Posts

VIDEO: America’s Starvation for Truth

In Venezuela they are starving for food (thanks to Socialism), while Americans are starving for truth. A raised understanding is needed as to the realization that a major paradigm shift is under way and that we have been living in a web of deceitful lies designed to entrap us. It’s time to break free from the Matrix. Break free from the fake and faux news. “The searching-out and thorough investigation of truth ought to be the primary study of man” – Cicero. Let’s begin.

Of course You Don’t Feel So Good

We are bombarded with negative news. Fake news. Out right lies. Half truths, propaganda and the like. The news, (majority of which is owned by six major corporations who do not serve your best interests), has put you on the edge of your seat. You feel we are losing this battle to MAGA. As you watch the news, you feel that many battles are being lost. You are fearful that President Trump may be impeached or removed from office one way or the other. Even though you are not watching CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC etc, you are still doused with fake news and propaganda via social media and FOX. Yes FOX News, Rush, Levin and so on. FOX and Rush? Yep. Why? That’s an easy one.

FOX News And the Rest of Them

Well there is the obvious like Shep Smith and Juan Williams for example. But I am talking about the not so obvious. Yes FOX news, Rush, Levin and the rest of them I believe are in fact on our side. They do in fact support our President but they cannot cross the line. They can only go so far or face being fired, sued, skeleton’s in the closet exposed, or far worse. If you think about it, all they do, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Tucker, Rush is spend half of their program showing you the CNN Fake News talking points (it’s no wonder you don’t feel so good and feel we are being defeated), then they spend the second half of their airtime defending, (and sometimes even criticizing), the President. Well better than nothing if that’s all that we have. But it is not all that we have. Change the Channel.

News Behind The News

Eventually after six more years of Trump, media, censorship and the like will be transformed. Until then, compile a list of alternative sources for data. Intel sources including Q. Qanon, and many others. Compile a list of alternative on line news feeds and commentators and as always do your due diligence.

I put together a free digital e-book titled “How to Detect Truth from Lies in the Age of Fake News” and recently did an interview with Will Johnson along with EX CIA Robert David Steele. Visit my website JohnMichaelChambers and request a copy of this free e-book which also provides a list of most valuable links and alternative Intel and resources.

Come aboard. Deliver a blow to the fake news and the enemy. Knowledge is power. Applied knowledge is wisdom. You just may start feeling better in this dark and dangerous deceptive world. You will move from effect to cause. Things will become increasingly confusing and dangerous and upsetting unless you are dealing in truths. Sign up for my free RSS feed on my home page to receive a notification each time I write an article straight to your in box. You can also learn more about my paid weekly subscription to the John Michael Chambers Report. America is starving for the truth. Seek it. You shall find it.

We are winning my friends and in 2019 and 2020 we are embarking upon multiple unprecedented turn of events and soon the world will know. Trust the plan. Stay the course. Do not waiver from our President. Freedom, it’s up to us!

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Has All The Goods

Q-Plan to Save the World

Q- We are the Plan

Q – Dark to Light

Rats in DC Panicking

EDITORS NOTE: This Course Corrections Consulting column with images is republished with permission of the author.

Science is Falsifiable. Take Climate Change As An Example.

The Clear Energy Alliance produced the below video on global warming stating:

In order to know if a theory could be true, there must be a way to prove it to be false. Unfortunately, many climate change scientists, the media and activists are ignoring this cornerstone of science. In this bizarre new world, all unwelcome climate events are caused by climate change. But as legendary scientific philosopher Karl Popper noted, “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.” Guest host Marc Morano explains.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Global Warming Theory Scientific?

EDITORS NOTE: This video by Clear Energy Alliance is republished from their YouTube channel. The featured image is from Pixabay.

Fake News Field Day in Story about Texas Shooting

Sometimes our criminals at Fraud, Crooks and Criminals will be Americans like the man who allegedly killed little Jazmine Barnes in a drive-by shooting ten days ago.

barnes case white guy
This is the man the New York Times and CNN were already lynching!

The black child was killed by a black thug, but the New York TimesCNN and all the rest had already lynched a “white man with blue eyes” whose likeness had been sent out around the world after other children in the car where Jazmine died told authorities this is what the shooter looked like.

I’ve told some of you previously that I watch CNN the first thing in the morning so that I can get a feel for where they are steering the Leftwing segment of America on any given day.

Oh boy, here they go I thought when that drawing went out and the race hucksters headed to Houston.

CNN actually led one segment of their morning news with the shooting “hate crime” story, even before they launched in to their daily hate fest against the President.

eric black jr
Eric Black Jr arrested in killing of black child

That was until two days ago when, oopsy! turns out the man arrested in the case looks like this.

A second black man has been arrested.

And, guess what! No updates during my early a.m. review of CNN today.

But it wasn’t just CNN, the New York Times had gone on a ‘it has to be a hate crime’ frenzy.

Here is just one segment of a New York Times story (before the arrest of the black thug):

The Harris County Sheriff’s Office believes the gunman fired at random into the car in which Jazmine was riding with her mother and three sisters, a 6-year-old and two teenagers. A bullet struck Jazmine in the head, her mother said.

The police said Wednesday that they still had not identified the gunman. But the case has drawn the attention of national civil rights activists and fueled speculation that the shooting was racially motivated. The gunman is white, the police said, and Jazmine was black.  [Note how the reporter phrases that, I doubt the police said the gunman is white!—ed]

[….]

In another effort to garner the public’s help, Mr. Merritt [family attorney] and Shaun King, a prominent racial justice activist and a columnist at The Intercept, have offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the gunman’s arrest.

Maybe the New York Times has apologized, but I don’t see it.

Even in a story where the NYT has to admit the truth, they keep ginning up the “hate crime” meme by quoting Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, here:

“Do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, told hundreds of people at a rally last week near the site of the killing.

Now, this is the story they are pushing widely. It is about how the poor family got confused.

Meanwhile, speaking of poor families, the family of the white man who may have witnessed the shooting is getting bullied and threatened.  This is from local ABC news:

Family of man wrongfully accused by activist Shaun King in Jazmine Barnes’ shooting speaks out

Will the NYT and CNN follow-up and report that news?  I’m not holding my breath!

Maybe the “white man with blue eyes” should sue the whole bunch of them!

I haven’t done this story (“Justice for Jazmine”) justice. Some feature writer should go through the media coverage of the case and expose in exquisite detail how the frauds in the Leftwing media spin the news.

You know they couldn’t wait to blame this on Donald Trump’s America!

New category at Frauds and Crooks: Media fraud!

Would someone keep an eye on this case and see if major media outlets ever mention it again after this week?

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images from Frauds, Crooks and Criminals is republished with permission. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Three years to save the Earth? [This time]

Former UN top climate official Christiana Figueres just told the world we only have “three years” to save the planet … and all it will cost is $1.5 trillion per year.

Gee, guess we should hurry and jump on that deal … not.

Call us suspicious, but this is the same Figueres who infamously in 2015 announced the UN’s intention to replace free-market capitalism with bureaucratic control saying:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

That Figueres would now make such a doomsday prediction and then ask for such large sums of money, especially in light of her ambitious stated goal to control and direct the economic path of the whole earth, should be enough to make anyone roll their eyes.

But not so with Fake News media. They eat this all up.

If they bothered to look, they’d see there’s a long history of these so-called climate “tipping points” made by alarmists – all of which harmlessly passed without incident.

For those of us old enough to remember, the UN announced a 10-year tipping point way back in 1982, and then did so again in 1989. In both cases, these dates passed without any of the predicted doom-and-gloom taking place.

In 2006 Al Gore told us in An Inconvenient Truth the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. He gave the planet only 10 years to escape before what, as Jim Morrison of TheDoorsmight say, would be “The End.”

Not surprisingly, as CFACT’s undercover film review operative found out at the Sundance Film festival earlier this year, Al doesn’t like it much if you ask him today how we survived.

Of course there’s more.

In 2008, ABC’s Bob Woodruff hosted a program where scientists told us that agriculture would collapse by “2015,” that a carton of milk would be $12.99, a gallon of gas $9 and large portions of NYC would be underwater.

And in 2009, Prince Charles declared we only had 96 months to save the Earth.  That same year NASA’s James Hansen said we only had until the end of President Obama’s first term, though U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said we only had 50 days until the global warming apocalypse took place.

It goes on and on.

You’d think the embarrassment of potentially being labeled “false prophets” would make them, well, shut up. But no, the soothsaying doesn’t stop. It just gets more insane.

Marc Morano does a great job of keeping track of all the climate tipping points that came and went at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

Our advice: If warming campaigners want to keep doing this Nostradamus gig, perhaps they should at least wait until they get one of their prophecies right before demanding a $1.5 trillion ransom.

RELATED ARTICLE: Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide

EDITORS NOTE: Read the facts at CFACT.org

COUNTDOWN: The Top 5 Lies of the Left

American political liberaldom relies heavily on empty canards, name-calling and scare tactics to stay alive and shut down opposition.

There are few if any deep and penetrating debates on major topics that drive the politics of the left. They simply will not allow it. So they create fictitious arguments (the nice way of saying lies.)

With that in mind, here are a few major shibboleths of at least the activist left which verge on the incredulous, but which are used regularly and magnified by the sympathetic media megaphone.

No. 5 Lie: Border security is racist

If you believe that America should act like most every other country in the world and protect its borders, you’re a racist.

If you believe that America should have the authority to let in who it wants to and keep out who it wants to like most every other country, you’re a racist.

If you believe America should know who is here and who is coming and going like most every other country, you’re a racist.

This stems from candidate Donald Trump running on a campaign to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to stop the millions of illegal aliens (that is the actual, legal term) from crossing back and forth like it was a state border.

This quasi-open border is the result of an unholy alliance between businesses that want cheap labor and Democrat political interests that see future Democratic voters and a play to current Hispanic voters. And it is the issue that Trump claimed in order to peel away blue-collar Democratic voters.

The left rarely tries to argue the merits of open borders, because most Americans oppose that. So they devolve to the thought-free name-calling of racism because, you know, Mexicans are brown and therefore opposing them, or anyone else, breaking into our country illegally is racist.

No. 4 Lie: Asking questions is science denying

Speaking of science and politics, the inquisitive, independent thinkers among us are now considered anti-science — if they are asking questions about the degree and causes of climate change today.

Yes, while it is obviously the antithesis of actual science, which involves continually asking questions, forming hypotheses, testing, re-testing based on results and so on, this tactic now is employed to shut up any opposition to the climate change political agenda.

The data seems to suggest modest warming since the mid 1800s and there seems to be a connection between carbon in the atmosphere, trapped greenhouse gases, and global warming.

But if you question the data because of a series of scandals revealing how leading climatologists have conspired to alter older data creating cooler temperatures to suggest more rapid warming now, you are a denier.

If you question the degree to which human activity is impacting climate change by pointing out a nearly two-decade pause while carbon emissions continued to increase, you are a denier.

But these and many others are reasonable questions. That we are not allowed to ask them without being labeled flat-earthers suggests this is a lot more about politics than about science.

No. 3 Lie: Men can be women can be men, or whatever

One of the most mind-boggling absurdities foisted on us by the modern liberal is that a person’s sex is dependent on what they think it is. Any “assignment at birth” is an arbitrary constraint to who that person really is.

So, if a person has one Y chromosome and one X chromosome and they have the full package of penis and scrotum, it is not arbitrary to call them male. That person is a man. That is actual science.

But the left — in true full science denial — says those physical realities can be trumped by a person’s feeling. If that person feels like a woman, then they are a woman trapped in a man’s body and they should be allowed and encouraged to dress like a woman or have full-blown surgery to become a woman. And they should be allowed to use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and showers — even though they are a man.

Until just the past few years this was considered a psychological condition that should be treated. But now, the left celebrates children as young as four years old being encouraged to be the sex they are not.

One could reasonably call that child abuse.

No. 2 Lie: Hate speech is not free speech

No less a luminary than former Vermont governor, DNC chairman and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean tweeted out this past week that “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.”

dean tweet hate speech

The internet blew up over such a ridiculous statement. Even PolitiFact and media organs called him to task. But the thing is, his tweet got 700 retweets and 1,400 likes. Dean actually doesn’t have that big a Twitter following, meaning the tweet got strong traction among those following him.

Too many on the left, most particularly those on college campuses, view hate speech practically as any speech with which they disagree. Of course, many of these same campuses actually have speech codes and “free speech zones” with the overt meaning that outside the zone is not for free speech.

The unfortunate truth is that many college liberals, trained by professorial liberals, think that they should be able to shut down speech they do not appreciate or agree with. They have safe spaces and mainstream American views can be shouted down and pushed out with threats and actions.

These people leave the campuses today and in a generation will be leaders in the nation. It matters. The radicals running campuses know this.

No. 1 Lie: It’s not about innocent life, but reproductive freedom

And coming in at number one in our countdown is the oldie but definitely not goodie, the abortion non-debate.

Increasingly, science (which worldview seems to be anti-science here?) is showing that by every objective definition the baby in the womb is indeed a human, with the inherent rights of a human, within a few weeks of conception. From brainwaves to heartbeats to pain reaction, a person. Science continually pushes this obvious definition earlier and earlier.

But the left forces the debate to revolve around women’s rights. Not the 50 percent of female babies aborted — not those would-be women — but adult women who should have the right to kill their unborn baby at any point in a pregnancy for any reason they deem. Period. This is the classic Planned Parenthood position on choice.

Because abortion is conflated with birth control, it is called a reproductive “right” on the order of getting a contraceptive device or even pap smears and mammograms — anything except actually talking about whether we should condone the often wanton taking of an innocent human life. Any restrictions on abortion therefore are restrictions on a woman’s access to healthcare. See how much you can get away with when you refuse to call something what it is.

Oh and coat hangers. Don’t forget coat hangers.

But there is an encouraging side to this falderal. All of this avoidance on major issues means that conservatives actually have the stronger cases. Otherwise, liberals would not avoid the debate. We just need to be courageous enough to make those cases over and over and over.

RELATED ARTICLE: Conservatives Fight for Free Speech at a Far-Left College

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. Click here to subscribe to the Revolutionary Act’s YouTube channel!

Trump-Hating Protesters, Deceit & Willful Blindness: Left’s lies about Immigration, Drugs & Terrorism

On January 20, 2017, the very same day that President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated, protestors who opposed Trump’s election and his campaign promises took to the streets in Washington, DC and elsewhere. They falsely equated securing America’s borders and enforcing our immigration laws with bigotry and racism.

The protestors carried signs with a variety of slogans including a slogan favored by Hillary Clinton during her failed bid for the presidency, “Build bridges, not walls.”

Where were these protestors when Obama violated the Constitution, released hundreds of thousands of criminal aliens, commuted the sentences of record numbers of drug dealers and ignored the findings of the 9/11 Commission and imported millions of foreign workers to take Americans’ jobs?

Ironically, on that same day, the Justice Department issued a press release, “Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman Loera Faces Charges in New York for Leading a Continuing Criminal Enterprise and other Drug-Related Charges.”

El Chapo was the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel that smuggled multi-ton quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana into the United States and used extreme violence and corruption in order to achieve their criminal goals that included the smuggling of huge quantities of illegal drugs into the United States.

The press release contains links to the Detention Memo and the Indictment and begins with these two paragraphs:

The indictment alleges that between January 1989 and December 2014, Guzman Loera led a continuing criminal enterprise responsible for importing into the United States and distributing massive amounts of illegal narcotics and conspiring to murder persons who posed a threat to Guzman Loera’s narcotics enterprise.

Guzman Loera is also charged with using firearms in relation to his drug trafficking and money laundering relating to the bulk smuggling from the United States to Mexico of more than $14 billion in cash proceeds from narcotics sales throughout the United States and Canada. As part of this investigation, nearly 200,000 kilograms of cocaine linked to the Sinaloa Cartel have been seized. The indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits.

Leaders of Drug Trafficking Organizations, alien smuggling rings and terrorists seeking to enter the United States surreptitiously could not devise a better slogan than “Build bridges not walls” to promote their criminal interests.

Perhaps, given the numerous reports about tunnels under the U.S./Mexican border, the open borders/immigration anarchists should amend their signs to read, “Build bridges and tunnels not walls.”

That slogan must really resonate with El Chapo the leader of the violent Sinaloa Mexican Drug Trafficking Organization that, not unlike other such cartels, required the ability to cross the U.S./Mexican border to not only transport their drugs but their “employees” into the United States as well.

These cartel “employees” are primarily aliens who enter the United States illegally.  Among them as noted in the criminal indictment, are “sicarios,” or hit men who carried out hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, assaults, kidnappings, assassinations and acts of torture at the direction of the defendants.

Often the victims of the violence are members of the ethnic immigrant communities in which these thugs operate.

The majority of violent crime in the United States has a nexus to the use and/or trafficking in narcotics and dangerous drugs.  The proceeds of the drug trade enriches the drug cartels and street gangs.  This fast flow of money also enriches terror organizations around the world.

All too often those who become addicted to drugs have bleak futures.  Tragically, often these addicts are teenagers.

The magnitude of the quantity of drugs smuggled into the United States across the U.S./Mexican border and through other means (in the holds of ships and in the cargo holds of airliners and in the baggage and secreted on passengers of airliners) is, in the aggregate, truly staggering.

El Chapo is being prosecuted in the Eastern District of New York because of the magnitude of his wholesale operations in New York City.  The Sinaloa Cartel also operated in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles and throughout parts of Arizona.

The magnitude and scope of the violence used by the Sinaloa Cartel was staggering and the press release noted that thousands of individuals were killed in Mexico to eliminate those who got in their way.

They killed law enforcement officials and others to intimidate those who would compete against this criminal organization or cooperate with law enforcement.  Many of the victims were beheaded as an intimidation tactic.

This investigation was conducted by courageous law enforcement officers in Colombia, Mexico, the United States and elsewhere.  In the United States the investigation was pursued by the multi-agency Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) that includes agents of the DEA, FBI, ICE, ATF as well as members of local and state police departments.

Having spent the final ten years of my career with the INS assigned to OCDETF I am extremely familiar with the effectiveness of the multiagency task force approach to the investigation and dismantling of late-scale narcotics trafficking organizations and just how critical border security and effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws, from within the interior of the United States, are to the success of these law enforcement efforts.

Incredibly, however, when Donald Trump promised to build a wall to secure the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico to prevent criminals, terrorists and drugs from entering the United States, the globalists, aided and abetted by dishonest journalists, created the false narrative equating Trump’s goals and the goals of Americans who demand that our borders be secured against illegal entry with racism.

Securing our borders against illegal entry is not to be equated with preventing all aliens from entering the United States, only those aliens who violate our laws.

The doors on our homes have locks that can be unlatched not only so that we can enter our own homes, but so that we can selectively open our doors to those who wish to visit us.  However sensible people lock their doors to prevent the entry of burglars and those who might pose a threat to their safety.

This is comparable to the mission of the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the more than 20,000 inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) the same agency that employs approximately 20,000 Border Patrol agents to attempt to interdict those aliens who seek to avoid the inspections process by running our borders.

Determinations as to the admissibility of aliens seeking entry into the United States is guided not by race, religion or ethnicity as politicians, pundits and pollsters falsely claim, but by the provisions of Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

Jimmy Carter created the Orwellian term “Undocumented Immigrant” to describe illegal aliens that has, over time, enabled immigration anarchists to con many Americans into believing that deporting illegal aliens actually refers to deporting all “immigrants.”

For the sake of clarity, the difference between and immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

However, while the protestors demonstrate and engage in free speech, they need to be mindful that a one-sided conversation is not a conversation.

When news organizations provide only one side of the debate and, indeed, create a false narrative under the guise of the First Amendment, they are doing a huge disservice to their profession and to America and Americans.

How many of the protestors who demanded that we “build bridges not walls” would have participated in the demonstration carrying those signs, if the organizations, faculty members of universities and teachers in our nation’s schools would truly honor the First Amendment by ending “Safe Spaces” and encouraging and fostering honest and open debates to provide Americans with a vital but increasingly rare commodity:  The Truth?

It is unfathomable that hundreds of thousands of people, many of them parents, would protest on behalf of El Chapo and others engaged in the drug trade to facilitate the trafficking or narcotics in the United States and the violent crimes and malevolent transnational gangs associated with the drug trade.  Yet, unwittingly, this is precisely what they are doing.

It is equally likely that the numbers of such protestors would have been greatly reduced if the media and our politicians had honestly reported on the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission when reporting on the threat of terrorism and its nexus to failures of the immigration system.

Yet there they were, demanding that our borders be left vulnerable and our immigration laws not be enforced.

“Free speech” does not protect individuals who falsely cry, “Fire!” in a crowded theater to spark a stampede.

Memo to professors, journalists, pollsters and politicians: It is time for honest speech.

Those Benghazi Stingers — Yes, they did exist, but….

More than a dozen people have sent me the same email over the past couple of weeks, purporting to tell the “REAL story on Benghazi.”

Like a lot of information circulating on the Internet, it contains an important kernel of truth, namely a reference to the July 25, 2012 Taliban attack on a U.S. Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan, using a U.S.-supplied Stinger missile.

darkforces-coverThat attack really did take place, as I reported in my 2014 book Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi.

I learned about the helicopter downing from early Wikileaks disclosures known as the Afghan war logs, and corroborated the information with a senior U.S. military officer working an intelligence billet in support of U.S. special forces operations overseas.

The officer explained that the Stinger never exploded – not because “the stupid Taliban didn’t arm the missile,” as the email claims (if you can fire it, the missile is armed) – but because of a malfunction, most likely in the impact fuze and the guidance system.

Instead of exploding against the body of the helicopter, as designed, the missile lodged and broke apart in the engine nacelle. The alert pilot managed a hard-landing, and everyone on board the Chinook walked away. Crash investigators subsequently discovered pieces of the Stinger lodged in the engine nacelle, including a portion of the missile casing that included a serial number.

That serial number tracked back to a lot of Stingers that had been “signed out” to the CIA in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, in early 2011, and transferred to the government of Qatar, my U.S. Special Forces informant told me.

The email, which is now the subject of a Reddit thread, begins with a breathtaking claim:

“Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi, post haste, in order to retrieve US-made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder-fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military.”

The only true statement in that opener is the final sentence. (The Justice Department recently dropped all charges against Marc Turi because they knew full well he never consummated any arms sales to the Libyan rebels and bowed out once his arms export license request for Qatar was denied).

Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi for two reasons. The first, as noted by his number two in Libya, State Department career diplomat Greg Hicks, was to certify that the State Department could officially open Benghazi as a “permanent constituent post.” Hillary Clinton wanted to travel to Benghazi for a photo op, to take a victory lap for her “success” in ousting Colonel Qaddafi.

But Mrs. Clinton did not want to ask Congress for a special appropriation for Benghazi, since that would have led to an investigation into security procedures at the facility. So she instructed Stevens to travel to Benghazi as soon as he returned from his European vacation in early September. The plan was to use leftover funds from Iraq to operate Benghazi as a full-fledged consulate. But those funds “had to be obligated by September thirtieth” to avoid Congressional scrutiny, Hicks testified.

No arms deal. No Stingers. No “do-or-die” mission, as the lurid email claims. Just a Hillary Clinton vanity project that cost the lives of four Americans.

“It was the State Department, not the CIA that supplied [the Stingers] to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn’t supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft,” the email goes on.

I am still unclear as to who authorized the transfer of the Stingers to the CIA, and from the CIA, to the Qataris. That would be an excellent subject for a Freedom of Information Act request.

However, I am pretty certain of what happened next. The Qataris brought a small number of them – my sources said, fifty or sixty – into Libya through Chad in late March or early April 2011. This was before the U.S. and NATO had fully committed to helping the anti-Qaddafi rebels.

While they were en route, they encountered a French military patrol in northern Chad. The French asked the Qatari Special Forces commander in charge of the convoy, who had been trained in France, what he thought he was doing. He replied that he was taking Stinger missiles to the Libyan rebels.

After a lengthy palaver and communications with Paris, and via Paris with Washington, the French officer was instructed that the U.S. government wanted the Stingers to reach Libya.

As I reported in Dark Forces (p92), Qaddafi’s intelligence service picked up the communication between the French officer in northern Chad and his commanders. How do we know this? Because a copy of the intercept, dated April 4, 2011, turned up several months later in the just-vacated headquarters of Libyan intelligence chief Abdallah Senoussi, where it was discovered by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal.

All this said, there were no reports that any Stingers were fired in Libya, or ever reached the hands of Libyan rebel groups, let alone Ansar al-Sharia.

The second reason Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi remains a matter of speculation – and would also make an excellent subject for a Freedom of Information Act request (although my own inquiries in this area have been rejected until now).

Just two weeks before Stevens went to Benghazi, a shipment of weapons intended for Syrian rebels reached Iskanderun, Turkey. The weapons had been purchased by jihadi sympathizers in Benghazi, possibly with U.S. assistance or at least the knowledge of the CIA station in Benghazi.

The arms shipment intended for the Syrian rebels was a  “liaison” operation, since it was carried out by a friendly intelligence service, most likely the Turkish MIT. These type of intelligence operations fall within a grey area of what must be reported to Congress.

Almost as soon as the Libyan fishing boat, Al Entisar (Victory) docked in Iskenderun on August 25, 2012, all hell broke loose. Rival Syrian rebel groups began squabbling over who would take custody of the 400 tons of weapons and “humanitarian supplies” it had brought.

Even worse: Western reporters started nosing around.

On September 2, 2012, CIA Director David Petraeus made an unannounced trip to Ankara to straighten out the mess. Petraeus was worried that reporters would blow the wraps off what was supposed to be a covert operation.

Petraeus was unsuccessful. And so he recommended that Secretary Clinton dispatch “their man in Libya” to speak with the jihadi leaders in Benghazi, whom Stevens knew intimately.

In fact, Chris Stevens had closer ties to the Benghazi jihadis than anyone in the U.S. government, because he had been sent there as Special Envoy during the revolution to cultivate them. He knew them by name; he knew their families; and he probably knew where they kept their bank accounts.

He was the “cleaner,” as I called him in my book. His job was to clean up the arms smuggling operation, perhaps shut it down; or at least, make sure mistakes like Iskanderun didn’t happen again.

We know from his schedule, recovered by journalists after his murder by Iranian agents in Benghazi, that he had been planning to meet with a Libyan shipping agent known for his close ties to jihadi leaders.

Do you think the State Department dispatched the Ambassador from Tripoli to meet with a shipping agent to set up USAID shipments? I think he was looking for a more trusted shipping agent for future arms shipments to the Syrian rebels. (The shipping agent freaked out when I called to ask him about this).

Stevens also met with the Turkish Consul General in Benghazi, accompanying him out to the front gate of the diplomatic compound shortly before the attacks began. Again, why him? I believe it was because the gentleman was the resident agent of the Turkish MIT in Benghazi, in charge of the arms smuggling operation.

So yes, there are still a lot of secrets surround what actually happened in Benghazi. I exposed many of them in Dark Forces, most notably the involvement of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corp in recruiting, training, and equipping the jihadis who actually carried out the murderous September 11, 2012 attacks.

Those secrets involve covert U.S. arms shipments, directly or through proxies, to both Libyan and Syrian jihadi groups. They involve Iran’s ongoing covert war against America. And they involve U.S. Stinger missiles that went missing.

All of these help to understand why Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle were so eager to deflect attention from Benghazi to a pathetic YouTube video they knew had nothing to do with the attacks. I call it the Benghazi Deception.

But please, let’s skip the conspiracy theories, and the lurid admixture of fantasy with fact. The facts by themselves are enough to hang a fish. Or a presidential wannabe like Mrs. Clinton, who belongs in jail.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

DAMN LIE: AP claims Islamic State recruits have a poor grasp of Islam

Over at PJ Media I take apart yet another attempt to exonerate Islam of responsibility for crimes committed in its name and in accord with its teachings:

IslamicStateshahadah

At last the universal claim has been proven: Islamic terrorism has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with Islam! The proof?A new report from the Associated Press claims that recruits to the Islamic State (ISIS) knew little or nothing about Islam. After all, if they did, they would have known Islam is a religion of peace. So they wouldn’t have joined an outfit as violent and brutal as ISIS, right?

Wrong, of course.

This AP study is one of an endless stream of mainstream media articles intended to show us that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, that the real Islam is peaceful and benign, and therefore we need have no concern about the elites’ suicidal Muslim immigration policies.

The study is, as one might expect, vague and anecdotal. Apparently much of the AP’s assumptions rest on jihadis’ self-evaluation of how much they knew about Islam, as well as their refusal to expound on Islamic theology in court. The AP tells us about a “jihadi employment form”:

[The form] asked the recruits, on a scale of 1 to 3, to rate their knowledge of Islam. And the Islamic State applicants, herded into a hangar somewhere at the Syria-Turkey border, turned out to be overwhelmingly ignorant.

AP also notes:

[W]hen pressed by the judge on his knowledge of Shariah and how the IS group implements it, Mohammad-Aggad, a former gas station attendant, appeared dumbfounded, saying repeatedly: “I don’t have the knowledge to answer the question.”…

[O]ne of his co-defendants, Radouane Taher, was also pressed by the judge on whether beheadings carried out by the IS group conformed to Islamic law. He couldn’t say for sure, answering: “I don’t have the credentials.”

Very well. But even if jihadis might rate their knowledge of Islam as low, and not feel competent as non-clerics to explain the teachings of the religion, that does not imply they are “ignorant” of Islam. Further, it answers nothing about whether the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam.

Meanwhile, in selecting its anecdotes, the AP ignored those that don’t fit its agenda. We hear nothing in the AP report about the Islamic State propagandist whose parents said of him:

Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.

Nor does the AP say anything about the Muslim politician from Jordan who said:

[ISIS] doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Most telling about the AP’s motives, their report ignores the central importance that the Islamic State places upon the Qur’an: In its communiqués, it quotes the Qur’an copiously. They quote it in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos.

ISIS’s beheadings (47:4), sex slavery (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30), subjugation of Christians (9:29), global imperative (8:39) and more are all based upon the Qur’an.

ISIS has also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training.

As for misrepresenting the Qur’an? One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an.

AP also hauls out the evergreen anecdote that two jihadis ordered The Koran for Dummies andIslam for Dummies from Amazon. This factoid has been seized upon before by apologists for Islam — including Mehdi Hasan and Karen Armstrong — as evidence that Muslims going to Syria and Iraq to join the jihad don’t really know anything about Islam and are motivated by other factors.

However — and of course — no one actually knows why the jihadis ordered the books. Maybe they wanted to learn how to explain it better, or were planning to give the books to others relatives, or had one of any number of other possibilities in mind. But any irrational argument will do for the likes of the AP, Hasan, or Armstrong when it comes to exonerating Islam from all responsibility for crimes committed in accord with its texts and teachings.

The AP even invokes Tariq Ramadan to emphasize that Islam forbids the killing of innocents.

But it doesn’t ask Ramadan to explain the Islamic perspective that considers all non-Muslims to be guilty, or the Islamic State’s view that they are fighting against people who are not innocent because they have rejected the authority of the ISIS caliphate.

Not in the AP report, of course, is any information about the slick pseudo-moderate Ramadan himself, the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna and formerly a paid employee of the Iranian mullahcracy. Ramadan is skillful at manipulating credulous infidels into thinking that he is the very model of the modern moderate Muslim….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran vessels “harass,” make “high speed intercept” of US warship near Strait of Hormuz

Canada: Muslim ‘Mounties’ allowed to wear hijabs on duty

Hillary Lie: Islamic State showing videos of Trump “insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit” [Video]

“They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists.” This article from The Blaze focuses on the fact that there is actually no evidence that the Islamic State is using Trump videos to recruit, but that is not really the salient point.

Most important here is Hillary Clinton’s implicit point that if we stop insulting Islam and Muslims, or saying and doing things that she or they claim are insulting Islam and Muslims, then the jihad recruitment will lose its impetus.

She is claiming that what makes for jihad recruitment is our insulting Islam: thus if we adopt Sharia blasphemy restrictions and refrain from insulting Islam, everything will be all right.

It is worth noting in this connection that groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation routinely classify any honest analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as insulting Islam and Muslims.

trump truth poster“Clinton Makes Questionable Claim: Islamic State ‘Showing Videos of Donald Trump’ to Recruit Fighters,” by Oliver Darcy, The Blaze, December 19, 2015:

Hillary Clinton claimed at Saturday night’s Democratic debate that the Islamic State is showing videos of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump to potential fighters as a way to recruit.

“He is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter,” she said at the New Hampshire debate. “They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims to recruit more radical jihadists.”

No evidence was offered by Clinton on stage to support the claim.

The remark was made in response to a question about Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigrants to the U.S.

Media commentators have asserted over the past week that Trump’s call for a halt on Muslim immigration makes it easier for the Islamic State to recruit. However, Clinton appeared to be the first presidential candidate to claim the group is actually showing videos of Trump to potential fighters as a means of luring them into violent jihad.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill responded to an inquiry from TheBlaze by pointing to comments made by SITE Intelligence Group director Rita Katz who told NBC News the terror group was drawing on Trump’s rhetoric to recruit. Katz’s comments, however, included no mention of the Islamic State showing potential recruits video of Trump. A tweet from a “very vocal ISIS supporter” was also sent by Merrill to TheBlaze, but neither the tweet or article it linked to included anything to support the video claim.

An online search did not return any results that would support Clinton’s video assertion either….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim teen busted in Pennsylvania was seeking to buy Yazidi sex slave

Hugh Fitzgerald: The madness and malevolence of Kuwait

The trouble with ‘moderate Muslims’

nonie darwish book coverAmerican Freedom Defense Initiative Geller Fellow Nonie Darwish explains the trouble with moderate Muslims:

President Obama told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that 99.9 percent of Muslims are peace-loving and reject jihadist Islam. This is a common statement by many of the so-called “moderate Muslims” in my country of origin, Egypt. That statement is incorrect in many ways, and is designed to confuse Americans and save face of Muslims and their defenders.

It is hard to believe that President Obama believes what he says about Islam, because the day Osama bin Laden was killed was a day of mourning all over the Muslim world. When Obama realized that, he had bin Laden’s body buried at sea so the Muslim world could not erect a monument in Mecca for him.

So why is Obama so passionate about telling us how wonderful Islam is? What does he mean by defending Islam as moderate and peaceful?

It defies logic that only 0.1% percent of Muslims are causing all this never-ending worldwide havoc, and unspeakable mayhem, torture, burning and beheading of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. If they are only 0.1% of the Muslim population, how come the brutal Islamic legal system is unable to round the jihadists up and behead them in the infamous public squares of Saudi Arabia? How come moderate Muslims, the 99.9%, are unable to explain away their passivity with jihadists while those jihadists are brutalizing, honor killing and terrorizing apostates?

How many jihadists have been declared apostates by Saudi Arabia? How many were beheaded in the Saudi or Iranian public squares? Why has the “moderate” largest Islamic university in the world, Al Azhar, never issued a fatwa of death against ISIS fighters and anyone who joins ISIS? They issue fatwas of death on apostates and women who have sex outside of marriage all the time, so how come none against those jihadists who supposedly ruined Islam’s reputation and caused the world to fear Muslims?

How come President Obama did not demand just that from Al Azhar or from Saudi Arabia, to prove to the anxious American people that the 99.9% of Muslims are on our side?

Obama claims to have the support of a coalition of moderate Muslim governments to fight ISIS. But we see no Muslim armies moving to Syria to rid the world of the 0.1% Muslim jihadists in ISIS. In fact, the real reason why Muslim leaders are not waging war on ISIS, even though they are capable of doing so, is because at least half of the Muslim army will defect and join ISIS. Those nice moderate Muslim armies do not want to violate Sharia law and destroy the newly declared Caliphate, which is at the center of Islam’s religious goals.

There is no doubt that some Leftist Western leaders, who constantly defend Islam, also do not want to go down in history as the ones who destroyed the Caliphate. The war against ISIS is obviously a defensive one, but somehow Islamic history will eventually portray it as an invasion by the West, the same way Muslims today have twisted the mission of the Crusades to portray them as an aggression, when in fact they were a reaction to Islamic terrorism at the time.

If jihadists and terrorists were only 0.1%, we would not have the worldwide Islamic terrorism of today. The number of the criminal population in most societies, Western and non-Western, is certainly more than 0.1%, and most societies, especially in the West, are perfectly capable of controlling their criminal population, and are capable in creating law and order and safety and security for their own citizens.

How come the 0.1% of radical Muslims is capable of causing millions of Muslim refugees, and how come rich Arab countries are not taking care of them?

Survey after survey keeps confirming our fears that the majority of Muslims are for killing apostates. A majority supports Sharia and believes in jihad as a main requirement and obligation for Muslims. Muslim citizens keep electing Islamist groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to power. The majority of the commandments of Islamic holy books command Muslims to kill, terrorize, humiliate and subjugate non-Muslims. Over 64% of the Quran is obsessed with non-members of the religion.

Now let us examine the so-called “moderate” Muslims in the West, who keep accusing jihadists of being un-Islamic, and insist, “not in the name of my religion,” or “they do not speak for Islam.” But what they fail to tell America is that many of the so-called Muslim reformers in America are considered apostates throughout the Muslim world.

Even the eloquent and well-intentioned Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is considered an apostate in many parts of the Muslim world and the Arab media. I once saw an Arabic-language article written about him, Walid Phares, Walid Shoebat and me. The headline of the article says in Arabic: “Four Arab Americans were accused of leading a media campaign to promote hatred of Muslims in America.” The article stated that 42 million dollars were allocated to these four Arab Americans to promote this hatred. The article said it got this information from “Fear Inc.: The Roots Of The Islamophobia Network In America” — which is a Leftist propaganda piece defaming foes of terror.

Such an article is not unusual. The Arab media is full of similar articles, so as to encourage fatwas against the four people mentioned in the article and any other critics of Islam, simply because we speak the truth about Islam and express our love for America.

I have yet to see fatwas of death against jihadists in the Arab media or from Muslim political and religious leaders. It is clear where the heart of those who call themselves moderate Muslims is. It is not against jihadists, but against those who speak against jihad.

Moderate Muslims are confused people, and have been violently and harshly trained over centuries to never think for themselves. Moderate Muslims are suffering from a pathology that allows them to believe in two opposite ideas at the same time and feel perfectly comfortable with them. In their minds, there is no contradiction at all when they say: “Islam is a religion of peace,” and they have no problem with commandments in the Quran to kill and terrorize the infidels.

The confusion in the West about moderate vs. radical Islam is not by accident, but by design, because no one wants to do anything about it; not Western leaders, and not even the 99.9% of nice Muslims.

ABOUT NONIE DARWISH

AFDI Geller Fellow Nonie Darwish is the author “The Devil We Don’t Know” and president of “Former Muslims United,” a program of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PamelaGeller.com. To stay on top of what’s really happening please follow Pamela on Twitter and like her on Facebook here.

MSM Lies about Muslims Lying (Taqiyya) by Raymond Ibrahim

Dr. Ben Carson’s recent assertion that the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages Muslims “to lie to achieve your goals” has prompted the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler to quote a number of academics to show that the presidential candidate got it wrong:

The word “taqiyya” derives from the Arabic words for “piety” and “fear of God” and indicates when a person is in a state of caution, said Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles and a leading authority on Islam.

[…]

“Yes, it is permissible to hide the fact you are Muslim” if a person is under threat, “as long as it does not involve hurting another person,” Abou El Fadl said.

The other academics whom Kessler quotes—including Omid Safi, director of the Duke University Islamic Studies Center, and Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School—make the same argument: yes, taqiyya is in the Koran but it only permits deception in the case of self-preservation, nothing more.

Not exactly.

Although the word taqiyya is related to the Arabic word “piety” and its root meaning is “protect” or “guard against”—and the Koran verses that advocate it (3:28 and 16:106) do so in the context of self-preservation from persecution—that is not the whole story.

None of the academics quoted by Kessler bothered to acknowledge that the Koran is not the only textual source to inform Muslim action.  They ignore the Hadith, the collected words and deeds of Muhammad.  Koran 33:2, for instance, commands Muslims to follow Muhammad’s example, and his example—also known as the prophet’s Sunna—is derived from the many volumes of Hadith.

The importance of Muhammad’s example is seen in that the Sunnis, approximately 90% of the world’s Muslim population, are named after his Sunna.  As one Muslim cleric puts it,  “Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith [whence the Sunna is derived]. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith…”

It is therefore careless or disingenuous for Kessler and his “experts” to ignore Muhammad’s example as recorded in the Hadith in their discussion of taqiyya.

As usual, for the complete truth, one must turn to scholarly books written in Arabic. According to Dr. Sami Mukaram, an Islamic studies professor specializing in taqiyya, and author of the only academic book exclusively devoted to it, “Taqiyya in order to deceive the enemy is permissible.”

This sounds similar to Carson’s assertion that taqiyya allows Muslims  “to lie to achieve your goals.”

As proof, Mukaram documents two canonical anecdotes from Muhammad’s Sunna—his example to Muslims—that make clear that the prophet allowed his followers to lie and deceive non-Muslims above and beyond the issue of self-preservation… Keep reading

Now 30,000 foreign Muslims have joined ISIS; analyst says they’ve lost momentum

VIDEO: The Left Wing Liars Club

We hit back at the tired old lies of the left on the Iraq War, George W. Bush, the economy, the Islamic State and Obamacare.

Why Does the Media Lie About National Disasters?

When I was a young child I enjoyed reading comic books. It served as an easy escape from the chaos of city life in Queens, New York. Marvel comics had a series at the time that was titled “What if” where they would alter comic book history and ask questions like “what if Spiderman’s Uncle Ben had lived?” I recently read this piece by Sean Davis at the Federalist about the Washington Posts’ mis-reporting on Amtrak funding and, with the Marvel comic series in mind, thought “what if the dinosaur media told America the truth?”

To be fair, many in the traditional media do an excellent job of objectively reporting facts and data. But a number of others abuse their privilege and do not. The horrible Amtrak tragedy last week and some of the disingenuous reporting that has followed, illuminated this abuse of journalistic privilege as biased reporters jumped on the “more funding for Amtrak” bandwagon despite evidence that a deficiency in taxpayer money isn’t the problem.

What if the media told the truth about Social Security, taxes?

What if the dinosaur media told the truth about Amtrak and other important policy issues? I am 100 percent convinced that the country would be in a far different – and far better – place right now. Let’s engage in this thought exercise for a moment:

What if the media told the truth about Social Security? A recent Harvard/Dartmouth study (no bastion of conservativism), which received scant media coverage, was damning with regard to the future of Social Security. It revealed what many conservatives have been saying for years: that the program is “going bankrupt.” The government has been using your Social Security money as its personal piggy bank for decades. How is this not a major scandal worth an ounce of honesty from the dinosaur media and shouldn’t conservatives be credited, not maligned, for sounding the alarm?

What if the media told the truth about tax rates? When Kansas Governor Sam Brownback dramatically cut the tax rates in his state to spur job growth, and a SHORT TERM budget shortfall resulted, many biased media types leaped at the opportunity to declare, “tax cuts don’t work.” This outrageous premise is so easily refuted by Googling the words “Texas” and “job growth,” and “Florida” and “taxes,” that wasting space here to chop this faulty premise down would be a complete waste of time. Also, now that Kansas is becoming a regional leader for job growth and has dramatically lowered its unemployment rate, many in the dinosaur media are conveniently silent. Again, shouldn’t the facts speak for themselves?

What if the media told the truth about what’s really destroying our inner cities?

Decades of government interference in inner city economies, decades of public education monopolies, decades of government-run healthcare programs, decades of government bureaucrats and politicians pouring tax payer’s hard-earned money into these areas with little to nothing to show for, and decades of social programs that have decimated the family structure have accumulated to create the severe crisis of opportunity in our inner cities happening today. These policies have disconnected the people living in these inner cities from any sense of independence and ownership and the media’s refusal to tell the story of this man-made opportunity crisis is a genuine American tragedy.

Is the media even interested in getting to the root of the problem? 

Finally, what if the media told the truth about the artificial divisions being created in this country simply for personal political gains? Can you fathom how much more unified we would be as a country if the media had called out the hard left and President Obama on their fraudulent “war on women” meme early in the election cycle before it had the chance to artificially divide us?

What if the media dumped ideology in favor of honest reporting? With the privilege of being a voice in the media with a platform comes great responsibility. A responsibility to report the facts and all facets of the story, not editorialize based on one opinion.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of an Amtrak train is by Michael R. Sisak | AP Photo.

The White House is Lying About Climate Change and Health

Let us begin with the understanding that there is no connection between the climate and health. The climate is something measured in decades and centuries, so what happened in the last century has nothing to do with whether you are sneezing today.

The weather surely can help generate health problems. For example in the northeastern states, the Lyme disease season is beginning. Between 1992 and 2010 reported cases of Lyme disease doubled to nearly 23,000 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but CDC officials believe the actual number of those infected may have been three times that number.

Lyme disease is transmitted by deer ticks and since these tiny insects will hitch a ride on birds, squirrels, mice and small animals as well, even if you live in an area without deer, the possibility of being bitten by a deer tick is just as likely. This increases for people who love gardening or outdoor recreational activities such as hiking and camping. Children, too, are particularly susceptible.

The fact that Lyme disease shows up in the Spring simply tells you that the warm weather facilitates the tick population. The weather has always been tied the mating habits and activities of various species, but that does not mean that is constitutes a massive threat to everyone’s health.

That’s not the way the White House sees it. On April 7 the administration made it official. It announced that it is “committed to combating the health impacts of climate change and protecting the health of future generations.”

Since the climate changes over extended periods of time, not just month to month, one has to wonder what “health impacts” the White House has in mind. The last Little Ice Age lasted from around 1300 to 1850. It was cold all over Europe and North America. Does the White House propose that it can “protect” us from a new one? If so, that’s absurd.

Let us understand, too, that there has always been what the White House announcement calls “extreme weather events.” Notice the change from “climate” to “weather”? Among the events identified are “severe droughts and wildfires to more powerful hurricanes and record heat waves…” Has there been a time when such weather-related events have not occurred? In fact, there are times when they don’t. For example, there hasn’t been a single Category 3-5 hurricane hit the U.S. mainland since 2005!

The White House has launched a massive brainwashing effort using many elements of the federal government to frighten Americans using the “climate” and the “weather.” How deceptive is it?

One example is sufficient. The President has claimed that climate change was the cause of one of his daughter’s asthma. In its announcement, it claimed that “In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled and climate change is putting these individuals and many other vulnerable populations at greater risk of landing in the hospital.”

Here’s what the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America has to say about the various causes of asthma:

“Since asthma has a genetic origin and is a disease you are born with, passed down from generation to generation, the question isn’t really ‘what causes asthma’, but rather ‘what causes asthma symptoms to appear?’ People with asthma have inflamed airways which are super-sensitive to thinks which do not bother other people.”

What the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America is telling us is that there is no direct connection between either the climate or the weather and the illness called asthma.

Those who suffer this disease however can be affected by a range of triggers such as irritants in the air, pollens, molds, and even cockroach droppings. Infections such as colds, flu, and sore throats are among the leading triggers for asthma attacks in children.

The facts, the truth, were no deterrent to the April 7th White House twelve-page announcement of all the things it intends to do to brainwash Americans into believing that there is a connection between the “climate” and health.

Here’s just a few of the dozens of events and programs it will initiate so that the media will report on them and thus convey the message that climate change is the greatest threat to Americans today:

“The Administration is expanding its Climate Data Initiative to include more than 150 health-relevant datasets…this is intended to help communities and businesses reduce the health impacts of climate change.” Only there are no such impacts.

The Administration is announcing a coalition of Deans from 30 medical, public health, and nursing schools around the country, who are committing to ensure that the next generation of health professionals is trained to address the health impacts of climate change.” Only there are no such impacts.

“Announcing the White House Climate Change and Health Summit.” It will feature the Surgeon General who will lead discussions to “the public health impacts of climate change and identify opportunities to minimize these impacts.” Only there are no impacts and nothing that could be done if there were.

From the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, many elements of the federal government will be integrated into this massive brainwashing effort.

What can be done to ignore a government determined to lie to everyone about a “threat” that does not exist? Not much.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLE: Earth Day: 22 Ways to Think about the Climate-Change Debate

Top 5 Clinton Hypocrisies

One of the most glaring hypocrisies of big government liberals who manage to get elected or appointed to high-ranking government positions is that their professed love for the positive power of big government rarely matches their actions when their own skin is in the game.

Our country is at another significant turning point. A stagnant economic recovery, a failed national healthcare initiative, and legions of foreign policy failures have left our great country in a weakened state. What makes this special country different is that we never stay weakened for long. Out of the ashes has always arisen a far better tomorrow.

It’s tough to keep America down. But, this better tomorrow is going to need principled leaders as guides. Not because Americans need a hand out from the political class but because they need principled members of the political class to have the courage to step aside and acknowledge that Washington doesn’t have all of the answers. They must acknowledge that many problems are best left solved by strong, economically healthy American families and their communities. Unfortunately, in an era of quasi-political family dynasties, we are about to enter a 2016 election cycle with Clinton, round 2. A family dynasty grossly unprepared for the principled leadership task.

Sometimes we need to be reminded where we’ve been, to see where we DO NOT want to go. Do we really want to go back to another potentially eight years of Clinton rule?

The Clintons believe that reducing income inequality should be a top priority, unless you’re a Clinton making $250,000 per speech.

Here’s a short list of 5 glaring hypocrisies of which the Clintons have yet to provide any reasonable explanation:

  1. The Clintons have been open about their disdain for money in politics, until you take into account that they take millions in foreign donations for their foundation.
  2. The Clintons have campaigned on the premise that taxes should be raised out of “fairness,” until those taxes impact the Clintons who then proceeded to set up complicated schemes to conveniently avoid paying said taxes on their still accumulating pile of wealth.
  3. The Clintons believe that reducing income inequality should be a top priority, unless you’re a Clinton making $250,000 per speech and own multiple, spacious homes in wealthy neighborhoods.
  4. There’s a “war on women” according to the Clintons, but the Clintons are not telling you that Mrs. Clinton is a frontline warrior in waging it by paying her female staff far less than the men on her staff.
  5. The Clintons have fought for more government intrusion into your lives, all while maintaining a private email server, in violation of the rules, to keep said government out of their lives.

Like the Obamas, the Clintons seem to love hashtag diplomacy, rather than doing the real work, so here’s my contribution: #Hypocrites.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review.