Archive for January 2013

Confirmed! Clinton Admits to Supplying Terrorists with Weapons

Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropThere is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during a hearing on the 2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Just as our analysts had predicted from “BEFORE” the start of overt American intervention in Libya, weapons have fallen into the hands of terrorists and have now again been used to kill American citizens in Algeria.  We repeatedly warned of the grave dangers created by supporting known Islamic terrorists in the overthrow and murder of former Libyan dictator Gadhafi.  However, Clinton acted in the stereotypical fashion and claimed she took full responsibility for the growing number of deaths related to her incredibly flawed policy in Libya, but in reality took no responsibility and sought to blame the nebulous “Arab Spring.”  I guess Mrs. Clinton forgot that it was US aircraft and drones bombing Gadhafi’s forces, which directly allowed the rebel forces, stocked full of known terrorists, to capture and loot hundreds of thousands of advanced military weapons to include over 20,000 unaccounted man portable surface-to-air-missiles similar to the infamous US manufactured “Stinger” missile used against Soviet low altitude aircraft in Afghanistan.  If Mrs. Clinton fails to connect the dots between her horrendously flawed Libya policy and the deaths of Americans, she should, as Senator Rand Paul suggested, be immediately relieved of her post due to gross incompetence.  However, I don’t believe Mrs. Clinton is that naïve…she is just a liar.

http://endthelie.com/2013/01/23/clinton-testifies-algerian-terrorists-got-weapons-from-libya/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EndTheLie+%28End+the+Lie%29#axzz2IqgkTwXd

 

By Guiles Hendrik

Change the Debate: How to Win the Battle for Gun Rights Part II: Take Action

Patriots, you must act now while you still have the ability to resist.  Apathy will lead to tyranny in our lifetime.  You must make the facts known, you must make your numbers known, you must make your determination known, and you must check the opposition at every corner.  Call out those that mock you and seek to enslave you.  Do not by shy.  Be fanatical in your perseverance to protect your few remaining rights and freedoms and then to win those lost back.  Do not rest at simply protecting the shreds that are left, but push till you have fully regained your rightful freedoms and deposed those that threaten them.  When fighting those willing to enslave you, it is proper, justifiable, and responsible to radically oppose their actions.  Organize, protest, and march on your state houses and Washington.  Out the traitors attempting to take your rights and enslave you!

On the electoral front, for starters, you must vote out anyone that supports gun control.  Further, you must abandon both the Republican and the Democrat parties that have long since abandoned their constituents for special interests and lobbyist dollars.  Neither party serves your interests but simply uses you for their gain.  Don’t allow the parties to divide and distract you on ridiculous issues while they pass laws to indefinitely detain you during midnight sessions of Congress over Christmas when they think no one is paying attention.  Remember, at nearly every instance of the erosion of your freedom and liberty, it was by a bipartisanconsensus.  You must hold all of our elected officials accountable at the voting box and destroy the current party establishment by voting for neither and insisting on running and voting for independent candidates.

Not voting is as ruinous as it is stupid.  It is true that many are disillusioned when it comes to elections, but you actually have significant power to change the course of elections by taking some simple, but effective actions.  These grassroots tactics are real, effective electoral strategies used successfully by the parties themselves, but are closely kept from the public’s eyes.  To change the electoral game on the parties, begin by collecting the names and contact information of all likeminded people in your voting district.  This is one of the most basic and important aspects of grassroots mobilization.  There are many ways to do this including asking for lists already generated by gun rights groups.  However, if you must start from scratch, begin with your friends and family.  Then have them each reach out to those in their networks and those people reach out to those people in their networks.  Ask that every person just reach out to at least one other person to do the same.  Have them all send their contact information to one consolidated email address where the master list can be developed.  Use this list to rally and motivate your local base to go out and canvas for even more supporters.  An effectively run networking operation like this can quickly net thousands of supporters.  At the local level, this mobilization is enough to sway and win an election.

Next, organize throughout your state by district.  As the names add up, combine these district lists to form a picture of support across the entire state.  Use these lists to write your representatives demanding they vote to protect and expand gun rights.  Further, make it very clear to the representative that the constituents you represent will vote in the primaries and pool their money to run a viable opposition candidate.  Few people realize that many elections are won and lost in those very early pre-election district and state contests, which next to no one pays any attention to.  The fact that so few people turn out for primary elections means that an incumbent representative is very, very vulnerable during this early stage of a campaign.  If the electorate is mobilized and turns out for an opposing candidate, just a few dozen or even a couple hundred votes WILL often end the incumbent’s campaign.  This is especially true if it is done secretly and the turnout is a surprise to an apathetic and over confident incumbent.   Even worse for the incumbent is the fact that they will have to spend precious money early on in the campaign when no one cares or is really paying attention, which puts them at an extreme disadvantage to their opponent.  This money isn’t spent defeating the opposing party’s candidate, but rather, just to secure their own party’s nomination.  This depletes the party’s coffers and effectively is a means to force a party to self-destruct through financial starvation.  Further, the primaries are also when the candidates often have the least amount of campaign resources and can’t afford a big financial fight.  Use this knowledge and leverage to gain control over your local representatives.  Done effectively, you will not only be able to influence your representatives, but replace them with your candidates.

To win at the state level, you must build on this strategy and grow the network.  State level wins are the big key to success because states have the Constitutional authority to counter, block, and ignore federal dictates.  Wins at the state level also shape the state party and will be the NECESSARY foundation for changing the federal makeup of elected representatives.  Just as important is the fact that winning and influencing local and state elections is feasible and can be done within a relatively short time span.  For example, when targeting anti-gun candidates in the primaries across a state in large numbers, a well-organized front can inflict electoral disaster on the targeted party.  A real threat of this gains you real access and influence over not only the candidates, but the parties themselves.  Further, well organized movements can pool their resources to greater effect.  In the districts with well-grounded and supportive representatives, skip targeting them as you already have a viable candidate that is supportive of expanding gun rights.  Instead, focus on the candidates and districts that are opposed to gun rights.   For example, this may mean that supporters in rural districts of a state like New York or Maryland pool their resources to run a candidate against an anti-gun candidate in an urban area of the state notorious for pushing gun control, which is out of their district.  Done effectively and early in the primaries, it is possible to completely remove the candidate and replace that candidate with your own pro-gun candidate.  Then the party must make a choice to either support a pro-gun candidate (even if that isn’t the party’s platform) or risk losing a seat and influence during the actual election.  The party will have no choice but to bend to your will.  Depending on the situation, sometimes it is best not to try to get your candidate on the ballot, but to get the worst one off.  This would be a great strategy to employ against a progressive anti-gun Democratic that has historically has won by large margins.  At the worst, you would force the candidate and the anti-gun party to spend precious cash leaving it vulnerable to the opposition party.  The fringe benefit is that you are also now in a position to leverage this influence over the weaker party that typically would have forced a pro-gun agenda.

Ladies and gentlemen, apathy at this late stage of the game is not acceptable.  History shows that once guns are registered they are taken.  Once they are taken you don’t get them back.  Disarmed against tyranny, the forces of evil will attack using the full force of modern weapons and violence.  The result is always the government inflicted deaths of millions of innocent people in the pursuit of absolute power and control; a number of deaths, which is far greater than any crime spree in history or terrorist act could inflict.  Ultimately, what one will have won for apathy and the hope that you will be left alone will be slavery for generations.

Change the Debate: How to Win the Battle for Gun Rights Part I: Understanding the Fight

Ladies and gentlemen, dark days are upon us.  Not since the Civil War has the liberty and freedom of this Republic been under so great a threat.  What makes this threat so dire is that it is both internal and external.  Unlike past foreign, external threats that were overt and allowed the American people to rally around a common cause, these threats are covert and come from within.  These threats are quietly supported externally by powerful financiers and are designed to lead to America tearing herself apart from within.  These forces could be summarized as geopolitical enemies like China and ideological enemies such as globalists, the heads of big banks, and the European Union.  What they all have in common is a universal disdain for American values, freedom, and liberty, and the threat America poses to their consolidation of world power and control.  The proof is all around.  What was sacred, moral, ethical, and right only 50 years ago is now derided by the government, media, and pop culture.  Our nation is not a melting pot, but a patchwork of government fabricated special interest groups all fighting against the others resulting in gain only for the elite.  The fundamental rights of free speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, free press, the ability to keep and enjoy what one earns, and the ability to defend all of the above against those wanting to take it have been abolished or constrained and limited to the point of irrelevance.  Those unwilling to submit to these new pillars of correctness and  to surrender their freedom and liberty are chastised, black balled, insulted, penalized, fired from jobs,  and now even put on terrorist watch lists and arrested.  Only by going on the offensive and recalibrating the arguments can this be turned around.  We have been pushed too far and must reclaim ground.  Ladies and gentlemen, to use a football analogy, we are on the one yard line and the enemy is about to score.  There is no further room to give and we must push them back.

It’s time to change the debate just as the enemies of a free America have attempted with the “gun debate.”  If ,as they claim, we need to revisit the “meaning” of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, then we need to codify the fact that an individual has an unalienable right to self-defense of their person, property, and innocent civilians.  Further, it must be clear that this includes the right to own and carry weapons sufficient in power to offer a reasonable check against government tyranny as the central hallmark of the right.  This means that the weapons and armament possessed by the citizenry must be allowed to adapt to the technology of the day.  In 1786, a flintlock musket was the assault rifle of the day and was sufficient to counter tyranny.  Using the same bar, the population today is under armed.  We the people demand better access to true military grade assault rifles, suppressors, and anti-armor weapons and ammunition.  Further, the populace requires access to other high tech electronic warfare and communication devices to protect against spying, surveillance, and stand-off attack in order to balance against the police state that has rapidly risen over the last decade.  Remember, it is the government that should fear the people and not the reverse.  This is not extreme, but reasonable.  What IS extreme and unreasonable is the massive growth of “law enforcement” and paramilitary police organizations to the point cops are indistinguishable from front line combat soldiers and are sitting on every block.  What IS extreme and unreasonable is the Orwellian police state we have funded and built with tax dollars to place a camera on every square inch of land in America, to record every single electronic activity of every person in America without cause or warrant, and to create secret blacklists of people barred from travel and slated for detainment and or execution without due process.  What IS extreme and unreasonable is the police use of military armored vehicles that are now comparable in capability to tanks and drone aircraft used to spy and kill with impunity around the world against our civilian population.

We now face a situation where it is no longer a government of the people and for the people, but one of a government for the government and of the government, which will stop at nothing to protect the government even at the cost of those it is entrusted to protect and serve.  Those enemies of the free people, those elitist usurpers, those friends of tyrants, we know you and will call you out.  We will hound you at every step and turn your game upon your heads till all see you for your true colors.  Piers Morgan, Alan Dershowitz, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Arianna Huffington, Andrew Cuomo, Rachel Maddow, and the like behind the scenes are on notice.  We will not allow you to casually denounce us, mock our freedoms, and undermine our sovereignty.  We will see you fired from your jobs, defeated at the ballot box, discredited in academia, scorned in public.  You are the threat and the living proof why we not only need the Second Amendment in our Bill of “Rights,” but need to expand it to compensate for today’s challenges.  This is our constitutionally protected and defined right and responsibility.

Senator “Chuck” Hagel’s Nomination for Secretary of Defense: Traitors Oppose Him Because He Told the Truth and Put America First!

What appears now to be President Obama’s imminent nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel has caused a firestorm of criticism from traitors in our midst.  In particular, Senator Hagel is under attack because he was gutsy and honest enough to state an obvious fact about the disproportionate and decidedly negative influence various Israeli lobby groups exert over U.S. policy.  Some may try to deny this fact, but I would submit that the mere fact that there is such uproar over this small statement made years ago proves how disproportionately powerful this lobby continues to be.  Then Senator Hagel didn’t stop there and was brazen enough to also boldly state that U.S. interests should come first and that he swore an oath to the Constitution!  How dare he put the U.S. first and swear allegiance to the Constitution and want to follow the rule of law!  On second thought, how dare any American criticize him for taking that stand!

Let’s separate fact from fiction.  Senator Hagel in my book is far from a perfect candidate for the position of Secretary of Defense, but the man has a lot going for him.  For starters, he is a self-made millionaire and understands business.  The Department of Defense is the world’s largest bureaucracy so we need a good manager to rein it in.  Mr. Hagel has also openly made comments suggesting he recognizes that the interests and security of the U.S. should be placed ahead of other nations’ interests and that he recognizes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.  This too IS a good thing for America!  However, if you happen to believe that the best interests of a foreign nation should supersede those of the U.S. and you are not a foreign national, then you need to disclose yourself as an agent of a foreign government to the F.B.I. and the American public before suggesting Mr. Hagel is a bad guy for taking the side of the country he is sworn to protect.

Second, Mr. Hagel seems to recognize that the Constitution is an important and valid document.  This is a vast improvement from his predecessors, which under Congressional Testimony seem to forget that the Constitution exclusively gives the power to declare war to the legislative branch of government (Congress).  Both Panetta and Gates, when questioned directly by Congress on this subject, testified to the point that the authority to commit U.S. troops to war lie not with Congress, but the international community, whatever that is.  What it isn’t though is Constitutional.  Further, in the context of Hagel’s statements against the Patriot Act and then President George Bush’s constant push for the war in Iraq, it was quite clear that he was drawing a distinction between party politics and the best interests of a free nation.  Again, this is commendable.  Finally, Mr. Hagel voted in favor of Senate Amendment 2022, restoring habeas corpus, the right to due process, to American citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but voted against a similar resolution restoring it to non-U.S. prisoners detained at Guantanamo.  This demonstrates Mr. Hagel understands that U.S. citizens have certain unalienable rights granted by the Constitution and are materially different than foreign combatants.  The need to have a Secretary of Defense with this type of legal and ethical compass is even more important now after President Obama just signed into law the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which effectively suspends habeas corpus and allows American citizens to be captured and indefinitely detained even while inside of the U.S.  This latest law is draconian and the epitome of tyranny.  Mr. Hagel may be one of the few that could achieve appointment while still imparting some balance.

Third, the man actually served in the U.S. military, has seen “ground” combat in Vietnam, and earned two purple hearts.  Any one of these would clearly set him apart from his peers, but combined, suggests Mr. Hagel recognizes the dangers of useless wars with no winning strategy or end.  His criticisms of the War in Iraq demonstrated that not only did he see Iraq for the massive waste of life and resources it was, but also was willing to stand up and say something about it when the rest of his Senate peers quietly walked in lockstep with the Republican Party.  I for one believe anyone acting in the position of Secretary of Defense should know firsthand what it is like to be in combat, risk your life, and be put in a position where you must take the life of others.  No text book, degree, or amount of empathy can replace the raw horror of war.  As such, no one that hasn’t actually experienced war can truly appreciate what our troops are asked to do and properly formulate Department of Defense policy.

If not enough, Mr. Hagel serves on President Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  This is a senior position with access to highly classified information and is central to the development of security and defense policy at the Presidential level.  As such, Mr. Hagel is in the know.  What is funny is that he is criticized for his “soft” position on Iran, when he is one of the people who would be in the exact position to understand exactly what the U.S. is doing in respect to Iran, how well it has worked, and what the actual versus publicized threat of Iran really is to U.S. national security.  Further, he would also be acutely aware of the degree to which countries like Israel have lobbied to inject their interests into our policy with respect to Iran and whether or not this was in the best interests of the U.S.  Knowing all of this information, Mr. Hagel has come out against “hard” policies toward Iran as counter-productive and particularly against sanctions.  Mr. Hagel was correct in his policy prescription toward Iran in part because he is privy to information most readers honestly are not.  Second, specific to his opposition to sanctions, he was again correct in his policy prescription.  Sanctions haven’t worked against Iran and have only complicated our negotiations, made life very difficult for the average Iranian, and bolstered the regimes propaganda that Iran’s ills are being caused by America.  Finally, Mr. Hagel speaks first hand regarding the intimidation the Israeli lobby wields over U.S. policy makers.  Note, Mr. Hagel’s statements regarding Israel never suggest he didn’t believe that Israel was a U.S. ally or that the U.S. and Israel would not continue to support each other.  Mr. Hagel only stated that U.S. interests must come first.  This clear state of mind and understanding of his responsibilities to “our” nation is of the utmost importance and I applaud him for telling the truth.  If anything, one should be demanding why the media hasn’t raised such a cry for those nominees and candidates that haven’t taken such stances and seem to put America last.  This is the real story of a seditious media that lacks any real accountability and has a clear bias against “U.S.” interests in its reporting.

No nominee is perfect and this is true with Mr. Hagel.  Although, I would like to see other nominees and do believe based on the above Mr. Hagel is a better choice for Secretary of Defense than other potential candidates, he does have critical flaws.  Specifically, even though he has voiced support for the Constitution, which today is exceedingly rare amongst politicians, he did support the Patriot Act after initially voting against it.  He also voted for FISA, which among other classified powers, gave wide surveillance and warrantless wiretapping authority to the government.  I believe the damage the Patriot Act and FISA have done to the freedom, liberty, and privacy of citizens is egregious and is difficult to reconcile with anyone truly respective of civil liberties and the Constitution.  Perhaps the only defense of Mr. Hagel on these issues is that the most invasive spying, surveillance, and detention policies these acts proscribe were only written into law and passed after he left office.  All considered, under the circumstances Mr. Hagel is likely the best nominee free Americans can hope for from this Administration, but the buyer should beware.

By Guiles Hendrik