Previous Update: May 14 - 20

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)
May 21 - 27, 2013

Syria and Iraq Shaping Up To Proto-Antichrist Expectations
But No Sign of Anti-Christ in my Opinion
Wisam bin Hamid Looks Like the Benghazi Attacker
Or Was it the Senussi's?
The Machete Fake Job of London

In the Middle East, we're to be keeping watch for the rising of a neo-Seleucid empire stretching, presumably, from Syria to Baghdad. Neither Daniel 8 nor Daniel 11 explains how the end-time anti-Christ is technically linked to ancient Seleucids, and so we're left to presume that he will govern the same geography as had the Seleucids. It appears that Syria is about to fall to the Sunni whom are also seeking the fall of Iraq, but not yet.

Syria is an asset for Russia that it must keep. Russia is keeping the inevitable from taking place just yet. This past week saw an alarming development from Russia with a cause yet unknown to me. It coincides with an Israeli attack on Damascus, but goes back a few months, according to this article:

In a move considered aggressive by US and European officials, Russia has sent at least 12 warships to patrol waters near its naval base in Tartous, Syria.

The deployment appears to be a warning to Israeli and Western officials against military intervention in Syria's bloody civil war, which has now claimed the lives of over 80,000 people.

Russia's increased presence in the region -- which began raising eyebrows in the US three months ago -- represents one of its largest sustained naval deployments since the Cold War, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

...Also Thursday, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov shrugged off Israeli pleas not to sell sophisticated S-300 air defense systems to Bashar Assad's regime, saying Moscow would fulfill its contract with Damascus. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly warned Russian President Vladimir Putin, in emergency talks on Tuesday, that the sale could push the region toward war.

I don't know what happened three months ago that would spur Russia to stock ships off of Syria. Over the past few months and longer, Obama has been giving appearances of not arming the Syrian rebels, but then Russia may know something to the contrary. Or, the involvement of Israel, which could conceivable spell a quicker end of Assad, may go back a few months. In this picture, Putin is predicted to become very sore with Israel, which for prophecy watchers amounts to a priority.

In the meantime, Assad's greatest Muslim enemy comes from a "new" group emerging:

BEIRUT (Reuters) -- The most feared and effective rebel group battling President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamist Nusra Front, is being eclipsed by a more radical jihadi force whose aims go far beyond overthrowing the Syrian leader.

Al Qaeda's Iraq-based wing, which nurtured Nusra in the early stages of the rebellion against Assad, has moved in and sidelined the organization, Nusra sources and other rebels say.

...And if the West were to intervene, it may now be under pressure to attack al Qaeda opposition forces rather than Assad.

I'm not at all so sure that the West would seek to attack the greatest enemy of Assad at this time. That view would be perhaps naive. One question is, exactly to what jihadist group did the missiles from Libya go that the Obama administration sent to Syria? If the Western media were truly news organizations rather than political tools, they would be investigating AND REPORTING an answer to that question. It's not a media priority at this time only because it hurts Hillary Clinton...who was reportedly overseeing the weapons transfers. The only good story I've seen on the weapons transfers (see 2nd update this month) was from the Times UK, but liberal-American media seem not to have carried the story even though it was very news worthy. It concerns a ship of heavy weapons (including missiles) from Libya docked on the Syria front through exactly the period when ambassador Stevens was murdered in Libya.

Obama's government labeled Nusra a terrorist organization shortly after the Benghazi attack, and yet we don't know whether Obama had Libya's weapons transferred to Nusra because the media is not reporting on it (but the things that God wants his people to know will be made known one way or the other). The question is whether Obama is supporting al-Qaeda in Iraq. There are some people who think that al-Qaeda in Iraq has, from the start, been a workable tool of the Americans in disguise.

Another question is whether Putin is seeking, or will shortly seek, to befriend al-Qaeda for the purpose of sharing the post-Assad Syria with it. All that matters to Putin is that Syria remains a Russian ally, and preferably anti-West. It's hard to wrap one's head around a Syria run by al-Qaeda in alliance with Russia, but Putin is desperate enough to create the alliance should Assad become a thing of the past.

I do not maintain the idea that the leadership of al-Qaeda is wholly pro-West in disguise, but I do think that Western globalists have played al-Qaeda to their advantage. However, the al-Qaeda toy (the term doesn't do its horrific nature justice) has become surprisingly effective in Syria, a total surprise, I'm sure, to the globalists. Putin can appeal to the anti-West factor of jihadists for forming an alliance with them. The only things standing in the way of such a partnership are: 1) Russia is an enemy of Allah; 2) Russia supports Assad. However, al-Qaeda is itself desperate in that it will never come to rule a Middle-East nation such as Syria apart from an alliance with a big player. And the only big-player choice at this time is Russia.

It may even start to look like a God-send that Russia happens to be involved in Syria in direct / serious opposition to the United States. Al-Qaeda can decide to exploit that animosity by joining Russia if the latter promises to abandon Assad. One can predict that Putin will abandon Assad for such an alliance, as soon as the situation becomes clear that Assad has lost the battle.

According to O-people, Americans are supposedly working with "moderates" in Syria: "A U.S. official said on Friday: 'We continue to be concerned about the influence of extremist groups, including al Qaeda in Iraq. This is why we have been coordinating and discussing with partners the need to continue to strengthen the moderate opposition and channel any assistance through the moderate opposition, including the Supreme Military Council." This statement is wholly credible / logical under any American president...except Obama. I think Obama is anything but moderate.

I don't think he wants to see the normal continue. I think he wants to be responsible for upsetting the normal (secularism) by initiating a radical change. I think Obama needs to feign being a moderate because his own military expects him to oppose the radicals, but secretly, he's for a re-vamping of the Arab world that goes to non-secularists. I can't conceive of any motive behind his desired change except that he wants to appeal to the guns of the radicals. I do not think that Obama is a Muslim, nor do I think that his father was a Muslim. The only reason I can think of, therefore, for his support of the Muslim Brotherhood is that they have the guns, and the friends with guns, who can take Israel down.

Obama has made his plan for Israel plain, that Jerusalem should go to Arabs. While other Western liberals who want to see a Palestinian state at Jerusalem have in mind to keep Israel in-tact, the O-factor is, in my opinion, secretly seeking the eradication of Israel. With the Muslim Brotherhood in charge on Israel's southern and northern sides, Obama might think he has the board set up for Israel's complete fall. But, in the end, I don't think the fall of Israel will happen as Obama plans it. Obama probably won't be the president at that time. However, Obama may succeed in creating the game-changer for Israel. Even as we speak, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt must be actively plotting against Israel.

The article above goes on to say that the Nusra leader (Golani) supports al-Zawahri (co-founder of al-Qaeda) only religiously but not politically, which is his way of distinguishing himself from al-Qaeda in Iraq. The threat to Nusra from al-Qaeda in Iraq is as follows: "Islamic State of Iraq was formally merging with [or taking from] Nusra to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...Rebels say the rift continued to operating formally under the banner of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, while many Syrian Nusra fighters have dispersed to join other Islamist brigades." In other words, the al-Qaeda cell has bonded with the Nusra cell to form a larger / stronger reproduction having the capability of gobbling up all other cells. We are to be on the look-out for a certain "ruler of a covenant" (Daniel 11:22) that is not the anti-Christ, but which will join the anti-Christ when he becomes part of the covenant.

Why Islamic State of Iraq re-name itself, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? The Levant is the Mediterranean stretch from Syria to Israel. You can see where this movement is going, from Iraq to Syria to Israel, exactly what's expected from Biblical prophecy concerning the anti-Christ.

The Islamic State of Iraq is now ruled by one Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi whom the radical Nusra elements view as too cruel and radical to tolerate. Note that Baghdadi has moved into northern Syria, where the old Seleucid capital once sat:

Golani [not his birth name] pledged religious allegiance to Zawahri, but not political or military (allegiance)," said the Nusra source close to Golani. "It was an attempt by Golani to keep his distance from Baghdadi."

But the move did not help. Soon after, in a direct challenge to Golani, Baghdadi traveled from Iraq to a town in Syria's Aleppo province, where he was joined by Arab and foreign jihadis who had formerly fought for Golani's Nusra.

I get it, that the fight for Syria is tipping to what I consider to be the "ruler of a covenant." In Daniel 11:21, the anti-Christ is said to be rejected by the neo-Seleucid kingdom when he comes to rule the neo-Seleucid kingdom. I have interpreted the neo-Seleucid kingdom as Iraq, but in this picture, one may view it is Iraq and Syria combined. The article is definitely portraying Baghdadi as a rejected one: "The source, and other Syrian Nusra fighters who spoke to Reuters, said they feared Baghdadi's supporters would alienate Syrians in the same way that their hardline agenda turned Iraqis against them..." I'm not saying that Baghdadi is the anti-Christ, but am suggesting that the anti-Christ will join the al-Qaeda movement and therefore be rejected by the "moderate" Arabs.

There is going to be a missile-loving False Prophet in all this, who will support the anti-Christ merger with al-Qaeda. If I've been correct (I'm open to being wrong) to identify the False Prophet as an American (probably the president), then the current usefulness of al-Qaeda in Obama's hands seems important to that end. Perhaps the one who sits on the American throne after Obama will be the False Prophet. Perhaps I have been misinterpreting things and Obama will yet prove to be the False Prophet. Just this past week, Obama has argued in favor of retaining his drone program...that causes fire to come down from the sky in the Middle East. Obama likes to bomb things, in other words.

In my view to this point, al-Qaeda is one of the two powers that's broken to the unidentified army of Daniel 11:22. For the time being, I'm still interpreting their being broken by the Bush invasion. Verses 23 and 24 suggested to me that the anti-Christ would raise al-Qaeda again to new life, and together they would topple be followed by Syria (Isaiah 10) and then Egypt (= "king of the south"). Zawahri is an Egyptian native who, we may assume, would like to rule Egypt, and he might just be the lead factor that topples an Egyptian ruler with the help of Brotherhood agents now firmly in control of the Egyptian government. For now, Zawahri is said to be involved in the Syria effort:

Nusra sources said they were waiting for Zawahri to settle the Golani-versus-Baghdadi] issue, hoping he would call on Baghdadi to return [leave, go back to] to Iraq.

"We have two choices now. Either Zawahri announces the separation of Syria's Nusra from Iraq's Islamic State, or he orders Baghdadi to stay (in Syria) and if this happen then its a disaster," said one Nusra source. "Baghdadi has harmed the Nusra Front. He caused great damage and broke up the front."

But the Syrian rebel commander, who is from a Western-backed rebel group, said that Baghdadi already had Zawahri's blessing when he moved in.

In the past, I took the position that the Saddam loyalists are one of the two broken parties in Daniel 11:23-24 who arise in Iraq under the anti-Christ. But this was under the scenario that the army of Daniel 11:22 was the Bush Americans. If verse 22 has yet to be fulfilled, then of course I would need to change my view as to what the two broken parties represent.

Usually, the Sunni bomb the Shi'ites without reprisal, but recently the Shi'ites bombed back, a sign that civil war is looming. Then YS sent the following comprehensive Iraq update from the Brits:

...Iraqi leaders fear that the country is sliding rapidly into a new civil war which "will be worse than Syria"..."It is wrong to say we are getting close to a civil war," said a senior Iraqi politician. "The civil war has already started."

...The revolts in the two countries are ever more running in parallel. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq last month announced that it had founded the al-Nusra Front, the most effective Syrian rebel military force, devoted half its budget to support it and sent experienced al-Qa'ida fighters to Syria as reinforcements.

Without Americans to calm the Iraqi storms, expect some thunder shortly. The article goes on to make a point with much written between the lines: "The US alleges that Iranian aircraft with arms for Assad's forces regularly [i.e. with Maliki's consent / blessing] fly across British diplomat reflected later that the failure to veto Mr Maliki's reappointment was the worst mistake made by the US and Britain." Therefore, who can we expect Obama to side with if the civil war should break out in Iraq? Not the Shi'ites to which both Maliki and Iran belong, but rather the Sunni, the ones to whom the Libyan weapons had passed, the same who will one day, by all appearances, invade Israel's Golan area across the Syria-Israeli border.

We as Christians (by no means a fringe group in God's sight) can guarantee the globalists this one thing, that if they stay out of global politics, God, who has the power to form and maintain the outcroppings from his own decisions and actions, will look after things as he sees fit. Globalists can then stay home and relax, and cease to be ever-toiling globalists. But when playing God, after toppling leaders and replacing them, globalists will secure less than full control of the results, and, as expected, are bound to receive backlashes on top of failing in their missions. Bluntly, if they insist on playing God, they're going to get burnt.

A new line of thought came to me while writing earlier in this update. Assuming that I was wrong to peg the Bush invasion of Iraq as the overflowing army of Daniel 11:22, the invasion must yet be in the future, and the breaking of the two broken entities of verse 23 must likewise be future events. In this picture, one could conjecture that the current government of Maliki, or his successor, will be run down by a vast army, and that one of his allies will be broken too. It predicts two Shi'ite groups being broken, who are then lifted up and saved/revived by the anti-Christ.

It just so happens that Iran is a Shi'ite-ruled nation at this time so that this picture can turn out to be the Gog alliance of Ezekiel 38, where Gog, Iran, and several other people-groups converge on Israel.

I don't mind being wrong if in the end I can get it right. Anti-Christ prophecy was by Design made difficult to interpret so that the liberal, modernist world would not see it coming. What I would regret is leading believers to think that the Time has arrived too early, but I would also regret overlooking the prophetic events entirely. A third regret would be reaching my old age and death without the prophetic events coming to pass, a thing experienced by countless Christians over a period of more than 1900 years. Throughout these centuries, the Middle-Eastern situation has not been conducive to prophetic fulfillment, but most everyone agrees that the modern situation has become very much like the prophetic expectation. Yet, the situation can remain the same and linger for more years than we might like to see.

I regret to say, I don't know when it will take place. I have been asking myself whether I should plan on living out my life in a usual way, and yet there is a gnawing within me warning that the Obama era is very much a part of the very end. I am therefore "enslaved" to watching the news, a depressing thing. I loath checking Iraqi news only to find more bombings, a violent the one just before the Flood. Covering Obama is as much fun as drinking muriatic acid; the way his people operate gives me a burning sensation in my throat.

Late in the week, this anti-Israeli message from Britain:

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to defy the US and expand Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories on the West Bank, according to official sources in Tel Aviv.

The Israeli leader has no intention of opening the door to negotiations with the Palestinians...

The article is a re-hash of the circumstances going back to Obama's early days. We have yet to see how this situation will be curbed by the West, whether by an iron fist in some way. Netanyahu is acting while Obama is down, and, besides, Obama now needs Israel in Syria. But if there should be an attack on Israel in the coming months, Obama could stay out of it, leaving Israel to its own devices.

Al-Qaeda is touching on Israel's border. Missiles were just launched this past week against Hezbollah in Beirut (Hezbollah sides with Assad), because Hezbollah has entered the war. Hezbollah needs Assad to survive in order to receive Iran's weaponry. A Sunni Syria spells trouble for Shi'ite Hezbollah. Palestinians within Israel / Gaza are reportedly fighting on-side with the Syrian rebels. The Great Tribulation of Israel could be very near, within ten years, out of this situation. Or it could be another 100 years.

The British Con-Action

Last week's AP scandal caused me to see the terrorist plot beneath it to be yet another inside job akin to the one by the "underwear bomber." Since last week, I've learned that al-Qaeda in Yemen supposedly gave the bomb to a British double agent posing as a would-be bomber, and yet there are other ways to interpret this story. Let me first start by quoting this: WND reported that the Obama administration said it pursued [AP's] records because a double agent in the war on terror was compromised by a story. However, the news agency's reporting on the issue didn't mention the agent." Perhaps I stand to be corrected, but it seems, from that statement, that it was Obama who revealed the idea of a double agent, not AP. What's with that?

Let me repeat the above in different words in case it went to the wayside of your misunderstanding. AP did a story on the bomb plot, and Obama was more than merely disgruntled with it, wherefore his people snooped on AP in efforts to reck vengeance upon, and/or to minimize further threats from, AP. Obama was embarrassed last week by the AP scandal wherein his government was caught snooping on AP. So, Obama had to give a good reason for the snooping, and has apparently come out to say that AP somewhat revealed a double agent, increasing the danger to his life. But this charge is wrong if AP didn't reveal the double agent, and in fact it appears that Obama's people revealed this double agent (see below).

Why would Obama expose the idea that a double agent was involved? It seems inexplicable, and is certainly out of the ordinary for an administration to reveal such a thing publicly. Can we ask whether Obama's people are lying about the man being a double agent? Did Obama mention a double agent because he wants us to believe it wrongly? Was he afraid that AP might tell the real story...which does not include a double agent? Might the real story be that a pro-Western Arab was meant to pose as a would-be bomber, but that this plot had to be abandoned thanks to AP's involvement? Was Obama worried that the leaker had told AP the real story? Did Obama have in mind to turn the would-be bomber into a typical double agent in an effort to hide the fact that this was meant to be a faked bomb threat? Let's go on with the story to see that it was Obama's advisor (at the time) who caused the double-agent idea to enter media reports, not failing to note that Brennan became Obama's pet:

It was now-CIA Director John Brennan, who then was President Obama's terror adviser, who told members of Congress that the U.S. had "inside control" of [i.e. a double agent planted in] the situation. Media [which media? apparently not AP] then reported on the use of a double agent.

That's according to a profile of the government's justification for pursuing the reporters' telephone records published in the Los Angeles Times [ahh, that media], which was one of the publications that reported on the double agent after Brennan documented the situation to Congress.

Government officials told the newspaper [shudder, you mean they leaked it?] that it was an AP story May 7, 2012, about a foiled plot to blow up a passenger jet that prompted the controversy...

But the report said the story did not mention the informant.

Ultimately, the fallout from the revelation that a double-agent existed infuriated British officials, whose intelligence agency had developed the source. Saudi Arabian intelligence officials said they were "dismayed."

Times writer Kevin Dilanian said the sequence developed like this: The informant was a British citizen who was born in Saudi Arabia and was recruited by Britain to work as a double agent inside al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. His information led to a drone strike by the U.S. that killed al-Qaida's Fahd Mohammed Ahmed Quso on May 6, 2012. The informant also expressed a desire to blow up a U.S. passenger jet and was outfitted with a bomb [the O's would have us believe that al-Qaeda gave him the bomb]. The informant left Yemen and delivered the bomb to authorities and intelligence officials hoped to send him back to Yemen. But al-Qaida covered its tracks when the information about a double agent surfaced [the last two sentences could be complete fabrications from the insiders].

The Times report, which did not identify the U.S. officials who were sources, said the Justice Department then went after the telephone records of more than 20 lines belonging to AP reporters to investigate the "leak" of details.

Am I missing something here? Am I not understanding this properly? As the LA Times received a leak from officials, and as it was the officials who wanted the double-agent fact publicized, why did Obama deem that it was AP and its source, rather than The Times and its sources, that was the guilty party worthy of unholy spy supervision? In fact, why did Obama's people make the leak to the LA Times at all, unless they were wanting to leak their (faked) bomb plot? It appears that they wanted to get the story out their way, not AP's way.

So, what we have, in my opinion, is a British agent with a birth in the Arab world faking a bomb plot, and then we had a London terrorist attack this past week involving a radical-Muslim cleric from Britain. It was just after writing above that the following story came out (on May 22). How coincidental that this too was caught on video. Was everyone involved acting? Or, were the jihadists paid off by Western insiders to fulfill this brutal act?

Two men wielding a machete and a cleaver hacked a man believed to be a soldier to death on a busy London street Wednesday while yelling "Allahu Akbar," in an attack that was caught on video and left the nation shocked and horrified.

...the attackers waited at the scene until police arrived and shot both. One attacker, his hands soaked in blood and still holding a machete, delivered an angry jihadist screed as stunned passersby watched, the dead man lying on the street, in the southeast London neighborhood of Woolwich.

I don't have evidence that the London incidence was fabricated, but it needs to be considered under the circumstances of the Boston marathon. Someone in Britain should keep tabs on the details of this story, checking for inconsistencies and storyline problems. Look at the photo below. Have you ever seen anything like it? The murderer is supposedly standing around after the murder, instead of running for his life, and he's lecturing the world through a cell-phone video camera while people are looking on some 50 or 60 feet away. It doesn't look like reality to me.

"The two men are thought to have waited around for 20 minutes until Metropolitan Police officers arrived and then tried to attack them - but were swiftly shot by armed policemen, including a woman." You're kidding me. "'After running over and attempting to behead and disembowel the soldier with a machete, the two men responsible for the attack paraded up and down the street making political statements, "as if they wanted to be on TV or something," before they were shot by police." You can't expect me to believe this. They must have been shot with blank bullets, and paid off.

Some strange man, i.e. supposedly unrelated to the killers, happened to be on the scene with a camera, and he with the killers collaborated in doing the video. This is not sitting right with me. A woman even had a casual, face-to-face conversation with the killer after he was done with his deeds.

"Sir, uh, sir, what are you doing?"

"I'm just slashing up a soldier today, what's going on with you?"

"Well, you aren't going to believe this. I was just on my way to buy kitchen knives. Are those you got there for sale?"

"Uh, mm, no ma'am, wish I could oblige, but the police are gonna wanna have these. Yes ma'am, and I'm waiting for them to come shoot me."

"Why don't you run before it's too late?

"Uh, that idea did cross my mind, but, uh...

"Oh wait. Let me guess. You want to be a martyr."

"That was an option, but I've decided I'm gonna shoot the police up with this here gun, if you understand."

Oh yeah-yeah, sure, where was my head? You know, you look highly experienced at what you do because you don't have any blood on your clothes. Only an expert can do what you do and get blood only on his hands and knives.

"It is pretty good, isn't it, especially as this is my first time. No need for you to be afraid because I'm a lady's man? I might have about five minutes if you want to hear about it?"

"Well that's so funny. I'm so glad I came this way today. It's been very nice talking to you, sir. Thank you for making me famous today. I think I'll go talk to your friend to see if he'll give up his knives. I'm very sure that he's as gentlemanly as you. Good day."

"You be sure to come visit if the police don't hit vital organs. Thanks for stopping by."

Apparently, London did not want to chase these men, seeking them with SWAT-like teams from house-to-house, so they wrote the script for having them shot at the scene. Perhaps they did not want to repeat the house-to-house searches that were done in Boston and in New Orleans, for that would tend to give ammunition to the conspiracy believers.

Perhaps this was from British friends of Obama trying to take media attention from him. If New Orleans didn't work, perhaps a broad-daylight beheading in the streets of London would. I don't believe that this attack was anything but a paid event by insiders. Feel free to differ, but that's where I stand at face value.

Shortly after the attack, a radical Muslim cleric was publicized in the media, and he supposedly knew one of the killers (Michael Adebolajo) as one of his own students. But this report (and the cleric himself) can be taken as part of the insider plot. In other words, if I want to maintain that this was a faked event, one choice is to maintain further that the cleric is himself an insider. Recall that the uncle of one of the Chechen brothers came out immediately to condemn his own nephew as a terrorist. It turned out that this uncle was a CIA operative...though the media totally ignored the ramifications of this situation.

Here is a small clip on the Muslim cleric:

In an interview in Tripoli, northern Lebanon, where he has lived since being banished from Britain in 2005, Omar Bakri, founder of banned British Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, said he knew suspect Michael Adebolajo from his lectures a decade ago.

It would be very easy for the British to use this cleric as a spy in Lebanon, and in the meantime he comes in handy to advance this faked London plot. putting out this unauthentic event, the British have just revealed to the jihadists that Bakri is in Lebanon spying on jihadists there. Bakri is therefore now in danger for his life. Although he is supposed to be barred for leaving Lebanon for 30 years, expect him to leave immediately if the jihadists discover him.

One machete killer of London is a British-born Muslim convert, we are being told, who supposedly heralds more of the same to come from an organized group. In another report coming out immediately after the event: "Radical preacher Anjem Choudhary knew one of killers and has warned of more 'lone wolf' attacks in the future"..."Sources: 'Adebolajo was arrested on his way to join Al Shabaab in Somalia'" When should I start laughing? This is a pitiful attempt by British authorities to keep the al-Qaeda tool working in the West. Expect the goal here to convince Westerners that further money and blood is needed for war in the Arab world. This may be one way to "justify" going into Syria. The two men at the London scene were taken alive, and as such, they can feign answering questions, and thus we can have all the juicy details on what they were supposedly standing up for.

Anjem a British former solicitor, and, before it was proscribed, spokesman for the Islamist group Islam4UK. He is married, has four children, and lives in Luton...He later met Omar Bakri Muhammad, and the two helped form the Islamist organisation, al-Muhajiroun.

One wonders how this man could be living in Britain to this day rather than at Guantanamo. Here he is, now warning without fear of more murders like the one that was just staged, and yet he's permitted to live in England?

Late in the week, days after the machete killer (Michael Adebolajo) did his fake job, it came out that he was recruited by Britain:

Counterterrorism police on Saturday questioned a friend of Michael Adebolajo...

The friend, Abu Nusaybah, was arrested immediately after he gave a BBC Television interview describing how Adebolajo may have become radicalized and alleging that Britain's security services tried to recruit him. Police said Nusaybah was wanted on suspicion of involvement in unspecified acts of terrorism.

...Nusaybah claimed that Britain's domestic spy agency, MI5, approached Adebolajo to recruit him upon his return to Britain about six months ago.

...The BBC said police arrested Nusaybah outside its studios Friday night immediately after recording the interview.

I get it. The truth comes out on BBC, that Britain wanted to pay Adebolajo to be a mole, and then the police arrest Nusaybah immediately on some trumped charge to keep him from telling the truth any longer. What message does it send others? If you talk, you're going to jail and maybe never getting out, maybe getting shot to death during an investigation. It's too late for these crumbs; they've already fallen off the table, and will be trampled. Babylon the harlot will be raped and burned to death and left as chaff in the wind. So says the Spy in the Sky.

How could they arrest a man on the spot like that but not arrest him earlier? If they had the evidence for arrest on Friday night, they must have had the evidence previously. The reality must be that they did not have such evidence because they fabricated it on the spot, and they can now work to provide "evidence" for their charges against him. The article says that the official charges against Nusaybah were "the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism." This is a malicious government plot that kills / jails / worse innocent citizens. The media should be screaming.

The article ends with: "The directors of Britain's foreign spy agency, MI6, and Britain's eavesdropping agency, GCHQ, also are expected to give reports on what intelligence they had on the two men." This event will propel the capabilities of Britain's eaves-dropping program. If the British are happy about this situation, don't complain about it, just get happier until officers of the law start to greet you on your private telephone calls.

"Hello there Myra Hoodwink. Just listening in to make certain that your neighborhood is free of any funny business, you know."

"Oh, thank you officer. I'm so glad we're taken care of. Please disregard what I said there to Elizabeth about my wanting to kill my husband for not taking out the trash three weeks in a row. It was just, you know, that kind of talk."

"Oh, yes, I get that sort of thing from my wife too, not to worry. You have a jolly good day now. I'll check in next week if you don't mind."

"Oh no-no, I don't mind. Just try not to make it on Wednesday, trash day, you know. And don't mention to hubby how much I talk to the ladies about him; he'd probably think it was gossip or something."

"The police department knows all about it, Myra, and we wouldn't of course break trust with our policies. You're in good hands. We have a full record of what's been heard from your husband, and so far we haven't caught him talking with another woman. We'll let you know if the situation changes."

"I am so happy feeling so secure. Thank you so much for your constant surveillance."

The British prime minister was out of the country when the attack took place, and begging his hosts' forgiveness, he took off straight for England. Then, days later, on Sunday:

The PM and his family caught a mid-morning flight [for a vacation] to the Spanish isle after he told friends he was taking a break for "a few days" over the Bank Holiday.

...MPs are appalled that he has jetted off amid spiralling tensions following the murder of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, South East London, on Wednesday and the arrest of two suspected Islamic extremists.

There were more arrests yesterday...[but the British people are wondering why Anjem Choudary is still free??????]

... And in Paris a French soldier was stabbed in the throat in what was feared to be a copycat of the savage attack on Lee. Police described the Paris attacker as being "bearded, of North African origin..."

It's not supposed to make sense, and it is funny because it is all a big joke. It's becoming feasible that certain Rothschild / Rhodian elements in Britain, France and America wish to incite their Arab citizens to carry out real acts of violence so that government can clamp down with ropes around society's body. Ultimately, a secondary purpose could be to curb freedom of thought on the Internet when it comes to making anti-government statements.

There has been talk from the Rockefellers for about three years that something needs to be done about freedom of expression on the Internet, especially as it comes to people like me who have decided to speak out against Rockefeller globalism. Fortunately, the Iraq updates do not have a large readership, and I don't expect to be targeted at this time, but there is a Precaution in place anyway, Jesus. The Rockefellers and their ilk had better fear Him, for He's not just a Shield but a Consuming Fire.

In reality, one expects the radical Muslim clerics living inside Britain to hush up and be on their best behavior after a fellow Muslim makes a brutal killing. But no, here's a story on the outspoken cleric, outlining some of his fearless statements of late:

Top Tory Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, led the calls after Choudary boasted to The Sun at least one of the cleaver-wielding brutes who practically beheaded the soldier was his disciple.

Cops have previously claimed they are powerless to arrest the gloating firebrand. But ex-Foreign Secretary Mr Rifkind insisted: "People who incite others to break the law or act in a violent way can be charged with a criminal offence."

He said it was high time Choudary was "dealt with" -- especially since The Sun months ago exposed the fanatic' monstrous views. We even handed police our damning dossier.

...While he remains free, at least seven people have been swooped on at their homes for comments on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites.

...Choudary meanwhile was left to merrily continue ranting on Twitter yesterday.

It's clear that this man has been permitted to make death threats against the British prime minister, and get away with it. It's clear that he's now being allowed to incite Muslims to act violently: "HATE cleric Anjem Choudary's henchmen yesterday threatened to BEHEAD a Sun photographer -- as they smashed up her car. They surrounded her outside the preacher's East London bolt-hole and hammered the vehicle's bonnet and windscreen with their fists. One of the three thugs screamed: "Get out the car, I'm going to cut your head off." This is not reality. This is the British prime minister and his ilk toying with the population as part of a long-range program to usher in the "wonderful" new world order.

Although I oppose this change for the worse, I have an alternative view that the people of this Western world deserve to be exploited harshly by their superiors, the ones they looked to, instead of God, for their security, prosperity, and tranquility. Although Westerners may view threats from Allah with no seriousness, threats from the God of Israel still stand. Biblical prophecy foretells the quaking and shaking of the cities because the people of the world have transgressed laws.

Already, it's become possible to arrest anti-Muslim "right wingers" for tweeting things, yet the cleric goes untouched, which can be explained in that he's a British operative in disguise. Others say that he's being left alone because authorities don't want a Muslim backlash where the British look heavy-handed toward Muslim citizens. I say the first option is the more credible:

The UK is preparing for weekend clashes with right-wing extremists and copycat terror attacks after the killing of British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich.

...Ahead of the protests, Northumbria Police have arrested three men, two from Gateshead and one from Stockton, on suspicion of posting racist tweets.

...A hotline for recording Islamophobic crimes said 150 incidents have been reported over the past two days.

... "We can see the tempo being raised," said Maajid Nawaz, a former jihadist [another mole?] who is now with the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation.

"One of the reasons why these [machete killers] acted in this theatrical way was because of the propaganda effect so others would be inspired to do the same thing. The nature of these attacks are that they are so easy to do, and we have definitely seen an increase in chatter calling for such things since the attack," he said.

I say that Britain wants these attacks to take place. I say Nawaz knows the program and is knowingly shifting the blame wrongly to Muslim citizens. Nawaz even seems to be urging Muslims to do these "easy" things. It will lead to the arrest of right wingers that police have wanted to arrest but have not had the ability to do otherwise. If Muslims attack, or even if they don't attack, right wingers can be framed. The article above is clearly opposed to right wingers while supporting Muslim citizens. Hold your breath, American right wingers, Tea Party-ers, pro-lifers, and those who take your Bible seriously.

Why would Britain receive the machete killer in from Somalia under the following circumstances:

The Sunday Telegraph can disclose that Michael Adebolajo was held by police close to the Somali border with a band of "radicalised" Muslim youths who wanted to join the notorious al-Shabaab group [don't assume hastily that Adebolajo was a true Muslim convert here, but leave room for his being a mole].

He was deported to Britain [!!!] after he appeared in court in Mombasa in November 2010.

Two months previously the head of MI5 [= Britain's "CIA"] had warned that Britons were training in Somalia and it was "only a matter of time before we see terrorism on our streets inspired by those who are today fighting alongside al-Shabaab".

One can take the statement above as M15 building up its fake plot that resulted in what we have just seen this past week.

Let's assume that Adebolajo was a British-operated mole in Somalia, but that the authorities in Mombasa (Kenya) didn't know it. That makes sense. What would he be expected to do while in court, or while in jail being held for court? He would be expected to contact the British. And so it was:

Adebolajo is understood to have said in court that he wanted access to legal services and to talk to the British Ambassador to Kenya. He also complained that the police said he was a Christian, when he was a converted Muslim

(article above).

You might say that he wanted to talk to the British ambassador because he was a British citizen, but the British at this time were supposed to be his chief enemy. Moreover, why would the British take him back and then allow him freedom on the streets if indeed he was a true terrorists operative? he could have been arrested at that time because, "Under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is an offence to travel or intend to travel overseas to commit acts of terrorism or take part in terrorist training."

The article goes on to say that Google refuses to take down threatening pro-terrorist language from the Internet. In no way, necessarily, should this refusal be taken as a sign from Google that it won't take down / inhibit others who speak against other issues. If the Illuminati goal is to use terrorism inside Western countries as a prop to affect it's agenda and/or to change our world, then, especially as Google now appears to be firmly in bed with the Obama / Rockefeller circle, it should want to permit pro-terrorism blogs and articles.

At one conspiracy-talk webpage where there are potential government-paid people spouting off in their usual way to deride and ridicule conspiracy believers, one laments: "This conspiracy is really picking up speed now, I can't click on a single video on youtube about the Woolwich attack without seeing the comment section filled with people calling the whole thing 'staged' and 'fake'." The people who ridicule, often by calling people names harshly (they seem to be the true goons), don't want you to know that some see this as a staged event based on the merits of the story itself. Instead, the anti-conspiracy bloggers would have you believe that those who see staged events are warped that way due to purely having an anti-government agenda. In some cases it's true, but even those who are not anti-government while seeing some monkey business are portrayed as lunatics. In my opinion, the ones using harsh ridicule are suspect as government insiders paid to cram conspiracy-theory websites with low-opinion comments to reduce any traction from those who suspect staged events.

Government-paid (or volunteer) bloggers would be an absolutely-necessary part of the staged events. They always sound the same because they are trained in how to conduct their smear campaigns. They come to blogging sites as gangs rather than acting alone, and they may have more than one username, because it's necessary that they themselves don't give the appearance of being in the minority. It's sometimes well wroth reading the opinions of bloggers who see monkey business, but do realize that completely-stupid ideas from them are possibly feigned from the anti-conspiracy people wanting you to think that the conspiracy believers are dumb lunatics.

The webpage below is one example where some air their concerns. For example:

Currently there are two versions of the black gent with the knifes giving his rather eloquent speech doing the rounds, the first I saw was what appears to be the original shows him without blood stained hands, the second with what appears to be a woeful attempt at blood covering his hands and weapons. There is some suggestion that the quality of the footage and colour depth could account for the discrepancy in both videos. Personally I'm not convinced.

The obvious lack of blood upon the guys clothing including his white soled shoes. There are no bloodied footprints to be found anywhere upon the crime scene. Also there are anomalies regarding the blood surrounding the crashed car and it's lack of appearance in later pictures (both sets of pictures are post mortem). If this was indeed a frenzied, maniacal attack would we not see at least some arterial spray/blood upon the assailant? The three women surrounding the headless corpse, walking around casually. Shock? It's a possibility, but all three women in such close proximity to such a ghastly scene and no reactions of grief, shock, distress? Is it a fair assumption that you would want to distance yourself from the victim?

The apparent lack of concern from the surrounding public watching these men hacking this guy up? Not one person attempted to fight them off...There is at this point no footage showing the act being committed...

Who was man who stood still and filmed the six foot black guy walking towards him with bloodied hands and cleaver in hand? Would you be stood there at that precise moment in time capturing his words for posterity?

...Waiting for the armed response to turn up and hanging around the crime scene for twenty minutes? Is that consistent with a jihadist?

It's a worthy set of comments that I share simply because he and I know what reality looks like, while this event, as fed to us, does not look like reality. I made all my comments above before coming to this blog that shares my views perfectly. But if the comments above are ridiculed harshly, you've got to suspect that it's the critics who are the goons seeking to distort your understanding of reality.

The blogger (username = Castor) goes on to make a good point, that while so much was being video'd, the shot that the killer supposedly fired off toward the police is conspicuously missing: "What hasn't made it's way into the public arena yet is the attempted shot one of the guys tried to get off at the police. I saw on Twitter yesterday a guy stating that they had an old rusty .45 on them and it backfired on him. This is a tried and tested method of the patsy set up, arming them with fake or dysfunctional equipment." That was my opinion of the underwear-bomber plot, that the insiders (undercover government men disguised as terrorists) gave a suicide bomber a bomb not intended to go off, but rather intended to burn his legs.

The argument that blood appears and disappears from the hands of the machete killer is at the video here:

The webpage below shows that a white tent (on wheels?) was used at the scene, and moved around to at least two different locations, but shown in one position directly over the decapitated man, meaning that, if the decapitated man was an actor, they apparently tried to hide it. I don't necessarily agree with the various opinions at this webpage, but do have similar ideas:

The page above shows the decapitated man in the photo below, lying on the road looking with his back, shoulders and back of the arms to the camera so that his head could be tucked away from view. His coat is conveniently pulled over his head. There is no head visible, either on the body, nor separate from it. The car that you see belongs to killer. It's shown parked on the sidewalk because he allegedly ran the man over while walking on the sidewalk, before beheading him. I don't know how the people who faked this scene could be brazen enough to leave out the expected blood from the sidewalk to the street, in the path where he was supposedly dragged, but there you have it. It means that the bulk of society will take this event as real just because government officials act as though it's real, and because most of society still trusts that the police at the scene are honest people.

No problem, because blood can be added into the scene at any time. Below is the same scene with car on the sidewalk, but in an overhead view. On the opposite side of the car from the street sign, one can see what could be taken as two blood stains on the sidewalk. (The set of road signs in this shot looks twice as wide as it is tall, where the same sign on the street view looks taller than it is wide.)

However, at the image below, likewise an aerial view, the stains are very light and non-red. There is clearly insufficient blood compared to what's expected if the man was chopped repeatedly, with neck virtually sliced off. I apologize, but please understand that this looks like a faked decapitation...which is why they brought in the tent, before the wrong eyes from the sky came in to take pictures.

I don't know how they fake events like this while naming victims, but it should be interesting to find out. The good news is, it would appear that no murder took place after all. The other good news is that wicked government has just assured its own murder because there is a God With Sickle in hand to take care of it. Groups cannot fake these events without the government, and especially the elected leader, knowing about it and agreeing to it. Just as I suspected, some of the policemen in the released images are faked. For example:

In Woolwich:
"I asked the on-site police officer in our school: 'I bet your briefing this morning at the station was an intense one.'

"Officer: I was expecting exactly that, but it was just too odd. I asked why there's no briefing, believing we'd be told which streets to be in and what to look out for, but no. Nothing. It was as if it hadn't happened. 'In fact, the skipper said 'it didn't happen.' He told me he didn't recognise any of the officers on his own patch at the scene either nor any of the members of the public, despite always seeing the same people."

It sounds as though some police chiefs know about and lament staged events, but that they should not discuss or expose them. Clearly, good police people are not going to be fooled by these amateur "reality shows," but as they can clearly understand that the highest levels of government are behind them, there is not much the police people can do, especially as their phones are tapped. So, the mere capability for tapping phone lines allows faked events to take place much more safely than if wire-tapping were not possible.

The webpage below shows a map of the area and adds:

It took police 20 minutes to arrive to the scene and oddly enough the attackers are still there and they shoot the attackers...Plumstead Police is just 1 mile away and Lewisham Police is just less than 3 miles away?? Very strange!

With sirens blaring, a police car could do the one mile, in traffic, in 2 minutes easily.

Just after the machete event: "British authorities have charged two men [both from Lancashire, England] with endangering an aircraft after a plane carrying more than 300 people from Pakistan to Britain was diverted mid-flight." It may have been a botched fake-terrorist attempt because we are being told it may not have been terror-related. The timing, and the low number of such events recently, can suggest that it was initially intended as a government-staged event to give the impression that, suddenly, terrorists are flooding in through the cracks in the walls.

Benghazi Update

The following concerns other whistleblowers that the Republican House has promised to bring out in due time:

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

...According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas -- what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens' mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming "insurgents" with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted "to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap."

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the "insurgents" actually were al-Qaeda -- indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

...He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus' affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

...PJ Media recognizes this is largely hearsay, but the two diplomats sounded quite credible. One of them was in a position of responsibility in a dangerous area of Iraq in 2004.

We'll need to wait and see whether this picture is the correct one. Simply put, Stevens discovered that Obama was transferring weapons, not to Arab moderates, but to jihadists. He thereby got to know too much. The account also has Hillary and Obama selling missiles to al-Qaeda but with Petraeus at the CIA opposed. That makes sense.

The worst of it for Obama and Hillary, if correct, is the whistleblower claim that "military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops "assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours)." If the whistleblowers could prove something like this, it should be the end of Hillary...except that liberals might vote for her anyway just to keep the government from going to pro-life, Bible-friendly, traditional-family-minded Republicans (liberals don't like normal people, but are trying to change the normal).

The report above suggests that Stevens was aware of, and in agreement with, weapons transfers to "insurgents," but was under the impression that they were not al-Qaeda. Either way, the Libyans would have frowned on these sales, and, discovering it, would be expected to punish Stevens. At the least, they would have become indifferent to whether Stevens lived or died. The fact that the Libyans did not come to Stevens support could suggest that Libyans were behind the attack. Moreover, as was pointed out in the last update, the Libyans were pointing the finger, not at jihadists, but at Qaddafi loyalists. Why didn't the Libyans, if they wanted to frame a group, point the finger to al-Qaeda or similar groups? Was it because the attackers didn't look like jihadists, but because Benghazi locals knew them to be Libyans instead?

Let's not neglect that the new Libya includes a high percentage of jihadists so that the latter can likewise be included under the banner of "Libyans," as opposed to jihadists groups that are rejected by the new Libya. The following, from a new article (May 21) on Benghazi, could likewise suggest that Libyans attacked Stevens:

A U.S. official familiar with the Libyan security situation explained that the agency did not have many good options for working with a militia in Benghazi.

“The host country is responsible for perimeter security, but no one can provide guarantees,” this official said. “Typically with unstable and dangerous places the security elements are unreliable. No matter how many relationships are developed and precautions taken, you can't make an insecure environment completely safe. That night some Libyan militia members bravely and immediately answered the call for help, some didn't, and others took time to coordinate their eventual support to the evacuation.”

The bottom line, regardless of how one tries to explain it, is that the Libyans were missing in action. Carl Rove has a few things to spew out on Benghazi:

..."The president ordered them to deploy whatever forces were necessary. They later testified that was the last contact they had with the president that night -- and we now know that no forces were deployed.

"The president didn't say: 'I'm going to pick up the phone and call the president of Libya and say: Our facility's under attack. You have an international responsibility to protect our people. What are you doing?' He talks to him for the first time ever the next morning to say thank you for returning the body of our dead ambassador.

"This is unacceptable," Rove continues. "Where was the president? What was he doing?...

I realize that the date, September 11, 2012, suggests that al-Qaeda attacked Stevens, but if it turns out to have been the Libyans, one could conjecture that there is more to the choice of date than readily meets the eye. That is, it would look as though the Americans were behind a plan, to which the Libyans involved agreed, to attack the consulate on such a date, and in such ways, as to frame the parts of al-Qaeda that the new Libya frowned on.

The Turks then flew their diplomat to Benghazi on that very day to assure that Stevens was indeed killed. The motive would predictably be that Turkey did not want to be exposed in transferring weapons to al-Qaeda in Syria. Thus, Turkey and Obama worked together to conceal this secret.

The article above goes on to say that the CIA man (unidentified) in Libya on the night of the attack was secretly honored three months ago:

At a secret February ceremony at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., the chief of the CIAs base in Benghazi the night of the 9/11 anniversary attacks there was awarded one of the agency's highest intelligence medals, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.

...The honor given behind closed doors to "Bob," the officer who was in charge of the Benghazi intelligence annex...

Why would the CIA celebrate that man? Was it because he had acted the good stooge who needed to be honored in order to keep him a good stooge? Bob "also gave the initial order on the evening of the attacks to the CIA contractors to gather more information about the attack before rushing off to the diplomatic mission." Doesn't that act alone make him an Obama stooge? Stevens is being attacked by armed men, and Bob says, "don't rush, let's first find out how big their bullets are. They might be scary or something."

"The State Department's own Accountability Review Board (ARB) found there was a 23-minute gap between the initial distress call from the diplomatic mission at 9:42 local Benghazi time to the time when the CIA contractors departed the annex at 10:05 pm. The initial delay, according to two intelligence officials, could have made a difference the night of the rescue." Yet, Bob was honored rather than left to his disgrace.

We heard reports months ago that contracted fighters at the annex disobeyed orders and went out to save Stevens at about 10 pm, two of whom were killed (who really killed them?) some seven hours later back at the annex. The Review Board doesn't appear to acknowledge their disobeying orders, but instead puts a favorable light on the situation: "The ARB however disputed this notion. It said, 'The departure of the Annex team was not delayed by orders from superiors; the team leader [Bob?] decided on his own to depart the Annex compound once it was apparent, despite a brief delay to permit their continuing efforts, that rapid support from local security elements was not forthcoming.'"

Er, I see. Bob waited for the Libyans to come who never came, even though his own team was willing to go right away. Yet his own team was told to stand down, perfectly expected where the O-plot was to have Smith and/or Stevens murdered.

The pressure has been on Obama to reveal what he's been doing over several months to catch the Benghazi attackers, and just as would be expected if Obama were part of the attack, and if he knew who the responsible ones were, he's not been going after the following targets:

U.S. military sources serving in North Africa are challenging the latest White House claim that the administration is applying "all the resources" at its disposal to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, charging instead that the Obama administration knows who is responsible but is not acting.

"...The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirms that U.S. forces have tracked the alleged attackers since October but have since lost the trail of some of them, as no one up the chain of command would authorize them to capture or kill the targeted militia members.

...According to well-placed sources, the administration has known where some of the perpetrators are, based on information given to the Pentagon back in January, but no action has been taken to capture or kill them.

Further, sources said they are being restricted from any reconnaissance or advanced force operations to go after those responsible in the eastern part of Libya.

"We know exactly where the mastermind lives," one U.S. official said.

U.S. intelligence sources claim the "mastermind" and other suspects are on video that night at the U.S. compound, and that investigators have other evidence.

It might be hasty to assume that the people above whom Obama refuses to arrest were the perpetrators of the consulate attack. There is another reason for Obama's lack of interest in arresting these men: he knows they didn't do it, and he wants them framed without arresting them so that the situation will just go away without a court trial...that could provide further complications for the concocted stories coming from Obama, the FBI, etc.

I can no longer trust U.S. Intelligent sources when they claim to have guilty people on video. The point is well made that Obama does not, and never did want, to catch the people responsible. That's why I believe he blamed it on a street demonstration. The article goes on: "We are seeking information about three individuals who were on the grounds of the U.S. Special Mission when it was attacked," the FBI said in a statement. "These individuals may be able to provide information to help in the investigation." I can't trust the FBI anymore, especially right now. Are they framing the wrong group as per the will of Obama? Here's some considerations from World Net Daily:

According to the expatriate Libyans, Stevens' personal belongings -- including his camera, cell phone, identification papers and various private documents -- are being kept locked in a safe in the possession of Wesam Bin Hameed [or "Hamid"] in Libya.

Bin Hameed has been identified as an Islamic extremist in Benghazi who allegedly participated in the terrorist attack Sept. 12, 2012...

No U.S. authorities, including the FBI, have questioned Bin Hameed regarding the Benghazi attack. At present, according to the sources, he is roaming freely in Benghazi, where he continues to threaten to shoot any Libyans who dare protest against the various Islamic terror gangs and militia that currently exert unofficial authority in the streets of Tripoli and Benghazi.

Libyan newspapers have identified Bin Hameed as the chairman of the Supreme Revolutionaries Committee comprising 280 members of Islamic militia all over Libya.

During the civil war that ousted Muammar Gadhafi and led to his murder, Bin Hameed was cited by international news sources as brigade commander of the Martyrs of Free Libya Brigade.

Bin Hameed does not appear to be among the three Libyans [AHA!] the FBI currently wants for questioning in the on-going Benghazi investigation [Hamid now becomes a prime candidate for conspiring with Obama to kill Stevens].

On Dec. 19, 2012, WND published a 19-second video obtained from the same Libyan expatriate sources that apparently shows the body of Stevens in a morgue in Benghazi.

We can try to refine that story, asking what relationship Hamid had with Obama, or still has with Obama. Here's an article from May 10th of this year:

...Who is Wisam bin Hamid? As reported in the LPAC Updated Fact Sheet on Benghazi, bin Hamid is the head of Libya Shield [part of the new Libya]. According to the Library of Congress report on Al Qaeda in Libya issued in August 2012, it is reported that he may be the head of Al-Qaeda in Libya [not likely, in my opinion]. He also hosted a rally in Sirte in March 2012 at which Mokhtar bel Mokhtar, the head of Al-Qaeda in Islamic Magreb, was an honored guest. Mokhtar bel Mokhtar was responsible for the hostage-taking in Algeria in January of this year. Wisam bin Hamid also met with U.S. officials in Benghazi on Sept. 9, 2012, and reported that if Mahmoud Jibril won election as Prime Minister, they would no longer be willing to provide security for the U.S. mission [i.e. the date and the underlying threat tends to make Hamid's group a prime suspect in the Stevens murder]. It was also Libya Shield which met reinforcements from Tripoli the night of the attack and delayed their departure from the airport to go to aid U.S. forces at the CIA annex. The firing on the annex began 15 minutes after the [Tripoli] reinforcements finally arrived at the annex. It was also Libya Shield that escorted the FBI when it finally arrived in Benghazi to carry out an investigation.

I haven't heard this story until now. Why not? Why hasn't the Western media focused on this story? Hamid, a high-level friend of al-Qaeda, escorts the FBI to the consulate. Wow, such an explosive story. What's it all about? Doesn't CNN want to know? Doesn't CBS want to be the first to make it a story? I guess not.

It sounds as though Obama was working hand-in-hand with Hamid in seeking to stop the arrival of American fighters. And that easily explains why he and the FBI have refused to go after Hamid. Rather than being a mere radical, as he's painted by some, Hamid appears to be some sort of steward for the new Libya. The article says that his Libya Shield "operates under the [Libyan] Defense Ministry." Well it's not a wonder, then, that the new Libya didn't come to the rescue of Stevens and Smith! This must be the part of the new Libya that Obama has allied himself with, the al-Qaeda part, quite apparently.

Hamid appears to have sway in the new Libya, seeking to advance some of the transition from the old to the new Libya. He and his group opposed Western-backed Ali Zeiden, the new Libya's prime minister at this time. He was also opposed to Mahmoud Jibril, the West-backed interim prime minister during the fighting against Qaddafi. Might it therefore be possible that Obama secretly opposed the Western-backed Libyan rulers in favor of others in cahoots with Hamid? Looks like.

Was Hamid the man through which the Libyan weapons were being transferred to Syria? I wonder whether Hillary could answer a few questions in this regard.

The Larouch article above starts like so: "On [May 6, 2013] militiamen reinforced their siege of the Foreign and Justice Ministries in Tripoli...One of their leaders told the Libya Herald: We will not leave the ministries until he {Zeiden} leaves or if the GNC assures us that he will leave within a month, as per the isolation law [forbids Qaddafi people from holding political positions]. According to the Libya Herald, in an article entitled "Victorious Militiamem want Zeidan Out", published on May 6, "Wesam Bin Hameed, the chairman of Supreme Revolutionaries Committee (SRC), hailed the passage of the law as 'an excellent moment in our revolution." It begs the question of who Hamid would like to see as the prime minister in replacement. During the election last year, the one running against Zeidan was:

The Justice and Construction Party or Justice and Development Party...the Muslim Brotherhood's political party in Libya. It was officially founded on 3 March 2012 in Tripoli...

...It received 10% of the vote and won 17 of the 80 party-list seats, placing second...

It speaks for itself to the possibility that Obama was hoping to install the Muslim Brotherhood on the throne of the new Libya. He failed, but it appears that he's still trying through Hamid and his ilk.

The Larouch article ends like so (capitals mine):

Mahmoud Jabril, leader of the National Forces Alliance, the largest political party in Libya, will also be forced to resign from the General National Council under the Political Isolation Law...

...The perpetrators of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi mission have now achieved one of their key objectives in removing Jabril from public life -- THANKS TO OBAMA.

The eastern half of Libya is now ruled by Senussi's:

A conference [March, 2012] of about 3,000 delegates in Benghazi installed Ahmed al-Senussi, a great nephew of Libya's former king [Idris], as head of the new Cyrenaica Provincial Council, and proposed that the Eastern region run its own affairs [i.e. quasi-autonomous] apart from foreign policy, the army and oil resources. The Cyrenaica province would cover nearly half of Libya's territory. (Associated Press, March 3 & National Post, March 7.)

...The goal is to revive the system in place [by the Western-ite UN] after the Second World War under King Idris, when Libya was divided into three states: Tripolitania in the west, Fezzan in the southwest and Cyrenaica -- or Barqa, as it was called in Arabic -- to the east."

Ahmed al-Senussi was a member of the new Libya at the time of this "revolt" from Hamid and others, but the question is whether the Senussi government is more in cahoots with the Western-backed new Libya, or with the Muslims who oppose the new Libya as it now stands. Could it be that Obama is in cahoots with both the Hamid extremists and the Senussi's...all three entities working together to form the Cyrenaica state?

Libyan tribal leaders and militia commanders [does the latter include the Hamid army?] have declared a semi-autonomous region [which region?] in a move opponents fear is the first step toward the outright carving up of the country six months after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi.

The thousands of representatives of major tribal leaders, militia commanders and politicians who made the declaration at a conference in Benghazi said the move is not intended to divide the country and that they want their state to be part of a united Libya.

The conference said the eastern state, known as Barqa [ahh, Cyrenaica], would have its own parliament, police force, courts and capital - Benghazi, the country's second largest city - to run its own affairs [isn't this what Obama wanted from the start, allowing Stevens to die in order to protect it?]...

Libya's National Transitional Council, the interim central government based in the capital Tripoli, has repeatedly voiced its opposition to the creation of a partly autonomous eastern region...

"This is very dangerous. This is a blatant call for fragmentation. We reject it in its entirety,"...

So, you see, even where Obama did not plan to kill Stevens, the situation was such that, if Obama attacked the attackers of the Libyan consulate, it would have placed a wedge between he and the effort to form the Cyrene quasi-state which he intended the Senussi's to rule.

Wikipedia has an article detailing the mini civil-war between the new Libya and armed Libyans who refused to lay down their guns after Qaddafi was removed. The article says that these militia groups wished to act as "guardians" of the revolution (another report says they outnumber the regular Libyan army), and are not under those circumstances to be deemed in opposition to the new Libya. Hamid's group tends to fall under both sides of this mini civil war:

On 7 September [four days before Stevens' murder], a Salafist militia attacked the Sidi Al-Lafi mausoleum in Rajma...Finally, the Libya Shield Brigade was deployed to stop the violence [that places Hamid on the side of the new Libya]. Wisam Bin Hamid, leader of the Libya Shield Force in Cirenaica raised later the injured toll to thirteen, and denied reports that his forces were involved in the attack.

Hamid apparently wanted to distance himself from the accusation that he opposed the Salafists, suggesting the possibility that he has sympathies with them while working for the army of the new Libya. The article doesn't identify which Salafist group conducted the attack on September 7, but then Ansar al-Sharia, the group pegged by the CIA as the one responsible for the attack (four days later) on the Benghazi consulate, is a Salafist group. In this way, one might be led to believe that Ansar al-Sharia did the consulate attack.

However, the very beginnings of the royal Senussi family had both Sufi and Salafist influences. "The Senussi or Sanussi refers to a Muslim political-religious order in Libya and the Sudan region founded in Mecca in 1837 by the Grand Senussi, Sayyid Muhammad ibn Ali as-Senussi. Senussi was concerned with both the decline of Islamic thought and spirituality and the weakening of Muslim political integrity. He was influenced by the Salafi movement, to which he added teachings from various Sufi orders" Could it be, therefore, that the Senussi's were behind the attack on ambassador Stevens, and that Obama put out word to the CIA director (Petraeus) to frame Ansar al-Sharia???

Could it be that Obama got the idea of a demonstration outside the consulate from a Benghazi demonstration a few months earlier?

On 10th May [2012] a demonstration outside the Tebesti Hotel in Benghazi was interesting...

Rumours that Qatar may be funding Salafist have recently been circulating via social media. One hypothesis is that the Wahabi of Qatar and the Ansar Sharia militia of Derna both have Salafist leanings and there may be unofficial back channels between them.

One intriguing aspect of the Benghazi demonstration was the appearance of the black flag of the old Senussi Emirate of Cyrenaica...

There you have it. The ruling Senussi's appear to have been in the May demonstration, and can be thus suspect for at least giving the wink or the blind eye to the consulate attack. The Senussi's would fall under "Libyans" rather than the umbrella of "al-Qaeda."

Therefore, if it can be shown that Hamid is in cahoots with the Senussi power structures of Cyrenaica, it appears that the five FBI suspects in Libya are being framed. The FBI would be framing them in order to keep us from knowing Obama's alliance with Hamid on the night of the consulate attack. An America run like this is not America at all, but is a disgrace.

The article above continues on the mini civil war (could become maxi anytime):

At the moment the [Libyan] army is outgunned by the militias.

...The Libya Herald reports that "the Major General faces opposition from officers of the new national army, especially in Benghazi and other eastern regions...militia leaders and civilian leaders call for the chief-of-staff's immediate dismissal [I view this as the Obama axis seeking to take Libya on behalf of the Senussi circles]...One of the groups represented at the conference was composed of current and former army officers who have organized under the name "Free Libyan Army Officers Assemblage." The group has called for the elimination of the Libyan Army's General Staff and its replacement with an "independent body of qualified personnel"

In short, the Senussi state in the east is bucking to rule all of Libya, if possible, if the new Libya won't acknowledge it's plan for a semi-autonomous Cyrene.

Perhaps this was the primary issue behind the consulate attack, and the Libyan weapons to Syria was more of a secondary theme. Perhaps Stevens, like other normal Westerners, was supportive of the new Libya when he discovered Obama secretly supporting the Senussi faction. In this picture, Obama may have ordered Stevens' death rather than merely tolerating it once things got out of control.

The following begs the question: how can the FBI suspects of the consulate attack be deemed guilty in the first place if the FBI cannot convict them in a court of law:

The Associated Press also reported [May 21] that, according to unnamed officials, the U.S. has identified five men who might be behind the attack. The AP reported that the U.S. has enough evidence to justify using military force to seize them as suspected terrorists - but there is not enough proof to try them in civilian court.

Is the stated lack of evidence Obama's mere excuse to cop out from capturing the men? The U.S. officials mentioned by the AP article (below) are FBI agents. They sound like they have come out to make the statement at Obama's request (or at least on his behalf) during this heated time. The object seems to be to say, "Look, we're trying, we've almost got them, but not quite. Give us a little more time." Perfect, it allows Obama to get over this heated time.

It says: "The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss sensitive briefings publicly." Those words indicate an illegal leak with Obama's wink. It's fine with him to leak a thing when it serves his purposes....and look, the leak is through AP. Is Obama trying to kiss up to AP? You bet. And AP appears to be taking the kiss, like water on a roaring fire for Obama, and an embarrassment for AP.

There is some great news out to expose Hillary Clinton as a louse. In this picture, she's the holy queen in need of having her lowly subject take the blame for her sin of omission. It is so reprehensible that her department virtually fired a man for the Benghazi affair and yet has never told him why he was removed. He was not guilty of anything. After several months, and thanks to the turning of the tide on the Benghazi affair, he's finding it possible to speak out:

Following the attack in Benghazi, senior State Department officials close to Hillary Clinton ordered the removal of a mid-level official who had NO ROLE IN SECURITY DECISIONS and has never been told the charges against him. He is now accusing Clinton's team of scapegoating him for the failures that led to the death of four Americans last year. Raymond Maxwell was placed on forced "administrative leave" [they couldn't fire him because they didn't have a reason] after the State Department's own internal investigation, conducted by an Administrative Review Board (ARB) led by former State Department official Tom Pickering. Five months after he was told to clean out his desk and leave the building, Maxwell remains in professional and legal limbo, having been associated publicly with the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American for reasons that remain unclear.

"The overall goal is to restore my honor," said Maxwell, who has now filed grievances regarding his treatment with the State Department's human resources bureau and the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the interests of foreign-service officers...

"I had no involvement to any degree with decisions on security and the funding of security at our diplomatic mission in Benghazi," he said.

Where was Hillary when Maxwell lost his job, and what did she have to say about it? If she says she had nothing to say about it, why is that? Is she heartless? Yes. She could have told her staff that they can't punish Maxwell if he had nothing to do with political logistics at Benghazi. But look, Maxwell has been punished for months, meaning that Hillary has said nothing in his defence. All the power to Maxwell for exposing the Hillary louse.

Hillary's office has conveniently held back on commenting, which is the playing of the guilty card at this point:

The State Department declined to comment on the reasons that Maxwell and the other [four] officials were placed on administrative leave, or on what the four were told about the reasons for the decision. It did confirm that the ARB did not recommend direct disciplinary action because it didn't find misconduct or a direct breach of duty by the officials. "As a matter of policy, we don' speak to specific personnel matters," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

Not that God will answer her prayer, but Hillary is praying that the media does not make light of this. The media are gearing up to elect Hillary in 2016 so that we could expect it to keep this hush. It looks like the state department let some people go who had nothing to do with the guilt at Benghazi, and that the media then played along (back in 2012) like fellow hypocrites, reporting that Hillary's people did in fact punish people for Benghazi, leaving the public with an impression of some dignity in her department. But they punished innocent people and left Hillary practically unscathed. The reprehensible media; not a wonder that viewership is on the decline.

Shouldn't CNN have looked into whether Maxwell (and the other four) was guilty, and what exactly he was guilty of? Yes, and some media probably did look into it, only to discover that he was merely an innocent scapegoat for Obama's re-election purposes. Therefore, in not making this the story that it deserved to be, big media is guilty, not only of not doing its job "for the people," but of cheating the Republicans out of an election win. Couple this with the Republican losses due to the biased fingers of IRS and similar unionized government agencies, and one could surmise that liberal fascism works the electoral process.

It's a sad day when Democrats need to depend on illegal aliens, Hollywood tramps and disgusting queers to win an election. Failing that, they'll rig the elections, like dictators do world round.
Obama's Machen-ism Wants to Spy Without Notice to You

The treatment that AP got spilled over to Fox news too, coming with no surprise:

...the case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, on October 13, 2011. Kim is a former State Department contractor accused of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking classified information to James Rosen, a Fox News reporter. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is prosecuting the case, has seized records associated with two phone numbers at the White House, at least five numbers associated with Fox News, and one that has the same area code and exchange as Rosen's personal-cell-phone number (the last four numbers are redacted).

In all [that are thus-far known], Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, has seized records associated with over thirty different phone numbers...

...Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that, as part of the investigation of the Kim leak, Obama's Department of Justice seized e-mails from Rosen's personal Gmail account. In the search warrant for that request, the government described Rosen as "an aider, and abettor, and / or co-conspirator" in violating the Espionage Act, noting that the crime can be punished by ten years in prison. Rosen was not indicted in the case, but the suggestion in a government document that a reporter could be guilty of espionage for engaging in routine reporting is unprecedented and has alarmed many journalists and civil libertarians.

Like I said, it's fine with Obama for the FBI to leak a story on Benghazi progress to take heat off of Obama, but when Fox takes a story from a leaker, it's time for a serious probe due to a serious illegality. This is shameful behavior for a president, but it's only the outer lining, for Obama needs to spy on certain individuals because he's involved in illegalities himself. And, yes, even White House staff are being monitored by his all-seeing-eye. When things get really tough, he'll arrest some leakers and related journalists, not unlike al-Qaeda brutally murdering people to send fear through a society for the purpose of causing enemies to back off. Thanks to the liberals who elected him, the "land of the free" is on such a precipice.

Fox has done a story on Obama's legal man in Washington DC:

Ronald Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, was nominated by President Obama in 2009 and now runs the biggest federal prosecutor office in the country. His hundreds of attorneys handle everything from gang violence to corruption [to marathon bombings and airplane bomb threats].

Aside from his involvement in the Kim case, Machen was one of two federal prosecutors tapped by Holder in June of last year to lead the investigation into a string of high-profile security leaks. It was presumably that investigation that led his office to seize two months of phone records from the Associated Press.

...Some worry that not only has Machen gone too far but he may be too close to the White House to remain objective...

...For Machen and Obama, their connection dates back to Harvard Law School. Machen, a 1994 graduate, has been quoted in several publications calling Obama, a 1991 graduate, a "legend." [Uh-oh, I get it. Machen looks like one on the Ayers-related inner circle that got Obama to become president out of nowhere.]

Machen was one of the first people who donated to the president's U.S. Senate campaign 2003.

Years later, when the highly coveted U.S. attorney job opened up, Obama turned to his friend and political supporter. On Dec. 24, 2009, Obama nominated Machen to head up the largest and arguably most powerful prosecution office in the country...

Machen now runs an office that has 300 attorneys who prosecute both federal and local crimes. In D.C. alone, there were an estimated 20,000 cases handled by his staff last year. These include everything from misdemeanor drug possession charges to...terrorism.

Reminder; the Obama rise, thanks to the Ayers family, had to do with anti-American terrorists under the name of "Weather Underground," founded in the same general place (Detroit area) as where the Underwear Bomber" was headed. Already, one had reason to believe that Obama is involved with illegal trickery at the highest levels, and that he would stack his government with such anti-American goons. Therefore, if Obama wants to fake a terrorism job, and it goes to Machen to prosecute, Obama is in fairly safe hands.

I had traced Maccabee/Hasmonean lines strongly to Monmouthshire, where the Machen surname was first found. Monmouthshire is in Wales, where Denbighshire is located, where the Bach surname was first found. The Bachs and Machens share the same "vair" (bell-design) fesse on a red Shield, and then while I traced "Bach" to the Hyksos pharaoh "APACHnas," I identified the household of that pharaoh with the proto-Massey bloodline that formed the Maccabees proper.

It's very likely that the Machon variation of Machens is a variation of the Macon/Massin/Mason surname, first found in the THANET area of Kent that was traced (by me) to "ZENETES/ZENATA," the name of a Meshwesh/Berber people in ancient Numidia, a kingdom ruled by a king Massena. I feel I had discovered that Maccabees proper (about 175 BC) were descended directly from a line in northern Italy from this king Massena , as it merged with Romans of the Scipio kind (about 206 BC). They were tracked to Massyas in northern Lebanon around Homs/Emesa, and from there I figure that they merged with Israel's Hasmoneans.

I had traced Obama's mother to Masseys of Cheshire, beside Flintshire. Weather Underground was founded in Ann Arbor, beside Flint, original home of Obama-loving General Motors. But Flint was also the home of Mason brand trucks. Coincidence after coincidence??? I don't think so. I think that Freemasonry was named after the Massena line to Macons/Massins/Masons of Kent, and that Obama is a foolish stooge of this bloodline.

I had traced the muzzled Mackay bears to the Berwickshire bear, and so see the same bears in the Buick/Berwick Coat (it uses the Forbes bear design exactly), and then read here: "Mason Motors was a separate venture, a Flint-based automobile engine manufacturer started in 1911, also by A.C. Mason, who first led Buick's engine works in Flint." Berwicks/Buicks can be traced to the Arthurian roundtable that was adopted by the socialist = communist Rhodian Illuminati.

According to Fox, it has only just learned about the Holder infestation spying on its journalist, wherefore the highest levels of Fox are now begging the question of how many others amongst their people have been spied on for how many other reasons. If even the White-House staff are being watched for "good" reason, every major media, regardless of whether it has been pro-Obama, has been spied on one way or another. The initial overall effect is to frighten the media into some form of self-inflicted, pseudo-complacency, but there is potential for good to come of it, just as soon as Obama is exposed again for another matter.

All-seeing globalists can't rule the world without keeping track of the world's members. The computer has given them the ability to act like gods overseeing our lives. There is no one more capable of accessing personal information but a president in cahoots with those able to tap phone and computer records. Be prepared for the Great Betrayal when Christian persecution becomes the world agenda. The media will be your enemy, otherwise it would not take place. A fascist government-media partnership will ignite the fires of Hell by touching the apple of God's eye. The following article tells that the government can read your deleted emails. I figured as much:

The Justice Department pleaded with a federal judge to keep a Fox News reporter [Rosen] indefinitely in the dark as it tracked his email in a national security leaks case.

A new set of exhibits unsealed and made public this week show U.S. Attorney Ron Machen argued in 2010 that the traditional 30-day notice period did not apply to Fox News reporter James Rosen. Justice wanted to secretly monitor Rosen's Gmail account.

"Where, as here, the government seeks such contents through a search warrant, no notice to the subscriber or customer of the e-mail account is statutorily required or necessary," Machen wrote in the June 2010 motion. "Thus, this court's indication on the face of the warrant that delayed notice of 30 days to the customer and subscriber was [as?] permissible was unnecessary."

Machen, through a separate court order, also successfully stopped Google from telling Rosen that the government was spying on his e-mail account. Machen demanded to see all of Rosen's e-mail records, including his deleted messages, e-mails in his trash folder and all attachments sent to and from the reporter.

I-Are-an-Ass Developments This Week

Jeffrey Lord, a writer for the Spectator, has found something concerning the IRS with just a little digging that big media should have found. He asks whether he's found the smoking gun in Obama's hands, and frankly I think he has. Yet, days after his article of May 20th, it doesn't seem as though big media is carrying the potential bombshell. Here's how Tom Blumer puts it:

Curious establishment press reporters could have accessed the White House logs at any time and found what Lord has discovered. US News has even gone to the trouble of making them searchable. But either they didn't, which would be bad enough, or much worse, they saw what Lord saw and ignored it. Under even remotely similar circumstances, or even artificial ones (e.g., the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame nothingburger known as Nadagate), their zeal to get to the bottom of things would know no bounds if a Republican or conservative was in the White House.

Here's part of Lord's eight-page (short pages) article:

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

...The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department's Inspector General's Report, IRS employees -- the same employees who belong to [Kelley's union] -- set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager [of IRS], Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union -- the union for IRS employees -- met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS "Determinations Unit Program agreed" to open a "Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases." As stated by the IG report.

One would think that such a story would make CNN headlines too. Surely, CNN has investigated the juice of this story. Not CNN or CBS or NBC, but Media Matters, a pro-Obama tool, is fighting back and leading the way, claiming that Kelley did not meet with Obama on March 31:

...But Logs Indicate Kelley Did Not Have A Personal Meeting With Obama. According to the database, Kelley was one of 117 visitors who came to the Old Executive Office Building for what the log describes as a "Workplace Flexibility Forum." {, accessed 5/21/2013} National Treasury Employees Union spokeswoman Dina Long tells Whispers that Kelley never met privately with Obama.

...Union: Kelley Had "No Direct Contact" With Obama At The Forum. US News & World Report's Washington Whispers blog reported:

"Kelley attended the White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility at the Old Executive Office Building... [which] was attended by approximately 200 attendees including business leaders, workers, policy experts and labor representatives discussing telework and worklife balance issues," Long said in a statement. "The president made opening remarks. President Kelley did not have any direct contact with the president or the first lady.", 5/20/13]

Media Matters simply quoted the above without investigating the matter for itself. The only thing it tells us is that Obama and the union itself deny a personal meeting between Obama and Kelley. So what? Obama and his stooges are lying about everything these days; they'd be expected to lie about this too. Besides, it's not necessary for Obama and Kelley to have met personally because Obama could have had someone speak with her on his behalf. No one is suggesting that the plot was hatched on March 31, but, if I understand Lord correctly, the go-ahead to start the anti-Tea Party program came at the White House on that date.

Christ Stirwalt of Fox news does not share Lord's theory, and basically ridicules it as "poppycock." However, in his next paragraph, Stirwalt enters: "...records show another five visits by a Colleen Kelley for high-level meetings that go un-described, including a December 2011 visit to the West Wing with Obama as her host." That was just four or five months before March 31. The anti-Tea Party plot may have been red-hot by about the time of that meeting onward, with just a few more preparations to go before launching it.

You understand that Obama could not, except by great risk, send Kelley a detailed email or phone call to indicate a green light to begin Tea-Party persecution on April 1. Or perhaps Kelley needed to inform Obama concerning the plot's status before the plot was launched. Whatever, it behooved the two parties to meet in person to avoid a trail of incriminating evidence, and so Obama may have indicated to her that she could slip by the White House by being part of the Workplace Flexibility event. She may not have been small enough to appear, but apparently Obama arranged for her to be a speaker, which amounts to a very good excuse for being at the White House. Elizabeth Flock of US News, who doesn't share Lord's smoking-gun possibility, has a story on it:

According to a April 2010 story in the federal trade worker publication FCW, Kelley spoke at the [Workplace Flexibility] forum about the benefits of teleworking and other flexible work schedules. FCW reported that the event was hosted by Obama and first lady Michelle Obama. The visitor log also notes that Kelley's visit took place in the "South Court Auditorium," a large room in the Old Executive Office Building across from the White House - not exactly a prime location for a private meeting.

Does Kelley not have legs? Could she not have walked across the street for a private meeting? Could she not have slipped into a vehicle for a private meeting? Could she not have gone out for a cheese bagel with an Obama tool to engage the private meeting? Is Elizabeth Flock speaking like an unbiased investigator, or is she speaking like a political animal?

I don't know who was responsible for the forum, but perhaps it was Obama himself. The big-media people could help to inform us here if they had the good character to investigate. And there are other details that media could share if it truly wants to be critical-news worthy. But to suggest that Kelley and Obama were not in cahoots on that day just because she was at an event unrelated to official Obama business is not exactly compelling. We understand clearly that it would have been entirely foolish of Obama to meet with her officially the day before she starts Tea-Party persecution.

Flock says that Kelley "spoke" at the event, which could be misleading if Kelley merely gave opening remarks. Kelley's union, in her defence, stated: "The president made opening remarks. President Kelley did not have any direct contact with the president or the first lady." It's a little confusing with two presidents in the same set of sentences. If the president who made opening remarks was Obama, then at the least we can be assured that he and she were in the same room, in the same building, on that day. There are ways to slip one another notes if that's what they were together for.

There's a reason that presidents are restricted to a maximum two terms, lest they dig in too deeply with corruption. Colleen Kelley is now in her fourth four-year term as president of the nation's largest government-worker union. She knows her way around now. For whatever it might mean, "On November 9, 2010, President Barack Obama appointed or reappointed seven members to the Federal Salary Council," one of them being Colleen Kelley.

After reading the following, how could it be claimed that Obama knew nothing about it?

Letters from 10 high-profile Democrats to then-IRS commissioner Doug Shulman pressured the IRS to investigate nonprofit politicking, even threatening legislation to change IRS standards if the IRS didn't act [at this point, the IRS had the choice of complaining to the proper people, even the media].

The letters show how elected officials pressured the IRS during an election season...

Shulman testified yesterday [May 22] that back in March 2012, there was "absolutely" no special targeting of conservative groups going on [but what about March?]...

...The timeline of the events show top-ranking Democrats were sending a flurry of letters to Shulman, demanding that the agency act, and act fast.

The letters to Shulman date from September 2010 through August 2012, and are from Democrat senators including Max Baucus, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer and Al Franken, as well as Rep. Peter Welch.

"We write to urge the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate whether any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity," wrote Vermont Democrat Welch to Shulman in March 2012.

Seven senators, including Schumer and Franken, complained to Shulman in March 2012 that "lack of clarity in the IRS rules" is to blame, threatening "legislation" to enact bright-line rules.

The seven Democrat senators signed off: "We urge the IRS to take steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups."

As one continues to read the article, it becomes very apparent that Democrats were concerned about what they considered a loophole allowing Republican organizations some advantage for election purposes; Democrats wanted to deny them this loophole. But going about it secretly is now coming round to bite them. In no way does this absolve the IRS. Rather, the IRS should have exposed these buffoons; the IRS should not have been intimidated. However, the lack of cry from the IRS at that time suggests that pro-Obama figures at IRS assured the success of Baucus, Levin, and the rest. These men can now be placed under a microscope, checking for what sort of bacteria ailed them at the time. They are win-at-any-cost and the-end-justifies-the-means bacteria.

Put it this way, that no matter how the seven try to justify their stern warnings to the IRS, the fact is that the IRS did not target Democrat groups who may have been "abusing" their concerns. The fact is, in other words, these seven -- and Obama as yet another -- were acting with a facade of ethical concern but in reality had the election of Obama at heart by cheating Republicans out of their rights. The article goes on to show that they were active in this regard, sending the IRS stern warnings, since 2010. The effort failed to save the House from going to the Republicans that year, thanks in large part to the success of the Tea Party.

After the House was taken by Republicans, the same seven re-doubled their efforts toward the same abuse-of-power plots. Shame. Here's one example of the abuse of power:

On Sept. 28, 2010, Sen. Max Baucus, Democrat chairman of the Senate Finance Committee which oversees the IRS, wrote a three-page letter on Senate Finance letterhead noting: "The Committee has jurisdiction over revenue matters" and the IRS [i.e. you MUST listen to me, or else].

The Senator noted his concern about nonprofit lobbying for financial or political gain, and that the tax code was being used to "eliminate transparency in the funding of our elections"[...blah blah blah.]

"I request [actually, it was a demand] that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4) groups for “possible violation of tax laws,” he demanded.

The article makes an important point that leads from the Seven to Obama himself:

President Barack Obama in his state of the union address in January [2010] had attacked the Supreme Court with the justices in attendance for signing off on the Citizens United case, for opening the "flood gates" for special-interest money in U.S. elections ...The president said in his 2010 January state of the union address: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections," adding, [I don't like and, arrogant man that I am, I'm going to urinate on that decision right in front of the Republican judges -- my translation].

...In March 2012, Welch [one of the seven] decried "political groups masquerading as nonprofits,"...

Rep. Welch [Winey the pooh-pooh] said at the time: "The spigots of spending have been opened and the rules of the campaign road are muddier now than ever before. While we work to overturn this horribly misguided Supreme Court decision, federal agencies should send a clear signal that there is a cop on the beat enforcing federal laws."

The statement from his office went on to say: “Welch is calling on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate whether nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations affiliated with Super PACs – such as Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-backed group spending millions of dollars in campaigns across the country – are in violation of federal law and IRS regulations.”

A the same time, Rep. Welch sent a letter to the President urging him to “use his constitutional authority to fill five openings on the six-member Federal Election Commission,” so the commission “can immediately get back to work policing the new campaign landscape.”

And Rep. Welch sent a letter to IRS commissioner Shulman that said: “We write to urge the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate whether any groups qualifying as social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code are improperly engaged in political campaign activity.”

He urged the IRS “to fully enforce the law” and “investigate and stop any abuse of the tax code by groups whose true mission is to influence the outcome of federal elections.”

So, now we have the goods to show that Obama has been lying even on this issue. If the seven had legitimate concerns about the Republican groups breaking any tax laws, why did Obama try to hide his involvement? Because, obviously, it makes him look like a political beast regardless of whether or not Republicans had been working through a loophole. It makes Obama look like the one "whose true mission is to influence the outcome of federal elections."

I say that Republicans should assure that this case, with Obama's name on it, should go to the supreme court so that the Republicans thereof may have the opportunity to urinate on Obama. Obama is, in truth, in contempt of the supreme court.

The ultimate fact is: the IRS did not ever deny any Republican group their tax-exempt status, showing that there was nothing illegal about the formation of the groups. The "urgent" claims of the seven Democrats (there could have been more of them) that there were illegalities about the formation of these groups was mere smoke. In the end, the same Democrats must have directed the IRS not to deny any application lest the denied groups come out complaining before the election, thus exposing the plot. The IRS must have been directed to merely delay the applications to maximize election damage to Republicans.

The Obama woes are now able to turn the spotlight onto the media for showing how they bail him out. They have no choice but to carry anti-Obama stories with some outrage, but ultimately, they will go back to nursing at the fungus between his toes, even after he proves to be a fascist, and deadly toward the American way.

As was promised by the lawyers of Lois Lerner, she pleaded the fifth amendment on a Wednesday hearing before the House. It is inescapable that pleading the fifth has to do with keeping quiet lest a person enter evidence that could be used against someone in a court of law. Usually, the fifth is taken to protect oneself, but in this case, Lerner could be protecting others, the entire gang that she was involved with, supposing possibly that speaking out could be more dangerous to her (or her family) than looking like she did something wrong:

"I have not done anything wrong," she said. "I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee."

Lerner adds that she invoke her 5th Amendment right and "will not answer any of the questions or testify today":

Why is Lerner willing to ruin her reputation before the entire nation in this way? Has she been promised another job by Obama if she is forced to resign? Her being adamant that she did not break any IRS rules may in fact be correct because the IRS changed its rules at the insistence of the seven Demoncrats. It's they she must be wanting to protect because they will lead to Obama.

If a runner wins a gold medal but is afterward caught cheating, his gold medal is taken away. If Obama wins the election by cheating, shouldn't he be stripped of his presidency? Or, if it becomes known that a coach injected drugs into the winning runner without his knowledge, it still stands that this runner should be stripped of his medal simply because the other runners were at a disadvantage. Therefore, even if Obama claims that he was ignorant of the cheating conducted by his team, he still deserves to be stripped of the presidency because it put Romney at a disadvantage. Although Obama won't be impeached unless he is caught with something else that tips the scales too far, yet there is a mid-term election ahead where the people can show him their impeachment spirit.

It behooves the media to dig in and get the facts that Lerner is unwilling to release. Will the media just sit back and pretend that there's nothing more that can be done? The good news is that Fox has every reason to expose Obama these days. Under the guise of "reality check," Fox19 has made some new things known:

The claim that the ongoing IRS scandal is limited to low level employees is falling apart.

The six Cincinnati workers we have identified, who sent scrutinizing letters to conservative groups with words including "patriot, liberty, tea party or 9-12" in their names are Mitchel Steele, Carly Young, Joseph Herr, Stephen Seok, Liz Hofacre and a woman identified only as Ms. Richards.

...Mitchel Steele, Carly Young, Joseph Herr and Liz Hofacre are IRS agents. Stephen Seok is a supervisor IRS agent.

But according to the IRS employee directory that FOX19 has obtained exclusively, each of these agents has a different manager and then above them a different territory manager [five different managers is a plot -- CONPIRACY -- already].

That is important because while it may sound reasonable to the average person that these workers began targeting groups on their own, the IRS structure is designed to prevent that.

...When an application for tax exempt status comes into the IRS, agents have 270 days to work through that application. If the application is not processed within those 270 days it automatically triggers flags in the system. When that happens, individual agents are required to input a status update on that individual case once a month, every month until the case is resolved.

Keep in mind, at least 300 groups were targeted out of Cincinnati alone. Those applications spent anywhere from 18 months to nearly 3 years in the system and some still don't have their non-profit status. 300 groups multiplied by at least 18 months for each group, means thousands of red flags would have been generated in the system.

So who in the chain of command would have received all these flags? The answer, according to the IRS directory, one woman in Cincinnati, Cindy Thomas, the Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Division. Because all six of our IRS workers have different individual and territory managers, Cindy Thomas is one manager they all have common.

...Former Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller...retires.

Joseph Grant, Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities... retires.

Lois Lerner, Head of Exempt Organization...says she will invoke her 5th amendment right to not incriminate herself when called before Congress on Wednesday.

Holly Paz, Director of Exempt Organizations, subpoenaed to Washington to be interviewed by members of Congress.

All of this IRS leadership, in Washington D.C.

Then one level down is Cindy Thomas, the highest ranking employee in Cincinnati in this Tax Exempt and Government Entities Department that no one in Congress is talking to... yet.

Good going, Fox19. One can see that a delay into even the tenth or eleventh month would become a controversial issue.

Lerner herself pointed the finger at Cincinnati to begin with, and so why didn't the media dig into Cindy Thomas starting last week??? Googling "Cindy Thomas" IRS gets quite a few websites carrying the Fox19 story, but none of the big media are mentioning her name. Why is that? And why hasn't the House asked her to come answer some questions? Is she the innocent type? Is she a Republican? How could the media have let this happen: no focus on the highest person at Cincinnati??? If I have this correct, she's the one who signed off on allowing information to get out from tax-exempt applications (to ProPublica, for example) that was not yet legal to be let out. She doesn't sound like a Republican or an innocent type to me. Every IRS employee in this field would know as a standard fact that private data in applications is not release-able until the applications are accepted. Here's the story:

...One of the applications the IRS released to ProPublica was from Crossroads GPS, the largest social-welfare nonprofit involved in the 2012 election. The group, started in part by GOP consultant Karl Rove [a sure target of the O-trolls]...

Applications were sent to ProPublica from five other social welfare groups...The other groups ended up spending more than $5 million related to the election, mainly to support Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney...

...The IRS cover letter sent with the documents was from the Cincinnati office, and signed by Cindy Thomas, listed as the manager for Exempt Organizations Determinations...(Thomas often signed the cover letters of responses to ProPublica requests.) The cover letter listed an IRS employee named Sophia Brown as the person to contact for more information about the records. We tried to contact both Thomas and Brown [May 13, too-hot-to-touch day] but were unable to reach them.

After receiving the unapproved applications, ProPublica tried to determine why they had been sent. In emails [where the trolls are predicted to sound as honest and straight as possible], IRS spokespeople said ProPublica shouldn't have received them.

"It has come to our attention that you are in receipt of application materials of organizations that have not been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt,” wrote one spokeswoman, Michelle Eldridge. She cited a law saying that publishing unauthorized returns or return information was a felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both."

In response, ProPublica's then-general manager and now president, Richard Tofel, said, "ProPublica believes that the information we are publishing is not barred by the statute cited by the IRS, and it is clear to us that there is a strong First Amendment interest in its publication."

My first impression is that Tofel is speaking with assurances from Eric Holder that doing something criminal has a certain get-out-of-jail-free card, but in any case, ProPublica made it clear that Cindy Thomas was violating the standard practice of protecting private data. That was way back on May 13. The big media have had nine days, as I write here, to latch onto this story, and yet there is nothing coming up from them when googling "Cindy Thomas" IRS. It seems to me that if big media are "ignoring" Cindy Thomas, she must be one guilty beast with the Obama fungus on her face. Fungus is by nature hard to remove; even after it looks like's it's gone with treatment, it comes back yet again.

So, you see, the powerful media is not our friend if it's a friend of Obama's. The persecution of Christians in the West is knocking at the door, and Obama is the one knocking. The persecution of Christians will involve the justice department, and as we can see, that department can be used to protect bad-apple government workers. Here's what Christian pre-persecution looks like:

The DHS [Homeland Security] appears to have finally found a use for all those bullets it's been buying. At a Tea Party protest outside an IRS building in St. Louis yesterday there were no regular police -- only armed Homeland Security guards.

...The DHS was supposedly founded to protect against and respond to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. It was not created to protect the IRS from peaceful protesters, but in the decade since its inception, Big Sis has morphed into an entity that polices and monitors political free speech as one of its primary functions.

I kid you not, this is a message that God wants all of you to know. When questioned by the Homeland Security people, when you are alone with them, or if you know that you will be alone with them, do not so much as raise your voice or respond disrespectfully, because they are unstable, murder-happy people. Just trust me on this. Or read the following concerning a man who definitely deserved to be arrested, but was killed while in custody because he had fought with police:

The Marathon Saga Continues

We can't know whether it's true that the following person was shot while making some violent body language, but chances are, he did not, and was shot anyway, and chances are, the FBI will get away with it:

The FBI says a man was fatally shot when he initiated a violent confrontation while being questioned by authorities during a probe into one of the Boston bombing suspects.

The shooting incident happened early Wednesday in Orlando, where an FBI agent along with other law enforcement personnel were interviewing the man, identified by the FBI as Ibragim Todashev.

...Todashev's friend, Khusen Taramov, told Orlando TV station WFTV that Todashev wanted to fly home to Chechnya, but authorities asked him to stay for one last interview.

"He had a ticket from New York, [and] from there, he was going to go back home. They were pushing him, saying, 'Stay, don't leave.' They said, 'We want to interview you one last time and talk to you a last time.' And he decided to stay, and today's interview was supposed to be the last time, and they said they were going to leave him alone," said the victim's friend, Khusen Taramov.

"Do you think he would have prompted some kind of a shooting incident?" Barrett asked.

"No, there is no way. I know that for sure. All he wanted was to talk to them so they could leave him alone," said Taramov.

...Taramov said that as soon as the Tsarnaev brothers were identified as suspects in the Boston bombings, Todashev was on the FBI's radar.

"And they contacted him. Pretty much stole him from his house, they came to his house with the guns armed and they took him," Taramov said.

Does this not smell like hell to you? Todashev may have known something that could have acquitted the Chechen brothers, which would in turn jeopardize the FBI case against them, wherefore he had to be killed. May God use this incident to severely punish the FBI. Look at this garbage:

The man shot dead by an FBI agent in Orlando, Florida early today was "about to sign a statement" admitting to a role [impossible, not credible], along with Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in an unsolved triple murder in Massachusetts in 2011, two people with direct knowledge of the case told ABC News.

Ibragim Todashev "just went crazy," and pulled a knife during his interview with the FBI...

It's another concocted fabrication! Wake up, you dead and maggot-infested media. Investigate the FBI and have them thrown away, you spineless cowards!! Not that I believe he pulled a knife, but if it's all he did, a bullet(s) to the hip or leg would have rendered him useless, or even if the shots were fired at his feet to warn him. Yet they killed him instantly dead (there's not a report that he made it to a hospital or ambulance)...because that's how they wanted him. It's obvious. FBI agents and police are trained in maiming rather than killing if one is not very dangerous.

The day of the report above, Fox reports: "Initially, FBI officials said Todashev, 27, became violent and lunged at an agent with a knife...However, later in the day, some of those officials had backed off that preliminary account, and it's no longer clear what happened in the moments before the fatal shooting, The Associated Press reported." I guess the FBI can sit on it and decide what "reality" they will report because the media won't press them to discover whether they are telling the truth. Fox itself reports nothing of its investigation into the inconsistency. On the one hand, Todashev is pliant to the point of signing a confession, and on the other hand he's not pliant to the point of pulling a knife on FBI agents. Hello?

In the Boston marathon killing, the FBI reported that one of their officers had been shot in a car chase. The public is thereby urged naturally to believe that there is truth to the story. Yet, later, it came out that the officer was not injured. In the same way, we just heard that there was an FBI agent injured by the knife attack of Todashev, and yet from AP we read: "The agent was taken to a hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening." What does that mean? A half-inch puncture in the arm? Less? It could mean a 100 percent lie to make you believe that there's truth to the reported attack. The FBI has had a long time to perfect framing people. Will AP go to the hospital to discover what the injury was to the FBI agent? No! But it reported to us exactly what the FBI claimed.

When the FBI was interviewing Todashev, didn't it have a tape recording? Of course it did. Let's hear it? Better yet, AP should ask to hear it. If the FBI doesn't give it up, AP should create suspicion in the FBI story. That's how it should work. There should be an ongoing war between the FBI and the media until the FBI cleans up its act. The media shall not be subservient to the FBI. The media shall trample the FBI, not vice-versa.

To make you sympathize with the scandalous FBI murder (it comes in the wake of the scandalous murder of the Chechen brother), the FBI is claiming that Todashev was involved in a prior murder. Will AP demand to see evidence for such a thing before the FBI has time to create it? Will AP suggest that it's suspicious to kill a person in his own home the way that Todashev was killed? He was just about to board a plane out of the country when the FBI demanded a meeting with him. Is it reality that he should pull out a knife to incriminate himself in such circumstances? Didn't he know that FBI agents carry guns? Did he think he could win his way to freedom with a knife? Or didn't the FBI concoct that story to justify murdering him? Now that he's gone, he can be accused of taking part in any criminal plot.

I did not know until visiting the Infowars story just now that two FBI agents reportedly fell out of a helicopter, and they happened to be two agents involved in the capture of the two Chechen brothers. Conspiracy believers are treating this as the FBI murdering their own people who were apt to "talk." I would have to agree. Here is one account of the story:

Two members of the FBI's elite counterterrorism unit died Friday [May 17] while practicing how to quickly drop from a helicopter to a ship using a rope, the FBI announced Monday in a statement. The statement gave few details regarding the deaths of Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen SHAW..."Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings..." Coulson said.

...Irvin Wells, a former FBI special agent who retired in 1990 after leading the Norfolk field office for three years, stressed that the Hostage Rescue Team is different from the FBI's regular SWAT teams.

He noted that agents assigned to a field office's SWAT team also must perform other jobs inside the bureau, while agents assigned to the Hostage Rescue Team have no other duties.

...See article at

Our fly Sign is coming to mind. The FBI SWAT teams, that is. Something is up that God wants us to recognize. There is a completely-wicked plot afoot.

While checking the veracity of this fell-out-of-a-helicopter story, I noted that big media did not make an issue of it. Here is CNN's story indicating nothing suspicious. Fox has a similar article. Is it not astounding that the media is afraid of the FBI? And no wonder, the timidity of the media have emboldened the FBI to act in this astonishing way. Therefore, expect the FBI to conduct more murders thanks to spineless / biased media. It looks like we'll be on our own when Western governments come round to persecuting us.

It also looks like there will be a "cleansing" of police people who are not apt to get in line with the tyranny program. The FBI is not going to act like this apart from presidential green lights. Recall the helicopter that went down (filled with SWAT people) when they reported the faked death of Osama bin Laden.

When I claimed that the World-War-2 president Roosevelt was a closet Nazi, the one who helped Adolf Hitler escape to Idaho's Hayden Lake, I didn't have the following knowledge that just came out:

In his journals, [JK Kennedy] wrote,'Fascism? The right thing for Germany."...

Just two years before World War II broke out, Kennedy wrote, "The Germans really are too good -- therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves." He also wrote, "The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans."

And with regard to Hitler: "Hitler will emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him to emerge in a few years as one of the most important personalities that ever lived."

Kennedy's father, Joseph Kennedy, was an admirer of Hitler's as well. Kennedy's admiration for Hitler verged on the rapturous: "His boundless ambition for his country made him a threat to peace in the world, but he had something mysterious about him," Kennedy wrote after the war. "He was the stuff of legends."

Kennedy later discovered what it feels like to be shot in the head, the method of cheap execution used by Hitler.


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