Obama Arms Syrian Rebels; Disarms Americans

President Barack Obama is reportedly still making his case about the one-thousand plus victims of chemical gassing in the Syrian civil war, attempting to justify an attack of that country to "punish" the Syrian regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its citizens.

And he is working feverishly to supply arms to Syrian Rebels, as was noted by Reuters on July 23rd:

"...The White House announced in June that it would offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels after two years of balking at directly sending arms to the opposition....'We have been working with Congress to overcome some of the concerns that they initially had, and we believe that those concerns have been addressed and that we will now be able to proceed,' a source familiar with the administration's thinking told Reuters on condition of anonymity..."

The Reuters article states:

"...The timeline was unclear, but supporters of the rebels hope the deliveries of U.S.-provided arms will start in August....They hope for 'a large number of small weapons' such as rifles and basic anti-tank weapons, said Louay Sakka, a co-founder of the Syrian Support Group, which backs the Free Syrian Army fighting Assad...'..."

And yet, since then, Obama has acted to restrict and to counter the Constitutional Right of Americans to bear arms.  As Fox News reported a few days ago:

"...The Obama administration unexpectedly announced two new gun control measures on Thursday, including one that would curb the import of military surplus weapons -- in a move that could anger collectors....Vice President Biden announced the new measures Thursday morning. The new rules, announced while Washington was otherwise focused on the crisis in Syria, took the form of executive actions, which President Obama added to the list of 23 steps the White House already determined the president could take on his own..."

And it appears that gun control measures that the Obama Administration cannot institute via congressional legislation, will be issued as decrees by way of Executive Orders.

"...the White House has completed or made significant progress on all but one of the 23 executive actions Obama had previously ordered in January..."

It is clear, that while the Obama argues the need for rebels of his choosing in a foreign country to be armed so they can oppose a tyrannical government, he yet continues his attempt to disarm Americans and to negate and remove from U.S. patriots their ability to defend themselves against tyranny here at home.

It is a factor highlighted by the controversy of U.S. further involvement in Syria, and one that is yet not getting the coverage it merits in media.

Vanguard of Freedom

Why Does An Artist Need Asylum In France From Persecution of Free Speech In "We'll-Take-NSA-Leaker-Snowden" Russia?

Read that story HERE... and then READ THIS....

Syria's Assad Will Get An Advantage From An Attack or Even The Threat Of An Attack By The U.S.

To the point:

1.  Assad will rally protests in the streets against an Imperialist U.S. attacking an Arab Country in the Middle East.

2.  Assad will "call-in" his "alliance" cards with Russia and China.

3.  The Assad regime will be "resolved" against the West and accuse the U.S. of meddling in Middle East/Syria affairs.

4.  Assad will accuse the U.S. of wanting a foot-hold in the Middle East, claim a conspiracy of U.S. and Israel against Syria, and call for "Arab Unity" against foreign invaders in the way that was promoted by Abdel Nasser.

5  Extended Note:

The Muslim Middle East strategy is to own both sides of a conflict, and the manifestation of this is the apparency of Sunni and Shia conflicts throughout the world.  There are Sunni-Shia conflicts, but both factions, are in the end, Muslim.  Muslim culture accepts the conflict, but understand that in the end, Muslims will unite against non-Muslims to defeat their enemies. The "conflict" strategy involves trapping opponents in one or another of the factions, to bring them into the fight and then fight a war of attrition against its "ally."

Obama has stepped into this ruse, and/or due to his loyalties and political preferences is complicit in the "trap," and with his continuing support of the "Arab Spring" is perpetuating U.S. involvement in the Arab quagmire.  U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict, and any other conflict in Muslim countries will result only in results similar to the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama has shown in the past that he is not enamored with Israel, to say the least.  A U.S. attack on Syria will prompt "justified" retaliation against Israel.

Israel will not sit back and be attacked, and when it launches retaliatory attacks against Israel's attackers, Arab sentiment will solidify against the U.S. and Israel.

Just today the Brits pulled out of any agreement to attack Syria. So did Jordan.

The Russians, who have had a minimal footprint in the Middle East, will capitalize on the U.S. attack by securing a larger beach head in Syria, and then in the Middle East.

Russian, Chinese, and Iranian Influence will increase due to the U.S. Threat or Actual attack.

The Russian, Chinese, and Iranian propaganda will tout a victory for their axis, and launch a stronger campaign (than they have now) against U.S. financial interests in the region, including an attack on U.S. petro-dollars, and the significances tied to that phenomenon internationally.

It is unfathomable that a U.S. President and/or his advisors and anyone in the Obama administration has not weighed any of these factors.  Assuming that they have, then they are deliberately setting up the U.S. for a military, political, and financial gargantuan loss.

The fears of World War III are probably unwarranted, unless one is counting on madness in the Russian and Chinese spheres.  However, a holocaust of political, military, and financial loss will ensue against the U.S. because of this Obama "blunder."

Please note that this "blunder" is in keeping with the Obama objective to make the U.S. equal to its enemies, by weakening the U.S. militarily, financially, and politically.

Why the NSA Scandal is Actually A Hoax...

Please note the statement by Senator Frank Church in 1975.

Yes. 1975.  The capability was "perfected" in 1975.  He even cautioned using that capability against Americans.

So, how then is the NSA capability to "intercept communications" new in 2013?

How is it that it is a spectacular and devastating revelation that this surveillance capability is not only being carried out, but "exposed" by a whistle-blower?

Was it because it was not common knowledge?  Was it because people forgot what Frank Church said in 1975?

It is correct to suspect that you have been duped into believing that a program is TOP SECRET, and that it was then LEAKED, and that now a WHISTLEBLOWER is being pursued and has to get ASYLUM in a foreign country.  The argument pro and con, is that the perpetrator is either a hero or a traitor.

How is it that a program that was openly spoken about and known about in 1975, now in 2013 a Top Secret program that is being REVEALED, and is touted as exposing classified information to the tune of endangering our national security?

One can justify or try to make sense of this anomaly by asserting that computers and modern technology developments increase the impact of such capabilities, but that still does not negate that these programs have been known about openly since 1975.

In this light, since the "scandal" is exposed as a farce, what, then, is really going on?

Your guess is as good as mine.

But an informed calculation is possibly that one (or several) of Comrade Vlad Putin's KGB / G.R.U. (soviet military intelligence) moles has been outed, and a ruse was necessary to get him back to Mother Russia, safe and sound for debriefing.

Consider the perp's "history."  HERE...

Consider then, the U.S. President's "Leanings," and this scenario becomes all too plausible, even to the point of the ruse being facilitated by "both sides" to ensure that appearances are kept up.

Those "appearances," for the uninitiated, are the fragile facades that must be held in place to continue that pretense that you have, at least, a semblance of a Constitutional Republic, and not a "police state," so that a Production Class of serfs can be counted on for tribute to be paid to a Criminal Class of "Managers" that have not a clue, nor care about how to manage the societies they pretend to govern.


Vanguard of Freedom

Military Justice and The Bradley Manning Verdict

A U.S. military court-martial has convicted Intelligence Analyst, Army Private Bradley Manning, on charges of espionage "...for leaking U.S. secrets to WikiLeaks, but found him not guilty of a more serious charge of aiding the enemy, a charge that could have carried a life prison sentence..." According to the "Voice Of America:"

"...Manning faced a total of 21 criminal charges in connection with his release of more than 700,000 U.S. documents to the anti-secrecy website. The documents included secret diplomatic cables and classified military reports from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Reportedly, the defense argued that Manning did not know that the information he leaked, would have wound up in the hands of "the enemy," and he was therefore acquitted of the principal charge, which could have given him the death penalty.

The verdict is the verdict, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that Bradley Manning was an intelligence analyst.  Not only does such a position require extensive security clearances, there are training requisites which require a person in that position to get extensive training on security matters, especially in the handling and processing of intelligence data. A foot soldier that is deployed is cautioned via briefings of "Operational Security (OPSEC) about not disclosing any information to families and relatives about deployment locations, destinations, mission purposes, etc.

It is highly unlikely that Manning was spared any training in security matters, given the access he had to intelligence information, so it is at the very least perplexing that he would be acquitted of the charge of "aiding the enemy."

Realistically he could not have convincingly invoked being ignorant of the fact that the information he disclosed might possibly wind up in the hands of U.S. enemies. But that is precisely what he did, and the Judge apparently bought it.

The Conflict Mongers (Part One)...

Conflict Mongers

You might have heard of the "agent provocateur," an agent whose mission is to covertly join an organizaion and make its members commit illegal acts in order to compromise the target organization, getting its members arrested, and sent to jail. But there is another agent, whose purpose is much broader, and in some cases encompasses and includes the Agent Provocateur.

Conflict Mongers specialize in creating conflicts. They get you and your friend to have a conflict. Joe, a conflict monger, who has worked to gain your confidence, tells your friend Bill, that you said Bill was an idiot. Then Joe comes to you and tells you that Bill made a pass at your wife. The result: You and Bill fight.

The Conflict Monger craft is not limited to personal relationships. Nations, political organizations, weapons dealers, international bankers, use Conflict Mongers to profit from the conflicts they create.

Weapons dealers incite two sides of a political equation to go to war, so that they can profit from arms sales to both sides.

International bankers can profit from such a conflict by financing both sides to go to war and then profit from the resulting "reconstruction" period after the war.

Financial and Capital manipulators will tamper with the stock market to create the rise and fall of stocks and bonds, and reap the benefit of that manipulation.

In the intelligence field, it is common to find on both sides of a political equation, Conflict Mongers working feverishly to create chaos inside the enemy camp. An organization with internal conflict is much easier to conquer or control, than one that can muster a united front against its enemies.

In an example much closer to home, you will see Conservative social network web sites, sometimes in conflict with each other. To the uninitiated it may seem that one side has attacked the other, and that the other is merely defending itself. Upon closer examination you might find, however, that a Conflict Monger has created a conflict between both sides, in order to destroy that web site or to destroy both web sites by "stoking the fires."

And one might have also experienced a web site's members in conflict amongst themselves. Again we may find a Conflict Monger agent at work.

While an "Agent Provocateur" would work to get a web site to publish copyrighted material in its blogs, post messages on the web site blogs or forums that included hate speech or threats of violence, and perhaps even go as far as to get one of its members to commit to doing something illegal, a Conflict Monger would go further and create antagonism within a group and even possibly between two or more groups with the aim of destroying the credibility of the group, or even to cause the group to cease to exist.

And there is nothing that says that the Agent Provocateur(s) and the Conflict Monger(s), might be one and the same, and is working to both, compromise the group by tricking it into doing something illegal, AND to create conflict between a web site's members and between different groups.

It is particularly difficult on the internet to know who is who, because the internet provides a degree of anonymity, and lends itself to such subterfuge. It is here that one has to remain alert to these "agents," because the internet, social networking sites, and related communications functions and devices are a major part of Conservative advancement within the last year.

After Obama succeeded in winning the 2008 election, his effort was heralded to have flourished via the internet and has been touted as a major influence in his victory. Although it might have had a significant impact, it pales in comparison to the evolution of Conservative efforts via the internet. Conservative advances via the internet have not received much attention in the National Socialist propaganda media, but without a doubt, Conservative organizational accomplishments dwarf the results of its opponents.

The National Socialists cannot claim a result of nearly two million participants in the Washington D.C. demonstrations, nor the "rapid deployment" of Conservatives to a call to action at the steps of the Nation's capitol, when Michelle Bachman organized a "House Call" earlier this year.

The combination of the internet social networking, along with Talk Radio, and the Conservative forums on Fox News has created a formula that is serving at this time, Conservative causes and purposes.

This makes Conservative efforts a major target of its opponents. Just as the White House chose to attack Fox News, because it would not give in to the National Socialist agenda, It would be foolish not to expect infiltration and attempts at disruption of Conservative Social Networks, web sites, and blogs.

It might not be easy to spot an Agent Provocateur or a Conflict Monger, but if one is alert, one might discover such a culprit busily at work in your group by observing the following.

1. Understand the efforts and purpose of the group or web site that you join.

2. Observe the communication of its members. Which member's communication does not align to the purposes of the group?

3. Which member does not abide by the stated, published rules or policy of the group?

4. Which member is communicating negatively against other members, without just cause?

5. Which member is carrying on a "whispering campaign" about other members or the web site.

6. One of the best ways to "show up" or expose Conflict Mongers is to create an organization or group that strictly adheres to its purpose, and promotes and advances those purposes accordingly. Anyone who deviates from the purpose can be noticed or can become obvious by being the one whose actions show that he is in conflict with the organization and its purposes. "Ye shall know them by their deeds." Sound familiar?

7. And then there is that one member that just does not understand, and is constantly asking you to explain things to them, doesn't seem to be able to get with the program, or needs to be "baby-sat." While there may be novices, who do need a certain amount of attention, how hard can it be to be a Conservative? One either is or isn't. One tells them to get with the program: Educate them with references and keep them in your radar. But be wary. That member might just have another agenda.

8. One might also know "the connections" of a member to members of the oppostion. While there might be a professional connection, to what extent does that association affect their affiliation to your group?

9. Take notes. If someone says or does things that do not align to the purposes of your group, note them down. These may show up later in another venue on another web site being promoted by someone under a different name. These notes can become a "trail of illogic" that might lead you to thwart an attempt to disrupt your activities.

10. Take responsibility for your self and your group. The success of Conservative Groups is the result of the actions of its members. It is YOU who are responsible for your group, and you can make a significant difference in its success.

11. If a conflict does arise, and/or if one is in full swing already, do not promote it or advertise it. This only feeds the conflict and detracts from your group's agenda or cause. The more you repeat information about the conflict, the more you promote or enhance it. Figure out a way to handle it quickly, resolve it, identify the Conflict Monger, and get on with your work.

It is important to know also what is a Conservative, a Liberal, a Socialist, a Libertarian, a Rino, a Moderate, a Blue Dog Democrat, and an Independent. The differences are significant.

Around the time of the 2008 election, many so-called Conservative Social Networks were created, and while these served as the basis for the eventual flourisihing of a flurry of Conservative activity on the internet, some of the original web sites advertised as being "Center-Right" sites, seeking to create a coalition of members ranging from "moderate" Republicans to Conservative stalwarts.

Since that time the differences in the various factions have become more obvious, particularly in the national political arena, and membership has shifted within and between those groups. Accordingly members of the opposition have capitalized on the differences between the groups to cause friction.

The point of this article is not to promote the "umbrella" or "big tent" idea of a broad based coalition of "center-right" groups to defeat the National Socialist Democrats. It is to alert Conservative Groups to the situation that their groups might be attacked from within as well as from outside of the group by Conflict Monger agents, seeking to cause discord with the intent of rendering their efforts ineffective.,

Principled Conservatives, who will not compromise on core issues simply for the sake of obtaining a vote in favor of a particular issue, and who refuse to make "deals with the devil" will prosper by continuing to build and further establish grass-root efforts, magnifying and expanding the causes of the Conservative Cultural Revolution, and work to point out the exact differences that will create our Renaissance of Freedom.

It is not only prudent to say, "THIS is what we stand for," and demand that those purposes be promoted, preserved and advanced, it is necessary to our survival as a nation that we make it clear that the folly of the issues of other groups, their political correctness, their lack of a foundation of Life based on moral and ethical principles, will result in a deterioration of their cultures, as is evident today across this country and throughout the world.

It is optimum to point out our PURPOSES, which define us, and what those purposes are based on, and to use this as a flag and a rallying point. The gray area of "coalition," of political correctness, of inclusion, of compromise with our principles only results in a watered-down culture unable to survive the hard realities of dangerous and determined enemies.

When we are clear about what we stand for, clear about uncompromising with our basic purposes, we will advance accordingly in our Cause. The deeds of the National Socialists have illuminated the differences between "us" and "them," and we must now trumpet those differences to the political and cultural gray areas.

Is our side the side of political cronyism, back room deals, hidden agendas, outright or covert bribery, sell-outs to the highest bidder, permissive and promiscuous cultural values, materialism, decadence, and the inability to answer attacks against our nation because we are too wishy washy to call an enemy an enemy?

The answer is NO WE ARE NOT.

We are not the Conflict Mongers, nor the Agent Provocateurs, and refuse to be the enablers of such agents of doom. What then are we? We are the Vanguard of Freedom, the advance of the Conservative Cultural Revolution, and we will bring about a Renaissance of Freedom.

And lest you fall prey to the Conflict Mongers, learn to identify them and render them ineffective against your purpose and your Cause.

ABOUT Vanguard Of Freedom

ABOUT

Van Guard of Freedom

"Van Guard"

The Name.  Yes, it's a nom de plume, but I chose it from my dubious past, from a joke someone made about myself and a "van."  It is significant only to me.

Additonally, however, I chose that name to honor those I served with during my "tumultuous" Navy years (in my opinion) 1969-1973.  For the most part I was stationed in the Washington D.C. area in "communications".  My intention was to join the Navy to become a Corpsman and serve with the Marines.  The Marines had no "medics" and I had dared to major in "pre-med" in college.  The Navy, however, had other plans for me.  Apparently the Navy knew more about my communications aptitude than I did.  Eventually I discovered that my "big mouth," which got me into considerable trouble (I started as an E-3 and remained that way throughout my four years in "the Nav"), could be channeled into something constructive, and to borrow a quip from the notorious radio talk show host, Neal Boortz, (paraphrased, of course) I turned a nasty personality disorder, into a positive activity.

I do understand that some would take issue with my definition of "positive."

The Navy was more than generous to me, despite my recalcitrance, (or perhaps in some cases, because of it) and, I choose to believe, rewarded me with invaluable training in Communications "operations" and "security," and I acquired considerable insight consequently, and I emerged from that adventure, quite blessed and privileged with the experience to be able to work eventually in The Media, specifically in the promotion and marketing areas (in the beginning) and then in the local T.V. News Reporting, Editing and On-Air/Announcing fields.

I have since ventured to become a publisher of a local community newspaper. It was a small venture, in which I also assumed the status of editor, reporter, writer, photographer, etc.  Ask any editor of a small community newspaper and they will tell you that at one time or another, they have had to assume all the "hats" (or most of them) to keep operating.

It's my opinion that upon taking sides in any issue, one loses approximately fifty percent of one's audience (the opposition). I have been known to lean toward Conservatism, but I would say a more apt description is that I have sworn to uphold our Constitution, and that I work towards that ideal as deliberately and as fervently as I am able to, and so I will actively challenge encroachments and expeditions into the subversion of our Founding document(s). And since, of late, there is an abundance of encroachment, I find myself being, oft times, deliberate and fervent in what I write.  And so I choose to "write" without the approval or "applause" of at least half "the audience."

I invite you and implore you to join me in being fervent and deliberate in honoring our men and women in uniform, and to nourish, develop, and express your own passion(s) in defense and in the advancement of our Liberties, if you are not yet "in the fight."

And if you are, then please count me in as one beside you in the efforts, not just to keep alive the Flame of Freedom, but to help build that nation that will "ensure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Thank you for being a Vanguard of Freedom.

Obama's War of Psychological Terror And Intimidation Against Americans, Part 1: Plausible Deniability...

"Plausible Deniability" is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

That was in the 1960's, and the concept has since spread to other branches of government and morphed into a "culture of plausible deniability" over the years with subsequent administrations taking such or similar action to cover their trails and the actions.  This has been practiced by Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama.

In most cases each administration had its share of hostile media adversaries, eagerly watching over government over-reach, abuses, and Constitutional infringements.

During Obama administration, we found, until recently, the Socialist Liberal Media (SLIME) in collusion with the Executive Branch of the Government and with the Socialist fringe of Congress to advance an agenda to "transform" the U.S.

The stated aims of that agenda are to implement the principles as espoused by its chief proponent, the President of the United States, a manifesto based on contempt for the U.S. constitution, stating overtly that the Constitution "does not go far enough."

The President's agenda includes the expansion of government and the implementation of programs dedicated to bring a gargantuan expansion of government, chiefly being implemented by actions suppressive to business and commerce by the various agencies such as the IRS, the EPA, the FTC, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The success of the implementation of that agenda necessarily required the elimination of dissent and opposition to this agenda, and thus, either wittingly, unwittingly, or as a result of the "culture" that has evolved to carry out the aims and intentions of the administration, a "culture of suppression" of its opposition has resulted, as evidenced by the quickly emerging scandals rocking the White House and its agencies today:  Benghazi, the IRS intimidations, the DOJ's Spying and Intimidating the Media, The Allegations of the Families of Seal Team Six.

The "culture of intimidation" also necessarily spawned a "culture of cover-up," which has been manifested in the Benghazi Terrorist attack Cover-up with the blaming of the attack on an internet video.  Subsequent denials have included the phrases "What difference does it matter," "That happened a long time ago," or "It's Irrelevant."

The absurd denials by the President and the heads of the departments he oversees, fit the category of "Plausible Deniability."

"...The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge..."

By the way, "...Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true..."

And so we have the "culture of plausible deniability" that has been institutionalized and ingrained in the political arm of government, which in turn has turned the resources provided by the tax payers themselves, against those tax payers,  through the use of armed policemen, and the psychological terrorism of coercion and intimidation, and political retaliation, to bring the administration's opponents into compliance, or to wipe the opposition out entirely.

Submission is the goal, which is incidentally, what the term "Islam" means.

The antithesis of "submission," and the antidote to this suppression, is non-compliance, rebellion, and a determined, dedicated, and relentless attack back against all the elements that suppress the Constitution and the Liberties it guarantees to its Freedom-loving constituents.

While part and parcel of the Administration's tactics is the psy-ops or (psychological operations) against its opponents, i.e., the Tea Party, via the promulgation of the mantra that the Tea Party, and its allied movements are dead or dying, there is an irony here that merits mention.

If one were to leave one's biases and "indoctrination" at the door, and peruse American history, at least a bit objectively, one will find that our Constitution has been shredded and was relegated to the dust heap, since during and the end of our Civil War.  The subsequent dismantling of it, and serial violations of it attest to this.

Not since then has there been a Constitutional movement that even resembles the awakening of the Tea Party and its related entities.  Today in history we find the people aware enough, and bold enough, and with the technological tools, capable of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place.

The century-and-a-half racket, which amounts to a parasitical attachment by the proponents of an entity (entities) known colloquially as government, has been a criminal enterprise of catastrophic proportions, to which  many in the American landscape have been awakened.  The awakening has become a movement called the Tea Party, and the Tea Party today is building its political machine to counter Constitutional transgressions.

The Obama administration finds itself in that place in time in which a Tea Party emerged, partly due to the imposition of the administration's jack-boot tactics against them.  Nevertheless, for the first time in history a President and a Congress, and in general "governments," find themselves faced with an educated part of their constituents with the knowledge and expertise, not only to restore the original Constitution, but to bring to fruition a renaissance of its principles.

The Obama administration's "culture of suppression" has been a backlash against the Tea Party and its related entities.  However, ironically, the Tea Party, et al, is not merely a response to the Obama Administration, but is, in effect, a response to the sum total of a century and a half of suppression.

The Constitutional Renaissance Movement, or Tea Party is aware enough, knowledgeable enough, and powerful enough to not be blinded or hypnotized by the Plausible Deniability Administration.  The culprits that have perpetrated a ruse to extract the wealth of millions for their own dire and evil purposes have smelled the sordid scent of their demise, and even their attempts to stifle "the awakening" have been thwarted.

We may, in fact, be on the verge of a golden age.

Obama's War of Psychological Terror And Intimidation Against Americans, Part 2 .... Part 3


Vanguard Of Freedom

In Kandahar Province

U.S. Army Spc. fellow soldiers move into a village with a suspected weapons cache during Operation Southern Fist III in the district of Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, to enable Afghan border police and soldiers to search for weapons caches and eliminate infiltration routes. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann

Your New CIA Director?

It's looking like John Brennan is going to be your new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Notably, according to the following excerpt of his bio from Wikipedia, he supports (supported?) the use of torture by the CIA, something the Obama administration has been avidly against, condemning the Bush administration for supporting "enhanced interrogation techniques."

"...John Owen Brennan (born September 22, 1955) is chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama; officially his title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President His responsibilities include overseeing plans to protect the country from terrorism and respond to natural disasters, and he meets with the President daily. 

Previously, he advised Obama on foreign policy and intelligence issues during the 2008 presidential campaign and transition.[8] Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for Director of the CIA in the first Obama administration over concerns about his support for the use of torture by the CIA under President George W. Bush. Instead, Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation...Brennan's 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst, as station chief in Saudi Arabia, and as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. 

After leaving government service in 2005, Brennan became CEO of The Analysis Corporation, a security consulting business, and served as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an association of intelligence professionals...President Obama nominated Brennan as his next director of the Central Intelligence Agency January 7, 2013. The ACLU called for the Senate to not proceed with the appointment until it confirms that "all of his conduct was within the law" at the CIA and White House.John Brennan was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 5, 2013 to succeed David Petraeus as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency by a vote of 12 to 3..."  (source: Wikipedia)

Apparently being pro-torture is ok, unless, of course, you are part of the Bush Administration.

See More Brennan Bio HERE.

And here's a video tid-bit of the nation's future top spook: