Video: Authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report'

Former Green Beret Jack Murphy and Former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb have co-authored a book that makes some explosive charges about Barack Obama's nominee for CIA Director, John Brennan. Perhaps the most explosive is that Brennan was ordering weapons raids in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi and that he did so without the knowledge of then CIA Director David Petraeus or Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

According to the Daily Mail, Webb was the best friend of Glen Doherty, one of the two Navy SEALs who was murdered at the CIA Annex on September 11th.

Webb and Murphy appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss their charges and connect some very important dots.

Via Breitbart:



For more analysis of what these charges could mean, go here, here, here, and here.

Mask is off Mexican Government: Ignored Fast and Furious, Exploiting Sandy Hook

The Mexican government is now officially in on it, folks. Yes, suspicions were raised over that government's relative silence about Operation Fast and Furious as the scandal unfolded for nearly two years but now that Mexican politicians are lobbying the U.S. Senate to create a gun registry in states that border Mexico, it's confirmed.

In this local news report from a CBS affiliate in Arizona, citizens who were interviewed about this attempt by Mexican lawmakers to create a gun registry in the U.S. brought up Fast and Furious when asked for their take.

The mask is off Mexico's leaders, whether we're talking about those who didn't stand up when Fast and Furious was exposed or those who are now getting behind Obama's gun control / registration / confiscation push.

Via The Blaze:

CBS 5 - KPHO 

In Fast and Furious, the ATF instructed gun store owners in 'border states' - despite the objections of those gun store owners - to sell high powered rifles (AK-47's and .50 Cal.) to straw purchasers who they knew would walk those thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were used - and continue to be used - in the commission of countless murders. The Mexican government was all but silent as a dastardly plan by high ranking members of the Obama administration was implemented in an attempt to create the climate for gun control.

It didn't work and Sandy Hook is Plan B but it's not just the Obama administration who is implementing it. The Mexican government is playing along.

Let's go back to March 24, 2009. A lot happened on that day. First, here is Obama at a news conference telling the press that the situation with regard to guns from the U.S. going to Mexican drug cartels is 'out of control'. What would transpire over the next several months involved an agency under the purview of Obama's Justice Department intentionally making that situation much worse:



Also on March 24, 2009... Deputy Attorney General David Ogden expounds on the same subject and even made reference to 'Project Gunrunner', the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious:



Oh, and let's not forget DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 24, 2009 talking about the same subject. Notice how she talks about 'prosecuting' gun dealers who sell to bad guys. If Fast and Furious hadn't blown up in the administration's face, would the DOJ have prosecuted gun dealers who objected but who were told by the ATF to sell anyway? Napolitano starts around the 2:00 mark:



Here is Obama in April of 2009, shortly after Fast and Furious was put into motion. Notice the message. Innocent Mexicans were being murdered at the hands of guns purchased in the U.S. and something had to be done. Little did we know that the something involved the ATF accelerating the practice of sending guns to Mexico. Why? Well, to create the climate for gun control that would involve things like gun registries in border states:



Two years later, on March 3, 2011 - during a joint press conference at the White House with Obama and Mexico's president Felipe Calderon - the subject of gun violence in Mexico was discussed. Remember, the Obama administration was on defense at the time because of Fast and Furious so there was no aggressive push for gun control. All the two men could do was nibble around the edges. Here is a quote from Calderon, which takes place around the 32:00 mark:

"...with respect to the actions foreign agents in the Mexican land. The law does not allow agents of the United States or any other country to take part in tasks involving justice enforcement in our territory. As a result, they cannot carry weapons or undertake operational tasks. Their functions in line with our treaties are limited to the exchange of information and technical assistance to support Mexican authorities in these tasks... it's very clear for me as well that we must find a way of enhancing the level of protection of any and all agents who are acting within the framework of the law against crime and of course we are deeply analyzing alternatives for this and in dialogue with the Mexican Congress, who is the party who has the final say on this matter."

One of the things we learned in the wake of Fast and Furious is that the ATF was essentially sending high powered weapons to drug cartels without the Mexican government's knowledge. Yet, the Obama administration seemed to get a pass with the Mexican government while the American people are NOT getting a pass from the Mexican government, relative to something they had nothing to do with - Sandy Hook.

At that same March 3, 2011 press conference - shortly after Calderon's aforementioned statement - a liberal, sycophantic, hispanic reporter stuck his nose firmly in Obama's... never mind and asked him why he didn't have the power to 'veto' the second amendment. Obama then proceeded to lie his face off in light of what we now know happened with Fast and Furious. He then laughably says his administration has 'seen progress' with respect to catching straw purchasers.

Via CNS News:



As the operation blew up in the face of the administration, Mexican leaders were all but silent and the Obama administration stonewalled. Now that Sandy Hook is replacing Fast and Furious as the trigger for gun control, Mexican officials are teaming up with the Obama administration in an attempt to do what Fast and Furious failed to do.

'Tis the Season for Treason

In a video, Bill Whittle explained the difference between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat'. The former describes an individual who actively fights against his nation because he/she opposes it based on ideology, principles, or some agenda. The latter describes an individual who changes sides because the enemy is winning. In the case of America's most notorious traitor - Benedict Arnold - one could argue that he was both. At one point, he fought courageously for the colonists but several things happened.

Arnold married the daughter of a British sympathizer, which seemed to open the door for his providing secrets to the enemy. It was the discovery of his subsequent dealings with a British Major named John Andre' that revealed Arnold's treasonous behavior, which included the weakening of West Point's defenses. There are some indications that he had a problem with aligning with the French as well as with those who opposed the Protestant religion, though this may have involved a bit of rationalization after it became clear who he was.

Check this out from Biography.com:

Arnold gained access to even more sensitive information when he assumed command of West Point, in August of 1780. He began systematically weakening the fort’s defenses, refusing to order necessary repairs and draining its supplies. At the same time, Arnold began transferring his assets from Connecticut to England.

Arnold and André met in person on September 21, to discuss the operation. Several days later, André was captured. Papers exposing the West Point siege plot were found and sent to George Washington, revealing Arnold’s role.

A short time later, after Arnold's mask had been removed and he was free to convey his bitterness, he wrote a letter to the colonists in 1780, which said in part:

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith, and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage and chains.

There it is right there. Arnold himself admitted he thought it was SAFER to align with the British. Did self-preservation trump righteousness? Perhaps that's where the truth lies. That excerpt indicates that he thought Great Britain was destined to win and the colonists couldn't achieve their desire to be free.

There is a distinct difference between what happened when Arnold's activities became known by the colonists and activities of politicians in the 21st century became known to Americans. That difference is that similar behavior seems to be met with apathy on the part of modern day colonists - the American citizens.

In this comparative metaphor, Arnold has multiple manifestations in the present day but because of the colonists' apathy - as well as the unwillingness of leading politicians who hold powerful positions - these 'Arnolds' have either been caught red-handed or have relationships with individuals on par with Andre'. Yet, unlike Arnold, individuals like Chris Christie, who has taken a man with distinct ties to Hamas as his friend; Hillary Clinton, whose close adviser has irrefutable ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; Dick Durbin, who has ingratiated himself to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); John Brennan, who seemed quite comfortable while speaking to representatives from several Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups at New York University.

These are just a few of several examples but when Benedict Arnold learned that he had been exposed, he fled. Conversely, Christie is being considered as a presidential candidate in 2016, ditto Hillary Clinton. Durbin is still a senior U.S. Senator and Brennan is the president's nominee for CIA Director.

That is an indictment of Senators and Congressmen who know better and who think it's "SAFER" to avoid the battle.

Republican leadership today is more interested in ignoring these red flags. In fact, when one U.S. Congressmen - Michele Bachmann - made public her concerns about Abedin, the Speaker of the House - the most powerful Republican in office - suggested that Bachmann's questions were 'pretty dangerous'.

Why?

Consider French General Henri-Philippe Petain, who reached hero status after WWI. While in his 80's, France turned to him again when his nation ran out of options to fight the Nazis. What happened is a case study in the origins of why the term 'turncoat' was invented. Petain essentially did the Nazis bidding as a figurehead in WWII.

Via First World War:

In 1940, at the age of 83, he headed the Vichy government of France during the Second World War, from 11 July 1940 until 20 August 1944. Petain established a Fascist-oriented government that became notorious for its collaboration with the Third Reich. Ruling with German approval, Petain's government passed anti-Semitic laws, rounding up French, Spanish and Eastern European Jews for deportation to German concentration camps.

For his collaboration he was sentenced to death for treason following the war, on 15 August 1944, a sentence that was commuted to life imprisonment by Charles de Gaulle, who had served as a junior officer in Petain's regiment at Charleron in August 1914.

Petain didn't act as an arm of the Nazis because he agreed with them ideologically. He did so in the interest of self-preservation. To quote Benedict Arnold, Petain likely thought it was "SAFER" to aid Hitler's forces than it was to fight against them.

Is that where far too many leaders of the United States are today?

If so, God help us if they believe not confronting the likes of Clinton, Christie, Durbin, and Brennan is "SAFER" than the alternative because it isn't.

In fact, it's the most dangerous course and while there may be a distinction between a 'traitor' and a 'turncoat' based on motive, there is little to no difference when it comes to where the actions of each leads.