Val Lee's Weblog

Val Lee's Writings

Muslims Terrorists (Chechens) Bomb Moscow—March 29, 2010 (“Recent reports indicate that the Uzbecks, Chechens and Uighurs trained in Al Qaeda training camps in North Waziristan have started moving towards their home bases to step up jihad against those countries and to disrupt the movement of logistic supply to the US and other NATO troops.”)

Obama from 2007 speech, “In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality,” Obama wrote. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

The world requires the intercessions of true believers:

Sadness plagues our globe that is regulated to a large degree by the sinister world. The Christian’s enemies are the world, the flesh and the devil. The world, though under the ultimate control of Jesus Christ, is being allowed to walk its own path in greater grievous ways as flawless apocalyptic texts predicted.

We must rejoice in the freedoms we possess this day in the US and pray regarding those that may be lost to us tomorrow. Most Christians are no longer the salt of the earth, being they no longer stand on the Word of God in its totality. Salt irritates sin for repentance sake.

With the ceasing of strong preaching against all that is contrary to the Word of God, our nation is dwindling swiftly. Hebrews 12:4—For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword; piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Val Lee


Czar Van Jones was forced to resign due to political unveiling.

The truth: “He sympathized with Islamic terrorists blackening our collective eye. The day after the attacks, in fact, he led a candlelight vigil in Oakland expressing solidarity with Arabs and Muslims and other “victims of U.S. Imperialism around the world.”

Obama’s 9/11 Prism By: Paul Sperry | Friday, September 11, 2009


The ouster of White House green czar Van Jones, exposed as a 9/11 “Truther,” raises a larger national-security question as we mark the 8th anniversary of the worst foreign attack on U.S. Soil. What does the commander-in-chief really think about 9/11?

We now know what his erstwhile special adviser thinks, and of course it’s deeply unsettling. Jones, an Ivy League lawyer-turned-community organizer, signed a petition circulated by leftist conspiracy nuts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks.

Before he thought 9/11 was an inside job, he sympathized with Islamic terrorists blackening our collective eye. The day after the attacks, in fact, he led a candlelight vigil in Oakland expressing solidarity with Arabs and Muslims and other “victims of U.S. Imperialism around the world.”

He was heavily recruited by the White House, photographed with the president. He shares the same Marxism-steeped ideology preached by President Obama’s longtime minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

It’s worth revisiting what Obama’s preacher thinks about 9/11, as his thinking echoes Jones’ thinking. And as we’ll see further on, it appears to have influenced that of Wright’s top acolyte, who is now in the White House running a war on terror he refuses to even call “war,” against an enemy he refuses to even call “terrorists,” let alone the more accurate “Islamic extremists” or “jihadists.”

(Interestingly, Jones in the same black magazine interview condemned the War on Terror as a “racist war” against “people of color.” He compared it to the War on Drugs — a “secret war against a secret enemy with brown skin, an enemy that’s both within the country and outside of the country.”)

Excerpts of Wright’s sermon have been widely reported. What hasn’t been reported is that, just days before he gave it, Wright personally witnessed the second plane hit the World Trade Center from a hotel window near Newark, N.J., where he happened to be staying that fateful day.

He was an eyewitness to the carnage. Yet five days later, he tried to coldly justify it to his flock by calling it an act of “revenge” by an oppressed “people of faith” who “moved from the hatred for armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents.”

“I and others who lost family members on 9/11 are acutely aware of this stuff,” Debra Burlingame, sister of the pilot killed in the American Airlines Flight 77 hijacking, told me. “It hits us particularly hard.”

A former Nation of Islam follower, Wright takes sick joy in the murder of thousands of fellow Americans as a much-deserved punishment for America not only supporting Israel in an anti-Palestinian “apartheid,” as he calls it, but for enslaving Africans.

Jones said much the same thing in a press statement released on 9/11 by his Marxist group STORM, or Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement:

“Ordinary people in the United States can best deter future attacks by insisting that the U.S. government abandon its oppressive role of keeping down workers and dominating poor nations around the world. Increasingly, safety at home will require justice abroad … All people and especially African-Americans [and other minorities] must stand in solidarity with our Arab and Muslim brothers.”

Obama said something eerily similar in a 2007 speech to Americans in Iowa: “If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe.” And in his most recent memoir, he seemed to embrace Jones’ call for solidarity with Arabs and Muslims. “In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality,” Obama wrote. “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Obama has tapped another 9/11 apologist as a senior policy adviser. His National Security Council aide Samantha Power is part of the blame-America crowd. She thinks America was attacked because we back “abusive regimes” in the Middle East. She also thinks 9/11 was a dose of good medicine, since the mass slaughter helped “Americans empathize with the victims of genocide” in Africa and other Third World regions. (Power’s radical husband Cass Sunstein also landed a White House job. He’s now Obama’s regulations czar.)

President Obama’s Czar Cass Sunstein on First Amendment from Wikipedia:

In his book Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech Sunstein says there is a need to reformulate First Amendment law. He thinks that the current formulation, based on Justice Holmes’ conception of free speech as a marketplace “disserves the aspirations of those who wrote America’s founding document.”[13] The purpose of this reformulation would be to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”[14] He is concerned by the present “situation in which like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another,”[15] and thinks that in “light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals.”[16] He proposes a “New Deal for speech [that] would draw on Justice Brandeis’ insistence on the role of free speech in promoting political deliberation and citizenship.”

Cass Sunstein on marriage from Wikipedia:

In a recent book, Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. “Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government,” argues Sunstein. He continues, “the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people.” He goes on further, “Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage,” and refers to state-recognized marriage as an “official license scheme.”


Sunstein’s views on marriage is disquieting, as this institution was ordained by God who states, in Hebrews 13:4, in the Bible, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is undefiled; fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

Mark Lloyd: The Next Obama Czar to Fall?

Friday, 11 Sep 2009 01:16 PM


By: David A. Patten

Embattled FCC “diversity czar” Mark Lloyd, who praised strongman Hugo Chavez for his “incredible” attainment of a “democratic revolution” in Venezuela, was handpicked for his tailor-made job by the same top Obama adviser who played a similar role in the elevation of former “green-jobs czar” Van Jones, according to media reports. Jones resigned Saturday after several inflammatory statements and the disclosure of his involvement in the “9/11 truther” movement, which contends the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks.

The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler blog reports that “several White House sources” are confirming Jones was appointed over the objections of the White House Counsel’s Office, which found “inconsistencies” in Jones’ application materials.

Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s closest friends and advisers, reportedly played a key role in supporting the appointments of both Jones and Lloyd.

Lloyd, a former network broadcaster and communications attorney, is now taking serious fire for the radical stances he took prior to his appointment to the FCC. President Obama’s heavy reliance on special advisers or “czars” to help him steer the federal bureaucracy has been widely criticized as extra-constitutional by Republicans and some Democrats.

Since his appointment, Lloyd has been a lightning rod for criticism from conservatives worried that, based on his past statements and writings, Lloyd will use “diversity” as a back door method of imposing Fairness Doctrine-style regulations aimed at muzzling conservative broadcasters.

In a July 2007 essay titled “Forget the Fairness Doctrine,” Lloyd wrote of “the failure of the supposed ‘free market’ regulation of the U.S. radio industry to address the public-interest needs of listeners. Our analysis revealed that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves of our country — to the detriment of informed public discourse and the First Amendment.”

It was the president’s appointment of a special FCC adviser who blames conservative talkers for distorting the nation’s political dialog that created the talk-show furor.

Lloyd’s has made controversial statements regarding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as well —stating that he finds aspects of Chavez’s consolidation of power in Venezuela admirable. As a panelist at last year’s National Conference for Media Reform, Lloyd remarked that Chavez engineered “really an incredible revolution, a Democratic revolution, to begin to put in place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela.”

The apparently laudatory statements about Chavez have drawn sharp criticism, in part because Chavez has imposed a broad government crackdown on any media outlets that dared to exercise their independence.

In July, for example, The New York Times reported that the Chavez regime was revoking the broadcast licenses of over 200 radio stations and imposing stringent new regulations on cable outlets in Venezuela.

“With all due respect,” former Bush administration senior adviser Karl Rove stated… With all due respect . . . does the president believe that Venezuela is the model that we ought to achieve in American media?!”

Lloyd’s dim view of how corporate news-media ownership influences political dialog is evident in his 2006 book “Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy”:

He hails government as “the only mechanism that can help us improve our society” (page 15).

He states that allowing private companies to operate telegraph systems in the 19th century represented a “government abdication of a responsibility,” adding, “The most powerful communications tool was deliberately placed in the hands of one faction in our republic: commercial industry . . . The failure of market-driven journalism and the failure of democratic politics are both related to the structural fault created by this and subsequent political decisions — decisions deep within the American system, asleep under the rubble of history” (page 15).

Motley adds: “It’s communism in the communications field, it’s state ownership of the means of production . . . you’re producing on-air content, and he wants the state to do that. He’s a frightening dude.”

Loudon predicts the Obama administration will react aggressively against further revelations on the “czars,” because the more they’re exposed the more Obama’s true ideological leanings become evident.


(1 John 5:10-13—the Bible) paradise


March 30, 2010 - Posted by | Islam, Israel, News, Uncategorized, White House |

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: