Tuesday, May 13, 2014

THE BOKO HARAM - BENGHAZI CONNECTION WITH THER OBAMA CABAL.. READ AND SHARE!!

THIS IS HOW THE OUSTING OF KHADAFI, ARMING THE LIBYAN REBELS, THE BENGHAZI ATTACK, THE SMUGGLING OF ARMS OUT OF LIBYA TO ARM SYRIAN REBELS AND OTHER AL QAEDA GROUPS..

GAVE BOKO HARAM THE WEAPONS TO WAGE ISLAMIC JIHAD TODAY!
Since 2010, Boko Haram Islamists have perpetrated drive-by shootings and suicide bombings that have killed 1,548 people. Boko Haram, which means "Western education is sacrilege," has said it wants its imprisoned Jihadi Islamists released and for the current Nigerian government to institute Sharia law throughout the nation.

 READ ON...
( For more details on the Benghazi Story click here : http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2013/05/president-obama-former-secretary-of.html)

When the revolt first broke out against Libyan dictator Muamar Gadhafi in March, 2011, the Obama administration determined to remove him from power. Not because it was necessary, because he’d long passed his “sell-by” date as an evil mastermind, but because it could. Unlike the peaceful decamping of the dictators in Tunisia and Egypt, this would be a test bed on how to overthrow a dictator on the cheap.
The first problem was arming the rebels. Libya was under a UN arms embargo and any movement of arms into Libya would be illegal if you really care about such flummery.

Arming the Libyan Rebels

We know the Obama administration encouraged France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to arm the rebels. The Egyptians did so from their own volition because they shared a common ideology with the rebels:  a particularly violent form of islamofascism.
We know that the idea of the US arming the Libyan rebels was hotly debated inside the administration with the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, seemingly the most enchanted with the idea of arms trafficking:

-The Obama administration is engaged in a fierce debate over whether to supply weapons to the rebels in Libya, senior officials said on Tuesday, with some fearful that providing arms would deepen American involvement in a civil war and that some fighters may have links to Al Qaeda.
The debate has drawn in the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, these officials said, and has prompted an urgent call for intelligence about a ragtag band of rebels who are waging a town-by-town battle against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, from a base in eastern Libya long suspected of supplying terrorist recruits

While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration had not yet decided whether to actually transfer arms, she reiterated that the United States had a right to do so, despite an arms embargo on Libya, because of the United Nations Security Council’s broad resolution authorizing military action to protect civilians.

Gene A. Cretz, the American ambassador to Libya, said last week that he was impressed by the democratic instincts of the opposition leaders and that he did not believe that they were dominated by extremists. But he acknowledged that there was no way to know if they were “100 percent kosher, so to speak.”
We also know that John McCain (Songbird McCain  http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/06/22/songbird-john-mccain-made-more-than-32-communist-videos-against-united-states/ ) was in favor of arming the rebels,
Eventually, covert aid was authorized for the Libyan rebels and though we have no direct evidence of US running arms we know that the Obama's CIA had an on the ground presence. We know Obama was not opposed to the idea of running arms to the rebels.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels.
‘It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We’re looking at all our options at this point,’ the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.
And we know that $200 million worth of small arms was shipped by an American arms dealer to Qatar with an export license granted by the US government.

The case of Marc Turi, the American arms merchant who had sought to provide weapons to Libya, demonstrates other challenges the United States faced in dealing with Libya. A dealer who lives in both Arizona and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, Mr. Turi sells small arms to buyers in the Middle East and Africa, relying primarily on suppliers of Russian-designed weapons in Eastern Europe.
In March 2011, just as the Libyan civil war was intensifying, Mr. Turi realized that Libya could be a lucrative new market, and applied to the State Department for a license to provide weapons to the rebels there, according to e-mails and other documents he has provided. (American citizens are required to obtain United States approval for any international arms sales.)
He also e-mailed J. Christopher Stevens, then the special representative to the Libyan rebel alliance. The diplomat said he would “share” Mr. Turi’s proposal with colleagues in Washington, according to e-mails provided by Mr. Turi. Mr. Stevens, who became the United States ambassador to Libya, was one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11.
Mr. Turi’s application for a license was rejected in late March 2011. Undeterred, he applied again, this time stating only that he planned to ship arms worth more than $200 million to Qatar. In May 2011, his application was approved. Mr. Turi, in an interview, said that his intent was to get weapons to Qatar and that what “the U.S. government and Qatar allowed from there was between them.”
When you read news coverage of the period (set your Google search dates for the period February 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011) you get the feeling that the policy consensus was that running guns to the Libyan rebels had some risks but the benefits far outweighed those risks. You find no major players writing or speaking against the idea and, curiously, coverage of the debate disappears within a week of the approval of covert aid to Libya.

Letting the Arms Get Away

To no one’s great surprise outside the White House, the weapons we directly or indirectly provided to the Libyan rebels, now known to be largely al Qaeda, slipped from western control.

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.
We don’t know what “some” means, but as much as $500 million worth of foreign weapons may have found their way into al Qaeda hands in Libya.

Boko Haram

Boko Haram has been in the news recently both because of their savage attacks in Nigeria, such as the one that resulted in over 240 school girls kidnapped and Michelle Obama beclowning herself with a Twitter hashtag picture.
boko haram michelle,
If you look at the timeline of Boko Haram attacks, you are struck by how they coincide with the arming of the Libyan rebels and how they increase in ferocity following the death of Gaddafi. That is because those arms have made their way from Libya to Nigeria via Boko Haram’s al Qaeda connection.

Boko Haram, under the leadership of fiery, gun-toting militant Abubakar Shekau, is thought to be getting closer to achieving its dream of creating some kind of Islamic rule in the lawless areas around Lake Chad, where even the police have fled.
“They are now holding territory,” Kole Shettima, chairman of the Centre for Democracy and Development, said. “The next step is to create institutions: justice, social services,” as Malian Islamists did before the French forced them out of its cities.
The Bama attack showed their substantial firepower, including machine guns, large numbers of rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and pick-up trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns, a sign the weapons flood from the Libyan war that helped rebels seize parts of Mali last year has reached Nigeria, officials say.
Oddly enough, one of the reasons Glen Doherty, who was killed in the phony-scandal on our Benghazi consulate, was in Libya was to try to regain control of more sophisticated weapons, such as man-portable air defense systems, that were in circulation.
The US participation in the overthrow of Gaddafi was ill advised. For no greater reason than to make a political point, the Obama administration encouraged allies to arm al Qaeda fighters in Libya and evidence indicates that after March 2011 we were arming them directly. The result was that Libya became an armed camp and al Qaeda safe haven.
A foreseeable consequence of this policy was al Qaeda in Libya becoming a supplier of arms to its affiliates in Africa. As a result, the victory on the cheap in Libya is substantially destabilizing the northern rim of Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Obama administration has sown the wind by its benighted policy in Libya, now the resulting whirlwind is being reaped in Nigeria.

*********************************
ITS TIME TO STOP OBAMA AND HIS CABAL.... EMPOWERING ISLAMISTS AND JIHADIS AROUND THE WORLD!

REVOLUTION NOW AMERICA !!

Friday, May 9, 2014

A Pope who was "selected" by the Socialist Cabal that used the NSA Evesdropping to Blackmail the last Pope to resign... Now makes his master directed play!!

The New Socialist Pope's Wealth Redistribution exposes his true colors.

 His "Economic Plan" is pure unadulterated Socialist Bullshit hidden behind a curtain of incense and myrrh and smoke and mirrors.Pope Francis passes by a tapestry depicting late Pope John Paul II as he leaves at the end of his weekly general audience at the Vatican on April 30,...

Pope Francis demands wealth redistribution. He forgets St. John Paul's recognition of the "positive role of business, the market, private property" as "the model which ought to be proposed" for the Third World.

Addressing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other officials on Friday, the first supreme pontiff from Latin America called for "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state."
Excuse the irreverence, but his holiness may be forgetting the hundreds of millions of souls whose lives have been improved, lengthened, even saved by maximizing capitalism and minimizing government.
As Steve Forbes points out, "capitalism is more moral than any and all alternatives," producing over the last 300 years "more advances — in incomes, standard of living, social mobility and longevity — than in all the previous centuries put together."
George Gilder, in "Wealth and Poverty," often referred to as the Bible of the Reagan White House, observed: "Capitalism begins with giving. Not through greed, avarice or even self-love can one expect the rewards of commerce, but from a spirit closely akin to altruism, a regard for the needs of others. ... Not taking and consuming, but giving, risking and creating are the characteristic roles of the capitalist."
Calls for government to rectify "inequality" are based on a fallible assumption: that wealth is finite, not created by free human beings. With statism rising in Russia and China, and the New Deal entrenched in America, Ludwig von Mises in 1949 posed the choice between capitalism and socialism as choosing "between social cooperation and the disintegration of society."
Von Mises and other champions of the free market weren't foes of Christian charity. "We may fully endorse the religious and ethical precepts that declare it to be man's duty to assist his unlucky brethren whom nature has doomed," he wrote. The question is "what methods should be resorted to" in doing that duty. If government is in charge, "the discretion of bureaucrats is substituted for the discretion of people whom an inner voice drives to acts of charity."
That inevitably means massive waste, corruption and other unintended negative consequences.
Pope John Paul II, canonized as a saint by Pope Francis just last month, addressed capitalism's morality in 1991, asking if "capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society" and "the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?"
His conclusion: If capitalism "recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative" — although "market economy" or "free economy" might be a more accurate name than capitalism.
Pope Francis' fans extol his open-mindedness. We hope he'll open the great books by von Mises, Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and others that make the powerful moral case for free markets.

Pope Francis has spent a year on the Throne of Peter. In that time, his modest style and high-minded ideals have ignited a new optimism and fervor among Roman Catholics, including those who left because of disagreements with some of its teachings.

Francis has gone out of his way to voice support for the world’s poorest citizens, rightly noting that their plight is too often ignored or brushed aside. 

Until this week, his statements have called for voluntary action by wealthier countries and individuals as the right way to relieve economic inequality. He appealed to our better selves, and in so doing, made us all ask if we could be kinder and more generous. The answer, of course, is yes.

On Friday, however, Francis chose a meeting with – of all people -- officials of the United Nations to endorse what he called “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician.
By appearing to sanction what amounts to forced redistribution, Francis grievously exceeded his authority and became what amounts to a robe-wearing politician. He also exposed his Church, one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, to inevitable charges of hypocrisy. And he put himself in a position of having to back up his frothy talk with ruinous action.

Let’s see: for starters, perhaps the Catholic Church and its affiliated non-profit organizations should start voluntarily paying income and real estate tax in the United States, from which it has traditionally been exempt. Yeah how about that??

There is no doubt that the addition of tax revenue from the Church would be considerable, if hard to estimate. The 17,000-plus parishes may not all measure up to architectural wonders like St. Patrick’s in New York or the newer Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. But few Catholic churches have absolutely no value. What would 39.5% of all that be?

How could Francis, or his subordinates in the United States object to voluntarily turning over part of their vast revenue?

The notion of the church paying taxes is certainly not heretical. Italy – which surrounds Vatican City where the pope lives – began taxing Catholic Church property last year as a way of helping to relieve its enormous economic problems. At last check, St. Peter’s was still standing.

Further, Francis might consider selling off the artworks stored at the Vatican museum and in churches throughout the world, and the thousands upon thousands of ancient books and manuscripts in its library. 

The Pietá, for instance, should fetch a pretty penny, especially if the buyer is, say, a backer of Al Qaeda who can afford to smash it to pieces as soon as it is acquired.

The Pope is the head of the Church. He is the Vicar of Christ and is infallible on matters of doctrine.

When it comes to economics, however, Francis should stick to making suggestions for how to voluntarily reduce economic inequality and leave tax policy to the politicians.

Perhaps he can help by offering a prayer for them. God knows, they need it.



YES I SAY THE POPE SHOULD STICK TO TALKING OF GOD AND THE HEREAFTER.