Previous Update: May 1 - 6

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
May 7 - 13, 2013

Benghazi 2; Whistles Have Doubled in Price
Even the Media Can't Ignore This One
Obama Wiggling; Hillary Hiding; Carney Twitching
What's Wrong with Boehner; Whose Side is he On??

Why did David Hicks hold off until now to snitch on Obama's Hillary beast? She is a beast, isn't she, since she was a willing wife of a cheap adulterer for the sake of political gain. Talk about acting for political gain. She was truly acting too. And she acted as though it didn't matter how much her husband was cheating. You can't have a bigger political animal than that. Now she wants to be the president as her reward for acting mild. How many Americans are there that will vote for a two-faced she-wolf in mild-lamb clothing? You don't want to know because it brings shame to the nation. But you do know because the polls have Hillary far ahead of Joe Biden for president in 2016.

That's why the liberal press is very busy these days accusing the Republicans of acting politically on this second Benghazi witch hunt. And it is a witch hunt indeed, for the Hillary witch is at the prime game. I say hit her right between the eyes, and watch her die a slow political death. Political actors should never be allowed to become national leaders. She even faked her Senate job in New York for the purpose of becoming the President. Everyone knows it. She acted like she loved New York, and liberal New Yorkers allowed themselves to play her whores. Liberal New Yorkers know everything about being whores. Ask Revelation 17. Where are the closet Christian killers if not in New York? Where will they come out of the closet if not from New York?

What a shudder goes down our spines just to think about president Hillary. Are there no better options in the Democrat party? Like I said, it's a monster. She uses shredded official documents for toilet paper. It sticks to her back side when she walks away from the toilet. It falls out of her dress as she politics along, and everyone can see it at her feet from time to time. New-York whores don't mind because they invented unsightly things. The slick New York Times, the chief pimp, projects on her enemies the very things it does by nature.

The trick for the Republicans now is to stay clean as they wade into the sewage seeking all that Hillary flushed down her toilet. It won't be easy with the chief pimp hurling accusations against them. They're going to get some smears on their faces, but it will all be worth it when one dredges up the documents that show the Hillary beast in bed with killers of Christopher Stevens. That's the suspicion, that she was at the least a willing accomplice in his murder. The whores would have no problem with such a reality, but what they worry about is the loss of the Independent vote in 2016 if Republicans can find and expose her dirty documents. It won't be easy with Eric Holder in charge of the sewage system. He's employed nasty lepreconjobs with big teeth to guard the sewage pipes.

All the illegal Mexicans are hiding out in the sewer pipes because the whores from sea to sea don't mind spending thousands annually of welfare dollars, on each one, just to get their vote in 2016. We are dealing with inexplicable creatures, insane for acting politically. And when the Republicans want to point these things out, well, of course, they get accused for acting politically:

More testimony has been released sharply contradicting the Obama administration's version of events during last year's Benghazi attack. Greg Hicks [not a Republican so far as I know], deputy of slain US Ambassador Chris Stevens, says a team of Special Operations troops was ready to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi but was told to stand down by Special Operations Command Africa, reports the Washington Post. Hicks -- who says the State Department's review "let people off the hook" -- is scheduled to appear [May 8] at a congressional hearing on the attacks that killed Stevens and three other Americans.

For those of you who don't know political language too well, "state department" is equivalent to "Hillary Clinton." She herself said that the buck stops with her in anything done by the state department. She herself said that she would take full responsibility for whatever the Benghazi scandal amounts to...but of course she didn't mean she'd quit politics and go away if she was found to be guilty of any sorry thing. She meant that she would merely apologize.

Why didn't Hicks come out before the election with these charges? Fear of retribution. He has spelled that out. Now he's quacking as loud as he can, but suddenly the whores are describing him as a friend of the Republicans. But wait. Hicks voted both times for Obama, and once for Hillary when she was running against Obama. It's not anything the liberal media are wanting to advertise.

"Hicks says he tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble jets over Benghazi, a move he believes could have saved American lives by causing Libyan attackers to scatter..." I totally agree. Lets have a debate on that issue alone. Did the Pentagon do all it could to get jets to the scene of the murder? The writing is on the toilet paper. Find the toilet paper, and stuff it down the throats of the media pimps so that we don't need to hear their diatribe ever again. Make the whores eat Hillary's toilet paper, their proper reward.

Hicks is bringing the Benghazi affair to Obama's feet just when there is a fire burning there already. Obama, desperate, was telling the nation to ignore the reports from conspiracy believers in regards to the marathon bombing. We're hoping that the quacking ducks will make the lame duck a dead duck. Here's from a Canadian media, that loves Obama, telling the story. All media are telling the story. Not a one is able to keep mum on this one:

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

There is a way to get to bottom of this accusation: SOCAFRICA merely needs to tell us why the fighters were not permitted to go. If there is a logical explanation, Gibson will just tell us what it was. Instead, not having a good-enough explanation, even if they just fabricated one, they are saying they don't know what Hicks is talking about. This is the beast that eats you up if you dare oppose it. Hicks will now be given a backlash, accused of fabricating a story to help the big-bad Republicans. A worse traitor there could not be.

The article above has much information ahead of the hearing. You can read Hicks telling the story that Obama kept from the world. Hicks said he was in contact with Washington all night long, and that he became the chief of military operations in Benghazi as of 3 am. His testimony, that Washington didn't want the military to come to Benghazi on the first available flight, suggests what I have claimed in the past: Obama wanted Stevens dead. Chris Stevens and Sean Smith were murdered by their own people inside the consulate. It wasn't the attackers who killed them. We don't even know who set the place on fire, but we do have an American witness from within the building who, in my opinion, proved by his story that the two men were killed by him / his accomplices.

I am very happy to see the Benghazi affair get new legs at this time; all the best to Hicks and his fellow brave ones. The pimps who share Obama's dreams for the future world must carry this story because the information isn't coming from conspiracy believers, but from a high-level diplomat. Hicks has nothing to gain by speaking out in this way, but rather makes his life, as well as that of his family, vulnerable. Obama will have a harder time with this cloud of mistrust over his head, and the more he lies about it in the face of this new testimony, the less the lame duck will be able to get Republicans on board his initiatives. We would like to see Obama demonize Hicks so that, once again, the world can see how this president operates, unlike a president should:

The lawyers [Toensing included] said their [two whistle-blower] clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors [let's get their names].

"I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi -- that people have been threatened," Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. "And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. ...It's frightening. ...They're taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over" [remember one Petraeus?]

DiGenova told Fox News on Thursday, by way of describing his and Toensing's respective clients: "There were people who were material witnesses, who wanted to talk to [the ARB], and they were not allowed to talk to them..."

Just to be clear about the way that Obama allows / expects / directs his people to operate:

...ATF insiders who testified before Congress about Obama's Fast and Furious gun-running nightmare faced systemic retaliation and harassment -- both from government supervisors who openly declared witch hunts against them and from liberal media water-carriers.

Maverick journalist Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News faced White House retaliation of her own over her Fast and Furious investigations. Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler "was just yelling at me," and White House spokesman Eric Schultz "literally screamed at me and cussed at me," she told radio talk show host Laura Ingraham in 2011.

Former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, who blew the whistle on Attorney General Eric Holder's rule of law-perverting, race-baiting reign, was basely smeared as a "liar" and perjurer by DOJ proxy and Washington Post tool E.J. Dionne -- who ignored Adams' stellar career record at DOJ and unassailable sworn testimony.

Gerald Walpin, former AmeriCorps inspector general, was pushed out of his job by the Obamas...

Obama has carefully crafted his uncivilized war in America, doing what other Democrat leaders were afraid to do, and so we shall wait to see how bad his end shall be.

You can bet that Obama's team has already framed the statements for his defence against Toensing. You're going to re-hear the blame-shifting statements on how Republicans cut down the size of Obama's money bags, but the night of Benghazi was wholly a Democrat event, and it wasn't a lack of money that caused the lack of security at the consulate. If any consulate deserved security at that time, it was in the new Libya. If the available money for security purposes wasn't used at Benghazi, it wasn't the choice / fault of Republicans. It was Hillary's choice. It was Obama's choice. It would have cost less to secure Benghazi to begin with than it cost afterward to provide these two the deluxe toilet paper for to wipe away evidence of their mutual filth.

It's interesting here that a Hicks surname should be involved in high-level Libya, for I traced the ancient Hyksos to the Meshwesh of Libya. I had traced Obama's mother to Meshwesh lines in Britain, but in more recent times, I traced the proto-Meshwesh to a merger with the "Benjamites" in the book of Judges, and found some good evidence that the Benjamin surname applies. I moreover sensed that Obama's interest in Libya was to prop up certain Benjamite elements that formed Rhodian globalism. Now look:

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has called the [Hicks / Thompson] allegation "100 percent false," and Daniel BENJAMIN, who ran the department's Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.

Daniel Benjamin writes on the al-Qaeda threat, but more than that, he's propagating a GLOBAL jihadist threat, an idea that I think was born, not from jihadists, but from globalists. "[Daniel] Benjamin and Simon would follow up The Age of Sacred Terror in 2005 with The Next Attack: The Globalization of Jihad (Hodder & Soughton (in Britain), 2005), a book which received high-praise from Bill Clinton [= a Rhodes Scholar who married a RODham]." So, who do you think chose Daniel Benjamin to be on Hillary's terrorism bureau? Can that explain why he's lashing out at Hicks whose lashing out at Hillary?

By the way, "CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of [Obama's] Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes."

And so the game is set, with the O-lovers denying the charges, and some bitter / concerned people coming out to tell it like it really was. As the O-lovers need to appeal to more lies, other whistle-blowers may join in, and we could all have a lot of fun watching Obama legs grow shorter and shorter. It's a good time for it.

I await the hearing in order to comment further. In other news, the bombings in Damascus by Israel in early May have thus-far resulted in no retaliation from Assad, because he can't afford a major war with anyone else at this time. But neither have other Arab nations declared war with Israel.

There is the question of whether Israel got a green light from Obama to attack Assad's forces, explaining perhaps why Obama is seemingly laying off of Assad, urging Israel to do the dirty work instead, which, in Obama's best interests, will cause surrounding nations to lash out at Israel all the more. Obama probably views it as a win-win to have Israel fight Assad.

Assad has urged Palestinians in the Golan Heights to attack Israel freely; we'll have to see whether this gets any traction. Perhaps the most-important point is the lack of outcry from Arab nations collectively. Or, Syria may be ripe for fulfilled prophecy (Isaiah 10) where she falls to the anti-Christ's forces without making a peep.

I caught and corrected five or six mistakes covering the Boston Marathon's suspicious details. It's hard not to make mistakes when writing while the events unfold, and with limited data to go on. The biggest mistakes may have been: 1) to identify the security people as Craft operatives when, we are now being told, they were CST members from the National Guard; 2) doubting that the bomb at the 2nd explosion site had to do with a white bag in full view, sitting beside a mailbox. The other mistakes were minor.

I'd like to talk about the National Guard issue. Infowars came out with the suggestion on April 18th that the mystery security people may have been with Craft rather than with the Navy SEALs. Many websites were then in agreement that the security men were from Craft all the way to the end of April, even though Infowars supposedly had an article (below) dated April 21st telling that the security men were instead from the National Guard:

After days of speculation and calls for officials to provide an explanation, it has emerged that the unidentified military style group pictured at the scene of the Boston bombing both before and after the explosions could be National Guard Civil Support Teams (CSTs) that were pre-scheduled [important term] to be at the event.

CSTs are The National Guard's full-time response force for emergencies or terrorist events involving weapons of mass destruction, toxic chemicals, or natural disasters. CSTs are routinely pre-staged at large public events to help mitigate risks and assist civilian authorities.

Infowars may have felt so embarrassed for wrongly identifying the men as Craft that it declined in the article above to suggest anything suspicious concerning CST. Where we read, "routinely pre-staged at large public events to help mitigate risks and assist civilian authorities," Infowars is apparently echoing the claim of a government agency or of the CST itself. However, I'll take that issue to task, asking why the article above does not tell of CST people at large public events other than one in San Antonio (Texas) and another in Boise (Idaho). There have been thousands of large crowded events in the last few years; is it really true that CST has routinely been called upon to check the events in real-time for weapons of mass destruction? Of course not.

You understand that, in the aftermath of Boston where the security people became so suspiciously pronounced, we fully expect the government to tell us that CST was called to the marathon as a matter of routine work, no need to be suspicious. The Infowars article above has an Anonymous writer commenting: "The National Guard are always at large events. I was at The Winter Olympics in Lake Placid and ran into one of my high school friends who was there in full uniform and doing his 2 week drill at The Olympics with his unit" It reads like something we could expect from insiders trying to make the marathon issue go away. There is no doubt in my mind that insiders have been assigned the task of commenting on Infowars articles in opposition to Infowars arguments. It's fully expected.

Look at the following webpage, and keep those pressure-cooker bombs in mind as you read:

6/11/2011 - BOISE, Idaho -- A fizz, then a sharp crack echoes from the walls of the Taco Bell Arena, not unlike the pyrotechnics often seen and heard at rock shows in the arena. This explosion, accompanied by a puff of white smoke, didn't have masses of concert goers cheering but was effective hands-on training for federal, state, and local first responders.

The 101st Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team (CST) completed the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Awareness and Search Course June 5-10 at the Boise State Taco Bell Arena and stadium with state and local first responders. They recognized and responded to HOMEMADE EXPLOSIVES (HME). The Intent of the course is to educate first responders on the history of HMEs, show what a HME assembly lab looks like, how to find them, and eliminate the threat.

"If we setup a lab and build these explosives then we know what to look for down range (in a deployed location)," said Lloyd Stading, instructor and President of Defense Services International, LLC.

The Boise CST team hosted the event and invited first responders from all over Idaho to attend this valuable training...

Of 57 CST teams nationwide...

...They setup mock bomb labs to help the trainees identify what a lab may look like. Terrorists can buy ingredients used to create the explosives like salt, stump remover, vegetable oil, and freezer packs, just to name a few, at local hardware and home improvement stores.

...The students constructed and ignited several types of HMEs in and around the arena and thereby demonstrated their knowledge, with the support of the arena administrators.

There you go, a government organization that is perfectly suited for setting up home-made bombs for to fake an international-terrorist attack. There is evidence that the bombs at the marathon were nothing much more than noise and white smoke.

On the weekend, I had the opportunity to download long videos (I can't do so easily from home) concerning the marathon. In one video (I didn't record which one), the smoke of the 1st bomb site was shown while the explosion was in mid stream. I noted that the flags in front of the bomb were waving for too long, and realized that this was not expected of a pressure-cooker bomb. I've been wrong on such technicalities before, but can I ask you: do you think it's feasible for a pressure-cooker filled with ball bearings and rudimentary explosive material to cause a wind sufficient to blow a row of some 15 flags into a horizontal shape (without wind, they hang down vertically) over a span of several seconds? I'm having a real problem with that picture, especially as the flags were shown blowing streetward while the cooker lid supposedly flew parallel with the street.

Below is a still image of the smoke bomb showing some flags flying and others just hanging down. It looks like the flags are blowing due to the bomb. The center of the smoke source appears to be BETWEEN the LensCrafters store (not visible behind the smoke) and the white building next to it where the patio railing is found. The center of the smoke source appears to be nearer to the wall than where Jeff was located by artists. See this aerial view for a better idea.

The center of the explosion appears to be where a black char mark is found in front of the broken glass; that char mark has no glass pieces upon it, as if the outward explosive force did not allow glass to fall upon it. You can see an image of that scene in the webpage below, where there is also an image of the explosion above shown a fraction of a second earlier, while the orange glow is visible. It's possible that the orange glow was added in because it's possible that there was no high-pressure bomb. One can see merely a slight amount of broken glass inside the LensCrafters store, with the bulk on the outside, which for me suggests that the bomb was not very powerful, barely able to break the glass so that it fell straight down rather than blowing into the store.

If the char image disappears, here it is from my files:

In the following consecutive images, as the explosion was just a few seconds old, the paper on the ground isn't flying in the "wind." Isn't that contradictory? How can flags above the paper be flying while the paper isn't moving an inch from second to second throughout the air disturbance caused by the explosion?

If we consider the possibility that flags directly in front of the explosion site are not flying in the wind, but instead have top wires causing them to take the horizontal position, the idea looks to be discredited where the timeclock image (below) has the flags hanging vertical.

Did you see any blood spatter on the flags? No. Is that why the flags were taken away with the scaffolding as soon as possible? Yes. In a close-up of the image above, note the men in brown shirts and orange shoulders removing the scaffolding that holds the flags. The image is only two minutes after the explosion. Compare the glass debris field in the image to the debris field in this image; see the inconsistency? Yes. It means you're being lied to and deceived.

At this time, there is a "video" near the top of the page below showing the shredded-pants man running across the place where he collapsed (his collapsed image was treated in the last update). The other man with shredded pants, who was called "Underwear Goon" two updates ago, can be seen with pouches filled (I couldn't figure out why). The point here is that this "video," like the Underwear-Goon video, is a series of still images and not a video at all. It's as though someone painted the images to deceive us. This "video" (which I've not seen before until now) shows the flags flying directly in front of the explosion.

The man with shredded pants can be seen running clear across the patio railing and beyond it, and yet in the image of him treated in the last update, he was fallen and being cared for directly in front of the patio railing. How is it that he ran past the railing here, and yet he was shown collapsed in front of it in another image? Admittedly, the man running in this "video" has no sleeve on his left arm while the collapsed man did have a sleeve on that arm...suggesting that there were three men in shredded pants (including underwear goon). However, we don't see in the "video" above anyone lying down in front of the railing. It's just another set of inconsistencies for which I've lost count. The man does a sort of "dance" as he reaches the end of the railing, where his foot-moves don't seem true to the expected reality, but look more like bad timing on the part of the artist(s).

In one of my mistakes of the past, I confused the flags showing in the shredded-pants-man scene with flags showing at another lamp post. The webpage above has several images showing flags, at least one of which shows the flags at both lamp posts (one can try to compare flags from different images to check for inconsistencies).

The aftermath of the Boston bombing has many tentacles, this being one:

The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

...The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued [blah blah]...and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders.

The FBI under Mueller, friends with Google and Facebook, is an atrocity waiting to happen. It's all part of the take-hold-of-America program seeking to turn the nation into a primary globalist puppet in the face of rabid opposition.

The statement gives us the impression that the FBI doesn't yet have capability to work well with Internet companies, but that too may be a misrepresentation. Here's how the article continues: "While the F.B.I.'s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders." Imagine that. This effort would have no legs at this time had it not been for the marathon bombing. It's very important to expose the bombing as a sham for this reason and others yet to grow from the cesspools of Obama's agendas.

It would be good if the Benghazi hearings focus on other matters aside from Obama's shifting of the blame to a street demonstration. That in itself does not speak to the chief ethical issue: Obama allowed the attackers to have their way. Whatever the reason, he has revealed by aftermath inaction that he didn't want to go after them, which is one potential explanation for shifting the blame to a street demonstration: he didn't want to reveal, by FBI investigation or otherwise, who conducted the attack. He knew who conducted the attack, but didn't want us to know any of the details.

I'm suggesting that Obama was in cahoots with the attackers, and was more concerned for their skins than he was his ambassador's circle of people. And that's why Obama, after admitting that there wasn't a demonstration, was suspect by me in shifting the blame again, to a terror group in Libya that was not responsible. The going belief of mainline Republican USA is that the attack was conducted by a Muslim terror group, but I have my doubts. Obama was in bed with the Libyans.

Obama's injustice department is acting the juvenile delinquent:

Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official [the fourth whistleblower] who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.

...Toensing's client will not be able to testify at public or closed-door hearings [until] he or she has...been able to prepare classified testimony with the aid of a lawyer, Toensing told The Daily Caller.

Toensing, who previously held top-level security clearances while working as a Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department's anti-terrorism unit, has asked government officials to update her past clearances to let her work with her client. But the officials initially refused to provide her with the needed forms, she said [imagine that].

Officials have now provided a 42-page security clearance form, which Toensing filled out and returned, she told TheDC. But the form is only for a basic security clearance, not a 'top secret' clearance, she said [imagine that].

That's "not sufficient," she said.

...Toensing said she's now pushing officials to get the higher clearance, she said, to ensure that her client is prepared to explain fully what happened to legislators during top-secret hearings.


Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said the Obama administration has failed to cooperate with his probe of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Issa, of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also said Wednesday at a hearing of the panel that leaders of the State Department's review board refused to testify before the panel.

...In an excerpt released by the committee this week, [Hicks] told House investigators he tried in vain to get fighter jets to fly over Benghazi to scare off the attackers. He also said four U.S. special forces troops were ordered not to board a Libyan military transport plane that flew to Benghazi from Tripoli in the hours after the attack.

Hicks wasn't working for the Republicans at the time. Hicks isn't disclosing these things for scoring political points. Hicks obviously has an appropriate complaint to level that has not merely to do with political aspirations, but with the negligent death of his own friend and boss. The whistle blowers are simply outraged at the way Obama sought to deceive, but if his people had nothing to hide, they would appear before Issa and clear up their image. Instead, they are willing to tarnish their reputations by not meeting Issa's requests, because disclosing the truth would tarnish them more than deceiving their way through it all. Do I have that said correctly? Here is the critical issue:

It's clear the ambassador himself who was slain is the one who was really begging for more security. Everybody understands it was rated as a facility that was extremely insecure. That's one element.

The other element is at the time of the attack, what happened? And I would ask another question, where was the commander in chief in all of this? The one man who can authorize and order troops to move above everybody and instantly is commander in chief. Where was he for these hours when the fight was raging? Has anybody asked it? Has anybody answered that?

Apparently, Obama has yet to inform the country as to where he was when the battles raged. If he admits it, it won't look good; if he lies about it, he risks that the Independent voting black won't be able to understand yet another fabrication. But I understand: he failed to give the order to protect his consulate people, and to minimize / justify it, he pretended that he thought the attackers were just a local mob with sticks and stones instead of military men with machine guns. Leon Panetta, who knew better than to use that excuse, offered a different reason for the failure of instant military response, but one could see on his face that he himself was ashamed of his own explanation. It wasn't his own explanation, was it? It was the canned response decided beforehand by a conspiracy of men. It was the defecation that the people were to swallow, starting first with the Obama lovers who would go around saying, yum-yum. Yes, basically, the Obama lovers are the dung-carriers of the globalists, those whose job it is to disguise the dung as real food.

If Obama wants the Independents to view it any other way, he'll come clean and release all the data that Republicans are requesting. The only thing that Republicans need to do to prove Obama's guilt is to make the requests, then report the denial of meeting the requests. As per the hearing Wednesday, here are the juvenile delinquents at work:

Hicks...also claimed that, when he asked a superior about the interviews, he was told "he should not proceed" with his questions. He was later given a "blistering critique" of his management style and effectively demoted to "desk officer," he claimed.

Hicks' testimony marked some of the most detailed of any delivered Wednesday. He and others also suggested the State Department's internal review into the attack was lacking. Hicks said when he was interviewed by the group, a stenographer was not present.

That's not exactly coming clean. What questions was Hicks not allowed to ask? The same ones that are being denied answers as they come from Republicans. Where he says that "the State Department's internal review into the attack was lacking," he means that Hillary is guilty of self-protection and self-service, the epitome of acting politically rather than acting ethically. The whores expect this sort of thing, and they enjoy sparring with those who think that ethics should come first before demonics. The whores are the ones who ignore the log in their own eye while accusing the small speck in your eye.

The television debates will now take place, but don't expect to be entertained if you can stomach the Demoncrat responses. You can't make the devil admit wrong even with blood on his hands. The O-people will continue to say that there wasn't enough time to send in military assistance. But wait. No one knew how long the attack would last; it's therefore not called for to throw up hands in futility from the get-go. No one knew whether the military would have been there in time, but the obvious thing to do (under normal circumstances) is send it in immediately, not a second to waste. Why didn't Obama do that??? Because he is not a normal circumstance:

Hicks and another witness Mark Thompson, an official with the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau [same one as Daniel Benjamin's], testified that although they asked the administration to deploy the FEST crew, an expert counterterrorism unit, their requests were refused [shocking].

Hicks said he had asked the embassy attache how soon aircraft in Aviano, Italy, could arrive to provide back up. He was told it would take less than 3 hours, but that they were unable to make the journey because there were no air tank refuelers available.

Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., countered Hicks' testimony, citing past testimony from Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that it would have taken aircraft almost an entire day to arrive in Libya.

Whether or not its true that there was no way for aircraft to have arrived in time may be a certain moot point if Obama had arranged for exactly that. Where I believe that he is guilty of the 1st-degree murder of Stevens and/or Smith, I expect that he arranged beforehand have insufficient military close enough to be of help to them.

It's the sort of moot argument the Republicans need in exposing this slippery fish. The real issue then becomes: why was there no ability to reach Benghazi in less than a day? Didn't Stevens himself make perfectly clear that the consulate, and the lives of his people, were in danger? It's no excuse to say, "there was no time to help with security." They had weeks to do so. The cost of just one of Obama's house parties would have put a tanker in the area to get a fighter jet to Benghazi. Cummings (a black man, expected to be an Obama lover) and Dempsey (given his job by Obama) should be ashamed of themselves. They speak as though nothing went wrong. The more they speak, the more damage they ply to their own careers.

"'It is stunning no one in the Obama administration asked Libya if we could use their airspace to protect our ambassador in Libya,' said Chaffetz, expressing the frustration the Republican members of the committee." In other words, the excuse, that there was insufficient time, blows up in their face because they didn't even bother to get assistance from the Libyans, which is the first thing they should have done even if true that there wasn't fuel for the American jets. Libyan fighters could have been at the consulate in less than three hours because, surely, Benghazi itself had weapons and fighters.

Italy has jets and tankers. Neighboring Egypt has jets and tankers. Greece, just 400 miles away (30 minute flight for a jet), has jets and tankers. Did they try to get theirs? No, because if they did, jets would have been in Libya, and we would have heard about it. Are the Dempsey stooges going to suggest that neighboring nations didn't have tankers filled with fuel and ready to fly? Am I missing something? Besides,

A report by an independent panel led by former top diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Gen. Mike Mullen has already "concluded that there was 'grossly' inadequate security at the mission as a result of managerial and leadership failures at the State Department, but Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators remain unsatisfied with those findings.

My interpretation of the above is: Republicans think there was more to the lack of security than typical systematic failures. Are they suspecting deliberate inaction? I hope so, because that's the heart of this scandal.

Here's an elongated version of Dempsey's words: "'...Martin Dempsey has already testified that it would have taken 20 hours for [jets] to reach Benghazi,' [Bowman at the Pentagon] says. 'And military officials have already said the planes would have no good targets once they arrived.'" What??? The jets could have done no good when they arrived??? You're kidding? Military leaders would say such a thing and still want to be considered credible? That in itself is proof that the Obama people did NOT want military back-up. You may say it's not exactly proof; I say it's exactly proof. You may say it's Dempsey just trying to protect the president that hired him; I say it's Obama wanting Dempsey to say whatever it takes to hide the murder of the ambassador.

The general commander of a dictator's army will always side with the dictator who pays him. Shame on Dempsey. It's clearly a shameful conspiracy that Dempsey is involved in, to withhold Obama's secret. The Pentagon, which faked a plane crash into the Pentagon on the original 9-11, is suggesting that the military expertise of the officers trumps whatever Hicks thought best as to what should have been done. Well let's take a look at that.

Military aircraft can spot a band of men in the dark with infrared cameras. A couple of jets conducting a couple of fly-overs at the consulate could have, would have, sent the men retreating from the consulate for fear of more military coming in their wake. And upon retreating as a gang, they would be easily spotted as a bunch of lit-up dots on the ground, and fired upon. Isn't that how you see it? Hicks is arguing exactly that. But even if the jets did not fire for fear of hitting civilians, at least the damage at the consulate and at the Annex would have been greatly minimized. Yet the leading O-fficers would have you believe that jets could have done no good. It's not exactly an heroic attitude, is it? You can imagine why these sorts of responses eat Hicks alive with bitterness.

Wikipedia says that the new Libya has in its possession some fighter jets taken from the Qaddafi regime, and that the Libyan air force is based in Benina, near Benghazi, where the airport sits that has aircraft fuel. Did Dempsey's people contact the Libyan air force on that night? Probably not, for that would explain the assertion that aircraft would have been in vain.

There was a cargo plane that did make the flight from Tripoli to Benghazi (about 400 miles), but American troops on that plane were told by the Dempsey circle not to go. I get it. What is there not to get? It's damning, wherefore the Dempsey circle has denied this report from Hicks, claiming that he's the liar, not them. Let the investigation begin, then. Whatever soldiers were about to board that plane, watch your backs. They'll want to silence you.

Gregory Hicks, then deputy chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, told investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that U.S. officials had persuaded the Libyan government to allow the Special Forces operatives to board the rescue flight from Tripoli to Benghazi. But an officer received a phone call telling them to stand down before they left for the airport, according to excerpts of his account made available to NBC News on Monday.

Let's see. Terrorists attacking Americans in Benghazi. American fighters told not to go to Benghazi. No logic. What really was going on? Why didn't they want Americans there? We were told by a Fox reporter that they even told the fighters at the Annex to stand down against their will.

The article continues: "Hicks quoted a Special Forces commander as telling him, 'I have never been so embarrassed in my life, that a State Department officer has [more authority] than somebody in the military,' referring to his willingness to authorize the mission." Now the picture is flipped. If I'm understanding this statement right, a state-department officer [suit-and-tie pen pusher knowing little of military operations] told the Special Forces commander not to send help to Benghazi. It means that an officer was WILLING to send forces while the O-lover officers were NOT willing. Why would that situation be, do you think?

As Hillary was active on that night in monitoring the situation, it appears that she herself gave the green light to deny the flight. How could anyone else at the state department make such an important life-and-death decision without her consent? What difference does it make whether the flight happened or not? What difference does it make whether she was in on the decision? Let the Independents decide in 2016, and let them send her a message.

As such a denial is not comprehensible under normal circumstances, it's clear to me that Hillary was ordered by her abnormal boss to deny the flight. Yes, and the Abnormal One must have convinced Dempsey that it would be best not to send in any fighters. It might have been dangerous or something. No one is disputing the danger. What I am suggesting is that Obama was not at all concerned for the lives of the soldiers, and that he used the humanitarian excuse of "dangerous" to get all of his brass underlings on the same page.

For the purposes of checking Obama, it's of no issue that the flight didn't arrive in time to save Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. What matters in this scandal is the Obnormal One's responses. The next day, the Obnormal One was in Las Vegas worried about getting re-elected. He couldn't even take a day off to mourn that disgraceful night. What the Republicans will want to know: who ultimately made the decision not to send in help? This is why Obama may not want to reveal where he was that night, because if he was in contact with the military chiefs, then the failures of that night are placed squarely on the O-blockhead.

It wasn't only the failure of beefing-up security after ambassador Christopher Stevens requested it, but that security was actually reduced! Imagine that. And this ball was in Hillary's court: "Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department." How could Hillary deny these requests from her own people, and then not bow down in utter shame after four men were murdered due to her denials? Instead, she came across heartless: "what difference does it make," now that's it's over? Just leave me alone. Stop pestering me. I didn't do anything too wrong; it's just the way things go sometime. Okay, I'm glad it wasn't me that died. I don't like the thought of dying by smoke inhallucination, anyway. I already suffered enough nightmares from Bill. Give me a break, get over it, I'm trying to become the president here, for your information. Bug off.

She blasted the inquiry with, "What difference does it make?", on January 23:

...For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton's signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz's formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

But on January 23, 2013 Secretary Clinton testified that security requests had not been brought to her attention.

She had no choice but to lie, to admit no blame, because she wants to run for becoming the next president without hallucinations hanging over her head.

It should be an easy matter to discover whether in fact she was aware of the security requests, if only she hasn't shredded any official papers. But if the requests did not go to her desk, then where in her department did they go? Someone could admit to having received them? Do you really believe that a state-department person receiving such a request would not bring the matter up to her desk? Did someone in her department make the decision to withhold / reduce security apart from her input into the decision?

Now that she has vacated her job, and John Kerry has filled in for her, the Republicans are mindful of sending their questions to him. He's trying to appear like an independent party in no way biased one way or the other, and knowing that to stick with Obama could mean going down with Obama, yet what choice does he have? Poor slop. Don't expect Kerry to play anything on the table but an O-card.

We should make whistleblowers like the angels. We should have a government fund to reward whistleblowers, like the old wild-west rewards for the heads of the lawless. Another one comes out:

The watchdog who tracks the billions of taxpayer dollars spent to rebuild Afghanistan says government officials have tried to silence him because they think he's embarrassing the White House and Afghan President Hamid Karzai by pointing out the waste and fraud.

John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, used a speech at the New America Foundation on Wednesday to blast government "bureaucrats" who have told him to stop publicizing damning audits that detail case after case of waste, corruption and mismanagement of rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan.

..."Over the last 10 months, I have been criticized by some bureaucrats for not pre-clearing my press releases with them, for not letting them edit the titles of my audits, for talking too much to Congress, for talking too much to the press...and, basically, for not being a 'team player' and undermining 'our country's mission in Afghanistan," he said.

Medical geneticists are trying to make human genes react well with animal genes for to produce interesting hybrids that of course are monsters to say the least. Political geneticists are trying to inject Western genes into a Muslim body to create a higher form of life in the Arab world that will ultimately provide such highly-evolved progressive things as porn stars, queer-pride parades, escort services, abortion-on-demand, corrupt bureaucracies, and unrelenting feminism that doubles the cost of their housing (two people working per family doubles the price of a house with no net benefit, and caters to the extra burden of child-care expenses). The result: a run-amuck mutation, an unpredictable monster that no one yet knows, having a religious head and a sinful body at odds with one another, with one hand stabbing the head and the other hand stabbing the body. Ask Iraq.

When it comes to the wars in the Middle East, the Republicans are the guilty party. Make no mistake about it; this is a nukilar fact. Republicans still want to engage al-Qaeda to this day in the spirit of George Bush. They are lending Obama the very jihadist cards he needs so that, in fact, Republicans are partially to blame for the mutations now growing in Libya and Syria:

In his opening statement at a House Homeland Security hearing on the Boston Marathon terror attack, [Homeland Security] Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R[EPUBLICAN]-Texas) said that the "radical jihad movement is alive and well" and warned that "you cannot defeat an enemy you refuse to acknowledge."

Ho-hum. Anybody listening? Maybe they need a larger faked bombing. Boston didn't go so well. They had to pin the explosion on Chechen brothers who have never been caught with any writings in favor of Chechen rebels. McCaul wants your money to fight the al-Qaeda phantom in your neighborhood. Do you want to give it to him? It doesn't matter what you want; Homeland Security is going to take it from you anyway. George Bush created Homeland Security, you remember. "[McCaul] graduated from Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas."

McCaul is in charge of Homeland-Security oversight, and yet we keep reading that Homeland Security is buying up all the bullets (if possible, it would) so that there are fewer for the civil militia's (many of which are in Texas) wanting to gear up for a bad day. Typically, the "Christian" militia's are anti-Catholic, while McCaul is a Catholic. Can we imagine the setting up of something rotten here? Who, ultimately, is in charge of ordering the HS bullet purchases? While McCaul is responsible for Homeland Security oversight, Obama's incurable Democrat, Janet Napolitana, is the acting ruler-puppet of Homeland Security. She's the one buying the bullets. Is this what you want, America, a civil war? Then elect Hillary in 2016, for she is of the same inner circles as Obama.

Do you want freedom from the inner circles? Then don't elect the candidate that the Republican party advances. Pick a nobody, and he'll do far better than a "seasoned" servant of the globalists. Pick a nobody on the streets who thinks only of people on the streets. He'll make the right decisions with your money. Start a National Nobody Party. There are plenty of intelligent, ethical, compassionate nobodys, and God knows each one of them. If we ask Mr. Who? how he would fix the nation, he'll do no worse in his responses than Mr. GotItAll. Besides, Mr. Who? can conform to the wishes of the people while Mr. GotItAll has already committed his soul to the devil. You know that, but you still voted for Mr. GotItAll, anyway.

GotItAll McCaul is wrong: "In an interview with Fox News, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) tied the terrorist attack in Benghazi to the Boston Marathon bombings, saying that in both cases, the Obama administration had ignored the connection to radical Islam." The common denominator between Benghazi and Boston is not Islam, but Obama and his fellow globe-trodding freaks of nature.

If al-Qaeda wanted into the United States, it would be flowing over into Texas from the Mexican border easily. It would pay Mexicans to do it dirty-bomb work. Al-Qaeda could hire a Mexican for $500 per explosion. He knows the way into New Mexico, into Arizona. He could be in San Antonio's river walk by dawn. In the evening, boom. Why haven't we seen that? Because, the al-Qaeda threat in the United States is a phantom created by George Bush's globalist whores. Watch your backs, all good people in Austin. I know you have a lot of Liberals there.

Texas is an important state for the globalists. Christians abound in Texas. They've got to be weakened. There are many false prophets in Texas seeking to make money-lovers out of Christians, seeking to make them worldly again. This is the true battle, against globalists, not against al-Qaeda. Know your globalist talking points. It's true that al-Qaeda opposes the globalists, but that doesn't mean that al-Qaeda is more dangerous to you. The globalists are in your midst, but al-Qaeda is across the sea. Which of the two deserves your focus more? Ask Rand Paul, who's not one of those "nobody" conspiracy theorists:

The New York Times calls Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) one of the Republican Party's "rising stars"...So riddle me this: What's the upside for Paul to put his name on e-mails like this one, which landed in my inbox this morning?

It's one thing for no-name pols to work on the fringes. But Paul, at this point, has a lot to lose. Yet here he is, suggesting the current president of the United States is working with "anti-American globalists plot[ting] against our Constitution."

..."If we're to succeed, we must fight back now.

"That's why I'm helping lead the fight to defeat the UN "Small Arms Treaty" in the United States Senate.

..."These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they'll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

..."In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department recently bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the UN''s anti-gun agenda!.."

The big-O-boys never know where their biggest enemies may pop up, not just at Alex Jones' house. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to think that the-more-the-guns-the-merrier, but I do think that an effort by the O-people to take guns away from the people can be part of a push to enslave them in a police state. I don't think it's going to work, but O might just be stupid enough to push it to the point of no return. That would be the best thing for America, the thing that finally opens the eyes of Obama lovers. After that, you can ask them to get rehabilitated.

If the Rhodian / Fabian globalists believed that a seizure of the United States was possible while Americans owned guns, they would have attempted it long ago. But make no mistake about it, the Rhodians are capturing America slowly, by political vices, for that is how they themselves have claimed to operate. If Bill Clinton is a Rhodian poster boy, then you know that Rhodians are corrupt, and that the general muck of Clinton and Obama lovers are your ignorant enemies in need of serious rehabilitation. Although I don't like the way "The Savage Nation" talks, he's right: liberals are mentally unstable, incapable of understanding their own destructiveness, and blind to their own sins projected on others who deplore their sinfulness. These are the ones who insist that any talk of globalist intrusions is from a Conservative / Christian paranoia. The punishment that Rand will take for coming out will keep others quiet for the time being.

A Little Heraldry, I Promise

As you may know, Obama is on record for zero nuclear weapons, but, as with everything he does, I suspect there is another face to his face-value statements. The story at the link above is about the sidelining of 17 officers in control of nuclear bombs, and it appears that Air Force Secretary, Michael Donley, is overseeing the changes (when I see a Dun-like surname in charge of any government thing, I have reason to suspect that Obama arranged it). The men directly responsible for the changes are Gen. Mark WELSH and Lt. Col. Jay Folds.

It's necessary to point out that the leaf design used by the Fold/Fauls surname is used by Hazels and House's/Hauss' who had themselves worked into my investigations on the Nazi circle around the president George HW Bush. Then, his son, the other president Bush, married Laura WALSH. Compare the Scottish Walsh/Welsh Coat to the Benjamin Coat.

My investigations into the Nazi circle of Bush showed signs that they had wormed their way into the American military, and of course into the CIA. I have no clear-cut understanding of the difference between the Bush- versus the Obama-circles. One theory is that Rhodian socialists broke away from Rothschild capitalists with the Rhodians taking hold of the Democrats and converting them from a normal American party to a Rhodian-toting one. However, there should be Rothschilds and Rockefellers on both sides of the schism, and over time it can get like mud to interpret. There may have been bridges built between the two at times, and bridges burned between the two at times. It's their nightmare, but it becomes ours too.

At one time, the English Bush Coat showed either a red-on-gold fleur-de-lys or a gold-on-red fleur-de-lys, I can't recall which. As the English Bush Coat uses a gold fleur-de-lys, we may assume that it could also be gold on red. German Bush's/Buschs and Boschs use a single, large fleur-de-lys that shows the importance of that symbol to the Bush's. I recall that the English Bush fleur was either on a red fesse bar, or a gold fesse, but I would gather that it was on a red one because a red fesse is used by the Busser/Bushee Coat. The point is that a large gold-on-red fleur-de-lys is used by the Folds/Faulls Coat, which for the moment can suggest that Folds and Bush's were merged by marriage. Walkers and Bush's were first found in the same place (Yorkshire) as the Anne's/Hanne's (Ananias suspects) using the Folds/Faulls stag heads.

I don't have a problem imagining that "Faulls" is a Rockefeller line of the Feller / Fall / Fell kind.

The Nazi's of the Hazel / House surnames had traced to neo-Nazi areas of Idaho and Montana, where Adolf Hitler reportedly escaped (with the help of certain Americans). In those investigations, I was led to Kyburg, Switzerland, and later noted that the Arms of Kyburg used roughly the German Hagel Coat. This was noted BEFORE Obama's new defence secretary became Chuck Hagel. "Hagel" and "Hazel" could even be potential cognates.

I have come to almost loath heraldry because I've explained it too many times in relation to what it means. It's nice to get away from it, and I've been having fantasies of never returning to it. I wish. I know what this is in modern USA Military Land: the Caiaphas and Ananias lines from the killers of Christ as they became the skull-and-bones vikings, the Templars.

Why do I now dislike heraldry? Because, whenever I start on it, it leads to large explanations, over and over again. I now need to enlarge on the Kyburg topic, but will keep it short, I promise. It starts at the Swiss location of Kyburg-BUCHegg, not far from Kyburg of Zurich above. I've just found that the German Buch/Buck and Buchess/Buche/Buckes surnames both use the same black wing in Crest, the color of the Hagel-Crest eagle (no doubt the Hohen eagle). The Buchs/Bucks even use that red Habsburg / Bush/Busch lion, apparently. The Buchess/Buche/Buckes surname was first found in the same place (Rhineland) as the German Bush surname.

Why did we read that the CST portion of the National Guard was exceptional in BOISE of Idaho? Is there a relationship between "BOSTon" and "Boise"? I've spoken many times on the connection of the Boise/Boast/BOST surname to the Cheneys, first found in BUCKingham, both surnames in the colors of English Bush's and German Hagels (and Benjamins and Walsh's). The Hagel lions are in the same gold-on-black as the Busher/Boscher lions. The Boston/Bowstain surname was first found in the same place (Roxburghshire) as the Scottish Walsh's.

The "fourchetee" cross of the Buchess/Buche/Buckes Coat may be code for the Forque surname, first found in the same place (Lorraine) as the house of Bar-le-Duc, which is where I traced the Bush fleur-de-lys. Without going back over the details, the white-on-blue fish of Bar-le-Duc was traced to the same-colored fleur of German Bush's/Buschs, and here you can see that the same-colored fish is in the Donley Coat, and meanwhile the Habsburg / Bush/Bosch / Buch/Buck lion is in use in the Donley Coat too. The Donleys (a topic as per Air Force secretary, Michael Donley) even use the red-on-white hand of Forkers/Farquers (see Coat below).

Compare the Donley Coat to the McCaul Coat. The Scottish McCauls (Argyllshire, beside Ayrshire) are clearly a branch of Kyle's, the latter having a Kyle location in Ayrshire, where Forkers/Farquers were first found.

The house of Kyburg became a part of the house of Habsburg: "The House of Kyburg...was one of the three most powerful noble families in the Swiss plateau beside the Habsburg and the House of Savoy during the 11th and 12th Centuries. With the extinction of the male line in 1263, Rudolph of Habsburg laid claim to the Kyburg lands and annexed them to the Habsburg holdings, which marked the beginning of the Habsburg rise to power." The original House of Habsburg used a red-on-gold upright lion, the symbol still shown in the Habsburg Coat, but then the Dutch Bush/Bos(che) Coat uses the same, as does the Lee/Ley Coat. When Habsburgs acquired Austria, they came to use the white-on-red fesse that is the Arms of Austria to this day, but this fesse is found also in the Coat of the Capes-related Happs/Apps'/Abbs'.

It is my opinion that God arranged the end-times to be governed by the bloodline and spirit of Caiaphas; I gleaned that various lines from Caiaphas founded the United States. This situation is viewed by me as God's will for Payback Day.

If it happens under Obama, you can't trust the face-value text in the media report. You can't trust the reasons given for sidelining the 17 officers (how many lower men were removed?). This report coincides with Obama's sparring with North Korea. What in the name of maggotry was he doing sparring with North Korea??? Was anything like that ever expected?

If this president is planning martial law in order to stay in power once his four years are up, it probably won't be attempted until his four years are nearly up. He has much time to prepare for it. Would he fake a nuclear bomb from North Korea as an excuse to waive elections in 2016? How will he get his stooges into such positions as to launch it from an American launch site? First, by removing the officers he deems problematic.

I don't think a faked nuclear blast is going to happen, but that doesn't mean it hasn't crossed the minds of those in his inner circles. Boston is being used to score the performance of a fake job. Mistakes will be noted so that they can be minimized on the next attempts; perfection in faking a crisis will be the goal. All the better to condemn themselves for Discovery Day.

Here's the near-end of the article above: "When the AP inquired about the Folds email, the Air Force arranged a telephone interview with one of Folds' superiors, Col. Robert Vercher, commander of the 91st Missile Wing." Is it coincidental that "Vercher" and "Forquer" are a near match? Here's the Vercher/Fergen Coat, a black boar, the Bush (and Booth) symbol too, in Varn colors, important because Wagers, Walkers and Bush's were traced to the Wagrian and Varni proto-vikings. The Varni were traced (by me) to Nahorites of the Neuri kind that included Buzites, and the Rodham/Rodden surname itself traces to Buzites of the Bus-surname kind.

There are several boar designs used by, but it just so happens that the black-on-gold Vercher/Fergen boar is the black-on-white Eber boar in the same upright position. Ancient writings gave the black boar as a symbol to Esau / Edom, which is why I trace "Busher/Boscher" to "BOZRah" (Esau's Edomite capital) and "Boscath" in Hebron. Esau was a Hebrew, named after Biblical Eber, you see.

The Busser/Bushee surname, with Bussy and Boucey variations, is said to be from Bussy-Le-Grand in Normandy, but I can't find that location online. often gives obscure locations (I've wondered why) in Normandy for surname roots, but in this case I think we can trace the surname to Bouce in Normandy's Orne region because the Busse(y) surname (in all three Massey/Macey colors) is traced to that place. The Busse(y) Coat looks like it uses the Arms of Trebizond Empire, home to ancient Amazons that evolved into the Masseys.

Orne is the location of Gace (= proto-Washington surname) and Ferte-Mace (home of Masseys/Maceys) as well as the Bellamys. This explains why I had traced Bush's to Masseys/Maceys / Masci's in several ways, which is exactly where Obama's Dunham line traces. Bouce is in the Argentan area of Orne, wherefore it should be added that there is an Argentera location in a Satyr-suspect Stura valley of Cuneo, not far from Busca. The Bush-Crest goat can, of course, trace to Satyr elements. Bouce looks to be less than ten miles from Ferte-Mace.

Gace, Messei and La Ferte-Frenel (should trace to MontFERRAT in Cuneo) are in Argentan. About 30 miles south-east of Argentan is Mortagne, and then the English Mortain/Morton Coat uses a near-replica of the white Bush goat head. The Walsh's use a motto term ("mortuus") honoring the other Mortons (same Coat style as Walsh's), first found in the same place (Cheshire) as Dunham-Massey and the Masseys/Maceys.

The Arms of La Ferte-Frenel use the Ferte eagle and, probably, the Dutch-Bush lion. The Masseys of Holland were at Maastricht, and along the Maas/Meuse river.

The two-headed black eagle (color of the Sear/Seer eagle) in the Arms of Argentan can now be traced to the same of Massey-related Maxwells (share a black saltire with Benjamins), first found in the same place (Roxburghshire) as Scottish Walsh's/Welch's. This two-headed eagle was traced in various ways -- aside from what you are reading here -- to proto-Masseys of the 600-Benjamite and 600-Danite kind. Black eagle wings were seen in the Crests of the Buch/Buck and Buchess/Buche/Buckes surnames, suggesting the probability that these surnames trace to "Bouce" as well as to the black Argentan eagle.

I traced "ROXburgh" to Rockefeller elements, but I traced Rockefellers also to "Falaise," about 15 miles north-west of Argentan. As Wikipedia's Argentan article says that Plantagenets (= Fulks) considered this town one of their primary locales, the Ferrat-related Fulks (black eagle wing and Ferrat checks) should trace there. Dunhams (from the 600 Danites?), English Fulkes/Folks and Benjamins were first found in the same place (Norfolk).

As the Sinclair rooster (in the gold color of the Morton rooster) is used in the Forque Crest, and as Sinclairs (they owned Normandy and married Falaise) were merged in Savoy (location of French Messeys) with the house of Candie/Candida, it's not likely a coincidence that the three small crosses in the Forque Coat are in the colors of the three small saltires of the Candy's, first found in the same place (Suffolk) as Clares. These crosses/saltires are white, the color of the Buchess/Buche/Buckes fourquette cross.

As I trace the Perche area of Normandy (= location of La Ferte-Frenel) to the Percival surname, note the latter's crosses in the same colors, and its "candida" motto term. The Percival bear (used by Mackays/Maceys) might just be a colors-reversed version of the French Benjamin bear.

See the Percival crosses in the Messina/Massena Coat (from Sicily), and let me repeat that the Shield-and-Chief color combination of the Percival Coat is that of the Arms of Agrigento (Sicily, on the Drago river, home of the 600 Benjamites), where the Satyrs of Argentera were traced (by me) along with Drakes and other satanic maggots who wish to control us today.

The fourquette-honoring Buchess/Buche surname uses forks at the ends of their white cross, and it just so happens that the CUNNinghams, first found in the same place (Ayrshire) as Folds/Fauls' and Forkers/Farquers (branch of Farquharsons who use the Bush / Habsburg lion again), use "fork" in their motto as well as a forked 'Y' in their colors reversed to the Buchess/Buche cross. I traced "Cunningham" to the same place (Cuneo) as "CHENey." Farquharsons and English Buchs/Bucks (probably the Conte / Veringen antlers) use the same motto exactly.

The erect sword of Farquharsons was traced to BISTONes of ancient Libya, and they were in turn traced to the Senussi Libyans that I think Obama has a special relationship with. Mackays/Maceys (from the Meshwesh/Maxyes of Libya) use an erect sword. The Boise/BOST Crest is a single crescent and a single star, a Senussi symbol too. The Bush-Crest goat traces to the proto-Baphomet cult in Libya's Boofima elements. The Boofima human-sacrifice cult was traced to the Esus human-sacrifice cult in the neighborhood of Bar-le-Duc. Esus was symbolized as a tree-cutter, likely in code on the Rodden/Rodham tree stump. I'm fairly sure I saw a second tree stump, and a second erect sword, in two of the surnames presented above (Bistones worshiped an erect sword in the name of Ares, god of war).

I could go on and on, but I would like to have a long vacation from heraldry examinations. I've seen again and again that certain high-level circles in American military trace to the Templarite Sinclair vikings, to HAINaut's Templars, to the line from the chief priests of Israel. We only await the Day of Capital Punishment, when God catches the stooges in the midst of laying their last trap.

The Obama Varnish is Stripping

For the second time in a couple of weeks, Obama is visiting Austin again, the Texan capital, where Bush lives. Why? Is this part of Obama's crusade against militia groups? As Waco is near Austin, perhaps Obama wants to have a few words with the "police" that committed the Waco murders. Or, McCaul lives in Austin. Nowadays, not even a president can't trust talking over a telephone or email account.

When a helicopter crashed during (same day as) the supposed capture of Osama bin Laden, there was reason to believe that Obama had certain SEALs murdered (i.e. by arranging the crash) who knew too much. When Hillary disappeared for too many days with a reported concussion, she never looked the same afterward. It appears that she has had face surgery. There was a December report, just days after her reported concussion, that her plane crashed on a landing strip in Iran (while she was on a secret mission to Ira), and that her head was bleeding as a result of the crash...but I thought that Obama was trying to eradicate her so that she could not talk in the first Benghazi hearings. Now, in the midst of the second Benghazi hearings, we have this:


(Washington, D.C.). Three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, will appear at a press conference on May 9, 2013, to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, just a few months after the successful raid on the compound of Osama Bin Laden that resulted in the master terrorist's death.

Accompanying the families of these dead Navy SEAL Team VI special operations servicemen will be retired military experts verifying their accounts of how and why the government is as much responsible for the deaths of their sons as is the Taliban.

The areas of inquiry at the press conference will include but not be limited to:

1. How President Obama and Vice President Biden, having disclosed on May 4, 2011, that Navy Seal Team VI carried out the successful raid on Bin Laden's compound resulting in the master terrorist's death, put a retaliatory target on the backs of the fallen heroes [why?].

2. How and why high-level military officials sent these Navy SEAL Team VI heroes into battle without special operations aviation and proper air support [expected if Obama wanted them dead].

...5. How and why the denial of requested pre-assault fire may have contributed to the shoot down of the Navy SEAL Team VI helicopter and the death of these special operations servicemen [don't shoot back, just sit and be killed].

6. How Afghani forces accompanying the Navy SEAL Team VI servicemen on the helicopter were not properly vetted and how they possibly disclosed classified information to the Taliban about the mission, resulting in the shoot down of the helicopter.

7. How military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric's "prayer" will be shown with a certified translation.

Obama suddenly has many problems on his plate, and they all appear to be converging to affect him at roughly the same time. Does he need more headaches from whatever his Austin visit consists of? Is Obama moving too fast toward the unwanted, like a train wreck? I hope so. I hope his own people only are on the train, and that the train is very long and crowded. These are a people unfit to rule. Against his own better judgment, Obama chose Hillary to be the chief of foreign affairs. Why? For political gain. Or, better yet, to stave off immediate political loss.

I've just read that Hillary Clinton wanted to keep the Libyan consulate open against the wishes of most others. Why? All other countries had closed theirs due to the rising dangers. Did Hillary not care for the lives of others? Nope. That's how you know she was Obama's bad choice. Under this backdrop, see the following where it could appear that Hillary wanted Stevens / Smith dead:

...As media reports present evidence the U.S. has played a central role in arming Syrian rebels, new questions have emerged about Clinton's involvement in the controversial scheme.

...WND previously raised the question of whether Clinton was telling the truth when she told the Senate panel she had no information about whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries [an I-don't-know response suggests that she was afraid to perjure herself by answering, "no"].

...Now a closer reading of two separate reports from the New York Times paints a picture of Clinton as the leader of the plan to arm Syrian rebels.

Confirming WND's exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times in March [2013] reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding the Arab governments and Turkey in shopping for and transporting weapons to the Syrian rebels.

The reported plan to arm the rebels mirrors a plan that, according to the New York Times, was concocted by Clinton herself.

In February, the New York Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. At the time, the newspaper quoted White House officials stating they rejected the plan, which was also proposed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus [the White House would have denied arming the rebels, as it could pit Obama too closely to the Benghazi operation, something he didn't want Putin to know].

A comparison of the Clinton plan to arms the rebels, as first reported by the Times, and the new Times report of American-aided shipments to the rebels since last year makes clear the Clinton plan was apparently put into action.

...Last month [April 2013], WND reported Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. stated in interview with Fox News that murdered U.S Ambassador Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi to keep weapons caches from falling into the hands of terrorists. Until that point, no official explanation for Stevens' deployment to Libya has acknowledged any such activity.

The Republicans know a lot more than we do about Benghazi, and are probably willing to keep certain top-secret operations from spilling out. But Graham is one of those Republicans with a trigger-happy left punch to the bag of beans. From his soft revelation, one can go a step further to suspect Stevens involved in directing the weapons, as in providing them to somebody. Now that's hardcore, something to be found in classified documents only.

The biggest beans spilled may be this: "Days after the Benghazi attack, WND broke the story that Ambassador Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad's regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials." World Net Daily is not exactly the government or the military, but if correct, the Obama globalists had befriended the very Muslim fighters used for scaring the American population into subservience to globalists plots. Along with sending jihadists to Syria, we could expect that Stevens also had the task of sending weapons with them.

Remember here, that there is a theory online that I respect, that Obama's grandfather was Lewis Stevenson...whose married a Davis surname. I therefore reasoned that Obama chose Christopher Stevens to be his Libya point-man due to "family" (loosely put) reasons. I then came to see that a certain king of Libya (mid-20th century), Idris Senussi (propped up by globalists), looked a little like Obama in one online photo, and so I spent considerable time trying to discover how Lewis Stevenson may have had sexual contact with a Senussi of Libya to give birth to Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's father. I did not find evidence for such an affair, but have not abandoned the theory either, as it explains Obama's involvement in Libya at all. The point here is, I view Stevens as an Obama appointee, a friend (i.e. not a foe) from the start.

Obama doesn't want to give any impression that he's willing to arm the Syrian rebels at this time because it might be able to come back to bite his fast-and-furious Benghazi backside.

The situation in Syria is turning from mainly West-friendly Syrian rebels to largely anti-West Syrian rebels. The fighters for the West-friendly rebels have complained that Obama has not armed them, resulting in their turning to the anti-American rebels...meaning ultimately that Obama is making an unpredictable mess of the Middle East Brzezinski-style.

...Also consider what Brzezinski wrote in his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technotronic Era, in which he advocated the control of populations by an elite political class via technotronic manipulation.
"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities," wrote Brzezinski.

"In the technotronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason" [feel free to rebel; it's your life, not his, and, besides, it's God's world TRADITIONALLY, not his].

...During a 2010 Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal, Brzezinski warned fellow globalists that a "global political awakening," in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

Dragons, please do eat one another, and jump into Hell while you're at it. I like the traditional way of life, and I don't like government controlling the way I think, or spying on everything about my life. I wasn't born a puppet, and never want to be one, especially if it means dangling from your blood-dripping hands. I would like to renounce my citizenship under your umbrella right now, before it happens. In the dark hour that you try to force me to be your citizen, The Flashing Day will rain burning coals upon your umbrella.

The whistleblowers have awarded Republicans the justification to carry the investigation further:

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) warned the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government officials on Wednesday to get their lawyers prepared for a massive probe into Benghazi as he escalates investigation...

Issa sent separate letters to the legal offices of the CIA, the State Department and the Defense Department in which he indicated that some witnesses might need attorneys, should the agencies retaliate against them for their testimony.

"During the course of the investigation, numerous individuals have approached the committee with information related to the attack," he wrote.

..."Additional witnesses may be compelled by subpoena to give testimony..."

This move comes as more than 100 Republicans in the House have increased pressure on Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to create a select committee to investigate Benghazi.

Go Issa go! Go Issa go! And he's calling the nasties to play fair, no intimidation allowed: "{I}t is important that the [CIA] makes clear to its employees that they are free to furnish information to Congress in accordance with their statutory rights...Additionally, retaliation against a witness who communicates with the committee can be considered obstruction of a congressional investigation and is punishable by fine and imprisonment." Go Issa go! Where's my party whistle?

The number of those pushing Boehner has increased to over 130, but Boehner has often proven to be a useless worker for the Republican cause, and is now bucking against forming a select committee. I don't understand his mentality, but he comes across with phony zeal at times, or even like a two-faced double agent. It's Virginia's Frank Wolf whose pushing Boehner to do the right thing, but Boehner should be doing it on his own.

If there was truly a justification for Obama's lies, his people would have approached the Republicans to tell them, and the Republicans would have kept it hush...if there was justification. Under the scenario that he was selling (or even giving) Qaddafi's weapons to the jihadists, it would peg, not the jihadists, but the Libyan rebels as the ones who killed Stevens and Smith. Those rebels had formed the new Libya by then, and they considered Qaddafi's weapons their own prize. Assuming that they discovered Obama using Stevens to guard and shift the weapons under their noses to Syria, the Libyans took vengeance.

It explains why Obama did not want to retaliate against the consulate attackers, as it would aggravate the new Libya that he was supportive of, and threaten him all the more with exposure for the dishonest thing he was doing. Pretending to love the Libyan rebels, yet stealing their weapons, is not how Obama wants his legacy written.

He would have had to beg their forgiveness, or give them money (not from his own wallet, of course), to keep them from advertising this sin. It wouldn't be anything he wanted the Republicans to know, because it plays into their hands as per their insisting all along that he doesn't play by the rules, that he's two-faced, a traitor, and can't be trusted.

To explain why general Petraeus was rudely exposed (I'm not feeling sorry for him) by Obama in the throes of the Benghazi scandal, the WND article above adds: "The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons [to Syria's rebels]. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan." That sounds logical. There's nothing unbelievable about that picture. How could Obama lovers deny it off the cuff? Obama was sending Syrian fighters their means to defeat Assad, and Petraeus was a zealous worker to that end. Why are the O-lovers unable to eat that picture?

Obama didn't want to give the fighters American weapons because Obama was lying to the world that he wasn't arming the Syrians. He made it appear as though Libyan factions were sending the weapons. All in a day's work for a weaver of deception. O-lovers do want you to think that there is a crack in Obama's messianic varnish.

But wait. If Petraeus was going along with the weapon shipments, what beef did the O-people have with him that he should be humiliated and silenced, railroaded and threatened in complete indignity? How could a messiah act this brutally? What great sin did Petraeus commit against O-God? Perhaps there was a policy disagreement. They both agreed to ship the weapons, but they did not agree on the details. Fine. But then what detail violation had Petraeus committed, so meaningful as to pay his career such a dismal end? It's a question for the back burner. Keep it simmering.

It's possible that the new Libya was privy to the plan, and was being paid for the release of the weapons from Libya, but if true, I wouldn't expect that the jihadists at large throughout Libya were making money on the sales. There may have been a question of ownership of the weapons since the jihadists helped to free them from Qaddafi's hands. Money is at the root of all evil, especially money from weapons sales. Usually, Mafia and other organized crime syndicates are involved in this sort of business, and so what's the O-God doing in the thick of this? I thought that this O-God didn't like weapons in the hands of people. He's trying to remove hand guns from American citizens for saving 20 or 40 deaths annually, yet feeding automatic machine guns and even missiles to Syrian citizens. It's not exactly a picture of a shiny messiah.

Petraeus didn't like Obama letting his ambassador die in order to keep the weapons sales secretive. Do I have that right? If Obama had the choice of selling Qaddafi's weapons through the new Libya versus through the jihadists in Libya, which one of the two do we think he would chose? To which of the two do we think Obama wanted the money / benefits to go, of those weapons sales? We've already read above that Stevens was in cahoots with the jihadists. The along comes Petraeus blaming the Benghazi attack on the jihadists, something that Obama loathed to do:

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

...There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid evidence.

...The [talking-points] version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had [no mention of al-Qaeda or Ansar al Sharia]. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that "extremists" [i.e. unidentified] might have participated in "violent demonstrations."

There were only three groups in Libya to blame, but Obama's people found a fourth: local street people. The three are: 1) Qaddafi's loyalists; 2) jihadists; 3) the new Libya government. If Petraeus was on-side with the new Libya in the weapons shipments, which I imagine he was, then he would tend to blame the jihadists for the attack in order to shift the guilty finger away from the new Libya. If the Hillary people knew that the attack was from the new Libya, her department would fake the communication above to frame the particular jihadists that they didn't like? Chances are remote, in other words, that Stevens was selling weapons through, or dealing with, Ansar al Sharia. But there were other jihadists in Libya that Stevens could have been working with.

Hillary's Nuland, who had too much power over the CIA script (shame on the CIA), was able to get the mention of al Sharia out of the script: She complained: "we don't want to prejudice the investigation" by mentioning any names. It's like everyone and their grandmother gets to weigh in and create CIA scripts, to hell with what really happened. Shame on the CIA for allowing the Obama method of governance to proliferate. You simply cannot have a government like this that asks all reporting to be edited by the government before it goes out. It's like writing your own history. Obama should be ashamed of himself, willing to allow false ideas to go down as true history. I feel like swearing.

The government got the following removed from the CIA script:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

It made Hillary look bad to include that part, and so her department erased it.

Let's assume that Petraeus and the state department were both behind the framing of Ansar al Sharia as Plan A, and that both knew the new Libya to be behind the weapons sales to Syrians. Let's also assume that the new Libya was behind the consulate attack against Stevens...when the new Libya discovered that he was shipping weapons direct (i.e. without Libya oversight) through a jihadist group. After being exposed by the FBI, Petraeus was stuck in the mud, unable -- even if he wanted to seek vengeance on Obama -- to come out and reveal the truth, because it would vilify himself for blaming the jihadists. Therefore, Obama figured that he could gamble with exposing Petraeus.

However, Petraeus can speak off the public record to whomever he wants to. I like it when dragons inflict dragons. I'm hoping that Petraeus opens his mouth and breathes fire on Obama's backside. It's fun to watch a messiah lose composure like that.

According to page two of the Weekly-Standard article above, the state department didn't like the CIA report that jihadists were responsible because it made the state department look bad for not providing security before the attacks. That's logical behavior (though not justified), but what's at issue is that Victoria Nuland (at the state department) wanted the report changed, and got it: "CIA officials responded with a new draft, stripped of all references to Ansar al Sharia."

We can see where this was going, like a piece of toilet paper having wiped Hillary's backside clean, flushed down the toilet where it could no longer be found out. Forgive me for putting it in those perfectly-descriptive terms. The Republicans have been wading through the sewage seeking any strips that might yet be incriminating, and they have got some! Good work, boys. The article goes on:

In an email a short time later, Nuland wrote that the changes did not "resolve all my issues or those of my building['s] leadership." She did not specify whom she meant by State Department "building['s] leadership." Ben Rhodes, a top Obama foreign policy and national security adviser, responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council's Deputies Committee the following morning. The Deputies Committee consists of high-ranking officials at the agencies with responsibility for national security -- including State, Defense, and the CIA -- as well as senior White House national security staffers.

Alright. The next morning, as soon as possible, the emergency goes to the decision makers for resolution, although there was no justification for spinning a fabricated story, which is what dragons do by sheer nature. You can read the rest to discover a clearer picture on how they all conferred to wipe clean Hillary's image, yet none of this speaks to the reason(s) that the attack was permitted to take place. If you are an Obama lover, you probably won't see the meeting above as a conspiracy to commit fraud.

The following could be a great turn of events:

On May 9, House speaker John Boehner...called for the release of an email from Beth Jones, acting assistant secretary for Near East affairs, sent on September 12. Jones wrote to her colleagues to describe a conversation she'd had with Libya's ambassador to the United States. When the Libyan raised the possibility that loyalists to Muammar Qaddafi might have been involved, Jones corrected him [uh, er, Mr. Ambassador, let me instill in you the "real" story. Get with the program, won't you?]. "When he said his government suspected that former Gadhafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic terrorists." Among those copied on the email: Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, and Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff and longtime confidante.

In other words, the Libyans were placed on notice that the big cheeses in America already had the truth, and that to accuse the Qaddafi people was unnecessary, and by the way don't you even think of publicizing that idea. It makes me wonder why it was so important to "correct" the Libyans.

After these emails were released to Republicans, and after the liberal media itself made light of the numerous changes, the White House came out to do damage control with a "press release," claiming that the changes were not politically motivated (hee-haw). And the White House came out telling that making so many changes, as per what the public will ultimately hear on a matter, is routine, normal. Of course, that's what story fabricators do, make changes routinely. The White House has just admitted it, but would like you to believe that changing the script is an appropriate, ethical thing to do. And so the way that government does business is sinking deeper into the quagmire of sinfulness, like when Bill-Clinton lovers popularized the idea of having adulterers as presidents so long as they do good jobs as presidents. And just what is a "good" job in the eyes of a Bill-Clinton lover??? If he cheats on his wife, won't he cheat on the people?

Why do we think that Jones took the opportunity to "correct" the Libyan ambassador with such heavy backing from those listed personalities? What was so terrifying to them where the Libyan ambassador should peg Qaddafi elements as the reason for the attack? Should not all theories have been on the table at that point if the Americans were truly seeking the truth? It was only September 12, the day after the attack, and already Jones and crew were so sure that Ansar al Sharia did it...and yet the same crew denied even that in coming days! They weren't sure at all, were they? They are not to be taken seriously at all, are they?

The Libyans must have been learning first-hand how deceptive the Americans are. They must have been thinking, Qaddafi was right about the Americans. Yes, Jones and Crew shamed America in northern Africa when word got around on this. September 12: Ansar al Sharia did it. September 14: Ansar al Sharia didn't do it; a bunch of guys with sticks did it.

Help start a civil war. In return for assistance in defeating the government, make the rebel fighters agree to giving up the government's weapons to you for starting another civil war in another country. That was and still is the O-genda, right?

I think I know what sort of prickly cactus was stuck up Jones' backside that didn't allow her any peace with the Qaddafi accusation. It's not at all a bad theory that Qaddafi people should attack the consulate, but Jones and crew didn't want the world to think so. Was it true? Probably not, but the sheer idea could give someone the notion that the new Libya attacked the consulate. It was important to the O-crew that people should not think at all. It was important that people should automatically blame jihadists / religious extremists. It is important that the people believe in Infallible CIA or Infallible FBI so that whoever they blame, that's who the world should blame too.

Obviously, if the new Libya did it, they were not going to admit it, but could be expected to blame the Qaddafi people. That's what I think happened. If the accusation by the new Libya against the Qaddafi loyalists were allowed to stand, national leaders might start to get the impression that the new Libya was deflecting guilt from itself to Qaddafi's people. And then the nations would start to realize that Obama had been doing something bad against the new Libya, and, yes, the whole world, including Putin, would discover that Obama is a high-level liar on important issues.

Now from the National Journal:

"These changes don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership." With that sentence, one in a series of emails and draft "talking points" leaked to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, the Obama administration was caught playing politics with Benghazi.

...In an email to officials at the White House and intelligence agencies, Nuland said the information "could be abused by members (of Congress) [i.e. big-bad Republicans] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned..."

The paragraph was deleted. The truth was scrubbed.

...Credibility: The White House has long maintained that the talking points were drafted almost exclusively by the CIA, a claim that gave cover to both President Obama and his potential successor, Clinton. "Those talking points originated from the intelligence community," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in November, adding that the only editing by the White House or the State Department was to change the word "consulate" to "diplomatic facility." Nuland's emails prove him wrong [it's worse than merely wrong; it's a cover up, the sort that got Nixon fired].

...Drip, drip, drip: There is almost certainly more to come. While Karl and Hayes did not disclose their sources, a hallmark of congressional investigations is to leak selected evidence to embarrass the sitting administration...

Bit by bit, everything that normal people knew about the Benghazi sham is coming to light. It will be very hard for the dragons to attempt another tricky act without being extra-careful. We should welcome the tricks of the global elite, because it's what exposes them, and destroys them.

It's hard to know anymore whether the UN is anti-West or pro-West. It depends on what part of the UN. Not everything in the following article (dated last month) should be taken as truth, because, depending on the panel's purpose, the entire package may be a deliberate fabrication interspersed with some truths:

A United Nations panel says weaponry from Libya is spreading across North Africa to Gaza and Syria "at an alarming rate."

The five-expert committee [who?] said in a 94-page report sent Tuesday [April 9, I think] to the U.N. Security Council that illegal transfers of arms from Libya to armed groups and terrorists have been proven.

The arms trafficking violations involved more than 12 countries...

The panel made 28 visits to 15 nations in the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Ten of those visits were within Libya alone, The Washington Post reported.

...The panel also warned that armed terrorist groups in Libya, who it said are the best financed, are strengthening their position [is the CIA / Hillary / Obama plan still active here?].

"The lack of political and security stability, the continuing absence of control over stockpiles by the national authorities and delays in disarmament and weapons collections encourage illicit trading [is that exactly how Obama wants things?]...

On September 11, 2012, Al Qaeda terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi...For more than six months prior to the attack, Stevens and other diplomats on the team repeatedly had urged the State Department to beef up defenses at the Consulate, warning the security situation in Libya had deteriorated. Their pleas were ignored.

That last part doesn't sound like this article is specifically pro-Obama. The article is written by Arutz Sheva, Israeli National News. It's not possible to gather from the points whether the same people running the weapons program under Stevens and Hillary are the ones profiting to date, but that possibility is not to be discounted. Should we suspect that Obama has been secretly arming the anti-Israeli forces for to do battle against Obama's enemy, Netanyahu?

I've read the UN report above from Reuters, the Guardian, Politico, and others. No one is divulging who the five were in the panel, or who they work for. Reuters calls them "experts." Whenever I see anonymous "expert," I think "brainwashing." Whenever I see "expert," I see a naive and gullible world following the pied piper happily to Hell. The purpose of the report could be to provide an excuse, without pointing the finger to Obama and the West, as to why Libyan weapons are in Syria. The article fingers an untold number of profiteers and traffickers in general, just what we would expect if someone were trying to shift the finger away from Obama / Hillary.

I checked about ten articles all repeating the same from the UN panel, like robots without further comment. Then I got to the following story that not one of the articles so much as hinted at:

A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.

Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

"This is the largest single delivery of assistance to the rebel fighting units we have received," said Abu Muhammed, a member of the Free Syrian Army (FSA)...

Catch the date of the article: September 14, 2011, just a couple of days after the killing of Christopher Stevens. It's a huge story (I've never seen before); how could those articles above, some from big-media names, fail to mention this part of the story??? It's incredible. And this story does finger Obama! A related article from a Syrian media gives further details:

..."A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria...has docked in Turkey," said The Times in an article published on [September 14].

The article's writer, Sheera Frenkel, said most of the Libyan ship's cargo is making its way to the armed terrorist groups inside Syria.

...The article said the Libyan ship, which is called 'The Intisaar' (victory), is berthed at the Turkish port of Iskenderun and had been given "papers stamped by the port authority by the ship's captain, Omar Mousaeeb."

The article pointed out that Mousaeeb is "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which is delivering supplies to the armed groups in Syria.

At first glance, it appears that the new Libya (i.e. the government itself) was involved with this transfer of goods, just like any transfer of weapons by any established nation to another established nation. But the Syrian rebels are not an established nation except by a cheap decree of Western globalists who recognize the movement as such, and who make the decrees in order to justify military coups unto their nation-building programs.

It begs the question of whether the Obama / Hillary weapons program at Benghazi was operating secretly in cahoots with the new Libya...until something went wrong. The ship was already in Turkey by the time that Stevens was attacked. What happened?

We should check out Mousaeeb's "Libyan National Council for Relief and Support." That should tell a story. Does that organization belong to the new Libya, or not? Did someone try to fake a name that sounds like it belongs to the new Libya? "Relief and Support" sounds like food, but I didn't know until now that Syrians ate missiles. Here's the story again from another angle:

The official position is that the US has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

But there's growing evidence that U.S. agents -- particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens -- were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked [not al-Qaeda-led] Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group -- a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria...has docked in Turkey"...

The ship's captain was "a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support," which was presumably [i.e. he doesn't know for sure either] established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person -- Belhadj -- between himself and the Benghazi man [Mousaeeb] who brought heavy weapons to Syria [I'm going to assume that Stevens knew and talked with Mousaeeb].

...Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died."

...In any case, the connection between Benghazi and the rise of jihadists in Syria is stronger than has been officially acknowledged.

I don't like it when someone writes a bad fact without emotion. I feel like I'm reading from a robot. Is the writer above claiming that Obama sold weapons to the jihadists amongst whom are the two who supposedly blew up the Boston marathon? Does Obama applaud the murder in the streets of the Chechen brother, and then sell weapons to jihadists far more powerful and dangerous than the Chechen brothers (I'm not saying the two were dangerous)? Isn't it true that jihadists relish to kill civilians indiscriminately??? If the writer above is correct, Obama is a monster. Don't leave that part out. A monster is defined as an inhuman beast incapable of acting consistent with a conscience because it has no conscience, and a human body without a conscience is a dangerous sociopath in the books of psychologists. Don't leave that part out.

Now why would the new Libyan government, fresh from defeating Qaddafi, wish to send weapons to Syria? Does that make sense to you? Didn't the new Libya have it's own need for weapons? Didn't the new government have it's own headaches in setting itself up, and in controlling its country properly (there is such a thing as good control of a nation verses exceeding / exploitive control by globalist trolls)? What made the new Libya passionate or compassionate for the cause of the Syrian rebels? It must have had something to do with the five letter O-word.

Can we trust the article above? It's another AP article. Perhaps not everyone at AP is bound to be a stooge of AP leadership, but one never knows. After quoting the article above, Prison Planet writes: "In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government." The article points out that al-Qaeda had a headquarters in Benghazi. Wow. How did that happen?

So, what we now know is that someone in Libya already put together a shipload of weapons by the time of the Benghazi attack. The ship was already in Turkey (as of September 6, they say). Somebody in Libya really wanted to see Assad defeated, and I don't think the new Libya wanted to see it as bad as Obama did. That's what the story seems to be here. The O-loving media wants to blame the weapons shipments on a bunch of goons inside Libya, and for that matter they are correct, because Obama's people are goons at best. Or, the O-loving media wants to portray the weapons shipment from the new Libya, thus giving it a sense of legitimacy outside of Obama's hands.

If the consulate attackers were agents of the new Libya, then we might conclude that Stevens was transferring weapons to Syria through the "wrong" channels, and that he got caught. If Stevens and the CIA purely had the task of finding Qaddafi's weapons in order to give them over to the new Libya, it probably didn't involve any typical sales or money transfers to the Americans...because the new Libya was not about to purchase its own weapons that it won by war. But if Stevens could transfer the weapons through an al-Qaeda distributor, there was a little money to be made. That's one possibility.

Let's flip the situation around, for arguments sake, and suggest that Stevens was transferring the weapons to the new Libya in complete loyalty to a deal it had with the United States, but that al-Qaeda in the Benghazi theater didn't like it, resulting in the consulate attack from al-Qaeda. Under this scenario, we would expect the Libyans to be at the consulate lightning quick to fight al-Qaeda. We didn't see that...which is why I tend to think that Stevens had crossed the new Libya. As a theory may go, Obama, not wanting to cross the Libyans further, allowed Stevens to die at their hands.

However, there is another theory that I favor: both Stevens and Obama were deceiving the Libyans, both selling through the jihadists as best they could while also working with the Libyans as best they had to.

If one searches "Libyan National Council for Relief and Support" -mousaeeb -captain, only one page of results comes up, none of which speak of the organization aside from the ship event in Turkey. In other words, that may be a bogus name and not at all an official organization of the new Libya government. Whose ship was it, really, and who, really, was the shipper of the weapons?

A fundamental detail on the ship story is that the pro-West Syrian rebels and the anti-West Syrian rebels argued as to which of the two had rights to the weapons. Can this suggest that al-Qaeda in Benghazi sent the cargo under the false flag of the new Libya? Would the new Libya become furious over such a stunt when discovering it?

Suppose that, while the ship was docked, Turkey called the new Libya to inquire, only to discover that the new Libya had not known about this ship? Might that have prompted the murder of Stevens? In that case, the globe-trodding ambitions of the O-people got Stevens killed, but of course he took his chances.

Why should the CIA be guilty of anything in Libya? Since when is it the practice of the CIA to operate things? I thought their job was to gather Intelligence. You can't go wrong if all you do is gather data while someone else makes the decisions and directs the events. We can't pin the blame on Stevens alone because he was just the tool of those who made the decisions, and being a tool of monsters, he was expendable:

...While some US Congressional Committees have been conducting investigations into what happened in Benghazi, they have agreed to discuss only the activities of the State Department in their open, public sessions, and to reserve any consideration or questions about the activities of the CIA for closed sessions of their committees, away from public view [it sounds like the CIA had the program while the state department was utilized merely as a tool].

...some of the mainstream US media have agreed to a request by the US government to withhold details..."The New York Times agreed to withhold locations and details of these CIA / Annex operations at the request of Obama administration officials..."

Well excuse me, but why does the CIA need to operate in secret if what it does is sound, good and right? It should want to expose its sound, good and right deeds to the whole world so that the whole world can applaud all of its sound, good and righteous deeds. It's laughable, isn't it, just to speak that way, because the CIA is a dark shadow always doing what it ought not to be doing, yet repeating it, like a dog licking its vomit, puking it again, and licking it up again. In Libya, the CIA should have been doing nothing but dealing with good people, and gathering Intelligence on the bad. What are these pukey reports we're hearing that the CIA in Libya was transferring weapons of mass destruction to jihadists?

I thought only people like the Chechen brothers worked with weapons of mass destruction, and here we have Obama's people doing so in the shiploads. Hello? Are there any consciences in the skulls of Obama lovers?

The article goes on concerning the ship in Turkey: " said to have arrived September 6 at the Turkish Port of Iskenderun. The captain of the ship, Omar Mousaeeb, a Libyan from Benghazi, was accompanied by 26 Libyans who were on board to help smuggle the shipment from the Turkish Port across the border into Syria. The plan was then to distribute the weapons to insurgents in Syria who were allied with the Muslim Brotherhood." Ahh, weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood, friends of Obama all over the Muslim world. I get it.

How else would the Muslim Brotherhood, rather than the Free Syria Army, have taken the shipment of weapons? There must have been an O-creature behind it. Later, we hear that fighters from the Free Syria Army defected to extremist groups that had......weapons. Yes, you heard right. In the beginning, there was only the Free Syria Army leading the fight. Then came the jihadists that even the United States branded as terrorists, and suddenly the jihadists had all the weapons, and suddenly they were running the show with the most to gain after Assad is overthrown.

Apparently, Obama is empowering the extremists while seeking to convince us that he doesn't want to arm the extremists. This is how he is puking all over the world. "'The scale of the shipment and how it should be disbursed, has sparked a row between the FSA and the Muslim Brotherhood, who took control of the shipment when it arrived in Turkey,' writes Sheera Frenkel, the author of the Times of London article...'There was widespread talk of Syrian groups who allied themselves with the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement being given a larger share of the ship's cargo.' One activist quoted objects that, 'The Muslim Brotherhood, through its ties with Turkey, was seizing control of this ship and its cargo.'"

So, while you may have heard reports that the Free Syria Army has bitterly complained that Obama has done nothing for them, it's not to be understood that Obama has sent the rebels no weapons. It's just that he sent weapons to the other rebels. He wants a Muslim-Brotherhood government in Syria, doesn't he?

...By September 11 [i.e. five days after the ship arrived to Turkey], infighting among the Muslim Brotherhood and other insurgent groups, over who would be given the weapons from the Al Entisar shipment, suggests the likelihood that Turkey's Consul General in Benghazi and the US Ambassador needed to discuss the conflict...

In line with this reasoning, it is not surprising that Chris Stevens had a meeting with Turkey's Consul General to Benghazi, Ali Sait Akin, on September 11 at the Benghazi special mission compound.

...As of September 11, there were weapons that had yet to be distributed and smuggled into Syria from the Al Entisar shipment.

...According to documents that Congress received from the State Department, soon after Stevens arrived in Benghazi on September 10, he visited the CIA annex compound for a briefing.

...surprise visit by the then head of the CIA, David Petraeus, on September 2 to Ankara [Turkey].

I think the writer spells it out very well without over-reaching. One doesn't have too much trouble filling in some things between the lines. There may have been a disagreement between Obama and Petraeus as to who should get the weapons. I'll be willing to bet a bone stuck in my throat that Stevens wanted the weapons to go to Free Syria Army no matter how much Obama howled about it. I suspect that, once the ship arrived to Turkey, Obama's secretive operation began for getting the cargo to the Brotherhood. When Stevens gleaned that idea upon speaking on the issue with the Turkish diplomat, Stevens may have snitched to Petraeus with the both of them frowning on Obama.

If Petraeus knows this, that Obama changed plans in mid-stream, he really should tell everyone. If the American war is against jihadists, it's a hypocrisy that Obama wants the Muslim world run by low-level jihadists called, "Brotherhood." At any time, the Brotherhood factions who have renounced violence can go back to their vomit. The CIA itself can turn them to violence again on behalf of CIA / globalist initiatives.

The bottom line appears to be that Obama sent Stevens into international weapons dealings, on a much larger scale than Mafia or drug-gang weapons dealings, then removed his protection. Even if the O-claim is that the CIA didn't want military at the consulate because it might alert the Libyans that something important was happening there, he could have had, if indeed they he was sincere about protecting Stevens, fuel tankers and jets ready to fly in. But as such preparations were not made, even when the shipload of weapons was sent off to Turkey, it's clear Obama wanted Stevens dead. That's my conclusion.

Here is a shocking Tea-Party (Fire Ants) piece explaining why Obama may not be as lame as he ought to be:

WHAT IS UP with Speaker John Boehner?! That's been the question on the lips of most conservatives for months, particularly since the advent of the murders by Islamic terrorists of Americans in Benghazi...

Since Benghazi, as Obama's culpability has become more clear, Boehner appears transparently determined to replace the clearing fog with downright obfuscation and cover-up. We have written here before about Boehner's utterly apparent infatuation with Obama; he quietly reprimands the President as he is expected to do as the leader of the opposition, but with no force. Countered with bizarre public expressions of admiration for Obama's very presence - he truly takes on the face of a star-struck child gazing adoringly at a hero, we've all seen it, there's no point in being coy about it - Boehner's behavior has been easy to predict: he covers for Obama.

...However, thanks to Tea Party Fire Ants' Twitter team leader, the amazing and no-fooling-around Kathy Amidon, we essentially have that cold fact in hand.

Abiding by the legal demands of the One Party Consent Rule, which allows telephone conversations in most states to be recorded without the person on the other end being aware, Kathy called and recorded conversations with a person who calls himself "Rick" who answers the phone in not one but two of Boehner's offices - somehow. Rick in my opinion had some very interesting things to say, as you can hear...Rick admits twice, speaking on behalf of Boehner, that if Boehner brought HR36 [= the effort to start a select committee against Obama] to the floor, it would pass! Of course it would, HR36 has 126 co-sponsors (most bills have two or three co-sponsors, so Boehner is really swimming against the tide).

Here is Kathy's audio recording with the two "Rick" conversations. Listen carefully, as Rick clearly has his marching orders from Boehner on how to handle such calls and therefore in effect speaks for Boehner as directly as anyone besides Boehner himself ever could: [video presented at the website]

So what do we have here? Just an argumentative lackey? No. Rick's job is to speak on behalf of Boehner when people call. Rick says that if HR36 was brought to the floor, it would pass, and then launches into a highly debatable point-of-view about hypothetical expended resources. What Rick does not do is admit his boss Boehner is thwarting the will of the American people and that is just exactly what Boehner is doing...By denying HR36 to be brought to the floor because he feels he knows best on the merits of his own opinion when 126 of his peers [there are more than that now] representing about 30% of the total American population of 300 million citizens, he denies those people their chance to speak and be heard though their Representatives on the floor of the House.

There is a well-worn colloquial term for this which should signal the loudest possible alarm: it's literally called "tyranny", and it is real and it is manifest and it is happening and it is now. And it must be stopped immediately. I'm not being melodramatic; one man stopping all others from having their will heard and obeyed as a collective is what our Founding Fathers and earliest citizens suffered, fought and often died for.

...By any legal means necessary Boehner must be thwarted so the machinery of our American system can be allowed to resume. Don't be shy. It's time to get angry and it's time to get loud: BOEHNER HAS GOT TO GO.

I thought there was something two-faced about Boehner. I didn't know that it was a well-understood phenomenon. Maybe he's having love-ins with Obama, something is wrong here. How could he not want to have a committee for to subpoena witnesses on this matter where Obama is threatening witnesses? The page tells that there are 33 survivors from Benghazi that no one knows the names of, whom Obama has silenced one way or the other. Really, how could it be that not one of them has come out to give some sort of statement / opinion / report on the talking points of this scandal? "Obama has hidden the 33 Benghazi witnesses from prying eyes for 7 1/2 months, although new Secretary of State John Kerry now claims to know who the witnesses are..."

Frank Wolf has gone so far as to accuse Boehner of being "complicit" with the Benghazi crime if he doesn't call for the Committee. I agree. And why aren't 40 percent of House Republicans joining the call to form the Committee? Are they afraid that Democrats will accuse them of political motivation? There is no bigger political wildebeest than Democrats; Republicans are kittens by comparison. It's about time that Republicans show some tigrous teeth and chomp the Democrats to death. There wouldn't be need for a Committee if the Democrat parasites would come clean with information, but as it is, they are willing to bleed the nation to death without revealing their secret ambitions and tactics. Benghazi is only one example of how they operate. Not least of their tactics, the White House blamed the CIA for Benghazi failures, and I think Obama has never seen eye-to-eye with the CIA while favoring the FBI.

The same page, very long (like someone else I know) adds: " 2011 Roger Ailes, CEO of FOX NEWS, held a press conference and announced he was taking FOX to the left. Not theory. He said it. He did it." He claims that the Fire Ants have boycotted Fox as of April with the result of lessening viewership by about 30 percent. As exciting as that sounds, warning: as Christians, should we really get involved in arduous politics with the Tea Party? I think we should stick to the issues that matter to God. But, yes, corrupt leaders matter to God. He's been speaking against them since Israel was formed. And, yes, with Fox going left, Obama has an easier time ruining the nation. It's okay to join the move to boycott Fox to get it to go right again, but if and when it does, know that it's a phony right. And besides, "right" is not synonymous" with "God."

It came out this week that parts of the Revenue Service is targeting Conservative / Tea-Party groups, and the Revenue Service admitted guilt but merely apologized for it; no firings yet. Such things as this are lethal to Obama, but you just watch the O-lovers curl up at his feet anyway, and ask for more. "Senior officials at the Internal Revenue Service were aware that its agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011, according to an Inspector General's draft report obtained by Fox News...Lois Lerner, who runs the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, knew about the targeting of Tea Party groups since June 29, 2011."

Some World News

"Iraq Updates," the title of these updates, may seem irrelevant now, and yet the Iraqi situation has been on freeze for several years. Iraqi news is still the same now as it was in 2008, for example. Bombings continue, and the nation is still threatened by a Sunni backlash. Syria is in a condition now for being overthrown by the anti-Christ, and the Sunni about to overthrow it are poised already to overthrow Iraq. It's not the time to give up on prophecy. Prophecy even predicts that the hands of the world's masses will hang limp at all the things appearing on their horizon, meaning that the masses will acknowledge the end but have no power to do anything about it. It's the anti-Christ system that will try to make light out of the darkness with false promise.

You may have read about the recent arms deal between Iraq and Russia that was then thought to become a no-deal. It turns out that Iraq does want to cozy-up with Putin, which is a new twist in the history of the post-Bush Iraq. It's what I was waiting for as per how I see prophecy developing. "Speaking about arms Iraqi-Russian arms contracts, [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari] said that Iraq has no intention of scrapping weapons delivery contracts worth over $4 billion signed with Russia last year. 'Iraq is not going to scrap this deal. Nothing has changed there,' he said." The article points out that Iraq is a leader in the concept of Russia-Arab trade deals, exactly what the West did not want to see. The Iraqi foreign minister is essentially punching the United States in the nose in this interview. Iraq first kicked Obama out of it's country, and has since been heating things up with Putin, whom Brzezinski hates:

I ask you. Why did Iraq come to despise the Americans in their land? How could a Shi'ite government, placed there by Americans in the first place, come to despise those same Americans? Was it because the American military and diplomats under Bush acted in such ways as to be loved by Iraqis? I mean, they had years to prove what lovable fellows they were. This was the opportunity of a lifetime for the Americans to reveal that al-Qaeda and Arabs in general had been wrong in portraying Americans as globalist thugs. Did the Bush effort rise to the level of using that opportunity? No, it did not, because even the Shi'ite Iraq was too ashamed to support the Americans; the Shi'ites had to ask them to leave against their best security interests. I mean, when it gets that bad, you know the Americans didn't conduct themselves very Christian like. The Americans first showed the world brute force in ousting Saddam, but then showed Iraq that they didn't care whether Iraqis had a normal life as a result. And they showed Iraq that they had intruded into their country to remain there forever, if possible, like parasites. When Babylon kicks you out of its house, you must have a big problem with your own self. (I'm not trying to paint every soldier or officer with the same brush.)

The point is, this question: will Obama support the "Syrian" rebels when they seek to overthrow Maliki? Has Obama created an alliance with the non-Syrian rebels who are intent on doing to Maliki what they are intending to do to Assad? The Iraqi foreign minister goes on to oppose Obama by saying: "We [as with Russia] said there can be no foreign intervention [in Syria] in the near future because international and regional relations have changed..." We've changed our clothes, Obama, we no longer wear your American garb; we don't want to see you in Syria either. If we catch you with your weapons in Syria, we will snitch on you. We are to be taken seriously because we have a big arms deal with Russia. Slap, slap, slap, now get out of my face.

The foreign minister does concede that Arabs in general do not trust Russia, having a perception which he blames on unidentified ones (Westerners?) in control of Arab media. He also has a flowery portrayal to offer of Gazprom in Kurdistan's oil fields. In the meantime, Russia is warning Obama over and over again:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov speaks about the tasks facing the Foreign Ministry in 2013...

Russia is determined to oppose attempts to legalize the practice of replacement of governments in various countries by foreign intervention, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Interfax [in late December].

"We will continue to oppose attempts to legitimize change of regime operations under the [false] flag of "responsibility for protection"...

Russia's "not buying it." Russia knows that Obama cares for Syrians as much as Bush cared for Iraqis. It's a sad day when I find myself siding with Russia over America. The Western globe-trodders are insistent on bringing the world to a drastic end in the name of their globalism. Lavrov even goes on to say the "brutal" word: "This means more complicated and subtle work than brutal military interference..." The message to Obama is clear. But the message applies all the more to hawkish Republicans: stay out of my back yard. He goes on the defend Iraq subtly: "It is necessary to stop a fierce armed standoff that claims human lives, inflicts sufferings on the people and threatens to split the Syrian state apart and cause the crisis to spill over to neighboring countries [i.e. Iraq]."

He then speaks against Israel: "The threat of the use of force against Iran is looming over the negotiating process. It's very alarming...A military scenario would have the most negative consequences for regional and global security, all the more so given the current turbulence in the Middle East." Even the West agrees with those sentiments, but what Russia is saying is grievous under the skin, for it's protecting Iran. By now, one may have gotten the impression that Russia's kind words for Israel are faked, and that what Putin really wants to see is a nuclear Iran partnered with an Iran-loving Syria that boots the "Jews" out of Israel so that the West has no foothold in the Middle East. Without Israel, the West has no excuse for fighting wars in the Middle East.

And that's the rub. One would be able to paint the West like an angel seeking to protect the Israel of God from the big-bad Russian axis, if only the West cared for the God of Israel. The reality is, the West would rather see Allah glorified than the God of Israel, and to boot the West is making a monster out of al-Qaeda when in reality it's a rag-tag bunch of glory-seekers who can do no real harm to America. Did I say that, without Israel, the West couldn't legitimize wars in the Middle East? Yeah, but without al-Qaeda, the West couldn't legitimize wars in the Middle East. It's the hatred of Israel by al-Qaeda that allowed Bush to enter the Middle East with Russia having nothing to say. Until now.

It took Russia many years to come out of the closet to expose its strategy. So long as Americans remained in Iraq, Russia had to stay in the closet. It was thanks to the Democrats under Obama that Russia was able to come across with confidence. I can hear Obama's knees rattling right now.

I could spare myself. I could retire from this lousy topic, just watch sit-coms like everyone else, just go to Hell like everyone else. But this is not the time to stop watching. Remain in the Vine, and He will make us productive. Ask anything in Christ's Name in regards to fulfilling God's work, and it will be given to us. But even if we don't ask, the Serpent will be destroyed along with his sons when the full number of God's Chosen has come in. We suffer in patience for the sake of others whom have yet to receive the Seal / Spirit of God. Remain in Christ, keep your loyalty, resist joining the devil's sons, but rather expose them. It's not hard.


Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose

On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents

web site analytic