Friday, November 2, 2012

The most serious case of treason in the history of the nation

I agree completely. This is perhaps the most serious case of treason in the history of the nation. It cannot get any traction because of the lack of an independent media. I don’t know where it goes. I am sending out stuff very day to anybody who will post it.

I am reading “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers – it is amazing to read. This is the book that transformed Ronald Reagan from a liberal Democrat to a Conservative Republican.

We are going through a situation almost identical to what happened in the 30s and 40s.

This is one of many memorable quotes from that book:

It is certain that between the years 1930 and 1948, a group of almost unknown men and women, Communists or close fellow travelers, or their dupes, working in the United States Government, or in some singular unofficial relationship to it, or working in the press, affected the future of every American now alive, and indirectly the fate of every man now going into uniform. Their names, with half a dozen exceptions, still mean little or nothing to the mass of Americans.

But their activities, if only in promoting the triumph of Communism in China, have decisively changed the history of Asia, of the United States, and therefore of the world. If mankind is about to suffer one of its decisive transformations, if it about to close its 2000-year-old experience of Christian civilization, and enter upon another and wholly new and diametrically different, then that group may claim a part in history such as it is seldom given to any men to play, particularly so few an such obscure men.”

This is the same point made by Chang Jung in her masterpiece “Mao: The Untold Story” – it was the leftists in the United States government who insured Mao’s success in establishing Communist tyranny in China. They also financed the Russian revolution many years earlier, and blocked efforts to stop the expansion of Communism in Europe by the treasonous involvement of American Communists, including Alger Hiss and Robert Service, in the Potsdam and Yalta conferences that resulted in the Iron Curtain.

And Alger Hiss was the author of the United Nations charter. The evil that is being fostered under the aegis of the United Nations is just now becoming fully manifested.

I believe we are still being affected by the conditions and processes that were put in place in America by the Communists 70 years ago. Those people, or their successors, are still there. They have never been rooted out. McCarthy was vilified and shut down. The job that was not completed by the HUAC needs to be finished or we will never have freedom and peace.

I believe the Democratic Party is a Communist front and should be outlawed. There should be no political parties, as George Washington strongly recommended. There is virtually no solution to any problem offered by the Democratic Party that is consistent with the Constitution. By its very nature, the Democratic Party is hostile to the Constitution, and should be dissolved for that reason alone.

I also believe that militant Islam, in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, in all its various guises, is equally dangerous and seditious. I have recently read new evidence that all the mosques built in the U.S. were built directly or indirectly by individuals with Muslim Brotherhood connections. The Muslims in American are a massive Fifth Column, stealthily proceeding with their agenda of taking over the U.S. Once they succeed, conversion to Islam will not be optional. Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, and non-believers will all eventually be massacred.

Anybody who can’t see this is not paying attention. The linkages between the Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood are such that in some sense they are indistinguishable, as least as far as their mutual commitment to the destruction of the American system of constitutional government.

I don’t know how we get these spineless Republicans to face these truths, but I firmly believe that unless we undertake a major effort to expose these traitors and expunge them from government, our nation will not be able to survive as a constitutional republic.

Subject: Re: Pickering's Red Flags - Forget an impartial Benghazi investigation by the Obama administration

This is a million times worse than Watergate. Seems like the American people need to start demonstrating every weekend. It's hard to believe Obama is skating (so far). If this was a republican president I think he may have resigned by now. Incredible.

What do you think will happen on this issue? We need to go after Obama regardless as to the election outcome. The man belongs in prison for a myriad of felonies and crimes against America.

Sent: Fri, November 2, 2012 10:04:34 AM
Subject: Pickering's Red Flags - Forget an impartial Benghazi investigation by the Obama administration
Pickering's Red Flags
Forget an impartial Benghazi investigation by the Obama administration
“So many red flags pop up around Pickering that his selection becomes another Benghazi-gate scandal in itself.”
Diana West
Nov 02, 2012

As we arrive at Election Day, some of the most crucial questions left unanswered about Benghazi are, in fact, the simplest. They are not “fog of war” questions. They are not questions rendered unanswerable by “conflicting intelligence.”
They are questions that probe clear actions taking place not on the roof of a safe house under mortar fire, but inside the fortress-like, orderly and well-lit White House.
Who turned down requests for military relief for Americans under rocket and mortar fire?
Who decided to suppress the fact that no protest preceded this attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that claimed four American lives?
Who ordered senior Obama administration officials to lie to the American people for two weeks by blaming a YouTube video for a “spontaneous” outbreak of violence that was, in fact, a coordinated terrorist assault?
President Obama declared he made his priorities about Benghazi clear “the minute I found out what was happening.” He said: “Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” If he issued an unexecuted order to this effect, there was a grievous breakdown in the chain of command that must be exposed. If, on the other hand, Barack Obama is lying, that must be exposed, too. It’s not a hard fact to find out.
But is Thomas Pickering, Obama’s choice to lead the Benghazi investigation, the proper person to search for it? On first glance, Pickering, a retired top diplomat and State Department official, sets off conflict-of-interest alarms for heading an investigation that must focus closely on the State Department. On closer inspection, however, so many red flags pop up around Pickering that his selection becomes another Benghazi-gate scandal in itself.
Pickering is one of those Washington insiders whose public record is less a matter of what he’s done than what he’s been: U.S. ambassador to Russia, Israel, El Salvador, Jordan, India, Nigeria and the United Nations. What such postings may obscure, however, is that the man is a foreign policy establishment leftist. It’s not just that Pickering serves as chairman of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group, a George Soros group that, for example, advocated engagement with the Shariah-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Pickering has personally explored opening relations with Hamas; pushed peace talks with the Taliban; argued for getting rid of, or removing to the U.S., all tactical nuclear weapons in Europe (and moving Russia’s to east of the Urals); and promoted bilateral talks with Iran without preconditions. And speaking of Iran, Pickering sits on the boards of two pro-Tehran groups, the American Iranian Council and the National Iranian American Council. The Iranian connections are additionally disturbing since one Benghazi scenario to be explored is whether Iran was involved, possibly in retribution for U.S. support of anti-Assad forces (including jihadists) in Syria.
Pickering’s politics place him squarely inside the Obama foreign policy mainstream, but that’s not the proper point from which to investigate an Obama foreign policy fiasco. Indeed, Pickering has expressed support for Obama’s Libya policy, “where,” as he put it in March, “we play a major role behind the scenes and … incorporate many other people in the activities we did in Libya.” Explaining the Libyan “experimentation” in “consultative leadership” that minimizes the U.S. military role, Pickering sounds as if he also endorsed the disastrous policy of relying on local jihadist militias for U.S. security.
On a panel titled “The Muslim Experience in America” at Washington’s National Cathedral, Pickering recently advocated “dialogue with the Iranians … informed by an effort to develop religious understanding and perhaps harmony,” while also bridging the “gulf” with Islam in America more generally. He also made an ominous call for “strong efforts … to deal with opinion leaders who harbor (anti-Islam) prejudices, who espouse them and spread them.” Then he took a question on how returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans might “complicate efforts to promote the acceptance of Muslims in America.” His answer, in a nutshell, was that it wouldn’t. He noted that soldiers “understand that as loyal Americans that kind of prejudice is not to be expressed.”
This drew a fervent rebuttal from co-panelist James J. Zogby of the Arab American Institute, who argued that “the racism [of soldiers] was really intense”; further, that it resulted from manuals and classes now expunged from Pentagon and Justice training. (“The FBI training program is shameful,” he added, referring to Islamic educational materials and trainers “purged” earlier this year.)
“There’s a direct correlation between the president of the United States and Islamophobia,” Zogby said, adding: “This hatred toward Muslims is largely concentrated with middle-class, middle-aged white people. And men. And it overlaps almost identically with the Tea Party.”
Racism, hatred and the Tea Party: Zogby put this whole concoction down not to jihad, not to the Islamic movement to spread Shariah (Islamic law), but solely to economic hard times. “And in the midst of all of that,” he continued, “this group of white, middle-aged, middle-class men looked around and saw a young African-American, educated at Harvard, with the middle name Hussein, get elected president of the United States. It fueled this phenomenon. It opened the door for the wedge issue to operate.”
Noting polls reflecting persistent doubts about the president’s birth certificate and other documents, Zogby concluded: “So there’s an overlay between the racism and the Islamophobia, and I think that we have to understand it and address it. And realize that there is this dangerous cancer that has affected the electorate. And is being used as a wedge issue.”
Pickering’s response? “Let me just go further. Jim, I agree with what you say about both domestic politics and the wedge issue. And the effect on the attitude toward the president. I’m deeply concerned. I don’t agree with you that the veterans are a problem. I agree with you we had a huge problem with the armed forces, and you’re right: It is the enemy.”
Those “racist” armed forces are “the enemy”? That’s a U.S. diplomat talking? Perhaps this most undiplomatic expression of institutional animus toward the military represents the mindset that helped lead us to Benghazi.
Could someone who agrees that jihad is a poisonous figment of envious Tea Partiers and not an age-old institution of Islam possibly find out what’s at the bottom of Benghazi? Of course not. And who doesn’t think that’s why Barack Obama picked him?

No comments:

Post a Comment