From LIFG to Ansar Al-Shariah: Background on the death of an American Ambassador

From 2003 to 2010, almost 1,100 suicide bombers detonated themselves in Iraq using either an explosive vest or belt, or while driving an explosive-laden vehicle. These 1,100 suicide bombers killed at least 12,000 people, including over 200 coalition Soldiers.

During the peak of insurgency in 2007, Libya had twice as many fighters in Iraq per capita than any other country, representing about 19% of the total number of jihadists in Iraq. Documents uncovered in a raid near the Iraqi-Syrian border detail that 85% of them had come with the intent to perform a suicide bombing. 52 of the Libyan suicide bombers were from the Libyan city of Derna, which is located in eastern Libya about 180 miles east of Benghazi.

Considering that Derna’s population is only 80,000, this means that one out of every 1,500 Derna residents traveled to and detonated themselves in Iraq. If this same rate were applied to the entire muslim world, it would mean that in an eight year period there would be over one million muslim suicide bombers worldwide.

With the start of the 'Arab Spring' in early 2011, then, why did the United States support the same islamist militias in eastern Libya that had sent such a high number of suicide bombers into Iraq?

The inside the box answer is to equip them to overthrow Gaddafi. There is verifiable information that Gaddafi encouraged, but did not directly support, the mission of these jihadists in Iraq, but the reason he did so is only half out of pure American hatred. Put simply, he just wanted them the hell out of his country.

A very eccentric person to say the least, Gaddafi kept islamists on the run in his country, mainly by brutally killing groups of them periodically in order to intimidate and keep the main body at bay. He also kept his own military forces, and the public in general, in a strange state of disorder and fear – on purpose – so that they would not pose a threat to him. 

It is also note-worthy that in December 2003, not long after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi voluntarily dismantled his nuclear and chemical weapons programs. It was quite evident that he thought Libya was next on Bush's list unless he played nice. So for a multitude of reasons, in the years leading up to the end of his life, Gaddafi was scared shitless of every potential shadow in his midst. 

On a side note, I am not sure why a top Democratic Party operative laughed when it was discovered that Gaddafi was killed by a mob and dragged through the streets. If that is her position on summary execution, fine, but such a position would stand in stark contrast to her party's fierce opposition to enhanced interrogation. It makes no sense to be against temporarily making a prisoner feel uncomfortable, but support action to grotesquely kill prisoners without trial.

Moving on, the group known as the Libyan islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was the main rebel force the U.S. supported to overthrow Gaddafi. LIFG was directly affiliated with Al Queda and its membership comprised of the same type of radical extremists found in the suicide bombing capital of Derna.

Their leader, Abdelhakim Belhadj, is reported to have had numerous meetings with Ambassador Stevens over the course of the Libyan insurrection – the first of these meetings was in March 2011. After Gaddafi was executed and his body dragged through the streets by Libyan jihadists in October 2011, two things happened:

1. Belhadj traveled to Istanbul to meet with rebels from the Free Syrian Army – the secular rebel movement fighting Bashar Al Assad’s regime
2. The LIFG disintegrated; most of them took off their LIFG t-shirts and put on t-shirts that said Ansar al-shariah (translation = soldiers of shariah or soldiers of islamic law)

The United States was funneling weapons into Libya starting in the spring of 2011. At best, this is extreme naiveté, given to whom the weapons were going. But with the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, the jihadists severed the tie that supplied them with arms for 18 months. Why would they do that?

Ambassador Stevens likely outgrew his usefulness to the Libyan jihadists, and they increasingly saw him as a threat their ambitions in the region. Incidentally, so did Turkey. 

Stevens likely knew this, which is why he issued 12 separate requests for increased security in the region and specifically at the Benghazi Consulate. His requests were not only denied by the State Department, his superiors actually ordered security to decrease:

• 15 man SOF embassy site security team was ordered out of Benghazi in July 2012

• Three mobile security teams were moved out of Tripoli

• Only five federal diplomatic security agents remained in Benghazi, along with rotating shifts of 4-5 members of the "17 February Brigade"

• Naive dumbasses assume the "17 February Brigade" name stems from official date that marked the start of the Libyan rebellion: February 17, 2011. Others will notice that February 17 was also the day jihadists attacked the Italian Embassy in Tripoli, Libya in 2006. 11 people were killed and dozens injured. The attack was justified by jihadists because an Italian official reportedly wore a shirt poking fun at Mohammed, the supposed prophet of islam

On the night of his death, Stevens met with the Turkish Counsel General, who was likely serving as negotiator on behalf of the Libyan jihadists. Stevens was likely trying to use the continuation of U.S. small arms shipments as leverage against the jihadists. His purpose was to get the jihadists to hand over heavy weapons - things like former Gaddafi-owned SA-7 surface-air-missiles and unaccounted chemical munitions that had been seized after the jihadist rebels gained control of the country.

Stevens had a tough objective: try to entice jihadis and the Turkish government to stay infatuated by shipments of rifles, machine guns, mortars, and RPGs, but get them to believe that giving up chemical weapons and surface-to-air missiles would enhance their position. 

The Turkish Counsel General left the meeting with Stevens in Benghazi at 8:30 p.m. local time. The attack started 70 minutes later. Stevens had likely stood his ground at the meeting, had therefore had outgrown his usefulness to both the Libyan jihadis and Turkey.

For their part, Turkey wanted Ambassador Stevens to look the other way as 400 tons of these heavy weapons were loaded on a Libyan ship destined for Turkey. Turkey had been waiting impatiently to disburse the weapons, particularly the SA-7 missiles, over their Southern border and into Syria. Stevens likely somehow stood in the way of this shipment, or tried to insert himself too strongly into the equation for the likes of the Libyan rebels or the Turkish government.

As reported by the London Times on September 14, three days after Stevens’ death, the shipment was delivered.

On October 17, Reuters reported that Syrian rebels had been using those missiles to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

It is not a secret that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has a personal vendetta against Syrian Prime Minister Bashar Al-Assad dating waaaay back to 2011. Prior to that, the two vacationed together, which is sort of weird. I think that Erdogan had been courting Assad in an attempt to convince him that a new unified caliphate (under Turkish rule, of course) was the best way forward for the long-term interests of the region. Erdogan's agenda had its roots in one thing only: restoration of Ottomaninfluence throughout the region as was seen right up until World War I.

It is also not a secret that secular, "Free Syrian Army" rebels fighting against Assad in Syria have been complaining for some time about an influx of radical jihadist fighters pouring into Syria from Libya. Bottom line, Turkey was doing everything it could, including the importation of savage, heavy-hitting islamist radicals, to take out every regional autocrat that refused to relinquish power.

When the Ottoman Sultan declared holy jihad against Britain, France, and Russia in 1914, by default he sided with Germany in World War I. In 1918 the Ottomans found themselves on the losing side. As a result, the largest islamic empire in history saw its territory taken by ‘infidels’. This was of course AFTER Arab forces (recruited by British Officer T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. 'Lawrence of Arabia) had allied with the West in the fight against the Ottomans. They had been promised that they would simply gain control over former Ottoman lands, but in truth that was the last thing the West wanted. What the West really wanted was a disparate and chaotic Middle East - something that couldn't unify to oppose Western trade routes in the region. The same style of approach had worked well for the West in Africa after the Berlin Conference of 1885.

The Berlin Conference of 1885 is to Africa what the Sykes-Picot Agreement became to the Middle East in 1916. Both ensured that new map lines were drawn that would effectively spring up small dictators that could be easily controlled. These dictators were usually very eccentric people that could be played against each other, something much more preferable to a single major dictator that controlled huge swaths of territory (the Ottoman Sultan) and could rally a much larger geographic region if he got really pissed.

It also meant that local people essentially became pawns in decades of wars that, for the most par, were a ruse. Occasionally, these wars would get a little too hot, and Western pawns (soldiers) would come in and restore the Western order.

Under Sykes-Picot, the lands of the Ottoman caliphate were carved up into modern day Turkey, Iraq (British protectorate), Kuwait (British), Syria (French), Jordan (British), and Lebanon (French). Russia didn't get anything because they had withdrawn from World War I prior to its conclusion (as a result of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution led by historical communist rock star Vladimir Lenin). The Ottomans also lost control of Mecca to the Sharif of Mecca in 1916 after he revolted with the help of T.E.  Lawrence (though the Sharif was later deposed control of Mecca in 1924 by the Saud family).

Look at the map - anywhere that is light orange is what is where the next battle grounds will be as islamists attempt to shatter the remnants of Sykes-Picot. And the West, the ones responsible for Sykes-Picot, is helping them. 

But I think that those in the West do not understand the radical forces they are dealing with. Ansar al-Shariah et al. are not freedom fighters. While they can be an effective force against destabilized dictators, they're also the type of guys that generally do not support the prosecution of men who pour acid on women for islamic non-compliance offenses. They like to behead people too. And other nasty stuff.

Click map for greater detail.

Over the course of the last 21 months, standing in the way of a return to Ottoman islamic rule were the dictators of Libya, Syria, and Egypt et al who refused to give up power. All are currently being targeted (Syria), have been dismantled or destroyed (Egypt, Libya, respectively).

Attempts by anti-islamists to regain power in the region have been crushed, or more accurately, they have been discretely assassinated. Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman was more known for his role as Mubarak's intelligence chief for 30 years, and was the most helpful ally to U.S. intelligence in the region, save Israel. 

He was in the running for Egyptian President, but as elections neared last summer Mr. Suleiman suddenly died on July 19, 2012 at a hospital in Cleveland, Ohio. Weird huh? He was not known to have been ill. Frankly, his death was a big effing deal, but the story only made page B11 of the July 20, 2012 New York Times. Admittedly, only vague mentions of it can be found elsewhere, even on Fox News.

In covering Mr. Suleiman's death, the NY Times reported that "when the CIA asked Mr. Suleiman if he could provide a DNA sample from a brother of the Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, Mr. Suleiman offered to send the agency the brother’s entire arm." It's safe to say that he had been a strong point-of-contact and ally. 

But in the end, I guess someone decided that Mr. Suleiman wasn't our buddy anymore. Since zero details were reported on his cause of death, I can only speculate that someone important issued an order to someone else to kill-Suleiman-until-he-fucking-dies.

Make no mistake, Turkey is the spearhead behind what is happening in the Middle East. And President Barack Obama is right beside Turkey in support. Obama has strong ties to Erdogan. But did this alliance transcend the lives of State Department staffers and CIA operatives in Benghazi?

It appears to be the case. For over an hour, CIA agents operating from a safehouse were told to refrain from helping their Countrymen at the consulate. This decision had nothing to do with Obama. Rather, it was a local decision made by the CIA Station Chief. 

Led by former Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, after 30 minutes the CIA contractors at the Annex decided to disobey the Station Chief's direct orders and staged a daring in-extremis rescue of their fellow Americans in distress at 10 p.m. Under heavy fire they scaled the rear wall of the consulate and laid down devastating suppressive fire, allowing their countrymen to be extracted, but they could not find Ambassador Stevens in the burning building where he was last seen. He was likely already dead. 

They were ambushed several times as they made their way back to the safehouse. They proceeded to repel wave after wave of attacks for over four hours. By 0430, seven hours after the attack began, Former Navy Seal Glen Doherty arrived in Benghazi with a team from Tripoli on a commandeered private jet (the ride cost him $30k). His team made their way to the safe-house, and, after linking up with and fiercely defending the rooftop with his good friend, Tyrone Woods, the two were killed from incoming mortar fire. 

Why, after eight hours, the only air support above the annex were two unarmed predator drones, is not known. These decisions, or lack thereof, go all the way to the top.

The Special Forces CIF (Commander's In-extremis Force) team was not given clearance to leave their current location in central Europe until almost 3 a.m. Benghazi time, over five hours after the attack on the consulate began. JSOC and CIA personnel on the ground at the annex were equipped as necessary to communicate with an armed aircraft and could have laser-identified targets, but the only thing circling above them was an unarmed drone. An unarmed drone is something which, while giving valuable information, does not communicate to the enemy that the sky is falling.

A brief look at a map reveals a visual array of multi-billion dollar assets in the region - Special Forces CIF teams in Croatia, a company of paratroopers on standby in Italy from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, F-16E fighter-attack aircraft also from Italy, and Marine Fleet Anti-terrorism Support Teams (FAST) in Spain.  

It should be noted that, starting in 2009 - for the first time since WWII - the standard Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU - a small fleet of ships carrying 2,200 combat ready Marines) was absent in the Mediterranean Sea during the Benghazi attack. MEUs still deployed to the region to train with region forces, but the MEU's long-standing continual 24/7 presence was discontinued in 2009. So in lieu of amphibious landing ships, vertical take-off Harrier attack aircraft, attack helicopters, and reconnaissance/infantry/tanks/artillery ground forces, was a single command ship with no forward-deployable assets. That's right, a single unarmed command ship was the only Naval asset in the Mediterranean region for the first time since WWII.

With this in mind, we have two questions at our feet. 

First, why the White House might be complicit in helping Turkey restore the Ottoman days?

The larger question, however, is why high-level decision makers felt so strongly in their position to aid enemies of the United States that it trumped the order for armed assets to aid Americans in peril. The Americans at the CIA safe-house acted heroically to preserve the lives of other Americans, and did so against direct orders. 

But it appears that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty's moral values to 'leave no one behind' were not shared by all in the American power structure. Decision makers who ultimately controlled the support assets could have brought the ongoing assault on the annex to its knees before 5am on September 12.  But they did not act.

Acting could have saved American lives, and sent a clear message to the enemy. Obfuscating the facts is no excuse.

20-year CIA Officer on Benghazi

This post was updated June 2014 due to broken video links.

"In Your Arrogance": Love of Theory Leads to Ruin

Journalism traditionally has served to act as the immune system of our country. Its job has been to attack untruths with the white blood cells of truth. To much alarm, this has been eroded away in our country at an exponential rate over the last few decades.

This is a result of something I call, "love of theory". Plainly put, love of theory is the root of all evil. Notice I didn't say that theory, alone and by itself, was evil. Actually, quite the opposite is true.

The spectrum from which you can judge all events is now staked out: an overwhelmingly good thing at one end of the spectrum, and an incredibly evil thing, at the other. One judges results; the other defines itself only by its intent.

Theory: brainstorms, undertakes action that tests a hypothesis, asks tough questions, learns, reassesses the situation, applies what was learned and advances humanity.

Love of theory: brainstorms, undertakes action that tests a hypothesis, fails to question results, becomes insecure, purposefully fails to report results that contradict the original theory, and attempts to assassinate the character of anyone who questions any inconsistencies.

As an example, in the case of despotic governments - the communist bastions of Russia, China, and Cuba - they have all stayed committed to their theory beyond all reproach and beyond all results. Their record of staying committed is impeccable: love of theory has led them to execute about 100 million people over the course of the last century.

The people who openly question the tenets of our capitalistic society fail to acknowledge that capitalism, by its very nature, questions itself daily - perhaps by the minute. The evidence of our success is clear - compare the lifestyle of a person considered below the poverty line in America to a poor person somewhere else on the globe. Compare poverty in Soviet bloc countries throughout the cold war to poverty in America during the same period.

So why do our elites, to this day, still throw their admiration behind men such as Che Guevara, romanticize men like George Bernard Shaw, and talk about the magnificent "democratic" revolution in Venezuela? Because love of theory is so pervasive that it fails to question the results of the tested hypothesis called communism: back-of-the-head executions, the designing of genocidal schemes based on class, and dictators who are "elected for life."

We have wasted tens of thousands of lives and trillions in treasure on a largely ineffective strategy in the War of Terror. We have simply treated symtoms - epic-level attacks on our own soil have been mitigated, but we have not addressed the disease itself with which we are at war. We are only treating symptoms of the secondary conditions that are resultant of a major underlying problem.

While our men and women have produced many decisive outcomes on the battlefield, we are losing the war of ideas. We don't have leadership - if America is to prevail, we cannot to so by pushing a rope. We have been led to believe it is morally superior to condemn one's own values and give ground to people who intimidate with threats of overt, massive violence - if even for the smallest of transgressions.

To the extent that we have taken on our enemies in open battle, few are willing to admit that our strategy has failed. We have never truly capitalized on our successes. Reaction to real-time intelligence is sloth-like because we have 11 years worth of bureaucrats that cause us to miss narrow, but vital, windows to take immediate action on the battlefield. We've opted instead to declare victory prematurely because that's what our script said we would do - when we did this we jumped from executing theory to latching onto love of theory.

Important issues have not honestly been addressed for years and are obfuscated through mouthpiece spokespeople. More recently, our leadership seems to think that we might be able to win without getting dirty with the people spreading the dirt, that our pathway to victory can be enhanced by simply omitting any mention of our enemy by name, or that we are really only fighting a small number of people. We have failed to consider the number of people globally that do not physically take up arms against us, but that are damn sure to celebrate when watching footage of a successful attack against us. They finance, they inform, and they aid and abet those who take up arms.

Our soldiers and honest leaders know better, but they are at the mercy of a dysfunctional system. Unqualified bureaucrats stay committed to their love of theory and are the ones who've been in control for the better part of a decade - they have micromanaged military efforts in all aspects beyond the first few months of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Eleven years is more than enough to judge the results of their efforts. Obviously their intended outcome has failed.

We must always remember that we are best served when we judge people not on their intentions but rather only on their results. What have we gained - what is our status? What of our enemy? Enter Lara Logan.

This woman is bold, courageous, and is one of the only pillars of journalistic integrity remaining in the body of this country. From events in Libya to the overall status of Al Queda, Americans are not being treated as adults. Instead we are treated like a timid patient who is told by our doctor that everything is fine, when clearly everything is not fine.

"Our way of life is under attack....if you think that's nonsense, if you think that's war-mongering - you're not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script. But you don't. This is two sides. And we don't dictate the terms."

~ Lara Logan, October 9, 2012, Chicago

The day after your ambassador is killed, why not defend free speech without question?



A few weeks after the attack that killed your ambassador, you felt you had reflected enough to address the UN General Assembly.



Very academic. Nice going. Did these Tunisian muslims, and millions of muslims all over the world, buy in to your lofty message?



I thought muslims only hated Bush? They're chanting your name, Sir. It appears that they're not happy with you. I am so confused by this, because you told us that our image would be restored in the world because you are so awesome.



Whoops...um...sorry to point out...your administration....uh....just became so arrogant that it stepped on its own dick. You're making us look bad now, Sir (by sending social justice champion Rice to the podium to speak on matters of national security).



Lastly, what was in this video that you say was so offensive? Did you know that it is still posted on YouTube because Google, YouTube's owner, still believes in free speech? Funny, they refused to remove it because they said it does not violate their policies. Imagine that. Why did you lobby so hard for them to take it down, because I just watched it again and it is just as insanely stupid as it was the first time.

This video is so slow on the uptake that if it can cause a stir in the muslim world, anything will. Get a life, rabid jihadists and political buffoons...both of you...for thinking this can, could, or should enrage people:



It is shameful that this video was even mentioned in the same sentence with the names Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith or Tyrone Woods. It was not the cause of the Benghazi attack. An enemy committed to destroy us was responsible - an enemy whose numbers are growing.

In attempting to explain what transpired on September 11, 2012, and the reasons these men are now gone, try addressing the truth, Mr. President. It sets you free - the same thing free speech has done for the rest of us for the last 236 years.

In March 2001, the Taliban and elements of Al Queda destroyed the 'Buddhas of Bamiyan' statues. The statues were located 140 miles northwest of Kabul, Afghanistan. They were built by Buddhist monks at the heyday of their empire in the early to mid part of the 6th century.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) produced a 2011 film offering an account of what happened. This clip was taken from their film, which was produced to mark the 10th anniversary of the statue's destruction:


Notice there is no explanation of who actually is responsible for blowing up the statues. Keep in mind that the United Nations, UNESCO's parent, appointed Moammar Gadhafi to the UN Human Rights Council in May 2010, only to suspend Libya's membership nine months later as the progressive-backed Arab spring unfolded.

Unfortunately for UNESCO, they failed to hire me, a simple-minded brute lacking a college degree, to assist them in researching their video. My typing skills and the ability to navigate around the youtube video database would have yielded them quick (about 20 seconds), decisive results in figuring out who blew up the statues:



The word at the beginning - khilafa - translates to caliphate, meaning islamic empire. These guys seem pretty proud of their work. Were they motivated by islam? To help answer this question, we might ask the opinion of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence (superior to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency), as he seems to be an expert on the muslim brotherhood:


If the muslim brotherhood is secular, Jimmy, they sure did pick a funny name.

Why does it seem that the most liberal elements of our society consistently fail to openly criticize the most conservative elements of islamic society?

Why do the most conservative elements of our society get called 'islamophobes' when they openly address certain very troubling aspects of islamic doctrine?

Between these two approaches, which is actually more culturally sensitive? If we are a just society, is justice not best served by identifying perpetrators of an attack by name? Do the victims benefit from the knowledge that others stand with them to face a common threat?

Why did the United States government recently remove of 900 pages of material from FBI and military intelligence training manuals because it was "offensive" to islam? Can these people work more or less efficiently when they lack training in religious fanaticism? If they are efficient in addressing islamic extremism, is that offensive?

Why did the word 'islam' fail to appear a single time in the official summary report detailing the actions of Nidal Malik Hassan's shooting of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood?

Answer to the last question: It failed to mention islam as being Hassan's motivator for the same reason the UNESCO video failed to mention who blew up the 1600 year old Buddha statues. For two reasons: 1.) lack of character to address the truth 2.) moral weakness to stand up for one's own values.

We now know that the video produced by a recent American immigrant, a Coptic Christian from Egypt, was not behind the Consulate attack that killed our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department has recently confirmed that there were no protests prior to the assault - a position that was relayed from people who were actually in Benghazi on the ground.

Were these first-hand accounts relayed to the public by designated spokespeople in the U.S. government? Answer: Probably. How did these leaders forward the message to the American public. Watch:

• Why does Susan Rice, speaking on Meet the Press five days after the attack, place so much emphasis on the video as being the cause of violence when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Why aren't more people acknowledging that the video was first viewable on youtube in June 2012 - a full three months prior to the attack?
• Even the president of Libya admitted that the attack was preplanned a week and a half prior to our own government conceding the point (their admittal, however, was ambiguous at best).
• The FBI team sent to sort through the rubble of the Consulate arrived three weeks after the attack and was on the ground for a total of three hours. How much evidence do you think was left after three weeks?
• We know that CNN had people on the ground almost immediately following the attack - they recovered the dead Ambassador's personal journal. Why was our government so slow to respond?
• Why did Vice President Biden just double down on the administration's assertion that they received no request for additional security from Benghazi Consulate officials, when the Ambassador's own journal said the opposite (as reported by Anderson Cooper)?
• What the eff is going on?

Either elements of our government are grossly incompetent, or something smells foul.

• Is the Obama administration trying to obscure convincing evidence that their foreign policy has proven to be tremendously naive? Are they humble enough to reassess their strategy and change course?
• Why did Hillary Clinton sign on to United Nations resolution 1618 in July of 2011, whereby it would be a crime of the World Court to blasphemize the prophet of other religions?
• Should a lengthy, persistent, and neurotic emphasis on the video as being the cause of violence be considered to be a positive outreach to the muslim world? Should we see it as demonstrative of the implementation of UN resolution 1618? Is the arrest of the film's producer in California proof?

Blasphemy laws in Western culture have been irrelevant since the early 18th century. Today they are still life-and-death relevent in all 57 islamic countries around the world. Yes, you will be thrown in jail or could be sentenced to death there if you speak out against islam. Even in the UAE, a progressive place by islamic standards, Western couples have been thrown in jail for kissing in public.

• Does these types of laws move society forward, or backward, in terms of progressing the rights of human kind?
• Are we really moving in the right direction when we advance the same sort of agenda in our own country?

Lastly, to further assist UNESCO with its protection of human and cultural rights, I will give them something the FBI calls a clue: radical islam has a problem with everyone who is not them, including moderate muslims. Its called jihad. Google it. This is not a Christian thing. Far from it. Why haven't we heard more about this attack on Buddhists in our news, considering that it happened only two weeks ago and comes on the heels of Libya?


Leave it to Russia Today to bring in a guest, author Serge Trifkovic, that gets it 100% right in his description of recent events in the Middle East. I couldn't agree more with his assessment of the situation. Put simply, it is an intelligent response. To him, 2+2 = 4.

I wish I could say the same of our country's academic elites, media progressives, and professional political operatives. To them, 2+2 = 5. They are so obviously in the tank - so much so that they are a national security threat to the American people. Because of their cooperation with a dangerous administration hell bent on fundamental transformation, I fear that very soon someday we will wake up to a very, very bad day in this country.

And the people who haven't daily looked for and found alternative media sources will wonder what happened. They will wonder how such an event could have happened. The reason the mainstream media is a threat is because they are consciously denying people the type of warning information that could be used to lobby their political leaders and demand that a new course be set.

With no night light, a man takes a risk that he pees in the dark all over the floor. With no honest media, citizens are put at risk by their doctor when he tells them to always pee in the dark, and that if it feels like razorblades when they pee, it's normal.