Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Middle East”

Israel’s indomitable protector, Ariel Sharon emblemized military audacity, evolving politics


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.timesofisrael.com

 

Posted by:MITCH GINSBURG

ARIEL SHARON, 1928-2014

Ben-Gurion called him the ‘greatest field commander’; later, the country entrusted him with its security, knowing the consequences could be unpredictable

 

  • Ariel Sharon stands near the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur war. (photo credit: GPO/ Flash 90)Ariel Sharon stands near the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur war. (photo credit: GPO/ Flash 90)
  • Ariel Sharon on the Temple Mount, September 28, 2000 (photo credit: Flash90)Ariel Sharon on the Temple Mount, September 28, 2000 (photo credit: Flash90)
  • Ariel Sharon working on his farm, "Shikmim Farm" (in Hebrew 'Havat Shikmim') in the Negev. Ariel Sharon (born February 26 1928) is a former Israeli Prime Minister (from March 2001 until April 2006) and a retired general of IDF. Photo by Moshe Shai/FLASH90 maariv outAriel Sharon working on his farm, “Shikmim Farm” (in Hebrew ‘Havat Shikmim’) in the Negev. Ariel Sharon (born February 26 1928) is a former Israeli Prime Minister (from March 2001 until April 2006) and a retired general of IDF. Photo by Moshe Shai/FLASH90 maariv out
  • Ariel Sharon talks with David Ben Gurion during a bus ride along the Israeli Army positions on the Egyptian border. (photo credit: IDF/Flash90)Ariel Sharon talks with David Ben Gurion during a bus ride along the Israeli Army positions on the Egyptian border. (photo credit: IDF/Flash90)
  • Ariel Sharon stands in front of the Temple Mount during his term as prime minister in July 2000 (file photo: Flash90)Ariel Sharon stands in front of the Temple Mount during his term as prime minister in July 2000 (file photo: Flash90)
  • Former chief of staff Haim Bar-Lev, center left, consults with Maj. Gen. Ariel Sharon (with bandage) and Moshe Dayan, center, during the Yom Kippur War. (photo credit: GPO/Flash90)Former chief of staff Haim Bar-Lev, center left, consults with Maj. Gen. Ariel Sharon (with bandage) and Moshe Dayan, center, during the Yom Kippur War. (photo credit: GPO/Flash90)
  • Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon shaking hands with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat at a summit meeting held in Sharm e-Sheikh, June 4, 1981 (photo credit: GPO/Moshe Milner)Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon shaking hands with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat at a summit meeting held in Sharm e-Sheikh, June 4, 1981 (photo credit: GPO/Moshe Milner)
  • Ariel Sharon and wife Lily at an Israeli Air Force event (Photo credit: Baruch Rimon/GPO)Ariel Sharon and wife Lily at an Israeli Air Force event (Photo credit: Baruch Rimon/GPO)
  • Ariel Sharon with Mahmoud Abbas at the Prime Minister's Office on July 01, 2003. (Photo credit: Nati Shohat Flash90)Ariel Sharon with Mahmoud Abbas at the Prime Minister’s Office on July 01, 2003. (Photo credit: Nati Shohat Flash90)
  • Ariel Sharon (photo credit: Eyal Yitsah/Flash90)

Ariel Sharon, the general and prime minister who embodied the Zionist notion of the new Jew — a robust man, adept with both plowshare and sword, and feared, hated, and adored for his proficiency with the latter, is dead. He was 85 years old.

Doctors at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer said that Sharon, who had been in a vegetative state for eight years, had suffered renal failure in recent days, which led on Saturday afternoon to multiple organ failure and death.

On January 4, 2006, while serving as prime minister, just two-and-a-half months shy of elections that he was expected to win in a landslide, Sharon suffered a devastating stroke and never recovered.

He is survived by his older sister Dita, his two living sons, Omri and Gilad, his daughter-in-law Inbal, and his six grandchildren.

Sharon, as both military leader and prime minister, was the man to whom the Israeli public looked in its hours of need, yearning for the protection he provided and cognizant of the consequences it sometimes entailed. As Ari Shavit wrote in a piercing profile in the New Yorker in 2006, Israelis turned to Sharon in the 1950s, during the devastating fedayun raids; as they did on Yom Kippur 1973, when even the defense minister was said to have feared the “fall of the Third Temple”; and yet again, most overwhelmingly, during the savagely bloody days of the Second Intifada.

He was defense minister during the 1982 Lebanon War and was found to bear personal responsibility for failing to prevent the Phalangist massacre of Palestinian Muslims in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Early in his career, in October 1953, he led a reprisal raid on the Jordanian village of Qibya in response to a terror attack in Israel. Forty two houses were detonated in the raid and 69 people were killed. In the field with his troops, Sharon had a reputation for pushing the license and limits of his orders to the maximum.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel "Arik" Sharon 1928 - 2013  (photo credit: Sharon Perry/Flash90)

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel “Arik” Sharon 1928 – 2013 (photo credit: Sharon Perry/Flash90)

Toward the end of his political career, he was welcomed into the mainstream. In August 2005, he presided over the withdrawal from Gaza, uprooting some 24 settlements in total and irrevocably severing his ties with the settlement movement that he had an instrumental role in founding.

Three months later, on November 21, 2005, Sharon announced his departure from Likud, the party he had co-founded in 1973. A reporter asked at the press conference why he thought he would succeed where so many others had failed, with a centrist party. He laughed — even his greatest detractors admitted that he could be charming — and said: “Planning is something a lot of people know how to do, but executing, as you know, far fewer, far fewer.”

Farm roots

Sharon was born, on a rainy February 26, 1928, to a violin-playing agronomist father and a legendarily tenacious mother.

His father, Samuil Scheinerman, was from Brest-Litovsk and had been raised a Zionist. His father’s father, Mordechai, had been best friends with Menachem Begin’s father, and the two had broken down the door of the local synagogue when the rabbi refused to hold a memorial for Theodor Herzl. Mordechai’s wife, Miriam, was a midwife: she birthed Menachem Begin.

Moshe Dayan famously said of his generals that he preferred to restrain war horses than “prod oxen who refuse to move.” Sharon, though, proved difficult to contain.

Sharon’s mother, Vera Schneerof, from the tiny Belarussian village of Halavenchichi, was a reluctant Zionist. Her dream was to be a doctor. But in 1921, with the Red Army advancing on Tiflis, she hastily married Samuil, dropped out of medical school, and set sail for Palestine.

Gilad Sharon, in his 2011 memoir, “The Life of a Leader” (full disclosure: this reporter translated the book into English), had this to say of his grandmother Vera: “Because of her slanting eyes, her size, and her strength, both physical and predominantly mental, she always seemed to me a descendant of Genghis Khan. Every time there was some mention of her ancestry, I’d make galloping noises for my father, by drumming on the table. Everyone in the house knew what that sound meant: Mongolian horsemen, thousands of them, galloping on their short horses across the Russian plain. Short, strong, and determined, they ride with eyes narrowed against the wind. Nothing deters them, nothing stops them. Between their saddle and their horse’s back they store a piece of meat, softened by the friction and the horse’s sweat. All this came to mind when I saw my beloved grandmother.”

She slept with a firearm beneath her bed until age 80.

Arik’s father, Samuil, who was an outcast in the cooperative farming village of Kfar Malal, left careful instructions in his will: He did not want his body taken to the cemetery in the village truck; instead, Arik should use the family pickup. He didn’t want any of his neighbors eulogizing him, either.

A soldier of valor and controversy

In the summer of 1945, Sharon took part in the Haganah’s squad leader training course, far from the eyes of the British, deep in the desert. He thought he had done well but his commanders graduated him with the rank of “probationary corporal.”

That status was erased during the war.

Ariel Sharon talks with David Ben-Gurion during a bus ride along the Israeli Army positions on the Egyptian border. (photo credit: IDF/Flash90)

Ariel Sharon talks with David Ben-Gurion during a bus ride along Israeli Army positions on the Egyptian border. (photo credit: IDF/Flash90)

Shortly after the November 29, 1947 vote that authorized the partition of Palestine, Sharon, then still known as Scheinerman, led a company of troops through the mud and heavy rain to the outskirts of Bir Addas, an Arab village that was host to Iraqi troops. They exchanged fire but the call to charge on the Israeli side never came. Sharon led his men forward regardless. He was ultimately given complete command over the platoon in a sign of things to come.

General Sharon, as he was often known abroad, never went to officer’s school.

He was, however, a gifted commander. In 1967, he planned the IDF’s first divisional battle, against the Abu Agheila stronghold in the Sinai, completely on his own; till today, the battle is taught in military academies across the world.

During the Yom Kippur War, he led Israeli troops across the Suez Canal, breaking the back of the Egyptian offensive. As his troops encircled Egypt’s Third Army, Sharon, a reserves officer at the time, instructed them to plant Israeli flags on the high ground, so that the Egyptians would look back across the water and see that they were trapped.

Sharon, known to all as Arik, did not need to have orders spelled out for him. In 1952, Moshe Dayan asked him “to see” whether it would be possible to capture Jordanian soldiers and exchange them for Israeli POWs. That same day, without being told, Sharon rounded up a friend and a pickup truck and drove down to the Jordan River. He waded into the water, pretended to inquire about missing cows, and promptly disarmed two Jordanian soldiers. He cuffed and blindfolded them, and drove them back to headquarters in Nazareth, his friend Shlomo Hever riding on the sideboard with a pistol aimed at their heads. When they arrived, Dayan was out. Sharon left him a note: “Moshe — the mission is accomplished, the prisoners are in the cellar. Shalom. Arik.”

Dayan, who recommended him for a citation after that mission, famously said of his generals that he preferred to restrain war horses than “prod oxen who refuse to move.” Sharon, though, proved difficult to contain. In 1956, during the Suez War, he stretched his orders to the maximum and beyond, when he sent paratroopers into the Mitla Pass, engaging in a gruesome and unnecessary face-to-face fight with the Egyptian soldiers who were dug into the craggy mountain side. The mission resulted in 38 Israeli deaths and cemented a lifelong feud with future chief of the General Staff Motta Gur.

In the aftermath of the Suez War, then-prime minister David Ben-Gurion wrote of Sharon in his journal: “The lad is a thinker, an original. Were he to be weaned of his fault of not speaking the truth in his reports he would make an exemplary military leader.”

Ben-Gurion, nonetheless, supported Sharon throughout his military life. In 1953, after the unintentional massacre in Qibya, the elder statesman kindly changed the young major’s name from Scheinerman to Sharon, reassuring him that what is important is “how it will be looked at here in this region,” to which Sharon remarked in his 1989 autobiography, tellingly entitled “Warrior,” “I couldn’t have agreed with him more.”

Despite Ben-Gurion’s persistent backing — he told military historian Uri Milstein that Sharon was “the greatest field commander in the history of the IDF” – and Sharon’s stunning tactical successes in the Six Day War, he was eventually pushed out of the army — after many previous attempts — on July 15, 1973.

Battles on the home front

Sharon was a family man. In stark opposition to many other Israeli generals and leaders, he was not a womanizer. Throughout his life, even as prime minister, he always rose to his feet when a woman entered the room. But in mid-life, over the span of five-and-a-half years, his personal life was ripped to shreds.

He first saw his wife, Margalit (Gali) Zimmerman, through the bright green leaves of an orange grove during the waning days of the British Mandate in Palestine. She was 16 and wore braids and was planting in the field of the dormitory school she attended. Sharon wrote in his autobiography that he had never seen anyone so beautiful in his life. By the time he pulled himself from his reverie, the water in his irrigation ditch was at his knees.

Several years after the War of Independence, they eloped. A rabbi friend of Sharon’s married them with no friends or relatives in attendance. Nine years later she was dead, killed in a car crash, on the way to her job as a psychiatric nurse in Jerusalem.

Their son, Gur, was five years old. The boy grew gaunt and frail and acquired “a hollow” look to his eyes. Slowly he recovered. “It was a remarkable experience watching him regain his strength, as if sorrow had reached to the depths and had broken on some inner strength it found there,” Sharon wrote.

Gali’s sister, Lily, stepped into the void. In Uzi Benziman’s highly critical biography, “Sharon: an Israeli Caesar,” the author cited anonymous sources who contended that Sharon and Lily had been having an affair, and that Gali was driven to take her own life. That claim remains unsubstantiated. The two raised Gur together after Gali’s death, fell in love and had two more children, Omri and Gilad.

But on the eve of Rosh Hashanah 1967, tragedy struck once again. Gur, age 10, saw that his father was busy on the phone, snapped him a playful salute and went out to the yard to play. Moments later, Sharon heard a gunshot. He ran to the yard. His youngest, Gilad, not yet a year old, was in the play pen; Omri, 3, stood by his side; and Gur was splayed out on the grass. He and a friend had been playing with an antique rifle. They had apparently loaded it with gun powder and a piece of metal. “I had seen so many wounds in my life; no one had to tell me that this one was hopeless,” he wrote. He bundled him in his arms and waded out into the street to catch a ride to the hospital. In the back seat of the car, Gur died in his arms.

In his memoir, Gilad Sharon wrote that his father once said, “The pain’s intensity is not diminished by the years; it’s only the intervals between the stabbings that grow longer.”

Lily Sharon, Arik’s beloved wife, who died in March 2000, is quoted in the 2006 biography “Ariel Sharon: A Life” [also translated by this reporter] as saying, “Arik never got over it. He just learned to live with it.”

Political engagement… and disengagement

Sharon founded the Likud. But he spent his first decade in politics serving under Menachem Begin. The two could not have been more different: lawyer and farmer, ideologue and pragmatist. When they first met in 1969, with Sharon still in uniform and looking for a way into politics, he was awed by Begin’s “extraordinarily powerful presence” and admitted to breaking into a cold sweat when they spoke.

Pragmatic Zionism, to which Sharon ardently subscribed, is based on “facts on the ground: reclaim another acre, drain another swamp, acquire another cow…don’t talk about it, just get it done.” This was the attitude with which he built the settlement enterprise, and this was the attitude that enabled him to dismantle it

During the peace talks with Egypt, their differences rose to the surface. Begin would agree only to Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank. Sharon, his son revealed in his 2011 memoir, was willing to grant them a state. “Better to have a Palestinian state on part of the territory than autonomy across all of it,” Gilad heard him say countless times. The terminology, he felt, was irrelevant. The word autonomy on a document could metamorphose into a state, but an internationally recognized Palestinian state, which seemed like a bigger achievement for Egypt, would have fixed borders, allowing Israel to maintain the areas crucial to its security.

Sharon felt that Begin, a political Zionist like Herzl and Jabotinsky, “was a man who believed in the power of words and legal terms and consequently he gave a high priority to such things as pronouncements, declarations and formal agreements,” he wrote in his autobiography. Pragmatic Zionism, to which Sharon ardently subscribed, is based on “facts on the ground: reclaim another acre, drain another swamp, acquire another cow… don’t talk about it, just get it done.”

This was the attitude with which he built the settlement enterprise, and this was the attitude with which he dismantled it.

Sharon admired Begin’s bravery, his decision to strike in Iraq, and his frugality — he once noted that there wasn’t so much as a single chair in Begin’s home that he trusted with his weight. But the Lebanon War and the subsequent committee of inquiry brought an end to their relationship. All Cabinet members save Sharon voted to accept the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, or as it has become known, the Kahan Commission.

Months after his February 14, 1983 resignation from the post of defense minister, Sharon approached the prime minister and told him how his father had made him vow, decades earlier, that he would “never turn Jews over.” The vow was taken at a time when the Palmach was aiding the British in their battle against Begin’s Irgun and the other pre-state underground organizations. The period was known as the “saison” or hunting season. British police officers jailed and executed many of the underground fighters. “Menachem,” Sharon reportedly said in ’83, “it was you who handed me over to them. You are the one who did it.”

Sharon’s rise to the premiership, after years of backwater positions, began in earnest on September 28, 2000, when he came through the Mughrabi Gate and visited the Temple Mount. The so-called Al Aqsa, or Second Intifada ensued. Amid the bloodshed and the chaos, Ehud Barak stepped down, calling for new elections for prime minister. On February 6, 2001, Israelis chose Sharon over Barak by a 62%-38% margin. Dayan’s prediction from years earlier had come true: “You will have to wait for a crisis to come along,” he said to Sharon. “It’s only then that they will let you out.”

Newly-elected Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with then-Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert behind him) visiting the Western Wall the morning following his victory over Ehud Barak. (photo credit: Nati Shohat/Flash 90)

Newly-elected Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with then-Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert behind him) visiting the Western Wall the morning following his victory over Ehud Barak. (photo credit: Nati Shohat/Flash90)

As prime minister, Sharon flattened the wave of rising Palestinian terror; threw himself heart and soul into a global campaign to sideline and delegitimize Yasser Arafat [perhaps his most successful campaign]; and, aided by the heinous events of 9/11 and a keen understanding of the American president, he maintained a strong relationship with then-president Bush and his administration.

In 2005, with the “Disengagement” from Gaza, he severed his ties to the settlement movement. Gush Emunim, the religious arm of the movement, Sharon once noted, had seen him as “the Messiah’s donkey,” or the beast upon which their salvation would arrive.

Several weeks later, he addressed the General Assembly on the sixtieth anniversary of the United Nations. “I stand before you at the gate of nations as a Jew and as a citizen of the democratic, free, and sovereign State of Israel, a proud representative of an ancient people,” he said. “I was born in the Land of Israel, the son of pioneers — people who tilled the land and sought no fights — who did not come to Israel to dispossess its residents. If the circumstances had not demanded it, I would not have become a soldier, but rather a farmer and agriculturist. My first love was, and remains, manual labor; sowing and harvesting, the pastures, the flock and the cattle.

“I, as someone whose path of life led him to be a fighter and commander in all Israel’s wars, reach out today to our Palestinian neighbors in a call for reconciliation and compromise to end the bloody conflict, and embark on the path that leads to peace and understanding between our peoples. I view this as my calling and my primary mission for the coming years.”

The man who for years had been scorned by the international community, depicted as a butcher and a blood thirsty leader, drew applause from all corners of the room.

Three and a half months later, before revealing the full extent of his future plans, he fell, terminally, from consciousness.

Here’s 5 Things Obama Won’t Take Responsibility For


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:Brian Carey

obamacjd1

By now the whole world knows that President Obama, while speaking today about the crisis in Syria, has flatly said that he didn’t draw a “red line” with Syria, but instead “the world” drew that line. It’s an obvious lie, but he’ll get away with it thanks to a complicit media and the naivete of millions of Americans.

The crux of the matter is this: President Obama will not even accept responsibility for a statement he made that will likely lead our nation into another Middle Eastern conflict. That’s a grotesque abdication of leadership if ever we saw it.

Unfortunately, behaving irresponsibly is par for the course with this administration. Here’s 5 other examples to prove that point.

1. President Obama won’t take responsibility for raising taxes

When he was campaigning for President, Barack Obama clearly said that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

Obama promise not to raise taxes

Of course, that pledge was violated when the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. The individual mandate in ObamaCare is structured as a tax that affects everybody who doesn’t have health insurance, no matter how much money they earn.

Oh, yeah. Then there’s this.

2. President Obama won’t take responsibility for the state of the economy

We’ve endured a fairly long period of higher than 7% unemployment. Keep in mind: the unemployment rate that you see in the headlines masks the reality of the downtrodden economy. People who have quit looking for work aren’t counted. So, in reality, the economy is worse than the way it’s reported.

Does President Obama take responsibility for this lousy economy, 5 years after he’s been in office? Nope. Does he change his policies to do something that might actually improve the economy? Nope.

He’s not a leader. He’s the “it’s not my fault” guy who runs the executive branch of the federal government.

3. President Obama won’t take responsibility for IRS-gate

The IRS targeted certain groups for excessive scrutiny under President Obama’s watch. Oddly enough, most of those groups were non-profit organizations with a mission in stark contrast to the President’s agenda. In other words: the President used the IRS to harass right-wing organizations, like the Tea Party.

Does he take responsibility for this act of political hardball? No, instead he sends David Axelrod to MSNBC to complain that the federal government is just too big to effectively micromanage.

By the way, if the federal government is too big as it stands, why do Obama, Axelrod, et. al. want to make it even bigger?

IRS GATE

4. President Obama won’t take responsibility for the failure of American security in Benghazi

This one is particularly difficult to understand because 4 Americans are dead. Instead of taking responsibility for what was an obvious failure on the night that those attacks occurred, President Obama trots out his Ambassador to the U.N. to blame the attacks on a video. After that line of subterfuge was exposed, the President still hasn’t come clean on what really happened that night nor has he accepted any level of blame for an obvious breakdown in security.

5. President Obama won’t take responsibility for lying to you about ObamaCare

We have already mentioned the broken promise about raising taxes and how that connects to ObamaCare. However, there are numerous other broken promises surrounding ObamaCare. The President promised you that you could keep your current health insurance under his plan. That’s not true. The President promised that it would lower health care costs. That’s not true, either. The President promised that ObamaCare would lower the deficit. Nope.

Does President Obama man-up and own up to any of these broken promises? Nope.

 

Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by Obama’


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:FoxNews.com

 

Posted by:Richard Miniter

Obama lying more

Arabs don’t trust Obama either.

As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Thanks to the Healthcare.gov debacle, polls find support for the president among women and independents has dropped to the lowest ebb of his presidency. Obama’s words — promising Americans they could keep their doctors under his health care plan — didn’t match his deeds.

Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason.

Too often, Obama’s speeches and actions don’t match.

“We are glad the Americans are here,” said Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia’s royals and officials, when I met with him recently, “but we fear that the president has lost credibility after Syria.”

Astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain.

The Saudi official is referring to Obama’s “red line” vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn’t. Saudi officials were stunned.

Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don’t believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years.

“The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years,” al-Ibrahim said. “We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama.”

“Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies,” he said. “We don’t know what he’s putting in his tea.”

Al-Ibrahim also pointed to Obama’s “dangerous inaction” during violent Iran-backed uprisings in Bahrain, and now his negotiations with Iran, and his separate, secret negotiations with Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Since American officials cannot legally negotiate with terrorist groups and Hezbollah is a State Department-listed terror organization, the administration has been using British diplomats to carry messages to Hezbollah. The Obama administration reportedly favors a “warm up to a direct relationship in the future” with Hezbollah.

Obama is sending conflicting messages. In Washington, the president says negotiations are all we need to meet the Iranian threat. He issued a rare veto threat to try to halt tougher sanctions against Iran.

At the same time, in the Middle East, the president has dispatched more than 40 U.S. Navy vessels (including a carrier-strike group) and sent his secretary of defense to detail America’s vast military assets in the region.

Speaking to Arab defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel itemized America’s military commitment to immediately respond to Iranian aggression:

• More than 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the theater;
• Even after exiting Iraq, the U.S. Army maintains more than 10,000 forward-deployed soldiers as well as tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters;
• America’s most advanced fighter jets, including F-22s, are deployed less than an hour’s flight time from Iran;
• American surveillance aircraft, ground listening stations, satellites, and sea patrols continue to scan for threats across the region;
• America’s missile defense systems–on ground, sea, and air–remain on high alert. That includes the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile defense ships, Patriot missile batteries, and phased-array radars.

“The Department of Defense will work with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on better integration of its members’ missile defense capabilities. The United States continues to believe that a multilateral framework is the best way to develop interoperable and integrated regional missile defense. Such defenses are the best way to deter and, if necessary, defeat coercion and aggression,” Hagel told the Gulf News on Dec.18.

With little fanfare, Obama has also quietly lifted the ban on selling sensitive missile-defense technology to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies living within reach of Iran’s new Shahab-3 missiles. The Shahab-3’s range is 1,242 miles–placing Israel and most of America’s Arab allies within striking distance.

However, Obama’s quiet efforts to provide new missile defenses and renewed security guarantees may be too little, too late.

The Saudis are now seeking their own military arrangements because they no longer trust the U.S. The GCC, a regional alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, recently announced the creation of a joint military force based in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. 

“There will be a unified command of around 100,000 members, God willing,” Prince Miteb bin Abdullah told reporters. This new force represents a massive expansion of the 30,000-strong Peninsula Shield force.

“We no longer believe that America alone can safeguard our freedom from Iranian aggression,” said al-Ibrahim, “that’s why we are expanding our forces and integrating our missile defenses with our neighbors.”

He added, “the world should understand that the GCC will not stay quiet and leave our member-states vulnerable to bad actors and bad deals in the region. It is our duty to protect our region.”

And now, astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions last weekend in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain where thousands of U.S. troops and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet are based.

“The president has shown that he can take action when he chooses to. He chose not to act after the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but as soon as things started to go wrong in South Sudan, Obama jumped on it,” said al-Ibrahim.

On Saturday, Obama dispatched three CV-22 Osprey aircraft, the sort that can fly like an airplane and an helicopter, to South Sudan to evacuate Americans caught in ongoing violence in the city of Bor. The aircraft came under small arms fire and were forced to retreat as they attempted to land. Four U.S. service members were injured in the attempted evacuation. American citizens were rescued successfully on Sunday using civilian and U.N. helicopters.

In his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, the first American president raised in a Muslim land came to offer a bold promise: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Four and a half years later, Arab leaders like al-Ibrahim say that “mutual interest” is sundered and “mutual respect” squandered.
If the Saudi exasperation sounds familiar, it is because it is the same tone you hear in Tel Aviv and in Washington.

Conservative lawmakers’ secret Mideast trip could foreshadow Obama downfall


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

Posted by:Erik Rush

Reports coming from the Middle East which have implicated the President in illegal activities

Author

Apparently, there are at least three American lawmakers who have determined to do their jobs, this being to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Unlike the craven, egocentric, self-aggrandizing majority of our congressmen and senators, at great personal risk, Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), and Steve King (R-IA) conducted an off-the-record trip (“mission” might actually be a better description) to the Middle East this past week.

As reported by the Washington Times, the three utilized commercial flights “into high-profile danger zones like Beirut, Cairo and Tripoli,” meeting with top-level officials in the region.

According to The Washington Post, Bachmann, Gohmert, and King met with embassy officials in Tripoli “to receive updates on the Benghazi attack and on the general situation in Libya.” The attack on the compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 has led to a myriad of questions on the part of Congress and the American people, but none of these have been answered satisfactorily by the administration. The ostensible efforts of the State Department to determine what occurred have been perfunctory at best, yet information coming out of Libya, Egypt, and certain independent parties has all but condemned Obama and his State Department, suggesting everything from a cavalier abandonment of the personnel there, to premeditation and complicity in their deaths.

Additionally, the actions of Obama toward arming rebels fighting the Assad regime in Syria (done at first clandestinely, and later openly) has raised other grave concerns. Many of these rebels are al-Qaeda and other Islamist affiliates, thus effectively condemning the President of treason, inasmuch as they are America’s sworn enemies.

Actions of Obama toward arming rebels fighting the Assad regime in Syria, Treason

Rep. King is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Bachmann is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the chief organization within the U.S. House of Representatives charged with the oversight of US intelligence operations. Rep. Gohmert was recently named Vice Chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. All of these positions reflect those wherein the occupants would be concerned with, and have jurisdiction over, the areas of law that would come to bear in any investigation into alleged untoward activities of President Obama, his cabinet members, State Department officials, and others.

While the White House and Western press hailed the Arab Spring of 2011-12 as the glorious ascendancy of democracy in Arab countries, few Americans know that it was Obama and his operatives who essentially facilitated the movement, the objective being to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power across the Middle East.

When the people of Egypt (who are majority Muslim but more cosmopolitan than some of their neighbors) realized that they had been duped by power-hungry, barbaric Islamist thugs, they rebelled and ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. Since the fall of Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood members have claimed to possess information which they say would lead to Obama’s criminal prosecution in the U.S. Further, the Egyptian government and Muslim Brotherhood operatives have testified to there being a conspiracy in progress calculated to return Morsi to power, and that this is being aided by elements of the American government.

President Obama’s zeal to engage in military action against Syria this Fall was also a cause for great concern among foreign policy experts, lawmakers, and Americans alike. For a time, it appeared almost certain that Obama would authorize a strike against Damascus whether or not he could get congressional approval. His eagerness to do so suggested a desperate but inexplicable, time-sensitive scenario which itself engenders suspicion.

In short, I believe that this trip lends credence to recent disturbing reports coming from the Middle East which have implicated the President in illegal activities. It is likely that this was a mission to gather sensitive evidence in the face of their knowledge that the Obama administration is a dangerous criminal enterprise from which America must be rescued – and soon.

I believe that details surrounding the President’s actions in these areas will prove damning to him when this information becomes known to the Republican lawmakers who made the trip, and later, to the Congress at large.

It is possible that this and other developments not widely known to the public are the reason for a certain desperation on the part of the administration, President Obama’s recent preoccupation and distraction, as well as his abandonment by many supporters and factions within the Democrat Party. I also believe that the recent proposal of HR 3741 (The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act) by Democrat lawmakers was initiated in anticipation of charges of treason being brought against members of the administration and its surrogates.

Comparatively few Americans have been tried for treason, and even fewer convicted. Whether a grand jury or US Attorneys become sufficiently motivated to level and pursue such charges, actionable evidence against a sitting President would have to be extremely abundant as well as compelling – and Congress would definitely have to be materially involved.

My belief is that in the case of the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama, an abundance of such evidence exists; it is simply a matter of the proper parties obtaining it, and being willing to act upon same. There are several other prosecutable offenses in which many (including myself) believe this President has engaged, although treason obviously remains the most serious, as it still carries capital punishment according to US law.

 

 

Saudi Prince Criticizes Obama Administration, Citing Indecision in Mideast


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.nytimes.com

 

Posted by:STEVEN ERLANGER

 

 

  MONACOAn influential Saudi prince blasted the Obama administration on Sunday for what he called indecision and a loss of credibility with allies in the Middle East, saying that American efforts to secure a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would founder without a clear commitment from President Obama.

clip_image002

Mohammed Al-Shaikh/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Prince Turki al-Faisal said that the United States had lost credibility among its Middle Eastern allies.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

“We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. “When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.” He added, “There is an issue of confidence.”

Mr. Obama has his problems, the prince said, but when a country has strong allies, “you should be able to give them the assurance that what you say is going to be what you do.” The prince no longer has any official position but has lately been providing the public expression of internal Saudi views with clear approval from the Saudi government.

The Saudis have been particularly shaken by Mr. Obama’s refusal to intervene forcefully in the Syrian civil war, especially his recent decision not to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria with military strikes even after evidence emerged that Mr. Assad’s government used chemical weapons on its own citizens.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to seek congressional authorization for a strike, and when that proved difficult to obtain, he cooperated with Russia to get Syria to agree to give up its chemical weapons. Prince Turki and Israeli officials have argued that the agreement merely legitimized Mr. Assad, and on Sunday, the prince called the world’s failure to stop the conflict in Syria “almost a criminal negligence.”

Syria, Iran, nuclear issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were the main focus for Prince Turki, who spoke at the World Policy Conference, a gathering of officials and intellectuals largely drawn from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

Saudi unhappiness with Iran’s growing power in the region is no secret, and the Saudis, who themselves engage with Iran, have no problem with the United States trying to do the same, the prince said. But he complained that bilateral talks between Iranian and American officials had been kept secret from American allies, sowing further mistrust.

The prince said Iran must give up its ambitions for a nuclear weapons program — Iran says its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes — and stop using its own troops and those of Shiite allies like the Lebanese organization Hezbollah to fight in neighboring countries, like Syria and Iraq. “The game of hegemony toward the Arab countries is not acceptable,” the prince said. Just as Arabs will not dress as Westerners do, he said, “we won’t accept to wear Iranian clothes, either.”

A prevalent theme at the conference was the waning of American influence in the Middle East. Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said: “Today we live in a zero-polar, or a-polar, world. No one power or group of powers can solve all the problems.”

The United States, Mr. Fabius said, was often criticized for being “overpresent, but now it is being criticized for not being present enough.” While “it is perfectly understandable” that Mr. Obama would refrain from new military engagements in the Middle East, he said, “it creates a certain vacuum” that has allowed Russia “to make a comeback on the world scene” and has encouraged France to intervene in the Central African Republic, Libya and Mali.

A former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Itamar Rabinovich, said that after Mr. Obama declined to strike Syria, neither Israel nor Iran believed any longer that he might use military force against Iran.

Prince Turki said the Israeli-Palestinian issue remained central to relations between the Muslim world and the West. He praised the negotiating efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry, but warned that Mr. Obama must be willing to force the parties to accept a lasting resolution. “Mr. Kerry is devoting a lot of time and energy,” he said, “but we’ll see how far he gets if the president doesn’t put his full support behind it.”

He compared the United States to a big bear that must push and frighten both Israeli and Palestinian leaders into an agreement, and give them each an excuse for making the necessary, difficult compromises on issues like Jerusalem, refugees, land swaps and security arrangements.

“Unfortunately, the big bear has not proven to be very bearish-like recently,” Prince Turki said. To get the job done, he said, the bear “has to not only bare his teeth, but also extend his claws” when talks reach the crucial point.

Conversely, Prince Turki warned, “if the president retreats from his position on compromise along the 1967 borders, as he did on his red line on use of chemical weapons by Assad, then the whole enterprise of peace between the Arabs and Israel will evaporate.”

In separate remarks here to the Reuters news agency, Prince Turki said that the United States and Britain had done too little to help the more moderate, more secular Syrian rebels, leaving them to fend for themselves against both “Al Assad’s killing machine” and the better-armed radical Islamist rebel groups.

“Why should he stop the killing?” he said of Mr. Assad.

“That to me is why the F.S.A. is not in as prominent position as it should be today,” he said, referring to the Free Syrian Army, “because of the lack of international support for it. The fighting is going to continue, and the killing is going to continue.”

NEW REVELATION EXPLAINS WHY NO BENGHAZI AIR SUPPORT?


Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:AARON KLEIN

Benghazi Whisteblowers attorney speaks out

author-image

JERUSALEM – Does a new claim from an attorney representing Benghazi whistleblowers explain why air support was never sent to the doomed Benghazi facility the night of the Sept. 11, 2012 attack?

The claim may also help to explain why it took hours for an American-provided C-130 cargo plane to take off from Tripoli for the short flight to Benghazi to help evacuate survivors.

Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. Attorney who represents Benghazi whistleblowers, stated 400 surface-to-air missiles were “taken from Libyaduring the attacks and that the U.S. fears the missiles can be used to down aircraft.

DiGenova told WMAL radio in Washington, D.C., he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles.”

WND was first to report that in a largely unnoticed speech to a think tank seven months before the Benghazi attack, a top State Department official described an unprecedented multi-million-dollar U.S. effort to secure anti-aircraft weapons in Libya after the fall of Muammar Gadhafi’s regime.

The official, Andrew J. Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, explained that U.S. experts were fully coordinating the collection efforts with the Libyan opposition.

He said the efforts were taking place in Benghazi, where a leading U.S. expert was deployed.

Now diGenova is connecting the missiles to the Benghazi attack

He said his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community.”

He stated the Obama administration is worried the missile can target airliners.

“They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he claimed.

He continued: “And it’s pretty clear that the biggest concern right now are 400 missiles which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten in the hands of some very ugly people.”

Anti-aircraft missiles in the hands of the Libyan rebels or other jihadists would have served as a major threat to any incoming U.S. aircraft sent to aid the American targets during the Benghazi attack.

Such missiles also may have threatened the cargo plane that sat on the tarmac for hours in Tripoli before finally being dispatched in the early morning hours.

The State Department had stated the plane took off only after securing it from the Libyan transitional government.

MANPADS prompted Benghazi attacks?

Shapiro conceded that the Western-backed rebels did not want to give up the weapons, particularly Man-Portable-Air-Defense-Systems, or MANPADS, which were the focus of the weapons collection efforts.

The information may shed light on why the U.S. special mission in Benghazi was attacked Sept. 11, 2012.

According to informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND, the Benghazi mission was a planning headquarters for coordinating aid, including weapons distribution, to the jihadist-led rebels.

After the fall of Gadhafi, the arming efforts shifted focus to aiding the insurgency targeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in arming rebels and recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Speaking to WND, Middle Eastern security officials further stated that after Gadhafi’s downfall, Stevens was heavily involved in the State Department effort to collect weapons from the Libyan rebels.

The weapons were then transferred in part to the rebels fighting in Syria, the officials stated.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., last March disclosed in an interview with Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches, particularly MANPADS, from falling into the hands of terrorists.

Fox News host Bret Baier asked Graham why Stevens was in the Benghazi mission amid the many known security threats to the facility.

Graham replied, “Because that’s where the action was regarding the rising Islamic extremists who were trying to get their hands on weapons that are flowing freely in Libya.”

The senator stated, “We were desperately trying to control the anti-aircraft missiles, the MANPADS that were all over Libya, that are now all over the Mideast.”

‘Biggest MANPADS collection effort in U.S. history’

Now, Shapiro’s largely unnoticed remarks Feb. 2, 2012, may shed further light on the activities taking place inside the attacked Benghazi facility.

Of note is that the U.S. facility itself was protected by the February 17 Brigades, which is part of the al-Qaida-allied Ansar Al-Sharia group. That group also was in possession of a significant quantity of MANPADS and was reluctant to give them up, Middle Eastern security officials told WND.

In his speech seven months before the Benghazi attack, Shapiro stated that “currently in Libya we are engaged in the most extensive effort to combat the proliferation of MANPADS in U.S. history.”

Shapiro was addressing a forum at the Stimson Center, a non-profit think tank that describes itself as seeking “pragmatic solutions for some of the most important peace and security challenges around the world.”

Shapiro explained Libya had “accumulated the largest stockpile of MANPADS of any non-MANPADS producing country in the world.”

Shapiro related how then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed to providing $40 million dollars to assist Libya’s efforts to secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.

Of that funding, $3 million went to unspecified nongovernmental organizations that specialize in conventional weapons destruction and stockpile security.

Inside Benghazi facility

The NGOs and a U.S. team coordinated all efforts with Libya’s Transitional National Council, or TNC, said Shapiro. The U.S. team was led by Mark Adams, a State Department expert from the MANPADS Task Force.

Tellingly, Shapiro stated Adams was deployed in August 2011, not to Tripoli where the U.S. maintained an embassy, but to Benghazi.

The only U.S. diplomatic presence in Benghazi consisted of the CIA annex and nearby facility that were the targets of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

Shapiro expounded on the coordination with the TNC.

“A fact often overlooked in our response to events in Libya, is that – unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan – we did not have tens of thousands of U.S. forces on the ground, nor did we control movement and access,” he said. “This meant we did not have complete freedom of movement around the country. Our efforts on the ground therefore had to be carefully coordinated and fully supported by the TNC.”

He said the rebels were reluctant to relinquish their weapons.

“Many of these weapons were taken by militias and anti-Gadhafi forces during the fighting,” he said. “Furthermore, because many militias believe MANPADS have some utility in ground combat, many militia groups remain reluctant to relinquish them.”

Shapiro said the U.S. efforts consisted of three phases.

Phase I entailed an effort to rapidly survey, secure and disable loose MANPADS across the country.

“To accomplish this, we immediately deployed our Quick Reaction Force, which are teams made up of civilian technical specialists,” he said.

Phase 2 efforts were to help aid the Libyan government to integrate militias and veterans of the fighting, including consolidating weapons into secure facilities and assisting in the destruction of items that the Libyans deemed in excess of their security requirements.

Such actions were likely not supported by the jihadist rebels.

The third phase would have seen the U.S. help ensure the Libyans met modern standards, including updating storage facilities, improving security and implementing safety management practices.

The U.S. efforts clearly failed.

In April, the United Nations released a report revealing that weapons from Libya to extremists were proliferating at an “alarming rate,” fueling conflicts in Mali, Syria, Gaza and elsewhere.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/new-revelation-explains-why-no-benghazi-air-support/#idx1a8M8LcZFVDX9.99

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: