Friday, February 28, 2014

“Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime”

/ Jihad Watch
ISLAMIC-REVOLUTION-ANNIVERSARY-890x395“The Americans will know [Iran's true power] when their warships, with over 5,000 aboard, sink during a confrontation with Iran, and when they have to search the depths of the sea for their bodies.” Yes, this nuclear agreement with Iran certainly looks like Peace In Our Time has been secured. Can Obama be given another Nobel Peace Prize? He certainly deserves it as much as he did the first!

“On Iranian Revolution Day 2014, Commander of IRGC Navy Says: The Americans Will Understand When Their Warships With Over 5,000 Crew Aboard Sink To The Depths Of The Sea And They Have To Search For Their Bodies,” from MEMRI, February 27 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
On February 11, 2014, Iran celebrated Revolution Day, the 35th anniversary of the regime of the Islamic Revolution, against the backdrop of the start of permanent agreement nuclear talks between Iran and the superpowers, and of the ongoing struggle within Iran between the ideological stream led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the pragmatic stream led by Hashemi Rafsanjani, on the issue of how Iran should deal with the U.S. Revolution Day 2014 was marked by regime officials’ harsh anti-U.S. statements and by calls for maintaining Iranian hostility towards the U.S.
In two separate speeches, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stressed that the main enemy of the revolution was the U.S. and extolled fighting it as the revolution’s central value. He added that the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was “an even greater revolution than the first one,” that is, greater than the removal of the Shah and the seizure of power by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khamenei also called on Iranians not to be taken in by the U.S.’s overtures, and not to trust it, because its aim – that is, to topple the revolutionary regime – remains unchanged.
As part of the Iranian regime’s dismissal of the U.S. military threat, many of this year’s Revolution Day marches and demonstrations featured signs bearing the slogan in English, “We Are Eager For The Options On The Table,” – a slogan praised by both Khamenei’s and Rafsanjani’s circles. Moreover, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) naval commander Ali Fadavi stated that the U.S. would understand Iran’s might when Iran began to sink U.S. warships, with their crews of over 5,000. At the same time, Iranian Navy Adm. Rezai Haddad announced that an Iranian flotilla was en route to the Atlantic for “a first approach of U.S. maritime borders”[1] and that this was meant to be a “message” for the U.S [2]
In his Revolution Day message, both Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan and Iranian Army chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi stressed that Iran longs for the decisive battle with the U.S., in light of the latter’s threat to use the military option if the nuclear talks fail. In other speeches, government officials stressed that hostility towards the U.S. – “the Great Satan” – would continue even if the nuclear issue were resolved, and that Iran’s smiles at the negotiating table were merely a tactical move aimed at obtaining Iran’s nuclear rights.
Following are excerpts from Iranian government officials’ statements for Revolution Day 2014. (For photos from the demonstrations and marches, see Appendix.)
Iranian Military Officials: “The Americans Will Know [Iran's True Power] When Their Warships, With Over 5,000 Aboard, Sink During A Confrontation With Iran”; We Are Prepared With Ballistic Missiles, Swift Boats, And Mines; “The Iranian Nation Will Hand Them [The Americans] A Crushing Defeat”
In a February 11, 2014 interview with the Fars news agency, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said: “The Defense Ministry is working to ensure that the Iranian people are armed and ready to confront any enemy threat. Yesterday’s successful test of Iranian-made ballistic missiles was also a crushing response to the nonsense of the American officials who frequently threaten Iran. It is a clear answer to their military option. The Defense Ministry and the Iranian nation are always ready [for battle], and Iran will welcome it if the Americans again put themselves to the test and face the consequences. The Americans will again be defeated, just as they were in the [1980-1988] Iran-Iraq war. If they implement their nonsense [i.e. their threats], the Iranian nation will hand them a crushing defeat.”[3]
The next day, February 12, Iranian Chief of Staff Hassan Firouzabadi told Fars: “Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime.” He added, “Iran has been making plans, conducting maneuvers, and preparing its forces for this battle for years now.”[4]
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) naval commander Ali Fadavi threatened that in battles at sea, his forces would sink American warships: “The Americans can spot swift boats, sea mines, and anti-ship missiles but they cannot grasp axioms such as… ‘God, the Islamic Revolution, and the Supreme Leader [Khamenei].’ On the chest of the IRGC is the [Koran] verse that clearly says that the use of measures against the infidels and the enemies must be promoted. The Americans notice only some of our capabilities; only on the battlefield will they fully internalize the bulk of our capabilities.
The Americans will know [Iran's true power] when their warships, with over 5,000 aboard, sink during a confrontation with Iran, and when they have to search the depths of the sea for their bodies.”[5]…
Signing off until this evening...Wild Bill and I are off to Tampa for the GREAT AWAKENINGS rally. Looking forward to meeting so many great patriots...will post pics either late Saturday night or early Sunday morning. Now behave you guys...LOL

This may be the first and last time I ever write these words: America, follow Canada. 
Our neighbors to the north finally have wised up to the international cash-for-visas scam. Last week, the country ended its foreign investor program that put residency up for sale to the highest bidder. We should have done the same a long time ago.

Canada's Immigrant Investor Program granted permanent residency to wealthy foreigners who forked over 800,000 Canadian dollars for a five-year, zero-interest loan to one of the country's provinces.

The scheme turned out to be a magnet for tens of thousands of millionaires from Hong Kong and China. But as the Canadian Ministry of Finance concluded in its annual budget report this year, the program "undervalued Canadian permanent residence" and showed "little evidence that immigrant investors as a class are maintaining ties to Canada or making a positive economic contribution to the country."

In several provinces, the foreign investor racket was riddled from top to bottom with fraud.

Whistleblowers in the Prince Edward Island immigration office exposed rampant bribery among bureaucrats and consultants, who helped their clients jump the queue. The government failed to monitor immigrant investors or verify the promised economic benefits of the "investments." The program didn't just fast-track supposed business people with dubious business backgrounds, but also their entire extended families, who walled themselves in segregated neighborhoods.

Ads in Dubai bragged that investors didn't even need to live in the country to take advantage of the citizenship-for-sale deal -- and that their dependents could avail themselves of full health care and education benefits.

Fifteen years ago, an independent auditor hired by the Canadian government warned that he had "found that in many cases there was no investment at all or that the amount of that investment was grossly inflated." The auditor nailed the expedient commodification of citizenship: "Canadians gave up something of real value -- a visa or passport -- and received very little in return." He concluded: "A lot of people made a lot of money, mostly lawyers and immigration consultants who set up these bogus investments. It's a massive sham. The middlemen made hundreds of millions of dollars."

I've been issuing the very same warnings about America's EB-5 immigrant investor visa program, created under an obscure section of the 1990 Immigration Act, for more than a decade. The details of the U.S. program vary, but the facade is the same: trading residency on the cheap for the shady promise of economic development. Just as in Canada, the U.S. racket's alleged economic benefits are largely hype.

Who has profited? As I've reported previously, the real winners are former federal immigration officials who formed lucrative limited partnerships to cash in on their access and politically connected cronies. An internal U.S. Justice Department investigative report revealed years ago that "aliens were paying $125K" instead of the required $500,000 to $1 million minimum, and "almost all of the monies went to the general partners and the companies who set up the limited partners."

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has been pressing EB-5 middlemen who operate a network of regional centers to cough up data on how many jobs these immigrant investor schemes are creating, lists of current and former corporate officers at the centers, and details of consulting services and other contracts into which the centers have entered. Where's the rest of Capitol Hill?

Just as in Canada, American whistleblowers also have been raising red flags for years. Most recently, immigration officials in Laguna Niguel, Calif., last fall spilled the beans on how they "often rushed or skipped altogether economic reviews of applicants to the EB-5 visa program." They did so under orders from senior managers pandering to wealthy and politically connected foreign applicants. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General is investigating government retaliation against employees who reported the misconduct. "In essence," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, noted in a public letter, "high-level officials in the (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau) are accused of creating an environment hostile to those who insist on following the law."

That fish rots right down from the head of USCIS, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was confirmed for the job in December -- despite remaining under investigation by the DHS Inspector General for his alleged role in intervening on behalf of GreenTech, a crony company with ties to Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton's other brother, Anthony. The alleged scam involved special treatment to the company, which wanted special treatment and EB-5 visas for, you guessed it, deep-pocketed Chinese investors.

Recklessly peddling foreign investor visas for the precious privilege of entry into our country is bad for our sovereignty, bad for workers and good for corruptocrats. Moreover, history shows that government is always bad at picking economic winners and losers. If Canada can come to its senses on this, why not America?

Another cyber attack...and this time it was personal
By: Diane Sori

While NO one person or government controls what goes out over the internet...even though Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his minions like to think they do...and because of the 2013 NSA spying scandal, this spring Brazil will host an international summit on internet governance to address the many internet concerns, including hacking done by both governments and individuals.

And when you think about it, this is, in NO uncertain terms, bigger than the NSA scandal itself because the internet is public domain open to any and all anywhere in the world. And this brings with it the opportunity for international hackers as well as homegrown hackers to target, hack into, and crash sites and internet broadcasts they don't like or have been 'paid' to crash for whatever reason the person hiring them deems appropriate.

As most of you know by now, this past Wednesday's debut of Craig Andresen's and my Right Side Patriot radio show on CPR Worldwide Media was hacked into and shutdown half an hour into our broadcast. It appears the hackers did their damage by sneaking into the server through the corresponding website chat/comment room, crashing us through the IP address, and then running through the entire website into the radio server. And Craig took a personal attack to his computer as well, which caused it to crash completely, inflicting major damage to the unit that he and our CPR family is still working on to repair and restore...if they can that is.

Also, besides our show, 14 other CPR broadcasts were also hit and crashed on Wednesday. And shows on PNN have been hit, shows on WRAM have been hit, shows on Blogtalk Radio have been hit, other internet sites and shows have been hit, and even sites and shows 'of name' have been hit...all within this past week or two.

Many cyber attacks in the past have been traced directly back to Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to the Dominican Republic, to the UK, and to Germany amongst other countries, and Wednesday's attack did indeed come from one of these countries as well.

And we all know that cyber attacks are one of the calling cards of the left, and this attack on us and on the 14 other CPR shows was a calculated pre-planned attack. And that is NOT unusual for ever since Barack HUSSEIN Obama assumed office, the fact is that left-wing liberals and islamic extremists have increased the use of cyber attacks to silence any and all conservative voices and any and all who criticize islam or mohamed,

Whatever the reason for the attacks or whomever the attacks are perpetrated on, please know that cyber attacks are NOT a joke nor are they harmless pranks as they are indeed 'virtual vandalism' of the worst kind for they shut down the all important critical flow of information...meaning they shut down the truth the government does NOT want you to know. And these attacks cause those targeted to have to pay for expensive repair costs or be forced to shut down and be silenced completely.

Sending what's called 'packets' (usually consisting of 'so-called' normal innocuous information, but in our case the 'packets' were used to open a port then install a virus which crashed our show and the other CPR shows), these cyber attacks are directly used to pinpoint and silence the conservative press, bloggers, and media (radio, TV, video) as we are NOTHING but a thorn in the side to Obama and to the islamist regimes that he so loves, placates, and bows down to. And the sad part is that if these hackers do succeed in disabling and silencing those of us who expose this administration's dirty little secrets and cover-ups, Obama will indeed have total control over what 'We the People' are told or NOT told...what 'We the People' can access and what we cannot access...and that is something we can NEVER allow to happen. 

Remember, one of Obama's Executive Orders called 'Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions' gave him and the feds the power to seize all communication lines in an emergency under the guise of national security.  In fact, on the government’s official website for the National Communications Systems (NCS), it says those powers encompass the “infrastructure includes wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcasting, and provides the transport networks that support the Internet and other key information systems,” which translates into Obama indeed giving himself control of among other things the internet, and the American people be damned for it will be Obama and Obama alone who decides what constitutes an emergency and what does NOT constitute an emergency.

And with Obama you just know that he will turn the simplest thing into an emergency...or he will outright fabricate an emergency if need further his socialist/islamic agenda.

And that brings me back to Wednesday's attack on the 14 CPR shows in addition to our Right Side Patriots show. While we know the attack on us was NOT done by Obama...obviously...his lase-faire attitude concerning internet safety and security has allowed hackers to run rampant and gain fairly easy access to even the most secured of sites. And with Obama NOT doing a thing to help stop these attacks or to help secure America's internet becomes obvious that he needs the internet as part of his quest to control us.

A catch-22 situation that unfortunately 'We the People' are at the receiving end of.

And as for all the nonsense that is done against we conservative talk show hosts as Obama and his people try to silence us, let it be known that those efforts will be met with a brick wall for we do NOT run from a fight nor do we cower in fear of him or his minions. We...and in this case Craig, I, and our CPR family...will fight back in the manner and way we do continuing to get the truth out to the public...the truth that Obama wants silenced at all costs...period.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

CPR Media Network
For those of you who were listening to the debut of the Right Side Patriots radio show on CPR Worldwide Media this afternoon, you may well think there was a melt-down/failure at the top of the second hour. However, we at CPR define it as a success.

Here’s what happened. Right after a segment where Diane and Craig went off on islam, with Diane being spot on in her assessment that we are indeed at war with islam, and with Craig via his customary sarcasm suggesting having sanitation workers checking the 'burqa-bags' at the airport, the technical difficulties started until the cyber signal was lost altogether. 

CPR Worldwide Media has been continuously monitored for quite some time now by different islamic groups originating out of Europe and the UK. In fact, last week the CPR broadcast coming from London was hacked into while on the air, and taken down by an islamic center located in Germany. And now, immediately after they started talking about islam and what they called the burqa 'garbage bags’ they also started experiencing technical difficulties that got worse with each passing minute.

Over these past hours CPR has been running traces and such, and it has been confirmed by the server technicians at CPR, as well as CPR CEO Michael Collins-Windsor, that their show was also hacked into and that the route trace went back to the Islamic Center of England located in London.

However, what those who hacked into the server didn’t know was that their show was also being recorded on an entirely different server for rebroadcast. As a result, the Right Side Patriots debut show from Wednesday, February 26th…without interruption...will be rebroadcast in its entirety as soon as possible throughout the upcoming week.

This is what happens when the TRUTH is what will Right Side Patriots do about this attack on them...they will come back next week with enhanced cyber security to once again speak the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING but the truth on the CPR Worldwide Media Network.

We here at CPR hope you will tune in and listen to the debut show of Right Side Patriots as soon as we announce its rebroadcasting times here at

This is one show you do NOT want to miss.
WASHINGTON -- National Security Advisor Susan Rice appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday and said that when she had appeared on several news outlets back in September 2012 to state that the attack on an American diplomatic installation in Benghazi was a "spontaneous reaction" to an American-made film that appeared on YouTube she had used "the best information we [the White House] had at the time." Senator John McCain responded to her statement Sunday that it left him "almost speechless."

The Arizona Republican said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "I'm almost speechless, because it's patently obvious, first of all, that Susan Rice had no reason to be on the program. She had no involvement in it [Benghazi]." At the time she was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "Second of all, she read talking points that we are now beginning to believe came from the White House, which were absolutely false," continued Senator McCain. "We now know that the CIA station chief on the ground sent a message immediately saying, 'Not-slash-not spontaneous demonstrations,' and of course the information was totally misleading, totally false."

Well, apparently the White House -- bolstered by a December 2013 investigative piece by the New York Times -- is still at it, energetically deceiving the American people about the origins of the attack in Benghazi and its very nature. Actually, the attack was undertaken by al-Qaida-related terrorists. It was a very professional job. A former SEAL called in to assess the terrorists' mortar attacks -- in which two retired SEALs were killed along with two other Americans, one of whom was our ambassador -- has verified the attackers' professionalism. Moreover, Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya, informed the press shortly after the attack that he and everyone else in the Libyan mission believed it was a terrorist attack "from the get-go."

So there should be no doubt about the character of the assault on Benghazi. It was professional, and the Jan. 15, 2014 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asserts that for months, intelligence reports were coming in indicating that security in the area should have been beefed up.

The Obama administration did the opposite. One has to wonder why? Why has not the administration been charged with negligence?

Jed Babbin and I recently conducted our own investigation of Benghazi. We found still more discrepancies in the record. Senator McCain and his colleagues will find our report on our website,

The night of the Benghazi attack a security team based in Tripoli consisting of seven men -- at least two of them Delta Force operators -- was ordered to Benghazi. After delays they arrived between 4:30 and 5: 15 in the morning. A former SEAL with knowledge of the situation told us that the security team inflicted a large number of casualties on the attackers. It was during this attack that mortar fire took the lives of two every brave men, former SEALs Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who were on the annex roof defending it. One of the Delta Force operators, Master Sgt. David Halbruner, received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in the fight. Another, rumored to be a Marine, may have received the Navy Cross. Both honors are second only to the Medal of Honor.

There is more. One of the survivors of the attack was apparently injured so seriously that he was still receiving medical assistance at the National Military Medical Center near Washington as late as December 2013. Possibly he is still there. This wounded warrior, and the others who fought so bravely that night, have yet to testify before Congress. Before Susan Rice pops off again, we should hear from them. Right, Senator McCain?
In the months since Edward Snowden revealed the nature and extent of the spying that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been perpetrating upon Americans and foreigners, some of the NSA's most troublesome behavior has not been a part of the public debate. This behavior constitutes the government's assaults on the American legal system. Those assaults have been conducted thus far on two fronts, one of which is aimed at lawyers who represent foreign entities here in America, and the other is aimed at lawyers who represent criminal defendants against whom evidence has been obtained unlawfully and presented in court untruthfully.

Investigative reporters at The New York Times recently discovered that the NSA has been listening to the telephone conversations between lawyers at a highly regarded Chicago law firm and their clients in Indonesia. The firm, Mayer Brown, has remained publicly silent about the revelations, as has its client, the government of Indonesia. But it is well known that Mayer Brown represents the government of Indonesia concerning trade regulations that govern exports of cigarettes and shrimp to the U.S. The lawyers on the other side of the bargaining table from Mayer Brown work for the federal government, which also employs, of course, the NSA.

Can the NSA lawfully tell lawyers for the government who are negotiating with Mayer Brown lawyers what it overheard between the Mayer Brown lawyers and their client? The answer, incredibly, is: Yes. Federal rules prohibit the NSA from sharing knowledge with lawyers for the federal government only about persons who have been indicted. In this case, Mayer Brown is attempting to negotiate favorable trade relations between Indonesia and the U.S., and the lawyers for the U.S. have the unfair advantage of knowing in advance the needs, negotiating positions and strategy of their adversaries. In the Obama years, this is how the feds work: secretly, unfairly and in utter derogation of the attorney-client privilege.

For 100 years, that privilege -- the right of lawyers and their clients to speak freely and without the knowledge of the government or their adversaries -- has been respected in the U.S., until now. Now, we have a lawyer who, as president, uses the NSA to give him advance warning of what his office visitors are about to ask him. And now we have lawyers for the federal government who work for the president and can know of their adversaries' most intimate client communications.

This is profoundly unfair, as it gives one side a microscope on the plans of the other. It is unwise, too, as clients will be reluctant to open up to counsel when they know that the NSA could spill the beans to the other side. In the adversarial context, for the system to work fairly and effectively, it is vital that clients be free to speak with their lawyers without the slightest fear of government intrusion, particularly when the government is on the other side of the deal or the case.

If you have spoken to a lawyer recently and if that lawyer is dealing with the federal government on your behalf, you can thank the constitutional scholar in the Oval Office for destroying the formerly privileged nature of your conversations.

But that is not the only legal protection that President Obama has destroyed. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case in which journalists in the pre-Snowden era challenged the government's spying on them. The government won the case largely because it persuaded the court that the journalists did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because, the court ruled, their fears of being spied upon were only hypothetical: They suspected that their communications with their sources were being monitored, but they couldn't prove it. In this post-Snowden era, we now know that the journalists in that case were being spied upon.

Nevertheless, during the oral argument in that case, government lawyers told the high court that should government prosecutors acquire from the NSA evidence of criminal behavior against anyone whom they eventually would prosecute and should they wish to use that evidence in the prosecution, the Justice Department would inform defense counsel of the true source of the evidence so that the defendant would have the ability to challenge the evidence.

Yet, last week, in a case in federal court in Oregon, the same Justice Department that told the highest court in the land last year that it would dutifully and truthfully reveal its sources of evidence -- as case law requires and even when the source is an NSA wiretap -- told a federal district court judge that it had no need or intention of doing so. If this practice of using NSA wiretaps as the original source of evidence in criminal cases and keeping that information from the defendants against whom it is used is permitted, we will have yet another loss of liberty.

Federal law requires that criminal prosecutions be commenced after articulable suspicion about the crime and the defendant. Prosecutions cannot be commenced by roving through intelligence data obtained through extra-constitutional means. That is the moral equivalent of throwing a dart at a dart board that contains the names of potential defendants and prosecuting the person whose name the dart hits.

For the past 75 years, federal prosecutors have not been permitted to use unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal cases, and they have been required to state truthfully the sources of their evidence so that its lawfulness can be tested. This rule generally has served to keep law enforcement from breaking the laws it has sworn to uphold by denying to its agents the fruits of their own unlawful activity.

Liberty is rarely lost overnight. It is lost slowly and in the name of safety. In the name of keeping us safe, the feds have spied on the lawyers who negotiate with them, lied to the lawyers whose clients they are prosecuting and misrepresented their behavior to the Supreme Court. As far as the public record reveals, they have not corrected that misrepresentation. They have done all of this in utter defiance of well-settled law and procedures and constitutional safeguards.

What will they do next?

Special congressional panel to investigate FBI contact with bin Laden

Probe prompted by Washington Times report

The existence of the FBI mole and his dealings with bin Laden were omitted from the official investigations into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but were disclosed in an exclusive report Wednesday morning in The Washington Times.

The Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said the panel would take a close look at what came of the human source that the FBI’s Los Angeles field office cultivated in 1993. The source’s contributions, which included helping thwart a terrorist plot in Los Angeles, were never mentioned in the more than 500-page official report published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

In an interview with The Times on Wednesday evening, Mr. Wolf said the details surrounding the source represent “exactly the type of activity” that the newly established panel will examine.

The panel, which is also being dubbed a “commission,” was created in late January under language Mr. Wolf crafted for Congress‘ 2013 omnibus appropriations bill that President Obama ultimately signed into law.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Ambassador Tim Roemer, who also served in Congress, and longtime national security analyst and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman have been appointed to serve on the commission, which also is tasked with probing the success and failure with which the FBI “is addressing the evolving threat of terrorism today.”

“I cannot think of three more qualified individuals to serve on the commission,” Mr. Wolf said in a Jan. 27 statement announcing the panel. “They are all men of integrity and have significant credibility and expertise on counterterrorism policy.”

At the time, Mr. Meese said it “is imperative that as we move further away from the 9/11 attacks, we make sure the bureau is evolving to address the ever-changing threat from al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.”

It’s a point that seems all the more pertinent in light of the revelations in The Times report, which homed in on testimony that Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, gave in a little-noticed employment dispute case involving a counterterrorism agent at the bureau.

As the case played out in federal court in 2010, Mr. Curran testified that the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance a terrorist attack in the United States.

The information the FBI gleaned back then was so specific that it helped thwart a terrorist plot against a Masonic lodge in Los Angeles, the court records reviewed by The Times show.

“It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Mr. Curran told the court in support of the discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent, Bassem Youssef.

Mr. Curran gave the testimony in an essentially empty courtroom, and thus it escaped notice from the media or terrorism specialists. The Times was recently alerted to the existence of the testimony while working on a broader report about al Qaeda’s origins.

Members of the Sept. 11 commission, congressional intelligence committees and terrorism analysts told The Times they are floored that the information is just now emerging publicly and that it raises questions about what else Americans might not have been told about the origins of al Qaeda and its early interest in attacking the United States.

The 9/11 Commission report broadly outlines how, during the early 1990s, bin Laden was seeking to expand al Qaeda globally — an effort that included “building alliances extended into the United States,” and that “the Blind Sheikh, whom bin Laden admired, was also in the network.”

But the report downplays the notion that bin Laden was actively plotting or seeking to finance any specific attacks inside the United States as far back as 1993 — two pieces of information that, according to Mr. Curran’s testimony and contemporaneous documents, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office corroborated at the time.

Alternatively, the report outlines how all of the attacks pursued by bin Laden during that period were against U.S. assets outside the United States.

With regard to the one attack inside the U.S. — the first World Trade Center bombing — the report says “bin Laden involvement is at best cloudy.”

It remains to be seen whether the newly created commission might uncover information that will change that assessment.

Mr. Wolf told The Times on Wednesday evening that the commission’s members will present findings to the Appropriations Committee in late March.

It is not the first time that Mr. Wolf has pushed for deeper insight into the evolution of al Qaeda and its relationship with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

In 1998, he authored language that resulted in the creation of the National Commission on Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission. That panel’s final report, released in 2000 just months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, highlighted the threat from bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Mr. Wolf reflected Wednesday on the chilling irony surrounding that report, the cover of which had a picture of the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York.

He said the goal for the new “commission is to look at everything, so we don’t make a mistake and let something happen that could be prevented.”

Appeals court orders Google to remove Muhammad video that Obama blamed for Benghazi jihad murders

/ Jihad Watch
innocence-of-muslimsCindy Lee Garcia is perfectly within her rights to object to appearing in a movie that apparently was quite different from the one she was led to believe was being filmed. Nonetheless, with Obama wanting the video down in order to appease Muslims, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation wanting it down as part of its campaign to make the West enforce Sharia blasphemy laws, this is not a positive development: it plays into the hands of the enemies of the freedom of speech, who are many and are growing more powerful all the time.

“Google ordered to remove anti-Islamic film from YouTube,” by Jonathan Stempel and Dan Levine for Reuters, February 26 (thanks to Twostellas):
(Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected Google’s assertion that the removal of the film “Innocence of Muslims,” amounted to a prior restraint of speech that violated the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?”
Representatives for Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
Cris Armenta, a lawyer for Garcia, said she is delighted with the decision.
“Ordering YouTube and Google to take down the film was the right thing to do,” Armenta said in an email. “The propaganda film differs so radically from anything that Ms. Garcia could have imagined when the director told her that she was being cast in the innocent adventure film.”
The controversial film, billed as a film trailer, depicted the Prophet Mohammed as a fool and a sexual deviant. It sparked a torrent of anti-American unrest among Muslims in Egypt, Libya and other countries in 2012.
That outbreak coincided with an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is considered blasphemous.
Google had refused to remove the film from YouTube, despite pressure from the White House and others, though it blocked the trailer in Egypt, Libya and certain other countries.
Garcia had claimed that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube.
But in Wednesday’s decision, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim and having already faced “serious threats against her life,” faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.
He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. “It’s disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights,” he wrote.
The case Garcia vs. Google Inc et al., 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-57302.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

CPR Media Network
For those of you who were listening to the debut of the Right Side Patriots radio show on CPR Worldwide Media this afternoon, you may well think there was a melt-down/failure at the top of the second hour. However, we at CPR define it as a success.

Here’s what happened. Right after a segment where Diane and Craig went off on islam, with Diane being spot on in her assessment that we are indeed at war with islam, and with Craig via his customary sarcasm suggesting having sanitation workers checking the 'burqa-bags' at the airport, the technical difficulties started until the cyber signal was lost altogether. 

Here’s what happened. Right after a segment where Diane and Craig went off on islam, with Diane being spot on in her assessment that we are indeed at war with islam, and with Craig via his customary sarcasm suggesting having sanitation workers checking the 'burqa-bags' at the airport, the technical difficulties started until the cyber signal was lost altogether.

CPR Worldwide Media has been continuously monitored for quite some time now by different islamic groups originating out of Europe and the UK. In fact, last week the CPR broadcast coming from London was hacked into while on the air, and taken down by an islamic center located in Germany. And now, immediately after they started talking about islam and what they called the burqa 'garbage bags’ they also started experiencing technical difficulties that got worse with each passing minute.

Over these past hours CPR has been running traces and such, and it has been confirmed by the server technicians at CPR, as well as CPR CEO Michael Collins-Windsor, that their show was also hacked into and that the route trace went back to the Islamic Center of England located in London.

However, what those who hacked into the server didn’t know was that their show was also being recorded on an entirely different server for rebroadcast. As a result, the Right Side Patriots debut show from Wednesday, February 26th…without interruption...will be rebroadcast in its entirety as soon as possible throughout the upcoming week.

This is what happens when the TRUTH is what will Right Side Patriots do about this attack on them...they will come back next week with enhanced cyber security to once again speak the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING but the truth on the CPR Worldwide Media Network.

We here at CPR hope you will tune in and listen to the debut show of Right Side Patriots as soon as we announce its rebroadcasting times here at

This is one show you do NOT want to miss.
“Absolutely dangerous” and “just devastating” were the words used by former Vice President Dick Cheney to describe the Obama administration’s plans to to make drastic defense cuts that would shrink the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels.

“I have not been a strong supporter of Barack Obama. But this really is over the top. It does enormous long-term damage to our military,” Cheney said Monday on Fox News. ”They act as though it is like highway spending and you can turn it on and off. The fact of the matter is he is having a huge impact on the ability of future presidents to deal with future crises that are bound to arise.”
The Army had already been preparing to shrink to 490,000 active-duty members from a wartime peak of 570,000. Hagel is proposing to cut it further to between 440,000 and 450,000. 
"We are repositioning to focus on the strategic challenges and opportunities that will define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States," Hagel said at a press conference at the Pentagon.
He defended the proposed reductions in troop strength, as a trade-off for building up "technological superiority" and priorities like Special Operations Forces and "cyber resources."
Cheney went on to say he believes the cuts reflect President Obama’s beliefs and priorities.

“They peddle this line that now we’re going to pivot to Asia, but they’ve never justified it,” he said.

 “And I think the whole thing is not driven by any change in world circumstances, it is driven by budget considerations. He would much rather spend the money on food stamps than he would on a strong military or support for our troops.”
There’s a damning number regarding our economy that Obama doesn’t want to talk about. It’s a number, but for him, would be lower. And, lower, in this case would be a good thing for the economy.

“Although estimates vary,” says Joel Kurtzman, a senior fellow at the Milliken Institute, “American companies have between $4 and $5 trillion in liquid assets, a sum greater than the size of the German economy.”

How is it that companies can now have more cash than anytime in history, while unemployment remains so high, inflation in many goods so low, and national income grows so anemically?

If all that was needed to bring us a juggernaut economy was more money, we’d be in boom times boys.

But alas, while more money is the Democrat recipe for success in everything-- and generally good in the corporate sense-- in this case it’s a telltale sign that something is wrong with policies coming out of Washington.

Because those high cash balance sheets are telling us a few things.

They are telling us that hiring isn’t an investment that companies want to make right now: Too much risk and too little reward they fear to bring people on the payrolls.

They are saying that companies would rather keep cash on the balance sheet than make investments in new plants and equipment and even sales.

Again, this is a matter of balancing against risk and reward.

Many corporate types are more concerned that they have enough cash for the next downturn, versus concern with putting liquid assets to use to generate return on investment the old fashioned way, by growing their base business.

Instead companies have been doing things like buying back their own stock and passing out dividends to shareholders, which the site ZeroHedge calls balance sheet arbitrage.

ZeroHedge observed last year: “Curious why there is a sense that [there] is no real corporate growth in the US? Because companies are simply not investing in growth, and are instead all engaging in cheap balance sheet arbitrage, which makes corporate equities appear richer. The problem is that the debt remains, and once rates finally do go up...”

But this year, thing won’t be so easy says ZH.

The site says that in 2013 stock buybacks in the S&P 500 equaled about half the money that the Fed injected via quantitative easing. But now that easing is tapering, companies won’t be able to manipulate earnings upward by taking stock off the street.

Fewer shares means higher earnings per share. It looks good at earnings season, but it’s not the best way to use capital.

A better way would be for companies to buy other companies.

“The cash accumulation among five giant tech stock,” says YCharts, “Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Oracle (ORCL) and Cisco (CSCO) – continues, with their combined positions now totaling about $400 billion.”

But despite Wall Street continuing to pitch tech giants about the advisability of putting that cash to use in merger and acquisition activity, mergers are sluggish.

“By number of deals, year-to-date M&A is down 8% compared to 2012 levels,” says Thompson Reutersnof 2013, “and is the slowest year-to-date period for deal making, by number of deals, since 2005.”

In 2014 so far there have been some high profile deals: Comcast has proposed a merger with Time Warner, which faces significant regulatory hurdles; Facebook has purchased WhatsApp for $19 billion by over paying for a company that has 450 million subscribers, yet only $20 million in revenue for 2013.

Both deals cry desperation in looking for ways to put capital to work.

But even M&A activity is not the best way to put capital to work.

Or at least M&A activity is not a sign of robust economic health.

“The anticipated M&A boom could begin,” writes Bob Doll, chief equity strategist at Nuveen Asset Management. “Favorable signals include recession-like nominal GDP, vast cash reserves on corporate balance sheets and a growing activist investor base.”

Agitated investors, overblown cash balances and sluggish GDP growth are not signs that a recovery is under way.

In fact, they are each signs that perhaps the best of the so-called recovery is over.

The best way to put capital to work is by hiring, we can all agree.

But until the politics changes in Washington, D.C. that’s not going to happen.

And we won't get another recovery until 2017.

Southern Poverty Law Center drops Nation of Islam from list of “hate groups”

/ Jihad Watch Director
SPLC-True-Hate-GroupThe SPLC lists Jihad Watch, of which I am the director, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, of which I am vice president, and its Stop Islamization of America project as hate groups, and these classifications, unsurprisingly, have become a staple of every report from lazy Leftist journalists.

None of them ever pause, and probably none of them ever wish to pause, to consider the question quis custodiet ipso custodes? — Who watches the watchmen? Why is fighting for the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people now classified as “hate”? An uncritical, uninformed public takes for granted that the SPLC is some kind of neutral observer, when actually it is a far-Left attack outfit, using its “hate group” classifications to stigmatize and demonize foes of its political agenda. But it classifies no Islamic jihad groups as “hate groups,” and has now dropped the racist, violent and paranoid Nation of Islam from its hate group list.

The cynicism and irresponsibility of this is obvious. Not that any mainstream media reporter will deign to report on it.

“Number of Ohio hate groups drops in 2013, report says,” by JoAnne Viviano for The Columbus Dispatch, February 25:
The number of hate groups in Ohio fell by about 17 percent in 2013, according to data released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The center counted 30 such groups in the state in 2013, compared with 36 in 2012.
Nationwide, the center says, the number of identified hate groups dropped by about 7 percent, from 1,007 to 939, the fewest number since 2009. Numbers had increased each year from 1999 to 2011, climbing from 457 to 1,018.
The report, titled “The Year in Hate & Extremism,” cited these factors for the decline: the co-opting of issues by mainstream politicians, an improving economy, law-enforcement crackdowns, same-sex marriage advancements, implementation of national health-care changes, Obama’s re-election, and little action on firearms and immigration laws.
“Those factors, along with the collapse or near-collapse of several major groups for a variety of reasons, seem to have taken some of the wind out of the sails of the radical right, leaving the movement both weaker and somewhat smaller,” says the report, which appears in the spring 2014 edition of the center’s Intelligence Report.
“But that has not dampened the violence and terrorism coming out of the movement.”
Remember when you read that about “violence and terrorism” that the SPLC lists no Islamic groups as “hate groups.”
The center said two hate groups are in central Ohio: ISD Records of Lancaster, in Fairfield County, is categorized as a racist-music group, and the Columbus-based Mission: America is categorized as anti-gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender.
On its website, Mission: America addresses the center’s claims against it on a “to our critics” page. It refers to its hate-group label as a “deliberate and puzzling smear campaign” and asks readers to “please take every accusation with a great deal of skepticism.”
“Mission: America is not a hate group, as claimed by the far-left SPLC,” the statement says. “In fact, based on how the SPLC has begun listing respected Christian conservative groups as if they could be compared with the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, it seems that the SPLC would qualify for this label itself by using such underhanded and invalid tactics.
The statement goes on to say that the organization is not racist and that “we … don’t ‘hate’ homosexuals. We simply object to homosexuality, the behavior, which is unnecessary.”…
No longer identified as hate groups are a Columbus-based Nation of Islam group, classified as “black separatist,” and a Chillicothe-based Crusaders for Yahweh, termed an “identity” group….

Right Side Patriots CPR Debut
By: Diane Sori

Today, Wednesday, February 26th at 2pm EST, Craig Andresen of The National Patriot and Diane Sori of The Patriot Factor begin their new radio show...RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS... which debuts on the CPR Worldwide Media Network. 

Here is the direct link to access the show

And if you'd like to chat with us while the show is in progress here is the link to do so

If you plan on chatting with us please go BEFORE tomorrow to
and join this group, you only need to do it the one time. Do NOT assume what you see now will be what you see tomorrow because once we are live our logo will appear and you chat below the logo.

Everything else will fall into place once we go live and remember our first guest for our debut show is Wild Bill for America and we have many other guests 'of name' coming on over the course of the show.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

When President Obama refused to endorse same sex marriage in the 2008 presidential campaign, was he as bigoted as a defender of Jim Crow in 1948, six years before "separate but equal" was struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court?

That's what Attorney General Eric Holder would have you believe based on his remarks about same sex marriage on Monday.
From The New York Times' account of an interview with the Attorney General:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Monday injected the Obama administration into the emotional and politicized debate over the future of state same-sex marriage bans, declaring in an interview that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory….
Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.
“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.
As an example, Mr. Holder cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which forced public school integration in 1954.
“If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Mr. Holder said.
The nation’s first black attorney general, Mr. Holder has said he views today’s gay-rights campaigns as a continuation of the civil rights movement that won rights for black Americans in the 1950s and ’60s. He has called gay rights one of “the defining civil rights challenges of our time.”
This is astonishing and troubling, and of a piece with the president and the Administration's growing lawlessness. There is no precedent for the idea that states' attorneys generals ought to pick and choose among the laws they defend, just as there is no precedent for the president's decision to serially alter his signature legislative "achievement" as he has done with Obamacare, or to empower his agencies to regulate far in advance of authority granted them by the Congress.

For the benefit of AG Holder, let's jump in the way-back machine to far, far ago: November 2, 2008:
Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."
At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure which would eliminate a right to same-sex marriage that the state’s Supreme Court recently recognized.
"I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think it’s unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about."
"Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them," he added.
Now back to the present day. Attorney General Holder is demanding that the nation's elected chief law enforcement officers of every state reach a conclusion that the president hadn't reached less than six years ago and further, that she or he impose it on their states despite their sworn oaths to uphold and defend the constitutions of their states.

Less than two years ago, North Carolina voters passed a ban on same sex marriage by a 60 to 40% vote, becoming the 30th state to do so, and yet the United States Attorney General argues that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, who favors same sex marriage, should refuse to defend the law that the citizens of his state passed overwhelmingly less than two years ago. A handful of state attorneys general have arrogated to themselves this right to pick and chose among their state's laws --the Times asserts this has happened in California, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia-- but it is unclear if any of these "leaders" announced their intent to nullify state law before their elections or only after they had safely negotiated their first appeal for votes. President Obama's decision to strike his pose came only in a desperate campaign for re-election when he jettisoned his old position for a new one tailored to turn out his base. AG Holder's "bold" declaration also comes as his lame duck status advances to end-stage and he looks out to speaking events and future board seats to feather his retirement.

Holder's position is far removed from a courageous decision to risk political future for principled stance. There is no risk on his part, just as there was no risk on the president's part. Both are posing, and in posing, sanitize a deep lawlessness.

If an attorney general can refuse to defend one portion of his state's constitution, why not another? Will the Attorney General encourage pro-life attorneys general to stop defending abortion clinics beset by protesters? Will he encourage district attorneys convinced that heroin addiction is a disease and the use of heroin wrongly classified as a crime to cease prosecuting offenders brought by their law enforcement officials to their jails?

Laws exist to guide even the most noble-minded elected official and certainly to cabin the ambitions of the worst of the lot. The rule of law protects everyone and channels everyone's desire for change into political activity, not into gaining office from which unilateral decrees might issue.

The Attorney General's latest encouragement to lawlessness ought to press an answer from every attorney general candidate before every election: Will you uphold your oath and defend the laws of the state as you swear to do, or do you not take such things as oaths seriously?

It seems as if, everywhere you turn these days, there are studies claiming to show that America has lost its upward mobility for people born in the lower socioeconomic levels. But there is a sharp difference between upward "mobility," defined as an opportunity to rise, and mobility defined as actually having risen.

That distinction is seldom even mentioned in most of the studies. It is as if everybody is chomping at the bit to get ahead, and the ones that don't rise have been stopped by "barriers" created by "society."

When statistics show that sons of high school dropouts don't become doctors or scientists nearly as often as the sons of Ph.D.s, that is taken as a sign that American society is not "fair."

If equal probabilities of achieving some goal is your definition of fairness, then we should all get together -- people of every race, color, creed, national origin, political ideology and sexual preference -- and stipulate that life has never been fair, anywhere or any time in all the millennia of recorded history.

Then we can begin at last to talk sense.

I know that I never had an equal chance to become a great ballet dancer like Rudolph Nureyev. The thought of becoming a ballet dancer never once crossed my mind in all the years when I was growing up in Harlem. I suspect that the same thought never crossed the minds of most of the guys growing up on New York's lower east side.

Does that mean that there were unfair barriers keeping us from following in the footsteps of Rudolph Nureyev?

A very distinguished scholar once mentioned at a social gathering that, as a young man, he was not thinking of going to college until someone else, who recognized his ability, urged him to do so.

Another very distinguished scholar told me that, although his parents were anti-Semitic, it was the fact that he went to a school with many Jewish children that got him interested in intellectual matters and led him into an academic career.

All groups, families and cultures are not even trying to do the same things, so the fact that they do not all end up equally represented everywhere can hardly be automatically attributed to "barriers" created by "society."

Barriers are external obstacles, as distinguished from internal values and aspirations -- unless you are going to play the kind of word games that redefine achievements as "privileges" and treat an absence of evidence of discrimination as only proof of how diabolically clever and covert the discrimination is.

The front page of a local newspaper in northern California featured the headline "The Promise Denied," lamenting the under-representation of women in computer engineering. The continuation of this long article on an inside page had the headline, "Who is to blame for this?"

In other words, the fact that reality does not match the preconceptions of the intelligentsia shows that there is something wrong with reality, for which somebody must be blamed. Apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong.

Women, like so many other groups, seem not to be dedicated to fulfilling the prevailing fetish among the intelligentsia that every demographic group should be equally represented in all sorts of places.

Women have their own agendas, and if these agendas do not usually include computer engineering, what is to be done? Draft women into engineering schools to satisfy the preconceptions of our self-anointed saviors? Or will a propaganda campaign be sufficient to satisfy those who think that they should be making other people's choices for them?

That kind of thinking is how we got ObamaCare.

At least one of the recent celebrated statistical studies of social mobility leaves out Asian Americans. Immigrants from Asia are among a number of groups, including American-born Mormons, whose achievements totally undermine the notion that upward mobility can seldom be realized in America.

Those who preach this counterproductive message will probably never think that the envy, resentment and hopelessness they preach, and the welfare state they promote, are among the factors keeping people down.

New Islamophobia vaccine to be ready by 2015!

/ Jihad Watch

Researchers at the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding announced Monday that they had perfected a new vaccine for Islamophobia and submitted it for FDA approval. After that approval is granted, the vaccine is expected to be mass-marketed in early 2015.

John Esposito, director of the Saudi-funded Center, announced at a press conference unveiling the vaccine: “The vaccine comes in handy sugar cube form. So when your bigoted, hateful uncle starts mouthing off at Christmas dinner about the need to resist Islamic jihad, just offer to sweeten up his tea — and presto! In no time he’ll be subscribing to Aslan Media!”

Nihad Awad, Director of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement: “CAIR applauds the new Islamophobia vaccine. We have tested it in a clinical trial on some of the nation’s greasiest Islamophobes. We gave the subjects the vaccine, then showed them footage of Islamic jihad attacks, complete with the jihadis brandishing Qur’ans and rifles and screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ as they torched churches and beheaded non-Muslims. The results were immediate and immensely gratifying.”

Corey Saylor, Hamas-linked CAIR’s Director of Hounding Counter-Jihadists and Stirring Up “Islamophobia” Hysteria, elaborated: “Instead of calling for resistance to jihad terror, and the monitoring of mosques, and programs in those mosques to teach against jihad violence and the interpretation of Islamic texts and teachings that jihadis use to justify that violence, once the vaccine kicked in these former greasy Islamophobes began saying very different things. They’d see these jihad attacks and say things like, ‘I fear there will be a backlash against innocent Muslims,’ and ‘We need to address the poverty and inequality that gives rise to the resentments that fuel attacks like these.’ Best of all, some of them even started saying, ‘We need to send money to CAIR so they can buy more billboards saying that jihad is romping through the daisies. That’s the Islamic reform we need!’”

Reza Aslan of Aslan Media declared: “I’m an expert on the new Islamophobia drug. I have a Ph.D. in it. I had a big hand in its development, in fact. I was present when we made participants at clinical trials, all seriously greasy Islamophobes, spit at and trample upon photos of those Islamophobic f**ks Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. I knew then that the vaccine was a success.”

Ibrahim Hooper, Hamas-linked CAIR’s Director of Taqiyya Advancement, added: “The big breakthrough came when CAIR researchers discovered that we could equate honest investigation of how jihadis use Islamic teachings to justify violence and supremacism with attacks on innocent Muslims, and classify both as ‘Islamophobia,’ a clinical disorder. After that, it was only a matter of time before our researchers would develop an antidote. Part LSD, part valium, part cannibis sativa, our new Islamophobia vaccine’s full recipe is as closely guarded secret as the recipe for Coca-Cola.

But one thing we can reveal: this vaccine makes you feel very, very good. We think it could challenge Ecstasy as the new party drug. After all, what other drug makes you stop worrying and love the jihad?”
It's Bowe Tuesday...again. Hey Obama...get Bowe home NOW...GWB would have!!!

Cuts to our military and Susan Rice's arrogance have me actually seething
By: Diane Sori

"Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation." - Admiral John Kirby, Defense Department spokesman

Seething...I'm actually seething as once again the very people who lay their lives on the line to keep us safe and free at home are being both dishonored and put in harm's way as muslim sympathizing, Obama-loving Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is recommending major cuts to our military... especially to the Army. And he's adding in for good measure a one-year freeze on military pay raises for officers, higher out-of-pocket costs for health-care benefits, and less monies for housing allowances for both our returning troops and our vets, in an all out effort to cut billions of dollars from our defense budget.

Wanting to downsize our military to pre-WWII levels (in 1940 the Army had 267,000 active-duty members but by 1941 it increased to 1.46 million as we approached America's entry into World War II)...this downsizing includes the loss of battleships and fighter planes including the retiring of older weapons such as the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 attack aircraft...leaving the U.S. homeland and our foreign interests more vulnerable to enemy attacks. And these cuts are disproportionately being done to our military budget over any and all other department's budget cuts...can't dare cut the freebie and handout programs now can they...and are 'supposedly' being done based on the assumption the U.S. military will NOT ever engage in ground wars again.

Hate to tell Hagel but that same erroneous assumption was made after WWII when cuts were done and look how that turned the words Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ring a bell...guess NOT.

And the Army, the largest of our armed services, currently with 522,000 active-duty soldiers is now scheduled to be downsized to 490,000 by 2015 from its wartime high of 570,000. And to make matters worse, Hagel wants to actually make even more cuts to stabilize levels to between 420,000 and 450,000...very dangerous to say the least.

In fact, some, like Army Chief-of-Staff General Ray Odierno, have said that "an army of 420,000 would be too small for a world that has such an uncertain national security landscape." The minimum size, he believes, should be NO lower than 450,000. He said shrinking to 420,000 would make a big difference in the capabilities of the force.

In other words meaning that our troops might NOT be able to go toe-to-toe with an enemy out to kill us all...well maybe NOT all of us as Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his merry band of miscreants and traitors do side with said enemy after all.

So if this is NOT an act of treason I don't know what is as the first duty of the president and those elected or appointed to office...after protecting and defending the Constitution of to assure the health, safety, and welfare of the American people, and these cuts put NOT only American lives here at home in danger but put our troops themselves and Americans overseas in even graver danger.

And Obama and crew know this and just do NOT care.

So what are we going to do about this...are we going to sit back and allow Barack HUSSEIN Obama to cut our military forces to dangerous levels leaving us vulnerable to an attack on our own soil and leaving our troops vulnerable to major attacks when stationed overseas...or are we finally going to collectively in a loud and clear voice say "enough" and demand this most traitorous of presidents and his equally traitorous minions be removed from office in ARREST the bast*rds now!

I sure hope it's the latter.

And to further add to my seething is that this past Sunday on Meet the Press, Susan Rice, the very woman who towed the Obama line last September when she made the talk show circuit rounds saying that Benghazi was a direct result of a poorly made YouTube video that defamed islam and mohamed ...a video by the way that NO one in the region had seen....had the audacity...had the unmitigated say she had NO regrets...NO regrets at all about anything she previously said about Benghazi ...grrrrrrr...

And when David Gregory directly looked her in the eye and asked her why she had NO regrets about Benghazi, Rice said, "What I said to you that morning, and what I did every day since, was to share the best information that we had at the time...the information I provided, which I explained to you, was what we had at the moment. It could change. I commented that this was based on what we knew on that morning, was provided to me and my colleagues and indeed to Congress by the intelligence community, and that’s been well validated in many different ways since." 

Translation: this miserable excuse of a woman has NO regrets whatsoever about LYING to the American people two months before a presidential election just so Benghazi would NOT tarnish the Obama media-created myth that he was and is the 'savior' of us all. Boy would I love to bitch-slap her upside her LYING head!

And then the infamous blame game kicked into high gear with Rice's words that it was “patently false” to allege that the White House deliberately misled the American people.

'Misled' my eye as the White Barack HUSSEIN Hillary Clinton...blatantly and with malice LIED about the deaths of four Americans...LIED about the reasons for those deaths...LIED about what was actually ILLEGALLY going on within the Benghazi compound...and then covered it all up with even more LIES...LIES that Susan Rice helped spread.

And as Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty's deaths mean NOTHING to this miserable administration...they mean EVERYTHING to their parents and loved ones left behind...and to 'We the People'...yet we are still left with NO answers...NO truths...and that is the saddest thing of all next to these LYING bast*rds still NOT being in jail that is.

Can you say "beyond seething"...