Welcome to 1984

[jabcat]

The thing is, there didn't used to be a debate.  Even (especially) our founders recognized the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and JESUS.  I believe anyone with another POV should still be treated respectfully, but I have no problem at all with a society based truly on Jehovah God.  That's what God Himself chose for Israel, while they demanded a king - and what He will institute again as His Divine Government.  A minority has chipped away at "In God We Trust", and along with the lies of satan and our own apathy, it has been allowed to happen - and God has allowed us to "have our king" - temporarily, until He steps in and fixes it.  Even with what may look like a mess, I'm one that believes God works all things after the counsel of His will and He has not lost control.  We're watching for deliverance and for "all the nations to be blessed".  There is a process of God becoming All in All, every knee bowing and every tongue confessing, and yesterday, today, and tomorrow are all a part of that process.  The darkness comes before the dawn.

As a related aside, we homeschooled both our children from kindergarten on (except for 1 semester with our daughter) so that we could have more say in their belief system - they are not brainwashed, in fact, far from it, as they both are very independent, critical thinkers including being very open to UR.

[natcat86]

Obviously as a christian I want God's Kingdom to come on this earth, I want Him to be the leader. Unfortunately we're living in a fallen world. I'm a realist. I would like and I pray for Christ's return then there really will be no debate. But until that day we have to live in this world. I'm not saying, so lets give up but I wonder if America is a christian country today. Christ says we are like salt. That speaks to me of a small amount.  I think its more likely that there are a minority of real christians out there.

I dont think we bring God's kingdom by having a christian government. If that worked then the US would see an increase in believers not the decrease they have seen (If you were founded on christian principles). The kingdom isn't the gov. Its us, the believers.

[Molly]

Still a Christian majority--



Monday, March 9 2009

According to the report, "The percentage of Christians in America, which declined in the 1990s from 86.2 percent to 76.7 percent, has now edged down to 76 percent."



http://www.christianwritingtoday.com/trends/151-christianity-declining-in-america.html

[jabcat]

Nat, maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying, or what I said is too vague.  I'm not saying this is done by man's ways or by man's revolt.  As far as a "Christian government not working", again, that was God's design for Israel (a Godly government) - they rebelled.  I believe if we pursue godliness, humble ourselves before Him, turn from our wicked ways, God will hear from heaven and find more salt to use to preserve things with ("will the Son of Man find the faith on earth when He comes?").  I believe if I (and those around me) spend all my time spitting in His face (as opposed to seeking His face) then that's likely to bring more consequences of evil and increase the falling away.  Began here in earnest in the 1960's.

[natcat86]

From my personal experience people tend to think of Christian as white British, sort of as apposed to muslim or sikh or something. But obviously I hope that they are all true belivers with a relationship with Christ!!

[natcat86]

Nat, maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying, or what I said is too vague.  I'm not saying this is done by man's ways or by man's revolt.  However, I believe if we pursue godliness, humble ourselves before Him, turn from our wicked ways, God will hear from heaven and find more salt to use to preserve things with ("will the Son of Man find the faith on earth when He comes?").  I believe if I (and those around me) spend all my time spitting in His face (as opposed to seeking His face) then that's likely to bring more consequences of evil and increase the falling away.  Began here in earnest in the 1960's.

I agree with this. Although I see the salt thing differently. Its not to preserve but to change. By putting salt on food it makes the food take on a salt taste, it changes the food. In the same way when jesus talks about light. The light changes the darkness into light. So salt and light, both changing the things they come into contact with to become the same as them. So we are salt and light. We change our surroundings and it starts at home. Then our neighbours. If our neighbours become salt they change their neighbours. Thats how the kingdom will come. Not through having a religious gov.

In the UK and USA we have long christian histories and we are facing national spiritual stagnation. But look at countries like China, they are having a massive spiritual growth!

[Molly]

Most black Americans are Christians.  Here's another poll.  Should we send this to our Pres who is telling the world we are no longer a Christian nation?  Clearly, he is uninformed.

Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian
Varies Greatly From the World at Large

Analysis
By Gary Langer



July 18 — Ask Americans their religion and you'll get an earful — 50 individual answers in an ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll, ranging from agnostics to Zen Buddhists. The vast majority, though, have something in common: Jesus Christ.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html

[jabcat]

Those are interesting stats Mol, also like Nat says, hopefully more and more have a true saving relationship with the Savior.  I agree, that's where the salt and light come into play, true relationship.

As far as China, exactly!  No matter how things look, I still don't believe God has lost control, even "after the fall".  The fall didn't catch God off guard or take Him by surprise. :laughing7:   It's His plan, and He knows how to work it.  :thumbsup:  So when God decides He's going to raise up a people (as in China), it's His work and His business.  All for His purpose to bring in all mankind.  I'm just saying the more each of us seek His face (even though these words can't fully express my thoughts) the "more He has to work with", i.e., revealing Himself in and through us.  But in the end, God can use a donkey if he so chooses.  No further commentary on that particular statement necessary.  :bigGrin:

[natcat86]

I agree God has planned everything all along and its all part of His plan. Thats why I think anger towards politicians and things of this world is futile. Love your neighbour and let God deal with the rest.

[natcat86]

Have enjoyed this discusion very much. Its so nice to have time to just think about the family business. Off to bed now, night!  :cloud9:

[lomarah]

Those are interesting stats Mol, also like Nat says, hopefully more and more have a true saving relationship with the Savior.  I agree, that's where the salt and light come into play, true relationship.

As far as China, exactly!  No matter how things look, I still don't believe God has lost control, even "after the fall".  The fall didn't catch God off guard or take Him by surprise. :laughing7:   It's His plan, and He knows how to work it.  :thumbsup:  So when God decides He's going to raise up a people (as in China), it's His work and His business.  All for His purpose to bring in all mankind.  I'm just saying the more each of us seek His face (even though these words can't fully express my thoughts) the "more He has to work with", i.e., revealing Himself in and through us.  But in the end, God can use a donkey if he so chooses.  No further commentary on that particular statement necessary.  :bigGrin:

:laughhand: Don't you love God's sense of humour?  :LH:

[jabcat]

EE-AW, EE-AW   :bigGrin:

[Molly]

It's a Climategate Christmas


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI&;

[Molly]

Merry Hyatt, Crusader for Christmas Carols


SAN FRANCISCO (Dec. 22) -- Attention, all ye faithful: Merry Hyatt has a plan to bring Christmas carols into the lives of school children.

The substitute teacher in Redding, Calif., says she is tired of working in schools where students aren't allowed to sing Christmas songs that are religious in nature. So she's sponsoring a ballot initiative that would require all public schools in California to give children the opportunity to sing or listen to Christmas carols.

"For years and years, maybe one person has been able to ruin it for an entire school," Hyatt said. "It's not right. I think it's the majority's turn."

There is no law in California that prohibits caroling in public schools, said Michael Hersher, deputy general counsel for the California Department of Education. In fact, many school choirs perform religiously oriented music, including Christmas carols, during holiday concerts. But some schools find it simpler to maintain the separation of church and state by excluding all religious material.

Hyatt, 61, says she proposed the initiative because of her experience as a substitute teacher in Riverside County in Southern California, where she says she was told not to bring carols -- or any discussion of Jesus -- into the classroom.

"It's sad and it's wrong to have a Christmas party and not mention Jesus," said Hyatt, who recently moved 600 miles north to Redding. "It's his birthday."


http://www.sphere.com/

[Molly]

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
OPINION EUROPE
DECEMBER 8, 2009, 7:20 P.M. ET
The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574576683216723794.html

[Molly]

Global Warming theory--Purpose--Control of every aspect of people's lives all over the world--Jesse Ventura seeks to find out who is behind the global warming movement--an unholy collusion between government, scientists, and businessmen as a way to gain control and make tons of money--a nucleus which can be grown into a world government--the World Conservation Bank--Edmund de Rothschild--one bank, one currency, one world government--

A mystery solved in four parts--

This is part one--of four parts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08&feature=related




1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

[fire walker]

A man named Brother Nathanael Kapner a former Jew who converted from Judaism to the Christian faith, has much insight and things to say on this subject of the ground workings that was laid that attempts to lead to a world Government like what Orwells 1984 was pointing to, dsired by those who would like to see those things come to power imposed status because they desire to be on the controling side of this., read Brother Nathanael Kapners testimony sometime, or maybe you already have, he also has a home page called Real Zionist news, check it out if interested.

Personaly I may not agree with everything he says, but mostly I do know he has much more insight into the workings of Zionism because of having been a former Jew than I'd ever hope to have, that knowledge means nothing to me  other than to recognize the spirit behind it for what it is,  on a social corporate level it does point out the religious/political battles and the PR propaganda manipulation that are taking place in this world we live in.

Peace,
Fire Walker

[Molly]

Alaska businessmen unveil new Frozen Gore


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - January 4, 2010
www.frozengore.com

New "Interactive" Al Gore Ice Sculpture to be unveiled in Fairbanks, AK

Fairbanks, AK- In an ongoing effort to attract Former Vice President Al Gore to come to Fairbanks and debate his man-made global warming theories, a unique interactive ice sculpture will be unveiled Tuesday, January 5th in downtown Fairbanks.

The new sculpture, a 6' tall, 4,000 lb, likeness of Mr. Gore will be uncovered at the corner of Airport Road and Cushman Street next to Thrifty Liquor. This year the carving features an audio dub of Mr. Gore's Dec. 2009 Copenhagen speech suggesting the entire Polar Ice cap will likely disappear in the next 5 to 7 years, and urging us to upgrade our light bulbs.

As the audio is played, hot air will be emitted from the mouth of the statue, signifying the dangers to the environment of all types of man-made emissions. The source of the hot air will be the Ford F-350 flatbed truck on which the sculpture sits, with a 2" hose from the tailpipe of the vehicle, through a hole bored in the back of the head of the carving, and pumped out through the mouth of the statue. Local businessmen Craig Compeau and Rudy Gavora commissioned the frozen artwork, by world class sculptor Steve Dean.

"We're not giving up easy", Compeau told onlookers as the statue was receiving its final touches Sunday evening. "We invited Mr. Gore to Fairbanks last January (one of the coldest in decades) to debate his planet-melting theories. His people responded via email, that although Mr. Gore would love to attend, there was a scheduling conflict." Compeau was confused by the response since he had not suggested any specific date or time.

Locals are welcome to stop by and get their photos taken with the artwork at any time of day, although the frigid temperature may keep them away, or cause cameras to freeze up. Temperatures in Interior Alaska have recently fallen to the -30 to -40F range.

In conjunction with the release of the new statue, Compeau has incorporated a "Local Warming" contest that will raise money to provide warm winter clothing for homeless Fairbanks residents. The contest asks participants to estimate how many hours the Ford F-350 would have to run (at idle) to equal the carbon output of a round-trip visit from Tennessee to Copenhagen aboard a Lear jet. The winner will receive a warm Ski-doo winter jacket, long underwear, thermal socks, and an Al Gore Bobblehead doll.

[Molly]

"Tortured for Christ"
[In case anyone has romantic notions about the communists]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqdPkDPMCwk

[Kimberlaina]

I am not quite sure how we got to this point where one political team is the good "Christian" team and the other team is the bad "heathen" team.  Personally, I think our government is pretty equal opportunity when it comes to corruption and deception, with neither Republicans nor Democrats holding a monopoly.  Some politicians know the right words to say to Christians, but their actions do not always reflect a real spirit of Christ.  If you believe that one side is good and the other evil, I am afraid you are deceived.  I'm not sure that one side is even *less* evil than the other.

Who is in control?  God is.  It is silly of us to try to create or destroy a government because we think we know best what the world needs.  God knows what we need, and He will provide it.  Even if we live in evil times, I trust that He is in control.  Besides that, all of us on this site are quite well acquainted with what "law" does to people.  Laws geared toward "making" us "act" Christian will fail, because they do not address the evil in our hearts.  For example, abortion is not *caused* by the fact that abortion is legal.  There are many other complicated causes, going back to our fallen state and people's broken hearts.  If we're serious, as Christians, about stopping abortion, we need to dig deeper than Roe v. Wade.  God can do anything -- He can end abortion *in spite* of Roe v. Wade.  We don't need a Christian government to do great things in this country.  God doesn't let silly things like human laws stop Him from doing great things, and we shouldn't either.  What a victory for God if we could reduce the abortion rate to almost nothing even while it is legal!

Jesus said that even wanting to murder someone is as sinful as murdering them.  Are we going to, now, make it illegal to want to murder someone silently in your mind?  Now that is 1984.  Laws can't make us righteous.  Sin goes deeper than laws can reach.

Polls don't mean much to me either.  I grew up in a really homogeneous community where almost anyone would claim to be Christian just to fit in, or because they were afraid admitting they weren't Christian would send them to hell.  There are so many different definitions of being "Christian" -- so many denominations with different definitions of the word -- that how people identify themselves isn't that significant.  Even Christians are broken, troubled, and imperfect.

Is global warming real?  Time will tell.  But as a Christian, I know what my attitude toward the environment should be because the Bible tells me how to treat God's gifts.  Even if global warming isn't real, does that excuse our throwing tons and tons of resources into landfills when they still have usable potential?  We throw enough aluminum into landfills every year to make 6,000 large passenger jets!  Even if there is no threat to our planet or to ourselves, is this an appropriate attitude toward the wonderful things God has given us?  Is amassing material belongings -- like an SUV to carry one person to the shopping mall -- what God intended us to do with this earth?  If we are good stewards of what God has given us, global warming will become a non-issue.  We are called to be motivated not by this world but by the Kingdom of God.  I don't take care of the earth because Al Gore or any other human being tells me do, but because I believe it is the *right thing* to do.

The bottom line is that the church itself is broken and in a fallen state.  I stopped going to a church that mishandled money to accomplish the pastor's personal agenda, threatened people with hell, lied to the congregation, manipulated older people into giving to particular funds, etc.  If the government were run by my church, or any church, could we really call this a big improvement?  Like most of you, I look forward to the day that righteousness will rule the land -- I just don't think that will happen until mankind has been entirely redeemed. 

I fail to see how any of the debate going on in this thread glorifies God or furthers our message of salvation.  It seems like many people here are stoking controversy for controversy's sake, when God has already has the last word on the issue.

[Kimberlaina]

I agree God has planned everything all along and its all part of His plan. Thats why I think anger towards politicians and things of this world is futile. Love your neighbour and let God deal with the rest.

AMEN!  :icon_flower:

[natcat86]

And amen to your awsome post Kimberlaina  :icon_flower:

[Doc]

I am not quite sure how we got to this point where one political team is the good "Christian" team and the other team is the bad "heathen" team.  Personally, I think our government is pretty equal opportunity when it comes to corruption and deception, with neither Republicans nor Democrats holding a monopoly.  Some politicians know the right words to say to Christians, but their actions do not always reflect a real spirit of Christ.  If you believe that one side is good and the other evil, I am afraid you are deceived.  I'm not sure that one side is even *less* evil than the other.

Who is in control?  God is.  It is silly of us to try to create or destroy a government because we think we know best what the world needs.  God knows what we need, and He will provide it.  Even if we live in evil times, I trust that He is in control.  Besides that, all of us on this site are quite well acquainted with what "law" does to people.  Laws geared toward "making" us "act" Christian will fail, because they do not address the evil in our hearts.  For example, abortion is not *caused* by the fact that abortion is legal.  There are many other complicated causes, going back to our fallen state and people's broken hearts.  If we're serious, as Christians, about stopping abortion, we need to dig deeper than Roe v. Wade.  God can do anything -- He can end abortion *in spite* of Roe v. Wade.  We don't need a Christian government to do great things in this country.  God doesn't let silly things like human laws stop Him from doing great things, and we shouldn't either.  What a victory for God if we could reduce the abortion rate to almost nothing even while it is legal!

Jesus said that even wanting to murder someone is as sinful as murdering them.  Are we going to, now, make it illegal to want to murder someone silently in your mind?  Now that is 1984.  Laws can't make us righteous.  Sin goes deeper than laws can reach.

Polls don't mean much to me either.  I grew up in a really homogeneous community where almost anyone would claim to be Christian just to fit in, or because they were afraid admitting they weren't Christian would send them to hell.  There are so many different definitions of being "Christian" -- so many denominations with different definitions of the word -- that how people identify themselves isn't that significant.  Even Christians are broken, troubled, and imperfect.

Is global warming real?  Time will tell.  But as a Christian, I know what my attitude toward the environment should be because the Bible tells me how to treat God's gifts.  Even if global warming isn't real, does that excuse our throwing tons and tons of resources into landfills when they still have usable potential?  We throw enough aluminum into landfills every year to make 6,000 large passenger jets!  Even if there is no threat to our planet or to ourselves, is this an appropriate attitude toward the wonderful things God has given us?  Is amassing material belongings -- like an SUV to carry one person to the shopping mall -- what God intended us to do with this earth?  If we are good stewards of what God has given us, global warming will become a non-issue.  We are called to be motivated not by this world but by the Kingdom of God.  I don't take care of the earth because Al Gore or any other human being tells me do, but because I believe it is the *right thing* to do.

The bottom line is that the church itself is broken and in a fallen state.  I stopped going to a church that mishandled money to accomplish the pastor's personal agenda, threatened people with hell, lied to the congregation, manipulated older people into giving to particular funds, etc.  If the government were run by my church, or any church, could we really call this a big improvement?  Like most of you, I look forward to the day that righteousness will rule the land -- I just don't think that will happen until mankind has been entirely redeemed. 

I fail to see how any of the debate going on in this thread glorifies God or furthers our message of salvation.  It seems like many people here are stoking controversy for controversy's sake, when God has already has the last word on the issue.

K, You might appreciate this article... http://www.savior-of-all.com/republican.html

It is entitled "God is Not a Republican". The man who wrote it is a Christian universalist and works closely with the military (Air Force, I believe), but as a civilian.

[Molly]

State Department Admits: Detroit Christmas Bomber Was Deliberately Allowed to Keep US Entry Visa, Board His Flight
Webster G. Tarpley
TARPLEY.net
February 10, 2010


The Detroit Christmas bomber was deliberately and intentionally allowed to keep his US entry visa as the result of a national security override issued by an as yet unknown US intelligence or law-enforcement agency with the goal of blocking the State Department's planned revocation of that visa. This is the result of hearings held on January 27 before the House Homeland Security Committee, and in particular of the testimony of Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management. The rickety US government official version of the December 25 Detroit underwear bomber incident, which has been jerry-built over the past month and a half, has now totally collapsed, and key elements of the terrorism-spawning rogue network inside US agencies and departments are unusually vulnerable to a determined campaign of exposure.

These developments decisively confirm the analysis offered by the present writer in a Dec. 28, 2009 television interview on Russia Today.1 On that occasion, my estimate was that Mutallab was a protected patsy being used by rogue elements of the US intelligence community for the deliberate and intentional creation of a high profile incident with the goal of obtaining a large-scale political effect. On January 4, Richard Wolffe reported on the MSNBC Countdown program that the Obama White House was investigating whether the Detroit Christmas incident had been "intentionally" created by an intelligence network with an "alternative agenda."2 It was in this report that Wolffe posed the alternative of "cock-up or conspiracy."3 Unfortunately, Obama opted for the screw-up version on January 5.

Based on what was already known a few days after this incident, it was clear that normal screening and surveillance procedures had been scrapped and aborted in order to allow the youthful patsy Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria to board his flight from Amsterdam in the Netherlands to Detroit. Mutallab's father, a rich, well known, and reputable Nigerian banker had gone to the US Embassy in his country and formally warned a State Department official as well as a CIA representative that his son was in Yemen and in all probability consorting with terrorists. Under normal circumstances, this report alone would have been more than enough to get Mutallab's US visa revoked in the same way he had already been denied entry to Great Britain. He also would normally have been placed on the no-fly list, thus setting up two insuperable obstacles to getting on his Detroit bound flight and winging off to produce an incident which caused several weeks of public hysteria in this country, completely with demands for body scanners in airports. In addition, the US intelligence community had reports that a Nigerian was training with the purported "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" in Yemen. Obama had called a December 22 meeting with top CIA, FBI, and DHS officials because of reports of a terrorist attack looming during the Christmas holiday.

The January 27 hearings of the House Homeland Security Committee were also addressed by Michael Leiter, the AWOL Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, along with Jane Holl Lute, the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, who was sent in place of HHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, who boycotted the hearings. But the important testimony came from Kennedy, whose responsibilities include Consular Services, and therefore visas. In his opening statement, Kennedy offered a tortured circumlocution to describe what had happened. Attempting to head off the question of why the State Department had not revoked Mutallab's visa, Kennedy stated:

"We will use revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Government's interest in the individual and ended our colleagues' ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists' plans and co-conspirators." 4

Undersecretary Kennedy: An Agency Objected to Revoking Visa
Not surprisingly, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) wanted to know what that really meant. Here is his exchange with Undersecretary Kennedy:

REP. THOMPSON: Okay. So — all right. So he has a visa. So what does that do? In the process, does it revoke the visa? Does it —

MR. KENNEDY: We — as I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, if we unilaterally revoked a visa — and there was a case recently up — we have a request from a law enforcement agency to not revoke the visa. We came across information; we said this is a dangerous person. We were ready to revoke the visa. We then went to the community and said, should we revoke this visa? And one of the members — and we'd be glad to give you that out of — in private — said, please do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying roll up an entire network, not just stop one person. So we will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, do you have eyes on this person, and so you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?

REP. THOMPSON: Well, I think that the point that I'm trying to get at is, is this just another box you're checking, or is that some security value to add in that box, to the list?

MR. KENNEDY: The intelligence and law enforcement community tell us that they believe in certain cases that there's a higher value of them following this person so they can find his or her co-conspirators and roll up an entire plot against the United States, rather than simply knock out one soldier in that effort.5

What Kennedy is saying is that the established bureaucratic routine calls for the State Department to inquire of the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies that compose the US intelligence community whether they have any objection to the lifting of a visa. In this case, reports Kennedy, there was such an objection from at least one agency, based on their contention that Mutallab was under intensive scrutiny as part of an operation which might lead to the discovery and arrest of far bigger fish. We should also notice that Kennedy is extremely reluctant to speak before the committee in public session about exactly which intelligence or law-enforcement agency this was, and that the members of the committee do not demand an immediate straight answer. Perhaps Kennedy told them later, behind the closed doors of a secret executive session. But after weeks of hysteria, the public has a right to know.

Classic Use of National Security Override to Protect A Patsy
What we see here is a classic example of the use of a national security override on the part of subversive moles who are performing their most basic responsibility of protecting a patsy by preventing him from being arrested or otherwise interfered with until that patsy can perform his assigned task and produce the desired incident, with the goal of inducing an intensive political response in the form of a wave of public hysteria. With this method, the name of the patsy is in effect flagged in all the relevant databases with the notation that this person is the target of an ongoing investigation which cannot be interfered with because of overriding national security concerns. This means that the patsy in question is immune to arrest by traffic cops, airport and border officials, or any other law enforcement official. The patsy is untouchable — until of course the terrorist provocation has been carried out.

Various alleged 9/11 figures operated for extended periods of time inside the US, evidently under the cover of such national security overrides. How did the accused 19 9/11 hijackers enter and leave this country, obtain visas, rent apartments, acquire checking accounts and credit cards, obtain driver's licenses, register vehicles, rent cars, attend flight schools, and repeatedly fly on US domestic airlines? How did they escape arrest for traffic violations, which some of them committed? The answer is in all likelihood that they had been made untouchable to ordinary law enforcement because their names had been flagged with national security overrides which made them immune to arrest for routine infractions or because their names appeared on watch lists and similar databases.

Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) returned to this sensitive issue in his questioning of Undersecretary Kennedy, leading to the following exchange:

REP. MCCAUL: Well, I think there needs to be a lot better coordination going on here between these two entities. And Mr. Kennedy, why given the information that you had, why wasn't the VISA revoked?

MR. KENNEDY: Sir, as I mentioned earlier, when we get any information, when anyone appears at an American embassy and they say that they have doubts about someone, we immediately generate what is called a visa VIPER message. We sent that to the entire law enforcement and intelligence —

REP. MCCAUL: My problem — I understand the process. But you had this information, and you didn't revoke the VISA.

MR. KENNEDY: Because —

REP. MCCAUL: I mean the cable I just read makes it pretty clear that this man is associated with extremists in Yemen, and you didn't revoke his VISA.

MR. KENNEDY: What it was, sir, is his father said he was associated with this. And so we then asked the intelligence and law enforcement communities if they have any other information. I don't want to take much of your time, and I'd glad to visit with you afterwards. 6

We note again the tremendous reticence of Undersecretary Kennedy in getting into the details of how the national security override was issued in the case of Mutallab's visa. Kennedy suggests he will explain it all to the Congressman in private, but not in the full glare of public opinion were his words will end up on the Federal News transcript.

Demand to Know Who Let Mutallab Keep His Visa
Instead, it is imperative for the preservation of democratic institutions that the full details be known of how the State Department was prevented from revoking Mutallab's visa. We want to know which agency demanded that Mutallab not be interfered with. We want to know the names and posts held by the officials who issued the override of the State Department's proposal. We want these officials fired. We want these officials thoroughly investigated. We want them to appear before public congressional hearings. We want them to be the targets of civil suits by airlines and other interested parties. We want to find out the nature of any privately controlled intelligence networks to which they may belong. Such an investigation may well lead outside of the United States, and most particularly to the United Kingdom. Mutallab comes from Nigeria, a former British colony. He spent several years in London, the site of MI-6's Londonistan school for Islamic fundamentalist extremist patsies and fanatics, where he was apparently radicalized. Mutallab was then you sheep dipped into Yemen, another former British colony, where he was placed in contact with Awlaki the CIA lackey, a notorious double agent and agent provocateur. Given the fact that Mutallab was operating outside of this US, the CIA is an obvious suspect, but not the only one.

There is every reason to conclude that the rogue network of moles operating inside US intelligence — otherwise known as the invisible government or shadow government — knew that Mutallab was coming, knew that he would be carrying a device resembling a bomb, and wanted him to enter the skies over Detroit. (Whether Mutallab's handlers thought they were giving him a bomb that would actually go off is a separate question.) They did all this because they sincerely wanted a major terrorist provocation of the US population, designed to unleash waves of Islamophobic hysteria that would be useful for the support of ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and quite possibly against Iran.

Not Body Scanners, But Mole Detectors at CIA and FBI
Earlier commentaries on this incident had alleged a failure to connect the dots. As it now transpires, the dots were evidently connected by the State Department, but their action was blocked by an override issued by another agency. Another popular cover story for the failure of screening and surveillance on Christmas between Amsterdam and Detroit was that Mutallab's name had been misspelled when entered into the relevant antiterrorist database. Kennedy conceded in his testimony that one such data entry was misspelled, but another one was entered accurately. All of this needs to be viewed with great skepticism.

Apart from these details, it should be clear to all that the official US account of the Detroit Christmas incident has now been completely refuted. We do not need body scanners at airports. We need mole detectors installed at the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, State Department, NCTC, and the National Security Council. The urgent necessity is now to find out precisely who issued a critical override that allowed Mutallab to keep his visa and board his flight to Detroit. Pull on that thread and revelations might well follow that lead back to the networks behind 9/11, Iran Contra, and much else. Political forces friendly to Obama have tended to see this case as staged in order to embarrass the tenant of the White House. These forces should now demand immediate congressional hearings into the allegations contained in Undersecretary Kennedy's testimony.



http://tarpley.net/2010/02/11/state-department-admits-detroit-christmas-bomber-was-deliberately-allowed-to-keep-us-entry-visa-board-his-flight/

[Molly]

Intelligence chief acknowledges U.S. may target Americans involved in terrorism
 
» 
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 4, 2010

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair acknowledged Wednesday that government agencies may kill U.S. citizens abroad who are involved in terrorist activities if they are "taking action that threatens Americans."

Blair told members of the House intelligence committee that he was speaking publicly about the issue to reassure Americans that intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense "follow a set of defined policy and legal procedures that are very carefully observed" in the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens.

Blair's unusually frank remarks come as the issue of targeting Americans for lethal action has attracted more notice. As the United States steps up its campaign against suspected terrorists overseas, it has become more apparent that some extremists may be U.S. citizens.

The most prominent case to date is that of a U.S.-born cleric, Anwar al-Aulaqi, who lives in Yemen and has been linked to the Army major who allegedly shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day.

Aulaqi is a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of the main al-Qaeda organization, and has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter as well as the Nigerian. He was thought to be meeting with regional al-Qaeda leaders at a compound in Yemen targeted by a Dec. 24 strike. He was not said to be the focus of the strike, and he was not killed. But U.S. officials said at the time that they thought he might have been killed.

"I just don't want Americans who are watching this to think that we are careless about endangering -- in fact, we're not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country," Blair said at the annual threat briefing before the panel. He did not specifically refer to the targeting of Aulaqi.

In response to questions from Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the panel's ranking Republican, Blair said: "We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community. If that direct action, we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

Hoekstra pressed for clarification of the policy, especially its threshold for targeting Americans for lethal action.

"The concern that I have today is that I'm not sure that . . . [it is] very well understood as to what you and the people in your organization can do when it comes to Americans who have joined the enemy," Hoekstra told Blair.

The director of national intelligence said the factors that "primarily" weigh on the decision to target an American include "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303968.html