Friday, March 27, 2015

Saudi Arabia says it won't rule out building nuclear weapons

The Independent
March 27, 2015

Saudi Arabia will not rule out building or acquiring nuclear weapons, the country’s ambassador to the United States has indicated.
Asked whether Saudi Arabia would ever build nuclear weapons in an interview with US news channel CNN, Adel Al-Jubeir said the subject was “not something we would discuss publicly”.
Pressed later on the subject he said: “This is not something that I can comment on, nor would I comment on.”
The ambassador’s reticence to rule out a military nuclear programme may reignite concerns that the autocratic monarchy has its eye on a nuclear arsenal.
Western intelligence agencies believe that the Saudi monarchy paid for up to 60% of Pakistan’s nuclear programme in return for the ability to buy warheads for itself at short notice, the Guardian newspaper reported in 2010.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together

Washington Free Beacon
March 26, 2015

John Kerry/AP
LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.
U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.
Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.
This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces.
“Once again, in the face of Iran’s intransigence, the U.S. is leading an effort to cave even more toward Iran—this time by whitewashing Tehran’s decades of lying about nuclear weapons work and current lack of cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency],” said one Western source briefed on the talks but who was not permitted to speak on record.
With the White House pressing to finalize a deal, U.S. diplomats have moved further away from their demands that Iran be subjected to oversight over its nuclear infrastructure.
“Instead of ensuring that Iran answers all the outstanding questions about the past and current military dimensions of their nuclear work in order to obtain sanctions relief, the U.S. is now revising down what they need to do,” said the source.  “That is a terrible mistake—if we don’t have a baseline to judge their past work, we can’t tell if they are cheating in the future, and if they won’t answer now, before getting rewarded, why would they come clean in the future?”
The United States is now willing to let Iran keep many of its most controversial military sites closed to inspectors until international sanctions pressure has been lifted, according to sources.
This scenario has been criticized by nuclear experts, including David Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Albright told Congress in November that “a prerequisite for any comprehensive agreement is for the IAEA to know when Iran sought nuclear weapons, how far it got, what types it sought to develop, and how and where it did this work.”
“The IAEA needs a good baseline of Iran’s military nuclear activities, including the manufacturing of equipment for the program and any weaponization related studies, equipment, and locations,” Albright said.
One policy expert familiar with the concessions told the Washington Free Beacon that it would be difficult for the administration to justify greater concessions given the centrality of this issue in the broader debate.
“The Obama administration has gone all-in on the importance of verification,” said the source, who asked for anonymity because the administration has been known to retaliate against critics in the policy community. “But without knowing what the Iranians have it’s impossible for the IAEA to verify that they’ve given it up.”
A lesser emphasis is also being placed on Iran coming clean about its past efforts to build nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic continues to stall United Nations efforts to determine the extent of its past weapons work, according to the Wall Street Journal.
By placing disclosure of Iran’s past military efforts on the back burner, the administration could harm the ability of outside inspectors to take full inventory of Iran’s nuclear know-how, according to sources familiar with the situation.
It also could jeopardize efforts to keep Iran at least one year away from building a bomb, sources said.
On the diplomatic front, greater concessions are fueling fears among U.S. allies that Iran will emerge from the negations as a stronger regional power.

Iran ramps up sea power while negotiating nukes with West

Fox News
March 26, 2015

Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi has threatened the U.S. with the nation's navy, but it is more likely to be used in the Persian Gulf region. (Reuters)
While the U.S. haggles with Iran over nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic is aggressively building up a navy -- a move that has regional neighbors concerned.
The focus on Tehran's nuclear weapons capabilities could be a mistake, if it comes at the exclusion of addressing the seafaring capabilities of the rogue regime, not to mention the active proxy fighting Iran is engaging in throughout the Middle East, a former U.S. Army officer with intimate knowledge of the Iranian military told And it isn't just analysts warning that Iran has plans to project power and influence around the Persian Gulf -- the nation's top military officials are rattling their sabers on a near-daily basis.
"The Americans and our enemies cannot stand up against the Islamic system's deterrence power no matter how hard they try,"  Navy Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, told Iranian state-run media.
International sanctions have long stunted Iran's ability to buy weapons, but the nation has nonetheless managed to acquire and even build one of the world's largest naval fleets, according to the website Earlier this month, Iran touted its “homemade destroyer," naval presence in international waters and "anti-surface and anti-subsurface weapons." In February, Iran stagedUSS Cole-style missile and rocket attacks on a mock-up of a U.S. aircraft carrier.
The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

Can states slow the flow of military equipment to police?

Personal Liberty
March 25, 2015

A tactical truck chases protesters down the street, shooting tear gas on W. Florissant Avenue in Ferguson, Mo. on Sunday afternoon, Aug. 17, 2014, after protesters throw rocks and bottles towards the police. (J. B. Forbes/St. Louis Post-Dispatch/MCT)
WASHINGTON (TNS) — Police in Minneapolis-St. Paul trained military-grade launchers and used flash bang and tear gas grenades on protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention. The Richland County, South Carolina, Sheriff’s Department got an armored personnel carrier to help fight drug and gambling crime. And Ohio State University police acquired a 19-ton armored truck that can withstand mine blasts.
These are just a few examples of the growing militarization of police in America. It’s been ongoing for more than a decade, but rarely grabbed the nation’s attention until civil unrest erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, last August after the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot by a white police officer.
Now, eight months after the confrontations in Ferguson between heavily armed police and protesters, lawmakers in more than a half-dozen states are trying to rein in the militarization of their own police forces. They point to Ferguson and say they want to prevent similar highly weaponized responses in their states.
The legislative response — backed by Democrats and Republicans, in red states and blue states — is a reaction to what one sponsor of such a bill calls the “law enforcement-industrial complex,” a play on the “military-industrial complex” term first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
“You get these pictures that just shock the conscience,” said Republican state Sen. Branden Petersen of Minnesota, referring to news footage of heavily armed police patrolling streets or carrying out sting operations. His bill would bar law enforcement in the state from accepting gear that’s “designed to primarily have a military purpose or offensive capability.”

Sorry Gutierrez.... No Espanol!!!

Mark Matheny
March 26, 2015
Traitor Louis Gutierrez

Aren't our Representatives supposed to stand up for the American people first? Well apparently Democrat Illinois Rep. Louis Gutierrez doesn't think he has to.

Recently in California Gutierrez decided he would conduct a Rally entirely in Spanish!
The meeting was to be directed to illegal immigrants, but if you spoke English, the good Representative decided you would get the translated version to English through headphones!!

Where did he think he was?- At the United Nations General Assembly or something?
Well,, needless to say, this didn't set well with many of the American people around the area of the University of Southern California (where the rally was taking place) so they decided to make their voices heard - IN ENGLISH.

Patriotic Americans in the audience began chanting loudly, "USA! -USA!" drowning out Gutierrez as he tried to speak in Spanish. At one point the police came into the Rally and politely, (yes, politely believe it or not) tried to settle the protesters letting them know that he was certainly not trying to deny them their right to protest.

After a few more feeble attempts to conduct the Rally, Gutierrez fled the scene without answering any questions. the protesters successfully shut him down!

Let me say, by the way, that I am not against Legal Immigration. Our country was founded by Immigrants. I am however, against Illegal Immigrants invading my country, and then expecting me to speak their language!!

Legal Immigration laws currently on the books just so happens to require that legal immigrants learn the English Language:

Current law, which is much more detailed than the first naturalization statutes, also requires competency in the English language and excludes those who advocate world communism or the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. Also, current law prohibits discrimination in naturalization on the basis of race, sex, or marital status. The elements of the oath have been expanded to include a solemn commitment "to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; . . . to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and . . . to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law, or . . . to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law" -Heritage Foundation   (emphasis mine)
The Immigration Act of 1795, required the following four elements to be satisfied for a legal immigrant to become an American Citizen:

1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; 
2) a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States; 
3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and 
4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.

These requirements are is a part of immigration law to this day.

Alexander Hamilton said regarding legal immigration:

:...the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.

Thomas Jefferson warned against immigrants that would come into the country with no intention of assimilating into the culture of America, and who would instead sow the seeds of discord thereby destabilizing and fracturing American Society:
 “These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.” 
And finally, here is what President Theodore  Roosevelt said concerning immigration in 1907

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." 
Theodore Roosevelt 1907 (emphasis mine)

Illinois Representative Louis Gutierrez needs to be voted out! 

By Mark Matheny
Veteran and Patriot!!

Wednesday, March 25, 2015


Infowars News
March 25, 2015

The Christian Science Monitor warns that last week’s attack on a museum in Tunisia that killed 23 may endanger the supposed “democratic transition” the African nation underwent after the Western engineered Arab Spring.
“Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things,” formerSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared after the invasion of Iraq. “Stuff happens,” he added.
The untidiness of the revolution against Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia — a ruthless dictator visited by Rumsfeld in 2006 — resulted in the rise of the Salafist brand of Islam and the rise of Ansar Al Sharia, the group responsible for attacking the CIA compound in Libya.
Now we learn that the gunmen who carried out the attack in Tunis were trained in neighboring Libya, another country where stuff happened and the transition to democracy was, to say the least, messy.
The violent overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya was conducted by CIA supported “rebels” who subsequently turned the country into the failed state it is today.
In 2011, we reported that Khalifa Hifter, a former Gaddafi military officer, was appointed to lead the rebel army supported by the United Nations, the United States and its cobbled together coalition. Hifter has worked with the CIA since he “defected to the Libyan National Salvation Front (LNSF), the principal anti-Gaddafi group, which had the backing of the American CIA. He organized his own militia,” according to the Le Monde diplomatique published book Manipulations africaines.
In addition, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, admitted to working for the CIA. “Mr. al-Hasidi,” we wrote in March, 2011, “is reportedly a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), also known as Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya. It is the most powerful radical faction waging Jihad in Libya and was officially designated as an affiliate of al-Qaeda and the Taliban – both CIA creations – by the UN 1267 Committee. LIFG was founded in the fall of 1995 by Libyans who had fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan, in short for the CIA and the ISI.”
The order out of chaos effort in Libya continues today as al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya and other Salafist groups — undoubtedly the same folks who allegedly trained the gunmen in Tunis — are funded by the Gulf Emirates and the CIA, partners since the successful CIA effort to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
The attack signals the ascension of the Salafist jihad in northern Africa. “The consolidation of a jihadist Caliphate in eastern Libya accelerated starting early 2014 because of the need to support the Egyptian Islamist jihadists against the growing power and popularity of President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi,” writes theWorld Tribune.
The failure of “democracy” in Tunisia — formerly held out as the shining star of the Arab Spring — and corporate media warnings that such freedom allows the Salafist revolution to grow serves as yet another signal that the war on terror is an ever-expanding enterprise.
In addition to growing the national security state in the United States, Canada and Europe and feeding associated industries in militarism and surveillance, the continuing expansion of the Islamic State, most recently in Libya and soon in Tunisian and across the Arab Maghreb, will extend the expiry date on the so-called war on terror, possibly for a generation or longer.

TERROR CAMPS:The Global Agenda

TERROR CAMPS:The Global Agenda
Watch Full Length Movie Here

Libyan Violence: Globalist Plan for the Domination of Eurasia

Left-Right Paradigm and the Coming Election

More White House Propaganda... "The Unemployment Rate is Only 8.25%!!!!"

Defense Cuts Harmful to Economy or National Security?

The Obama Catholic Connection

The Globalists Plan for a Coming World Currency

Four Mega Banks Dubbed "The Four Horsemen of U.S. Banking"

New World Order Rising-Documentary

New World Order Rising-Documentary
Watch Here

FOX News
Find out Why Here...

My Other Passions

My Other Passions
Aikido and Iaido

Psalm for the Day