4 blood moons

Four 'blood-red' total lunar
eclipses will fall on Passover
and Sukkot in 2014 and 2015,
the same back-to-back occurrences
at the time of 1492, 1948 and 1967

Printer friendly version

by Bill Koenig

Pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries in Puyallup, Washington click here has been sharing with us some remarkable discoveries on the blood-red moon and Jewish feast connections in the past three months. He now has some new discoveries.
I have known Mark for four years and have spoken at his church twice in the Tacoma, Washington, area. He has been an avid student and teacher of the Jewish Feasts and their awe-inspiring connections to the Lord's earthly events.
Mark said he had found my blood-red moon work interesting and began looking into possible connection to past and future Jewish Feasts at which time he found very significant connections.
I have provided blood-red moon information, and information on the coming total solar eclipses of 2008, 2009 and 2010—which all fall on the 1st of Av.
Seven back-to-back, blood-red moons have fallen on the first day of Passover and Sukkot, with the eighth time coming in 2014 and 2015
Mark found that we have had blood-red moons on the first day of Passover and the first day of Sukkot on back-to-back years seven times since 1 A.D. Three of these occurrences were connected to 1492 (the final year of the Spanish Inquisition), 1948 (statehood for Israel and the War of Independence), and 1967 (the Six-Day War) — some of the most significant days in Jewish history.
The others were in 162/163 A.D., 795/796 A.D., 842/843 A.D. and 860/861 A.D. We don’t have any historical connections for these years at this time, but we do know of significant Jewish persecution during the eighth and ninth centuries.
In all eight examples, the eclipses have fallen or will fall on the first day of Passover and Sukkot.
The eighth occurrence of back-to-back, blood-red moons will be in 2014–2015.
So what does the period of time from 2013 to 2015 portend for Israel and the world?
We will closely watch the peace efforts in Israel in 2008 to see if a peace deal is signed — knowing that 2015 would be seven years later. I am not date-setting, and I certainly won’t speculate, but the lineup of occurrences is very intriguing.
Solar eclipses of 2008, 2009 and 2010 — and their connection to the month of Av
Additionally, Mark has discovered through NASA that there will be three annual solar eclipses on the 1st of Av, beginning this year and running through 2010. We know that the month of Av — and especially the 9th of Av — has been the most trying period throughout history for the Jewish people.
Total solar eclipses have been a bad omen for the nations, while blood-red moons have been a bad omen for the Jewish people and Israel.
References
Lunar eclipses — click here.
Solar eclipses — click here.
Jewish Feast dates: 1998 to 2017 click here.
Month of Av information — click here.
---
Three sets of blood-red moons that corresponded to significant events:
The Spanish Inquisition final year 1492 when the Alhambra Decree ordered all remaining Jews who would not convert to Christianity to leave Spain, the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six-Day War had back-to-back, blood-red moons occur on the first day of Passover and Sukkot the following two years or beginning the same year of the 1967 Six-Day War for two years.
The Spanish Inquisition — 1492
* Passover, April 2, 1493
* Sukkoth, Sept. 25, 1493
* Passover, March 22, 1494
* Sukkoth, Sept. 15, 1494
The War of Independence — 1948
* Passover, April 13, 1949
* Sukkoth, Oct. 7, 1949
* Passover, April 2, 1950
* Sukkoth, Sept. 26, 1950
The Six-Day War — 1967
* First Day of Passover, April 24, 1967
* First Day of Sukkoth, Oct. 18, 1967
* First Day of Passover. April 13, 1968
* First Day of Sukkoth, Oct. 6, 1968
What will occur in the 2013–2015 time period?
* First Day of Passover, April 15, 2014
* First Day of Sukkoth, Oct. 8, 2014
* First Day of Passover, April 4, 2015
* First Day of Sukkoth, Sept. 28, 2015
Fall Feasts in 2015
* Rosh Hashanah (The Feast of Trumpets), Sept. 14
* Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement), Sept. 23
* Sukkoth (The Feast of Tabernacles), Sept. 28
This year's blood-red moon
During this year's Feb. 21 "blood-red" moon, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi spoke of preparation for war with Hezbollah and Hamas, and both those terror organizations leaders were bold in their rhetoric against Israel in this time of great tension.
The Temple Mount and blood-red moons
Previously, I wrote about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the two connections to peace talks and the blood-red moons of July 16, 2000, and Aug. 28, 2007.
The link to that article: click here.
The Blood-Red Moon, the Temple Mount and the Bible

Other interesting facts
* Passover is the first annual feast
* Sukkoth is the seventh and final annual feast
* Av is a month of mourning for the Jews
* The 17th of Tammuz to the 9th of Av is a 21-day period of mourning for the Jewish people (more info below)
* The next seven year cycle begins on Rosh Hashanah on Sept. 30, 2008, and ends on Rosh Hashanah on Sept. 13-14, 2015
* The sabbatical year in the seven-year cycle begins on Rosh Hashanah on Sept. 25, 2014, and ends on Rosh Hashanah on September 13-14, 2015 — the day of a partial solar eclipse
2000-year history of blood-red moons' connection to Passover and Sukkot
Mark says that during this century, the only string of four consecutive blood moons that coincide with God's holy days of Passover in the spring and the autumn's Feast of Tabernacles (also called Sukkoth) occur in 2014 and 2015 on today's Gregorian calendar.
He noticed a pattern:
There were no astronomical back-to-back blood-red moon events in the 1800s, the 1700s or the 1600s. In the 1500s, there were six, but none of those fell on Passover and Sukkoth. The 2014/2015 events will be the last this century.
Total solar eclipses and the month of Av
On the first of Av in 2008, 2009 and 2010, there will be total solar eclipses.
NASA: Total solar eclipses occur on these dates:
* Aug. 1, 2008 (1st of Av)
* July 22, 2009 (1st of Av)
* July 11, 2010 (1st of Av)
The 1st of Av falls on these dates in 2008, 2009 and 2010:
* Aug. 1, 2008 (5768)
* July 21, 2009 (5769)
* July 11, 2010 (5770)
NOTE: The first of Av begins at sundown and ends at sundown the following day.
The Month of Av Disaster and Consolation
by Rebbetzin Tzipporah Heller
The Month of Av Disaster and Consolation - click here.
By every measure the Jewish month of Av is tragically unique, one in which the worst disasters in our history took place.
The 15th of Av was a time of joy. In ancient times it was a day in which marriages were arranged and new beginnings celebrated. It was a time in which we began again, expressing not just who we don't want to be but who we can be.
Jewish history: Aaron died on 1st of Av (chabad.org)
Aaron died on the first day of Av (in the year 2447). He was 122 years old when he died, being three years older than Moses.
The entire people of Israel, both men and women, mourned the death of Aaron for 30 days. Everybody knew Aaron as a great lover of peace, who brought love and harmony among people and in many a home.
17 Tammuz to 9 Av — 21 days of mourning
The 21 days from 17 Tammuz to 9 Av, and the fast days of 17 Tammuz and 9 Av, are times of morning for the Jewish people.
The fast of the 17th of Tammuz, the day of the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem, marks the beginning of the "Three Weeks." The fast of the 9th of Av commemorates the day of the actual destruction by fire of the Holy Temple and is the last day of the Three Weeks. The Three Weeks is a period of mourning over these destructions.
Tisha B'Av:
Crash Course in Jewish History Part 35 - Destruction of the Temple - click here.
The 9th of Av 2008–2015
Tisha b'Av will occur on the following days on the Gregorian calendar:
* Sunset Aug. 9 - sundown Aug. 10, 2008
* Sunset July 29 – sundown July 30, 2009
* Sunset July 19 - sundown July 20, 2010
* Sunset Aug. 8 - sundown Aug. 9, 2011
* Sunset July 28 - sundown July 29, 2012
* Sunset July 15 – sundown July 16, 2013
* Sunset Aug. 4 - sundown Aug. 5, 2014
* Sunset July 25 – sundown July 26, 2015
Chart of 2014-2015: four blood-red moons and two solar eclipses
Mark prepared the following chart that shows the years 2014 to 2015.

Mark says, "You have the religious year beginning with the total solar eclipse on Adar 29/Nisan 1 (March 20, 2015); two weeks later, a total lunar eclipse on Passover (April 4, 2015); then the civil year beginning with the solar eclipse; followed two weeks later by another total blood-red moon on the Feast of Succoth — all in 2015.

New Explosive Benghazi Allegations: CIA Operators Told to ‘Stand Down’ During Attack As 3 Urgent Requests for Military Back-Up Were Denied

Watch a replay of today’s BlazeCast where Blaze editors discussed these shocking new allegations:
Be sure to also read: “Joe Biden to Father of Former Navy SEAL Killed in Benghazi: ‘Did Your Son Always Have Balls the Size of Cue Balls?’”
–
Explosive new allegations surrounding the Benghazi attack emerged this morning, with FOX News’ Jennifer Griffin reporting that sources have confirmed that three urgent requests for military assistance sent from the CIA annex were all denied; CIA operators were apparently told to “stand down” rather than respond when shots were heard around 9:40 p.m. on September 11. Following the alleged developments, Charles Woods, father of ex-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods who was killed in the attack, passionately responded to this new information on Glenn Beck’s radio program (see his comments at the end of the article).
Let’s begin by examining the new-found allegations: Glen Doherty and Woods, the two former Navy SEALS who were among the four Americans inevitably murdered, allegedly disobeyed orders from superiors to “stand down” in the wake of the attack. Despite being told by higher-ups not to respond, they purportedly decided to go to the main consulate building to help U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others who were under siege.
While it was previously known that these men arrived on the scene to provide assistance, the alleged “stand down” orders and the repeatedly-denied requests for military assistance are new developments to a story that seems to be continuously unraveling.
When the attack first took form, Doherty and Woods were at a secure CIA annex only one mile away from the chaos unfolding at the compound. After the men heard shots fired, they promptly let the chain of command know about the situation on the ground. However, FOX’s sources claim that they were told to refrain from action. This same mandate was given to the men when they called a second time just one hour later to report that the dangerous situation was still unfolding at the consulate.

Here’s the FOX News report, below:
After being told twice to refrain from involvement, Woods, Doherty and two others ignored orders and made their way to the main compound, where violence was raging. At this point, the building was on fire and shots were exchanged, however they took action. FOX News has more:

Woods, Doherty and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the Consulate which at that point was on fire….The quick reaction force from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the Consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.
At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

Earlier today, TheBlaze reported about the questions surrounding the lack of a military response to the situation on the ground. Sources appear to claim that there were potential options that could have been pursued, although these avenues were reportedly not taken during the September 11 attack. While the forces available at Sigonella could have been flown into Benghazi in less than two hours, they, too, were also allegedly told to “stand down.”
Around 3 a.m. that evening, a pro-U.S. Libyan militia finally showed up at the CIA annex. And an American Quick Reaction Force that was sent from Tripoli arrived at the Benghazi airport at 2 a.m., but was delayed for 45 minutes over transportation confusion. In both instances, though, the arrivals were hours after the initial attack took place.
FOX News has more regarding how Woods and Doherty were killed hours after the initial attack on the consulate commenced. Rather than perishing at the main compound, the ex-Navy SEALS were back at the CIA annex when the attach took place:

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the Consulate began — a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

Here’s additional information about the deadly attack that took Woods and Doherty’s lives, as reported by CNN back in September:

After arriving back at the annex, the incident was far from over for the security team, which included Woods and Doherty. An attack was launched on the annex — this one more intense than the initial assault on the main building.
Military officials in Benghazi told CNN that rocket-propelled grenades were among the heavy firepower used by the attackers at the annex, with one official saying mortars were also fired.
“It was during that (second attack) that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two others were wounded,” a senior administration official said last week in providing details of the attack. Those two victims were later confirmed to be Doherty and Woods.

Earlier today, TheBlaze covered debate surrounding drones and whether or not U.S. officials had the ability to watch a portion of the Libyan attack in real time. Considering these latest allegations, this question seems increasingly important.
Some, like reporter Geraldo Rivera, have dismissed the notion that the battle was being viewed live by officials as it progressed. But an October 20 report from CBS News claims that a portion of the attack was potentially seen by officials. In fact, according to the network, “hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi, and that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft apparently observed the final hours of the protracted battle.”
FOX, too, reported today that there were two military surveillance drones that were sent to Benghazi after the attack on the U.S. consulate began. Both of these drones had the capability to send images back to government officials (including the White House situation room), although it’s not immediately clear how, if at all, these images were used.
On Thursday, TheBlaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern covered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s response to questions surrounding military reaction. He said that forces did not intervene because officials did not have enough “real-time information” about what was happening on the ground.
“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta said. “And as a result of not having that kind of information…[we] felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
On Friday morning, radio host Glenn Beck interviewed Charles Woods, father of ex-Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods. He reacted to the explosive, new allegations, deriding the “stand down” orders and calling for “moral strength.” Here is his complete on-air reaction:

“That is cowardice by the people that issued that order. And our country is not a country of cowards. Our country is the greatest nation on Earth. And what we need to do is we need to raise up a generation of American heroes just like Ty who is an American hero. But in order to do that, we need to raise up a generation that has not just physical strength but moral strength.  We do not need another generation of liars who lack moral strength.”

Here’s the clip:
During his reaction to the new allegations this morning, Beck was candid, sharing both awe and dismay. “Today officially is the day that I no longer recognize my country,” he said (read and see Beck’s entire reaction here).
These revelations come one day after TheBlaze reported that President Barack Obama first alluded to his belief that the Benghazi assault was pre-planned just hours after the assault unfolded. He made these claims in an obscure CBS News clip that was part of a larger interview (this portion of his September 12 “60 Minutes” appearance was not originally aired) which came to light over the past few days.
In the days following Obama’s interview, the administration’s claims about the Libya attack changed drastically, as officials reported that it was the result of an anti-Islam film called “Innocence of Muslims.” Considering Obama’s original views on the matter, the timeline of the administration’s rhetoric has come under scrutiny.
Read the original FOX News report here.

Obama Told CBS Hours After Benghazi Attack That He Had ‘Suspicion’ That Event Was Pre-Planned (So Why Did the Story Change?)

With the presidential election just 12 days away, the furor over the Obama administration’s handling of the September 11 attacks that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya, rages on. At the center of the controversy is whether President Barack Obama and other officials purposefully misled the American public regarding what spawned the act of terror. A re-examination of some of the comments made by the president in the wake of the attack further adds to the confusion and skepticism.
Let’s start with the latest information to emerge in what critics are dubbing “Benghazi-gate.” On Wednesday, TheBlaze reported that newly-released emails corroborate the notion that the White House, among other government institutions, was alerted on September 11 — the day of the attack — that the Libyan militant group Ansar al-Sharia had taken almost-immediate credit for the deadly violence. Yet, for days, Obama administration officials continued to blame “Innocence of Muslims,” a 13-minute anti-Islam YouTube clip, for a supposedly-spontaneous and deadly reaction.
Now, here’s where the situation becomes a bit curious. Obama gave an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” just 14 hours after the attack took place. During the interview, which was scheduled before the assault unfolded, the president said that he did not believe that the Benghazi violence was due solely to random mob action.
“You’re right that this is not a situation that was — exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start,” Obama told journalist Steve Kroft.

This portion of the interview, in which the president seems to be admitting his belief that Benghazi was a planned attack, apparently wasn’t aired on “60 Minutes” back in September. While some outlets have accused CBS News of bias for not sharing Obama’s statements during a time when questions surrounding the administration have raged, the clip has been available online since September 12.
According to FOX News, this portion of the interview was shown on television for the first time on October 19. Here’s how Breitbart.com frames CBS’s decision not to show the clip:

CBS chose not to air that portion of the interview with President Obama–not even in the days and weeks that followed, when it was highly relevant–first to the question of the nature of the Benghazi attack, then to the question of whether the president had in fact called it an act of terror from the start. [...]
What CBS chose to air, instead, was President Obama’s attack on his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, who had criticized the administration’s apologetic response to the Cairo demonstration.

Watch the president’s comments, below:
Considering this comment, which was uttered just hours after the attack, one cannot help but wonder why the president and other officials continued in subsequent days to claim that the video was the prime cause of the violence. The State Department’s e-mail alerts, which TheBlaze previously shared, add to the intrigue. CBS News recaps the e-mail timeline:

At 4:05 p.m. Eastern time, on September 11, an alert from the State Department Operations Center was issued to a number government and intelligence agencies. Included were the White House Situation Room, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI.
“US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” — “approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM (Chief of Mission/embassy) personnel are in the compound safe haven.”
At 4:54 p.m., less than an hour later, another alert: “the firing… in Benghazi…has stopped…A response team is on site attempting to locate COM (embassy) personnel.”
Then, at 6:07 p.m., State sent out another alert saying the embassy in Tripoli reported the Islamic military group “Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibilty for Benghazi Attack”… “on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Yet, while the president initially said that he believed the attack was something more calculated than simple mob rule, the administration quickly became scattered in its assessment. In fact, days after Obama’s CBS appearance, the explanation transitioned from a calculated attack to a spontaneous response to “Innocence of Muslims.”
On September 16, five days after the murder of four Americans, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows, where she doubled-down on the notion that the film was to blame. In a letter to Republican senators she explained why she went with the narrative — even after Obama shared his hunch that mob rule wasn’t to blame — that “Innocence of Muslims” was the catalyst for violence. Rice wrote:

“In my Sept. 16 Sunday show appearances, I was asked to provide the administration’s latest understanding of what happened in Benghazi. In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policy makers. This information represented the intelligence community’s best, current assessment as of the date of my television appearances, and I went out of my way to ensure it was consistent with the information that was being given to Congress.”

And it didn’t end there. On September 17, during a briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refused to call the attack an act of terror — a curious statement considering what had unfolded.
“I don’t think we know enough. I don’t think we know enough. And we’re going to continue to assess,” she answered when pressed about whether “terror” was an adequate descriptor. “We’re going to have a full investigation now, and then we’ll be in a better position to put labels on things, okay?”
Perhaps The Kansas City Star best summarizes the odd messaging dynamic coming from Washington in the wake of the tragedy:

What prompted that pivot remains a mystery amid a closely contested presidential election and Republican allegations that President Barack Obama intentionally used outrage over the video to mask administration policy missteps that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens…
Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it’s natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered. “You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve,” he said.
But the administration’s statements offer an ironic twist on the “fog-of-war” phenomenon: They apparently were more accurate on the day after the attacks than they were when Rice made her TV appearances four days later. Administration officials so far have provided no detailed explanation for the change.

Obama’s own address to the United Nations on September 25 overwhelmingly focused upon Middle Eastern democracy, free speech and the anti-Islam film. The president used the word “killers” to describe those responsible for the Benghazi attacks, clearly crafting his comments carefully (also worth noting: he avoided the word “terror”).
On Wednesday, the aforementioned information — including the video — was discussed by Bret Baier and his FOX News panel on “Special Report” (see a video montage around 2:30 that shows Obama seemingly backtracking on his initial comments the day after the attack):
It’s a complex situation, but considering Obama’s own initial hunch, it’s odd that the administration would flip-flop so fervently on messaging. While it’s understandable that the “fog of war” would create uncertainty, sending Rice out to vehemently claim that a video caused the violence before all of the information was in seems problematic.

Destroying Our Military from Within

By Alan Caruba
“Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” -- Ronald Reagan
If you want to know how President Obama feels about the U.S. military, consider that in all the years since D-Day 1945 there have been three occasions when a President failed to go to the D-Day Monument that honors the soldiers killed during the Invasion.
The occasions were:
1. Barack Obama 2010
2. Barack Obama 2011
3. Barack Obama 2012
For the past 68 years, all Presidents, except Obama, have paid tribute to the fallen soldiers killed on D-Day. This year, instead of honoring the soldiers, he made a campaign trip on Air Force 1 to California to raise funds for his reelection.
The U.S. military has been systematically weakened from within by a combination of idiotic and duplicitous decisions that suggest how far the nation has come from the fundamental understanding that an enemy must be destroyed with sufficient devastation as to never contemplate attacking us or our allies again.
World War Two was a success because both Germany and Japan were required to sign instruments of unconditional surrender. Both nations are now our allies. Even Vietnam where the U.S. blundered into a civil war and was ultimately forced to withdraw now has normalized diplomatic relations and welcomes U.S. investment.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan remain inconclusive due to a combination of timid rules of engagement and the transformation of our military’s mission into "nation-building" that have yielded unsatisfactory results.
The military force that distinguished America as a super power at the mid-point of the last century now is facing draconian funding reductions from a Congress unwilling to make hard decisions about our historic debt.
A July Wall Street Journal editorial, “The Coming Defense Crack-Up”, warned the automatic sequestration, “If implemented, the Pentagon budget would be cut by another 9% (or $492 billion) over the next decade, on top of the $487 billion in cuts that are already planned. Defense accounts for the largest share of total sequestration, or 42.6%m according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
“The sequestration cuts would leave the defense budget some 30% smaller in 10 years.” Does anyone believe that the world will be any safer in two years or ten years? Or that weakening our defense will make us safer in a world bristling with nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction?
If the sequestration cuts are pure folly, then the use of our defense forces as a means to avoid “global warming” is sheer insanity. There is no global warming insofar as the Earth entered a natural cooling cycle in 1998 and the claim that carbon dioxide is “causing” global warming is completely baseless. A tiny element of the Earth’s atmosphere—0.038%--carbon dioxide (CO2) has been the excuse environmentalists have used to attack our manufacturing and energy sectors. Now it is being used to render our military weaker through a requirement to use biofuels.
On October 8, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, ordering the Defense Department and other agencies to reduce CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. He set a goal of having the ships that defend our nuclear carriers powered by biofuels.
How stupid is this? First of all, America sits atop enough oil reserves to make us energy independent if the Obama administration would permit exploration and extraction domestically and offshore. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that the U.S. possesses 26% of the world’s oil supply. The Obama administration assertion that the U.S. has only 2% of the world’s supply is a lie.
There is zero need for biofuels. By 2020, the Navy has been instructed to use alternative fuel for half of its consumption. A recent naval exercise cost the Navy $27 per gallon of biofuel, versus $3.50 to $4.00 for standard petroleum fuel. As this is being written, Americans are required to use ethanol, a biofuel, in every gallon of gas they put in their cars, needlessly increasing the cost with no benefit in mileage and at the risk of damaging their car engines.
The Air Force is also subject to these mandates for biofuels that cost more than $26 per gallon, compared with standard jet fuel at $4 per gallon. Both the Navy and Air Force face the prospect of having to refuel ships and planes in potential battle zones where every gallon of biofuel would have to be transported from the U.S. for lack of biofuel refineries in Asian, Mideast or Mediterranean ports. Can you spell d-e-f-e-a-t?
These biofuel mandates are part of the Obama administration’s crony capitalism that has seen “alternative energy” lose billions in loan guarantees to solar companies and the government mandates that maintain the wind power industry that, like ethanol, would not exist without federal government support.
Phil Dunmire, the national president of the Navy League of the United States, on July 18, warned that “The defense and maritime industries are being jeopardized from within” noting that “programs related to our nation’s defense will absorb half of the sequestration costs despite being just 19% of the national spending budget.” These cuts go into effect in January!
The sequestration and other budget cuts, and the global warming biofuel mandates will leave the U.S. more vulnerable to attack and defeat since the end of World War Two. Our Navy has shrunk. Our combat air fleet is old. The manpower of military forces has been reduced and subjected to restrictions that leave every soldier and marine subject to investigation for every enemy they kill.
The exception to the long engagement in the Middle East was the successful killing of Osama bin Laden, but even that was tarnished by a President who took full credit for it and released information about it that runs contrary to the safety of all comparable future missions. Within days, the White House provided a briefing on it to a Hollywood producer and writer in order to facilitate a film lauding the mission.
The greatest force for the defense of the nation and for freedom in the world is being reduced by a Congress and a White House who refuse to recognize the threats that exist in a dangerous world.

Food Stamp Fraud? Some Very Suspicious Transactions For Welfare Recipients

  
Most people run to the corner bodega for a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread, but some welfare recipients are plunking down $500 at a time in suspicious transactions, The Post has found.
Welfare users are only allowed to use their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to buy food, yet they are rung up like fat cats in tiny stores in The Bronx and Brooklyn where the priciest item is usually an $8 pound of ham.
Earlier this year, an owner and a cashier at Glenwood Food Corp. in Canarsie, Brooklyn, were arrested for ringing up bogus transactions.
A federal sting found the bodega was recording phony purchases on EBT cards, handing customers about 70 percent of the amount in cash — and pocketing the rest. Goods were rarely exchanged in the scam, which defrauded taxpayers out of $985,000 in two years.
The Post found dozens of mysterious high-value “purchases” in low-end stores in a state database of 1 million EBT transactions.
Sheridan Mini Mart in Morrisania, The Bronx, rang up single sales of $543.40 and $473.50 on June 4, 2012, alone. That’s a lot of bread for a store where the most expensive item is an $11.99 jug of cooking oil.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/food-stamp-fraud/2012/12/30/food-stamp-fraud-some-very-suspicious-transactions-welfare-recipients#ixzz2GjVXtOav

Towards “Somalization”? Syria Swings between “Dialogue”, Chaos and Bloodsheed

Towards “Somalization”? Syria Swings between “Dialogue”, Chaos and Bloodsheed

It is admittedly not hard to imagine how someone can predict a vision of hell in a country like Syria which has become a hornet’s nest of terrorism and which is tumbling into further chaos and bloodshed.
Lakhdar Brahimi, who represents the United Nations and the Arab League, has predicted as many as 100,000 people could be killed “in the next year as Syria moves toward Somalization and rule by warlords.”
Apart from his foreboding tone, his remarks are testimony to a broader gamut of interference at the hands of those who have infiltrated into the country from abroad. In point of fact, what is corroding Syria is not an internal unrest but a ‘foreign-made’ crisis.
The Syrian opposition group insists that the start of dialogue would be made possible only with the departure of President Assad and says that it would not be ready to engage in any dialogue with Russia without any clear agenda.
“If Russia has a proposal to stop the bleeding in Syria, it should submit it and we will respond,” Mouaz al-Khatib, head of the main bloc of Syrian opposition groups, has told Al Jazeera. “We can’t meet with the Russians without a clear agenda.”
In the meantime, Russia and Iran are playing pivotal roles in preventing a human catastrophe in the country and seeking to resolve the crisis through diplomacy.
After talks in Moscow on Saturday with Lakhdar Brahimi, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia could not press Assad to give up power. Besides, he has once again clarified his country’s stance on Syria and said Russia “isn’t in the business of regime change.  He has repeatedly said, both publicly and privately, including during his meeting with Lakhdar Brahimi not long ago, that he has no plans to go anywhere, that he will stay in his post until the end, that he will, as he says, protect the Syrian people, Syrian sovereignty and so forth. There is no possibility of changing this position.”
The implication is very simple. Russia does not want a regime change in Syria as there is supposedly no point in seeking such a solution. This policy is also strongly shared and seconded by Iran which has already set forth a six-point peace plan for Syria. Hossein Sheikholeslam, an advisor to Iran’s Majlis speaker for international affairs has said that Tehran’s six-point peace plan would be the only solution to the unrest in Syria and that no country should intervene in the internal affairs of the Arab country.
“The six-point plan presented by Iran is a very appropriate solution to the crisis in Syria because it has been prepared based on international principles.”
The proposal was originally announced on October 14, when Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi submitted it to Lakhdar Brahimi during a meeting in Tehran.
According to Iran’s six-point peace plan, the Syrian nation has the legitimate right to decide their fate and future through an internationally-recognized democratic process.

In brief, the plan urges:

- an immediate end to any armed actions;

- ushering in a UN-monitored democratic process;

- Damascus and the opposition to cooperate with UN and its special committee to stop armed operations especially in the residential areas to restore peace and stability;

- an immediate, serious and just distribution of humanitarian aids to Syrian people;

- the lifting of economic sanctions on the Syrian people in order to prepare the ground for the return of all Syrian refugees to their homeland;

- the resumption of comprehensive national dialogues by different opposing social and political parties and Damascus to rapidly form a national reconciliation committee in order to unanimously form a transitional government;

- a free and competitive election for the formation of a new parliament and senate and the composition of a constitution;

- the immediate release of all political prisoners from all parties by the government and opposition groups, and establishment of a competent court of justice to investigate cases of those who committed crimes in that country.

The plan also urges that media stop spreading wrong information about Syria.
Though a comprehensive plan which can technically and practically put an end to the ongoing crisis in Syria, it was looked upon with an eye of pessimism and cynicism by the opposition group in Syria.
In a statement, the Syrian National Coalition slammed Iran’s initiative as a “last-ditch bid to save the regime of President Bashar al-Assad”.
“As the free forces of the Syrian people accomplish one decisive political and military victory after another, the regime and its allies keep on launching lackluster and overdue political initiatives,” said the National Coalition.
“The Iranian initiative represents one example of these desperate attempts to throw a lifeline to the inevitably sinking ship of the Assad regime,” it said in a statement.
Despite all this, Syria says it will respond to any initiative meant to solve Syria’s 22-month-old crisis through talks
While impertinently attributing the crisis in Syria to “the brutality and ruthlessness of ruler Bashar al-Assad and the family clique around him, and their supporters in Iran and Russia”, an editorial on Washington Post which, evidently reflects Washington’s policies, lashes out at the West for its “massive failure”, and “particularly American leadership” and implicitly encourages the West’s prompt action against the government of Assad.
After all, the materialization of a meaningful peace in Syria cannot and should not be pursued through irrational anger and abortive resort to any brute means such as hiring and infiltrating mercenaries into Syria, and psyching up public mind about the possibility that the government of Assad may use chemical weapons against its own people.
Instead of ignoring Iran’s constructive and effective initiative to put an end to the bloodbath in Syria, the opposition group could have seized the chance, looked at Iran as a regional well-wisher and resolved the crisis in the country.
What is vitally important at this juncture in time is that a tragedy of immeasurably inhumane proportions is taking place in Syria and a rapid solution should be carved out before it’s too late.
Indeed, Syria is by slow gradation descending into hell whose flames are devouring the innocent and the guilty alike and even on a more appalling scale as Mr. Brahimi has predicted, tens of thousands of people will die soon and as long as there is resistance to any peace-inspiring proposal in the country, Syria will inch towards an eventual Balkanization.

San Antonio Theater Shooting that was NEVER COVERED by the MSM........WHY?

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.
Read More,

The media should have put this on the front page headlines to show their fairness…oh wait…. they don’t know what that is, huh? Well, good for her anyway!!
I read about this a few days ago, and have been purposely watching for ANY mention on the alphabets or press. What a shock–Nada !
No one has the right, especially anti-gun supporters, to tell people which guns they can and CAN’T have! There is no list of acceptable weapons in the US Constitution.
If you ban the “worst weapons”, the only ones that will still use them are criminals and the military.
There are thousands of innocent lives taken every day by drunk drivers or drivers who text and drive.
Also there are thousands of abortions happening day by day.
So what do you mean by we should be protecting children(guns are not the only issue here)?
You do realize that mass shootings happen in gun free zones right?
Do you ever hear about a mass shooting happening at a gun show?
It doesn’t matter how mentally ill you are, I can guarantee that no individual is mental enough to pull a gun out at a gun show.
Are we supposed to sit at home in a bubble holding a butter knife in our hands waiting for someone to walk in on us and kill our family?
I don’t know about you but I rather have a gun than a kitchen knife to protect me and my family than have to wait 10 minutes for the police to arrive.
Texting While Driving Causes:
1. 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council
2. 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study
3. 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts
4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents
What happened with the shooting is horrible and breaks my heart, but compare the numbers and it pales in comparison:
11 teen deaths every day from texting. That’s 330 a month, or 3960 a year. How about an even scarier statistic. 11,700…… can you guess what that number represents?
The number of children 5 and younger that die EVERY DAY of starvation. How about we stop wasting money on all these Bull!@# campaigns to ban guns and feed a few starving children I think that would be one thing that we ALL could finally agree on.
Kids shouldn’t starve to death! In fact maybe we should send them some GUNS, then they could shoot themselves some dinner!
How many of these liberal gun control activists that are SO disgusted by our gun control laws are happy to drive around texting in their cars? Statistically it is no different than pulling out a revolver in public, putting a single bullet in and giving it a spin and then pulling the trigger a few times. Sanctimonious hypocrites.
They are more than happy to spend $6 on a Mocca Frape double douche-bag cup of coffee, but when was the last time they put a check in the mail to aid starving children?

i will never pay for a another movie watch tv or buy cds or pay to see any of these illumaniti scum trash ever again

How California Will Sell Obamacare: Celebrities, Reporters, and Targeted Ethnic Appeals

Democrats market policy the same way they market candidates: leveraging the power of the media to make targeted ethnic appeals. When it comes to selling Obamacare to Californians, the plan involves $90 million worth of outreach augmented by partnerships with celebrities, the entertainment industry, and "select" reporters who are presumably eager to help with the roll out.

The Statewide Marketing, Outreach & Education Program is a 127-page document (pdf) which outlines all of the approaches that will be used over the next 2-3 years to market Obamacare to Californians. The key line in the document appears near the end, "People like people like them." This simple statement of group/racial affinity is the framework for the targeted ethnic appeals outlined in the rest of the plan. In fact, the document makes it plain that a key strategy will be "Ensuring that testimonials represent the diversity of California, culturally, linguistically, and regionally."
What this comes down to are attempts to rope celebrities, the entertainment industry and friendly reporters into the earned media effort to promote Obamacare. Some of this is fairly straightforward, such as the comprehensive outreach via Univision which includes radio personalities like El Piolin (mentioned on page 105).
Other appeals seem more ad hoc. A few celebrities mentioned by name as likely willing to do something for the effort include Rosario Dawson, Eva Longoria, George Lopez, and Jessica Alba (for Latino outreach) and Stevie Wonder (for outreach to blacks).
In addition to specific celebrities, there is a longer-term project to involve Hollywood on a national scale by inviting TV producers to include health insurance story-lines in their entertainment shows. The plan even includes the idea of creating an entire reality show around the topic:

During this build out phase, individuals from California’s robust entertainment industry will be approached at the most senior levels to engage in California’s effort, to enroll residents in coverage, many for the first time. A number of popular television programs and personalities such as Grey’s Anatomy, Modern Family, the Biggest Loser, Dr. Oz and others will be approached and pitched to incorporate story lines or mentions of health care reform that would reinforce campaign messages and would air in Phases III – VII (August 2013 – December 2015 timeframe). In addition, we would explore approaching select reality television producers to create a new reality television program revealing the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage.

Some of the outreach plans outlined in the document seem stereotypical in their approach. For instance, outreach targeting African Americans will include a bus tour called "The Groove Mobile" which will visit public housing to "spread the gospel" of health exchanges. The Groove Mobile's tour will then be "pitched to local news outlets as well as Black Entertainment Television."
Meanwhile, the plan to reach Asians with the message of health exchanges may include outreach at Karaoke bars or sponsoring a booth at Hot Import Nights, a car show that the document identifies as part of the "Asian Import Car Club Scene."
But celebrities and event outreach are just part of the picture. Another important part of the plan is using the news media to help spread the message by identifying individuals (people like them) in every media market who can be given media training to "tell a compelling and heartfelt story on why the marketplace is needed in the state." Nothing like a heartfelt, carefully rehearsed story to get the word out.
The document also mentions the potential for "integrated blogger outreach" to political bloggers in the state. Other plans to co-opt the media include an Editorial Board Tour (no word on how groovy it will be) to meet "select editorial writers at the major metropolitan daily newspapers." No doubt the "select" editorial boards will be made up of progressives inclined to echo whatever the marketing campaign tells them.
Similarly, the campaign will include "Deskside Briefings" with journalists "to learn what information individual journalists may require." Some of the "key journalists" will even get private meetings with the campaign's executive director. In short, journalists eager to promote the program will get special access and special help.
National reporters won't be left out. Because of California's size and importance, the marketing campaign includes plans to hold conference calls with "select reporters and journalists" and even arrange special interviews when needed. Again, the definition of "select" is left to the imagination, but it's probably synonymous with "Obamacare fans." If Ezra Klein hasn't gotten a call yet, he will soon.
If all of this seems familiar, it may be because it's so much like the campaign for President we just experienced. There too, the President used celebrities (the same ones in fact), friendly journalists, and ethnic appeals (Pimp with a Limp) to pull together a winning coalition of people to whom he has promised government help. This is the Democrats' model for success and, after November's results, there's no doubt it works.