Osama bin Laden Compound torn down. High Res pics

The compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan where Navy SEAL’s infiltrated and terminated Osama bin Laden has been torn down. Cryptome has the high resolution pics and clicking the pic below will take you to their series.


OBL Compound-Tear down pics at Cryptome.org gan be accessed by clicking this picture

The Right Silent On Politicizing Soldier Casualties: Fallen Heroes Belong to Families not a President

The Send Off

Pamella Geller’s “Today’s War Dead” & dishonoring soldier deaths

Most issues can easily be politicized without much of a writer’s reputation being put in jeopardy. After all, if they are a political pundit of sorts most of their audience expects them to bend at just the right time to defend their ideals. These flexible boundaries for characters who operate in the spirit of expediency are rarely criticized; mostly because it serves their means and hopefully properly aligns them towards their ends. Unfortunately the hazy and undefined standards of expediency sometimes leave enough room to violate issues which should remain sacrosanct.

The politicization of fallen heroes is an area in which both political parties have been allowed to exploit. Criticism comes only from opponents while people who share the ideology of those politicizing the situation always remain silent. When power changes hand, the cause of soldier casualties are firmly affixed to either the new and/or current Commander in Chief, the majority party in Congress, or both. When this happens the honor and memory of these Heroes is cheapened; their sacrifice is desecrated all in the interest of placing blame on political opponents. They become nothing more than statistics or political props and names on a list; when in fact they were real human beings who were loved. Such is the case with the crass and extraordinarily inarticulate updates from Pamella Geller’s “Today’s War Dead” where she prefaces the list with “Obama’s disaster…the daily toll is devastating.”

While there has been considerable criticism of the changes in the rules of engagement adopted by the Obama administration, that is not addressed in Geller’s tally. But maybe I am asking for too much here, or maybe I am spot on. Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that “The source of every crime, is some defect of the understanding; or some error in reasoning; or some sudden force of the passions.” That was in 1651 and we can see clearly that it rings true even to this day. Geller’s force of her passions to prove her point, and strengthen her stance against the current commander in chief, are done at the expense of the honor of the fallen heroes. Their memory, their honor, and their sacrifice belong not to a President; their glory belongs only to their own legacy extending to family, friends, and the grateful nation.

After all, the returning soldiers whom have not given their lives are not greeted and told “Thank you for being one of [insert President’s name here] great victory.” They are simply thanked for their service. So why is it when their service leads to the ultimate sacrifice do the rules change? As if losing their life isnt enough of a toll on families, those operating from the sidelines as pundits now feel emboldened to reset the discussion’s parameters in order to tailor it to shift public opinion. Sure the family can still be proud of their child’s service and sacrifice; but this rather shallow caveat must be added for a political edge. A technique which I can guarantee was not run by, nor approved, by the families of any of the servicemen listed.

It is always easy to hold your ideological opponents accountable. They tend to pop up on your radar frequently and you are already well aware of everything you disagree with them on. What is much harder is holding those accountable that you agree with and tend to look up to. Pamela Geller is someone that shares my political philosophy and is someone that I look up to. However, the cheap attempt to use casualties to foment dissent harms all parties involved. First the families of fallen soldiers have to be submitted to the political tug of war, by using them (soldiers) as post-mortem pawns. Secondly the reputation of the opinion writer is put into question. Albeit the least important aspect of this issue; I would think it should trigger pause on the writer’s end. After all, announcing the dead, and fixing blame to a President is sophomoric at best. A reader of Geller’s post should be asking why this is necessary especially since their is no further commentary supporting her claim of these soldiers deaths being solely President Obama’s fault. The entire country knows we are fighting a radical theology that seeks to gain strength through terrorist acts. They also know that Obama’s Afghan surge, while using far below the requested number of troops, is in full affect. So what is Geller’s opinion of this? Are troop levels too low? Are the rules of engagement responsible? Is it both and more? The reader isn’t told.

Her quick post does the exact same thing that Liberals did during the Bush administration. It screams foul, offers no explanation to how or what could be causing such a tragedy, and then continues a politically advantageous hit by listing the names of these heroes in blood. A hit and run in the same fashion that we on the right have spent the past 8 years fighting back against. Since the strategy has now been adopted by Geller, and others, I will expect them to be silent when power shifts to a Republican administration. After all, the tactic of smearing the honor of our soldiers has now been justified and embraced by both sides. We are even now. Except for the families; they have to bear the brunt of their loss and the continued politicization of the ultimate sacrifice. In effect, Ms. Geller and those who use these tactics which they once denounced, have become what they once despised. And it is this double-standard, we on the right have been standing against.  To retreat from that victory now for the cheap satisfaction of lambasting a president seems hardly worth it. I hope Geller and others, will retreat from their immoral stance before it is carried out to its logical extreme. Soldiers in full dress returning home have been spat upon in airports in the name of a president’s strategy. We worked so hard to prevent that. Yet some are now using the same strategies that produced that very same result in the past.

By the way, below is a picture of Joshua Sparling. He is a military vet and amputee spat on by leftists at an Anti-War Rally. I am not fit to lick the wheels on that chair even after he pushed it through a cow pasture. Back story here and transcript from Fox News Hannity & Colmes HERE

Joshua Sparling-spat upon by leftists at an Anti-War Rally

State Dept: The Redemptive Qualities of Mohammed Atta

The video you are about to see is unedited and presented in its entirety. This is done so that you may fully understand the context. If you have not been following our State Department’s involvement in the Middle East uprisings links are provided at the bottom of the post.

In the video is Dr. Anne Marie Slaughter, then the Director of Policy Planning for the State Department. This address was made October 2, 2010.(pre-recorded 9/30) By this time the State Department had already been made aware that a revolution was planned for Egypt starting in January 2011; a protest likely to turn the Middle East upside-down. So with a revolution just weeks away, that the State Department was aware of, why would a Director of Policy Planning try to relate to youth groups, by expressing the redemptive qualities of Mohammed Atta as an effective “community organizer”?

The Timeline

12/08 The State Department hosted the Alliance for Youth Movements Conference (info in link below)

12/08 State Department receives cable concerning returning attendee. His confiscated notes show a planned democratic uprising/revolution planned for Egypt in Jan. 2011

10/02/10 This video pep talk comes from the Director of Policy Planning, Dr. Anne Marie Slaughter, in which she tells these community organizers in New Zealand at the US Embassy that they have the same “power with” people as Mohammed Atta (leader of the 9/11 attacks). This begins at 4:30. While she gives the disclaimer that 9/11 was “negative” she still proceeds to tell these youth groups that they are community organizers one in the same as Atta.

In the video Slaughter tries to offer insight into the theory that “power over” people (a dictatorship) is different than the “power with people” that community organizers, like them and Atta, have. Of course it is no different; not even in theory. “Community organizers” use their “power with people” to eventually gain “power over” people. It is just an extra step in the process towards the same ends.

Note on the Video: This is my copy. Too many times this Admin has stripped videos on me. The original video from the State Dept may be found here

Quotes from the address

4:3o If you think about 9/11 they proved that Mohammed Atta was the leader of the 19 terrorists who carried out the attack of 9/11. They found that out because he was the only one who was connected with everyone else. That is the power of leadership. Its the power of mobilizing others. Its who is the most interconnected” Keep listening and you will understand global community organizing.

Atta and the “globalists” (as Dr. Slaughter calls these youth activists) have the same qualities. The “negative” 9/11 disclaimer is bogus at best; it was only made so she could move on. She wanted to illustrate just how much of an impact community organizers can have on the world. Its a pep talk that includes citing one of the worlds greatest tragedies in order to help them fully understand their potential. In weeks she would like like a true seer, or even a prophet, when Egypt exploded. Even though she had already been made aware that the revolution was planned at a State Department sponsored event.

Between the lines-The Unfortunate Reality

Was it telling of Dr. Slaughter’s beliefs that her default comparison was to Mohammed Atta? Was she just trying to find a globally recognized revolutionary character? Or was this address specially catered to fit the upcoming Egyptian revolution with the interest to spark the movement globally? We will never know. What we do know is that Dr. Slaughter had confirmed to me that she had in fact left the State Department. I asked her approximately 30 days ago and verified she has since returned to Princeton. But when I asked her “Lets get down to the gravy, what was up with the Mohammed Atta comment to the New Zealand youth groups” the conversation fell silent. And this is precisely why the issue must be addressed. This borders on sedition. And she is now on my shit list along with Nathan J Brown of the Carnegie Endowment. I hope they are ready. After all, Im just getting started.

The Indispensable Guide to State Dept involvement in the Middle East Uprisings and others around the Globe

State Department Interviews Reveal Potential Egyptian Bombshell – Which was featured on Glenn Beck’s radio show (Video Here) This is what started it all.

Google Egypt: Ghonim not the only tie to protesters. Which was then plagiarized by Glenn Beck which he and his staff made no attempt to correct even after being made aware of it. See this in my part 4 of my Breitbart interview here

Google Egypt 2: Delete Everything – The organizers asked me to delete my articles after the revolution kicked off. I refused, they deleted their own info but not before I screen-capped it

Yahoo News – Google Iraq: Breaking Baghdad – (Archived) Yes, the same revolutionary pencil necks (State Dept, Google, et al) working with the State Dept tried to set Iraq on fire with complete disregard for our troops still in the country.

Clinton Admits funding opposition labor unions in Egyptian uprisings: Shortly after the fall of Mubarak Clinton tells Egyptian activists that they gave grants to opposition labor unions to support organizing on behalf of the opposition. She also said the results in Egypt were “what we hoped for is what happened.”

And now this; another piece in the puzzle.

Osama bin Laden’s Nuclear Warheads-Beyond Wikileaks


The internet was buzzing recently with Wikileaks releasing Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed’s (KSM) Gitmo file (original here).  He claimed if bin Laden was captured or assassinated he would unleash a “nuclear hell storm”

That sounds like typical terrorist clap-trap that most of us would shrug off. But why is it that no one has mentioned that Osama bin Laden met with a person that previously sold a nuclear warhead to a French Journalist right after 9-11? The warhead was determined authentic by Fedor Yemchenko, (see note) the ex Vice Director of the Soviet Atomic Program. A team of journalists were able to track down the man that sold the French journalist the warhead and had a private meeting with Osama bin Laden. All of this is in the video. Originally bin Laden approached the seller looking to contract the disposal of nuclear waste from Pakistan’s nuclear power plant, Kozlduy, in order to make “Dirty Bombs”

I guarantee you that the video you are about to see will scare the shit out of you considering the recent developments from Wikileaks. Please watch and ask yourself why we dont know about this. The American journalist in the video, that lives in Bulgaria, has written for the New York Times. Special thanks to Mr. Simple Sense for his input & help spreading the word.

Please note in the video the Soviet nuke expert is named as “Fedor Patchenko”-It is an error in translation. His name is actually spelled Fedor Yemchenko (ex of work here, 2nd entry) Special thanks to Your Daddy’s Politics for pointing out the error.

Click picture-Opens in new Window on Daily Motion site

Click for Video