Who's The Real Enemy Of The USA?

I'm going to take a diversion from this blog and will post (about 2x/wk) on my newer blog with a different focus. I believe I have fallen into the same trap most Americans have fallen into. I'm not one to see conspiracies everywhere but after examining various historic facts and trends there is definitely something very serious going on that we are not aware of.

Generally speaking there does seem to be a trend from early to present:

• President Carter: (1) Befriended Yasser Arafat, a well-documented major (high-level) terrorist player, and helped secure Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize - legitimizing his (Arafat's) past terrorist efforts - albeit clouded in superficial humanitarianism. (2) Continues to meet with terrorist hierarchy such as Hamas. (3) Had no problem giving away an important American asset - the Panama Canal Zone. (4) Did not press Iran to release hostages - made a superficial "effort" to free them (which everyone knew about). (5) Provided money, training (including bomb training), and arms to Islamic forces in Afghanistan.
  
  
• President Clinton: (1) Ignored warnings about Bin Laden, a previous Saudi national, and the dangers he presented to the USA. (2) Turned his back while Saudi nationals trained in the USA for their 9/11 attack. (3) Had the CIA close offices in Germany, recall the operations officers - resulting in practically no intelligence and completely missing the Hamburg cell connection to 9/11 - most likely, intentionally. (4) Receives $10-$25 Million from Saudi Arabia (all but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals). (5) Receives over $25 Million from the "Children's Investment Fund Foundation" - located in London nearby the Muslim core and 2.6 miles from the Islamic Centre of England. (Financial support for terrorist activities are often shielded by humanitarian, child, poverty, AIDS, and other "aid".)
  
  
• President Bush (jr): (1) Invades Iraq - no connection to 9/11 - under pretense of WMDs. (2) Allows Iran to develop nuclear capabilities (one of his Axis of Evil nations). (3) Allows North Korea to develop and test a nuclear bomb (one of his Axis of Evil nations). (4) Dumps Billions of $$$ into foreign "aid" programs - increasing deficit to historic levels. (5) Continues to allow Saudi Arabia (and nearby Islamic countries) to invest and even control various US interests directly in the USA and abroad. (6) Extraordinary Constitutional rights violations on Americans - by both parties.
  

Soon-to-be President Obama? We know he thinks the US Constitution is "flawed" - his words. We know he has already been talking with Hamas and Iran. We know there is suppose to be a major event happen that we are suppose to trust his judgment on. Biden called this "Obama's test" from outside the USA. I believe Liberals will drive the USA so far into debt they will attempt to tell Americans that the only way out is some sort of globalization - I.E., throw out our Constitution as we know it. (This is just 1 aspect of what is being set up).

The biggest connection that goes back for decades with these leaders is the absolution of Saudi Arabia - as if they go out of their way to protect that oppressive Islamic country. Remember, all but 1 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia - not Iran, not Iraq, not Syria, not Russia.

Almost as if planned the last 8 years have seen a huge increase of fighting between Americans that really hasn't gone much of anywhere. I believe this internal fighting of individuals, media, bloggers, etc. on superficial issues was planned as a distraction from addressing the real questions.

I also believe the global disasters are concocted illusions to gain increasing control and thus, less freedoms. From Pandemics to Global warming to AIDS to Global finance to terrorism - Americans have become so fearful they are willing to give up their money, their freedoms, and their futures.

So just look the other way, bury your head in a hole, hide under your pillow, continue to be fed by your favorite media outlet, stay glued to "reality" TV - just don't open your eyes and look around - you might see something you were not suppose to.

---

---

---

---

9/11 Secrets You're Not Suppose To Know

There's plenty of info on the 9/11 attacks but what about before this Muslim attack? Were there warnings? Did our intelligence have any hints? Was there any incident that might have caused this attack?

The attacks happened just months after Republican President Bush started his first term in office - yet the attacks took years to plan. Even before he was sworn into office the Muslim players were finalizing their details of their deadly suicidal plot.

In the prior Democrat administration under President Clinton, knowledge of Bin Laden and his ties to terrorism were well known - at least well known to many but not fully accepted by President Clinton. Democrat President Clinton didn't want to use phrases like Islamic Terrorists because he didn't want to offend Muslims.

Democrat President Clinton was in office from 1993 - 2001. Islamic terrorist attacks didn't start in 1993, but President Clinton was just in office a matter of days when a Muslim Pakistani attacked the CIA building in Langley, VA killing two agents and wounding others. An Islamic attack on American soil. Clinton's actions: Nothing.

Using planes as weapons was nothing new. In 1994 Muslims hijacked (at Algiers) Air France Flight 8969 to crash it into Paris but their attempts failed.

In May of 1996 Muslim Osama bin Laden unites the Islamic Fundamentalists worldwide in their Jihad against Jews and Western Gentiles, such as al-Qaeda, Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah, Hamas, Mujahideen, using the Taliban's organization to help fund the operations. Clinton's actions: Nothing.

There were many Islamic terrorists' attacks during Clinton's administration, and there were many journalists that sat down with Bin Laden for interviews. During President Clinton's administration Muslim Osama Bin Laden was easy to access - but despite this easy access Democrat President Clinton never tried to take him into custody and he didn't want to offend Muslims. Clinton's actions: Nothing.

Muslims bombed the US Embassy in Peru in Jan. 1998. - President Clinton now in office for 5 years. One month after that bombing (Feb) a published statement signed by many Islamic Jihad Leaders from most Muslim countries - first by Sheikh Osama Bin Ladin:

"…In compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies-civilians and military-is an individual duty for every Muslim who can, in any country in which it is possible… We - with Allah's help - call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded, to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. Unless you go forth, Allah will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Later that year (Aug) simultaneous bombings of US Embassies took place in Kenya and Tanzania - killing 224 and injuring 5,000. Later that same month in 1998 President Clinton was told he needed to do something - anything - because he was looking like an incompetent worthless noodle. Clinton ordered a load of cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan - code named Operation Infinite Reach, wiping out an innocent pharmaceutical factory (officials later admitting the evidence was not as solid as first thought). This would become a key point in the eventual 9/11 attack.

Earth was cleaned of a number of Islamic terrorists training camps - that was good. However, many in the intelligence community believe it was this attack that stirred the Muslim hive that led to the attack on New York and Washington DC.

Following the Aug. 20 attacks Taliban spokesman Wakil Ahmed told US DoS officials:

"If Kandahar could have retaliated with similar strikes against Washington, it would have."

Unfeasible at that time but realized just 3 years later.

It wasn't until after the two US Embassy bombings in 1998 that President Clinton finally ordered Bin Laden to be extradite but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were unwilling to help. President Clinton's error was thinking a mass terrorist leader could be simply brought to the USA using some legal process. All the times President Clinton had easy access to Bin Laden - never did he try and grab him. All of the intel warnings that President Clinton was briefed on by the CIA - ignored - until it was too little - too late.

One of the last Islamic attacks upon America under the Clinton administration was in Oct. 2000 when a suicide boat exploded a 40 foot hold into the USS Cole killing 17 American soldiers and injuring 39 others. Clinton's retaliation? Nothing.

Now we have another Democrat that thinks Islamic Extremists is a naughty phrase and shouldn't be uttered. This candidate is not only as bad as Clinton when it comes to protecting the USA - he wants to sit down and have a pow-wow with the most evil of them all.

The only reason you have a pow-wow:

• You are willing to concede to each others demands
• You are willing to negotiate away something
• You are willing to surrender something in order to obtain some objective
  

I don't know about you but this Dog aint ever going to surrender.

---

---

Sacrificial Flesh

Today, another American soldier was murdered by a roadside bomb in Iraq, bringing the 2007 total dead to 853. The Constitution of Iraq was approved late 2005, which means American troops have been fighting the civil war of an Islamic Nation for over a year.

It really doesn't matter if you favored invading Iraq or not, or if you did then changed your mind. You might see Saddam's fall as good (yet without USA Constitutional merit), and you might see the fact Iraqis were finally allowed to freely vote in a democratic manner as a success (again, without USA Constitutional merit), but no matter how you stand there is no way to justify remaining in Iraq once the people freely made the choice to be a sovereign Islamic nation. Now I'll answer some questions.

The USA has not had another attack since 9/11 so obviously fighting in Iraq is worth it.
Well I guess people should eat more at McDonalds since their stock has almost doubled since 9/11 - proving as long as the hamburgers are eaten the USA has avoided another terrorist attack ($59.34 today vs. about $28 on 9/11).

But we are protecting Iraq.
Our Constitution does not direct politicians to send troops for such matters. We can defend ourselves if attacked, but it prohibits politicians from abusing their positions or starting wars and sacrificing troops on assumptions or political gain. It also does not legalize going to war based on United Nations resolutions (a global body dictating to the USA).

If we don't kill them there they will kill us here.
If that is so it will be because our borders are not secure, visa rules are a joke and not even tracked, illegal aliens (including most likely terrorists) are given welfare and medical care, both Republican and Democrat politicians want to legalize everyone that has entered the USA illegally (making terrorists here harder to find), etc. There is no way to know the makeup of millions of invaders because we lost the security of our own borders. Our troops should be on our own soil protecting us, not citizens of a Islamic nation.

But they started it with 9/11.
All the suspected hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt. The country of Iraq was not represented, nor was any financing from Iraq connected with the attack or hijackers. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi Arabian, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, and 2 from the United Arab Emirates.

So why didn't the USA attack Saudi Arabia?
Saudi Arabia is the top oil producer and exporter in the world. There was a congressional report on the 9/11 attacks that detailed the Saudi support involved, but the FBI and the Bush administration blocked its release. There is a Saudi Money trail, yet the focus has been the "war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan, conveniently removing focus from Saudi Arabia.

So our soldiers continue to die for an Islamic civil war. Are these deaths of American fighters supported by our Constitutional? No, they are not. Ron Paul realizes this as well. America needs to return back to protecting America, abide by our Constitution, and then we can secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity - instead of surrendering them.

Learn From 9/11

Today media talks about the major terrorist attack 6 years ago. They describe the perpetrators as "terrorists", "hijackers", "criminals" - all such labels except the most important identifier - they were each Muslims.

Before the dust settled I knew Muslims had orchestrated the attacks. I knew the evil of Islam, how they operate, what their motives are, their deceptions, their lies, and their conquest mentality. I knew of the previous Muslim terrorist attacks

Muslim public relations organizations in the USA and abroad use our own laws to force acceptance of their ways into our society, and if you stand in the way you will be sued, labeled a bigot, charged with a hate crime for just revealing their intentions, or maybe forced to attend some sensitivity class - approved by a Muslim organization.

Muslim influence in our own government has seen American taxpayer money go for foot baths, police sensitivity toward Muslims training courses, public schools that are for Muslims, overseen by Muslim clerics preaching the cultish teachings of Islam - and so much more. Tiny example of thousands of clerics and their "peaceful teachings":

• Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali preaches unveiled women are "uncovered meat" (24 Muslim groups signed a petition backing him)
  
  
• Muslim cleric, Sheik Faiz Mohamad, teaches young Muslims that if a woman is raped and she wore tight jeans or a miniskirt it's her fault - not the rapist
  
  
• Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed preaches it's ok to kidnap women and children for the Muslim cause
  
  
• Muslim cleric Yusuf Qaradawi preaches gays should be "punished. . . punishments he said were appropriate for homosexuality, including being thrown from heights or burnings."
  

Today, September 11, 2007 (the day is still young):

• A young Buddhist man was shot to death in Yala, Thailand by Muslims
  
  
• Another murder in Thailand (Pattani) - middle-aged Buddhist man is shot to death by Muslim radicals while riding his motorbike
  
  
• In Ordzhonikidzov, Ingushetia two young men and their father were brutally murdered in their home by Islamic militants
  
  
• In Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan seventeen people were killed when a Muslim suicide bomber detonated on a minibus
  
  
• In Helmand, Afghanistan Two Afghan truck drivers were murdered by a Muslim suicide bomber
  

The war on terror will only be won here - with the recognition of the reality that Islam is a dangerous cult of violence with an objective of global domination.

BTW, even notice liberal media will not use "Muslim" or "Islam" when they report a terrorist event? No Democrat presidential candidate will either - not in the same sentence.

The Islamisation of Europe is well underway. Is America next?

ABC's Porklette Defends Terrorists

Like a typical Democrat does, Rosie O'Donnell quickly came to the defense of Muslim Khalid Sheikh Mohammed today.

Now we all know Democrats protect the terrorists that wish to destroy the USA and any other democracy, and we all know how Democrats rushed to the aid of these evil Muslims imprisoned at Guantanamo - pushing for (Democrat) lawyers to represent the terrorists - at the expense of American taxpayers.

Now liberal ABC has, through that pig-mouth Rosie O'Donnell, come to the defense (again) of a terror mastermaind - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Totally ignorant of everything, Rosie Posie throws out claims that this self-confessing terrorist mastermind was abused - robbed of his humanity - tortured - and all of the other claims common to Democrats when it comes to protecting terrorists.

It was as if Palestinian terrorist Abu Jihad phoned Rosie before her show to brief her on how to spin this story so as to protect the terrorist cause and undercut the USA's effort in the fight against terrorism. Her words echoed his.

Fat ugly "Rosie" (there isn't anything rosy about her - especially if you saw her hanging upside down like a butchered swine) never comes to the aid of the USA, never comes to the aid of the victims of terrorists, but she can be counted on (as most all Democrats) to come to the aid of terrorists.

ABC loves it - their liberal duty. Their spin? "Oh, she's just expressing her first amendment rights". Will ABC go on the air to distance themselves from Ugly Porkie's comments? Don't bet on it.

The Progressive Democrat Party in action. Being the Democrat that she is Rosie has previously told Americans not to fear terrorists - they are just moms and dads, you know - friendly folk - and liberal ABC continues to pay her for her spew, and Barbara Walters, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Joy Behar have absolutely no problems with this crap - just giggle it away.