Saturday, January 24, 2015

Community versus collectivism

Community versus collectivism

hands stacked

Brandon Smith is under the weather, so we are running a “Best of Brandon Smith” article.

Tyranny thrives by feeding on human necessity. It examines what sustains us, what we hope for, what we desire and what we love, and it uses those needs as leverage against us.

If you want safety, tyrants will take it away and barter it back to you at a steep price. If you want to raise a family, then you must accept the state as a part-time parent. If you want independence, then you are simply labeled as a threat and done away with altogether. Autocratic rulers are first and foremost salesmen; they convince us that life itself has a cost, that we are born indebted and that all bills must be made payable to the establishment. First and foremost, we are sold on the idea that in all of this, we are ultimately alone.

It is within these manipulated concepts of cost and isolation that we discover the foundation of all totalitarian cultures: collectivism.

Collectivism is a psychological prison derived from a beneficial instinct as old as humanity itself: the instinct to connect with others, to share experiences and knowledge, to build and create together. It is an instinct as essential to our survival as breathing. Collectivism uses this instinct as a weapon. It is a corrupted and poisoned harnessing of our intuitive nature. It is an inadequate and cancerous substitute for something that normally invigorates and supports healthy culture: true community.

In this age, our ideas of what constitutes “community” have been tainted and confused with the propaganda of collectivists. Our instincts tell us that the world we have been presented is hollow, while our controlled environment tells us that the world is just as it should be (or the best we’re going to get, anyway). How then, are we to tell the difference between natural community and destabilizing and destructive collectivism?

Common aspects of collectivism

Looking back at the single-minded and highly dominating collectivist experiments of the past, it is easy to see the common threads between them. Certain methods are always present. Certain actions are always taken. Certain beliefs are always adopted. Here are just a few:

The blank slate: In order for the state to elevate itself in importance above the individual, it must first promote the idea that the individual does not exist, that your uniqueness or inherent character are only a byproduct of your environment. There are many methods to propagating this mindset. Junk science and establishment psychological theorists often treat the human mind as a mere bundle of chemicals and synapses.

Existentialism attacks individualism from the philosophical end, suggesting that all actions and reactions are random results of a purely chaotic universe, while at the same time peddling moral relativism and apathy.

Religious organizations that choose to abuse their positions of trust also feed collectivism by standing in the way of personal awareness, or even making it taboo to value the individual over the collective (though people tend to wrongly blame the concept of religion itself, rather than the corrupt men who sometimes misuse it).

Each one of these tactics is a tool in the arsenal of collectivists meant to degrade our social admiration for individual thought. Yet as desperate as elitists have been through the years to build an environment devoid of independent thought, they have met only with failure.

Centralization instead of cooperation: Cooperation in society is often spontaneous and dependent on a number of underlying factors working together at the right place and at the right time. It takes a noble endeavor and even more noble leadership to inspire the masses to step onto the same path toward the same direction. This is why legitimate, large-scale cooperation is so venerated in the annals of history; such events are truly rare and miraculous. Tyrants and elitists have no endeavors that rank as “noble.” They serve only their own interests. So, instead of trying to encourage cooperation they won’t receive, they centralize various systems by coercion. If you can’t convince the public to abandon their own paths for yours, then forcefully remove all paths until the people have only one choice left.

Economic centralization is very indicative of this maneuver. While we in the liberty movement see a whole spectrum of possible options for markets and trade, many other people see only what is right in front of them: the same crooked fiat money system controlled by the same gaggle of fraudulent central bankers. A large portion of our populace has been convinced that there is only one way to participate in the economy; thus, they act collectively and blindly.

Another obvious example is the false left/right political system. While there are as many political views as there are people, most people tend to affiliate themselves with one of two: Republican or Democrat. Even if you were to believe that the two major parties are honestly opposed, you have still allowed the establishment to narrow your choices down to two. Add the fact that both major parties actually support nearly the same exact policies and goals, and now your choices have been narrowed to one. Millions of people jump on this one bandwagon every four years, thinking that they are cooperating voluntarily, when they have instead been centralized, and collectivized.

Constant fear, constant threats: Fear and survival are powerful motivators. Without ample self-awareness and strength of character, these basic instincts can overwhelm rationality and conscience. Every collectivist feudalist system ever devised has used a “common enemy” or an iron hand to quell dissent in the citizenry and to forcefully unify them not under the auspices of an honest cause, but a terror so profound as to drive them to malleable despair. After a period of constant danger and distress, even fascism can feel comfortable for a while. Collectivist systems are always clashing with the bubbling tides of individual freedom. Because of this, they must continuously qualify their usefulness. There must always be an imminent threat over the horizon; otherwise, the strangling regulations of the state serve no purpose.

Individualism equated with selfishness: One of the inevitable conditions of collectivism is the demonization of free thought. In a collective, every person becomes a cog in a great machine. The majority begins to see itself not as a group of individuals acting together, but as a single unit with a single purpose. Any person who chooses to step outside of the box and point out a different view becomes a danger to the whole. A machine cannot function if all the parts are not working in harmony. Disagreement in a collectivist system is not considered a civic duty; it is considered a crime that places everyone else at risk. As a dissenter, you are not a person, but a malfunction that must be dealt with.

It is easy to tell when your nation is turning toward collectivism; you have to gauge only how often you are accused of “selfishness” every time you question the needs of the state over the needs of the individual.

Promises of a fantastic future: “Innovation” and “progress” are alluring dreams that can easily be realized in a free society made up of intelligent individuals thinking in ways that go against the norm. The more unique insights present in a culture, the more likely it is to surpass itself and succeed. Strangely, though, it always seems to be collectivists who throw around visions of high-tech trains, floating cities and sustainability as benefits to relinquishing certain freedoms. The insinuation is that if people set aside their individualism, their society becomes stronger and more productive, like worker bees who strive for only one thing: the perfect hive.

Common aspects of community

Now that we have explored the intricacies of collectivism, let’s take a look at what it is designed to destroy. What makes real community? What are its benefits and its weaknesses? How does it begin? How does it end? Why is it such a threat to collectivists?

Real purpose: Communities develop in light of meaningful exchange. Their purpose is natural and common. Their goals are not fixed, but evolve as the community progresses. The beneficiaries are the citizenry — sometimes even those who do not directly participate, rather than a select minority of elites. Communities work best when purpose and destiny are self-determined.

Voluntary participation: There is no need to force people to participate in a system that operates on honesty, conscience and individual will. In fact, many people today long for a system like this. When men and women apply their energies to something they believe in, instead of something they are manipulated into following, the results can be spectacular. Progress becomes second nature — an afterthought instead of an unhealthy obsession.

Legitimate respect: The purpose of a true community is not to keep tabs on the personal lives of its participants, nor to mold their notions. The rights of the individual are respected above all else. Again, the more varied the insights of a population, the stronger it becomes. For a community to attempt to stifle the viewpoints of its citizens would be to commit suicide. There is strength in numbers, but even greater strength in variety. Individualism takes effort, time and dedication. A society made up of people who have made this journey cannot help but esteem each other.

Flexibility leads to stability: A wise man adopts what works and throws out what fails. He does not dismiss methods out of hand, nor does he hang onto methods that disappoint simply because he cannot let go. He educates himself through experience. Adaptability, flexibility and agility in thought and in policy create solid ground for a society to build. Communities survive by being able to admit when a mistake has been made and by being open to new options. Rigid systems, like collectivist systems, cannot function unless the people conform to the establishment and its deficiencies. Communities function best when the establishment conforms to the people and the truth.

Mutual aid: Collectivist systems are notorious for promoting the idea that “we are all one.” However, they usually end up becoming the most antisocial and uncaring cultures to grace the planet. You cannot centralize or enforce charity because then it is no longer charity, but slavery. Citizens of communities, on the other hand, actually seek to help each other — not because they expect immediate returns or because it’s “good for the state,” but because they value an atmosphere of benevolence. The generosity of community helps individuals detach from dependence on government, or bureaucracy. The less dependence on centralized authority, the stronger and safer everyone becomes.

Mutual defense: While collectivism sacrifices its participants for some undefined “greater good,” communities defend one another, knowing that if the fate of one’s neighbor is ignored, the fate of oneself may also be ignored by others. No one is “expendable” in a community. Everyone is expendable in a collective.

Building community in a modern world

The task of constructing meaningful community today is daunting, but crucial. In an increasingly centralized and desensitized world, the only recourse of the honorable is to decentralize and to reintroduce the model of independence once again. This starts with self-sufficient communities and solid principles. It starts with unabashed and unwavering pride in the values of sovereignty and liberty. It starts with a relentless pursuit of balance and truth. It starts with an incredible amount of hard work.

The trappings of collectivism sometimes seem insurmountable. The mindless devotion of our friends and family to a system that harms them can cause us to lose hope and to lose focus. We must remember how collectivism operates: by removing the power of choice from the equation. If we return that power, then many people who we may have once deemed “lost causes” might awaken as well. By exposing the masses to another option, a better option, we undo years of lies and lengths of chain. If there was ever a perfect moment to begin this battle, now is the time. Americans are still searching for solutions, and they are not too fearful to pursue them once they are found.

–Brandon Smith




Friday, January 23, 2015

10 Rules for Success on Capitol Hill |

10 Rules for Success on Capitol Hill | Commentary
  • By John A. Lawrence
  • Jan. 21, 2015, 2:29 p.m.

Here’s some nonpartisan advice for newly elected members of the House and Senate about how to be a successful legislator.

1. Assume nothing! Many missteps occur because novices “assume” Congress works like things do back home. It doesn’t. Capitol Hill is unique, for good and bad. Learn the rules.

2. Don’t confuse “advocacy” and “politics.” Advocacy is telling people what you want; politics is getting other people to agree with what you want. These are completely different skills. Your job in Congress is to get work done, not simply to score points with people who already support you. If that is your preferred style, trade in your voting card for a soapbox.

3. Don’t get discouraged. Legislating is an ongoing exercise; you rarely win or lose entirely. Your opponents are waiting for you to give up. Our system wasn’t designed to be efficient. After a few months of the molasses-like pace of legislating, you might agree with historian George Galloway who observed, “Congress is an oxcart in the age of the atom.” Keep in mind: Galloway said that in 1946.

4. Don’t think just because you changed the world, it is going to remain that way. Don’t be so impressed with a victory that you neglect dogging its implementation. Many statutes gather dust because disapproving bureaucrats obstruct them. Also, keep in mind: There’s nothing wrong admitting a law needs improvements or updating. That is where the terms “reauthorization” and “technical correction” come from.

5. Be dissatisfied. If you aren’t, get dissatisfied; if you can’t, get out of the business. Politics is about righting wrongs not managing programs or balancing numbers. There is always something wrong to get angry about. And don’t complain about how hard the job is. No one wants to listen to some disenchanted officeholder complain about what’s wrong with Washington.

6. Take your work seriously but not your own importance. As they say, “The graveyard is full of indispensable men.” An experienced politician once said, “Anytime you think you’re really important, take a ride down the freeway about 10 minutes and see who knows who you are.” If you work really hard and achieve some difficult legislative victories, you might, might, make it to the Senate, or higher. But you probably won’t, so enjoy what you are doing.

7. Become the “go-to” expert. Members seek out knowledgeable colleagues, so be one. Don’t try to be an expert or insist on speaking on every subject. You colleagues do not want to listen to someone who is a) trying to flaunt expertise, b) delaying the adjournment of a meeting or c) repeating an earlier speech. As Speaker Sam Rayburn once said, “You ain’t learnin’ nothin’ when you’re talkin’.”

8. Let your staff participate. You pay them lots of money for their expertise, and then many stand around silently so members don’t appear staff dependent. Your people are teammates in pursuit of a common goal, not just your cheering section. And by the way: Don’t fill your Washington office with campaign staff. 




ADMIRAL: U.S. COULD HAVE OUSTED GADHAFI PEACEFULLY


ADMIRAL: U.S. COULD HAVE OUSTED GADHAFI PEACEFULLY
col_gadhafi

Moammar Gadhafi

NEW YORK – As the allied bombing of Libya began in 2011, the Obama administration rejected an offer by Moammar Gadhafi to engage in negotiations to abdicate, according to a retired U.S. Navy officer who says he was prepared to broker the deal.

Instead, the U.S. decided to provide weapons to “rebels” consisting of al-Qaida-related local Libyan militia and members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, contends retired Rear Adm. Chuck Kubic.

Kubic began email and telephone contact March 21, 2011, between Tripoli and AFRICOM in Stuttgart, Germany, to broker an offer by Gadhafi to engage in talks with the U.S. under a white flag of truce, according to testimony he provided the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

As WND reported Monday, the commission – comprised of 17 retired admirals and generals; former intelligence agents; active anti-terrorist experts; media specialists; and former congressmen – has been conducting its own investigation and working behind the scenes for the past year and a half to ensure Congress uncovers the truth of what happened in Benghazi and holds people accountable.

WND reported Tuesday the commission found in an interim report that the Obama White House and the State Department under the management of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “changed sides in the war on terror” in 2011 by implementing a policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-dominated rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Gadhafi.

As WND previously reported on Tuesday, the Citizens Commission on Benghazi has concluded the State Department then under the direction of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authorized Christopher Stevens prior to the fall of Qadhafi to enter Libya at Benghazi from a cargo ship, where he implemented an Obama administration policy of facilitating the delivery of weapons to the al-Qaida-controlled rebel militias in Libya attempting to oust Gadhafi from power.

The commission’s April 2014 interim report said the war in Libya continued “and ultimately cost tens of thousands of lives.”

“The U.S. failure to even consider Gadhafi’s request for talks, and its determination to enter and pursue this war in support of al-Qaida-linked rebels, presents the appearance of a policy intent upon empowering Islamic forces with no measurable benefit to U.S. national security,” the report said.

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi involves a group of 17 now retired admirals and generals, former intelligence agents, active anti-terrorist experts, media specialists, and former members of Congress organized

The commission was organized in 2013 by Accuracy in Media Editor Roger Aronoff along with three retired military officers: Navy Adm. James Lyons, Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely and Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney.

Their interim report said Gadhafi “expressed his willingness to abdicate shortly after the beginning of the 2011 Libyan revolt, but the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce, which led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans), chaos, and detrimental outcomes for U.S. national security objectives across the region.”

In the following days, the report said, Gadhafi “expressed interest in a truce, and possible abdication and exile out of Libya.”

“He even pulled his forces back from several Libyan cities as a sign of good faith.”

The report detailed the precise chain of communications with the U.S. government regarding the possibility Gadhafi would abdicate and obviate the need for the U.S. to join with NATO to back the al-Qaida-affiliated militia seeking to depose the dictator.

Kubic, according to the report, telephoned Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM point of contact for all military matters regarding the Libyan situation, to “advise him of Gadhafi’s desire to enter into military-to-military discussions.”

Gen. Carter Ham was advised immediately on 21 March 21, 2011, of the communications and conveyed them up his chain of command to the Pentagon.

The Obama administration, however, expressed no apparent interest in pursuing the possibility Gadhafi might step down from power in Libya, the report said.

After two days of communication with the Libyans, however, Ham had received no consent from Washington, D.C., to pursue Gadhafi’s offer.

The consequences of rejecting Gadhafi’s offer to step down were dire, the interim report detailed, leading to the Obama administration “changing sides” in Libya to support and help arm the al-Qaida-related Islamic militia and Libyan Muslim Brotherhood members planning to launch a violent rebellion to oust Gadhafi.

“About the time the bombing of Libya by U.S. and European forces under NATO started around March 19, 2011, I became aware through intermediaries that Gadhafi was ready to step aside and go into exile,” Kubic explained to WND in an exclusive interview. “I was talking through intermediaries to Gadhafi’s top military commanders and the command center at Stuttgart, but I never spoke directly with General Ham.”

Kubic explained he was trying to facilitate a 72-hour truce to conduct discussions between opposing battlefield commanders, Ham for AFRICOM and Gen. Abubaker Saad for the Libyans.

“I was concerned there were too many politicians and diplomats involved, but Gadhafi trusted his generals, and I thought that from a military perspective pursuant to the laws of war this would be the best way to do it,” Kubic continued.

Kubic explained what he was trying to achieve: “This resonated with AFRICOM, so we drafted up proposal and there were phone calls between Tripoli and Stuttgart.

“Under the 72-hour truce, the military commanders from both sides would meet either ashore at Tripoli or afloat, and there would be observers from the African Union to police the truce. The goal was to negotiate a cease-fire, and the purpose was to get Gadhafi’s abdication and his subsequent either internal or external exile.

Kubic said that as an expression of good faith, AFRICOM asked Gadhafi to pull back at Benghazi, “and AFRICOM was able to observe Gadhafi complying and pulling back.”

Kubic noted that part of the initial agreement was for Ham to make a public statement that the U.S. was not targeting Gadhafi.

The condition was partially met in a Department of Defense news briefing held by Vice Admiral Gortney in Washington on behalf of AFRICOM on March 20, 2011.

Gortney said he could “guarantee” that Gadhafi was not on a target list for the U.S. joint operation with European forces under NATO in Operation Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. military code name for the U.S. military involvement in Libya.

Then, also on March 21, 2011, in a televised news briefing from Germany, Ham, in response to press questions, stressed the U.S. military was not targeting Gadhafi.

“Everything seemed to be set and there was a lot of enthusiasm that we could stop this crisis in Libya before it got out of hand,” he continued.

Gadhafi had two conditions, Kubic explained.

“He wanted to ensure that there was a residual military force left in Libya to oppose the al-Qaida forces he knew were operating in Libya, and he wanted safe passage for his family and friends,” he said.

“The Libyan military, as part of the discussions, wanted to leave one or two of Gadhafi’s top generals who would continue to command the military forces to make sure Libya remained stable after Gadhafi abdicated and to insure al-Qaida didn’t take over the country.”

Suddenly, Kubic was informed the U.S. did not want to proceed with the discussions. The idea of a 72-hour cease-fire was “off,” and AFRICOM was ordered “to stand down” form truce talks.

“AFRICOM thought Gadhafi’s conditions were reasonable, and we were just in the process of settling where the truce talks would be held, when AFRICOM told me that everything had been called off,” Kubic said.

“I then asked to speak with Gen. Ham and was told the decision was reached above his head. I then asked who at the Pentagon I needed to see and was told the decision came from outside the Pentagon,” he continued.

“I found it hard to understand that we have a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House and President Obama was not willing to give peace a chance in Libya for 72 hours,” Kubic said.

“I don’t know if the decision came from the White House or from Hillary Clinton at the State Department,” he said, “but the advice for me from AFRICOM was to basically just leave everything alone, to simply stand down.”

Yet that was not the end of the story.

“I was told by an authoritative source in the U.S. government that an intelligence memorandum was prepared on the negotiations that went to President Obama in its raw form. And this was the document that basically gave the actual intelligence on the al-Qaida elements that were part of the Libyan revolution,” Kubic said.

“All these negotiations happened in the period of March 19-22, 2011, and the intelligence document given the president was created on March 24, 2011,” Kubic noted. “It was on March 29, 2011, that President Obama signed the finding authorizing the United States to arm the rebels.”

Confirming Kubic’s timeline, Reuters reported March 30, 2011, that Obama “has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi,” citing government officials.

Reuters further reported the “presidential finding” signed by Obama was “a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Did Obama administration brief GOP?

Former CIA agent Kevin Shipp, a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, said he believes House Majority Leader John Boehner and other members of the “Gang of Eight” in Congress were briefed by the Obama administration on Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ involvement with the CIA was in Benghazi.

Shipp spent 17 years with the CIA counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, human intelligence operations and internal security. He also was a program manager of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security, Anti-Terrorism Assistance global police training program.

Among his roles was working on the 7th floor at Langley conducting protective duties for then-CIA Director William Casey.

In his interview with WND, Shipp made clear he was speaking on the record for himself, not representing the views of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi or of the views of any of the other members.

The “Gang of Eight” leaders in Congress, who are regularly briefed by the White House on intelligence matters, are the speaker of the House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority and minority leaders and the chairmen and ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In the 113th Congress from 2012-2014, the Republican members were House Speaker John Boehner; then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“I think the GOP Gang of Eight, including Boehner, have guilty knowledge of everything the Obama administration and the State Department conducted in Libya,” Shipp said.

“Even when it got to the ultimate goal of Christopher Stevens diverting weapons up with the assistance of Qatar and Saudi Arabia of diverting weapons from Libya up through Turkey to the rebels in Syria, the GOP Gang of Eight, with security clearances, would have been briefed in advance of the operation.”

Shipp continued: “In my opinion Boehner and the other GOP members of the Gang of Eight would have been witting of the gun-running activities the CIA and State Department were conducting in Libya from the very beginning. When everything went wrong and Stevens was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it’s my belief Boehner and none of the other GOP members of the Gang of Eight wanted the American public to know they had anything to do with it.”

Kubic told WND he could not confirm the Gang of Eight had received an intelligence briefing on the presidential finding Obama signed March 29, 2011, authorizing the CIA to support the Libyan al-Qaida-affiliated rebels in their military efforts to oust Gadhafi.

“In this particular case, I don’t know whether the Gang of Eight was briefed, whether they were partially briefed and not given the whole story, or whether they were really not briefed at all,” Kubic cautioned.

“It makes a big difference,” he said. “The question is whether the Gang of Eight were accessories to Obama’s presidential directive of March 29, 2011, or were they unwitting accomplices. We don’t know, and it’s my personal opinion that it’s not proper to jump to conclusions.”

He said it’s a matter for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, headed by Rep. Gowdy, R-S.C.

Did GOP leaders know of al-Qaida affiliation

On April 22, 2011, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., publicly called for support of Libya’s rebels in their rebellion to oust Gadhafi.

“They are my heroes,” McCain told reporters as he out of a hotel in Benghazi after having toured a rebel stronghold, NBC’s Richard Engel reported.

Engel said that McCain, “one of the strongest proponents in Congress of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, said he planned to meet with the rebel National Transition Council, the de-facto government in the eastern half of the country.”

NBC further reported McCain “said at a news conference Friday that all nations should recognize the council as the legitimate voice of the Libyan people.”

Engel quoted McCain saying: “I would encourage every nation, especially the United States, to recognize the Transitional National Council as the legitimate voice of the Libyan people.”

On May 2, 2011, after being informed privately by a phone call from the White House in advance of Obama’s nationally televised announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by U.S. Special Forces operating in Pakistan, House Speaker John Boehner put out a statement: “This is great news for the security of the American people and a victory in our continued fight against al-Qaida and radical extremism around the world.”

‘Papered silent with security agreements’

Shipp explained both Republican and Democratic White Houses require the Gang of Eight to sign secrecy agreements before receiving classified administration briefings on foreign policy and intelligence matters.

“The White House papers everybody briefed in Congress with secrecy agreements,” he said. “This agreement threatens the possibility of criminal prosecution if any classified information is leaked to the public in an unauthorized fashion.”

He noted a member of the House or Senate could be removed from office for violation of the agreement.

“These agreements are powerful instruments of persuasion.”

Shipp questioned whether the Benghazi gun-running operation was classified “above top secret,” meaning Boehner and the other GOP members would face severe penalties, including the possibility of criminal prosecution, if any leaked the information.

Or, he asked, was it possible the GOP leadership believed Obama signing of the Presidential Finding on March 29, 2011, authorizing the CIA to support the Libyan rebels would have implied his approval of the gun-running activities subsequently undertaken by the CIA in conjunction with the State Department?

Shipp acknowledged that a criminal or, even worse, a traitorous White House could use the secrecy agreements to ensure silence.

“Unfortunately, that could happen,” he said. “If the CIA wants to conceal an operation, they classify it at a very high level and they paper Congress with a secrecy agreement such that you are bound for life.”

Shipp emphasized how ironclad the CIA-executed secrecy agreements were.

“Any disclosure of information in an unauthorized fashion could result in prison time,” he said. “The document makes it clear that anyone who signs it can never mention the operation or any connection to the operation. Even if the information comes out in a public forum, you can’t so much as confirm a news report, because just confirming information can be considered a violation of the security agreement.”

A ‘de facto, third-party assassination’

Shipp discussed his concerns that the Obama administration shifted ground in Libya and refused to accept Gadhafi’s offer to abdicate.

“Gadhafi had established diplomatic relations with the United States and we had an embassy in Libya,” Shipp noted.

“One of the most astounding parts of this whole thing is that Gadhafi had destroyed his stash of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), and he was providing us with a steady stream of intelligence on al-Qaida movements in Libya,” he said.

Shipp said Gadhafi “was collaborating with us as an ally, so for the Obama administration, the White House national security team and the State Department to break off contact with Gadhafi was amazing, especially when he was asking to step down and seek asylum.”

Shipp expressed his continued amazement the Obama administration stood by not only while Libyan rebel forces aligned with al-Qaida toppled Gadhafi, but also killed him.

“It amounted to a de facto, third-party assassination committed ultimately by the United States, if you ask my opinion,” he concluded.

“Why would we completely destabilize Libya when the leader was trying to be our ally is a huge question that falls into a pattern of the Obama administration and his national security advisers supporting Islamic rebel movements, including now supporting the Free Syrian Army, over what could be a more stable solution.”

Shipp speculated on why the Obama administration began covering up the truth about Benghazi, attributing the attack to the reaction to a Youtube video that insulted Islam’s founder, Muhammad.

“What the Obama administration was terrified about, in my view, was the American public knowing the CIA and State Department were running guns secretly into Libya before Gadhafi was deposed, that the guns got into the hands of al-Qaida, and that the guns ended up bound for Syria,” he said.

“Those events put together could be looked at even as traitorous, in my opinion, if the facts ever came out to the American public.”




Thursday, January 22, 2015

2015 GATES ANNUAL LETTER OUR BIG BET FOR THE FUTURE BILL AND MELINDA GATES

2015 GATES ANNUAL LETTER OUR BIG BET FOR THE FUTURE BILL AND MELINDA GATES

Forty years ago, Bill and his childhood friend Paul Allen bet that software and personal computers would change the way people around the world worked and played. This bet wasn't exactly a wager. It was an opportunity to make computers personal and empower people through the magic of software. Some people thought they were nuts. But the bet turned out well.

Fifteen years ago, the two of us made a similar bet. We started our foundation in 2000 with the idea that by backing innovative work in health and education, we could help dramatically reduce inequity. The progress we've seen so far is very exciting — so exciting that we are doubling down on the bet we made 15 years ago, and picking ambitious goals for what's possible 15 years from now.

Our Big Bet

The lives of people in poor countries will improve faster in the next 15 years than at any other time in history. And their lives will improve more than anyone else's.




Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Imam Beats 12-Year Old Daughter to Death for Leaving Islam


Imam Beats 12-Year Old Daughter to Death for Leaving Islam

I am waiting for the CAIR, ISNA, MSA et al condemnation of the sharia (Islamic law) that mandates the death penalty for converting to another faith.

A 12-year-old girl who was hospitalized after her Muslim father beat her and her sister for converting to Christ last month is traumatized after learning that her sister died from the assault, sources said.

"Imam in Uganda Allegedly Beats Daughter to Death for Converting to Christ," Morningstar News, January 21, 2015
Apostasy
Imam in Uganda Allegedly Beats Daughter to Death for Converting to Christ Father also seeks to kill her traumatized 12-year-old sister, sources say. By Our East Africa Correspondent
NAIROBI, Kenya, January 21, 2015 (Morning Star News) – A 12-year-old girl who was hospitalized for two weeks after her Muslim father beat her and her sister for converting to Christ last month is traumatized after learning that her sister died from the assault, sources said.
 
Naigaga Saidah’s father, Imam Abudalah Ali of Bwita mosque in Kaliro District, allegedly beat to death her 15-year-old sister, Namugonya Jamirah, on Dec. 11 after the sisters put their trust in Christ at a five-day evangelistic event that ended that day. Beaten unconscious, Naigaga did not learn of her sister’s death until a pastor had transferred her to safety in another town on Jan. 7, sources said.
 
“Saidah needs prayers, trauma counseling and medication for the left side of her hip that was injured by the father,” a source whose name is withheld for security reasons told Morning Star News.
 
After the Dec. 7-11 evangelistic campaign at Bwita trading center in the Nakibungulya area of Kaliro District, a neighbor told Ali that his daughters had become Christians, sources said. That afternoon, 17 Muslims arrived at the venue of the evangelistic meeting, but the participants had left, a source said.
 
“Their father got the information that his daughters have converted, and he organized a small group of fellow Muslims, about 17 people, to go and attack the Christians,” a source said. “He found the campaign had finished but went back to his home and waited for the daughters. When they went back home, the father picked up the club and started beating them badly till one called Jamirah died.”
 
Saidah managed to escape when her father went inside the house to look for water to splash her back to consciousness, the source said. She arrived limping in blood-stained clothes at a pastor’s house.
 
The following day the pastor and another Christian leader went to Ali’s home, learned that Jamirah was dead and reported it to police. Officers arrived at Ali’s house on Dec. 12 and arrested him. He was charged with murder but denied it, claiming that Jamirah died from a motorcycle accident.
 
His wife and two sons supported his statement, and Ali was released on bail on Dec. 13. The same day, Ali officially disowned Saidah for leaving Islam for Christianity before a Kaliro Local Council official.
 
Saidah described her ordeal to Morning Star News by phone.
 
“My father took us to the house and then locked the house,” she said. “He questioned us why we attended a Christian meeting and started beating us up with a club. My sister was hit on the forehead and fell down. I tried to hide myself in the bed, but he got me out and began beating me up as my sister lay down bleeding.” 
 
Saidah began shouting for help, but her father covered her mouth with such force that she nearly suffocated, she said. She fell down, unconscious.
 
“Later on I realized that my clothes were soaked with water as I regained my consciousness, and my father had left,” she said. “I got up and went to the pastor’s house, which is about 30 minutes’ walk. I arrived there at 7 p.m.”
 
The pastor took her to a medical clinic, where she was treated for two weeks, while her father began organizing area Muslims to kill her, sources said. The pastor sent her to a Christian leader in another undisclosed town on Jan. 7. When Saidah learned then that her sister had died, she fainted and remained another two days in a nearby hospital.
 
“The police were later bribed and accepted the words of Ali, and he was released on bail,” one source said. “When he came home he went to the [local] chairman and said that he had disowned Saidah, and that if she tries to go back that she will be killed just like her sister, and that he is leaving Saidah in the hands of born-again Christians.”
 
The chairman summoned the Christian leaders and informed them of what Ali had told him. They told Ali to put his decision to disown her in writing.
 
“Saidah has been traumatized, is still limping and she is in a need of the prayers, counseling, medical support, and school fees, because she is going to primary seventh grade this year,” he said.
 
Photo: Portion of Imam Abudalah Ali's statement disowning his daughter for conversion to Christ. (Morning Star New)



From a woman of faith who loves America: ‘Black people have been deceive

From a woman of faith who loves America: ‘Black people have been deceived’ [VIDEO] 

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/01/from-a-woman-of-faith-who-loves-america-blacks-have-been-deceived-video/

It's less class warfare and more culture war

Obama tilts the scales against stay-at-home moms

President Obama couldn’t come up with a middle-class tax agenda until his party had lost all control over the legislative branch. This suggests his new tax proposal is little more than meaningless political posturing. After all, if he really wanted these or similar tax cuts and tax hikes, Obama could have advanced them when his party controlled the House and the Senate.

Many commentators have correctly noted that this is the White House’s effort to frame the 2016 election in class-warfare terms. When the tax provisions of the president’s budget die on arrival, Democrats will respond that Republicans are protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

But rather than ignore Obama’s plan totally, it’s worth studying it as a statement of his values and the values of his party. Doing this, you see it's less class warfare and more culture war. One clear message of the president’s tax plan: Moms who stay at home with their children are less valuable than moms who work for pay.

Obama, alongside his tax hikes on the wealthy and on people who save for their children’s college, proposed tax cuts that go only to dual-income families.

Obama called for a new “second-earner tax credit” and expanding a tax credit for commercial child care. Obama’s second-earner credit is worth $500 for any dual-income family where the lower-income spouse earns between $10,000 and $120,000 (and reduced credits for others between $0 and $210,000).

The president also encouraged Congress to expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. The child and dependent care credit is different from the more widely used child tax credit. The child care credit is a 50-percent tax credit for a parent’s first $2,000 in babysitting or daycare costs, but this credit is available only for parents who use the child care to do paid work.

If you hire child care to take your car to the shop, get the kids safely out of range while you paint your living room or just get some peace and quiet while your husband is Iowa for three days covering the presidential caucuses, no tax credit. Hire a babysitter in order to earn your own paycheck, and you get a tax credit.

Obama wants to expand these credits to cover up to $6,000 in child care expenses and to increase the size of a credit that six-figure earners can claim.

Obama explains these tax breaks with a sensible point:

“When both spouses work,” the White House explained in a document laying out these proposals, “the family incurs additional costs in the form of commuting costs, professional expenses, child care, and, increasingly, elder care. When layered on top of other costs, including federal and state taxes, these work-related costs can contribute to a sense that work isn’t worth it, especially for parents of young children.”

Yes, it is costly for a mother to enter the workforce. But it is also costly for a mother to exit or stay out of the workforce. Switching jobs has costs, just as staying in your job has costs. Every life decision includes risks and costs and benefits. Obama has decided that the cost of a mother returning to work and placing her children in daycare is something he wants to subsidize.

Obama is saying he values working parents more than stay-at-home parents.

Working parents acquire new job skills and keep their existing skills fresh. That definitely has value for the family and even the broader economy.

Stay-at-home moms have the opportunity to provide their kids with more positive attention than they can get in most daycare situations. This has positive effects on children. Having a wife at home can also make husbands and fathers more productive in the workplace.

How should we weigh these pros and cons of dual-income families versus single-income families with one spouse staying home?

Here’s the great thing about America: We don’t have to decide which is better for everyone — we just have to decide for our own families. The tax code should be neutral on this choice. Obama wants the tax code to take sides, tilting the scales towards working over staying at home. This is social engineering by Obama.

The good news is that the voters last year made it clear: They have little value for Obama's values.

Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.