Friday, May 9, 2014


US Marines carry out first arrests of two Boko Haram members in Benue State

altUS Marines currently in Nigeria to help the government combat Boko Haram terrorists have made their first arrests taking two male suspects into custody after they were found in possession of arms and ammunition during a targeted search.

Over the last week, US Marines have arrived in Nigeria to help with the fight against terrorism after Boko Haram took their war of terror to another level by abducting 234 pupils from Government Girls Secondary School Chibok in Borno State. Acknowledging that the matter was getting beyond its control, the Nigerian government swallowed its pride and accepted outside help.

With the abduction coming at a time when Nigeria is hosting World Economic Forum on Africa and inbetween two horrific bomb blasts in Abuja, there has been a lot of international offer of support. France, the UK, the US and China have all offered differing degrees of support in the form of intelligence, training and military assistance.

Since Wednesday, US troops have arrived in Nigeria where they are providing security for the WEF summit on Africa. It is expected that the Marines will also join Nigerian soldiers in pursuing Boko Haram into the Sambisa Forest in Borno State where they are believed to have spirited the kidnapped girls to.

According to Major General Chris Olukolade, Nigeria's director of defence in­formation, two suspected Boko Haram members were arrested at Any­ibe in Logo Local Gov­ernment Area of Benue State. He added that the duo, made up of a teenager and an elderly man, were arrested during a cordon-and-search operation and found to be in possession of firearms.

Weapons found in their possession included two rifles, three locally fabricated pistols and 61 rounds of special ammunition. Apparently, the arms were found in the possession of the teenager he is currently undergoing interrogation in custody.

US marines are highly specialised soldiers who have been deployed effectively in areas affected by serious conflict and terrorism such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not yet clear how many Marines will be deployed to Nigeria as part of the current operation or if they will establish a base in Borno State.


Saudi Arabia is ready to open its airspace to the Israeli air force to hit Iran

Saudi Arabia is ready to open its airspace to the Israeli air force to hit Iran


* BBC - Asan
Talk about letting strike Iran through Saudi Arabia
Unique to The Times newspaper in its Saturday published a report titled: Saudi Arabia to open its airspace to Israel to attack Iranian sites of nuclear, paper says: Saudi Arabia has already started to train to stop and disable its air defenses to allow the passage of Israeli warplanes over its airspace to bomb sites of Iranian nuclear weapons.
Attributed to the newspaper, which says it is unique to publish the news, to defense experts in the Gulf region as saying that Riyadh, and in the same week new UN sanctions on Iran, and agreed to open airspace is limited and narrow within its airspace in the north of the country in order to reduce the distance needed by Israeli warplanes to reach its goals in the rear of Iran in case it is decided to proceed with the implementation of the air strike potential.
The paper says that in order to facilitate the passage of these aircraft, the Riyadh military exercises to ensure the work stopped its air defenses and missile systems, that those defenses back to work immediately after the passage of Israeli aircraft.
The newspaper quoted a U.S. source who specializes in defense affairs as saying that the Saudis gave their consent to the Israelis, and told them that Sagdon party, and that it was approved by the U.S. State Department and coordination with them.
The Times also quoted sources as saying that in Saudi Arabia is commonplace to say inside the circles interested in the defense of the country that there is an existing agreement on the subject in case Israel decides to implement possible air hit against Iranian sites.
One source said that despite the tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia, but they have agreed on regardless and hate the regime in Iran, and there is fear shared by Tehran's nuclear ambitions, and that this matter is known and no secret, "and we Sndahm pass, and turn a blind eye."
But the striking appearance of a report in the Daily Telegraph entitled Another Iran says that Robert Gates, U.S. Defense Secretary rule out military action against Tehran., And the paper says that the U.S. added new doubts on the prospects for military action against Iran, despite the recognition of Washington, the possibility of producing Tehran what enough nuclear fuel to produce a nuclear weapon within a year to three years.
The newspaper attributed to Gates as saying that the United States and Israel, felt no need to rush in to take military action against Iran, even with the presence of fears that the economic sanctions probably will not be enough to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
The minister said after a meeting of the U.S. combined with his counterparts in NATO in Brussels: "I think everyone agrees that we need more time, and those Israelis, too, and we have to continue to work in this manner."
Gates added: "Most people believe that the Iranians will not be able to get a nuclear weapon before a year or two, and intelligence estimates put the period between one and three years."
It is well known that the area of ​​the Gulf states, (wild lands and territorial waters, and airspace), is a forward base for foreign forces in general, to hit the targets varied in that direction, including the Arab and Islamic countries, U.S. forces essentially, and NATO forces, and international forces, and Israeli Also, authorities Arabia had allowed the aircraft Alasiraelih in Osmaninyiat last century exploiting its airspace by the Air Force Alasra├║alaa, to hit nuclear reactors, and Facilities Iraqi military (factories weapons and ammunition), a process that raised the success vocal and Tlasna Arab Arabs at that time, which prompted Arabic Saudi Arabia, to deny the Israeli flag scheme, or approval by, and claimed that Israeli warplanes penetrated its airspace surreptitiously and without her knowledge and consent.
On Iran, but from the standpoint of domestic politics graduated Guardian newspaper report attributed it to Zahraa Rahnfred leader of the Green Movement of Iran, which is considered part of the Iranian opposition demanding democratic reforms since last year's election, saying that the opposition has not been defeated and did not shatter even after the request of her supporters to stop protests against government repression.
Says Rahanfred (64 years), the wife of Iranian opposition leader Hossein Mousavi, and academic and sculptor prestigious, and women's rights activist, said in an interview summarized by the newspaper, it is ready to face the gallows in the struggle for freedom, but it also confirms that the reform movement led by her husband not revolution, and that she wanted to respect the Iranian constitution.
In the same paper for another title says Iran: TV channel for one man to turn the knife in the side of the Iranian regime, and talk here about Chehrkhiz Mahdi, who according to the newspaper that he embarrassed the government aired a video showing the violent repression of Iranian dissidents.
The paper says that the Mahdi (28 years) was not interested in politics until the arrest of his father in the presidential election and the accompanying protests and unrest., But graphic designer who lives in New Jersey, U.S., use the arts and skills learned to open a TV channel online displays from which footage important to the confrontations that took place between the opposition and Iran's security forces during a period of unrest that followed the election results.

Archive of articles written by: Kabawen


By The Right Scoop

I’m liking Rand Paul less and less each day, especially when he makes stupid comments like this:
Assuming he hasn’t been taken out of context, Paul should recognize indoctrination when he sees it and he should be able to intellectually defend Voter ID. But instead, he appears to cower to the misplaced offense of the indoctrinated and acts like a squishy moderate, telling the rest of us to back off.

OK PEOPLE GET THIS KILLARY IS MUSLIM GET IT ONCE AND FOR ALL See How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Could Be Protecting Terrorists

See How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Could Be Protecting Terrorists

Why Would She Do This?

Pages: 1 2
Hillary Clinton’s State Department fought hard to make sure that the Islamist group Boko Haram, which has Al-Qaeda connections, would not be placed on its official list of terrorist organizations for two years. To some lawmakers, this decision may have harmed the U.S. government’s ability to confront the group, which recently slaughtered at least 200 students on their way to school and also enslaved at least two hundred schoolgirls.
Clinton made protecting women and girls a key part of her State Department’s mission. She has been a strong advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. Her May 4th tweet was cited by many in the media and raised awareness of the girls’ plight. Hillary Clinton 2 SC On Wednesday, Clinton went even further, calling the abduction of the girls: “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria.” In 2011, though, Clinton’s State Department refused to label Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization after the group bombed the UN headquarters in the capital city of Nigeria, Abuja.  The Justice Department, the CIA, the FBI, and over a dozen Congressman and Senators supported such an action. A former senior US official who participated in the debate said the following:
“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”
He added:
“The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”
National Security spokesman Jonathan Lalley told the Daily Beast in a statement: “Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time.”  He further stated: “‘We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we’re actively exploring — in partnership with Nigeria and others — broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions.”
Boko Haram SC
Boko Haram Militants
Speculation has existed about the influence of Islam in Hillary Clinton’s State Department. A former FBI Special Agent, John Guandolo,  told CBN News:
What we’re seeing not just inside the White House, but inside the government entities, the national security entities, the State Department — is a strong push by the Muslim Brotherhood to get their people not just into operational positions, but policy positions — deeper, long term, bureaucratic positions.
Speculation also has existed concerning  Huma Abedin, who once worked for Clinton as her deputy chief of staff at the State Department. According to Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review, Huma Abedin “worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. “

See How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Could Be Protecting Terrorists

Why Would She Do This?

Pages: 1 2
In May 2012, a then-Justice Department official, Lisa Monaco, sent a letter to the State Department and urged Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group. Four Star General Carter Ham, head of  The African Central Command, said in June 2012 that an African Al Qaeda group and Boko Haram were “likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials.” Despite this, the State Department still refused to designate the group as a foreign terrorist organization.
So what do you think of Clinton’s State Department refusing to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group despite its crimes? Why is Clinton suddenly outraged at the group and calling it “terrorism”  despite its record of crimes before these girls were enslaved? Feel free to comment below.
 Photo Credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons) Hillary Clinton

OK HOLLY WOOD BOYCOTTS SHARIA LAW IN THIS MUSLIMS NATION BUT IT IS OK FOR THE USA TO BE UNDER SHARIA LAW Hotel boycott against Sharia law expands, losses hit $1.5 million

Hotel boycott against Sharia law expands, losses hit $1.5 million

Wednesday, 7 May 2014 | 6:40 PM ET
COMMENTSJoin the Discussion
The Beverly Hills Hotel.
Source: The Dorchester Collection
The Beverly Hills Hotel.
The introduction of Sharia law in the Brunei continued to ripple to the shores of California on Wednesday as the oil-rich nation's ownership of the iconic Beverly Hills Hotel resulted in business cancellations amounting to at least $1.5 million.
"The impact has been predominately in the local events business where those have been canceled and we're up to probably about $1.5 million so far, but we can weather the storm. We're very, very much larger than that," Dorchester Collection CEO Christopher Cowdray told CNBC.
"If you take the global perspective of this city, we're not the only hotel or establishment or business that is owned by a country which has Sharia laws," he said. "There's so many hotels, banks and other organizations that have connections to countries which have this type of law."

Boycotts by celebrities including Ellen DeGeneres, Jay Leno, Stephen Fry, Sharon Osbourne, Virgin CEO Richard Branson and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg were elevated as Los Angeles' mayor and city attorney joined in. Several organizations said they were canceling major events scheduled at the hotels owned by a branch of the Brunei government.
Hollywood stars boycott famed Beverly Hills hotel
CNBC's Morgan Brennan interviews the Dorchester Group CEO Christopher Cowdray about the hotel's owner, the Sultan of Brunei, who recently instituted an extreme form of Islamic law (Sharia) in his country.
The Brunei Investment Agency owns the Dorchester Collection of 10 luxury hotels: the Beverly Hills Hotel; the Hotel Bel-Air in Los Angeles; The Dorchester and 45 Park Lane in London; Coworth Park in Ascot, England; Le Meurice and Hotel Plaza Athenee in Paris; Hotel Eden in Rome; Le Richemond in Geneva; and Hotel Principe di Savoia in Milan.

Supreme Court Just Approved Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans

Supreme Court Just Approved Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans

The defense of liberty has come down to States, County Sheriffs, and We The People.

Photo credit: watchingfrogsboil (Creative Commons)
Pages: 1 2 3 4
America’s founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help ensure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches–each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the “free and independent states” of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.
It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, “We the People” are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration) The “consent of the governed” was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people’s right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.
What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America’s pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. adamantly refuse to use the constitutional obligations placed upon them to hold the federal government in check.
The latter was made crystal clear by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the report:
“A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to ‘detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,’ according to critics.
“The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
“The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.
‘The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,’ the legal team said in a statement to WND. ‘The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people–and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.’”
The report continues: “The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to ‘represent an enduring security threat to the United States.’


New York City Renames A Street To Honor Muslim Who Was Killed On 9/11

Anthony Correia /
New York City is infuriating residents and victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by naming a city street after a Muslim first responder who died on 9/11.
The intersection of 204th St. and 35the Avenue in Queens was renamed “Salman Hamdani Way” this week, after Mohammed Salman Hamdani, the son of Pakistani immigrants and a devout Muslim.
Hamdani was a police cadet who ran into the towers on 9/11. While we’re not suggesting his heroism was anything but just that, why should he receive the honor of a street name just because he’s Muslim?
VIDEO: Thug Picks Fight with American Trucker, Ends Up Becoming A "Seal"
The Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is tied to Hamas, a prominent Islamic terrorist group, applauded the city’s appeasement to complaining Muslims at the street name dedication.
Should this man receive a street named after him? Tell us int he comments below.

Shocking: Pope Demands “Legitimate Redistribution” Of Wealth, Supports United Nations New World Order Witnesses testify, eyewitnesses confirm that Pope Francis raped, killed children

Shocking: Pope Demands “Legitimate Redistribution” Of Wealth, Supports United Nations New World Order (Video)

Friday, May 9, 2014 8:20

Beware: The False Prophet Supports the New World Order and One-World Currency:

The False Prophet will give over his mesmerizing global worldwide influence to the man of lawlessness who will arise as a (false) peacemaker to end the global war that is soon coming and to assist him in establishing the new-world order, which is discussed in Chapter 13 of the Book of Revelation.

And the Antichrist will control humanity through the new one-world currency and the mark of the beast. Then the persecution led by the New World Alliance will commence. We must take courage and be ready to receive some blows for the Truth. As Benedict XVI recently said:“The courage of the truth is, in my eyes, a criterion of the first order of sainthood” in these times.

 Friday Pope Francis called for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in countries around the world in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the “economy of exclusion” that is taking hold today.

Pope Francis made this appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other heads of major U.N. agencies who met in Rome this week.

This is not the first time Pope Francis has lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much of humanity.

Today Pope Francis asked the United Nations to promote a “worldwide ethical mobilization” of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generosity. This seems to further support that Pope Francis supports one world government and a New World Order that the very Bible he is to teach and support, warns about. 

Pope Francis stated that a more equal form of economic progress can be had through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”  Is this what the church is going to be teaching in the future? Redistribution of wealth? Is this Marxist?

The Pope had a message similiar to this for the World Economic Forum this past January and in his apostolic exhortation “The Joy of the Gospel.” That document, which denounced trickle-down economic theories as unproven and naive, provoked criticism in the U.S. that he was Marxist.

Francis has denied he’s Marxist, and spent years in Argentina battling Marxist excesses of liberation theology. But he has said from the outset that he wants a church that “is poor and for the poor” and ministers to the most marginal of society. Now if he wants a church that is poor, why the redistribution of wealth? 

Today, he asked the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure “dignified” labor for all.

 This should be of concern to all Christians, why is the Pope promotion redistribution of wealth, supporting a one world government when the bible specifically warns this will happen in the end times. Could Jesus return be closer than we think? 

 Credible Biblical and Heavenly Prophecies Related to the False Prophet

Here are twelve sources of prophecy related to the False Prophet:

1. In the Book of Revelation, the False Prophet is mentioned as the Beast from the earth “like a lamb” who becomes the religious head of the false church. The False Prophet deceivesthose who dwell on earth”. It is important to recognize that the False Prophet will be the greatest deceiver to ever live on earth, the epitome of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, pretending perfectly to be that which he is not. By this, he will lead many of the faithful into heresy, and he will eventually cause the earth to honor and worship the Antichrist (Rev. 13:12). The Catechism confirms, saying: Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through afinal trial that will shake the faith of many believers… in the form of a religious deceptionwhich will be one of apostasy.  (CCC 675)

2. Objectively and of significant note, we are on the last Pope of this age according to the famous St. Malachy prophecy. St. Malachy was a twelfth century Saint whose prophecies concerned the final Pope of our time, the Pope who will reign after Pope Benedict XVI, stating about him:

In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city (Rome) will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.

So, what does this prophecy tell us? It tells us that during the reign of Pope Francis (during the period of the 112th pope of the prophecy), we will endure the final persecution. It is not in the future, but right now. And that Rome is about to be destroyed.

This also agrees with the La Salette prophecy (see below). Of the 112 Popes in the Malachy prophecy, the last pope listed,Petrus Romanus, is the only one that did not have a number. Why would all the other popes have a number except the last pope? Is this a hint about his invalidity? Possibly. So, “Peter the Roman” does not refer to the “sitting” earthly Pope; it is not Pope Francis, but possibly someone else?

More on this later. And the prophecy also tells us the Judge is returning in this generation to initiate judgment, possibly to usher in the great new Era of Peace that Our Lady of Fatima foretold.

3. Our Lady of La Salette prophesied about the latter times:

Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist… all the universe will be struck with terror, and many will let themselves be misled.

The Church will be eclipsed…

Melanie (the visionary) stated that Our Lady said the Church will be “eclipsed” in this two-fold sense: 1) “that one will not know which is the true Pope”; 2) “for a time, the holy Sacrifice will cease to be offered (validly) in churches.”

4. Our Lady reportedly stated through Fr. Gobbi:

I will bring you to the full understanding of Sacred Scripture. Above all, I will read to you the pages of its last book, which you are living. . . I am opening for you the sealed book, that the secrets contained in it may be revealed…

So, according to this prophecy, our generation will indeed experience the final battle of the Book of Revelation, and the beginning of the millennium of peace. So, these events are upon us even now.

Relating the False Prophet to the Book of Revelation, Our Lady continues through Fr. Gobbi, saying:

There comes out of the earth, by way of aid to the black beast which arises out of the sea, a beast which has two horns like those of a lamb… intimately connected to that of the priesthood… The beast with the two horns like a lamb indicates Freemasonry infiltrated into the interior of the Church, that is to say, ecclesiastical Masonry, which has spread especially among the members of the hierarchy. This Masonic infiltration, in the interior of the Church, was already foretold to you by me at Fatima, when I announced to you that Satan would enter in even to the summit of the Church. The task of ecclesiastical Masonry is that of destroying Christ and His Church, building a new idol, namely a false christ and a false church.

The Church will know the hour of its great apostasy. The man of iniquity will penetrate into its interior and will sit in the very Temple of God, while the remnant which will remain faithful will be subjected to the greatest trials and persecutions.

The apostasy will be, as of then, generalized because almost all will follow the false christ and the false church. Then the door will be open for the appearance of the man or of the very person of the Antichrist!

5. There is a famous prophecy attributed to St. Francis, as follows:

At the time of this tribulation a man, not (authentically) canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error… There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people… for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.

The only way Pope Francis could fulfill this prophecy, if it is true, is if he personally held a (secret) heresy in his heart at his election. Then he would not have been validly elected. If not validly elected, then he is “a destroyer” and the papacy would be vacant, with an imposter on the throne of Peter – which is at least possible.

Perhaps that’s why Our Lady of Good Success said in 1611 about our time by name that it would be a time of an apparent triumph of Satan, which will bring enormous sufferings to the good Pastors of the Church and to the faithful. Thus, the faithful were to “clamor insistently, imploring our Celestial Father that He might bring to an end those Ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate who will restore the spirit of its priests.”

6. Bl. Catherine Emmerich prophesied:

I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted (perhaps forcing them to give Communion to divorced/remarrieds and blessings to gay unions)… It was as if people were splitting into two camps

I saw also the relationship between THE TWO POPES… I saw how baleful (harmful) would be the consequences of this false church… I saw that the Church of Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect… They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock… I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church: I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds…

When the (true) Church had been for the most part destroyed, and when only the sanctuary and altar were still standing, I saw the wreckers enter the Church with the Beast (antichrist)… I see the Holy Father in great anguish. He lives in a palace other than before… I saw a strange church being built against every rule… the new heterodox Church of Rome

Everything was being done, according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful…. The (true) Church is completely isolated and as if completely deserted. It seems that everyone is running away. Everywhere I see great misery, hatred, treason, rancor, confusion and utter blindness. O city! O city! What is threatening thee? The storm is coming, do be watchful!

[I also saw the various regions of the earth. My Guide (Jesus) named Europe and pointing to a small and sandy region, He uttered these words: ‘Here is Prussia (East Germany), the enemy.’ Then He showed me another place, to the north, and He said: ‘This is Moskva, the land of Moscow, bringing many evils’.] To read more on the prophecies of Russia and the coming second wave of communism, see this article.

7. Pedro Regis, whose reported messages have his Bishop’s published recognition, reports Our Lady saying:

The day will come when the (true) Pope will be taken from his throne… Laws will be passed to impede the action of the church…

In the great final battle, the smoke of the Devil will arise in the house of God, but the light of the Lord will prevail… the lack of love for the truth and the disrespect for the sacramentswill lead many of the consecrated to the abyss of apostasy… The future of the Church will be marked with a great division and a sad religious dictatorship. Peter will encounter Judasin his way… Betrayal will touch the throne of Peter… A decision will be made and there will be great confusion in the palace (the Vatican)… The future will be marked bydivisions and scandals in the Church of my Jesus…

Treachery will touch the throne of Peter… marked by a serious conflict between the true Church and the false one.

St. Peter will direct his barque amidst great tempests. The Barque of St. Peter is going toflounder, and there is going to be great confusion

An apparently good and just man will appear. He will deceive many people, for he will realize great prodigies. He will come FROM THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE and many people will consider him as a savior. Pay attention and don’t be deceived…

There will be TWO THRONES, but only on one will be the true successor of Peter… an arrogant Pope will divide the Church. His orders will be obeyed and what is precious will be thrown out. A great spiritual confusion is on the way… the one who could have been Peter will become Judas. He will open the doors for the enemy and will make men and women of faith suffer… The church will be without Peter… a war will explode on Rome and there will be few survivors.

Listen to the true magisterium of the Church and flee from the lies of the devil.

8. Our Lady of Akita stated about these times:

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will seecardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

9. Sr. Elena Aiello (d. 1961), who was declared Blessed on September 14, 2011 by Pope Benedict XVI, prophesied the following:

Russia will march upon all the nations of Europe, particularly Italy, and will raise her flag over the Dome of St. Peter’s. Italy will be severely tried by a great revolution, and Rome will be purified in blood for its many sins, especially those of impurity!… Oh, what a horrible vision I see! A great revolution is going on in Rome! They are entering the Vatican. The Pope is all alone; he is praying. They are holding the Pope. They take him by force.

10. Jesus reportedly prophesied through Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta saying:

The nations for which I had a predilection, Italy and France, are the ones which have denied Me the most… They will also be the ones which will wage war more against the Church…

Man has lost religion. Religion is ignored by some of the very ones who call themselves religious… this is why man lives like a beast – he has lost religion…

The Church is so full of interior bitterness, and in addition to the interior bitterness, She is about to receive exterior bitternesses. I saw people starting a revolution, entering churches, stripping altars and burning them, making attempts on the lives of priests, breaking statues… and a thousand other insults and evils… there seemed to be a general uproaragainst the Church… I saw many priests running away from the Church and turning against the Church to wage war against her. (Jesus says this happened because they focused on human and worldly things, which in turn hardened their hearts to divine things.)

Jesus speaks further about the religious, priests, and enemies of the Church, saying: In the religious, in the clergy, in those who call themselves Catholics, My Will not only agonizes, but is kept in a state of lethargy, as if It had no life. How many pretend to be my children, while they are my fiercest enemies! These false sons are usurpers, self-interested and incredulous; their hearts are bilges of vice. These very sons will be the first to wage war against the Church – they will try to kill their own Mother! Soon they will make war against the Church, and Her greatest enemies will be Her own children

The more it seems that the world is apparently at peace and they sing the praises of peace, the more they hide wars, revolutions and tragic scenes for poor humanity, under that ephemeral and disguised peace. And the more it seems that they favor my Church, singing hymns of victories and triumphs, and practices of union between the State and the Church, the nearer is the brawl that they are preparing against Her.

11. Prophecies from past centuries also give some clues as to what to expect, stating:

John of the Cleft Rock (14th Century) prophesied: Towards the end of the world… the Pope with his cardinals will have to flee Rome in tragic circumstances to a place where they will be unknown. The Pope will die a cruel death in his exile. The sufferings of the Church will be much greater than at any previous time in her history… About the year 2000 A.D., Antichristwill reveal himself to the world.

Joachim of Fiore prophesied: Antichrist will overthrow the pope and usurp his see.

Premol (5th century) prophesied about the two sides divided and the fleeing Pope of the latter times:

Everywhere there is war! Peoples and nations are pitted against each other… Rome also collapses in tumult. And I see the King of Rome with his Cross and his Tiara, shaking the dust off his shoes, and hastening in his flight to other shores. Your Church, O Lord, is torn apart by her own children. One camp is faithful to the fleeing Pontiff, the other is subject to the new government of Rome which has broken the Tiara.

We are warned about how we will be treated! So why should we fight? Because God has called us to be His watchmen (see Ezekiel 33). Should we be surprised that the evil one would react this way towards us after we expose him and his hidden plans? May God guide us in His truth and mercy according to His Divine Will.

With all these prophecies about the False Prophet antipope, who then is the “Peter the Roman” of St. Malachy’s prophecy, who is supposedly currently reigning as the final pope of this era? Well, the prophetic messages of Pedro Regis, who has his Bishop’s recognition, have stated that this is none other than St. Peter spiritually reigning over the Church now from Heaven, because according to their prophecies, the earthly papacy is now vacant, held by an imposter.

Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but it is possible. Time will tell. Some may interject at this point that Catholics are not required to believe in private revelation, but I ask you – Do you think God would be pleased with an outright dismissal of His prophetic word just because it makes us uncomfortable. Are not these prophecies founded in Scripture anyway?

And didn’t St. Paul say regarding prophecy that we are to “test everything and hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21) and Urban VIII say about reported prophecy that “It is better to believe than not to believe”?

12. The writing is on the wall and the finger of God put it there. If all these prophecies relate to Pope Francis, as is possible, then the prophecies of a martyred pope, as referred to in the famous St. John Bosco dream and in the 3rd Secret of Fatima and Pius X’s prophecy of a pope leaving the Vatican in haste who dies cruelly in exile, could then be referring to Pope Emeritus Benedict. Several recent Popes have prophesied about one of their successors:

According to St. Pius X’s prophecy:

 I have seen one of my successors, of the same name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death.

Does this prophecy refer to Pope Emeritus Benedict? Quite likely! St. Pius X prophesied that the Pope who flees Rome and dies a cruel death has the same name as his. Pius X and Benedict XVI both have the same given name of Joseph.

Thus, Benedict might be the “Bishop in white” who is martyred in the 3rd Secret of Fatima and the Pope who is martyred in John Bosco’s dream.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated about the 3rd Secret of Fatima and thus in general about these prophesies: The vision speaks of dangers and how we might be saved from them.In other words, these are warnings and are at least in part conditional. Nevertheless, the prophecies of the False Prophet and the Antichrist in the Book of Revelation shall be fulfilled, including that they will be thrown alive into the fiery pool (Revelation 19:20).

On May 11, 2010, while traveling on a plane to Portugal, Pope Benedict XVI was asked about the Third Secret of Fatima the pope answered, stating, “The sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from sins that exist in the Church.” Further, on May 13, 2010, before 500,000 pilgrims at Fatima, he stated, “Whoever thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is over, is deceiving himself.” 

He had also stated after becoming pope,“Pray that I don’t flee for fear of the wolves.” And just before becoming Pope, John Paul II famously stated: “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontationhumanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully.

We are now facing the final confrontationbetween the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.” Just a few years before this, Pope Paul VI had told the world: “The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world.

The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”

Interestingly, St. Faustina wrote in her diary that her “worst day of suffering” where she felt as if she was in Gethsemane (where Jesus was betrayed by Judas) was the SAME EXACT DAY POPE FRANCIS WAS BORN. She writes:

December 17, [1936].  I have offered this day for priests.  I have suffered more today than ever before, both interiorly and exteriorly.  I did not know it was possible to suffer so much in one day.  I tried to make a Holy Hour, in the course of which my spirit had a taste of the bitterness of the Garden of Gethsemane.

Witnesses testify, eyewitnesses confirm that Pope Francis raped, killed children
This article was based on today's exclusive interview with Kevin Annett of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State on this week's litigation in the Brussels Common Law Court of Justice. Five judges and 27 jury members from six countries including the USA, considered evidence on over 50,000 missing Canadian, US, Argentine and European children who were suspected victims of an international child sacrificial cult referred to as the Ninth Circle. Two adolescent women claimed that Pope Francis raped them while participating in child sacrifices. Eight eyewitnesses confirmed the allegations according...more »

North Korea labels President Obama a 'cross-breed black monkey' in racist attack sounds about right

North Korea labels President Obama a 'cross-breed black monkey' in racist attack

North Korea's state media has described US President Barack Obama as a "black monkey" in a commentary condemned as one of the regime's most racist yet.

Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), which is the mouthpiece of the government in Pyongyang, made the attack in one of two pieces that was aimed at Mr Obama and South Korean president Park Geun-hye.

Intelligence chief shot dead in Libya's Benghazi

Intelligence chief shot dead in Libya's Benghazi
Benghazi, Libya, May 08, 2014
First Published: 20:17 IST(8/5/2014)
Last Updated: 20:23 IST(8/5/2014)
The head of general intelligence in eastern Libya was gunned down in the flashpoint city of Benghazi Thursday, an intelligence source said.
Colonel Ibrahim al-Senussi Akila was shot dead near the Medical Centre in the city centre, the source told AFP.
"He was in his car when unknown assailants opened fire. He was hit twice, once in the neck."
Benghazi was the cradle of the 2011 uprising that ousted longtime dictator Moamer Kadhafi and has since been plagued by violence that has killed dozens of members of the security forces, judges and foreigners.
Among them was the head of military intelligence in Benghazi, who was assassinated in December.
The government has been struggling to consolidate control in the vast and mostly desert country, which is effectively ruled by a patchwork of local militias and awash with heavy weapons looted from Kadhafi's arsenals.
In March, the authorities acknowledged for the first time the existence of "terrorist groups" in Libya, particularly in Benghazi and Derna, another eastern city.
Last Friday, jihadist gunmen from the Ansar al-Sharia brigade stormed police headquarters in Benghazi, sparking a firefight that killed at least nine soldiers and police.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/23/2013

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 1/23/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:57 P.M. EST
MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you for being here on day two -- (laughter) -- of the second term.  I have no announcements to make so we’ll go straight to the Associated Press.
Q    Thank you.  Secretary Clinton on the Hill today, when asked about the initial administration explanation on Benghazi, said, “What difference does it make?”  Does it not make a difference whether the administration’s initial accounting of the Benghazi incident or any other incident is accurate?
MR. CARNEY:  Here’s what the Secretary of State was saying and the clear point that she was making -- and it’s one that I have made and others have made repeatedly -- which is that no one took more seriously the fact that we lost four American lives in Benghazi than the President of the United States and the Secretary of State of the United States.
And whatever was said, based on information provided by the intelligence community on a series of Sunday shows, bears no relevance on the ultimate questions of what happened in Benghazi, who was responsible, and what we must do to ensure that it never happens again and that we bring to justice those who killed our diplomats and other Americans.
So that is clearly a point that we have been making for a long time.  And there has been an obvious political obsession over a series of talking points that, again, bears no relevance on the essential issues here, as I just enumerated.  The fact is I and Ambassador Rice and others provided to you and through you, to the American people, the information that we had available at the time, making clear that it was preliminary, making clear that it would evolve as investigations continued and more information became available.
And nothing about that process in any way changes what happened in Benghazi or what needs to be done to prevent a tragedy like that happening again.
Q    One of the other things that the Secretary mentioned in her testimony was that the threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in North Africa is growing, is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, and perhaps ultimately to the homeland.  How can the administration continue to say that al Qaeda has been decimated when the Secretary is saying that al Qaeda-affiliated groups are growing?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, what the Secretary also said -- because she was asked specifically the question about whether or not it is true, as many have said, including the President and myself, that al Qaeda central has been decimated -- there is no question that that is the case, and any intelligence assessment would reinforce that point.
I mean, we have taken the fight to al Qaeda, both in its core location -- Afghanistan and Pakistan -- as well as to those affiliates that represent a threat to the United States and to Americans around the world.  Our vigilance does not end there.  And we have been very clear about the threat posed by AQAP and by AQIM.
What is also true is that, to this point, AQIM has not represented a direct threat to the homeland, but you can tell by our support of the mission that the French have undertaken and by our overall efforts to go after, and contain and defeat extremists who would do harm to our interests, that we are very serious about this.
Q    So you could square those two saying al Qaeda central command has been decimated even as al Qaeda-affiliate groups may be growing?
MR. CARNEY:  I think you can square it stating it clearly, which Secretary of State Clinton did and which President Clinton has, and I have and others --
Q    President Obama.
MR. CARNEY:  I mean, sorry, President Obama has, Secretary of State Clinton, President Obama -- (laughter) -- Press Secretary Carney.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.
Q    I thought you weren’t going to speculate much.  (Laughter.)
Q    Was that a lip-sync?  (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  You stole my thunder.  I was going to make a lip-sync joke later.  (Laughter.) 
Q    Follow-up?  (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  Darn it, Knoller.
The absolute fact is that the President took office four years ago with a very clear objective, and that was to refocus our efforts on the war in Afghanistan, which was an essential war, because from Afghanistan al Qaeda had been allowed to establish a safe haven, and from that safe haven had launched an attack against the United States that took 3,000 lives.
He has been relentless in the pursuit of al Qaeda since he took office.  And I think the evidence of that is very clear, including the elimination of Osama bin Laden.  But as the President and Secretary Clinton and Secretaries Gates and Panetta and others -- John Brennan -- have consistently made clear, al Qaeda continues to represent a threat.  Its affiliates in various parts of the region and the world represent a threat, and this is something that we are enormously vigilant about.  And Secretary Clinton said as much today.
Q    The Pentagon has now cleared General John Allen of the allegations of misconduct.  Does the President now plan to lift that hold that he had put upon the nomination?  And if so, how does he plan to advance it?  When does he plan to advance it to the Senate?
MR. CARNEY:  As you noted, the investigation is now complete and General Allen’s nomination, rather, to serve as the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe will proceed.  We hope the Senate will consider it in a timely manner and we will press the Senate to do just that.
Q    So when will you send it to the Senate?  When will the White House send it to the Senate?
MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a specific timetable, but as you noted, the DOD Investigator General’s investigation of that matter is now complete and we welcome its finding.  And therefore, we intend for the nomination to proceed.
Q    If I might follow up, the President last week spoke to Prime Minister David Cameron and said, I believe, that he wanted to see a strong U.K. and a strong EU.  So I'm wondering what the White House makes of the announcement today that there will be a referendum on that issue, and what the United States has at stake in the U.K. staying part of the EU.
MR. CARNEY:  We welcome the Prime Minister’s call for Britain to remain in the EU and to retain a leading role in Europe’s institutions.  And as the President told the Prime Minister when they spoke last week, the United States values a strong United Kingdom and a strong European Union.
We value our essential relationship with the U.K., as well as our relationship with the European Union, which makes critical contributions to peace, prosperity, and security in Europe and around the world.
We believe that the United Kingdom is stronger as a result of its European Union membership, and we believe the European Union is stronger as a result of having the United Kingdom in the EU.  So that's -- our views on this are very clear.  The internal processes by which these matters are considered within the U.K. or any other country are obviously the province of those countries and those governments.
Yes, Dan.
Q    You talked about -- with Benghazi, you talked about the obsession with talking points.  Are you suggesting that the American people should not care about the fact that they were told one thing and it turned out not to be the case?
MR. CARNEY:  Dan, as you know, we’ve discussed this matter repeatedly, and I’m happy to do so again.  We provided assessments of what happened in Benghazi based on information provided by the intelligence community which -- and information that was, as we acknowledged, evolving based on investigations and more facts that were coming to light.
It has been clear for a long time now, as we saw during the campaign, that there has been an effort underway to make this a political issue when the fundamental fact here is that four Americans were killed; those who are responsible for their deaths must be brought to justice; and actions must be taken to ensure that the tragic events of Benghazi do not happen again.
That is why, at the President’s direction, the Secretary of State set up the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, which was chaired by two very prominent, nonpartisan leaders -- Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering.  And their report was unsparing I think by any account, and its recommendations were accepted in their entirety by the Secretary of State, and they are being implemented under her leadership.  I think that reflects how seriously we take this issue and how serious the substance of this issue is.
What is not serious is the repeated attempts to try to make this a political matter, because it’s not.  And the fact of the matter is, back at the time, we were dealing with a situation that was not just limited to Libya and Benghazi, but where there was a series of events and unrest around the region.  And we were providing information to you and to the American public through you that was based on the best assessments at the time, and those assessments evolved as more facts became clear.  A lot of the allegations about this matter that have been cast forward over the intervening months have proven to be false as the Accountability Review Board made clear.
Our interest, as an administration, and the President's interest is in the fundamental issue of bringing to justice those who are responsible, and taking the necessary actions to ensure that the tragedy of Benghazi is not repeated while -- and I paraphrase Secretary Clinton here -- we always acknowledge the fact that the important work our diplomats do around the world has to often take place in risky environments, and that they serve our country bravely, just as our men and women in uniform do, and take risks in order to fulfill their functions.
Q    It just seems when you use the word "obsession with talking points,” it seems to almost diminish the fact that -- the facts that are there, which is wrong information was given at the time.
MR. CARNEY:  What is it that you -- or speaking for those who are concerned about this -- believe that we are diminishing?  The fact of the matter is the facility was attacked; four Americans were killed.  The President took immediate action to ensure that our diplomats and diplomatic facilities around the world were reinforced and secured as necessary; that everything was done that could be done to provide assistance to our personnel in Benghazi and in Tripoli.  That has all been borne out by the Accountability Review Board.
What is at issue here is essentially a phrase about whether or not there was a spontaneous demonstration, which was an early assessment that turned out not to be the case.  But the fundamental facts about what happened there and the results of those actions and that attack have not changed.  And no question has been brought legitimately, or that hasn't been proven untrue, about the actions that the administration took to respond appropriately.
So again, we fundamentally are talking here about a series of talking points that were provided to the administration as well as to members of Congress on Capitol Hill that acknowledged within them that this was preliminary information that everyone who spoke on the issue made clear might change, as is often the case here in situations like this.  And that’s how we view it.
Q    Did the President watch any of the hearings this morning?
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t believe he did.  I haven't asked him.
Q    And then one more point on -- the President has talked about and other administration officials have talked about engaging the public in putting pressure on Congress to move the President's agenda forward in his second term.  What can we expect from the President?  Are we going to see a campaign-style effort where he hits the road a lot more to push whether it's gun policy or immigration?
MR. CARNEY:  The President will travel.  You can expect that.  He will, as he does, make the case to the American people for the vision he laid out in his inaugural address, and the specifics that he will lay out at his State of the Union address on February 12.  
I think you can fully expect that his commitment to engaging the American people in these important discussions about our future will continue.  He believes very strongly that even when we’re talking about seemingly arcane matters of budget policy -- things like debt ceilings and spending in the out-years, and budget caps and deficit or debt to GDP ratios -- that when distilled into common language, these are the essential matters that Americans care about because they affect their livelihoods; they affect their capacity to find work and then find higher-paying work.  Growth of the economy, growth in job creation is essential to the President’s vision.  It is the core goal that informs everything he does on domestic policy and international policy.
So he believes that not only is it the right strategy to engage the American people, it is essential as a reflection of why he’s in this to begin with, to explain to them his vision and to listen to them about what their hopes are and the direction that they hope the country will move in.
Q    And when is the first trip and where is he going?
MR. CARNEY:  I have no scheduling announcements to make today, but I can assure you he will be hitting the road throughout his second term.
Q    Today marks one of the last times we will see Clinton on the public stage as Secretary.  We heard her receive a lot of praise from members of the Senate this morning for her work in the administration.  What do you think her legacy is as Secretary of State?
MR. CARNEY:  I think as every member of this administration, this team here at the White House and more broadly within the national security apparatus would admit as a starting point, I’m biased in saying this but I think she has been, and history will show her to have been, one of the great Secretaries of State.
She came in office at a time when we were dealing with a diminished reputation worldwide, where our alliances were frayed; where we were engaged in two wars for which there were not strategies to end in a way that was in the interest of the United States; where we had unmet interests in places like Asia and elsewhere -- Africa and Latin America -- that we needed to pay attention to, and she did extraordinary work in advancing the President’s agenda on all those matters.  And I know the President feels that very strongly.
Q    And a question on Algeria -- has the President spoken with the families of the three Americans killed in the attack?
MR. CARNEY:  I do not have -- as you know, I think it was yesterday those names were released, but I don’t have any calls or conversations of the President to read out today.
Q    Revisiting climate change from yesterday, in talking to environmental groups, Democrats on the Hill, they don’t have an expectation of a refit or reintroduction of the cap and trade bill from 2010.  But what they really are looking at is the EPA to soon release or formalize, finalize its carbon-based pollution regulations for future power plants and then to get quickly on the task of putting together some of the regulatory rules under the Clean Air Act for existing power plants.  Is this what we can expect the President’s emphasis since he brought it up so conspicuously in the inaugural address, refocused on dealing with climate change here in this country?
MR. CARNEY:  I can certainly confirm that the President intends to continue progress on the new national standard for harmful carbon pollution from new power plants and to implement that standard.  I can’t comment on any specific future actions that he might take except that he has demonstrated in his record during his first term that we can together take action that is not only helpful to our environment in that it addresses the issue of climate change, but is also helpful to our long-term economic vitality by insuring that we make investments in new energy technology and that we develop new forms of energy, as well as traditional forms of energy here at home so that we are less dependent on foreign imports of energy.
That's a strategy that enhances our national security, improves the environment, addresses climate change, and very importantly helps our economy by allowing industries to develop here in the United States that if they don't develop here will develop elsewhere -- industries that provide good jobs and will be very sustainable in the future.
Q    Those who look at this issue say dealing with existing power plants would be the best way, most effective way to reduce carbon emissions and advance what the President said at the inaugural.  Does he agree with that?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to talk about --
Q    I mean philosophically.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, “philosophically” is an adverb that is somewhat synonymous with “speculatively,” and I will not speculate on future --
Q    But he does have --
MR. CARNEY:  Sure.
Q    -- and he did identify in the inaugural address, and those who look at this issue believe if you’re not going to do something legislatively, this is the most effective way to do it.  I’m asking is that something the White House --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't have any information to impart about specific future actions the President may or may not take.  He is committed to continuing and building on the progress that was made in the first term, in his first term.
And we’ll look at a variety of things that we can do together as a nation to address this challenge, and to address it in a way that provides the benefits that I talked about, that is not -- that there is the important goal of dealing with climate change, which is a real issue.  There is the opportunity that actions we take to deal with that challenge present to us economically when it comes to clean energy and developing domestic energy alternatives to the import of foreign energy.
Q    On Social Security, is there anything inconsistent with what the President said in the inaugural address with his negotiating posture with Speaker Boehner that he would put chain CPI on the table?
MR. CARNEY:  The President, at the end of the year -- and the premise of your question I think acknowledges this -- put forward a very serious proposal to Speaker Boehner that by any measure met the Republicans halfway, that included within it very tough choices with regards to entitlement reform, and it demonstrated his good faith in trying to achieve a compromise that would attain that goal that he has espoused for a long time, which is an overall package that reduces our deficit by over $4 trillion over a decade and thereby -- going back to ratios -- establishes a ratio of debt to GDP and deficit to GDP that is sustainable, puts us on a fiscally sustainable path.  He is still committed to that.
His approach to these issues has always been that we need to strengthen those programs upon which so many Americans depend -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- and so the reforms that we need to introduce have to strengthen them for the long term.  What we don't need to do is eliminate them as we know them, or slash benefits simply to protect the benefits of wealthy individuals or corporations.  That's not a choice the President believes we have to make.
And that's why we have to have balanced deficit reduction.  And in the name of balanced deficit reduction, he put forward the proposal that, unfortunately, even though it was widely recognized to have been made in good faith and to have represented an effort to meet the Republicans halfway, the Republicans walked away from, which is a shame.
Q    Is that offer still on the table or has it been rescinded?
MR. CARNEY:  We absolutely look forward to working with Congress to continue the effort to reduce our deficits in a balanced way.  That offer that, unfortunately, the Republicans walked away from remains the President’s position.
It is absolutely essential that as we move forward we continue to build on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction this President has already signed into law, and with Congress brought into effect, but we have to do it in a balanced way.  And what was true late last year is true today -- that the President will not entertain proposals that say, okay, now moving forward all of the burden is on seniors, or all of the burden is on middle-class families trying to send their kids to college or families who have disabled children.  That’s not an approach he will embrace.  I think you have heard him say that.
What he is willing to do is continue this important work of deficit reduction in a balanced way, including revenues, including spending cuts, that helps our economy grow and create jobs.  Because deficit reduction, with the exception of a few esoteric groups -- most of them inside Washington -- is not a desirable goal unto itself, it is a goal in service of a bigger goal, which is economic growth, stability for the middle class, more and better job creation.
Q    And since you inadvertently opened the door on 2016 by saying “President Clinton,” there is --
MR. CARNEY:  Let me just be clear, I had a nice long conversation with President Clinton, Bill Clinton, the other day, and that’s -- he was in my head.
Q    Okay.  Well, inadvertent as it was, it's still out there.  (Laughter.)  And there's a piece today talking about the Vice President, who you know very well, being intoxicated, possibly, by the idea of running in 2016.  And the question I had -- because I know you're not going to speculate on it --
MR. CARNEY:  Whose words were those?  The Onion?
Q    No, no, no.  (Laughter.)  This is a very fine -- supposedly -- news organization that reports this.  I just want to bring this up, not to speculate on it, but do you think there is anything about the Vice President's role in the second term that can or should be viewed through any sort of prism other than working for the administration or his record so far of being evaluated in the context of 2016?  Because you know it's going to happen.
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t doubt it will happen.  And I think the Vice President in an interview addressed this -- got this question and addressed it.  And his focus -- and I know this because I do know him and I worked for him and I've spoken to him recently.  He is focused on the job of helping this President and helping this administration achieve the goals that the President has put forward.  That is his work and he is very committed to it.  I think you saw that demonstrated most recently in his exceptional effort in a very short period of time to put forward to the President the recommendations on how to reduce gun violence in this country, an effort that he led and that his staff led on the President's behalf.
And that’s the Vice President's focus, in his own words.  And I think he's -- it was when I worked for him, it was throughout the first term, it is now.  And I think, as he said, other considerations are for the future.  He's focused on his work as Vice President, as the President's partner.
Q    Who has the better legacy, the Vice President or the Secretary of State?
MR. CARNEY:  I think that the legacy here that we're concerned about is how the American people are situated four years from now compared to how they were four years ago.  How is the middle class faring four years from now compared to where they were four years ago?  How is our economy poised four years from now compared to where it was four years ago?  Is our stature around the globe enhanced four years from now compared to four years ago?  Are we safer four years from now compared to four years ago?
Those are issues that are not just about the President's legacy; it's for everybody who serves this President and this administration and this country at this time -- and including members of Congress.  And I think that members who just got here this month, freshmen in the House and the Senate, I think will have that same measuring -- they want to -- they will look four years from now and say, did what I do in those four years improve the prospects of this country, help the economy grow, help the middle class, make us more secure or not?
And that's how I think the President looks at it.  I know that's how the Secretary of State looked at it when she -- in her four years that are coming to an end.  That's how we all look at it.
Q    So they’re tied.  (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY:  Those kinds of assessments I’m sure will be made repeatedly in the future, not just with those two individuals.  I think for the sake and sanity of all involved, it’s worth taking a little bit of a break from presidential election-year politics.
Yes, sir.
Q    Jay, if I can please clear something up from yesterday -- I made a mistake.  I asked you a question and said -- suggested there was an e-mail the White House sent out, picking out individual issues from the inaugural address.  I had received an e-mail that had White House tweets about individual issues.  I was asking you the question about -- because you had suggested a reporter should not pick it out into individual pieces -- I did not mean to imply that the White House had some strategy through e-mail to do that.  I just want to correct that.  I don't --
MR. CARNEY:  I really appreciate that.  And, yes, I was -- I think when I took that question I was a little flummoxed because it was news to me.
Q    I was referring to Twitter.
MR. CARNEY:  Right, and as you know, this administration did not and probably would not have set the 140-character limit to tweet.  (Laughter.)  So when I or the New Media Office tweets on a speech, we have to do it in increments.
Q    I just wanted to be clear, though, you did say that the speech should be looked at holistically, in toto, not necessarily in 140 characters.  That was all.
MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, sir.
Q    I wanted to be clear.
On Benghazi, Secretary Clinton testified today that on the night of September 11, 2012, she participated in a secure videoconference with people from the Defense Department and from the White House, which would make sense in any crisis situation.  My question is, did the President participate in that?  If not, who from the White House participated?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m sure -- I know members of his national security team participated.  I believe we’ve been quite open about the President being initially informed of this and being constantly updated on what was happening in Benghazi, what we knew about what was happening, and immediately ordering his Secretary of Defense to take all necessary action to provide assistance and to ensure that measures were taken to enhance security around our diplomatic facilities in the region and in the world.
Q    Was he on that secure videoconference?
MR. CARNEY:  I would have to take the question.  I don't know.
Q    Will you take the question and let us know?
MR. CARNEY:  Sure.
Q    Okay, thank you.  She also said that she spoke later that night to the President.  Was that the only time they spoke?  Can you just --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't know.  I don't think -- I'm not sure --
Q    Senator McCain and others were asking about the President’s role, and Senator McCain --
MR. CARNEY:  Right, and Senator McCain and others have made a huge issue out of what I have made clear is our view is the non-issue, which is the talking points that were provided to senators, members of the House, and to members of the administration -- the non-classified talking points -- which have no bearing on what happened in Benghazi and the immediate reaction of this administration in response to it.  As Secretary Clinton made clear today in her testimony -- or at least her initial round of testimony -- and as was made clear in the Accountability Review Board report, there was no delay in response, every asset was brought to bear to try to provide assistance.  No requests were denied.
A lot of the reporting around this has proven to be wrong  -- or the speculation around it has proven to be wrong on the fundamental issues here about what happened, who was responsible, the response and reaction to it, and now the investigations that have taken place and are continuing at the President’s direction.
So the purpose served in pursuing this line of questioning is unclear to me beyond an attempt to continue to try to score political points.
Q    Okay.  So on the question of what you call speculation, and in answer to Dan’s question about the talking points, you said that you always made clear it was preliminary information and that's what Susan Rice did as well.  I want to quote directly from you, September 18th, one week after the attacks, at this podium, you said, “I'm saying that based on the information that we -- our initial information” -- you did say “initial information” -- “and that includes all information, we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video.”  And then you said, “And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence, not supposition, concrete evidence that we have thus far.”
MR. CARNEY:  Sure.
Q    So my question is --
MR. CARNEY:  I think that's pretty good.  Based on the evidence we had at the time, the initial evidence, the facts that we had then that were concrete as opposed to speculation about it.  And I -- so I think --
Q    So the question is, what was the concrete evidence you had that said it was the video, not a preplanned attack?
MR. CARNEY:  I would take you back to the time and the events that were happening in Karachi and elsewhere, and other  -- I believe it was Karachi -- but other -- Cairo, certainly.  I would note that subsequent reporting by notable news organizations have shown that participants in the attack said that they were inspired in part by the protests outside of Cairo.  So if it wasn’t directly because of the video, it was because of protests in Cairo because of the video.
All of this is to say that these were assessments made by the intelligence community based on the information they had and based on -- they obviously and have spoken to this themselves -- but based on what we knew about what was happening around the world, not just in Libya.
And, again, I thank you for reading that because I think it represents the effort that we made, that Ambassador Rice made, and others made to make clear that these were initial assessments and that they were subject to change as more clarity became available on what exactly happened, who was responsible, who they were affiliated with or not, and why four Americans died as a result.
Q    Yes, but you’re saying that because there were protests elsewhere in places like Cairo, which is an absolute fact, that that was concrete evidence that in fact the video --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I didn’t make these assessments, the intelligence community did, and the intelligence community has spoken to this.  And, again, based on what we, the U.S. government, knew at the time and the assessments that we had at the time, we made those assessments available to the American people through you.  As more information became available, we provided that to you.
On the fundamental issue of -- I mean, we talked about militants.  The President talked about an act of terror.  I mean, the narrowness of the charge here has no bearing on what happened or what the reaction was, the response was, or on the essential work that’s being undertaken to this day to bring to justice those responsible.
Yes, Kristen.
Q    Jay, Secretary Clinton said today in talking about the spreading Jihadist threat, “We have to recognize this is a global movement.  We can kill leaders, but until we help establish strong democratic institutions, until we do a better job of communicating our values and building relationships, we’re going to be faced with this level of instability.”  So what is the President’s plan specifically to better communicate the United States’ values and build relationships?  And where more broadly does this fall in his list of priorities and his agenda?  In his inaugural address, he seemed to focus largely on domestic issues.
MR. CARNEY:  Well, it has been a priority of this President in his first term and will continue to be a priority.  I think that we have seen in the last four years, in the last two years in particular, enormous change in the region, historic change in the region.  And that change is continuing, and the effects of that change continue.
And it is absolutely in our interest as a nation to engage with those in the region who believe that there is a better future for the people of the Middle East and North Africa if they pursue democracy than the alternative, than the -- if they embrace the tyrannical ideology of al Qaeda, for example.
This is epical change and it is unfolding, and has been unfolding, over the course of this administration and in the last two years in particular, and it will continue to unfold.  But it is an enormous focus as a security challenge and as a challenge to the expression of and -- of our values around the world.  And the President has spoken to this many times.
Q    And so what specifically is his plan?
MR. CARNEY:  His plan for?
Q    For building relationships, better communicating the United States' values?
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not sure if you're looking for -- I mean, he has spoken to this many times and he will continue with that effort.  And we engage with countries, governments, movements that espouse greater democracy, greater tolerance, a greater embrace of economic freedom as well as civil rights, and we will continue to do that.  And we will also do it in a way that focuses on the President's primary responsibility when it comes to foreign policy, which is the safety and security of the United States and the American people.
Q    Jay, do you have a reaction to Congressman Paul Ryan saying that the President used a "straw man" argument in his inaugural address when he talked about the fact that the United States is not a nation of takers?  Congressman Ryan has said that the President misconstrued what he meant, what Ryan meant when he used that term, "nation of takers."
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I'm not sure that President mentioned Chairman Ryan, but that phrase has been used by a number of Republicans, including Paul Ryan.
The President's point was that these programs -- Social Security and Medicare in particular -- have been enormously valuable to seniors in our country and to providing the security that has allowed for stronger economic growth and stronger job creation and a stronger middle class.  I mean, the facts and figures on what the plight of the nation's seniors was prior to Social Security are well known.
The insecurity that seniors face or would face if Medicare were voucherized and the costs were shifted to them if they had a limited amount of money to spend on health care and the rest was up to them, I think would not be good for the country.  The President doesn't believe it's good for the country.
Q    And just one more -- on Syria.  There is a bipartisan call urging the President to expedite delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, including the Syrian Opposition Council, coming from senators Ayotte and Kirsten Gillibrand.  What is the President's reaction?  Will he do that?  And if so --
MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President would say, as I will say now, that the United States is the single-largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people.  In coordination with our international humanitarian partners, we are supporting and complementing the generous efforts of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, whose governments and communities are hosting refugees fleeing the violence in Syria.
The United States is providing $210 million in humanitarian assistance to help millions of people inside Syria as well as to assist nearly 670,000 Syrians who have fled beyond that country's borders.  The American people are funding the provision of lifesaving food, medical care, blankets, and essential winter supplies, which are reaching children, women and men in all 14 governorates inside Syria as well as refugees in neighboring countries.
And let's be clear, the responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Syria lies with Bashar al-Assad and his regime.  Every day, the regime's hold on power weakens, territory slips from its grasp, and the opposition becomes more capable and confident.  Syrians are taking back their dignity, and the United States will continue to lead international efforts to assist the Syrian people and to provide the kind of humanitarian aid that we have thus far.
Q    I have a foreign policy question, but first I just wanted to ask for the administration’s response -- the House has now passed the three-month suspension of the U.S. debt ceiling.  What’s your comment from the podium?
MR. CARNEY:  That, just in case you were curious, that was what --
Q    Yeah, we figured.
MR. CARNEY:  It’s the same as it was yesterday, which is the President believes that we need to as a country do the responsible thing and without drama or delay pay our bills, meet our commitments.  Ideally, we would extend or raise the debt ceiling for a long period of time so that this is not a question, so that the uncertainty that has surrounded this issue of late -- because of the political strategy that House Republicans have taken -- will be removed, or would be removed.
It is certainly important to recognize that the bill that passed the House today, the position that House Republicans took beginning late last week, represents a fundamental change from a strategy that they pursued up until that point, which is to try to link the debt ceiling to a specific ideological agenda of spending cuts in which the choice presented to the American people was either face dramatic cuts in Social Security or Medicare, or we’ll default on our obligations and wreck the American economy and throw the financial system into crisis.  Not much of a choice.
We are glad to see that that strategy is not being pursued anymore, so this is a welcome development.  And as I said yesterday, the President will not stand in the way of this bill becoming law.  His interest is in resolving our budget and fiscal issues for the long term.  And he looks forward to engaging with Congress and building on the accomplishments achieved so far in deficit reduction, the $2.5 trillion achieved so far in a balanced way.
Q    Foreign policy.  So now that the votes are in in Israel, I’m wondering if you would give us some comment about the President’s reaction to Netanyahu’s reelection -- not only his reelection, but sort of the weakened state of his reelection; what you think both the outcome and the backdrop of the outcome may mean for U.S.-Israel foreign policy going forward, for the Middle East peace process, for dealings with Iran.
And although you have not announced any calls to read out, has the President spoken with Mr. Netanyahu and has the President spoken with Yair Lapid?
MR. CARNEY:  First of all, we congratulate the Israeli people on their election.  And as I said yesterday, and it remains true today, I do not want to get ahead of the Israeli political process.  Elections are a stage in a process in Israel, and the final results themselves are not yet in, and I’m not going to speculate on the government formation process, which I think goes to some of the questions that you asked.
I think it’s very likely the President will be speaking with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I don’t have a call to read out to you at this time, but when appropriate I’m sure that call will take place.
In terms of the peace process, I would say the same thing I said yesterday, which our views are clear.  We believe that what needs to take place is direct negotiations between the two parties that address the final status issues and that result in a two-state solution that provides a sovereignty that the Palestinian people deserve, and the security that the Israeli people and Israel deserves.
Q    As for Yair Lapid, do you know whether the President is very likely to call?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t have anything more on potential calls the President might make.
Q    And any comment just on the impact of Yair Lapid’s rise and --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, I won’t -- I’ll resist being a commentator on another country’s political process at this time.
Q    So regardless of what government emerges or who is going to lead that government, yesterday a big, much larger than expected turnout of moderate Israeli voters went to the polls and voted for parties that, at least in principle, support the two-state solution.  President Obama often says elections matter.  He’s talked about it since his own reelection quite a bit in terms of specific policies.  I mean, what does the administration believe that Israeli voters were saying yesterday in terms of the way they want their country to go?
MR. CARNEY:  I don’t want to get ahead of the process.  And I think that, as you know in particular, given your expertise in the field, this process is not complete in Israel.  What is important is that we recognize that Israelis should be congratulated on their election, on their democracy.  What also should be recognized is that our relationship with Israel and our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security will continue regardless; and our position on the peace process and our pursuit of peace will not change, no matter the result of the government formation process.
As for the effect that these elections have on that, I wouldn’t speculate.  We’re going to deal with the process itself with the government and press forward on what we firmly believe is a process that has as its goal a result that is good for the Palestinians and for the Israelis.
Q    Just to follow on Israel -- the administration often says that there has not been a White House with a closer strategic relationship with Israel than this one.  But it’s also no secret that sometimes the relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu has been a little contentious.  How important is personality and the personal ties between leaders in this as compared to the strategic sense?  And do you expect now that the elections here and in Israel have taken place, there might be a little bit of leeway for the two leaders to perhaps seek a different relationship?
MR. CARNEY:  I would answer by pointing out that no leader has met more often with or spent more time on the phone with President Obama than Prime Minister Netanyahu.  That relationship is strong and it is a relationship that allows for a free and open discussion of ideas and positions.  And that’s good for U.S.-Israeli relations.
I think that the underlying foundation of the relationship is very important to understanding the approach that this administration takes and the approach that prior administrations have taken.  And that is that we are committed to Israel’s security, and we have demonstrated that commitment in the actions that we've taken, that the President has taken in his first term.  And that will not change.
Bill, and then Susan.
Q    Jay, I want to take one for the team and ask the lip-sync question.  (Laughter.)  Did the President know she was lip-syncing, and does he care?
MR. CARNEY:  I have not had the discussion with him.  I'm not sure that I understand the variety and contradictory reports on the matter, and I would refer you to JASIC or PIC.  (Laughter.)
Q    But even the Marine Band say that they were faking it, they were not actually playing the Star-Spangled Banner.  Doesn’t that --
MR. CARNEY:  Again, what I know about this I mostly know from what I've read and, shockingly, it has not all been consistent.  But my understanding -- and this was as I recall from the inauguration in 2009 -- that as a precaution recordings are made.  But I actually have no idea what’s true and what’s not about what happened here, and I don't think it’s really a particularly important issue to address from the podium here.
Q    I’m curious, though -- he hasn’t said whether or not he realized she was not actually performing?
MR. CARNEY:  I have not had that discussion with him.
Q    When he invited her, did he expect that she was going to sing live?
MR. CARNEY:  I'm glad you guys are focused on the important issues of the day here.  (Laughter.)  Again, I would point you to history here that includes what happened in 2009.  There are issues -- again, I have no idea whether this bears on what happened in this inauguration or not, but as I think everyone knows, in 2009, it was so cold that Yo-Yo Ma could not play.  I just -- as powerful as this office is, we don't control the weather, and as many issues as we deal with here, we still have to choose what we don't deal with and this is one of those issues.
Yes, in the back.  Sorry, Susan, I owe you.
Q    Two questions, one on Benghazi and then on climate change.  The first one, we haven't seen really a tick-tock of what happened and what the President was doing that night and how he was apprised of the developments that were going on in Benghazi such like we saw during the OBL raid.  We've seen that sort of -- a lot of information about what happened that night.  But we didn’t see like -- what you said earlier to Ed, you seemed like you were saying that the President was giving Panetta carte blanche to do whatever it took --
MR. CARNEY:  The President spoke to the Secretary of Defense, who was in the Oval Office when the President learned about initial reports about the attack, to do everything possible to ensure that assistance -- whatever assistance could be provided was provided, and that action was taken to secure our facilities in the region and around the world, because, as you know, there was unrest taking place in a variety of places at the time.  So I think we've been very clear about that.
And, as is the case with developments of this kind, he is routinely updated by his national security team -- Tom Donilon, Denis McDonough, John Brennan and others, as well as Secretaries Clinton and Panetta.  And that was certainly the case here.
Q    So when there was a decision made, we've heard -- and our publication has reported as well as others -- that their Special Forces guys could not get into Benghazi and do any real good in time.  Was that decision made by Panetta?  Or who made that decision?
MR. CARNEY:  Again, there has been a lot of false reporting, and I would point you to the Accountability Review Board on this issue that I think addresses it very directly.  Speculation about this has been often wrong, and the ARB report makes that clear.
Q    Thanks, Jay.
Q    On the domestic issue, on climate change -- Bernie Sanders now has introduced legislation today, and he is saying that he hopes the President -- he's calling on the President to support this on climate change.  The legislation would put some penalties on fossil fuel companies that emit carbon.  And I'm wondering, is this something that the President could get behind?  Is this Bernie Sanders just going off on his own?  Is this something that -- is there any legislation that the White House and the President can get behind on climate change?
MR. CARNEY:  I mean, that’s an enormously speculative question.  Is there any legislation?
Q    Well, you’re not being specific on --
MR. CARNEY:  I mean, again, you haven't even described the legislation that Senator Sanders may have put forward.  I haven't seen it.
Q    I described it as his press release described it, saying that he's going to put --
MR. CARNEY:  Penalties.
Q    -- penalties on --
MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that we have not proposed and have no intention of proposing a carbon tax.  Beyond that, I haven't seen the legislation that you've talked about.
Thank you all very much.
1:49 P.M. EST
White House Shareables