Response from a US Vietnam veteran

Vietnam ribbon

This was posted by someone I follow on FaceBook. He says this better than I ever could.

George Roof

I’ve never made any secrets of my revulsion of John McCain, HOWEVER, his recent passing simply stirs up old feelings inside that I’d long put aside.

I see all the flags at half staff today, but I see that the media and SOME VETERAN GROUPS put pressure on the President to extend the time set aside by the US Code for The American Flag. They did this without ever mentioning that he had simply followed protocol. They were looking for a reason to slander the President.

Now some brainless twit is recommending that if the President was contrite and wanted to do the right thing, McCain should be awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously.

Lets get a few things straight. The US Code for proper protocol for a MEMBER OF CONGRESS is that the flag be flown at half staff for TWO DAYS after the death. Certainly the code can be modified by the President, but realistically, what makes this senator different from anyone else.

Secondly, the Medal of Honor is bestowed for extraordinary acts of valor in the face of enemy combat. For John McCain to get that medal, he’d have had to do something no other POW had done EVER!

It was then that I realized exactly what this is all about.

It’s not that the Liberal mindset shows their hypocrisy or that the media actually cares.

It’s really a guilt complex and a sad attempt to assuage their worthless souls.

You see, whether I or thousands of other servicemen liked him or not, John McCain was a constant reminder of the dark and dreadful days of the Vietnam war. Suddenly they want us to think they actually cared for what he and others of us did there.

These are the same low-life bastards who avoided the draft and called us baby killers and spit on us when we returned home. They were the same people who forced us to hide our personal feelings to avoid the catcalls. They were the same ones who refused to give us an opportunity and the same ones who ridiculed us and insulted us when we tried to go back to college.

They want that flag up there at half-staff to make themselves feel good, not for the veterans of the war and countless other veterans of other wars and pestilence. The President they loved so well actually refused to attend the funeral of the only general officer killed in the line of duty after WWII.

So take your crocodile tears and your phony “patriotism” and shove it. I’ve seen your opening act and I know where your heartless soul resides.

Personal note: Thank you for your service George. And thanks too for the service of all those who have served in hot conflict. You have paid the price for the freedoms so many either take for granted, or worse, defile and denigrate.

Available at amazon.com “A Republic, if you can keep it”

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

A Russian view on gun ownership

Reblogged from http://jpfo.org

By Stanislav Mishin. December 27, 2012

(Thanks to Michael.G who passed this along to us. While written six years ago it is still valid and gives an interesting insight into a Russian’s views on guns and ‘gun control’ – although it seems, not overly impressed with the U.S.A. apart from the Second Amendment!)

These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the СМУТА (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene.

They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere … but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the USA’s “2nd Amendment” is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them“, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed.

Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, Americans listen up, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin

Now available at amazon.com: “A Republic, if you can keep it”

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

At this point what difference does it make?

It’s possible ambassador Stevens, like Robespierre, was a victim of his own policies. When led to the guillotine, Robespierre reportedly said as his last words, “Show my head to the people–it will be worth it.”

Benghazi

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. –Thomas Jefferson

Robert Klein Engler is an artist a poet and a patriot. You can contact him through his FaceBook Page

Ambassador Stevens and Betrayal at Benghazi

–Robert Klein Engler

“From the halls of Foggy Bottom, to the shores of Tripoli,
We advance our Nation’s interests, in the land of Qadhafi.”

–Chris Stevens

“Dude, this was two years ago!”
—Tommy Vietor, National Security Council Spokesman

“They are dogs,” the men say of the dead, as they attack and smash the headstones of Allied and Italian service members laid to rest in a World War II cemetery in Benghazi. In an act of betrayal to once allies, markers identifying Christian or Jewish war dead are damaged and broken. One man takes a hammer to a ceremonial Cross of Remembrance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57390828-503543/vandals-desecrate-wwii-cemetery-in-libya/

Benghazi is a place where not only crosses but men are broken. At this port city on the Mediterranean coast in eastern Libya, US ambassador Chris Stevens had his last meeting with Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin on September 11. 2012.

According to Clare Lopez, a Middle East intelligence expert, “Akin was able to leave the consulate without incident even though the area outside the compound was swarming with jihadis setting up checkpoints.”

“…Turkish Consul General would have had to pass out through the blockade as he departed the American compound and left the area. There is no record that he phoned a warning to his American colleague, the one he’d just had dinner with…” A few hours after that, ambassador Stevens would be dead, the victim of a terrorist attack.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/why-didnt-the-turkish-consul-warn-ambassador-stevens-about-the-amassing-jihadis-outside-the-consulate-on-the-night-of-911/

We now know that, “Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault…the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials…were informed that the event was a ‘terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi attacks for two weeks afterward.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/14/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

The attack on September 11th was not the first attack on the mission at Benghazi. The administration was aware of attacks at the Benghazi mission in April and June before the attack that killed ambassador Stevens on September eleventh.

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/us-news/item/318280-sen-graham-obama-knew-of-ied-attacks-in-run-up-to-benghazi-terror-strike

Prior to that meeting, Stevens was an eyewitness to the violence in Libya. According to his Libyan friend, Ali Tarhouni, “They witnessed what Tarhouni calls the killing fields, where young Libyans perished each day in the fight to oust Gadhafi. The two men shared a tense moment pondering the chances for success as rebel forces attacked Gadhafi’s stronghold in Tripoli.”

http://seattletimes.com/text/2020361531.html

stand down

Could ambassador Stevens’ life have been saved at Benghazi? “According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty…were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired…and (they) requested permission to go to the consulate to help out…”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/11/26/questions_for_the_president_benghazi_edition_296670.html

“The networks obtained e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones…ordering a counter terrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U. S. consulate and CIA annex in Libya. According to Gingrich…they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’”

http://www.examiner.com/article/emails-show-white-house-ordered-u-s-forces-to-stand-down-benghazi

We know now there was ample time to send help to save ambassador Stevens, if a decision had been made to do so. This is Jeffery Kuhner’s point.

Jeffery Kuhner writes in WorldTribune.com, “Two hours after the assault began the State Department sent an e-mail to numerous agencies–including the White House Situation Room–that Ansar al-Sharia, a terror group affiliated with Al Qaida, had claimed responsibility.”

“The e-mail went directly to the White House’s Executive Office–the president’s inner circle…from nearly the beginning Mr. Obama knew that Benghazi was a terrorist atrocity.”

http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/28/greatest-hits-2012-benghazi-obama-knew/

Dave Hodges adds creditability to the Gingrich statements about an order to stand down at Benghazi. Hodges claims on his radio show, “There is now proof that Obama was warned in advance of the coming attack in which Stevens begged for more protection and his impassioned plea was denied by Clinton.”

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/11/03/ambassador-stephens-death-and-the-coming-military-coup/

When called before Congress, General Ham (AFRICOM Leader) avoided the issue of a stand down order. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah asked General Ham directly, “Did we have assets in the area? The answer is “yes.” Did we have proximity? The answer is “yes.”

Why didn’t we send in some of those assets? The general said he was not requested to do so. Who would have requested (ordered) him to take action? The only one who could make that request is the President of the United States.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3036105/posts

The Conservative Report Online believes a representative of the President gave the stand down order. Doug Ross maintains that Valerie Jarrett gave the orders to stand down in Benghazi. Valerie Jarrett, who constitutionally is not in the chain of command cannot do that. “Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.”

http://conservativereport.org/benghazi-valerie-jarrett-cic/

By December 19, 2013, as reported by Adam Housley, “Recent media reports have contradicted claims that U.S. personnel were given stand-down orders and kept from responding to the scene–but sources on the ground that night tell Fox News that not only were they given, but they were given in multiple locations, as Fox News has previously reported.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/18/closed-testimony-appears-to-bolster-claims-benghazi-response-inadequate/

Almost two years after the Incident at Benghazi, we learn there were orders given to stand down and not come to the rescue of ambassador Stevens. In spite of over a year of denial by the administration, we now know that just after the attack was reported, members of a security team were directed to stand down by a CIA agent who is referred to as Bob.

In an interview with Bret Baier a member of the team was asked, “You use the words ‘stand down…A number of people now, including the House Intelligence Committee insist no one was hindered from responding to the situation at the compound…so what do you say to that?”

“‘No, it happened,’ said Tiegen” (a member of the team).

“‘It happened on the ground—all I can talk about is what happened on that ground that night,’ added Paronto. ‘To us. To myself, twice, and to–to Tig, once. It happened that night. We were told to wait, stand–and stand down. We were delayed three times.’”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/04/top-cia-official-in-benghazi-delayed-response-to-terrorist-attack-us-security/

In the final analysis, we may say with Sharyl Attkisson what many have known all along, “We spoke to, again a CIA team leader expert, an anti-terrorism expert who says the only person who stops those forces that spun up automatically without waiting to be told—the only force is the commander in chief, slash the White House, an authority that comes from him.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/13/sharyl-attkisson/

the second story

Ambassador Chris Stevens was not married. He had no children. He dedicated his life to working overseas for the US government. The product of the liberal East Bay community of Piedmont, Calif., Stevens was an international trade lawyer by training. He kept a home in the leafy East Bay enclave even after being named US ambassador to Libya.

“Harry Johnson, 69, who lived next to Stevens when the future diplomat was a boy, said Stevens had kept in contact after graduating from Piedmont High School in 1978. ‘He was so intelligent, but never lost the human touch,’ Johnson said. ‘He could make anyone feel comfortable and make them a part of his world because he fit into theirs.’”

http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Libyan-ambassador-kept-human-touch-3859504.php

Instead of practicing law, Stevens turned his talent and education to service overseas. He reportedly loved Libya and her people. Some say Stevens hoped to move on from service in Libya and become the US ambassador to Iran.

Maybe Stevens thought of himself as a modern day Lawrence of Arabia. After his death at Benghazi, rumors began to circulate claiming Stevens was gay.

Jean Ann Esselink, writing for The New Civil Right Movement, believes it’s more important to see Stevens as an American hero rather than just a gay man.

Esselink writes, “…I cannot tell you if Chris was gay. I can tell you only that he was a 52-year-old man without wife or child, at least one he claimed in public. I could find no bereaved lover of either sex who raised a hand to acknowledge a relationship.” Perhaps Esselink should have asked the men at Chicago’s Second Story bar to raise their hand.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ambassador-chris-stevens-the-hero-we-never-knew/politics/2012/09/17/49123

The Second Story Bar is a small gay bar found off North Michigan Ave. in Chicago. It is said the bar attracts gay diplomats stationed at the consulates around the city. Inside the bar there is a second story being told about the Incident at Benghazi and ambassador Stevens.

Kevin Dujan, writing in the HillBuzz.com says of the gay men he contacted in Chicago at the Second Story bar and elsewhere, “Of course, they’ve all been talking about ambassador Stevens’ murder by Muslims in Libya: and all of them are incredulous that the State Department sent a gay man to be ambassador to a Muslim country.

Why would they be incredulous? Because news reports continue to indicate that the Muslims who murdered Stevens also raped him repeatedly, before and after his death.”

http://hillbuzz.org/breaking-news-two-sources-in-chicago-diplomatic-circles-identify-ambassador-chris-stevens-as-gay-meaning-state-department-sent-gay-man-to-be-ambassador-to-libya-64291

“Friends of Christopher Stevens in Chicago say he was gay. A member of the Serbian diplomatic team based in Chicago told HillBuzz.org that the State Department knowingly sent a gay man to be the ambassador of Libya. HillBuzz.org reports “in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay,” so reports the Examiner.

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-hillary-clinton-send-gay-ambassador-to-libya-as-intentional-provocation

Before the November election, the Advocate, an important GLBT newspaper, made a point of condemning a Log Cabin Republican ad that used an image of Stevens’ dead body.

The ad claimed, “If the Obama Administration isn’t going to protect Gay/Gay-friendly American citizens from the terror of Islamic radicalism, what makes you think they will protect us from Shariah Law…?”

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2012/10/12/body-ambassador-used-obscene-ad-gay-republicans

There may be another reason why the White House would not want to make it known Stevens might have been gay. To do so would open the door to selective outrage. Progressives become outraged over the death and rape of a gay man when it suits their political purposes.

If it is uncertain who Stevens loved, we do know that while in the Peace Corps, Stevens, “fell in love with Morocco and that part of the world.” This seems fitting for someone with a talent for both French and Arabic and who earlier wrote in his Piedmont High yearbook, “What a bore it is, waking up in the morning always the same person.”

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Slain-US-Ambassador-to-Libyas-Ties-to-Bay-Area-Go-Deep-169452886.html

ascots and idealism

There is a photograph of Stevens and his friend Austin Tichenor. It was taken in the 1970s. In the photograph Stevens sports an ascot. The Kodachrome color in the photograph is shifting to red with age. The two young men look happy together.

http://scannedretina.com/2012/09/16/the-clinton-calculated-setup/

Writing on Queerty.com, a respondent who identifies herself as “Lesbian Conservative” maintains, “The fact is, Chris Stevens was gay and he was open about it. The issue of whether it was smart for Madame Clinton to send him to the violent and virulently anti-homosexual backwater of Libya is a legitimate question to ask.

http://www.queerty.com/right-wing-blogs-allege-slain-u-s-ambassador-chris-stevens-was-gay-20120916/ – comments

Some speculate that a gay Chris Stevens might have known Barack Obama before Obama became president. Eric Rush, writing in Canada Free Press wonders about their meeting. If such a meeting did occur it would rub salt into the wound of betrayal at Benghazi.

“We also know that Obama lived more or less the bachelor’s life in Washington D. C.–where Stevens was also working–from 2005 to 2008…Would it be outside the realm of possibility to postulate that…there had been a relationship between the…Senator and the gay diplomat…?”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49995

Before going to Washington, ambassador Stevens attended the University of California at Berkley. Being gay there is no big deal. The university is not known as a hot bed of conservatism. In fact, just the opposite is true.

Many of Stevens’ liberal values were shaped while attending classes at UC Berkley. Most importantly, his affection for Islam dates from that time. Given his education, it seems likely that Stevens never expected his fate a Benghazi.

“While at UC Berkeley, Stevens joined the chapter of Alpha Tau Omega fraternity. Steve Tovani met Stevens at the chapter’s house during a rush event in Stevens’ freshman year.”

“‘The day he walked into the house,’ Tovani said, “I just knew he was the guy that we wanted in the fraternity…He had this very easygoing, kind, gentle manner, and it exuded this kind of friendliness.'” After studying history at Berkeley, Stevens joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/09/13/stevens-justin/

In Morocco Stevens may have understood that Islam was something exotic, something legalistic and masculine. Islam was an antidote to the hard edge of Protestant America Stevens was alienated from. Islam may have been for Stevens the counterculture idealism of the 60s, matured with a coherent theology.

Whatever went wrong at Benghazi was not part of Stevens understanding of Islam. Most likely, it was a betrayal of Stevens’ idealism. His “very easygoing, kind, gentle manner,” was not enough to save him. If he had lived through the battle, the disappointment might have been enough to effect a political conversion in him.

How close was ambassador Stevens to Islam? Sabri Malek, the spokesman for the Democratic Party in Libya, claims Stevens, “had a very personal private matter, a very romantic relationship with the mystical side of Islam.”

Malek continued, “He always felt that he belonged to the Libyan community and the society…He was one of us. He had a habit of going down the local street …going to a very famous bar, it’s like a fruit bar where he takes his milkshakes…hardly with any security.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/murdered-u-s-ambassador-stevens-a-muslim/

This close relationship with Islam, especially Sufism, brings into question Stevens’ request for more security at Benghazi. On the one hand Stevens felt he belonged to the Libyan community, yet on the other hand reports say he was worried about his safety. Beyond that, Stevens’ attraction to Sufism also could have fanned the rumors about his sexual orientation.

There has always been a complex, homosexual strain of thought in Sufism, exemplified by the Persian Sufi poet, Jalal al-Din Rumi. Is it possible that Stevens attraction to Sufism led to this schizophrenic reaction about security at Benghazi?

Reports out of Benghazi tell of violence against gay men there. Only a few months after Stevens’ death, “An extremist Salafist militia posted pictures of a group of men (reported to be gay) it had captured…The men are being threatened with mutilation and execution.” In the photo accompanying the report, the men are lined up facing a wall with pink cloths over their heads.

file:///death-by-libyan-militia-20121126/http///www.queerty.com/12-men-accused-of-being-gay-face-torture-

Stevens also would have had enemies both inside and outside of Libya beyond antigay militias. Outside of Libya, some claim that Stevens’ death was ordered by Ayman al-Zawahri as revenge for US drone strikes.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/stevens-killed-to-avenge-u-s-drone-strike/

Inside Libya, those Libyans who supported Qaddafi were no friends of the American ambassador. Some of those Qaddafi supporters argue that Stevens got the death he deserved.

They point to a picture online where ambassador Stevens supposedly “gloats over Qaddafi’s corpse after the Libyan ruler’s torture and murder…made possible by seven months of brutal, non-stop U. S. led NATO bombing of Libya in which…thousands of Libyan government soldiers and innocent Libyan civilians were slaughtered in the name of protecting Libyan civilians.”

http://hpub.org/us-ambassador-chris-stevens-got-what-he-deserved-in-libya/

the ambassador’s business

In spring 2011, before Stevens left for his fatal assignment in Libya, he met with Douglas Kmiec in Malta. Kmiec, a well-known law professor and commentator, has been a key Catholic supporter of Obama.

According to Kmiec, he and Stevens, “spoke of the inter-faith diplomatic effort of President Obama.” Afterwards, Stevens sailed in a Greek ship to Libya.

There is a sepia colored photograph of ambassador Stevens on a donkey at the top of the webpage set up to remember his life. Stevens looks at the camera and smiles, but both he and the donkey seem a bit uncomfortable. Either Stevens is too big for the donkey or the donkey is too small for Stevens.

To the side, a man stands and looks on. He is native to this place and Stevens is not. What might the man be thinking? Is this the American messiah who will being democracy and McDonald’s to Libya? Is he waiting for his tip? Will he beat the donkey home with a switch, then sit by his fire and wonder at the ways of Allah?

http://www.rememberingchrisstevens.com/page/2

Ambassador Christopher Stevens first arrived in Libya secretly in a cargo ship to serve as a liaison to the rebels fighting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi. From the embassy in Tripoli, Stevens made his way on September 11th to the “Special U.S. Mission” in Benghazi where he met his death.

What was Stevens doing in Benghazi? How did the terrorists know he was there, and how were they able to launch an assault that lasted eight hours? One answer is that “Stevens played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/does-benghazi-probe-drop-unintentional-bombshell/

Beyond that recruitment, a source told Fox News that Stevens’ last meeting was with “Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin. Stevens was in Benghazi ‘to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.'”

http://www.businessinsider.com/benghazi-stevens-cia-attack-libya-2012-11

Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley offers us another answer as to why Stevens was at Benghazi. He claims that ambassador Stevens’ main task at the Benghazi consulate/CIA post was to, “maintain relations with al-Qaeda death squads, especially for the purpose of moving them through Turkey into Syria.” This was of course against official US policy, which has declared al-Qaeda the number one enemy of the United States.

Dr. Tarpley goes farther than most analysts when he claims outright, “this administration…had Chris Stevens murdered by the very terrorists that Stevens was running guns to on behalf of the CIA.” If this is true, then a betrayal at Benghazi is also true.

http://counterpsyops.com/tag/chris-stevens/

Dr. Tarpley offers no independent documentation for his claims. Nevertheless, he is not alone in his views about US help for terrorists. Writing in the Canada Free Press, Doug Hagmann makes a similar claim about US help for the Free Syrian Army rebels linked to al-Qaeda. Hagmann says, “The entire (CIA) arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi.”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346

a special relationship

Chris Stevens was the product of an education that valued the new policies coming out of the White House towards the Muslim world. Did these new policies lead him to underestimate the risk he was taking at Benghazi? If Stevens made one mistake, like Dido, he may have trusted when he should have doubted.

A United States ambassador often earns more than one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars a year. Yet, beyond the income, the position of ambassador carries a unique distinction. Unlike other government jobs, an ambassador is the personal representative of the President of the United States.

The relationship between an ambassador and the president is akin to the trusting relationship between friends. When an ambassador asks for help and that help is not forthcoming, a trust and a friend are betrayed. Not to understand this betrayal is not to understand something fundamental about human relationship, government protocols aside.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/sean-hannity-on-benghazi-slaughter-audio-tapes-ive-heard-they-are-damning-video/

Try to imagine what betrayal might have been for ambassador Stevens. Moving in the closed circles of the Department of State, flying off to France, Morocco, Malta and Libya, at taxpayer’s expense, it’s hard to imagine how one day you can be at the top of the world and the next day under it.

This is how it ended–breathing in toxic diesel fumes and hiding from the flames that lick at the safe-room door. When the dust settled after the battle, it was time for our enemies to collect their trophies. “…Stevens’ personal belongings–including his camera, cell phone, identification papers and various private documents–are being kept locked in a safe in the possession of Wesam Bin Hameed in Libya.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/terrorist-has-personal-effects-of-slain-u-s-ambassador/?cat_orig=us

speak well of the dead

“As-Salaam-Alaikum; my name is Chris Stevens, and I’m the new U.S. ambassador to Libya.” Stevens spoke those words to the people of Libya when he was first appointed ambassador.

He added, “Growing up in California, I didn’t know much about the Arab world…I worked as an English teacher in a town in the High Atlas Mountains in Morocco for two years and quickly grew to love this part of the world. As-Salaam-Alaikum.” What began as “Peace be with you,” certainly didn’t end that way.

http://lybio.net/tag/chris-stevens-remembering-u-s-ambassador-to-libya-quotes/

There was a ceremony of flags and drums at the air force base to dampen controversy. “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the rage and violence aimed at American missions was prompted by ‘an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.'” A military band played the hymn, “Nearer My God to Thee.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/obama-libya-remains-chris-stevens_n_1884567.html

A memorial service was held in San Francisco’s City Hall for ambassador Stevens on October 16, 2012. There, mourners, as it should be, spoke well of him.

“Christopher Stevens stood out as extraordinary in an already extraordinary group of people,” said former Secretary of State George P. Shultz. “Democracy is not a spectator sport, and Christopher Stevens was a full participant in his beloved democracy.”

“A Bay Area native, Stevens…attended UC Berkeley and UC Hastings Law School before pursuing a career in the foreign service. Loved ones were quick to point to his devotion to his family.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/chris-stevens-memorial_n_1974130.html

Earlier reports in the Ma’an News Agency of Stevens’ death praised his work as an ambassador. “‘It’s just tragic,’ said Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO leader and veteran negotiator with Israel. ‘It’s very sad. I thought he was a person who was not just intelligent but also caring.’”

“Ashrawi went on to say that as a mediator, the Arabic-speaking envoy ‘understood the Palestinian situation well. He was very understanding and he listened; he didn’t repeat talking points.'”

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=519983

Stevens’ biography on the US Embassy website tells us, “Ambassador Chris Stevens considers himself fortunate to participate in this incredible period of change and hope for Libya.”

“As the President’s representative, his job is to develop a strong, mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Libya. Ambassador Stevens was the American representative to the Transitional National Council in Benghazi during the revolution.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chris-stevens-us-libya-ambassador-killed-142949456.html

Stevens’ cousin Becca remarked on an Internet page set up in his memory, “I could trust Chris completely; he had my back and I had his.” Unfortunately, Becca was not at Benghazi and could not have Stevens’ back when hell broke loose.

http://www.rememberingchrisstevens.com/

But what of those who were supposed to have his back in Benghazi? Why did they not follow through and save Stevens? Here is the advent of the unthinkable that goes beyond the risks associated with work in the foreign service.

Just as caution is advisable when working overseas, so it is advisable when assessing the character of a man we never met. After reading the public statements ambassador Stevens made about his work in Libya, you get the impression that he was a man who was both dedicated and idealistic.

Beyond that, Stevens may have been so dedicated and idealistic he might not have been opposed to hatching plots to further what the believed in.

Such idealism and dedication may be traced back to Stevens’ elite education and the Protestant values that helped shape the United States. In the early 21st century the religious underpinnings of these values have dropped away. All that remains is the aroma of religion.

Growing up in a family of doctors and lawyers, this was the liberalism that Stevens brought to Libya and to his calling as our ambassador. Ambassador Stevens lived the way many contemporary progressives live, believing he was in union with the political truth of his generation.

Stevens’ betrayal at Benghazi is all the more bitter because it points up how mistaken he may have been to trust in his government and the ideals of liberalism they abuse.

It’s worth repeating that when asked about his son’s death, Stevens’ father, a registered Democrat, answered, “‘It would really be abhorrent to make this into a campaign issue,’ Jan Stevens…said in a telephone interview from his home in Loomis, California…”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-14/libyan-ambassador-s-death-not-a-political-issue-says-dad.html

Who can blame Stevens’ father for his statement after suffering the loss of his son? But when the “Innocence of Muslims” video explanation put forward by the administration began to fall apart, it became obvious that politics and betrayal would replace the official explanation. Innocence would give way to lies. Why would a father not see this and want to hide from the truth?

Ambassador Stevens probably felt he was on the right side of history, advancing the liberal ideals of equality in Libya. It would be difficult to persuade him or his like-minded colleagues otherwise.

If the ambassador could come back and tell us what happened at Benghazi, would he say it was not until that fatal night, when no one came to help, that he fully understood loss and betrayal?

If a gay man were betrayed during the Incident at Benghazi, it wouldn’t be the first time such a betrayal happened in love or in war. Some gay men, because of their resentment and a desire for revenge, are drawn to tyrants.

Ernst Rohm found that to be the case. He was a gay man and an important Nazi. Nevertheless, when he no longer served a purpose, Hitler betrayed Ernst Rohm and had him shot.

who’s lying?

Writing for RadicalIslam.org, Clare Lopez speculates that the flow of arms to Syrian rebels may have been behind Stevens’ murder. Lopez writes, “Stevens was tasked with helping to coordinate U.S. assistance to the rebels, whose top military commander, Abdelhakim Belhadj, was the leader of the Al Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).”

“…Stevens was authorized by the U.S. Department of State and the Obama administration to aid…groups that were…allied ideologically with Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist organization…that’s not supposed to exist anymore after the killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, on May 2, 2011.”

http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/arms-flow-syria-may-be-behind-beghazi-cover

If an Al Qaeda group was behind the murder of Stevens, that still doesn’t explain their motive. Glenn Beck thinks Stevens had been helping arm Arab Spring rebels in Libya and Syria. Perhaps something went wrong with one of the deals Stevens was negotiating at the Benghazi mission. In any event, Beck argues there is more to the Incident at Benghazi than we have been told so far.

How much more? Beck thinks there is a lot more. “This is why the White House covered,” Beck claims, “because our ambassador was killed by a guy we were running guns to and we are still running guns today,” If these claims are true, then Congress must make the evidence about the gun running public. Beck should testify and tell us all he knows about the Incident at Benghazi.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/glenn-beck-obama-destined-for-prison/

“Lt. Col. Tony Schaefer reported to Fox News that his own sources have confirmed that President Obama actually watched the monstrous attack unfold live, in real time:

“‘I hate to say this, according to my sources, yes, [the President] was one of those in the White House situation room in real-time watching this. And the question becomes, ‘What did the President do or not do in the moments he saw this unveiling?’ He–only he–could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something.’”

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/10/29/what-we-know-about-benghazi-obama-should-resign/

Contradicting these accusations by Lt. Col. Schaefer, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “President Obama was absent the night of Benghazi attack and did not check in once during the night of the deadly terror assault.”

“‘Did you have any further communications with him that night?’ Senator Ayotte asked.”

“‘No,’ Panetta replied.”

“It was also revealed that neither the Secretary of Defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton once during the eight-hour attack on the consulate in Benghazi.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275432/Panetta-President-Obama-absent-night-Benghazi-attack-did-check-night-deadly-terror-assault.html#axzz2KaWmFpaU

According to Aaron Klein, “WND (World Net Daily) has reconfirmed with multiple knowledgeable Middle Eastern security sources that the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was used to coordinate Arab arms shipments and other aid to the so-called rebels fighting in Libya and later in Syria.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/sources-confirm-u-s-gun-running-to-jihadists/

This revelation by WND comes after Hillary Clinton’s testimony to the US Senate, where she denied any knowledge of arms shipments and other aid to Syrian rebels.

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

Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex…”

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

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

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/23/1485661/rand-paul-conspiracy-theory-libya/

a theory of the murder

When a police detective investigates a murder, one of the first things he does is develop a theory of the crime. He tries to answer three basic questions. How did the victim die? If he was murdered, who did it, and finally, what was the motive for the murder? In short, we need a theory of the crime to find out the truth about the Incident at Benghazi.

So far, most official investigations into the Incident at Benghazi never ask these question, Asking questions about who changed what talking points will never answer the question why we have dead Americans at Benghazi.

Eleanor Clift, columnist and pundit from the Daily Beast, insisted during a broadcast discussion of Benghazi on “The McLaughlin Group” that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens wasn’t really murdered. Her exact words are: “I’d like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not ‘murdered,’ ” she said, bending her fingers in the air to suggest the drawing of quote marks, “but died of smoke inhalation in a CIA safe room.” But how could she know this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/eleanor-clift-ambassador-stevens-wasnt-murdered-di/

Against Clift’s assertion, Bill Gertz claims in The Counter Jihard Report that, “An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U. S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.”

http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/ambassador-christopher-stevens/

Related to the question about the cause of Stevens death is the question about his torture and the mutilation of his body. The photographic evidence seen on the Internet leads us to question the explanation that Stevens’ death was caused by smoke inhalation. There are just too many wounds seen on Stevens’ body in some photographs for that explanation to be the whole story. Smoke inhalation usually does not leave a wound on the forehead or shoulder that miraculously heals itself in a Benghazi morgue.

“The most recent summary of the events came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014. In an appendix, the report provides a timeline. It has this entry for 1 a.m. Sept. 12, 2012.”

“Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation.” Yet without an autopsy report, how do we know this to be true?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/05/laura-ingraham/ingraham-recycles-incorrect-benghazi-claim/

Until the official autopsy results are given to the public, we are left to wonder how Stevens died at Benghazi. Rumors of rape, mutilation and torture will persist until proven otherwise. Like most of the facts surrounding the Incident at Benghazi, it is hard to see the truth through the darkness and the smoke.

It seems unlikely that ambassador Stevens died of natural causes. This being the case, other questions arise. Could the life of the ambassador have been have been saved? Was an order to stand down given to stop aide from reaching Benghazi? What was ambassador Stevens doing at Benghazi in the first place? Finally, Who killed ambassador Stevens?

We know now that it may have been possible to save Stevens and the other Americans at Benghazi. “Judicial Watch…released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering ‘forces that could move to Benghazi’ during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, ‘we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.’”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/

“According to a Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin, former Navy Seals Ty Woods and Glen Doherty…were ordered to stand down three times following calls during the attack. The first two times occurred soon after they heard initial shots fired…and (they) requested permission to go to the consulate to help out…(Forbes).”

The Examiner.com claims “…former House speaker Newt Gingrich…was informed by a U. S. senator that at least two media networks have recently been given…evidence about the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans…The networks obtained e-mail evidence from…the office of National Security Advisor James Jones…ordering a counterterrorism team to cancel a rescue mission at the U. S. consulate and CIA annex in Libya. According to Gingrich…they were told explicitly by the White House ‘stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action.’” Former House Speaker Gingrich has never been called by the Select Committee to verify these statements.

http://theatheistconservative.com/tag/robert-klein-engler/

As far back as 2012, the “official” explanation for the Incident at Benghazi is that it was a spontaneous demonstration protesting a video that was seen by the attackers as insulting to the Prophet and Islam. We know now that this “official” explanation, and the motive it suggests is a lie. According to the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, “I think you can fairly conclude that it was during that phone call that they (Clinton and Obama) decided to push the video lie…” Nevertheless, the White House has repeatedly claimed Stevens’ death was the result of a protest to a video insulting to Islam.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/03/judicial-watch-obama-and-hillary-clinton-concocted-benghazi-video-lie-with-jihadist-help/

The death of a US ambassador is a serious matter. Stevens was the personal representative of president Obama. To let years go by wit out charges made in this matter seems scandalous. At the very least, the perpetuators could be charged with forth degree murder. No to do so may be a result of the fundamental transformation that is taking place in US society and an attempt to coverup what was going on at Benghazi.

What was Stevens doing at Benghazi that brought him into harms way? It is generally agreed that some kind of gun running was taking place at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was a party to it. Fox News confirmed this. Weapons were probably collected by the CIA from the old Libyan regime and assembled at Benghazi for transport via Turkey to the rebels fighting Assad in Syria.

http://www.infowars.com/mainstream-media-on-benghazi-it-was-about-gun-running/

Many now believe that after Stevens’ death the administration put forward the cover story of a video being the reason for the attack that “killed” Stevens. In her Dover Air Force Base statement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/secretary-of-state-hillary-clintons-remarks-at-transfer-of-remains-ceremony-for-americans-killed-in-libya-transcript/2012/09/14/54fc64c0-fea2-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

Nevertheless, Guy Taylor, writing in the Washington Times, claims documents show that the administration’s story that the attack at Benghazi was false from the beginning. “Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred…”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/cia-ignored-station-chief-in-libya-when-creating-t/?page=all

In his book, ‘Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,’ Edward Klein, “claims President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton’s objections.” Perhaps Klein should testify under oath about this accusation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/23/book-obama-instructed-clinton-to-use-video-explanation-after-benghazi-attack.html

We know, too, that, “When the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi…threatened to expose the administration’s gun-running into Syria, it was Victoria Nuland who initiated the White House cover-up. After reading the first draft of the State Department’s talking points stating the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack, Nuland warned this ‘could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings so why would we want to seed the Hill.’”

Edward Klein writes, “If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument (the video caused the death of four Americans) out of the water…Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,’” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “‘Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.’”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/did_hillary_lie_to_congress.html

If Stevens was involved with gun running, and an Internet video was not the motive for the attack at Benghazi, then we must look elsewhere for a motive for the crime. Something must have gone wrong in the weapons exchange that caused the attack to take place and Stevens and others to die. What could have that been?

It’s highly unlikely that forces loyal to the Kadhafi regime could have attacked the CIA compound at Benghazi, without Stevens and the more than 30 Americans stationed there not knowing about the attack before hand.

This delivery of weapons to al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias leads some to believe that Steven’s death was a hit, to keep him quiet about this connection between Clinton’s State Department and illegal gun running. If we accept this motive, then Ambassador Stevens, who was bright, ambitious, and well known to both Obama and Clinton was betrayed by them.

But if all parties in the weapons exchange were making money by it, including al-Qaeda, what would be their motive for attacking and killing Stevens? Most likely not the motives mentioned above. It doesn’t make sense that al-Qaeda would be biting the hand that feeds it. This being the case, there seems to be no motive in these explanations for killing Stevens and stopping the flow of money and weapons.

Is there another motive that builds on the weapons exchange and the video protests that leads to Stevens alleged torture, mutilation and murder, a motive that explains most of the evidence in this case?

It has been suggested that Stevens’ death and the destruction at Benghazi were the result of a foiled plot to kidnap the ambassador and exchange him for the Blind Sheik who is held in a US prison. Then, after negotiations, both Stevens and the Blind Sheik would be exchanged, the arms shipments could continue, and Obama would be reelected. A good plan with a good outcome for many. But something went wrong. The kidnappers and Stevens did not count on resistance offered by other brave Americans who were not in the loop.

Even if Secretary Clinton knew that US forces were ready to defend ambassador Stevens, only the president has cross border authority. Clinton could not order on her own that US forces go from Italy and cross the border into Libya. Does this mean Clinton and Obama conferred before a decision was made? Obama or his agent may have given the order to stand down, and then they concocted the video story?

Some say there are militia members who were on the scene at Benghazi. They affirm that the attack on the compound was because of a video, but how can such a story be believed? Those militia members and their commander never testified to Congress under oath.

Unnamed sources say militia leaders may have helped orchestrate and directly participated in the attack—even though they were being paid, being fed, given automobiles and even allowed to swim in the consulate pool by the U.S. State Department. Fox News also has learned that the leader of the brigade, Fawzi Bukhatif, left Benghazi the day the attack ended on Sept. 12, even as the consulate and annex were still smoldering…”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/nothing-was-done-militia-blamed-for-benghazi-attack-moved-next-door-to-us.html

As it happened, not everyone was ready to stand down during the attack. Woods, and later Doherty, thought the attack was real and they responded like the brave Americans they were. They came out shooting. This resistance was a surprise to the attackers who were planning on no resistance and an easy kidnapping. When some of the attackers were killed, things got out of control.

The attackers, many who may have had Muslim Brotherhood ties in Egypt, felt betrayed and angry. They took their anger out on ambassador Stevens. It was this anger that may have led to Stevens’ alleged torture and death. The motive for Stevens’ murder seems to be revenge. That revenge may have been carried out by a group led by Ahmed Abu Khattala.

It was reported that in 2014, the United States had captured a militant suspected of leading the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby.

Ahmed Abu Khattala was captured by American troops in coordination with law enforcement. Kirby said Khattala was captured…and that all U S personnel involved in the operation are safe.

Khattala, said Kirby, is now “in a secure location outside of Libya.” Has this man been brought before Congress to testify? As far as anyone knows, he has not. What is Congress waiting for? Isn’t his testimony necessary? Ought it not be made public so that this murder investigation can be closed?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/17/322925991/u-s-captures-suspected-ringleader-of-attack-in-benghazi

But maybe Khattala is not the man we are looking for and maybe he lacks a motive for killing ambassador Stevens. There has never been another theory of the crime at Benghazi like the failed kidnapping theory and explains all the facts that we so far know.

Once things fell apart at Benghazi, the administration made a decision to go with the cover story they already had on the shelf or were developing–blame it on the video, lie, and hope for the best.

Given the evident planning for an attack at Benghazi, the lines of communication between ambassador Stevens, the CIA and State Department along with various factions in Libya, a planned kidnapping of a US ambassador is certainly a possibility. The failure of this plan is also the best motive we have so far for the murder of ambassador Stevens.

You would think, after all this time, the results of any honest and complete investigation into the death of ambassador Stevens would have answered clearly three questions: a) How did ambassador Stevens die, b) If he was murdered, who killed him, and c) What was the motive for his murder?

Any homicide detective investigating a crime would want to answer these questions. Why can’t Congress do the same? Not to answer these questions truthfully and to get lost in a blizzard of emails seems to be an obfuscation. Yet, when it comes down to it, those emails may be the only evidence investigators have to build a case against Clinton. Even though many are troubled by her statements regarding the Incident at Benghazi, there is so far no smoking gun, so to speak.

Like Al Capone, Clinton may end up being prosecuted on a lesser charge. Many thought that Capone was guilty of murder, but he was found guilty of tax evasion, instead, and set to prison. Perhaps the only case against Hillary Clinton will be built electronically. Still, we have to wonder why it takes so long to answer three questions common to any murder investigation. Anything else but these answers gives the impression someone is being protected. And so they may be, for the time being.

gunrunning at Benghazi

The website GlobalResearch.com gives some detail about the gunrunning that took place at Benghazi. They claim much of the activity at Benghazi was done in an attempt to arm the rebels in Syria.

Quoting a report by Seymour Hersh, Global Research claims that “A highly classified annex to the (Hersh) report…described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations…By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria…The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.”

Most important is that, “The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation…” This violation of the law and the suggested involvement by members of Congress from both parties may be one reason there is reluctance from many in Congress to fully investigate what went on at Benghazi.

The Global Research report offers no theory about why ambassador Stevens was murdered, yet it claims, “There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents–particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens–were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-efforts-to-arm-jihadis-in-syria-the-scandal-behind-the-benghazi-undercover-cia-facility/5377887?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=u-s-efforts-to-arm-jihadis-in-syria-the-scandal-behind-the-benghazi-underco

A writer for the American Free Press accepts arms transfers were going on at Benghazi and that ambassador Stevens was in the thick of it. He then adds, “As to the motivation behind this executive decision to allow these American men to die, Smith offered a theory.

“‘Being seven weeks before the 2012 election, Obama had no intention of retaliating against the responsible parties at Benghazi…The reason why is that since weapons were being delivered to al Qaeda rebels in Syria, it’s an act of treason to aid, arm and abet a known enemy.’”

“Smith provided a closing thought: ‘Both entrenched political parties have their hands dirtied in this affair.’” Yet, even with this closing thought, there is no reason given for why our ambassador and other Americans were murdered. We have a theory of a crime that explains everything but the crime.

https://americanfreepress.net/?p=12411

After her Senate testimony, Mrs. Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State. Ambassador Stevens was forgotten. No one recalled that Stevens was Clinton’s translator or that he was with her during the March 14, 2011 meeting with Libyan rebel chief Mahmoud Jebril.

http://thegipster.blogspot.com/2013/02/your-services-are-no-longer-required.html

About a year after that meeting in Libya, Clinton stood with her hand over her heart when Stevens’ gray coffin came off an air force plane. With latch and handle, the government supplied coffin looked like an oversized piece of rolling luggage. “Clinton said their deaths are ‘not easy.’ But she added, ‘We must be clear-eyed even in our grief.'”

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html

We now know that men from Egypt participated in the Benghazi attack. Aaron Klein writes, “A Senate investigation for the first time confirmed an Egyptian organization participated in the deadly attack on the U.S. special mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.”

“The 88-page Senate report states ‘individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including … the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks.'”

Beyond that, Klein adds, “The Muslim Brotherhood connection may serve as further evidence of an Egyptian role in the Benghazi attack.” This admission adds weight to the growing suspicion that a kidnapping plot against ambassador Stevens was planned.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/confirmed-egyptians-participated-in-benghazi-attack/

Bill Gertz, writing in the Washington Times, gives credibility to the kidnapping claim, Gertz states, “An al Qaeda terrorist stated in a recent online posting that U. S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi went bad.” An FBI spokeswoman indicated that the bureau is aware of the claim but declined to comment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/4/al-qaeda-weapons-expert-us-ambassador-libya-killed/?page=all – pagebreak

On October 11, 2012 the author of the blog The Last Refuge claims, “Benghazi was not an assassination attempt, it was a botched kidnapping.” The kidnapping was botched when the two ex-Navy Seals, not aware of the plot, decided to offer resistance.

“…The al-Qaeda goal was to kidnap Ambassador Chris Stevens and ransom him back to the U.S. in exchange for Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman.”

The Occam’s Razor Behind The “Coordinated” Benghazi Attack – Answers To The Confusion

Walid Shoebat also gives credence to the kidnapping theory, and takes the theory a step further. He involves the president of Egypt in the plot to kidnap ambassador Stevens. Shoebat writes in his article, Hostage Crisis: The Blind Sheikh, Benghazi and Smoking Guns that, “A Libyan intelligence document has been produced that directly implicates Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Mursi in the attacks on American installations in Benghazi on 9/11/12.”

Shoebat continues, “Four-star Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) who on November 14, 2012, appeared on Fox Business Network with Lou Dobbs…During that interview, Lyons said he believed the only reason that made any sense relative to Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi on 9/11 was a kidnapping operation in which Stevens could be traded for the ‘Blind Sheikh.'”

http://shoebat.com/2013/06/30/benghazi-turning-a-blind-eye-for-the-blind-sheikh/

Ambassador Stevens may have been killed because the jihadists felt betrayed. The resistance by Woods may have foiled the kidnapping plans. He knew nothing of the plot and responded to the call of duty.

That response had the consequence of the kidnappers killing Stevens and planning another attack of revenge hours later. When the plans went south, Stevens was swept away by a sirocco he little expected or understood.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cia-timeline-confirms-woods-and-doherty-killed-benghazi-7hrs-after-wh-told-attack

Even if, as one commentator on Facebook maintains, “the kidnapping theory is a good way to begin a conspiracy theory,” as time goes by, this theory is gaining credibility. As of May 12, 2014, James A. Lyons writes in the Washington Times that, “My informants have confirmed that Stevens was to be kidnapped and held hostage for the release of the Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, currently serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.” The farfetched comes to be the near at hand.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/lyons-benghazi-revisited/#ixzz31acGxzix

If the kidnapping story is discredited, what explanation are we left with? Some argue that there is yet another explanation emerging that claims there were two clandestine operations going on at Benghazi. “One of them was the weapons transfer program, transferring weapons from Libyan stockpiles to Syria.”

We know, now, that “Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.” Furthermore, “Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces…”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/rand-paul-hillarys-benghazi-story-unraveling/

Reports in PJ Media give credence to the gunrunning accusation that took place at Benghazi. PJ Media claims that whistle blowers will come forward and say that “Stevens’ mission in Benghazi…was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA.”

“Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming ‘insurgents’ with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.”

PJ Media will also add to stories circulating that in fact a stand down order came from the White House. “Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops ‘assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately…”

“(General) Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House ‘called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.’”

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/21/pjm-exclusive-ex-diplomats-report-new-benghazi-whistleblowers-with-info-devastating-to-clinton-and-obama/

“While claiming that Al Qaeda had been weakened, Obama said that the attacks on U.S. embassies were in fact a natural outcome of misunderstandings on both sides–of ‘difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.’”

He proceeded to attack the infamous anti-Islam video. “‘And that is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, where a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.'”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/25/Obama-to-UN-Not-My-Video-More-Guards-Would-Not-Have-Helped

We now know Obama’s words were hollow. Guy Taylor, writing in the Washington Times claims documents show that the administration’s story that the attack at Benghazi was false from the beginning. “Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred…”

The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012–a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/cia-ignored-station-chief-in-libya-when-creating-t/ – ixzz2xcyDdoR2

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/russias_olympics_and_obamas_liberation_theology.html

Edward Klein writes, “If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument (the video caused the death of four Americans) out of the water.”

“‘Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,’” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “‘Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.’”

This adviser continued: “‘Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/

Hillary did what she was told to do. Catherine Herridge, writing for Fox News, claims, “Hillary Clinton’s newly released memoir leaves little doubt she was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly link an anti-Islam video to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack—though she does not explain what intelligence she relied on to make the faulty connection.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/

If what Herridge writes is true, then it means that Obama knew about the video before Clinton did, and then told her to use it as a cover story. The video explanation for the attack at Benghazi has its roots in the White House, not the State Department.

If more proof is need that both Clinton and Obama lied about the cause of the Benghazi attack, then consider the recent report by Jordan Schachtel. “In an interview… Air Force Major Eric Stahl, who piloted the aircraft that took the attack’s survivors and victims’ corpses from Benghazi, said CIA personnel were ‘confused’ by the administration’s strategy to blame the YouTube video.”

“He said they knew very well, the same day, that the Islamist assault was a planned attack. Stahl said, ‘They knew during the attack… who was doing the attacking.’ He continued, ‘Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers’ higher ups.’”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/11/Report-Benghazi-Attackers-Communicated-Via-State-Department-Cell-Phones-On-Day-Of-American-Consulate-Assaul

To add insult to injury, we now know that UN ambassador Susan Rice may have been knowledgeable of events in Benghazi and help distort the truth of what had occurred there by blaming the incident of a video. Aaron Klein Writes, “On September 16, 2012, Rice…appeared on five morning talk shows—on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN—telling the story of protests that erupted “spontaneously” as a result of a ‘hateful video” offending Islam.’”

“The most recent government documents released as a result of a Judicial Watch lawsuit—materials reviewed in full by this reporter—show Rice was directly engaged in conversations with State Department employees about Benghazi while the attacks were still ongoing and Ambassador Chris Stevens was missing. The emails do not mention spontaneous protests, but instead discuss ‘fighting’ and an ‘attack.’”

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/04/28/new-benghazi-documents-indicate-rice-misled-nation-claiming-spontaneous-protests/

As more and more facts about the video surface, it becomes clear that of all the explanations put forward to explain the death of Chris Stevens and others at Benghazi; a gun running scheme gone bad, a foiled kidnap plot, clandestine operations, or a YouTube video, the only explanation we know to be completely false, the video explanation, is the one offered by the US government.

Given the strong ties Stevens had with the jihadists, his involvement in a kidnapping plot is not out of the question. Besides that, a failed kidnapping plot to free the Blind Sheik is the only theory of Stevens’ murder that explains all the know facts. Perhaps it may even explain why General Petraeus made an undisclosed trip to Libya a few weeks before he resigned as director of the CIA.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/13/david-petraeus-s-secret-trip-to-libya-after-the-benghazi-attack.html

Susan Posel claims in The Daily Sheeple, that Petraeus and Stevens had a mutual interest in Benghazi. “Petraeus was well aware of Stevens’s role in Benghazi. When Stevens died, the CIA agents who worked with him during his intelligence gathering missions said that the agency “lost a good pair of eyes.” This comment explains the entire reason for a massive cover-up being perpetrated onto the American public complete with an extramarital affair to keep us distracted.”

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/petraeus-resignation-distracts-from-cia-asset-christopher-stevens-actual-mission-in-benghazi_112012

we are under attack

The last words Gregory Hicks heard Ambassador Stevens speak, via telephone, were: “Greg, we are under attack.” If Chris Stevens was in a romantic relationship with Libya, as Sabri Malek claims, could it be that this love, in its many forms, blinded the ambassador to the betrayal and death that lay ahead?

Days after the attack and fire at Benghazi mission, Christopher Stevens’ journal was found among the charred ruins, as if it were the lost letter of a betrayed lover. Are these burnt pages all that remains of the trust Stevens placed in his inter-faith diplomatic effort?

We read in the journal that Stevens worried thoughts about the lack of security at the Benghazi station. Soot, like a shadow, falls across truth and darkens the pages.

Only six US ambassadors have been killed by armed attack in the service of their country. That’s about one ambassador every forty years. What happened at Benghazi is not commonplace but extraordinary.

No father wants the memory of his courageous son to be eroded even if his death is extraordinary. Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, the Navy Seal killed at Benghazi, expressed outrage that his son was abandoned and left to die for political purposes.

Speaking on a Portland radio show, Charles Woods said, “We need to make sure that this does not happen again so that people like Ty, principled men and women who are willing to sacrifice their lives, won’t be abandoned by their Commander in Chief.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/benghazi-father-of-downed-former-navy-seal-breaks-silence

When will we know the whole truth about what happened at Benghazi? Mary Commanday, a retired Marin Symphony cellist and the mother of Stevens, “…doesn’t want to talk about the politics surrounding her son’s death. She said, “I don’t think it’s productive to lay blame on people.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57534825/chris-stevens-mother-speaks-out-on-death-in-libya/

The mother of Sean Smith, also killed at Benghazi, holds a different view. She does not trust what little information Washington is telling her.

Pat Smith said in an interview, “I look at TV and I see bloody handprints on walls, thinking, my God, is that my son’s?” she said. “I don’t know if he was shot. I don’t know–I don’t know. They haven’t told me anything…And the things that they are telling me are just outright lies.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57534825/chris-stevens-mother-speaks-out-on-death-in-libya/

Secretary Clinton and the ambassador

When Secretary Clinton testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late January, she did little to dispel the mystery that still surrounds the Incident at Benghazi and Stevens’ death.

Speaking about Clinton’s testimony, Oliver North said, “We still do not know why the ambassador was in Benghazi and not at his post in Tripoli. We don’t know why he was traveling with such a short, scant security detail. We don’t know why the State Department ignored the requests for improving the security situation at the consulate…”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/north-clinton-benghazi-testimony/2013/01/23/id/472663

Chris Zane, writing in The Western Center for Journalism challenges Secretary Clinton’s testimony before Congress with recently released information. Citing evidence from hacked emails, Zane writes, “According to Blumenthal’s February 16, 2013 email to Clinton, the Benghazi attack was well-planned and well-funded by Saudi billionaires:”

“‘The attack…originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012 these financiers provided funds to…Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb…These funds were eventually provided to Ansar al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region in support of their attack on the U.S. consulate.'”

Zane then goes on to speculate about the reasons the Obama regime wanted the attack to take place. “The question becomes: if the CIA was backing Qaddafi, why then did NATO, with Obama at the helm, decide to topple the Qaddafi regime?”

“The answer may lie in the fact that Obama is largely aligned with globalists, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal is a global, totalitarian caliphate.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/were-saudis-behind-benghazi-attack/

Clinton also had a heated exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson during the hearing. Earlier, Johnson had accused her of “purposefully misleading the American people” by blaming nonexistent protests. “‘…What difference at this point does it make?’ Clinton shot back in a raised voice.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32060-hillary-clintons-benghazi-meltdown-what-difference-does-it-make/

With Secretary Clinton’s testimony we are left with something like the odor of Robespierre coming from the ashes at Benghazi. This odor permeates even those who mourn. Here also the irony of betrayal is noted. Politics may have contributed to Stevens’ death yet we are told we should not politicize it.

As someone who spoke French, you’d think Stevens would have remembered the ironies of the French Revolution. When considering the political ideologies that led Stevens to Benghazi, one is reminded of the French revolutionary Robespierre, and a mastermind behind the Reign of Terror.

Imagine if your son had died violently in the service of his country. You ask the Secretary of State how and why he died. The only answer a mother gets is a cold, “What difference does it make–he’s dead, isn’t he?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981056/posts

What difference does it make if a man is betrayed? Betrayal in love leads to a broken heart. Betrayal in war is often as final as death itself. Does Secretary Clinton know in her heart that her husband did something like that to her? Did she just turn her betrayal into ice and move on? Does her indifference come from this turning? Chris Stevens could not move on. His betrayal was a betrayal unto death.

Growing up in a liberal enclave, ambassador Stevens was one kind of American. Unlike Stevens, Sean Smith had his own family and was the father of two children. Growing up in yet a different kind of Florida family, Woods could be said to have believed in a more conservative America. They all died at Benghazi, but what kind of politics led to their death?

the wound that will not heal

The Australian News sums up the fate of ambassador Stevens at Benghazi when they write, “But the irony of his death is that Stevens fervently backed the Libyan revolt that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and the broader Middle East spring, only to be killed in an attack after the strongman’s fall.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/middle-east-in-turmoil/ambassador-chris-stevens-final-hours-a-mystery/story-fn7ycml4-1226473227864

Where was the President of the United States during the Benghazi attacks? According to Rick Lowry, “Obama’s actions and nonactions on that terrible night are a blank spot in his presidency. We simply don’t know much about them, and the White House has always been perfectly content to leave it that way.”

Lowry adds, “The day after his mystery night, Obama publicly emerged. He gave a statement at 10:35 a.m. condemning the Benghazi attack–and left Washington at 2:20 p.m. for a fundraiser in Las Vegas.”

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/05/where_was_the_president_on_the.html

Dan Pfeiffer, senior advisor to the president, refuses to disclose if the president was in the Situation Room or not. In spite of Pfeiffer, the one man who should know where the President was on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, is Mark Sullivan, once head of the US Secret Service. He was charged with knowing the whereabouts of the President at all times. Unfortunately, Sullivan retired in February 2013, and is not talking.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/01/report-secret-service-director-to-resign-post/

We now know, too, there was ample time to send military help, but we do not know why that help was NOT sent and who ordered the help available in Tripoli to stand down. Jonathan Moseley claims, “Elite U.S. troops were completely capable of saving Ambassador Chris Stevens during the Benghazi Consulate attacks on September 11, 2012.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/us_military_we_could_have_saved_ambassador_stevens.html

Daniel Greenfield tries to imagine the last moments in Benghazi. He writes, “We will…never know what was going through Christopher Stevens’ mind on September 11, 2012, as he battled the choking smoke, experiencing what so many New Yorkers had experienced on September 11, 2001. Like them, he was faced with a terrible dilemma, a choice between remaining in the fire and committing suicide by going outside.”

“…Stevens chose to remain inside and die rather than face the tender mercies of his attackers…The photos that have been released, along with claims by Libyan jihadists that they sexually assaulted his corpse, suggest that he made the right choice…perhaps in those final moments…Christopher Stevens finally understood the true horror of the Muslim world that he had fallen in love with as a Peace Corps volunteer.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/christopher-stevens-feeds-the-crocodile/2/

How do we square that audacious truth with the September 25 statements by Barack Obama at the United Nations? The memory of Stevens’ death must have still been fresh in his mind. He had supposedly been told by Hillary Clinton earlier that the video story was not credible. Nevertheless, Obama said…

“…a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world…the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/11/16/susan-rice-is-a-diversion-from-obamas-own-words/

Reports say more than thirty survivors of the attack are being kept under wraps and not allowed to talk to the media. “Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)…has been asking the State Dept. to produce witnesses and survivors of the Benghazi attack and has been left without a response.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/13/Congressman-State-Dept-Hiding-Benghazi-Attack-Survivors-May-Not-Release-Full-Investigative-Report

In an attempt to keep the survivors of the Benghazi attack away from the public and the media so that their story will not come out, reports are that officials have changed the name of some of the survivors who are still in the hospital.

Representative Chaffetz claims that the administration “‘will not give us the names.’ He said one person who went to the hospital even had their ‘name changed’ on hospital records so as not to be identified.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/lawmakers-demand-access-to-survivors-injured-in-benghazi-attack/

Soon after the attack that killed ambassador Stevens, the president was adamant in his desire to find the truth. He claimed, “We will not waiver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” One has to wonder if after all the lies that have been told about the Incident at Benghazi that the president’s search for truth and justice will lead right back to him.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/weeks-best-quotes/story?id=17246303 – 2

Imagine if you were present when Stevens’ flag draped coffin was rolled off the cargo plane at Andrew’s Air Force Base. You saw the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stand by the ambassador’s coffin and blame the death of our ambassador on a video few saw.

Before introducing the President, Mrs. Clinton speaks into a pair of black microphones, “So we will wipe away our tears, stiffen our spines and face the future undaunted. And we will do it together protecting and helping one another.” Helping one another?

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/14/transcript-video-hillary-clinton-speaks-at-ceremony-as-bodies-of-americans-killed-in-libya-arrive-in-the-us

going forward

It’s been many years since ambassador Stevens met his untimely death at Benghazi. In that time the slow drip of revelations about what happened in Libya has been constant. Unfortunately, the drips have not added up to a flood. Likewise, the violence and betrayal at Benghazi has been overshadowed by the violence advanced by the Islamic State in Syria, or ISIS.

The promised Congressional hearing on Benghazi may end up being just political posturing and disclose nothing but what we already know. Nevertheless, some facts are emerging that make the theory of a failed kidnaping of our ambassador more credible. In this regards, two developments are significant.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/stand-down-two-theories-about-the-incident-at-benghazi

Writing in the American Thinker, James Lewis states, “If you think the CIA would never collude with the primitive head choppers of ISIS, consider what John Brennan and Obama have already done. In Benghazi we now know the CIA colluded with Al Qaida gangs in Libya and Syria to smuggle advanced weapons from Gadhafi’s huge stockpile to the Sunni rebels in Syria, the precursors of ISIS.”

http://americanthinker.com/2014/08/does_isis_have_blackop_backers_.html#ixzz3BuOVBff9

We must remember that ambassador Stevens was a key player in this smuggling. It is no longer far fetched to imagine that a black-ops plan to guarantee the reelection of Obama could involve Stevens.

Beyond that, there are some who claim to the shock of others, that the Obama administration has switched sides in the war against terror. “A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.”

“She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.”

http://counterjihadreport.com/2014/08/29/cia-expert-obama-switched-sides-in-war-on-terror/

When these two developments are considered in light of what we already know about the Incident at Benghazi, the failed kidnaping theory continues to make sense. Furthermore, it looks like we can begin to draw a line from ISIS to Benghazi to the White House.

Because the Incident at Benghazi traps so many corrupt players from both political parties in a web of deceit, the truth about what happened there may not be known for a century, if ever.

If the truth about Benghazi is eventually told, it may not be told by any administration. It may be told, by those who have no interest except he truth. Two years after the Incident at Benghazi, a new book tells a story that makes you wonder why a US administration would not want to make the heroism that took place there known as quickly and as widely as possible, especially in an election year.

“13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi,” by Mitchall Zuckoff, “… is an extraordinary and exciting first-hand account of the courageous and honorable actions of a few men … who took it upon themselves to do their duty and act—some of them against orders—when others did not, could not, or would not act.”

http://americanthinker.com/2014/09/courage_and_honor_in_the_benghazi_battles_.html]

To put a blanket of silence over these heroic deeds means something more had to be covered with a blanket of silence, too. This may be why Zuckoff’s book, “leaves unanswered such important questions as whom the assaulters were, the assaulters’ motives and ends, and why the assaulters broke off and resumed assaults several times during the 13 hours.”

Benghazi trial generates more questions than answers

The trial in Washington, D.C. of Abu Khattala is over. The Washington Post reports: “A Libyan militant accused of being a ringleader of the deadly 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was convicted on terrorism charges…But the jury declined to find him directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.’”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/accused-benghazi-ringleader-convicted-of-terrorism-charges-in-2012-attacks-that-killed-us-ambassador/2017/11/28/39fca3b8-ca37-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.83a004ebb78d

“At trial, his defense team said Abu Khattala was drawn to the fiery scene in his home town as a bystander. They questioned the credibility of three Libyan witnesses who testified they saw or heard Abu Khattala take steps to plan, execute and claim responsibility for the attacks.

Notably absent as witnesses for the defense were Susan Rice, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. All of them at one time or another suggested that the attack at Benghazi was caused by an offensive video, and not Abu Khattala as a ringleader of violence. Why the defense team did not call them to testify is a mystery.

In an interview, Susan Rice once said: “Let’s be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region…was a result—a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated … which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting”

Barack Obama is on record saying: “What we’ve seen over the last week … is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.”

Kelly Riddell wrote in The Washington Times for Tuesday, June 28, 2016: “Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks…On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: ‘We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive.’”

Even though Khattala’s trial featured “dramatic testimony by surviving State Department and CIA operators, some taking the stand under fake names and disguised in wigs and mustaches to protect their identities,” no one from the defense team saw fit to call Rice, Obama, and Clinton to testify.

After the trail, “Dana J. Boente said in a statement that, “‘…Our work is not done. We will not rest in our pursuit of the others’ involved in the attacks.” At the end of the trial, Abu Khattala was found not guilty of ambassador Stevens’s murder. So far, no one else has been charged with Stevens’s death.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/benghazi-attacks-trial-verdict-khattala.html

Adam Goldman and Charlie Savage repeat this conclusion in their Nov. 28, 2017, article. “A former militia leader from Libya was convicted on Tuesday of terrorism charges arising from the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed a United States ambassador and three other Americans. But he was acquitted of multiple counts of the most serious offense, murder.

https://canadafreepress.com/print_friendly/the-trial-of-abu-khattala-is-getting-off-to-a-strange-start

“A Libyan militant accused of being a ringleader of the deadly 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was convicted on terrorism charges…But the jury declined to find him directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.’

Notably absent as witnesses for the defense were Susan Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

All of them at one time or another suggested the attack at Benghazi was caused by an offensive video, and not Abu Khattala as a ringleader of violence. Why the defense team did not call them to testify is a mystery.

In an interview Susan Rice once said: “…let’s be clear about what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region…was a result—a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated…which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting…”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933

Barack Obama is on record for saying: “…What we’ve seen over the last week… is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html

Kelly Riddell writes in The WashingtonTimes for Tuesday, June 28, 2016, “Another day goes by, and publicly Mrs. Clinton continues to blame the internet video in her remarks…On Sept. 14, White House spokesman Jay Carney, answering a question about Benghazi during a press conference, said: ‘We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive…’”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/

Even though Khattala’s trial featured, “…dramatic testimony by surviving State Department and CIA operators, some taking the stand under fake names and disguised in wigs and mustaches to protect their identities,” no one from the defense team saw fit to call Rice, Obama and Clinton to testify.

After the trail, “Dana J. Boente said in a statement that, “‘…Our work is not done. We will not rest in our pursuit of the others’ involved in the attacks.”

In spite of Abu Khattala’s trial and verdict, we still don’t know answers to three lingering questions about the Incident at Benghazi.

How did ambassador Stevens die, who killed him, and what was the motive?

ashes

The body of US ambassador John Christopher Stevens arrived back in the United States at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012, weeks before the November presidential election. Reports claim after the attack at the US mission in Benghazi, Stevens’ body was located at a hospital in Libya by using his cell phone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html

Why have so many in government, from the President on down to the Secretary of State and pentagon generals, lied or have not been totally forthcoming about what happened at Benghazi to ambassador Stevens?

Arnold Ahlert, a writer for FrontPagPageMag.com claims, “Eyewitness testimony by the remaining survivors has the potential to devastate this administration. It would likely blow a large hole in Obama’s phony Middle East narrative…and it might even reveal why any attempts to rescue Americans under attack were either aborted, or never undertaken at all.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/where-are-the-benghazi-survivors/

If Chris Stevens were alive today, what would he say about the Incident at Benghazi? Maybe he would avoid the truth, too, because he wants to become the ambassador to Iran. He has a career to consider, his “cursus honorum” to follow, not just his UC Berkeley idealism. Maybe Stevens would slough off his betrayal as just part of his job.

After almost five years, the Incident at Benghazi still casts a long shadow across our politics. Sen. James M. Inhofe, (R) Oklahoma, reminds us of this when he said, “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,”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/22/inhofe-benghazi-cover-bigger-watergate-iran-contra/

Who knows how far the cover-up extends? It may stretch from Washington, DC to Cairo, Egypt. Who knows when the cover-up will end or see the light of day? Betrayal, like lies, requires darkness to live.

http://therightscoop.com/new-evidence-connecting-egypts-president-morsi-to-911-attack-on-consulate-in-benghazi/

Each of us must face our end, yet the scandal that is the Incident at Benghazi shows no signs of ending soon. For ambassador Stevens, however, the end came most difficultly–breathing in toxic diesel fumes and hiding from the flames that licked at the safe-room door.

Then the attackers found him out. They knew ahead of time the location of the safe room.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/15/benghazi-attackers-reportedly-knew-location-ambassador-safe-room/

What followed after that may have been a betrayal too horrible to speak about here. As the compound at Benghazi filled with smoke and the crack, crack, crack of gunfire sounded outside, did Stevens realize no one was coming to help him? Videos seem to show Stevens was dragged alive from the burning compound, only to die later.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/how-did-ambassador-stevens-die

Stevens never heard the reassuring drone from a Lockheed AC-130 gunship overhead. Did someone hear above the din the muffled prayer, “Bismillah al rahman al rahim?” Maybe all that was heard was a cock crow from some stone building down the street. That was the sound of betrayal, not the help Stevens imagined.

When the dust settled after the battle at Benghazi, it was time for our enemies to collect their trophies. “…Stevens’ personal belongings–including his camera, cell phone, identification papers and various private documents–are being kept locked in a safe in the possession of Wesam Bin Hameed in Libya.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/terrorist-has-personal-effects-of-slain-u-s-ambassador/?cat_orig=us

The autopsy on Christopher Stevens’ body has not yet been made public. The cause of death is officially unknown. Stevens’ remains were laid to rest in a family plot at Grass Valley Cemetery in California.

There was no grieving widow graveside to watch the coffin slide into the hungry earth. It’s been a trail of ashes and lies from Benghazi to Grass Valley since then. Ashes, ashes all fall down.*

###

Now available at amazon.com; “A Republic, if you can keep it”

*Quotations contained in this article are from sources generally believed to be reliable. The author has not independently investigated the individual claims or assertions and is presenting the quote only for informational reference

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

Slavery: What They Didn’t Teach in My High School

“While slavery was common to all civilizations,” writes Sowell, “…only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history — Western civilization. … Not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all.”

reblogged from Townhall.com

slave trade

by Larry Elder

A man I have known since grade school changed his name, years ago, to an Arabic one. He told me he rejected Christianity as “the white man’s religion that justified slavery.” He argued Africans taken out of that continent were owed reparations. “From whom?” I asked.

Arab slavers took more Africans out of Africa and transported them to the Middle East and to South America than European slavers took out of Africa and brought to North America. Arab slavers began taking slaves out of Africa beginning in the ninth century — centuries before the European slave trade — and continued well after.

In “Prisons & Slavery,” John Dewar Gleissner writes: “The Arabs’ treatment of black Africans can aptly be termed an African Holocaust. Arabs killed more Africans in transit, especially when crossing the Sahara Desert, than Europeans and Americans, and over more centuries, both before and after the years of the Atlantic slave trade. Arab Muslims began extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did. Arab slave traders removed slaves from Africa for about 13 centuries, compared to three centuries of the Atlantic slave trade. African slaves transported by Arabs across the Sahara Desert died more often than slaves making the Middle Passage to the New World by ship. Slaves invariably died within five years if they worked in the Ottoman Empire’s Sahara salt mines.”

My name-changing friend did not know that slavery occurred on every continent except Antarctica. Europeans enslaved other Europeans. Asians enslaved Asians. Africans enslaved other Africans. Arabs enslaved other Arabs. Native Americans even enslaved other Native Americans.

He accused me of “relying on white historians” who, he insisted, had a “vested interest to lie.”

What about Thomas Sowell, the brilliant economist/historian/philosopher, who happens to be black? Sowell writes: “Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century.

“People of every race and color were enslaved — and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed.”

Sowell also wrote: “The region of West Africa … was one of the great slave-trading regions of the continent — before, during, and after the white man arrived. It was the Africans who enslaved their fellow Africans, selling some of these slaves to Europeans or to Arabs and keeping others for themselves. Even at the peak of the Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere. … Arabs were the leading slave raiders in East Africa, ranging over an area larger than all of Europe.”

I asked my friend if his anger over slavery extended to countries like Brazil. “Brazil?” he said.

Harvard’s Department of African and African American Studies professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. — who also happens to be black — wrote: “Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America. And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage. In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone!”

African tribes who captured other tribes sold them into slavery. For this reason, in 2006, Ghana offered an official apology. Emmanuel Hagan, director of research and statistics at Ghana’s Ministry of Tourism and Diaspora Relations, explains: “The reason why we wanted to do some formal thing is that we want — even if it’s just for the surface of it, for the cosmetic of it — to be seen to be saying ‘sorry’ to those who feel very strongly and who we believe have distorted history, because they get the impression that it was people here who just took them and sold them. It’s something we have to look straight in the face and try to address, because it exists. So we will want to say something went wrong. People made mistakes, but we are sorry for whatever happened.”

Over 600,000 Americans, in a country with less than 10 percent of today’s population, died in the Civil War that ended slavery. “While slavery was common to all civilizations,” writes Sowell, “…only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history — Western civilization. … Not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all.”

And, no, after all this, my friend did not reconsider his name change.

A Republic-front cover

Available on amazon.com; “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

The Alienork Way

he should not tell any people that he met along the way anything about his paranoid and dangerous so-called “Alienork Way” conspiracy theories

alienorkway3

The Alienork Way – Matt Bracken

Fully attributed to Matt Bracken and Enemies, Foreign and Domestic;

https://gatesofvienna.net/2016/01/the-alienork-way/

The Alienork Way A cautionary tale for civilized humans. By Matthew Bracken

My name is Naku. This is the story of my people, who live on the great Island of Plenty. Our island is so vast, and the need for travel so small, and it being very difficult to cross the high mountain ridges, people most often live near where they are born. Food is easy to grow or to pick everywhere and at all times of the year, and there are plenty of fish to catch as well. But from time to time a traveler might visit, sometimes by boat, and sometimes by climbing over the sharp-topped mountains between the numberless valleys. As you may suppose, because of the difficulty of distant traveling, news from afar does not travel quickly on the Island of Plenty.

But I did hear a few years earlier about some new people from the outside, people who had landed on the other side of our island, in the place we call Far Plenty. These new people were said to be very strange, and not so pleasant. They did some unusual praying at night, possibly to the moon. They were called the Alanok people, if the tales were truly reported. It was said that they had come from a very terrible island, an island full of war and hunger and catastrophe, and that they needed to find a new home where they could live in peace.

Now, on the Island of Plenty, we have two very important rules or laws that we must all always obey. The First Law of Plenty is that anybody can believe anything that they want to believe, or not believe anything they don’t want to believe, and that is okay, because all ideas are equal on the Island of Plenty. The Second Law of Plenty is that if you give kindness and plenty to other people, they should always give kindness and plenty to you in return. After all, it is the Island of Plenty, and the bounty should be shared. Why not? There is plenty for all. These Laws came from our distant ancestors, who once suffered wars and hunger, until they learned the Two Laws. Then, the Island of Plenty also became the island of peace and contentment.

So it is understandable that when the Alanok people escaped from a terrible place and first came to Far Plenty, that they should be warmly welcomed. The Alanoks had severe needs, and the people of Far Plenty possessed a great bounty to share with them. But, according to the rare visitors to our valleys, the Alanoks were rather strange, and unpleasant, and did something odd at night when the moon had risen.

That was all I knew about them, until the day came when a man about my age, with a very weak and sickly wife and a young daughter, climbed down the steep cliffs and crawled into our village almost at the point of perishing. His name was Napok, which means Hawk in your tongue, and he had the most incredible tale to tell. He had lived all of his life on the other side of Middle Plenty, in a valley almost as distant as Far Plenty. Napok and his wife and daughter had been driven out of his valley by the Alienorks, as he called the Alanoks, barely escaping, most of his extended clan and family being wiped out.

This was a most alarming story. The Council of the Wise met at the Council Bluff by the sea to discuss the matter. Was Napok crazy-in-the-head insane? Was his presence here a danger to us? His tale was completely unbelievable. All of the tribes and clans of the Island of Plenty had learned to live in harmony many generations before. This was accepted and understood by everyone as the normal condition of all people.That the Alanok visitors to Far Plenty could be so dangerous and violently aggressive was simply implausible. Clearly, Napok must be insane. Perhaps climbing over all the steep ridges and down the even steeper cliffs for many weeks had driven him mad.

It was decided that Napok and his wife and daughter could live with us in the middle valley of Near Plenty, but only if he stopped his bizarre public rantings about the Alanoks, given that his speeches of warning to passers-by were extremely disturbing, and upset everybody, especially the children. This demand was put to Napok, and with some reluctance he agreed to our conditions — no more crazy talk about the Alanoks, or the Alienorks as he spoke their name. His family was given the hut that belonged to an old widow before she died. It turned out that Napok was quite good at making useful items from bark and vines, and soon we all had very nice foot coverings, that were especially useful for walking on shallow reefs and sharp rocks. Except for the occasional paranoid and conspiratorial whisper about the Alanoks, Napok was a fine addition to the people of Near Plenty. His wife was weak and frail, but his daughter, Nona, was pretty and popular with our young men. Some of them were courting her, hoping to be paired with her when she came of age, which would make Napok and his family a full part of the people of Near Plenty.

A few years after Napok joined us, another stranger, alone, climbed down the cliffs into the middle valley of Near Plenty. He was an old man with white hair and a white beard, but he was very fit and full of vigor for his age. His name was Amok, and he was the first person that I had ever met of the Alanoks, as I still called them until then. He said that he was an elder and a teacher of the Alienork people, pronouncing their name just as Napok had pronounced it. Alienork was a very strange word to our ears, and not easy for us to speak. It had no meaning in our tongue. Alienork only meant Alienork. The bearded elder corrected me until I spoke it to his satisfaction: ah-lee-en-ork, but said quickly. Amok didn’t look so different from my people on the Island of Plenty, and he was rather pleasant and seemed as intelligent as any. He had certainly learned the tongue of the Island of Plenty very well. He told me that The Alienork Way was the way of peace, and that we would surely live together in harmony on the Island of Plenty.
Amok asked if he could stay with us near our village, and in return, he could give lessons in The Alienork Ways, and the Alienork tongue as well. He said it would be wise for us to learn these things. A volunteer teacher in the valley was always welcome. He could also teach anyone who wanted to learn about Far Plenty and other distant islands. At his request, we offered him an empty private hut. Amok was mostly quiet, didn’t eat much and caused no problems, but he did have a few peculiar requirements. First, he said that he needed a little more land for his hut, because he was required by his beliefs to pray to the moon anytime it was up at night. And to do this correctly, he needed to make a little ring or circle of stones around his hut, and this ring needed more space than he had been offered.

And also, he declared, it was the sacred custom of Alienork men to always wear a ceremonial dagger or sword on their belt, as a symbol of their manhood. The dagger of Amok was thin and as long as my arm from elbow to fingertip. He kept it tucked beneath a red sash around his waist. Unlike my people, who always wear the light wraparound pareo cloth, which also dries quickly, Amok wore a thicker robe of black cloth. He explained that the ring of stones and the sword and the moon singing and the black robe were all part of The Alienork Way. And, as Amok reminded me, because of our First Law of Plenty, we had to allow him to believe as he chose, which was, of course, completely true.

The Council of the Wise met and we decided that if Amok would agree to always obey the Two Laws, we would also comply with his wishes concerning his private beliefs. He readily agreed to this, so we let him take a fallow field over past the other bluff, and a group of our men even moved his hut over there for him. He then placed a circle of stones around his new dwelling, the circle being about five paces across from side to side. And sure enough, after nightfall and when the moon came out, he walked around the inside of his ring and he prayed a strange song like a lamentation. Otherwise, Amok was a normal man in most every respect, very wise and learned and well-traveled, and a good speaker of our tongue. He quickly attracted a following of our younger men, who trailed behind him as he walked along the beaches and he spoke of his Alienork ways, and as well he taught them the Alienork tongue.

Now, our prior visitor and long-time guest Napok was very upset by the introduction of the Alienork elder into our midst, and he came to me when I was alone at the lower fishing pool. He warned me not to trust Amok. He told me that everything that Amok said was a lie. It was very disturbing to me that Napok was acting crazy and paranoid again, and I considered whether I should notify the Council of the Wise about the degrading condition of his mind. But on the other side, I had to admit that at least Napok had been correct about the ring of stones, and the moon singing. And the black robe. And the sword.

Hawaiian sailing vessel
After a moon had passed, one morning when the village arose, we could see that there were now three huts where there had been only one hut for Amok, and the ring of stones was now about twenty paces across. A few of us villagers walked over out of curiosity, and we saw that Amok was now joined by two young men and a boy almost a man. Each of them wore a black robe, each with a sword longer than Amok’s in their red sash. I said to Amok, Grandfather, who are these people? And Amok said they are my nephews. They have escaped from Far Plenty, where there is currently much war and hunger. They need to have a new place to live in peace and safety. Do you see, Naku, that we have already erected more huts, so these newcomers will be no trouble at all? And Amok reminded us that the Second Law of Plenty demanded that we must extend our full bounty to these needy newcomers, and that they were very hungry after their long and difficult travels.

We began to walk over to inspect the new huts, to see how they were built in the Alienork method, but when our feet touched the ring of stones, the three new Alienork men became filled with sudden anger, and began to pick up other stones, and threw them at us! It even seemed as if they were aiming at us, intending to cause us actual pain and harm! We all retreated back into the trees. Finally, Amok came out of the circle of stones, his arms extended in apology. The new boys had seen much war and privation. They were a little jumpy. But, he said, we must understand that it is a part of The Alienork Way that we people of the Island of Plenty, whom Amok said the Alienorks call Notorks, should never, under any circumstance, ever enter inside of the circles of stones without a direct invitation. He said this in a pleasant way, but he made it very clear to us that there would be serious trouble if any Notorks intruded within the sacred Alienork stone rings uninvited.

On the other hand, Amok’s three nephews would walk freely through our village and our market, and even down by our pools for fishing and our pools for swimming, and when they walked among us, they spoke in their Alienork tongue in ways that suggested that they were insulting us. They also clucked their cheeks and wiggled their extended tongues at our women and girls in a quite disgusting manner. Some of our Near Plenty men became angry, and threatened the Alienork youths with violence if they did not stop their bad behavior, but the three drew their swords in a menacing manner at the approaching group of Near Plenty men, and both sides withdrew cautiously, the Alienorks throwing presumed curses and insults at our men in their tongue as they departed.

The Council met again, and I volunteered to speak to Amok about their bad behavior. I went to their circle of stones and called to him, and he came out to the ring. Opening his arms widely in welcome, he stated that I was bid to come inside as a special and valued guest and dear friend of a considerable time now. We walked into his hut, and that was the first time that I saw that there were not only the three new male Alienorks, but also about a hand of females, and that was only counting the females in Amok’s hut! These new females had never been seen outside of any hut, and not only that, but each one of them was squatting on the ground, completely covered by a black blanket extending to the ground! I only knew they were females by low keening wails that they made as they rocked front to back.

I exclaimed to Amok, what is the matter with your women, are they sick with a disease? I recoiled in alarm. Amok gently took my arm and led me to them. No, he said, they are not sick, but it is The Alienork Way that our women should stay inside our huts, and must always be covered in a black blanket when Notork men are near. Just as Notorks must never cross the sacred circle of stones without an invitation, Notorks must never see the uncovered Alienork women. This is The Alienork Way, he said.

Amok reminded me of our First Law about freedom of beliefs, and said that these beliefs are all part of The Alienork Way, and so they must be respected. I pondered this, and looked at the crouching women under their black blankets. I asked of Amok, said I, Elder, what of the freedom of belief of these women? Do they too agree with The Alienork Way? Amok crossed the small room, spoke sharply in the Alienork tongue, and nudged one of the women with his foot. All of the women in unison began to sing a strange high-pitched La-la-la-la-la song, until Amok nudged the nearest again, and they all stopped as one. You see, said Amok, this is how our women express that they are very happy. They prefer to live under their black blankets, inside of our huts, where they can feel safe from any harm. It is The Alienork Way, and you must respect our beliefs. I know, I agreed. It was our First Law again. All beliefs are equal.

I then said to Amok, your young men are causing great difficulties in the village and the market and at the pools. They are upsetting our women and they are angering our men. A big fight almost happened today, and it could have lead to the unimaginable: actual physical violence. Physical violence, which is the demon’s burning hell compared to the heaven of the Island of Plenty. Physical violence, which is the opposite and the antithesis of the Two Sacred Laws of Plenty.

Amok agreed with me that it was a most lamentable situation. But it was The Alienork Way that if Alienork men are around any women who are not covered by a black blanket, then the Alienork men may make such use of the women as they should so desire at that moment. This is a very important part of The Alienork Way, declared Amok with finality. If the Notork women and girls do not wish to experience the overtures of our healthy and strong young Alienork men, who are acting only according to nature, then they must indicate this feeling by wearing the black blanket, and by staying inside of the huts of their men.

I said to Amok that this is certain to cause a lot of problems, and that I am only a spokesman, and that the Council of the Wise will never agree to this. We decided to meet again, after the next meeting of the Council. Amok escorted me to the circle of rings, and wished me well. The Council met several times more, but no decision could be made. Napok also sought me out, and warned me in the strongest terms not to make any agreement with Amok, but to drive the Alienorks out of the middle valley of Near Plenty while we still could. He said that the Alienorks always lie, and that The Alienork Way is not peaceful, but the path of war and violence and slavery and death and conquest. I was beginning to suspect that Napok had been more right than wrong about the Alienorks, back when he first came to live with us with his wife and daughter. Indeed, our situation had changed much for the worse since the appearance of Amok.

In that time before the final decision of the Council, and on the first morning after the new sliver moon makes its brief appearance at nightfall, I went over to meet Amok, to ask a point of clarification for another member of the council. I also wanted to ask him if he was indeed telling me the truth when he had told me that The Alienork Way means peace. He met me at the edge of the circle of stones, but he did not invite me across it. I was astounded to see that the circle had been enlarged to at least one hundred paces across, and there were now more than two hands of huts, and many more men and older boys, all of them with swords in their sashes! Not only that, but I recognized two young Notork men among them, men who were now wearing the black robes, the red sashes, and the sharp metal swords of the Alienorks!

A crowd of these young men sauntered up behind Amok, and began saying words in the Alienork tongue that made me feel very much afraid for my safety. Some half-pulled their swords from their sashes, and others made the gesture of slitting their throats with a drawn finger, then pointing their fingers at me. One of the boys cried out, Notork — monkey-dung! These were the first words in our tongue that I had heard spoken by any of the Alienorks except for their elder, Amok. Obviously, Amok or one of the Notork men now dressed in the Alienork manner had taught them the insulting words. The other boys took up the chant: Notork — monkey-dung! Notork — monkey-dung! Notork — monkey-dung!

The destruction of the idols
I was in a state of bewilderment and turmoil, and I forgot the questions that I had come to ask of Amok. He said that now, because there were many more Alienorks who had escaped from the wars and hunger in Far Plenty, they had need of many more huts, and their circle of stones now extended even into our village, and inside their sacred circle of stones, our own villagers must vacate their huts, or take them off, but either way, there must not be even one single Notork living within the circle of stones before the sun went down!

I said, Uncle, Elder, how can this be? You yourself said that The Alienork Way is the way of peace! Amok said to me that if we obeyed The Alienork Way, we would be able to live in peace. I said that our people did not want to live in The Alienork Way, that our people preferred to wear the cool and convenient wraparound pareo which dried quickly, and our women did not want to wear the black blankets and stay inside their huts. He said, then we will not have peace. Only if the Notorks comply with The Alienork Way, can there be peace. We Notorks must also live according to The Alienork Way, there is no choice in the matter. That is what Amok said.

Then I was burning with angry rage, but the newly-arrived Alienork men behind Amok were half drawing their swords, so I had to keep a calm face. From behind them the boys began to pelt me with pebbles and small stones, and they all chanted Notork — monkey-dung! at me, but I did not run away, instead I walked as normally as I could back to our village, pebbles striking my back and even my head, while inside my heart was filled with terror. Indeed, as Amok stated, their circle of stones now included the Alienork side of our very own village, snaking its way around a hand of our huts!

Napok came to see me urgently. He said that I must assemble all of our men and somehow produce or create or invent new weapons. We had no metal for swords, only sharpened bamboo stakes could be made quickly enough, but he said that we should nonetheless make them, and prepare to violently battle the Alienorks now, no matter the cost! What a shocking thing to say! Napok was clearly losing his mind again, due to the sudden stress of dealing with increasing numbers of our new Alienork visitors.

I immediately took the issue to the Council of the Wise. After much discussion, it was decided that the Alienorks could retain the newly enlarged circle for their own territory, but that they must not enlarge it again, not by even one more pace, ever! And I was to encourage the Alienork men, by way of Amok, not to harass our women anymore, and in return, our women would wear a doubled pareo, high to the neck and down to their knees. (Our women very strongly did not want to stay in their huts under black blankets.) The Council of the Wise decided that we would meet The Alienork Way in the middle, and make a compromise. And that we would not sharpen any bamboo spears, because if the Alienorks found out, this provocation would only cause them even further anger.

After nightfall, all of the Alienork men did their wildest moon dancing yet, twirling and whirling and howling like demons. This lasted most of the night, until the moon fell near morning. Some of the villagers nearest the circle of stones, who had gone over to watch, reported that the Alienorks threw large rocks at them, and indicated that Notorks must never witness the moon dance, but rather that we Notorks must stay inside our huts during their moon dancing times. This was also part of The Alienork Way. The witnesses of their moon dance were told this in our own tongue, by our own Island of Plenty men, the ones who had followed Amok, and who had joined the Alienorks. Of course, under the First Law, this was their belief, and their choice, and had to be respected.

The next morning we arose in the village at the normal time, even if our sleep had been disturbed during most of the night by the wild dancing and howling of the Alienork men and the shrill Lalalala-ing of the Alienork women. But after dawn when the normal morning noises of village life began, we all at once heard angry Alienork shouting, and rocks began raining down on our village! Our many visitors cried out that we must not disturb the sacred sleep of the Alienorks, after their long night spent performing their sacred moon rituals! It was The Alienork Way, and under the First Law, we had to respect their beliefs! And under the Second Law, we had to extend them full bounty, and since they now had many new Alienorks among them who had fled the wars and hunger in Far Plenty, we needed to bring double the amount of fruit and vegetables and fish that we had been bringing. And while the boys chanted out Notork — monkey-dung! the older men shouted that we must continue to obey our two laws of belief and bounty, and nothing further would be said on the matter!

I made my way nearly to the edge of their ring where it was close to some trees, calling out, Amok, tell them to please stop throwing the rocks! This is not right! We are sorry for waking you up, it is a misunderstanding! In a moment the rocks ceased raining down. While I was there, Napok accosted me from a bit further back in the trees, beseeching me, begging me, to assemble the men, sharpen many bamboo spears, and prepare to fight them all, no matter what the cost!

So back to the reassembled Council of the Wise I went. We met very quietly, whispering and tip-toeing from hut to hut and over to the bluff by the sea. The extra fruit and vegetables would be no problem, but double the fish would be more difficult to acquire in a short time. It was decided that just in case, in secret, a separate group of men should be set to making and hiding spears from sharpened bamboo poles, as Napok had been suggesting. As the sun went down, we all feared the events of the coming night with increasing dread and terror.

The wild moon howling of the Alienork men and the Lalalala-ing of their women set our hearts to thumping. Napok came to my hut, terrified and furious at the same time. He said that it had been reported that his daughter Nona had been taken and carried off, screaming, by two hands of Alienork men, while simply walking from the upper pool to the market. He said that we must prepare to attack the sleeping Alienorks the next morning soon after dawn. We could slip inside their ring of stones and kill many of them with our spears even while they slept. Then we could seize their swords and have a hope to win the battle and wipe them all out. And then he could find his daughter, and bring her home.

I told Napok that I would meet the Council very early the next morning, but a dawn attack was impossible. It was not a decision I could take on my own part. I said that I was very sorry about his missing daughter, but nothing could be done about finding her, not while the Alienorks were in their wild moon-dance frenzy. When the moon finally set, the Alienorks fell silent. The next morning when I awoke, rising very quietly as the Alienorks demanded, I went outside to the center of the village to draw a gourd of water, and I almost fainted. The headless and naked body of Napok was erected in a sitting position against our ceremonial platform, legs out. His bloody head was placed on the ground between his bare legs, facing me!

When the people of the village, and soon all the people of Near Plenty heard of this unbelievable atrocity, and saw the body of Napok which we quickly covered, the Council met at the bluff in front of the entire gathered population. It was difficult to keep the discussion at a quiet level, so as not to awaken the now-sleeping Alienorks. It was decided that when they awoke, I must go to Amok to discuss this atrocity, and what it would mean for our two peoples. I was shaking in fear, waiting at the edge of their enlarged circle of stones for them to awaken at their normal hour in the late afternoon, but it was my duty.

Amok saw me and came to the edge of the circle of stones, standing on the inside across them from me. Perhaps he saw the fear in my face, but now he spoke in haughty disregard. He said to me I don’t think we will have any more problems, because now we Notorks all understood The Alienork Way. Our Notork women must wear the black blankets and stay in their huts, and our Notork men must stop and bend low and look down at the earth when an Alienork man passes by. A Notork must never strike an Alienork, even if an Alienork man or a group of Alienork men are enjoying an hour or two of pleasure with a Notork girl or boy or woman. And if any Notork man ever strikes any Alienork, for any reason at all, a hand of Notork girls will be taken, and a hand of Notork men will be beheaded in the manner of Napok. And there must be no more talk of sharpened spears, as a spy from within the very Council had already reported to Amok before Napok had been killed.

I was shaking in fear and disbelief, but still I asked him if he had been lying to me when he first came into our valley, and told me that The Alienork Way is the way of peace. He said it was not a lie, because a lie only had meaning between Alienork men. To lie to Notorks about The Alienork Way was also a part of The Alienork Way, and thus, it was not a lie at all, but an even greater form of truth.

I suddenly remembered pretty Nona, the daughter of Napok, and asked after her. Amok said that she had joined the Alienorks, and therefore, I was not allowed to see her or to speak to her ever again. The men and the boys did not awaken this time with Amok, to draw their swords or throw pebbles at me or curse me as a Notork monkey-dung. Amok said that it was a very good thing that we Notorks had finally learned The Alienork Way, and that he was finally hopeful that our two peoples could now live side-by-side in peace. He also mentioned that we needed to provide them with much more food to keep up with their growing numbers, especially fish, in accordance with our Second Law of Bounty, which would be retained in full effect.

Instead of gathering the Council to report Amok’s new demands, I took my wife and my two small sons to the beach behind the higher rocky point, where we kept our village sailing canoes, because they were protected there from the waves. They are the boats that we used for fishing on the deep waters, and also for going out to meet the occasional even larger boats visiting Near Plenty from far away. We took gourds of water and baskets of food, and we set out downwind. After sailing two hands of days, we came to this island, your island, Happy Island as you so truthfully call it. And as you have seen, my two sons were in a condition near death when we arrived, and my wife has not spoken a word for a hand of days even before we landed.

I am happy that our tongues are not so different, and also that you are very kind and generous people here. And now I am asking your people, your Council of the Wise, your Assembly of Elders of Happy Island, if my family can please stay here, to live in peace, while my sons grow stronger, and my wife returns to her mind. When my sons grow to be young men, I will teach them to be warriors, and someday we will go together back to the Island of Plenty, to fight against the invading Alienorks, if that becomes possible.

But in the meantime, I am also before you to warn you, in the direst terms, that you must not, under any circumstances, never, ever, allow even a single Alienork to place his feet upon your beautiful Happy Island. For if even one single Alienork comes to your island as a visitor, and is allowed to have a hut within a circle of stones, and to dance and to howl to the moon, and to carry a sword about him on a sash, with each passing moon there will be more Alienorks upon your island, and they will badly mistreat your women and your girls, and they will force you to submit to The Alienork Way, and to serve them, even though you are not Alienorks like them.

Thank you for your consideration. Now, I will retire to the hut you have kindly provided to my family, to await your decisions.

The next day, the decision was announced by the Assembly of Elders after much discussion and reflection. The visitor Naku had stated that he had come from a place called the Island of Plenty, and he had then proceeded to spin a most bizarre, terrifying and even disgusting tale about a group of people called the Alienorks, whom he said behaved more like demons from hell than like any of the people who inhabited Happy Island. All of the members of the Assembly of Elders agreed, unanimously, that the Alienorks could not possibly exist, except as a twisted and damaged part of the visitor Naku’s mind, probably due to the privations of the long and difficult sea voyage he had endured to reach Happy Island.

Therefore, it was decided that Naku could remain in our village, but only if he obeyed the One Law of Happy Island, that only happy thoughts and ideas may be expressed in public. He must refrain from blurting his darkly provocative and frankly insane imaginings among our good people, lest he upset the successful formulation for maintaining social peace that had been learned over many generations, ever since the last wars among our distant ancestors.

It turned out that Naku knew a very useful way to make foot coverings from bark and vines, much better for walking on the sharp rocky shore than our old coverings of dried sea kelp. He soon became a very useful member of our Happy Island society, except for a few dark asides randomly whispered about his imagined demons, the Alienorks. His frail wife passed away. His sons grew quickly, running and swimming with the other youth of our valley, popular among the boys and the girls alike. And everybody was glad for the better foot coverings that Naku taught us to make for ourselves. Otherwise, life went on as it always had.

Until, that is, the day that a small sailing canoe came into view, with a single man steering it. He was an older man with white hair and a white beard, it became apparent as his boat drew closer. His sail had been spotted near the horizon, so the Assembly of Elders was able to go down to the beach to greet him, even before his canoe touched the sand. The old man on the boat did not look much different than the gathered elders of Happy Island, except for his white hair and beard, and the unusual black robe that he wore. As he stepped ashore from his beached canoe he was smiling, his arms and hands open in a symbol of peace that invited a warm welcome.

But then suddenly from behind I was roughly shoved aside, knocking me to the sand, as Naku, our off-island guest of many years, dashed at full running speed toward the old man while screaming Amok! Amok! Amok! And as we all watched in complete horror, Naku plunged a sharpened bamboo spear straight into the heart of the visitor, driving him back over into his sailing canoe! Naku, still in a mad frenzy, screaming about Amok and the Alienorks, pushed the canoe back through the small waves, turned it around, jumped aboard and filled the sail, trimming it flat and sailing around the second rocky point and out of our view. We were in such a state of shock that almost none of us dared to speak of the matter. There was not a single happy way to describe the terrible incident, so we did not, in accordance with our One Law of Happy Island.

A few days later, Naku returned to our village afoot, and he was soon pulled and pushed by several of our strongest men before the quickly gathered Assembly of Elders. Naku freely admitted that he had killed the old man, and that he was glad that he had done it, and that he would do it again if another Alienork ever appeared on our shores. He said that only by his swift action had he saved us from a great disaster, a true calamity for the good people of Happy Island, and he begged us to believe that every single word that he had ever spoken of the Alienorks was true. He was even so bold as to suggest that we should actually reward him for his unprovoked and insane brutal murder of a single, harmless, elderly visitor!

Our worst punishment was banishment from our valley on Happy Island. The Assembly of Elders decided that Naku must depart and climb the sharp ridges to the next valley, and then go quickly on to the next, and the next after, and that he should not tell any people that he met along the way anything about his paranoid and dangerous so-called “Alienork Way” conspiracy theories, which, after all, only existed in his severely damaged mind.

George Carlin-Stupid people

A Republic-front cover

Now available on Amazon… “A Republic, if you can keep it.

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

Pride?!?

A ‘celebration’ of ‘pride’?

Reposted from “Marriage is one man and one woman”

Make America Gay again

In 2009 and in one of his first acts in office, Barack Obama issued Presidential Proclamation 8387. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=86222] This proclamation designated the month of June as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.” He followed this up with similar proclamations in each of his following seven years in office.

The month, peppered with “Pride celebrations” in the form of marches, parades, festivals across the nation, supposedly is to acknowledge how “LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society.”

While that certainly seems laudable enough as we look around our nation each June its important to ask, “Is that what’s happening?” Are today’s LGBT pride events truly an acknowledgement & celebration of the contributions LGBT individuals have made to our republic or are they, …something else?

Anyone with the stomach for it can do a simple article and/or image search on keywords “pride parade nudity” and come face-to-face with the realities of what these events really are.

In fact they are little more than excuses for people to take to the streets, behave like hooligans, flaunt all sorts of lewdness, all forms of debauchery, chants and signs using the most profane language imaginable, F*** the police themes everywhere. There are people walking around naked, yes completely naked, both men and women with nothing on but a wrist watch, displaying their genitals for all to see including children. And we’re not just talking about 2 or 3 wingnuts here, we’re talking people by the hundreds.

The levels of disgusting disrespect and outright hostility for the names of God and Jesus are so far beyond the pale its not worth mentioning but if you’ve never seen images of the “Hunky Jesus” contest, count your blessings, if you’re unaware who the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” are, count them doubly so.

And this year, perhaps egged on by all the violence leftists began routinely engaging in since the November 2016 elections, we’ve seen an unprecedented level of violence accompanying ‘pride parades.’

As if law enforcement doesn’t have problems enough, fisticuffs & all out street brawls erupted in San Francisco [https://downtrend.com/donn-marten/revelers-exchange-blows-at-san-francisco-pride-event/] (**WARNING, this video is NOT safe for work or children), Chicago [ https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/news/video-civilian-panel-to-investigate-tactics-used-to-break-up-pride-street-brawl-sSUt2_P8okaJKyYcuT6n4Q/] (neither is this one) and other cities.

And through it all – donnybrooks, nudity in front of children, rampant profanity, ‘Hunky Jesus’ and worse – they are all the while proclaiming the need for you (if you’re reading this & self-identify as a conservative) to become more tolerant and drop your hate.

None of which really is the point of this essay, however.

How do events like these promote ‘pride’? Are these parades & festivals truly recognizing the accomplishments of members of the LGBT community or really doing anything to aid in the blending of lifestyles and of people in our society? Does taking to the streets (naked), chanting “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it!!” and “F*** the police!!” really send a message of unity? Is it helping, …anything?

The question has to be asked, would cities be better off just to cancel these parades & events altogether? Citizens attacking one another, putting law enforcement in harms way, civilians ending up in emergency rooms and in jail, tens of thousands of dollars of clean up and repairs to be done when its all over and for what? A ‘celebration’ of ‘pride’? Is that really what these events are, or have they become something else?

Now available on Amazon… “A Republic, if you can keep it.” https://www.amazon.com/Republic-If-You-Can-Keep/dp/1717513069/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1529950655&sr=8-4&keywords=a+republic+if+you+can+keep+it

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

The Killer Dogs of Cat Island

From the start, William Prestre’s program was noticeably unsuccessful, especially when compared to other military dog training programs.

Killer Dog

Reblogged from History Hut.

During the Second World War, all the warring countries were looking for an edge in their war effort, be it through machinery and science, new methods of personnel training or, unfortunately, even experimental drug-use. While most military research and development funding went to the tried and true necessities, such as weaponry, tanks, airplanes and ships, the war-torn countries of the world were also open to investigating more abnormal methods of warfare. Looking for any and every way to win the war, some countries invested their resources into turning mankind’s furry, four-legged best friends into trained man-killers.

Dogs have long been used by the military during war. They were often deployed as scouts, messengers and rescuers, accompanying ground forces. Yet, during WWII, dogs were increasingly trained in some countries not to support, but to kill. Most notable (or notorious) was the Soviet Union, which may have fielded around 40,000 suicide-bomber dogs, which were specifically trained to detonate explosives underneath enemy tanks. The soviet scheme, introduced in 1941, was far from perfect. The dogs could easily become scared and confused, causing some of the poor animals to run back to their Russian handlers. This, far too often, resulted in the dogs blowing their own troops to pieces. Even though the Russian dog-bomb strategy was not considered very successful, the United States, too, wanted to try its own hand at a killer canine program.

Shortly after the Japanese bombed the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the U. S. military was approached by a Swiss man named William A. Prestre, who, at the time, was living in New Mexico. Prestre pitched to the military a novel idea—he claimed he could train dogs to become autonomous killing machines who would be able to hunt down and eliminate Japanese soldiers without the help of handlers. The United States, heeding its venture-capitalist spirit, decided to give the man funding and personnel for a three-month trial period.

With U. S. military approval, William Prestre quickly went about gathering the resources he would need to train the perfect killer dogs. For a location that would somewhat mirror conditions in the Japanese Empire, he found an island in the Gulf of Mexico, ironically named Cat Island, situated just off the coast of Mississippi. Next, he needed bait that would teach his dogs how to single out Japanese targets—this is where the story gets a lot more scandalous.

In 1942, during the month of November, twenty-five Japanese-American soldiers from Company B of the 100th Infantry Battalion were sent to Cat Island with the impression that they would be aiding in the military’s dog training program. Little did they know what their role in the “training” really meant.

William A. Prestre founded his whole theory of autonomous killer dogs from a false premise—he thought the Japanese, as an ethnic people, all had a specific smell that he could train his dogs to attack. Consequently, the twenty-five Japanese-American soldiers on Cat Island were not handlers, or even trainers; they were bait.

Prestre instructed the trainers and the soldiers to beat the dogs, so as to make the animals more vicious. In-between the beatings, which sometimes drew blood, the dogs were commanded to hunt down and attack the twenty-five Japanese-American servicemen. Thankfully, the soldiers were wearing bite-resistant padding, but almost all of them received wounds during their stay on Cat Island.

From the start, William Prestre’s program was noticeably unsuccessful, especially when compared to other military dog training programs. Prestre’s allotted three months of time was up in January 1943. In his exhibition to the military on January 12, 1943, Prestre could not produce any dogs that could hunt down and kill Japanese soldiers without the help of military handlers. Even worse, his dogs seemed less effective than other military attack dogs. After witnessing the poor exhibition, the military pulled its support from the project at Cat Island, and William A. Prestre was off the payroll by early February.

Prestre, however, took his failure poorly. He truly believed in his program and proclaimed his former military overseers to be incompetent. Some say he even threatened to release damaging information about the military and the president of the United States, possibly resulting in him being put under FBI surveillance. Nevertheless, the fate of the peculiar Swiss dog trainer, just like his Cat Island program, remains a somewhat vague grey-area of history.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Up you go

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

The immorality of immigration

When the American government willy-nilly hands out citizenship papers to millions of foreigners every year, it is, in effect, stealing the value of your citizenship and giving it to someone else.

Today’s blog is a repost from thezman.com

The Immorality of Immigration: Destroying the Value Of Citizenship

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=14158
In all times and all places, the people in charge have certain primary duties, obligations that come before anything else they like to do. It does not matter what form of government is in place, the rulers, for example, have to maintain public order. Being the tribal chief is useless if your people and lands are in chaos. For that matter, having a tribal chief is useless if it means living in chaos. Therefore, one of the primary duties of all rulers in all times and all places is to maintain public order by enforcing laws and local customs.

There are other primary duties of the ruler, like organizing the common defense that are universal to all people and forms of government. Then there are primary duties that are peculiar to a people or to a form of government. If the ruler is understood to be a god, then the ruler and his people have a duty to maintain that myth. A central part of that social order is the transcendent nature of the order itself. In modern western countries, protecting property rights and enforcing contracts is counted as a primary duty of the state.

One of the more destructive things to happen to America over the last half century is the sacralizing of immigration by the followers of Emma Lazarus. The endless repetition of the nonsense phrase “nation of immigrants” has turned a temporary necessity a century ago into an essential element of the nation’s founding mythology. The fact that immigration is a violation of the state’s primary duty to the people is excused, because the immigrant now has a superior place in the moral order. The state is now in service to foreigners.

In a nation like America, one that allegedly is built on consensual government, citizenship has great value. In fact, the most valuable thing to a citizen of a representative democracy is his citizenship. The reason for this, is that citizenship is an ownership stake in the nation itself. In theory, the American government was voluntarily founded as an agreement among individuals, invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare and to regulate the relations among its members. In short, we are shareholders in America.
If you had the option of selling your citizenship, let’s say at some sort of auction, where you get money for your place as an American citizen, there would be no shortage of bidders. For example, there is no shortage of buyers for the EB-5 visa, which costs $500,000. That’s right, you can buy citizenship from the US government. Your citizenship is something of value and therefore, the state has a duty to protect it, just as they have a duty to protect your property rights. This is a primary duty of government.

When the American government willy-nilly hands out citizenship papers to millions of foreigners every year, it is, in effect, stealing the value of your citizenship and giving it to someone else. This is no different than a company diluting the value of its shares, by selling additional shares. It’s why open borders fanatics swear that immigration makes us all richer, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. They know it is essential that people believe this as even the sacred immigrant is not enough to justify theft.

Now, the argument from open borders people and libertarian loons is that immigration is not just holy and beneficial, but that the duly elected officials are passing these laws, so it is legitimate. The trouble is, we don’t live in a democracy. When 50% plus one vote to rob the 50% minus one, it is still theft, even if it comes after an election. This is why America is not a democracy and it is also why democracy was famously called two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. The very nature of democracy makes it an immoral form of rule.

Additionally, a primary duty of the modern state is the maintenance of equality before the law. In fact, this is what makes the law legitimate. Not only do all citizens have a say in what laws are passed, but those laws apply to all citizens equally. The very nature of immigration violates this principle. Immigration steals from some citizens for the benefit of foreigners and the benefit of a small number of connected citizens. This is true for quasi-immigration schemes like guest workers, as well as for permanent settlement.

If the primary duty of the state is to safeguard the citizens, including the value of their citizenship and maintain equality before the law, then immigration by its very nature is a direct violation of the social compact. It makes a mockery of the very idea of consensual government and sows distrust among the people. It is why all mass immigration quickly leads to a breakdown of order, because it erodes the legitimacy of the ruling authority, as the people see they are no longer willing or able to fulfill their basic duties as rulers.

That does not preclude all immigration. It’s just that the bar is is extremely high. In order to justify that which is naturally and always immoral, the offset must exceed the cost of the deed. Since this is impossible in the modern age, the followers of Emma Lazarus have been forced to turn morality on its head, claiming the first duty of the state is to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. It has turned America into a bust out where everything of value, including citizenship, is sold for the benefit of a few.

buying US citizenship

Now available on Amazon…”A Republic, if you can keep it.”
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1717513069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528767387&sr=8-1&keywords=Patrick+C+Kansoer+Sr

Follow me on Twitter @OzarksAuthor

Guest Editorial

From the ceremonies to the symbols to the reading materials and skills learned – all were meant to teach, to prepare, but most of all to endear a heartfelt respect for our Creator, our family, our country, our environment, and the world around us.

An Eagle Scout Explains the Fatal Folly of Taking the ‘Boy’ out of Boy Scouts

Scott Morefield

The first time I walked into a Boy Scout meeting as a boy of eleven is as ingrained in my mind as if it were yesterday. My Dad and I descended the moldy steps into the basement of an old Methodist church, opened the door, and walked in to the smell of freshly cut wood chips and the chopping sound of an axe hitting its mark. A group of ten or so boys around my age and older were gathered around a bearded, uniformed Scoutmaster who was showing them how to properly use a hatchet. We had arrived late, just to check out the goings-on. I wasn’t into sports, or much of anything really – except books – but a couple of my friends were Scouts and had invited me to their meeting.

“Want to give it a shot?” the Scoutmaster was looking at me and holding the axe out, handle first. Before walking over and taking it I tentatively looked at my dad, who pursed his lips and nodded approvingly. “Safety first,” the bearded man cautioned before he proceeded to show me how to cut the wood without cutting off any fingers in the process. As I performed that simple exercise, I remember thinking how cool it was to be trusted to wield what could be a pretty dangerous tool, and the responsibility made me feel bigger than my eleven years. But most of all I remember how doing what I perceived as “man-stuff,” surrounded by men and other boys, made me feel at least a little bit more like a man.

Those moments began what was to be a seven year adventure and the most significant non-school element of my pre-teen and teen-aged life. They were years filled with lots of “boy-stuff” under the watchful supervision of caring men and the camaraderie of other boys. Canoeing alone on a lake. Building campfires. Barely passing the ridiculously hard swim test at summer camp so I wouldn’t be the only kid not allowed on the water. S’mores. Dump cake. Hobo packets. Campfire stories. Games, teasing, and general rowdiness. Sleeping alone in the middle of the woods as a part of the Order of the Arrow Ordeal. Peeling myself out of a semi-warm sleeping bag on a freezing February morning in 1986 to watch Haley’s Comet pay a rare visit to Earth’s orbit. Picking up and sorting food for the hungry as a part of our annual food drive. Lugging a wooden sled across town to compete with other troops in Scouting skills contests, all of which involved plenty of cool “boy-stuff” like tying knots and building things.

There was a lot of “doing” in Scouting, but the ultimate goal was always the same. The Boy Scouts of America started in 1910 as a way to promote good citizenship and Christian morality, two years after Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded the movement in England. “We aim for the practice of Christianity in their everyday life and dealings, and not merely the profession of its theology on Sundays,” Baden-Powell wrote in Scouting For Boys.

The iconography was, in many instances, literally Norman ‘Rockwellian,’ from the chivalry of a crisply uniformed boy saluting the American flag or helping an old lady across the street to the Native American symbolism incorporated into the Order of the Arrow rituals. From the ceremonies to the symbols to the reading materials and skills learned – all were meant to teach, to prepare, but most of all to endear a heartfelt respect for our Creator, our family, our country, our environment, and the world around us.

In Scouting, progressing from rank to rank felt like it meant something, and I knew that becoming an Eagle Scout would be something I would cherish the rest of my life. Neil Armstrong was an Eagle Scout. So was former President Ford and our then-Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander.

“Former Scouts have walked on the Moon, become President, and won the Heisman Trophy,” said President Reagan at a luncheon commemorating the group’s 75th anniversary in 1985. “Today they serve as Cabinet Secretaries, as my Press Secretary, and in the Congress. In fact, about two-thirds of the Members of the Congress have been in the Boy Scouts.”

I was proud to be a Scout, prouder still to earn my Eagle rank just before my 18th birthday.

But of course, as we all know, once social justice warriors gets their slimy tentacles into something their thirst is never quenched until that something is entirely destroyed, and such has it been with Boy Scouting ever since its clueless national leaders began leading the organization down that perilous cliff. From openly gay scout leaders to transgender members to just last Wednesday, when the organization officially announced a name change to Scouts BSA because, well, Boy Scouting isn’t just for boys anymore.

“We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women,” said hapless Boy Scouts Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh. Because everyone is the same, don’t you know. Because little boys and little girls are, as far as today’s liberals are concerned, identical to each other in every possible way except a few ‘easily changeable’ body parts.

Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that boys and girls are different, but reason and common sense has never stopped a rabid social justice warrior from wanting to impose their twisted view of reality on the rest of us.

Ironically, their attack on Boy Scouting has also hurt the other group founded by Baden-Powell and his sister, Agnes – Girl Scouts. Though the decision to allow girls was applauded by various progressive and feminist groups, Girl Scout representatives themselves are less than amused. “The Boy Scouts’ house is on fire,” Girl Scouts told ABC News in a statement last October when the decision to allow girls was first announced. “Instead of addressing systemic issues of continuing sexual assault, financial mismanagement and deficient programming, BSA’s senior management wants to add an accelerant to the house fire by recruiting girls.”

Imagine, girls wanting a place to come of age and be themselves without the immaturity and awkwardness of gross boys. Imagine, girls wanting to do “girl-stuff.”

Granted, some of this “boy and girl stuff” overlaps. Obviously, girls can canoe, camp out, and do pretty much anything a boy can, if she wants. But whether it’s a sports team or Boy or Girl Scouting, groups formed based on gender can provide a healthy, nurturing place for kids to come of age, not suppressing their God-given instincts and preferences but rather celebrating them and learning how to express themselves and function socially within the training wheels of those of their own gender.

Because try as liberals might to erase it, gender is and will always be “a thing.”

“The benefit of the single-gender environment has been well-documented by educators, scholars, other girl- and youth-serving organizations,” writes the Girl Scout blog, and they couldn’t be more on point. Check out this list of advantages of single-sex schools, a privilege only available to the rich. Sports teams provide similar life experiences, of course, but that wouldn’t have been an option for 80’s me.

Sadly, ‘2018 everybody’ will no longer have the option, at least as far as Boy Scouting is concerned.

I am grateful for Scouting and what it meant to me growing up. But I am also angry at what liberals have turned the group into, as well as the fact that, a decade from now, it very likely won’t exist. Because tragically, the Boy Scouts’ stubborn march to ‘inclusivity’ at any cost has managed to gut the organization of what made it special in the first place, which inevitably reminded me of this key quote from the movie The Incredibles –

“If everyone is special, no one is.”