one time.

“So you had one side using the DOJ as a potential lever to help them gain power, and you had the other side fleeing from the battlefield,” Adams said.

Flooding the polls would be a necessary factor to create a spigot city. In the documentary, Adams discussed how voter manipulation would be employed for these record poll turnouts, which he says are generally reported in a positive light by the media.

“You have election officials telling voters for whom to vote,” Adams claims. “You have forced assistants. You have bus loads of people who are losing their right to vote as they’re marched into the polling place and have somebody else mark their ballot for them.”

John Fund, author and writer for National Review, said in the documentary that “people will do it for the 20 bucks that are handed at a homeless shelter, and they’re told to get on a bus and go from polling place to polling place, casting votes.”

TheBlaze recently reported about a DNC staffer who was fired for allegedly helping a person cast their vote twice. Some have expressed worry that electronic voting machines with calibration issues could be robbing citizens of their votes too.

A general aversion to voter identification requirements and support for same-day voting registration is believed to contribute to this practice of flooding polls as well.

“Same day voting is an engraved invitation to voter fraud,” said Fund, who wrote the book Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk. “Because let’s say it’s Minnesota, anybody can show up at the polls, register to vote, and then immediately vote. They don’t have to show ID. Somebody has to vouch for them. So anybody can come in who’s a Minnesota resident and say, ‘Well, I vouch for this person. I know Joe.’”

With same day voter registration, as Adams pointed out, checking voter eligibility is virtually non-existent.

The requirement of a voter ID has been making the rounds in the news during this entire election cycle. Those against imposing a requirement, calling it unconstitutional, argue that it would disenfranchise minority voters who have a hard time obtaining identification. At the same time though, TheBlaze reported a Washington Post poll that found near 75 percent of Americans believe the requirement of a voter ID is reasonable.

Although some might deny the existence of voter fraud, fail to see issues with same-day voter registration and at the same time balk at the idea of an ID requirement, there are real consequences of corruption if it occurs.

One example included recently on TheBlaze has Fund discussing how he believes Sen. Al Franken was elected in Minnesota under fraudulent conditions and, if that’s the case, points out that Franken was the deciding vote that passed Obamacare. Some of the controversy surrounding the election between Franken and incumbent Norm Coleman for Minnesota in 2008 — which was won by Franken by only 312 votes after months of litigation following an initial 725-vote lead by Coleman — is that a conservative group Minnesota Majority found evidence of voter fraud, which included voting conducted by ineligible convicted felons.

Watch Fund talk voter fraud with Mallory Factor earlier this month:

So what can be expected of “spigot cities” and alleged voter fraud with the 2012 Presidential Election?

“Well, the problem is– voter fraud is– cyclical,” Fund said. “If the election isn’t close, then people care about less voter fraud. If it’s perceived as very close, there’s an enormous temptation to put your thumb on the scale of democracy. I think this election is gonna be very close.”

You can watch an encore broadcast of the documentary Sunday, Nov. 4 at 8pm ET on TheBlaze TV or on Dish channel 212.

Lame Duck Treaties are blocked by Senate Conservatives

Senate Conservatives Gather Enough Votes to Block Lame Duck Treaties

Here is a copy of Lee’s letter to Reid and McConnell:

A group of Senate conservatives has gathered enough support to block any treaties that come up for a vote during the lame duck session.

A total of 37 Senators pledged, in a letter drafted by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) to Majority and Minority leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), to “oppose efforts to consider a treaty during” the lame duck session.

Because treaties require a two-thirds majority in the Senate to reach the president’s desk, the group of Senators will be able to block any treaties considered after the Nov. 6 election.

“The writers of the Constitution clearly believed that all treaties presented to the Senate should undergo the most thorough scrutiny before being agreed upon,” the letter states. “The American people will be electing representatives and senators in November, and the new representatives carrying the election mandate should be afforded the opportunity to review and consider any international agreements that are outstanding at the time of their election.”

Some Senators had expressed hope that their house would ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty) in a lame duck session. The treaty was blocked earlier this year by Senators who noted that it would cede some level of U.S. sovereignty to an international body, force the United States to forgo some level oil and gas royalty revenue, and would produce few tangible benefits.

The Heritage Foundation’s Steve Groves testified on LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A U.N. treaty on persons with disabilities may also be considered during a lame duck session. Lee this week blocked an attempt to pass that treaty by unanimous consent. “For various reasons we don’t think any treaty should come up during the lame duck time period and we will continue to oppose any treaty passage,” Lee said. “If it is true that it is too fast to move a treaty through during a lame duck, then it’s also too fast to move it through now.”

RED DAWN OVER KANADA: Russians targeting for that first strike?


Posted by George Freund on June 26, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Back in the day when the Cold War was in play, there was a classic film detailing a Soviet invasion of the United States. The film was called Red Dawn. It starred Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey. It was a cult classic. It showed comfortable America what it would be like to live in occupied territory. Because of this it is on my short list of reality films. The new 2012 version entails a hardly likely North Korean invasion.

So now we step into the here and now where Canada will be allowing Russia to overfly our nation on a 3 day photo safari. They will be exercising their rights under the Treaty on Open Skies. Back in the day that was a friendly gesture to heal the Cold War rift. Today things are different. President Bush restarted the Cold War by rubbing ‘SALT’ in Putin’s eyes. He started his Euro defence jihad missile shield which can only mean targeting Russia. Iran would never need that criteria of defence.

What has happened in the intervening years is NATO has ramped up their defence shield. The first stages have been activated. Russia has voiced its opposition. They have even dropped the ‘N’ word nuclear first strike. In fact Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated again before the G8 meeting that continued intervention into the affairs of a sovereign state could lead to a nuclear war. This is a reiteration of several confirmed policy statements.

If that were to happen, said General Nikolai Makarov, chief of Russia’s general staff, it could lead to an “illusion of security”, which could lead to war. Countries allowing the missile defence shield on their soil, Gen Makarov said, risked a Russian nuclear first strike. “A decision on pre-emptive use of the attack weapons available will be made when the situation worsens,” he breezily told a news conference this month.”

So that doesn’t seem too difficult to understand. We have aggravated Russia to the point where they are commonly using the ‘N’ word. Then we practically invite them to overfly our country with a TU-154M surveillance aircraft. The Russians will fly for three days taking photographs of cities, military bases and just about anything else that looks interesting. Now photographing in plain English means targeting. You see the Russians are threatening a nuclear first strike. Their targeting data is obsolete. They now have their own GPS system. They are making sure they know exactly where to hit us. Those who survive will wake up in the smokey dust saying, "What happened?"

It is hard to imagine our leaders are so out of touch with strategy and tactics and the real status of international relations. It is no secret. If they stopped their globalization rituals and thefts from the public purse for a few seconds, they would see they are blindly walking into the big nuke. Russia has built bomb shelters. We haven’t. As the day fast approaches, we understand more and more how it comes like a thief in the night like scripture says.

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This also seems very clear to me. The noise, the melting elements and the fervent heat leave little to the imagination. It sounds like a nuclear first strike. The line in the radioactive sand appears to be Syria, and scripture is very clear about that too.

“Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city,

And it will be a ruinous heap.”

The Prophet Isaiah, chapter 17, verse 1

"Go, Daniel! For the matters are obscured and sealed until the time of the End. They will be elucidated and clarified and refined by many [people]; the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but the wise will understand." Daniel 12:9-10

So we see again God’s truth detector sound the alarm. The wicked will NOT understand. They cannot. The wise WILL understand because they are NOT wicked. Do you see the BIG PICTURE. We are not wicked. We are the wise because we have the eyes to see and the ears to hear. It is like that with many things. The wicked are condemning us to death. They are our leaders. We must strive to understand and advise the rest of the wise. Like in ‘Red Dawn’, we are the partisans of the truth. We are the Wolverines destined to open minds and save souls. We were after all chosen by God for the purpose. The time of the return is near. As a policemen, I’ve seen many thiefs in the night. I still do. Look are around you. You can see them too. They are the wicked ones who don’t understand.


Hypersonic Arms Race Heats Up

Officially dubbed Flight Experiment-1, the test was a milestone achievement for a Pentagon technology development project in the works since 2008 with the aim of giving the president the option to hit high-value, time-sensitive targets anywhere in the world within an hour. It’s known as Conventional Prompt Strike.

One Test, $160 Million

The Halloween test was of a modified version of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) that successfully flew the same route in 2011 in the Conventional Prompt Strike program’s only other successful flight test to date.

Did China Leap Ahead?

The potential for delivering a game-changing capability is prompting a number of nations to pursue hypersonic technologies. The recent U.S. hypersonic success comes as China and Russia are, according to press reports and concerns of some in Congress, actively working to develop a similar ultra-fast weapon, conducting as many as three flight tests a year of the DF-FZ and 3K22 Tsirkon systems, respectively.


“Iranium”, the movie

Ryan Mauro, from The Clarion Project….speaking on The Blaze TV, /Wilkow

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

A timely and powerful documentary presenting the danger posed to the free world by a nuclear Iran. The film exposes the radical Islamic ideology guiding Iran’s leaders, and the destruction and suffering it has already caused.

Iranian Resistance Group Announces Secret Nuke Site

If true, it would be in keeping with the deceptive strategy that Iranian President Rouhani laid out in his own words.

Despite Promises, Obama Planning to Close ICBM Squadron by Dec 2017

BY: Alana Goodman

November 21, 2013

The Obama administration has drafted a plan to shutter an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) squadron three years after it assured hesitant lawmakers that the New START U.S.-Russia arms reduction treaty would not lead to deep cuts in the ICBM force.

A new timeline prepared by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon maps out a strategy to eliminate an ICBM squadron—and destroy its missile silos—by Dec. 5, 2017. An environmental assessment would begin next month.

The document says the reductions are necessary to “meet the New START Treaty compliance date by closing an ICBM squadron and eliminating the associated Launch Facilities.”

Several Democrats on the Senate ICBM coalition voted for New START, vowing that the treaty would maintain a strong ICBM force. Sens. Max Baucus (D.) and Jon Tester (D.), both from Montana, the home of many ICBMs, issued a press release in 2010 backing New START and saying that the missiles would “continue to play a key role in U.S. national security for decades to come.”

“There was some talk around this town about making deep reductions to the ICBM force,” Baucus said in the press release. “We made it clear to the president that was unacceptable, and fought hard to make sure the START Treaty recognized the critical role that ICBMs play in U.S. national security.”

Baucus and Tester did not respond to requests for comment.

Watch out for 2014 Spoiler Candidates — VA libertarian gubernatorial candidate funded by. an Obama campaign bundler

2013 VA Election for Governor

Tuesday, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:06 PM MST

On yesterday’s radio program, Glenn encouraged Virginia voters to do their homework and know who they are voting for in the contentious gubernatorial race. A three-way race is underway between the President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden backed Democrat, Terry McAuliffe, the TEA Party supported Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, and the candidate running on the libertarian line, Robert Sarvis.

Sarvis has amassed so much support and fractured the Republican, conservative, libertarian voting block so greatly, McAuliffe may very well come out on top in today’s election. While Glenn was certainly not opposed to third-party candidates, he warned his listeners in Virginia to understand who they were voting for before heading to the ballot boxes.

Glenn was primarily referring to Sarvis and some of the bizarre stances he has taken on issues in the past. From raising taxes to rejecting the Austrian-type economics, Sarvis does not sound like your proto-typical libertarian. And, as it turns out, it was a major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler, Joe Liemandt, who helped pay for professional petition circulators responsible for getting Sarvis on the ballot.

Rep. Steve Stockman Hands out Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives

Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) arranged for the distribution of a book described as "the first draft of the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama" to all 435 members of the US House of Representatives. "Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office," by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott were donated by the book’s publisher, WND Books.

There’s a lot to look at, and I think, at some point, if the smoking gun leads to the White House, we have to take action," Stockman told WND.
Back in January, just before Barack Obama presented his 23 executive orders regarding gun prohibition, Stockman said that Obama’s plan to implement administration controls was "an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic."

"I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including, but not limited to, eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment," Stockman said at the time.

"Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court," he argued.

This appears to be a step towards that, as he has now submitted a book that outlines just why Barack Obama should be impeached.

Following the Navy Yard shootings, Barack Obama indicated that he had plans to implement more gun prohibition.

"Impeachment is one of the many options, including lawsuits and other actions, we can take to defend the Constitution," Stockman said in response to Obama’s statement.

Stockman believes impeachment must be a last resort, but say it is the law of the land. "Enforcing the Constitution and preserving limitations on executive authority aren’t just mainstream, they’re the law," he said.

Author Aaron Klein said of his book, "Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama."

"Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book," Klein added.

Here are some of the offenses outlined in the book:

  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly "Fast and Furious" gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
  • From "fusion centers" to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
  • New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term "green" funding adventures.
  • The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
  • Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Stockman isn’t the only one who has been talking about impeachment.

"I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights," said Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX). "I think if the House had an impeachment vote it would probably impeach the president."

Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R-CA); Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-OK); Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, (R-MI); Sen. Ted Cruz, (R-TX); Rep. Blake Farenthold, (R-TX); Sen. James Inhofe, (R-OK); Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R-UT); Sen. Tim Scott, (R-SC); Rep. Michele Bachmann, (R-MN); Rep. Louie Gohmert, (R-TX); Rep. Trey Radel, (R-FL); Rep. Steve King, (R-IA); and Rep. Ted Yoho, (R-FL).

This is all well and good, and I’m glad to see these representatives and senators talking about impeachment, but I think for my readers and myself, the question is, "When will the talking end and the impeaching begin?"

Impeachment can and should happen. Barack Obama can be impeached by the House. His removal from office is a different story, of course, seeing that the Senate would need 67 votes to remove him. Can you just imagine how many RINOs would vote to keep him in office, after seeing this shutdown deal go down?

Pressure needs to be applied for impeachment. Even Bill Clinton was slowed down in his agenda due to impeachment proceedings. The same should be true of Barack Obama. So, how about it House of Representatives? Are you going to stop at only words, or will you meet those words with action?


Reduce Oil Imports – Electric Cars–How Much Does It Cost per Charge?

Does trading a gasoline power source for an electric one really help the environment?

When you compare battery to gasoline power, electricity wins hands down.

How to Buy a used Hybrid Car

Dear EarthTalk: If you have an electric or plug-in hybrid car, you’re paying for electricity rather than gasoline all or most of the time. How does that cost compare to a gas-powered car’s cost-per-mile? And since the electricity may be generated from some other polluting source, does it really work out to be better for the environment?