Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 25, 2016, 10:02:13 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
96648 Posts in 2320 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Concerned Citizen
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Horowitz: "Trump's Lincolnesque Moment"... on: August 21, 2016, 06:01:56 PM
DONALD TRUMP’S LINCOLNESQUE MOMENT

A landmark in the emergence of a new Republican Party.

August 19, 2016  David Horowitz

Today in Dimondale Michigan Donald Trump gave what was not only the best speech of his campaign but a speech that will one day be seen as a landmark in the emergence of a new Republican Party – a party finally returning to its roots as the party of Lincoln. If this sounds like hyperbole ask yourself what other Republican leader in recent memory has addressed America’s African American communities in this voice:

The African-American community has given so much to this country.  They’ve fought and died in every war since the Revolution.  They’ve lifted up the conscience of our nation in the long march for Civil Rights.  They’ve sacrificed so much for the national good.  Yet, nearly 4 in 10 African-American children still live in poverty, and 58% of young African-Americans are not working. We must do better as a country.  I refuse to believe that the future must be like the past.

Trump’s Dimondale speech was a pledge to African Americans trapped in the blighted zones and killing fields of inner cities exclusively ruled by Democrats for half a century and more, and exploited by their political leaders for votes, and also used as fodder for slanders directed at their Republican opponents. This was his appeal:

Tonight, I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen in this country who wants a better future. The inner cities of our country have been run by the Democratic Party for 50 years.  Their policies have produced only poverty, joblessness, failing schools, and broken homes. It is time to hold Democratic Politicians accountable for what they have done to these communities.  It is time to hold failed leaders accountable for their results, not just their empty words.

Time to hold the Democrats responsible for what they have done. For twenty years I and many others on the right have waited for Republican leaders to do just this. Until now we have despaired of seeing this happen in our lifetimes. But here is Trump articulating the very message we have been waiting for - support for America’s inner city poor – a message that should have been front and center of every Republican campaign for the last fifty years.

Trump: “Look at what the Democratic Party has done to the city of Detroit. Forty percent of Detroit’s residents live in poverty.  Half of all Detroit residents do not work. Detroit tops the list of Most Dangerous Cities in terms of violent crime. This is the legacy of the Democrat politicians who have run this city.  This is the result of the policy agenda embraced by Hillary Clinton…. The one thing every item in Hillary Clinton’s agenda has in common is that it takes jobs and opportunities from African-American workers.  Her support for open borders.  Her fierce opposition to school choice.  Her plan to massively raise taxes on small businesses.  Her opposition to American energy.  And her record of giving our jobs away to other countries.”

Tying the fight to liberate African Americans and other minorities from the violent urban wastelands in which Democrats have trapped them to his other proposals– secure borders, law and order to make urban environments safe, jobs for American workers, putting Americans first – these are a sure sign that Trump has an integrated vision of the future towards which he is working. Call it populism if you will. To me it seems like a clear-eyed conservative plan to restore American values and even to unify America’s deeply fractured electorate.

I love this line: “America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton who sees communities of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future.” Yes African Americans and other Americans too are suffocating under the racism of the Democratic Party which takes African Americans for granted and lets the communities of the most vulnerable sink ever deeper into a maelstrom of poverty and violence without end.

Trump being Trump offers this constituency that has turned its back on Republicans for half a century this deal maker: “Look at how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic Control. To those hurting, I say: what do you have to lose by trying something new?’

In the boldest imaginable way, Donald Trump is doing what Republicans have been talking about doing for a generation but have failed miserably to achieve – creating a “big tent” and opening up the party to new constituencies, in particular to minority constituencies. The fact that at the moment he is nonetheless distrusted by minorities is partly the result of his flamboyant carelessness with language during his extemporaneous riffs, but mainly because of the vicious distortions of his words and character by his unscruplous Democratic enemies and their media whores. These progressives pretend to care about African Americans but are content to let generations of inner city minorities and their children live blighted lives so long as they can be bussed to the polls every November and cast the votes that keep them in power.

Not to forget the #NeverTrumpers on the Republican side. These defectors are among the loudest slanderers, smearing Trump as a racist and a bigot when he is obviously the very opposite of that. In fact, when you look at what Trump is actually saying and actually doing, Never Trumpism appears as the newest racism of low expectations. To turn their backs on Trump conservatives must write off the inner cities and their suffering populations, regarding them as irredeemable, and unpersuadable, while leaveing them to their fate. Fortunately there is a large constituency in the Republican Party that resonates to Trump’s message of a new Republican Party and a new hope for all Americans - white and non-white – who have been left behind.
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / American Journalism Collapsing Before Our Eyes... on: August 21, 2016, 02:21:16 PM
American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

By Michael Goodwin August 21, 2016 - The New York Post.


Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ Web site. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of its own. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate.
3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Globalist Control Post-Collapse... on: August 20, 2016, 08:25:37 AM
How The Globalists Will Attempt To Control Populations Post-Collapse

Wednesday, 17 August 2016   Brandon Smith


There is an interesting disconnect with some people when discussing the concept of global centralization. Naturally, the mind reels in horror at the very idea, because many of us know, deep down at our core, that centralization is the root of tyranny.  We know that when absolute power is granted into the hands of an elite few over the lives of the masses, very bad things happen.  No small group of people has ever shown itself trustworthy, rational, empathic or wise enough to handle such a responsibility.  They ALWAYS screw it up, or, they deliberately take advantage of their extreme position of influence to force a particular ideology on everyone else.

This leads to resistance, resistance leads to sociopolitical crackdown and then great numbers of people are imprisoned, enslaved or even murdered.  This leads to even more resistance until one of two possible outcomes emerges — chaos and revolution or complete totalitarianism and micro-managed collectivism.

There is no way around this eventual conflict.  As long as the centralists continue to pursue total power, men and women will gather to fight them and the situation will escalate.  The only conceivable way that this fight could be defused is if the elites stop doing what they do.  If they suddenly become enlightened and realize the error of their ways, then perhaps we could escape the troubles unscathed.  Or, if those same elites all happen to meet an abrupt end and their influence is neutralized, then the world might have a chance to adjust and adapt in a more organic fashion.

Unfortunately, there are people who refuse to believe that a fight is unavoidable.  They desperately want to believe there is another way, and they will engage in an amazing display of mental gymnastics in order to justify this belief.

First, I think it is important to note that I have always argued that the globalists will eventually fail in their pursuit.  I find that some folks out there misinterpret my position when I outline the strategies of globalists and they assume I am presenting global centralization as a “sine qua non.”  I do not argue that the elites will win the fight, I only argue that there is no way to avoid the fight.

Those that want to know my views on why globalist defeat is a certainty can read my article The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose.

The rhetorical question always arises:  “How could the globalists ever hope to secure dominance over the entire world; isn’t that an impossible task?”

I believe according to my knowledge of history and human psychology that it IS an impossible task, but that is NOT going to stop the globalists from trying.

This is what the cynics just don’t seem to grasp; we are dealing with a group of narcissistic psychopaths organized around a cult ideology and with nearly unlimited resources at their fingertips.  These people think they are rising man-gods, like the Egyptian pharaohs of old.  They cannot be persuaded through superior logic or emotional appeal.  They will not be deterred by mass activism or peaceful redress.  They only understand one thing — the force of arms and the usefulness of lies.

Such people are notorious for taking entire civilizations down with them rather than ceding their thrones.  It is foolish to plan a response to them on the assumption that a fight can be avoided.  When I say that the globalists are “destined to lose,” this is predicated on my understanding that a certain percentage of human beings will always have an inherent capacity for resistance to tyranny.  The globalists will be defeated because there is no way to quantify every single threat to their utopian framework.  As long as people continue to fight them, physically and with information, regardless of the personal cost, their weaknesses will be found and they will fall.

This will not be accomplished, however, without considerable sacrifice.

When I talk about "collapse", I am talking about a process.  Collapse is not an singular event, it is an ongoing series of events.  The U.S. has, for example, been in the middle of a collapse since 2008.  The end of this collapse will come when the final economic bubble propping up our system has burst and the process of rebuilding begins.  The most important questions is, WHO will do the rebuilding?  The globalists with their power agenda, or common people seeking freedom and prosperity?

I have outlined in numerous articles the reality that an ongoing destabilization of large portions of the global economic framework will be used by the elites as leverage to convince the public that greater centralization is necessary, including global economic management through the IMF and BIS, a global currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as a bridge and global governance through the United Nations or a similar body not yet developed.  This plan is becoming more and more openly discussed by globalists within the mainstream media.  It’s hardly a secret anymore.

Many people will undoubtedly support this centralization out of fear of instability.  That said, many people will also refuse to support it.

Here is how I believe, according to historical precedence and the globalist’s own writings, that they will attempt to assert global centralization post-collapse and enforce compliance.

Resource Management And Distribution

As I point out in many of my articles on the necessity for localism, without ample food, water and shelter self-maintained by groups of like minded citizens, no resistance can be mounted against a centralizing force.  If you cannot supply your own logistics, then you must resort to stealing them from the enemy.  Obviously, it is less risky to supply yourself if possible.

Post-collapse, when rule of law in many places has broken down and resources can no longer be transferred safely from region to region, the name of the game will be control of necessities and the producers of necessities.  This is also used by totalitarians when the danger of unrest is present.  A prime example of this method in action was the Stalinist consolidation of the Soviet Union.

The fact is, successful rebellions in occupied nations tend to grow in rural surroundings.  Cities are often strongholds for totalitarians because they offer more means of surveillance, a more passive population and, once taken over, they are easier to secure and defend.  I call this the “green zone doctrine;” the use of locked down cities as pivot points to launch attacks on rural people.

Stalin used this very model, sending troops from controlled cities to plunder resources from outlying farming communities.  He then stored these supplies for “redistribution;” the people deemed most useful to the regime were fed, the people deemed not useful or potential threats were not fed.  In the end, Stalin killed off many potential rebels simply by denying them food production or food access.

The elites do not need to own every inch of ground in order to launch an effective campaign of martial law.  All they need to do is own key cities through surveillance technology and troop presence, then use these cities as staging grounds to confiscate resources in surrounding areas from people they do not like.  If you think the government would not pursue that kind of tactic in the U.S., I highly suggest you look into Executive Order 13603, signed by Barack Obama in 2012.  This order gives the president authority during a “national emergency” to take any private property or resources if it is deemed “necessary to national defense.”

It should be noted that starvation as a weapon has been extremely useful for the elites in the past.

The Malaysian Model Of Control

If the elites are anything, they are rather predictable.  This is because they have a habit of consistently using strategies that have worked for them before.  In my article When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It, I examine the writings of Council On Foreign Relations member Max Boot on methods for quelling insurgencies.  In the U.S., insurgency is a given post-collapse.  The only question is whether it will be a large insurgency or a small one.

I do not hold out much hope for most of the rest of the world in terms of generating a useful rebellion.  Most citizens in Europe and Asia are unarmed and untrained.  Any resistance in these regions will be very small and cell structured if it is going to survive.

The methods Max Boot describes tend toward larger threats to the establishment.  Boot mentions specifically the great success by the British in Malaysia from 1948-1960 against highly effective communist guerillas and terrorists.  This success can be attributed to several factors:

1) The British used large-scale concentration camps to separate production centers from rebel influence.  These were massive camps surrounded by barbed wire fences and guard towers, primarily used to house farmers and other workers and their families.  This stopped the guerillas from hiding among the working class and recruiting from them.  This follows the “green zone doctrine” I described above.

2) The British implemented a sophisticated identification system for all Malaysian citizens including fingerprinting.  They then set up numerous checkpoints across the country at which citizens had to produce their paperwork.  Anyone who did not have their papers was held on suspicion of being an insurgent.  The rebels in Malaysia attempted to counter this by forcefully taking over busy buildings and buses, then burning everyone’s IDs.  This would not be a very effective tactic in a digitized world where identification is accomplished through advanced biometrics.

3) Instead of fielding massive lumbering military brigades in a useless effort to cover large stretches of ground, the British used spies and informants to locate rebel strongholds, then sent special forces units in to neutralize them.  Again, they did not need to control every inch of ground; they used military assets wherever the rebels were, then left.  Their goal was not to control a lot of ground, but to kill rebels.  The British used considerable brutality in their efforts, including a mobile gallows that traveled the country, and the public display of rotting corpses to strike fear in the insurgency.

4) The political elites in Britain fought the psychological war by offering promises of peace and prosperity to the Malaysian commoners if they supported the effort against the insurgency.  They did not necessarily need to follow through on these promises, all they needed to do was create a few examples of reward for cooperation, and sell this to the public in a convincing manner.  Once enough of the population was in the hands of the British, the insurgency lost supply resources and also had to worry about informants.

Technology Grid For Tyranny

Malaysia was an example of a competent strategy to uproot insurgents, but there were also many failures and pitfalls.  The elites are trying to mitigate any future unknown quantities when fighting against rebellions through the use of new technologies.

The green zone doctrine could only be successful today with the use of biometric surveillance.  Restriction of movement could be accomplished, but only in cities with extensive surveillance grids.  The insurgents of a post-collapse future would be hard pressed to infiltrate or exfiltrate from a green zone with currently available facial recognition, gait and walk recognition, retina and thumbprint scanning, etc.  Facial recognition has even gone into the realm of thermal imaging; cameras can use the unique heat signature from blood vessels within the human face to identify a person from a relative distance.  Make-up and prosthetics would not counter this.  Thermal masking would be the only solution.

Beyond that, an insurgency would have to be technologically savvy. Cyber warfare would have to be integral to their methodology.  This is not something any other rebellion in history has had to deal with.

An Uneducated And Bumbling Insurgency

The globalist’s strategy to trigger economic and social chaos, then lock down certain regions and offer centralization as a solution to the population, is far easier to accomplish when the opposition they face lacks insight, patience, planning and initiative.

The British were partially successful in Malaysia because the guerillas were ignorant of public perception. While they were effective and ruthless fighters, their viciousness resulted in lack of public support.  Though wide public support is not needed for victory, it certainly helps.

Multiple revolutions against Stalin’s power, some of them very large, were put down because of poor planning.  Rebels massed sizable forces in tight areas, such as a single mountain or mountain ranges.  Stalin simply dropped poisonous gasses on insurgents that had put all their eggs in one basket and forgot to stockpile gas masks.  It is vital to recognize that in a post-collapse world governments and elites may no longer be subject to public scrutiny, and are thus free to act as maliciously as they want.  All contingencies have to be considered.

Rebels in the Soviet Union also had a bad habit of ignoring logistics.  Many were armed with mismatched rifles and a rainbow selection of ammunition instead of arming all their men with the same rifle and the same ammo for redundancy.  Rebellions have been lost in the past merely because the fighters armed with too wide an array of weapons ran out of enough ammo to feed any of them.

Insurgents have also historically suffered from an inability to strike the leadership centers of the empires they fought.  Primarily because they did not know who the real leadership was.  Only in our modern era do we have the information available to identify the elites and their organizations.  Globalists are often very vocal today in media about who they are and what they want.  This is why the elites seek to make the next insurgency the LAST insurgency.  Never before have they been so vulnerable.

I believe the globalists will use their standard strategy of disinformation and division first to acquire centralization, but eventually they will turn to a Stalin/Malaysian model for control on the ground.  I will have to save the specific counter-strategies to these tactics for another article.  Some of them I probably cannot legally discuss at all.  The most important thing to remember, though, is that the globalists’ job is harder than our job.  They have to control people, property, resources, and mass psychology.  They have thousands of variables to take into account, and thousands of situations that could go wrong.

All we have to worry about is our own local organization, our own moral compass, our own survival and removing the top globalists from the picture.

 
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / BRILLIANT move on Trump's part... on: August 17, 2016, 02:12:30 PM
Brilliant! Trump Brings Breitbart CEO On Board as Campaign Chief

ByPamela Geller on August 17, 2016

I know Steve Bannon. It’s an inspired choice.

Andrew Breitbart is cheering from heaven.

Brilliant. Steve Bannon is a warrior. He has  long understood that this is a war in the information battle-space (something the right has failed to grasp, despite the left’s smear machine against those with whom they disagree.) The media is out to destroy Donald Trump. Trump needs a champion, a “Patton,” a Bannon.

This is fantastic news. Heads are exploding on the left.



    “NY Times: Donald Trump, in Shake-Up, Hires Breitbart Executive Stephen K. Bannon for Top Campaign Post,”


    Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker write in the New York Times:

        LAS VEGAS — Donald J. Trump has shaken up his presidential campaign for the second time in two months, hiring a top executive from the conservative website Breitbart News and promoting a senior adviser in an effort to right his faltering campaign.

            Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become the Republican campaign’s chief executive, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser and pollster for Mr. Trump and his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, will become the campaign manager.

            Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, will retain his title. But the staffing change, hammered out on Sunday and set to be formally announced Wednesday morning, was seen by some as a demotion for Mr. Manafort.

            […]

            “We met as the ‘core four’ today,” Ms. Conway added, referring to herself, Mr. Bannon, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates.

            People briefed on the move said that it reflected Mr. Trump’s realization that his campaign was at a crisis point. But it indicates that the candidate — who has chafed at making the types of changes his current aides have asked for, even though he had acknowledged they would need to occur — has decided to embrace his aggressive style for the duration of the race.

            Both Ms. Conway and Mr. Bannon, whose news organization has been very favorable to Mr. Trump since he entered the primaries, are close with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the father-and-daughter conservative donors who have become allies of the candidate and are funding a “super PAC” that is working against Hillary Clinton.

            […]

            Mr. Bannon has no experience with political campaigns, but he represents the type of bare-knuckled fighter that the candidate had in Corey Lewandowski, his combative former campaign manager, who was fired on June 20.

            Mr. Bannon has been a supporter of Mr. Trump’s pugilistic instincts, which the candidate has made clear in interviews he is uncertain about suppressing. He is also deeply mistrustful of the political establishment, and his website has often been critical of Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/briiliant-trump-brings-breitbart-ceo-on-board-as-campaign-chief.html/#sthash.L11wQqsl.dpuf
5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spencer: Muslims Videotaping in Ohio church "Suspicious in the Extreme"... on: August 16, 2016, 11:26:11 AM
How can the church and the civil authorities be so blind, stupid, or both???

Robert Spencer: Muslims videoing in Ohio church “suspicious in the extreme”

August 15, 2016 11:57 pm By Robert Spencer

Meanwhile, as churches are being cased, Church leaders are intent on reading those who call attention to the problem out of the Church.

More on this story. “Saudi Arabians Videotape Inside Catholic Church, Scare Parishoners [sic],” by Richard Ducayne, Church Militant, August 15, 2016:

    KETTERING, Ohio – Three Arab men were caught recording footage in Ascension Catholic Church in Kettering, Ohio Sunday, claiming they were only “studying” Christianity — but JihadWatch’s Robert Spencer is calling their behavior “suspicious in the extreme.”

    The men, who were visiting their families from Saudi Arabia, had all passed background checks and, according to church authorities, simply breached “proper etiquette.”

    “While their actions did arouse suspicion, we believe their actions were simply a breach of proper etiquette,” a statement on Ascension’s website read Thursday morning. “While current evidence suggests that they intended no ill will, the Kettering police and other appropriate agencies are continuing to thoroughly investigate the matter and are keeping us aware of their findings.”

    Church Militant contacted Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org. Spencer said that if the Saudis were really studying Christianity, “they could have approached the priest and asked him questions. They could have read books about Christianity. They could even have asked permission to videotape. That they did none of these things is suspicious in the extreme.”

    Spencer highlighted that authorities, when apprehending an extremist or investigating an attack after the fact, have found that the extremists usually have videos in their possession of their intended targets.

    Many jihadis have been discovered with videos of prospective target sites in their possession. The Islamic State (ISIS) has quite recently called on Muslims to attack Christians. What’s more, jihadis thrive on intimidation, striving to “strike terror into the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60) — at the very least the videotaping of the Mass would unnerve and frighten the parishioners. This incident should be treated as the intentional provocation that it clearly was.

    Regarding local authorities ignoring the attack by writing it off as merely a “breach of proper etiquette,” Spencer remarked that such curious behavior should be looked at with a more wary eye.

    “The phenomenon of Muslims videotaping at sensitive sites cannot be ignored by those concerned about jihad terror,” he commented to ChurchMilitant.com. “What has been passed off as innocent tourist interest includes videotaping of water treatment plants, electrical plants and other sites without plausible interest for tourists.”

    Concerns have developed after ISIS earlier this month, in its propaganda magazine Dabiq, ordered its supporters who live in the West to attack more Christians.

    Titled “Break the Cross,” the issue is dedicated to calling all Europeans and Westerners to “abandon their infidelity and accept Islam, the religion of sincerity and submission to the Lord of the heavens and the Earth.”…
6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Outflanks Democrats on Gay Rights... on: August 16, 2016, 07:53:59 AM
Donald Trump Just Overtook The Democrats On Gay Rights


by MILO 15 Aug 2016 - Breitbart.com

The madman has actually done it. God-Emperor Daddy — known to the rest of you as Republican presidential candidate Donald J Trump — has just outflanked Hillary Clinton on the Left and announced what can only be described as an ultra-progressive immigration policy.
I don’t mean progressive as it has come to be used, of course — nannying, language-policing, Muslim-pandering. I mean it’s a policy that could actually make things better for minorities.

Trump’s plan is to introduce a screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S., testing their ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism. It’s a brilliant plan. I’m especially inclined to say it’s brilliant because it may have been partly inspired by me.

The test will apply to all immigrants, yet its obvious target is Muslims, who, as we know, get a bit bomby in the presence of gays, a bit rapey in the presence of women who wear skirts shorter than their ankles and generally a bit hostile and violent around anyone who doesn’t have their bum in the air five times a day.

The media won’t portray this policy as progressive, of course — they’ll portray it as stupid, bigoted, and reactionary. The Washington Post, little more than a Hillary mouthpiece this election cycle, has already started, branding the proposal “crazy” and “outlandish.” But it isn’t. Actually, it’s about the most pro-gay policy I’ve ever heard from a presidential hopeful.

Trump has also promised to deport hate-preachers in the U.S. His specific wording (“send them home”) again suggests that he’s targeting Islam. Go Daddy!


It’s odd that leftists are already starting up the outrage machine. After all, isn’t this what progressivism is supposed to be about? All around the world, Muslims are oppressing women, murdering gays, and exterminating non-Muslims. Progressives claim to want to protect the rights of gays, women and minorities, yet are silent on the greatest threat to them in the world today.

Somehow, I doubt they would be outraged if Trump threatened to deport the Westboro Baptist Church. This, despite the fact that the Westboro Baptists haven’t killed anyone, whereas a Muslim, Omar Mateen, carried out the greatest act of homophobic violence in U.S. history.

The Left, of course, think Orlando was a tragic incident of workplace violence, enabled by toxic masculinity and a lack of gun control.

I’m comfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, as long as they don’t want to kill us, maim us or throw us off rooftops. (Permission for lesser violence is available upon application.) For leftists, the reverse appears to be true — they’re uncomfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, unless they want to kill us and maim us and throw us off rooftops.

Thus, decline to bake a cake for some lesbians and you are a heinous bigot. Murder 50 fags and injure 50 more and you’re a tragic victim, probably reacting to islamophobia, whose dad will be invited to stand behind Hillary Clinton at a rally.

There’s no diplomatic way to put it. In this historic announcement, Donald Trump has dramatically overtaken the chronically Muslim-friendly Democratic Party on gay rights. I predict conservatives across the west will soon follow suit. The right is quickly realising that, thanks to the silence on Islam, it is they and not the left who are destined to safeguard women, gays, and minorities from the barbarians of the East.

As the body counts — and rape counts — in Europe rack up, gays — and others on Islam’s kill-list — will realize that in a world of Muslim migration, conservative immigration policies are actually the most progressive. Meanwhile, the claims of self-proclaimed leftists to champion the rights of women and minorities will ring increasingly hollow.

Voters are starting to take notice of all this.

Throughout this election cycle, Trump has been attacked as a bigot and a reactionary on immigration. With this new plan, though, he has proven beyond doubt that he’s the only person running for President who can stick up for chicks and queers.

Face facts, guys. It is the political Left that wants to flood America with violent homophobes and misogynists, not Trump. No-one with a clear-eyed view of Muslim culture can believe otherwise.

Perhaps this is what the #NeverTrump guys meant when they said Trump was a closet liberal.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at milo@breitbart.com.
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump Calls for "Extreme Vetting"... on: August 16, 2016, 07:50:45 AM
Trump calls for “extreme vetting” of those who believe “sharia law should supplant American law”

AUGUST 15, 2016 11:12 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Common sense. And long overdue. It would be difficult to devise a test that could not withstand a practiced and skillful taqiyya artist, but why should the attempt not be made? Unsurprisingly, the Washington Post is enraged, along with the rest of the mainstream media, and is doing all it can to discredit and defeat Trump.

The obvious fact that they are so deeply threatened by him is the best testimony to his viability as a candidate — better even than his own statements. The political and media elites are frightened to the core, and their globalist and pro-jihad policies are threatened, and that is a very good thing.

Trump081516

“Trump proposes ideological test for Muslim immigrants and visitors to the U.S.,” by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, August 15, 2016:

Donald Trump called Monday for a Cold War-style mobilization against “radical Islamic terror,” repeating and repackaging calls for strict immigration controls — including a new ideological litmus test for Muslim visitors and migrants — and blaming the current level of worldwide terrorist attacks on President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In a grab bag of promises to battle the Islamic State organization together with Russia and anyone else who wants to join the fight, the Republican nominee underlined the need to improve intelligence and shut down militant propaganda, recruiting and financing.

But he provided few specifics on how he would expand such efforts beyond those already underway.

“My administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS,” Trump said in a speech in Youngstown, Ohio, using an acronym for the Islamic State. “International cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting . . . It’s got to be stopped.”

The speech was one in a series of prepared remarks the Republican presidential nominee has scheduled, amid criticism of controversial off-the-cuff policy pronouncements that he has later dismissed as jokes or sarcasm. Reading directly from a TelePrompter, a subdued Trump rarely departed from his script.

The principal new initiative was what Trump called “extreme vetting” for “any hostile attitude towards our country or its principles, or who believed sharia law should supplant American law. . . . Those who did not believe in our Constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country.”

“In the Cold War,” he said, “we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. . . . I call it extreme, extreme vetting.”…
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brandon Smith: Trump Will Win The Election, but He Can't Save The Economy... on: August 15, 2016, 04:49:16 PM
2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency

Wednesday, 10 August 2016 02:19 Brandon Smith

Political and economic events tend to swing like a pendulum, or move like the tides.  What you think you know today, according to the mainstream mood, can swiftly change tomorrow.  Sometimes this is mere random coincidence, but often it is engineered by the powers that be.  When discerning coming trends, the only assumption I recommend people operate on is that the globalists will play the long game; the short game is only relevant as far as it serves the long game.

What is the long game?  The globalists have openly admitted their goal in numerous mainstream publications, but my favorite example is the January 1988 issue of the Rothschild run magazine The Economist.  The issue pronounces boldly that investors should “get ready for a global currency” by 2018.  I examine this issue in detail in my article The Economic End Game Explained.

The Economist article mentions the sacrifice of “some” economic sovereignty of nation states, the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the rise of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket currency mechanism as a “bridge” to a single global currency.  None of these changes can be accomplished without certain parts of the world suffering severe financial instability first.  Not only is this a mathematical inevitability, such crisis is also a useful tool for elitists to mold the public’s collective psychology.

So, let’s make this crystal clear — the long game is the total and OPEN centralization of economic and geopolitical power into the hands of a select few financial elites.  Not the pulling of strings behind the curtain.  Not shadow governance.  OPEN governance of the world by the elites, accepted or even demanded by the people.

There are a lot of assumptions floating around economic conditions and election developments right now that do not take into account this long game.  The first being that globalists “are losing their grip on the situation.”

I would have to disagree.  In terms of political leaders (East and West) and surface economic indicators, the elites have more control than ever.

The argument of the “bumbling globalists” became rather popular the days after the initial success of the Brexit referendum.  This was of course based on the assumption that the Brexit is damaging to the globalists rather than helpful to them.  I outline why the Brexit is a perfect scapegoat for a fiscal downturn engineered by the elites in my article Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out, Or Something Else?, published before the Brexit vote took place.

Since the referendum, central banks and politicians around the world have begun calling for a single monetary and fiscal policy initiative meant to “head off any ill effects of the Brexit.”  That is to say, the open calls for one economic authority to rule them all have now begun.

The numerous warnings by the financial elites of a coming crisis event have most people in the mainstream and even many alternative analysts scratching their heads.  For those that hyper-focus on stock markets, all seems to be well.  Of course, these people only have an attention span that lasts until the next market ticker opens for the day.  They aren’t looking at the bigger picture.

To be fair, though, the mainstream media is really laying on the fake-out propaganda thick.

July and August have produced considerably strange behaviors from stocks so far, with a record number of days positive, followed by a near-record number of days negative.  I would consider this a form of volatility that should not be overlooked.  The media have so far shrugged off these developments and only noted that stock valuations are still high despite the Brexit “surprise.”  Their assertion has been that the Brexit “had no effect;” completely ignoring the fact that such events can have long term consequences rather than immediate consequences.

Oil prices have plunged back towards lows last seen at the beginning of the year, something I stated would eventually occur after the predictable failure of the OPEC meeting in Doha.  Low global demand continues and production has not slowed in any meaningful way.

There has been a steady correlation the past year between oil and stocks.  The current decoupling is unlikely to last very long and stocks should track down to oil by September as speculators give up trying to hold crude offshore in a useless effort to drive prices higher.  The mainstream has said little to nothing about this decoupling or its eventual consequences.

The past two months of employment numbers have been an epic farce, with the media playing up the supposed number of jobs added while mentioning nothing about the nearly 95 million working age Americans removed from the rolls and no longer counted as unemployed.  That’s almost one third of the U.S. population, and around half of all working age Americans that have no job.

The Bureau of Labor’s claim when cornered by this statistic and the fraudulent nature of their primary employment percentages?  “Those people don’t want to work, therefore they should not be counted…”

The better than expected jobs reports have so far allowed markets to levitate.  I would assert, however, that stocks are merely treading water at the deceptively calm center of a hurricane.

The reality is, they cannot hide an economic collapse forever.  Negative financial effects are going to touch ground somewhere, and the data is going to sneak through.  Case in point; U.S. productivity is now at 37 year lows despite government statistics claiming fully recovered employment.  You would think that in such a happy labor environment portrayed by the BLS productivity would grow.  This is not the case.  Perhaps a total unemployed population of over 100 million people may be contributing to the implosion of U.S. productivity...?

Outside of the U.S., European banks are on the verge of a breakdown, and central bank stimulus measures and rate cuts are adding minimal extra boost to markets.  They aren't currently falling much, but they aren't rallying much either.  In essence, equities are becoming stagnant due to artificial support from central banks and there is little incentive for investors to participate any longer.

In light of the latest manipulations of economic data and the jawboning of stocks since March, some alternative analysts have pronounced that the central banks plan to prop up markets “indefinitely,” or at least until Hillary Clinton can win the election.

This is an unfortunate assumption by the alternative crowd…

I remember before the Brexit vote a vast majority of independent economists and liberty analysts argued that the elites would “never allow” the U.K. referendum to pass — that they had the power to rig the vote however they pleased.  If this is the case (and I agree it is the case), then clearly the elites WANTED the Brexit to pass.

It would serve alternative analysts well to recall specifically the rigged polling numbers in the weeks leading up to the Brexit which showed a definite win for the “Stay” crowd.  Interesting how that all turned out, isn’t it?

I am consistently reminded of the Brexit surprise when I look today at the polling numbers on the U.S. election.  The erratic and inconsistent polling shows Trump climbing, then suddenly sinking days later, then climbing again without any clear catalysts.  Many polls contradict each other, just as the polls did before the Brexit, and, the same kind of circus atmosphere is present, if not more prevalent.

It may be possible, if not certain, that this is all a game.  The Brexit outcome was predetermined, which is how elites like George Soros scored successful investment bets on the referendum passing, and the reason why the Bank for International Settlements gathered central bankers from around the world as the vote was taking place.

I believe that the U.S. presidential election has also been predetermined; with a Trump win.  Some people might be confused by this concept.

Trump’s campaign has been consistently compared to the Brexit campaign by globalists in the media, as well as by mainstream pundits.  They call it a "dangerous" trend of rising populists.

The propaganda surrounding the Brexit asserts that the referendum will eventually lead to global economic crisis; and already, central banks and politicians are attempting to tie the Brexit to anything that might go wrong fiscally in the near future.

The propaganda surrounding Trump is the same; that Trump is unfit to lead America and that his economic policies will end in global financial ruin.

One constant connects the Brexit referendum and Trump — both are supported by conservative movements with anti-globalist leanings.

I submit that there is in fact a wider economic crisis on the way, and that the elites plan to use the Brexit and Trump as scapegoats for this crisis.

I have stated this before, but I think the idea needs repeating:  The globalists need the economy to turn unstable in order to create a rationale for a centralized economic authority and a single global currency system.  This is why they have consistently called for a “coordinated global central banking policy” after the Brexit.  This is why they continue to warn of a fiscal crisis even though stock markets remain at all-time highs.

If Hillary Clinton, a well known globalist puppet deep in the bedrock of the establishment, wins the election only to have the economy tank, then the globalists will get the blame.

If Trump is either allowed in office, or is placed in office, and the economy tanks, CONSERVATIVES, the primary enemy of the globalists, will get the blame for the resulting crisis.

To reiterate, the globalists have created the conditions by which an economic crisis can be triggered at the time of their choosing (within certain limits).  They are then either supporting the success of seemingly conservative based movements and candidates, or simply refusing to interfere with them.  This is being done so that the globalists can then blame the crash they created on conservative movements.

This allows them to demonize not just conservatives, but the conservative philosophy in general; labeling it a poisonous ideal akin to fascism.  Their solution?  Erase all elements of conservatism and sovereignty from society for the sake of the “greater good” of the collective.

This is part of the long game.

As I noted after the U.K. referendum, I believe the Brexit to be part of a “one-two-punch combination,” and that the second punch has not arrived yet.  My view appears to be supported by the number of financial elites warning investors to pull out of markets today before it is too late.  Obviously, they know something the rest of the financial mainstream does not.

This sets up the elites as “prophets” rather than criminals, as economic perception turns negative and the public begins looking for answers.

In the meantime, I believe a softer downturn will begin before the election takes place, most likely starting in September.  This will give a boost to the Trump campaign, or at least, that is what the polls will likely say.  I would also watch for some banking officials and media pundits to blame this downturn on Trump’s rise in the polling data.  The narrative will be that just the threat of a Trump presidency is “putting the markets on edge.”

Many claim the Federal Reserve will not raise rates in 2016 with the election threatened by a Trump candidacy.  I believe the Fed will in fact raise rates, as they always do going into major recessions.  If they do not raise rates before the election, they will most certainly raise rates in December if Trump is in the White House.

I realize that many will argue that Trump will “never be allowed to win,” just look at how the media demonizes him.  But this is what people argued before the Brexit, and they were wrong.  I suggest that this demonization campaign is much like the doom and gloom used by globalists before the UK referendum — it is not meant to stop the event.  It is not meant to prevent Trump from getting into office, it is meant to make Trump and conservatives a scapegoat for an impending crisis once he is IN office.

While I certainly am not advocating Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, I have to point out that a Trump presidency serves the globalist long game better than a Clinton presidency.

First, the elites need an international financial crisis to encourage the public to support a single central bank policy and authority.  They can blame such a crisis on Trump and the Brexit and divert attention away from themselves.

Second, the elites need to remove the philosophy of conservatism as an obstacle to global collectivism and the destruction of national sovereignty.  Again, conservatives will be blamed as participants and co-conspirators in the fiscal crisis, and painted as so devilish that no future generation would want to be a associated with conservative thought.

Third, the elites need to kill the dollar’s world reserve status.  And yes, even this could be blamed on Trump as Saudi Arabia moves away from the dollar as the petro-currency and multiple nations begin to protest Trump’s “isolationism” by dumping the dollar.  In October, China (with the approval of the IMF) begins spreading SDR-based liquidity around the world, launching the next phase of the end of the dollar as world reserve right before the U.S. election climax.

Fourth, the elites need internal conflict within the U.S. and/or martial law in order to justify international intervention.  A Trump presidency will most likely be met with accelerated violence from social justice activists and general riots from the entitlement class.  I believe Trump will use martial law measures, though he probably will not label this "martial law".  There may even come a day when globalist “leaders” will assert that Trump cannot be allowed access to a nuclear arsenal, and that he must be stopped.

If Trump turns out to be anti-constitution, and the liberty movement acts to stand against him — we will be accused of working for the social justice miscreants, or we will ironically be accused as agents of the globalists.  If we fight against a globalist intervention or the social justice mobs, we will be accused as fascists by the international community.  Truly, with Trump as president, many doors open for the elites.

That said, this does not mean the elites will be ultimately successful in their endeavors.  There are always unknowns to any grand scheme.  As Mike Tyson famously said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”  I believe the elites will be surprised by some sizable punches in the mouth.  Until then, though, their current strategy appears to be running on schedule.
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: Trump Essentially Correct Regarding ISIS "Founders"... on: August 13, 2016, 10:27:58 PM
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/media-in-frenzy-over-trump-claim-that-obama-and-hillary-founded-isis-ignores-dia-document-showing-how-they-did
10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller: Did Obama's FBI Want Us Dead in Garland, TX? on: August 09, 2016, 06:49:36 AM
Pamela Geller–Undercover FBI Agent Told Garland Jihadist: ‘Tear Up Texas’


by PAMELA GELLER 8 Aug 2016


The Daily Beast recently reported that “days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

The Beast’s Katie Zavadski also revealed that the undercover agent was at our free speech event in Garland, where Simpson and Nadir Soofi attempted a jihad massacre.

Zavadski and others in the left-wing media have pounced on the incitement, entrapment angle — which is absurd. These jihadis were plotting jihad at the Super Bowl and planning to travel to Syria to join ISIS, and we’re supposed to believe they were entrapped? What could anyone say to you or me that would make you a mass murderer? Nothing.

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with, because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility, it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of the freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

In the wake of Garland, the media attacks on us were the overwhelming and overarching story. But outside of that, one of the stories that bubbled to the surface was that the FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

Now we find they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to alerting Garland police about Simpson’s jihad plans three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack, one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

I’ve been trying to get my mind around this thing. What was Obama trying to do? Teach Americans a lesson? Enforce the edict that he enunciated in the wake of the Benghazi jihad slaughter, that “the future must not belong to those to slander the prophet of Islam”?

If people had died at our Garland event, the murders would have had a blood-chilling effect on the freedom of speech in America. That, in my view, appears to have been what the Obama administration wanted — and certainly that’s what the enemedia wanted in the wake of our event, as it gleefully and relentlessly blamed us for violating Sharia blasphemy laws and getting shot at.

If you look at the Obama administration’s track record in regard to jihad in America, it’s abysmal and ghastly. Look at San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Orlando… Garland is one of the few stories where Americans came out on top.

And now it comes out that in Garland, we have to ask whether the United States government aided and abetted the would-be murderers. It’s astonishing.

Did the Obama FBI want us dead? We need answers: we need an explanation of the FBI’s behavior that accounts for everything we know and demonstrates that this is not the case – if there is one.

This is shocking, and it should frighten every American, all across the political spectrum.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.
11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro... on: August 07, 2016, 10:12:05 PM
Crafty:  LOL cheesy  My best friend in CT who is Jewish says the same thing, though he likes her opinions generally.  He says she reminds him of the pushy, dominating and abrasive Jewish women he grew up surrounded by in West Hartford, CT.    grin
12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro's Devastating Indictment of Hillary Clinton... on: August 07, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
This is apparently only available on the Fox site - be sure to adjust the volume using the gear icon at the lower-right of the screen.  It is her opening statement from last night's show:

www.foxnews.com/shows/justice-jeanine.html
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Would the Founders Have Considered Islam a "Religion?" on: August 05, 2016, 08:55:33 PM
DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECT WARRIOR RELIGIONS?

A frightening glimpse into the European future -- and its dire warning to America.

August 5, 2016  William Kilpatrick 

Reprinted from CrisisMagazine.com.

After every Islamic terrorist attack, whether in Europe or the U.S., people ask what can be done to prevent it from happening again. But when the obvious solutions are proposed, they are invariably met with the objection that “you can’t do that,” or “that’s unconstitutional,” or words to that effect.

Some of the obvious solutions are to close radical mosques and radical Islamic schools, to monitor suspected mosques, to deport radical imams, and, of course, to restrict Muslim immigration or ban it altogether. If you dare to say such things, however, it quickly becomes apparent that—for many, at least—only politically correct solutions are acceptable. The trouble is, the politically correct crowd doesn’t have any solutions. In the memorable words of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, “France is going to have to live with terrorism.”

Catholics are frequently in the forefront of those who object to these “drastic” measures for preventing terrorism in the West. Pope Francis, for example, has made generosity to refugees and immigrants a hallmark of his papacy. Christians, he has reminded us on several occasions, should build bridges, not walls. Others, Catholics among them, have objected that restrictions on Islamic immigration would violate the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution—as would surveillance of mosques and Islamic societies.

Catholics are understandably touchy about the subject of religious liberty. But concerns over Christians being forced to bake cakes for same-sex weddings shouldn’t be allowed to overshadow some other basic questions about religious liberty.

One of the questions is this: does a religion that doesn’t believe in religious freedom for others qualify for First Amendment protection? Another, related question might be framed as follows: Is a religion that calls for the subjugation of other religions entitled to the “free exercise” of that mandate? The underlying issue, of course, is whether or not Islam really qualifies as a religion. As any number of authorities have pointed out, Islam is a hybrid—part religion and part a geo-political movement bent on world domination.

The “world domination” bit, by the way, is not confined to the fevered imaginations of right-wing fanatics. In a recent interview with Religion New Service, Cardinal Raymond Burke said “there’s no question that Islam wants to govern the world.” “Islam,” he continued, “is a religion that, according to its own interpretation, must also become the State.”

Here’s what I had to say about the matter four years ago:

Does this [the 1st Amendment] make the exercise of religion an absolute right to do anything in the name of religion? Should the free-exercise clause be extended to protect suicide cults or virgin sacrifice? The First Amendment also prohibits the establishment of a state religion, but one of the main purpose of Islam is to establish itself as the state religion. It can be argued that Islam’s raison d’etre is to be the established religion in every nation. Hence, another question must be asked: does the First Amendment protect its own abolishment?

Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer—a profession that requires one to choose words carefully. Hence, when he talks about Islam becoming the State, he should be taken seriously. According to him, “when they [Muslims] become a majority in any country then they have the religious obligation to govern that country.” As we have seen, however, long before Muslims become a majority they begin demanding that their fellow citizens comply with sharia laws regarding diet, dress, and blasphemy. Allowing Muslims the full and free exercise of their faith is tantamount to restricting the freedom of others. Or, as Dutch MP Geert Wilders likes to say, “more Islam” means “more intolerance” for everyone else.

Wilders is referring to the consequences that follow upon the mass migration of Muslims into Europe. Although his was once a lonely voice, numerous polls show that the majority of Europeans now believe along with him that Islam does not belong in Europe. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has been in the habit of chiding Christians for their opposition to accepting more Muslim immigrants. He recently went so far as to warn them that they will have to answer to Christ at the Last Judgment because he (in the guise of the migrant) was homeless, and they did not take him in.

But, although charity is the paramount Christian virtue, there is another virtue that governs the exercise of charity. It’s called “prudence.” And prudence would suggest that spiritual leaders and secular leaders should exercise caution when advocating acts of charity that put the lives of others at risk. In Europe, there are now numerous prudential reasons for slowing or halting the flow of Muslim immigration: the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the Bataclan Theater massacre, the massacres at the Brussels airport and subway, the massacre at Nice, the Munich mall massacre, the axe attack aboard a German train, the bomb attack on a wine bar in the city of Ansbach, and the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults which targeted over 1,200 German women.

The most recent outrage was the slaughter of a French priest, Fr. Jacques Hamel, by two Islamic terrorists who burst into a church in Normandy during Mass and slit his throat. Pope Francis condemned the attack, but on the same day in Krakow he spoke once again about the need to welcome refugees. He called for “solidarity with those deprived of their fundamental rights, including the right to profess one’s faith in freedom and safety.”

But how about the right of Christians and Jews to profess their faith “in freedom and safety?” Fr. Hamel is no longer free to profess his faith, and now that the Islamic State has proclaimed its intention to target more churches in Europe, Christians are going to feel considerably less safe at Sunday service. Jews in Europe already know the feeling. Most synagogues in Europe are now protected by security guards during Saturday services.

But if you really want to see the European future, just look at those nations where Muslims are already a majority. In Nigeria, where Muslims make up about 60 percent of the population, Christians are regularly attacked during church services, and on some occasions entire congregations have been burned alive inside their churches.

All of which prompts a question: should Western nations passively stand by as their own population balance shifts in the direction of Nigeria’s? A curtailment or a moratorium on Muslim immigration is one of the obvious solutions to the problem of terrorism in the West. But, as I’ve suggested above, many Americans think that such a moratorium would be unconstitutional. After all, doesn’t the Constitution forbid a “religious test” in scrutinizing immigrants? Indeed today’s top news story concerns the attack on Donald Trump by the father of a slain Muslim soldier. At the Democratic Convention, Khizr Khan challenged Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration by asking: “Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?”

In fact, the Constitution has no ban on a religious test for immigration. In a recent National Review piece, Andrew McCarthy points out that Article VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The clause has nothing to do with immigration and, as our bien pensants like to say, it has nothing to do with Islam.

The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 actually gives the president wide latitude in restricting immigration:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may … suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

One of the main intents of the act was to prevent communist ideologues from entering the country, but it was also invoked in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter to keep Iranians out of the U.S. And—surprise—according to McCarthy, “under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum.” As McCarthy notes:

We have a right to require scrutiny of the beliefs of aliens who petition for entry into our country … this includes beliefs the alien may regard as tenets of his faith—especially if such ‘faith tenets’ involve matters of law, governance, economy, combat and interpersonal relations that in our culture’s separation of church and state are not seen as spiritual.

In short, if you believe your religion allows you to execute apostates or subjugate infidels, don’t bother to apply.

When Pope Francis visited Poland for World Youth Day, security in Krakow was at its highest level. Forty thousand security personnel were deployed and, according to The Guardian:

Mobile X-ray devices and metal detectors, as well as dogs trained to detect explosives, are in use at railway and bus stations, major road hubs and venues where papal events are due to take place. Police said that gas tankers and large trucks had been banned from Krakow following the use of a 19-ton truck in a terrorist attack in Nice earlier this month.

Does that suggest anything? Are the officials worried that Protestants or Jews are going to attack the Catholic youth? Are they fearful that Buddhist will attempt to bomb the popemobile? Before the era of mass Muslim immigration into Europe, such precautions would have been deemed as overkill. Now they seem like prudent measures to prevent overkill. The heightened security at World Youth Day and all over Europe is a tacit acknowledgement that Islam differs radically from all other religions. This is a point that Cardinal Burke made in his interview when he criticized Catholic leaders who “simply think that Islam is a religion like the Catholic faith or the Jewish faith.” Just so. It’s well past time to question whether a religion with totalitarian ambitions should be treated like all other religions.

In the Guardian story about the Pope’s visit to Poland, he is described as a “modern pope.” But in some respects he, along with many bishops, seems to belong to an earlier era—an era when it seemed that all people desired nothing more than peace and friendship. At a time when the world is faced with the resurgence of a seventh-century warrior religion, that sixties sensibility no longer seems so modern.
14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media Covers Up Munich Killer's "Allahu Akbar" Jihad... on: July 24, 2016, 08:34:22 AM
Mainstream media covers up Munich killer’s ‘Allahu Akbar’ jihad, tries to link him to mass shooters like Breivik

By PAMELA GELLER on July 23, 2016

The heinous attack by the Munich jihadi who specifically targeted children is being scrubbed and whitewashed by the enemedia. Ali Sonboly was an Iranian German who took direction from al Qaeda and ISIS manuals to target and slaughter children for maximum effect. It is reported that Ali was “obsessed with mass shootings.” Sonboly was studying mass shootings in order to achieve a maximum kill rate. One of the mass shootings Ali reviewed was Breivik. Hellzapoppin in news rooms everywhere.

The enemedia is hang on to the very thinnest reed or no reed at all to avoid the motive behind this worldwide war – Islam.

Because of this tangential and minor point, the media has jumped all over the Breivik aspect. How corrupt and absurd. There is nothing that points to Ali being “inspired.” His inspiration is Islam. His method of jihad was mass shooting, so of course he would review past shootings. From this the enemedia announces, “Munich shooting: Teenage killer Ali Sonboly ‘inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik.'”

And who can believe the German police? They scrubbed the thousands of sexual attacks on New Year’s Eve in order to protect Islam. They even deleted the CCTV tapes. Merkel’s sharia is strictly enforced.

In the hundreds of jihad attacks, the devout Muslim murderers cite Quran chapter and verse and scream Allahu Akbar while they behead, gouge out eyes, sexually mutilate, etc. But the media will never make the connection to Islam. Close to 30,000 jihad attacks since 9/11, and not once did the media connect it to jihad and Islam. But because Ali Sonboly had some of Breivik’s writings in his extensive collection of mass shootings among his possessions, the media has found its target —  Breivik. Breivik quoted Obama and JFK, will the media blame them too?

The enemedia is at war with us. They are vile deceivers. The BBC doesn’t see fit to inform its readers about how Sonboly screamed “Allahu akbar.”  Beware — they stand with jihad.

Mainstream media covers up Munich killer’s jihad, tries to link him to Breivik

July 23, 2016, By Robert Spencer:

This is what we know: this is a time of sorting. The political and media elites are threatened to a degree they have not been in decades or longer. Brexit and the success of Donald Trump have challenged their hegemony and threatened to end it altogether. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that they won’t strike back, and try to protect that hegemony by any and every possible means. That means, if Hillary Clinton is elected, the likely end of the First Amendment and the enactment of laws criminalizing “hate speech,” by which will be meant opposition to jihad terror.

And in the meantime, we should not be surprised to see desperate rear-guard attempts, however ludicrous, to fool people and divert them from the obvious, particularly in regard to jihad terror attacks. The elites, besotted with the multiculturalist idea, enthralled with internationalism, and intent on socialist leveling, are importing Muslims into Western countries in staggering numbers. Yet every jihad massacre awakens more non-Muslims in the West to the suicidal folly of this program. And so the public must be fooled into thinking that none of the jihad attacks are actually jihad attacks. The Orlando jihadi, you see, he was gay and exacting revenge for a bad relationship, or for getting AIDS. The Nice jihadi, you see, he was a bad driver. This one had psychological problems. That one was bullied by his non-Muslim coworkers. That one over there, he got kicked out of a study group. And on and on. Every jihad attack was not jihad, if you believe the mainstream media: yes, it just happened to involve a Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” as he opened fire, but you see, the reality is that he had a troubled childhood, doncha know?

Oh, and the Munich jihadi did indeed scream “Allahu akbar”:




“Munich shooting: 9 victims, gunman dead, police say,” by Catherine E. Shoichet, Ralph Ellis and Jason Hanna, CNN, July 23, 2016:

Lauretta said she heard the gunman say, “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great” in Arabic.

“I know this because I’m Muslim. I hear this and I only cry,” she said.

“Did Munich killer Ali Sonboly lure children to their deaths on Facebook? Police probe fake ad for free food at massacre McDonald’s where Iranian, 18, killed first of his nine victims before turning gun on himself,” by Anthony Joseph, Patrick Lion and Alan Hall, Mailonline, July 23, 2016:

But just a week after another teenager attacker launched an ISIS-inspired axe attack on a German train, witnesses in McDonald’s described hearing yesterday’s attacker shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, or ‘God is Great’, a cry used by Islamist terrorists during previous attacks. And ISIS supporters took to social media in the hours after yesterday’s atrocity to celebrate the killings.

“What we know about Ali David Sonboly after he was named as Munich shopping centre massacre gunman,” by Sam Adams, Mirror, July 23, 2016:

In footage he was seen bursting from a McDonald’s restaurant toilet before opening fire on children. He reportedly screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ before shooting them at close range.

Not long before he hijacked a jetliner and flew it into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Mohamed Atta wrote this to himself: “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

So in the face of this, the mainstream media narrative is that Munich jihad murderer Ali Sonboly was inspired not by Islam and jihad, but by…Anders Breivik:


Look at the Telegraph’s headline: “Live: Munich shooting: Teenage killer Ali Sonboly ‘inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik’ and ‘used Facebook offer of free McDonald’s food to lure victims,’” by Harriet Alexander, Barney Henderson, Chiara Palazzo, Luke Heighton, James Rothwell, Zia Weise, Camilla Turner, and Justin Huggler, Telegraph, July 23, 2016.

Now, with that headline in mind, read the salient portion of the Telegraph’s story:

Dr Peter Langman, the author of Why Kids Kill, the book which was found among Ali Sonboly’s possessions told The Telegraph he was “distressed” at the thought the book was being used in the wrong way.

He said: “It’s disturbing, I don’t know why he had the book. It could be he was better trying to understand himself because he needed mental health treatment and he was trying to get help. Or it could be he was looking for a role model. A lot of young shooters look for an Anders Breivik, or someone similar, as a role model. And since the attack was on the anniversary of the Norway attack, it suggests he was imitating Breivik….

According to German newspaper Bild.de, classmates said he had even used an image of Breivik as his profile picture on the social media network WhatsApp.

Does any of that establish what the Telegraph headline announces, that Sonboly was inspired by Breivik? No. In fact, it was Langman, not Sonboly, who linked Sonboly to Breivik. Authorities found the book Why Kids Kill among Sonboly’s possessions. It could have been there for any number of reasons, but in any case Langman uses it to link Sonboly to Breivik. Authorities did not find any “right-wing” or “anti-immigrant” literature among Sonboly’s possessions, or you can be sure they would have said so. The Telegraph also tells us that his classmates said that Sonboly had a picture of Breivik on his WhatsApp page, but provides no screenshot or anything else that would make this claim anything more than hearsay.

And even if Sonboly had admired Breivik, that in itself doesn’t establish that Sonboly was the “right-wing extremist terrorist” for which the mainstream media has been pining for so long. He may have admired his technique, not his ideology. We should remember in this connection that Sonboly’s parents were immigrants from Iran. Is it really likely that he harbored nativist “anti-immigrant” sentiment?

Needless to say, the Telegraph doesn’t bother to inform its readers that Sonboly screamed “Allahu akbar” as he opened fire. And the BBC is even worse:

“Munich gunman ‘obsessed with mass shootings,’” BBC, July 23, 2016:

The 18-year-old gunman who killed nine people in Munich was obsessed with mass shootings but had no known links to the Islamic State group, German police say.

Written material on such attacks was found in his room. Munich’s police chief spoke of links to the massacre by Norway’s Anders Behring Breivik.

Note the artfully deceptive writing. If anything actually linking Sonboly to Breivik had been found in Sonboly’s room, the BBC and other media sources would have said so plainly. The juxtaposition of these two sentences gives the impression that something linking him to Breivik was found in Sonboly’s room, but in fact all we have there is an assertion by Munich’s police chief that the shooting was linked to Breivik. Given the failure to produce any evidence to support this, and German authorities’ record of covering up crimes by Muslims, this link is extremely questionable.

The gunman, who had dual German-Iranian nationality, later killed himself.

His name has not been officially released but he is being named locally as David Sonboly….

The BBC doesn’t think it is important to tell you that the killer’s name was actually Ali David Sonboly. Why did they drop the “Ali”? Maybe so as not to give aid to those dreaded “right-wing extremists” by giving people the impression that there might be something to be concerned about in Islamic jihad?

The BBC added:

Munich police chief Hubertus Andrae said there was an “obvious” link between the new attack and Friday’s fifth anniversary of Breivik’s attacks in Norway, when he murdered 77 people….

But here again, Andrae doesn’t explain why Sonboly’s link to Breivik is “obvious.” He simply asserts it, with all the weight of his office, and that’s that.

Also needless to say, the BBC doesn’t see fit to inform its readers about how Sonboly screamed “Allahu akbar.” You don’t need to know that. It doesn’t fit what the political and media elites want you to believe; therefore it didn’t happen. Go back to sleep. When the knife slices through your throat, your death will be quick and almost painless, I promise.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/mainstream-media-covers-up-munich-killers-allahu-akbar-jihad-tries-to-link-him-to-mass-shooters-like-breivik.html/#sthash.2WlSVh6i.dpuf
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Posted on Behalf of Crafty Dog... on: July 22, 2016, 10:18:40 PM
Forecast

   As President Muhammadu Buhari continues to lean on his trusted circle
of northern political advisers and allies, public frustration over the
north's perceived domination of Nigeria's political system will grow.
   The mounting irritation could spur political realignments, including
defections from the already strained ruling party to the opposition
People's Democratic Party (PDP).
   The PDP's decision to put forth a ticket in the 2019 presidential
election featuring candidates from both the north and southeast could
split the northern vote, weakening Buhari's support base and
threatening his chances for re-election.

Analysis

In 1999, Nigerian strongman Abdulsalami Abubakar agreed to hand over power
to civilian leaders, replacing the military rule that had typified much of
Nigeria's political history with a rotational power-sharing agreement. The
deal, crafted by the ruling party at the time, was intended to prevent any
one region or ethnic group from monopolizing influence in the Nigerian
government. And indeed, for more than a decade, the country's various
administrations were more or less inclusive.

But the untimely death of former President Umaru Yaradua, a northerner
from Katsina state, upset the fragile balance in 2010. His demise led to
southern Vice President Goodluck Jonathan's rise to prominence, an ascent
that northern Nigeria viewed as a usurpation of the power it was owed.
When Jonathan then attempted to win a second term - a move that would have
extended southern rule by four years - the country's power-sharing system
broke down completely, driving a wedge between members of the ruling
People's Democratic Party (PDP). Many defected, joining the All
Progressives Congress led by northerner and former military ruler
Muhammadu Buhari, who went on to win Nigeria's presidential election in
2015.

Now people are beginning to fear that Buhari is skewing the balance of
power in the opposite direction, concentrating authority in the hands of
his northern political constituents and trusted advisers. Some in the
south have even warned of the federal government's impending
"northernization." But the truth may not be that clear-cut.
The North's Place in Nigerian Security

By law, at least one ministerial or vice ministerial post must be granted
to each of Nigeria's 36 states. Once those positions have been filled, the
remaining appointments can be made at the president's discretion. Buhari
has given many of Nigeria's leftover security portfolios to northern
figures - seven of the 10 most important non-ministerial jobs related to
security, in fact. The move, unsurprisingly, has irritated some of the
country's southerners. Yet Jonathan, a southerner himself, relied just as
heavily on northern officials to handle issues of defense. (He, too,
appointed northerners to seven of the same 10 security portfolios.)
Granted, Jonathan was in a very different position than Buhari is in now.
The former's tenure was so controversial that Jonathan may have felt
politically unable to appoint a slew of southerners to sensitive security
posts without risking severe public backlash.

But the government's dependency on the north is more than just a matter of
politics. The region - and specifically, the ethnic Hausa who live there -
has a military tradition that dates back generations. Since Nigeria's
independence in 1960, northerners have dominated the upper ranks of the
armed services, in turn predisposing them to hold an outsize share of
high-level security roles. Moreover, the only military conflict Nigeria
has had to fight in recent years involves Wilayat al Sudan al Gharbi, an
Islamist extremist group better known as Boko Haram that hails from the
country's northeast. That Muslim northerners lead the fight against the
group is crucial because it enables the government to counter Boko Haram's
claims that Christian southerners are heading the charge against it - a
message that risks alienating northern Muslims from the military.

In addition to these strategic advantages, Buhari has several other
reasons for favoring officials from the north. As a former military ruler
whose previous term was cut short by a coup, the president tends to save
sensitive security matters for those he can trust. More often than not,
that means people who come from the region he considers home. Widespread
corruption - a legacy of Jonathan, who gave his ministers enough autonomy
to engage in criminal practices with impunity - has also given Buhari
cause to pursue tough anti-corruption measures. To this end, he has opened
many high-profile corruption cases against former government officials and
is reportedly recouping millions of dollars in stolen government funds. He
has even named himself the minister of petroleum, likely in an effort to
prevent the corruption that has stained the post in the past.

Nevertheless, Buhari's detractors have interpreted the move as an
unwillingness to share political power. Similarly, the spate of corruption
charges against former civil servants - many of whom are southerners - has
been seen as an attempt to punish the previous administration and any
potential challengers within it. In reality, though, the anti-corruption
drive is more likely aimed at recovering the massive sums of money that
were siphoned off over the past four years, particularly since Nigeria's
finances are under severe strain.

And so, though Buhari has appointed some southerners to posts including
the chief of naval staff, his reputation for northern favoritism has
become difficult to shake. Buhari's recent removal of Emmanuel Ibe
Kachikwu, a southerner and the minister of state for petroleum resources,
from the head of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. probably only
reinforced the image. Some in the south saw this as yet another loss of
influence, though in all likelihood Kachikwu's role was originally meant
to provide temporary oversight of the company's reforms, rather than
permanent guidance. Still, that did not stop groups such as the Niger
Delta Indigenous Movement for Radical Change from condemning Kachikwu's
ouster, nor were they alone in their resentment.
Political Blowback From the South

In fact, the recent uptick in attacks against oil and natural gas
infrastructure in the Niger Delta may be caused in part by mounting
dissatisfaction with Buhari's tactics. Since January, several militant
groups - most notably, the Niger Delta Avengers - have taken to blowing up
pipelines, among other things, to draw attention to the southernmost
region's long-standing grievances. Chief among them is the unequal
distribution of wealth gained from the sale of the Niger Delta's oil. One
possible explanation for the rising violence is that certain factions are
attempting to address the loss, whether real or imagined, of the political
power that they secured under Jonathan's administration. Either way, the
government's inability to redress the restive region's gripes by providing
greater resources has reinforced the narrative that Buhari's government
simply does not care about southern issues.

This explains why, after Buhari declared amid the string of attacks that
Nigeria's unity is "nonnegotiable," several southern groups and figures
rebuked his statement, calling for more autonomy for individual states.
Obong Victor Attah, the former governor of the southern state of Akwa
Ibom, has even put forth a proposal for greater fiscal federalism that
would essentially allow states to lay claim to a bigger share of the
profits they produce. According to Attah, passing the measure would
restore faith in Nigeria's political system. Though the debate over
Nigerian unity has not yet reached an alarming level, the grumblings of
important figures such as Attah underscore the sense of injustice
pervading the region.

If left unchecked, popular frustration could eventually have political
consequences for the president. When narrow interests begin to amass power
in Nigeria, the country's various factions tend to realign against them,
throwing their weight behind candidates who can restore equilibrium. That
is how Jonathan's campaign for re-election was defeated in 2015, and if
Buhari is not careful, it could be how his is thwarted in 2019.

Of course, Buhari still has three years left in his term - plenty of time
to change course if anxiety over the "northernization" of the government
begins to significantly threaten his popularity. But the fact remains that
the public's perception, along with the many other problems Nigeria faces,
could erode support for the overburdened ruling party, especially since
Nigerian political alliances are by nature quite fluid.

Buhari's All Progressives Congress is already divided between two
factions: its original members, and former PDP figures who broke ranks
with Jonathan after he sought a second term. If Buhari's rule becomes more
contested, the latter could return to their old party, leaving the
president's coalition all the weaker. Their defection may be made even
more likely by the PDP's recent announcement that it intends to choose a
northern presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate from the
southeast to represent it in the next race. A joint ticket could be
enticing to former PDP members, most of whom are from the north, as well
as any ruling party members who have been marginalized under Buhari's
reign. More important, the selection of a northerner to lead the ticket
would probably split the northern vote, severely undermining Buhari's
electoral base as he fails to broaden his constituency southward.

The president has time to adjust his image. Whether he has the will to do
so is another matter. But one thing is clear: If Buhari chooses to ignore
the south's growing concerns, he will have to accept the fact that he may
not be president for much longer.

Lead Analyst: Stephen Rakowski
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Allahu Akbar"... on: July 19, 2016, 10:41:36 AM
The phrase, by the way - contrary to most media statements - translates NOT as "God is great,"  but as "Allah is GREATER" (than all other 'false' gods).
This is an important distinction.  Regardless - as Daniel Greenfield points out - even when a person is screaming this as he slaughters innocent people, he is simply "troubled."
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How the Media Covers Up Muslim and BLM Terrorism... on: July 19, 2016, 09:45:24 AM
How the Media Covers Up Muslim and #BlackLivesMatter Terrorism

Every Muslim and #BlackLivesMatter Terrorist is just a “troubled loner.”

July 19, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

No sooner are the bloodstains and bits of human flesh hosed off the concrete from the latest Muslim or #BlackLivesMatter terrorist attack and the grieving families ushered through the cold metal doors of impersonal morgues to identify the bodies of their loved ones that the vultures of the media rise above a wounded city and begin spinning the same old lies.

The propaganda, the artful selection and deselection of facts, have become as familiar to us as they were to any of the residents of the Soviet Union or North Korea. Anyone who pays attention knows not only that they are being lied to, but can easily predict the lies that they will be told on the evening news even before they actually hear them being spoken out loud.

We always knew that the Muslim terrorist, even before he was identified, would turn out to be a secular loner who was depressed over his family life. All the media had to do with Mohammed Bouhlel, the Islamic terrorist who murdered 84 people in Nice, France was to replay the same exact narrative as the one that they had fed us with Omar Mateen, the Islamic terrorist who murdered 49 people in Orlando.

Irreligious, depressed loner with family problems. Check. No connection to Islamic terrorism. Suggestion of mental illness. Check and check. Insistence on his lack of interest in religion? One final check.

Mohammed shouted “Allahu Akbar,” the ancient Muslim battle cry that originated with Mohammed's murder of Jews whose meaning is that Allah is greater than the deities of non-Muslims, but the media persists in its dedication to burying the truth in a shallow unmarked grave at midnight behind CNN headquarters.

Gavin Eugene Long aka Cosmo Setepenra, who murdered three police officers in Baton Rouge, was also unstable. Much like Dallas cop-killer Micah Johnson, who was also another “unstable loner.”

What do Mohammed and Gavin, Micah and Omar all have in common? They’re inconvenient killers.

The left supports the ideologies, black nationalism and Islam, in whose name they carried out their crimes so the media has to redirect attention away from the ideology to the individual.

It doesn’t matter that the killers were very clear about their motives. What matters is hiding the truth.

Every Muslim or #BlackLivesMatter terrorist is just a crazy, depressed loner unable to cope with life’s problems. Descriptions emphasize that they were not part of a group; particularly the groups that the media is attempting to carry water for. Instead Micah Johnson was “reclusive” even though he spent his time partying with a laundry list of racist black nationalist groups, including the New Black Panther Party.

Omar Mateen was a “loner.” Mohammed Bouhlel, the Nice killer, was a “troubled, angry loner with little interest in Islam”. Or perhaps he was a “bitter loner” or even a “weird loner” who became “depressed.”

The key word here is “loner.” Loners aren’t part of a group. When you call a Muslim terrorism a loner or a #BlackLivesMatter terrorist “reclusive”, then there’s no need to look at the movement they were part of. Loners have no movements. Neither do recluses. They’re just “weird” and “unstable” people who go crazy for incomprehensible reasons.

Like depression. Or the weather.

Propaganda rarely gets more obvious than this.

And it’s not just the media. The “troubled loner” narrative comes from the very top down.

Obama insisted that it was “very hard to untangle the motives” of the Dallas cop killer and that he would leave it to “psychologists” but that “the danger is that we somehow suggest the act of a troubled individuals speaks to some larger political statement across the country.”

Micah Johnson had been very clear about his motives. He was a black nationalist activist angry about #BlackLivesMatter issues who said that he wanted to kill white police officers.

Obama contended that Johnson was clearly crazy because, “By definition if you shoot people who pose no threat to you, you have a troubled mind.” By that definition, the Nazis were all “troubled.”

But Obama had cultivated no similar ambiguity after the Charleston massacre. Instead in his eulogy he said that Dylann Storm Roof “surely sensed the meaning of his violent act.  It was an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress.”

And then he demanded that after the actions of one “troubled loner,” the Confederate flag had to come down across the country.

But not all troubled loners are created equal.

Roof’s massacre was part of a larger pattern and a bigger history. But each act of Islamic terrorism or black nationalist violence is purely of the moment and has no larger meaning. Its perpetrators are crazy and their political motives don’t matter. Even though Islamic terrorism has over 1,000 years of history behind it and violence associated with black nationalist groups goes back quite far, neither really exists.

Once again this is what propaganda looks like.

The “troubled loner” narrative is a tactical weapon of spin. When the killer is ideologically convenient, then he’s not a troubled loner, but a representative of a larger political movement. When he’s ideologically inconvenient, then his ideology will hardly be mentioned, only his personal problems.

Your average political terrorist who is willing to kill a bunch of people over the weekend will generally not have the perfect life sitting in his vest pocket. The odds will be very good that his apartment will be messy, his personal life messier and that plenty of people will remember him as a loner or strange.

Of course the same thing could have been said about Adolf Hitler and much of the Nazi elite.

Political radicalism attracts unstable people. This does not mean that we can ignore the ideologies of political radicals by reducing them to personal pathologies. Doing so with a political movement is dishonest and futile. The Nazis could not have been defeated by pretending that they didn’t exist.

It’s the political allies of a terrorist movement who are most likely to play the game of pretending that ideological atrocities are really personal quirks. And that we should focus on the latter not the former.

The media spin on Micah Johnson and Eugene Gavin Long, Omar Mateen and Mohammed Bouhlel is propaganda with a purpose. The purpose is protecting the media’s political allies from being linked to the atrocities being committed by their friendly neighborhood Islamists and black nationalists.

Every Muslim and black nationalist terrorist is crazy. Because the alternative is admitting that both movements use violence to achieve their goals. And that their political allies on the left are complicit in their crimes.

As the violence increases, so do the cover-ups. Anyone who reaches the obvious conclusion about Islamic terrorism and #BlackLivesMatter is dubbed a bigot. A rash of politically motivated killers are dismissed as lunatics. Gun control is revived, not just for its own sake, but as a convenient distraction. 

Just as the crimes of Communism dragged the left deeper into the cover-up with each bloody year, so too the crimes of Islam and black nationalism stain the left’s hands a darker shade of red every single month. And eventually there will be no choice left but to bring down the curtain and tell the truth.
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / France Suppressed News of Torture of Bataclan Victims... on: July 15, 2016, 08:38:22 PM
France ‘SUPPRESSED NEWS OF GRUESOME TORTURE’ at Bataclan JIHAD Massacre: gouged out eyes, castrated victims, shoved testicles in their mouths, some disemboweled, Women stabbed in genitals

ByPAMELA GELLER on July 15, 2016


Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Again we ask, why are Western elites protecting the savage barbarians who are committing unspeakable acts of violence and torture in the cause of Allah?

Why scrub the evil from the evildoers? When is it going to stop? When are rational, civilized, freedom-loving peoples going to break the chains of the leftist/Islamic axis of evil?

People are woefully disarmed in the information battle-space, thanks to the left’s choke hold on media, academia, and culture. When Jesse Hughes, leader of the band Eagles of Death Metal, who was playing at the Bataclan the night of the monstrous jihad attack in Paris, spoke out about what he saw, he was demonized, marginalized and had gigs canceled. That is the world of those of us who speak up against jihad terror and sharia.


“EXCLUSIVE: France ‘Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre,” By Louise Mensch | Heatstreet, 10:50 am, July 15, 2016

HEAT STREET EXCLUSIVE – A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not released to the media, that the killers in the Bataclan tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

But prosecutors claimed these reports of torture were “a rumor” on the grounds that sharp knives were not found at the scene. They also claimed that maybe shrapnel had caused the injuries.

Q. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry….can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan: beheadings, evisceration, eyes gouged out …?

Investigator: After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside  to vomit. He told us what he had seen.

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

Further on the investigator described how this was kept from relatives:

A. Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disembowelled . There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

Elsewhere the investigator says women were sexually tortured, stabbed in the genitals, and their eyes were plucked out. People were decapitated.

The committee chief pressed the investigator on whether victims were decapitated or mutilated. He stated that the authorities had given out conflicting information that said victims were merely shot or blown up. The President of the Committee replied with this damning statement about one victim’s father discovering the gruesome truth in the morgue:

Mr. President Georges Fenech Indeed, the Committee is troubled by this information which has appeared nowhere [in the media]. Thus, the father of one of the victims sent me a copy of a letter he sent to the investigating judge, which I quote in summary: “On the causes of the death of my son A., at the forensic institute in Paris, I was told, and what a shock it was for me at that moment, they had cut off his testicles, had put them in his mouth, and he was disemboweled. When I saw him behind glass, lying on a table, a white shroud covering it up to the neck, a psychologist was with me. He said: This is “the only presentable part, your son’s left profile.” I found that he had no right eye. I made the remark; I was informed that they had punctured his eye and  sliced down the right side of his face, where there was a very large hematoma that we could all see. ”

This particular witness could corroborate the statements that we heard from one of the BAC officials, that one of his investigators vomited immediately on leaving the Bataclan after finding a decapitation and evisceration. Are you aware of such facts?

The prosecutor replied lamely that no sharp knife had been found at the scene that could have been used for torture. Perhaps shrapnel had caused the mutilation, he said. The head of the committee asked if an explosion would have placed testicles in a victim’s mouth:

Prosecutor: I specify, for the sake of clarity: some of the bodies found at the Bataclan were extremely mutilated by the explosions and weapons, to the point that it was sometimes difficult to reconstruct the dismembered bodies. In other words, injuries described this father may also have been caused by automatic weapons, by explosions or projections of nails and bolts that have resulted.

Q. Would those have put a man’s balls in in his own mouth?

Prosecutor: I do not have that information.

The news follows reports that German police sat on the huge number of sexual assaults committed by Islamist migrants in Cologne, which a secret report estimated at thousands, not hundreds. Heat Street will continue to report.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/bataclan-torture-gruesome.html/#sthash.bb7Bo9nM.dpuf
19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Obscene Exploitation of Dallas Police Murders... on: July 13, 2016, 03:18:45 PM
Obama’s Obscene Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre

Exploiting dead police officers to promote #BlackLivesMatter.

July 13, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

In Dallas, Obama mentioned the name of dead sex offender Alton Sterling more times than those of the murdered police officers whom he was pretending to memorialize. After quickly dispensing with the formalities of eulogizing the slain officers, Obama demanded that “even those who dislike the phrase ‘black lives matter’” should “be able to hear the pain of Alton Sterling’s family”.

Alton Sterling was a convicted sex offender, burglar and violent criminal who was shot while reaching for a gun. His family may mourn him, just as every criminal’s family mourns their own, but it was obscene to class him together with five police officers who were murdered by a violent racist while doing their duty.

It is even more obscene when Obama’s favorite sex offender displaces the murdered police officers.

And yet that was Obama’s theme in Dallas. Murdered police officers were contrasted with dead criminals. The proper thing for Americans to do, as Obama told us, was to mourn both officers and criminals, to respect the sacrifices of the police and the anti-police accusations of #BlackLivesMatter.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn the murdered police officers, but to defend the ideology that took their lives. And this is what he has done from the very beginning.

Before the shootings, Obama expressed his “condolences for the families of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile” and insisted that the criminal justice system was racist. His statements and speeches after the shootings echoed the same talking points and spin complete with the claims that accusing the police of racism is “not to be against law enforcement”. 

“When people say ‘Black Lives Matter,’ that doesn’t mean blue lives don’t matter”, he famously said.

That’s true. Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean that blue lives don’t matter. It means that blue lives are evil. As Ta-Nehisi Coates, an author on Obama’s reading list, wrote of the dead police officers who gave their lives on September 11, “They were not human to me.” That’s the kindest thing that the black nationalists whose cause Obama has championed have said of the police.

In a more recent article titled, “The Near Certainty of Anti-Police Violence”, the MacArthur Genius Grant recipient and son of a Black Panther suggests that black resentment of police makes their murder predictable.

“Sanctimonious cries of nonviolence will not help,” Coates writes. “The extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Walter Scotts and Freddie Grays is the extent to which we are tolerant of the possibility of more Micah Xavier Johnsons.”

It’s the core black nationalist message made more palatable for liberal audiences. Underneath the word games, the attempt to treat the ideological justifications for the mass murder of police as inevitable, is the same message delivered by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, the #BlackLivesMatter supporter who assassinated two NYPD officers, who had posted, “They take 1 of ours…Let’s take 2 of theirs”.

Obama’s message was even more polished than Coates, but not really so very different. Coates had polished up the radical black nationalist message for liberal audiences. Obama’s speechwriters shaped his for a national audience. But underneath the religiosity and praise of the police was sheer contempt.

In one of the nastily cynical moments, Obama claimed that “to honor these five outstanding officers who we lost” we would have to act on “uncomfortable” truths such as his claim that the police are racist. “Insisting we do better to root out racial bias is not an attack on cops, but an effort to live up to our highest ideals,” he spun.

While the media applauded his “healing”, Obama was just recycling his speeches from before the Dallas shooting. The talking points had not changed. They had only been moved around a little to exploit the police officers murdered by a #BlackLivesMatter supporter in order to promote #BlackLivesMatter.

Indeed this had always been Obama’s first and foremost priority.

After the shooting, his initial response was to emphasize that the anti-police protests were “peaceful”. At Dallas, in his praise of the police officers, he insisted on inserting that same description of a “peaceful” protest “in response to the killing of Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge and Philando Castile of Minnesota”. The choice of words, ‘killing’ rather than ‘death’, is significant.

The “shootings in Minnesota and Baton Rouge” were equated with the murders of police officers in Dallas in a breathtaking bit of moral equivalence. Americans were encouraged to grieve for sex offender Alton Sterling and the murdered police officers at the same time. And, just in case there was any ambiguity about which side he was on, Obama warned that “we cannot simply turn away and dismiss those in peaceful protest as troublemakers or paranoid.”

It was a defense of #BlackLivesMatter at a memorial for their victims.

Obama’s spin was that he was calling for unity when in reality he was pushing the divisive agenda of the hate group whose rhetoric helped lead to the killings. He was not a healer, but an arsonist.

There was nothing unifying about his exploitation of a memorial service to push anti-cop messages or to call for gun control. Neither message is in any way, shape or form unifying. They are as divisive as can be.

Obama did not come to Dallas to mourn, to heal or to unify. His sole purpose was to protect his #BlackLivesMatter hate group from the consequences of its rhetoric. Americans were fed lies about peaceful protests featuring armed members of hate groups who had called for the murder of police.

#BlackLivesMatter draws its inspiration from a cop-killer. It has deliberately targeted white people in much the same fashion that Micah X. Johnson did. The only real difference between Johnson and the black nationalist hate groups frantically trying to distance themselves from him in much the same way that mosques do from the latest Islamic terrorist is that he followed through on a lot of their rhetoric.

Johnson was not trying to get a job writing Black Panther comics or making YouTube videos. He actually did the sort of thing that #BlackLivesMatter role models like Assata Shakur did. He killed police officers.

For Obama, Dallas was a bump in the black nationalist road. It was, like every Islamic terrorist attack, an unfortunate incident from which we shouldn’t draw any conclusions, except perhaps that guns are bad. The goal is to redirect our attention to the next set of #BlackLivesMatter protests or the next celebrity tweeting about gun control and how mean those men with guns who aren’t on their payroll are.

He did not come to Dallas to praise the dead, but to enlist them in the service of his anti-police agenda.

Not only had Obama’s actions led to the murder of police officers, but he was determined to whitewash their deaths and exploit them as weapons in his war against the police.
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: The Worst Possible Prime Minister... on: July 13, 2016, 03:13:27 PM
Robert Spencer in Epic Times: Theresa May Prime Minister: A Disaster for Brit­ain

July 12, 2016  By Robert Spencer

Over at Epic Times, I discuss the worst Prime Minister Great Britain could possibly have: its next one.

    OPINION – The worst outcome of Britain’s unexpected vote to leave the European Union was the resignation of David Cameron as Prime Minister – not because he was a great leader (he wasn’t), but because his successor is Theresa May, who promises to surpass even her feckless predecessor and become the weakest, most appeasement-minded Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain.

    As I was banned by Theresa May from entering Britain for the crime of correctly noting that Islam has doctrines involving violence against unbelievers, I know firsthand her anxiousness to please forces that do not regard free speech and open debate as positives for society. But there is more. As head of the UK Home Office, May announced a review of Britain’s Sharia courts – then appointed Muslims to oversee it, drawing protests from human rights activists concerned that her review board would be too biased to note the courts’ violations of women’s rights.
    Theresa May Has A History Of Oppression

    May also disregarded warnings about security risks and scrapped an aerial surveillance program that had been designed to stop migrants from sneaking into Britain. With May heading the Home Office, the British government helped illegal immigrants quash convictions for fraud and other crimes, so that they could stay in the country.

    May has claimed counterfactually that the Islamic State’s “actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran.” She asserted, in the teeth of abundant evidence (including a statement from ISIS saying that jihad attacks would continue in France “as long as they boast about their war against Islam”), that the November 2015 jihad massacre in Paris had “nothing to do with Islam.” This willful ignorance hamstrings intelligence and law enforcement officials’ ability to fight the jihadis: one cannot defeat an enemy while refusing to name or understand it.

    But May is on the case. With the jihad threat higher than ever, May vowed to fight all forms of extremism, from “Islamist” to “neo-Nazi.” Does Britain have a big neo-Nazi problem? Did neo-Nazis set off bombs on a London bus and behead a British soldier in the street? Are goosesteppers strutting around in Trafalgar Square? No. By “neo-Nazis,” May means those people who dare to speak out against the immigration and national security policies she has pursued that have brought Britain to the brink of catastrophe.

    As Prime Minister, she may get the chance to push Britain off the edge.
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / New UK Prime Minister Banned Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer from Entering U.K. on: July 13, 2016, 11:47:08 AM
Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter No 10

By Pamela Geller on July 12, 2016


I am glad that the UK Prime Minister-to-be Theresa May is being called out on her craven cowardice in the face of sharia demands in her country (as described here: Sharia Enforcer Theresa May to be New UK Prime Minister). Not only did she ban me from entering the UK, but she sanctions the brutal sharia courts notoriously punishing towards women. Nightmare.

A number of news outlets went undercover at these sharia courts. A BBC Panorama Documentary went undercover in one of the 85 sharia courts operating as a parallel legal system in the UK, uncovering the extensive abuse of women, refusal to grant divorces, charging of the woman but not the man for divorce proceedings, and even the taking away of the woman’s children, and rulings contrary to British law. In 2007, Channel 4 documentary did a series called called Divorce Sharia Style, in which Muslims appeared to express a desire to impose Sharia law on the UK.

When women described being beaten and abused, court officials laughed. Evil.

And while Theresa May is “reviewing” these sharia courts, this is being branded a “whitewash.” This from the Independent, July 9, 2016:

    Theresa May’s review of sharia courts has been branded a “whitewash” before it has even begun, with more than 200 individuals and human rights groups signing an open letter urging her to dismantle the panel chosen to oversee the inquiry.

    They claim that by appointing an Islamic scholar as chair and placing two imams in advisory roles, the panel’s ability to make an impartial assessment of how religious arbitration is used to the detriment of women’s rights will be seriously compromised.

What are the credentials of the “experts”?

    “Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter No 10,” By Zole O’Brien, The Express, July 12, 2016:
    INCOMING Prime Minister Theresa May has defended her position on Sharia Law on the eve of taking over as the leader of the Conservative party.
    May sparked controversy when she spoke out in support of the Islamic courts operating in the country, telling the nation they could “benefit a great deal” from Sharia teachings.
    The future Tory leader made the comments as she ordered a review into the system which are accused of ordering women to stay with abusive partners.Mrs May, said she is worried the courts are “misused” and “exploited” to discriminate against Muslim women, but defended their place in society.

    Sharia is Islam’s legal system derived from both the Koran, Islam’s central text, and fatwas – the rulings of Islamic scholars.

    There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of our own legal system.

    Judgements handed down by the informal courts have no legal basis, but there are fears their presence means many Muslim women are not getting access to the justice they deserve.

    Now, before she takes over Number 10, May has been forced to restate her position on Sharia Law.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/theresa-may-forced-to-defend-views-on-sharia-law-as-she-prepares-to-enter-no-10.html/#sthash.2pXpuufC.dpuf
22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Has the Race War Obama Wants Begun??? on: July 08, 2016, 05:07:08 PM
BLACK LIVES MATTER TERRORISTS MURDER DALLAS COPS

Is the race war Barack Obama wanted breaking out in Dallas and across America?

July 8, 2016  Matthew Vadum 

The ambush-style mass shooting of cops in Dallas, Texas, last night makes it clear that it is time for the dangerous, anti-American insurgency called Black Lives Matter to be designated a terrorist organization for fomenting a war against the nation’s law enforcement officers.

As FrontPage went to press early Friday morning, five Dallas area police officers were dead, systematically slaughtered by snipers.

That makes it the deadliest attack on U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

The officers were killed during a demonstration in downtown Dallas against police brutality that leftists say is directed at black Americans as a matter of government policy. Similar marches and rallies took place in other cities, including New York, Oakland, Calif., and Denver, Colo. One suspect has been killed and three others remain in custody. Police have not yet released their identities.

Of course, murdering police officers has long been encouraged by activists with the Black Lives Matter cult, with the support of the activist Left. A year ago Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who openly advocates the mass murder of whites, called for “10,000 fearless men” to “rise up and kill those who kill us.” Like many radicals, Farrakhan mischaracterizes Black Lives Matter as a rising civil rights movement.

President Barack Obama, who a decade ago promoted inter-racial warfare in Kenya, has long tried to provoke civil unrest here in the U.S. with his hateful anti-cop rhetoric and his relentless demonization of opponents. His goal is fundamental transformation of the United States. A Red diaper baby who identifies violence-espousing communist Frantz Fanon as an intellectual influence, he has also steadfastly refused to condemn the explicitly racist, violent Black Lives Matter movement. In fact Obama has lavished attention on the movement’s leaders and invited them to the White House over and over again.

Members of the Democratic National Committee expressly endorsed Black Lives Matter, throwing their lot in with black racists and radical Black Power militants. The DNC officially embraced a statement that slams the U.S. for allegedly systemic police violence against black people. A resolution passed by hundreds of delegates at the DNC meeting in Minneapolis last year accuses the nation’s police of "extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children."

The Left persists in these lies because, well, that’s what these people do.

According to one analysis, of all the people shot and killed in the U.S. by police so far in 2016, only 24 percent, or 122, were black. Black people are only about 13 percent of the population but they commit around half of all violent crimes. So far this year 47 percent of people shot and killed by police, or 235 individuals, were white.

Only 3 percent, or 13 people shot and killed by police year to date were black and unarmed. The percentage for whites is exactly the same. In other words, police are shooting and killing unarmed blacks and whites at the same rate, Paul Joseph Watson observes.

“There’s no racial disparity,” he says. “Do we have a problem with police brutality in America? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it almost exclusively targeted towards black people as Black Lives Matter claims? No, but the polarizing way in which Black Lives Matter made it all about race has divided the nation and made half of the country completely disinterested.”

Watson addresses “black people,” telling them that “Black Lives Matter is hurting you. It’s doing incredible harm. Martin Luther King achieved justice and civil rights by championing equality and building bridges with white America.”

Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, demands racial segregation, keeps whites out of its meetings, and urges the killing of police, he adds.

Returning to the situation in Dallas, as of 11:45 p.m. Central time, 11 officers from the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system had reportedly been shot. DPD chief David Brown told reporters that two snipers opened fire from elevated positions in downtown Dallas. Dallas mayor Mike Rawlings (D) said the shooting began at 8:58 p.m. local time. Brown added that suspects may have also planted a bomb downtown.

Four of the murdered police officers worked for the DPD. The other deceased officer worked for DART.

The killing spree followed days of media-hyped adverse publicity for police forces in Louisiana and Minnesota.

In its intensifying assaults on American law enforcement the Left seized upon a police-involved death earlier in the week of a notoriously violent criminal in Louisiana who had reportedly menaced an innocent by-stander with a gun.

Recidivist felon Alton Sterling, a black offender well known to local law enforcement, was shot to death by police early Tuesday morning in Baton Rouge following a physical struggle with police in which Sterling may have reached for a weapon. Both officers “believe they were completely justified in using deadly force,” according to the local district attorney.

Although even with graphic video footage of the shooting it’s not entirely clear what happened as the two cops and Sterling struggled, the Left is moving full speed ahead portraying the deceased career criminal as a martyr slaughtered by the evil system that rules a hopelessly racist America.

The Left reveres thugs. It jumped on the bandwagon promoting the lie that Michael Brown of Ferguson, Mo., and Trayvon Martin of Sanford, Fla., were innocent angels unjustly cut down by white executioners. The truth, as we now know, is that both young black men were killed in self-defense by the white men they intended to harm.

It is telling that the Left is paying far less attention to a much more sympathetic figure killed by police this week in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, Minn., because the story of his death doesn’t fit its predetermined anti-American narrative quite as well. It’s not merely about racial conflict potentially: it is also about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Philando Castile, 32, a black man with no felony convictions who worked in a school cafeteria, was shot by police during a traffic stop. According to Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, who live-streamed video on Facebook of the stricken man in his final moments, Castile was trying to retrieve his wallet after informing an apparently Caucasian attending officer that he was in possession of a concealed weapon and a permit allowing him to carry it. Perhaps Castile made a move the officer considered threatening. Or maybe the cop was nervous and trigger-happy.

“He let the officer know that he had a firearm, and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm,” Reynolds said. In the video as the bloodied driver lay dying the policeman could be heard using expletives and screaming, “I told him not to reach for it.”

Reynolds replied, “You told him to get his ID, sir – his driver’s license.”

Because the Castile case appears to involve gun rights and perhaps other issues possibly unrelated to race, it is harder for left-wing activist groups to fundraise off of. This would explain why the Left is giving the case far less play than the marquee Sterling shooting. And to the extent that progressives have taken up Castile’s cause they are treating it solely as a racial incident. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) said he was “appalled” by the shooting and that it would not have happened if Castile had been white.

But with Alton Sterling, it is as if his supporters hired teams of publicists to get the desired message out to the masses.

Ignoring Sterling’s two decades of criminal activity, Black Lives Matter quickly went to work inflaming racial antagonism while the man’s body was still warm. The movement characterized the incident as an extrajudicial execution by racist cops. It was aided in this public relations offensive by biased saturation coverage of the Sterling saga by the media.

The movement’s most important cheerleader, President Obama, gleefully stuck a shiv in police, crowing that recent fatal shootings of black suspects by police “are not isolated incidents.”

“They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.”

Predictably MoveOn and Color of Change –which was founded by self-described “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones and MoveOn alumnus James Rucker— didn’t bother waiting for the facts to be known before using the incident to raise money. On Wednesday MoveOn sent out a mass email to members demanding that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch hold the police officers involved accountable.

In the email Color of Change executive director Rashad Robinson paints Sterling as an upstanding citizen, describing him as “a 37-year-old Black father of five,” capitalizing the B in black as racists do. The police officers involved “have no respect for Black lives and must be held accountable,” he added.


 
Celebrities weighed in with vapid and condescending observations.

Singer Beyoncé posted what a groveling USA Today called a “powerful letter” about police brutality. “We’re going to stand up as a community and fight against anyone who believes that murder or any violent action by those who are sworn to protect us should consistently go unpunished,” she wrote, presuming that Americans don’t care about murders committed by police.

Chris Long, who makes his living being hit in the head, chose to insert himself into the story. The defensive end for the New England Patriots was happy to convene a lynch mob on Twitter. He tweeted “If you think we need to ‘wait for the facts’ on the Alton Sterling execution after seeing the video, you are an accessory to evil.”

What is clear is that if the Left is serious about moving its race war forward, it is hanging its future on a pretty slim reed by hyping the Sterling killing.

This is not to suggest that Sterling, who had been living in a homeless shelter, deserved to die. Maybe in the end we’ll find out the cops who dealt with him were overzealous, reckless, malicious, or racist, or all of these things. Perhaps this was a suicide by cop. Time will tell.

Let’s go over what we know.

The Advocate in Baton Rouge reports that on July 5,

“Around 12:35 a.m., Baton Rouge police responded to the Triple S Food Mart at 2112 N. Foster Drive after an anonymous caller indicated that a man in a red shirt who was selling CDs outside the store pointed a gun at someone, telling them to leave the property, Baton Rouge Police Department spokesman Cpl. L’Jean McKneely said.”

Apparently authentic cellphone videos from the scene soon went viral. They showed two police officers scrapping with Sterling beside a car in a parking lot. “Get on the ground! Get on the ground!” an officer is heard yelling in the early seconds of one clip. The sound of what may be a stun gun can be heard.

“He’s got a gun! Gun,” one cop says. “If you fucking move, I swear to God,” says an officer. It is unclear what Sterling, who reportedly had a gun on his person at the time, is doing with his arms at this point because the officers are on top of him. In audio that is garbled, one of the officers can be heard saying what seems to be “he’s going for the Taser!” Shots ring out at various points in the confrontation and Sterling is mortally wounded.

Some local sources were quoted in the media saying Sterling was a kind, peace-loving, respected member of the community. If that’s true, that doesn’t speak well of his community.

Sterling was a bad actor with a temper who had gotten physical with police before. The incorrigible reprobate’s rap sheet is long. (Heavy obtained 46 pages of court documents from his criminal file.)

Sterling was convicted of aggravated battery, criminal damage to property, unauthorized entry, and domestic abuse battery, among other offenses.

An affidavit of probable cause states Sterling was involved in 2009 in a wrestling match with a police officer. A cop tried to pat down the man and he resisted arrest. The two men ended up on rolling around on the ground and a “black semi auto gun fell from his waistband.” Another affidavit states a cop pulled Sterling over for speeding. He didn’t have proof of insurance and police allowed him to retrieve his belongings from his vehicle. He crossed the street, laid himself on the pavement in a prone position, yelled at the cops and told them to “go ahead and beat him down regardless of the outcome.” Other such affidavits accuse Sterling of home invasion, burglary, threatening with a gun, stealing pet goldfish, and possession of ecstasy and marijuana.

Sterling was also a registered sex offender, Heavy reports. At the age of 20 he impregnated a 14-year-old girl. In September 2000 he was convicted of “carnal knowledge of a juvenile” in Louisiana and released from prison in October 2004. In August 2015 a warrant was issued for Sterling’s arrest after he failed to update his sex offender registration.

In 2011 he was convicted of “knowingly and intentionally possessing a firearm while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance” and sentenced to five years imprisonment. A drug trafficking-related charge was thrown out apparently as part of a plea bargain.

Meanwhile, the Democrat machine in the Pelican State is doing everything it can to turn Baton Rouge into the new Ferguson, complete with race riots and wanton lawlessness.

Kip Holden (D), mayor-president of East Baton Rouge Parish, said Wednesday he was touched to receive a supportive phone call from the buffoonish Baltimore mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), who helped to exacerbate race riots in her city after the death of black career criminal Freddie Gray in police custody, because “they’ve been through the same thing.”

How reassuring.

The Left’s goal is to polarize and enrage and foment even more racial tension and violence to distract from presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s endless political problems, as well as to energize the party's base so they vote in droves in November. They may even blame unrest in Baton Rouge on congressional Republicans who refuse to fight back. Blaming Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen’s murderous rampage at a gay club in Orlando on Republicans and law-abiding gun owners worked, so why not.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) invited his friends in the Obama administration to turn this local investigation into a three-ring media circus. The U.S. Department of Justice announced it would open a civil rights investigation after Edwards demanded it. “I have very serious concerns,” he said. “The video is disturbing, to say the least.”

Getting the feds involved means the Obama administration is sure to deploy government-paid community organizers from DoJ’s Community Relations Service to rub raw the sores of discontent.

After Trayvon Martin’s death in early 2012, local police declined to press charges against the eventually acquitted George Zimmerman for a month and a half because they believed the criminal case against him was ridiculously weak. CRS burned through taxpayer cash organizing marches at which participants inflamed racial tensions and –voila!— Zimmerman was prosecuted in what would become a historic abuse of process.

Almost immediately after Michael Brown died in August 2014, CRS operatives arrived on the ground in Ferguson to interview and indoctrinate local members of the community. As Ryan Lovelace reported at NRO paraphrasing Mayor James Knowles III, “DOJ officials talked about underlying racism that people may not perceive, and the issue of white privilege.”

East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore (D) seems not to understand that having the Obama-controlled Justice Department take over the Sterling investigation is a monumentally bad idea. Explaining why the local government refuses to investigate its own police, Moore said feebly at a press conference, “absolutely, we did not want another Ferguson. Baton Rouge is not Ferguson; we have a completely different history,” Moore said.

Good luck with that, counselor.

And just wait until the authority-hating terrorists of Black Lives Matter turn on you.
23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Obama's Student Loan Program Makes College Impossible to Afford... on: July 08, 2016, 11:11:02 AM
HOW OBAMA'S STUDENT-LOAN POLICY MAKES COLLEGE IMPOSSIBLE TO AFFORD

And the Democratic solution is to double down on it.

July 8, 2016  John Perazzo

One of the most crushing economic burdens that will plague today's young Americans for decades to come, is the debt they incur on their college student loans. Seven of every ten graduating collegians owe money on such loans, and their average debt is currently about $28,950 per borrower—up 68% from a decade ago. During the Obama administration, the cumulative sum of all student loan debt in the U.S. has risen from $600 billion to almost $1.4 trillion, a figure that continues to grow by an astounding $235 million per day.

We were brought to this sorry state-of-affairs by many years of bad policy, topped off by a particularly catastrophic “innovation” by Obama and the Democrats. For decades prior to the Obama years, students most commonly borrowed money for college by dealing with private lending institutions, most notably the Student Loan Marketing Association (known colloquially as Sallie Mae). Each time these lenders issued a student loan, they paid a fee to the federal government, which, in turn, assumed responsibility for covering the cost of any defaults. Knowing that taxpayers would pick up the tab for bad loans, the lenders relaxed their approval standards and made money readily available at low interest rates—even to students with weak credit credentials. This led, predictably, to record levels of borrowing.

Colleges and universities, reaping the windfall of this easy access to student-loan money, had no incentive whatsoever to keep their operating costs or tuition fees in check. Consequently, from 1985-2010 the cost of college tuition rose at more than 4 times the general rate of inflation. The gravy train was running in high gear. As Cato Institute scholar Tad DeHaven puts it, “[T]he rise in student subsidies over the decades appears to have fueled inflation in education costs.”

But instead of trying to break this cycle by taking the government out of the equation and allowing the free market to operate, the Obama administration took precisely the opposite approach.

On July 1, 2010, Obama signed Congressional legislation eliminating the role of private lenders in federal student loans. All such loans would now be issued through the Department of Education's Direct Loan program. Previously, the Department of Education had been responsible for about one-third of federal student loans through its direct-lending program. Now that figure became 100%. The Wall Street Journal correctly predicted that the new policy would cause the cost of college to “become even less affordable” while giving “more power to government” and transferring “more of the costs and risks of college financing to taxpayers.” House Education and Labor Committee chairman John Kline concurred that the new student loan program would “encourage more borrowing ... and leave the taxpayer holding the bag.”

In accordance with these predictions, delinquency rates on new student loans rose by 22% after 2010. Today, says the Wall Street Journal, “more than 40% of Americans who borrowed from the government’s main student-loan program aren’t making payments or are behind” on their loan payments.

Of course, where President Obama is concerned, government can never be big enough, or intrusive enough, or bloated enough. Thus, like the economic illiterate that he is, he has also called for a massive increase in federal Pell Grants to low-income students who are not required to repay the money. Meanwhile, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York report that the Pell Grant program is little more than a boondoggle that fills the massive coffers of colleges and universities by driving tuition costs through the roof for everyone. As Forbes.com reports, “[F]or every dollar that Pell Grants are increased, college tuition goes up by 55 cents. In other words, the students pay an extra 55 cents in tuition for every dollar of Pell Grant they receive, meaning they only save 45 cents in terms of out-of-pocket costs. Colleges gain even more than the 55 cents from each dollar of new Pell Grants because they collect the extra tuition from all their students, including all the ones who do not receive Pell Grants.”

And what, pray tell, is presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's prescription for the problem of skyrocketing tuition and student debt? It's exactly what you'd expect from yet another economic illiterate. “Students at community college will receive free tuition,” she proclaims, and they “should never have to borrow to pay for tuition, books, and fees to attend a four-year public college in their state.” Does this mean that Hillary has devised a clever plan for persuading professors and administrators to work for free, and thus to eliminate tuition costs? Nope. Her “plan” is to have the federal and state governments do more to “meet their obligation to invest in higher education.”

That, of course, means that you—the American taxpayer, the plaything of our overlords in government—must “invest” more in the college education of people whom you've never met and will never know. Why? Because Hillary and Barack and the rest of the Democratic Party say it's your duty. And if you find that it's difficult to come up with the requisite cash, perhaps you could just do what Hillary does to earn a few extra bucks every now and then: Go give a one-hour speech somewhere for $250,000, and you'll be fine.
24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim Brotherhood Operatives In U.S. Government... on: July 07, 2016, 07:38:59 AM
Obama whistleblower: Terror-linked Muslim groups helping set policy, costing lives

JULY 6, 2016 4:32 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Malfeasance on a grand scale. I detailed in my 2013 book Arab Winter Comes to America how the Fort Hood and Boston Marathon jihad massacres could have been prevented, were it not for politically correct willful ignorance at the highest levels. And now Philip Haney is revealing that the situation is even worse than was previously known.



“Obama Whistleblower: Terror-Linked Muslim Groups Helping Set Policy, Costing Lives,” by Philip B. Haney, Breitbart, July 6, 2016:

Last week I testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts at a hearing entitled, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

I am a recently retired Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agent. I was named a Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at its inception on March 01, 2003. During my 12 years serving inside DHS under two administrations, I witnessed a series of events which ultimately prompted me to become a whistleblower, releasing critical documents to Members of Congress as I felt necessary to comply with my oath to the Constitution.

First, in January of 2008, I received what is now known as the “Words Matter Memo,” which was circulated internally by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) division of DHS. The full title of the document was “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims,” and it read in part:

 [T]he experts counseled caution in using terms such as, “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist,” and “holy warrior” as grandiose descriptions.

Collapsing all terrorist organizations into a single enemy feeds the narrative that al-Qaeda represents Muslims worldwide.

We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam. Therefore, when using the word [Islamic], it may be strategic to emphasize that many so-called “Islamic” terrorist groups twist and exploit the tenets of Islam to justify violence and to serve their own selfish political aims.

Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term (putting aside polemics on its true nature), it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the globe.

I submitted a seven-point response listing serious substantive concerns about this memo, but received no response.

On November 24, 2008, a decision came down in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terror financing case in American history. During that trial, the federal government had established that a number of organizations were appropriately named as unindicted co-conspirators along with HLF, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Specifically, the judge ruled that federal prosecutors had “produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF… and with Hamas.” In addition, the judge ruled that that these organizations had direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest and largest Islamic fundamentalist organizations in the world, founded in 1928 in Egypt to reestablish the Caliphate, whose motto includes “Jihad is our way, and death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes.”

I made note of the decision, and explored links between these groups and potential extremist and terrorist activity. But on October 15, 2009, I was ordered by DHS to ‘modify’ linking information in about 820 subject records in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or “TECS records” to remove ‘unauthorized references to terrorism.’ I was further ordered not to input any more Memoranda of Information Received, or MOIRs, to create no more TECS records, and to do no further research on the topics I was exploring.

On November 5, 2009, at Ft. Hood, Texas, Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people, including one who was pregnant, and wounded 32 others, while calling out “Allahu akbar!” meaning “God is great” in Arabic.

Hassan was a U.S. Army major who had exchanged emails with leading al Qaeda figure Anwar Awlaki – which the FBI had seen and decided not to take action – in which he asked whether those attacking fellow U.S. soldiers were martyrs. He had also given a presentation to Army doctors discussing Islam and suicide bombers during which he argued Muslims should be allowed to leave the armed forces as conscientious objectors to avoid “adverse events.” The Pentagon refused for five years to grant victims Purple Hearts, designating the attack “workplace violence.”

On January 27-28, 2010 an ‘Inaugural Meeting’ occurred between American Muslim leaders and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, hosted by DHS CRCL. The Inaugural Meeting created controversy because it included a number of Islamic fundamentalist individuals and organizations.

For instance, the meeting included at least one organization that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 HLF Trial and established to have associations with the now-shuttered HLF and with Hamas, namely ISNA. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the group’s representative who attended the meeting, Ingrid Mattson, has “an established pattern of minimizing the nature of extremist forms of Islam and rationalizing the actions of Islamist terrorist movements.” Another invited group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), was actually formed as the United States chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1993.

Likewise, in the Spring of 2010, the Administration convened the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group under the authority of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), again raising questions because of those named to it.

They included Omar Alomari, who once wrote that jihad was “the benign pursuit of personal betterment. It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation,” asserting further that “”Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West”; Mohamed Elibiary, who has asserted that it was “inevitable that [the] ‘Caliphate’ returns” and ultimately was let go from the HSAC amid charges he misused classified documents; and Dahlia Mogahed, who has decried “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” and holds that “Islamic terrorism’ is really a contradiction in terms” to mainstream Muslims “because terrorism is not Islamic by definition.”

So by the Spring of 2010, we had come to the point that a CBP Officer was literally removing information connecting the dots on individuals with ties to known terror-linked groups from TECS, while the Administration was bringing the same individuals into positions of influence, to help create and implement our counter-terror policy, in the context of actual terror attacks taking place.

On August 30, 2011, the DHS Chief Council approved a project I initiated looking into Islamic fundamentalist group Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). On November 15, 2011, I began a temporary duty assignment at the National Targeting Center (NTC). A short time later, I was assigned to the Advanced Targeting Team, where I worked exclusively on the TJ Project, which was quickly upgraded to a global-level case.

On March 15, 2012, seven lawyers and three senior executive service (SES) administrators met with management personnel at the NTC to express concern for our focus on TJ, because it is not a designated terrorist group, and therefore the project might be “discriminating” against its members because they are Muslim. On June-July, 2012, the TJ Initiative was ‘taken in another direction,’ (i.e. shut down). The Administration took this action despite the fact that [1] in nine months, we had conducted 1,200 law enforcement actions, [2] I was formally commended for finding 300 individuals with possible connections to terrorism, and [3] 25% of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay had known links to Tablighi Jamaat.

On August 22, 2012, The Institute of Islamic Education (IIE) case that today links both the Darul Uloom Al-Islamiya mosque attended by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters, and the Fort Pierce mosque attended by Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was entered into TECS. But once again, on September 21, 2012, all 67 records in the IIE case were completely deleted (not just ‘modified’) from TECS.

On September 21, 2014, I was relieved of my service weapon, all access to TECS and other programs was suspended, my Secret Clearance was revoked, and I was sequestered for the last 11 months of my career with no assigned duties.

On December 2, 2015, the San Bernardino shootings occurred, and I immediately linked the mosque in San Bernardino to the IIE case (with the 67 deleted records), and to the Tablighi Jamaat case (which was shut down).

On June 09, 2016, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee issued an Interim Report and Recommendations. The report recommended in part using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.”

On June 12, 2016, the shootings in Orlando occurred, and I linked Omar Mateen’s mosque in Fort Pierce, FL to the IIE & TJ case. And on June 19, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that her Department of Justice would release redacted 9-11 call transcripts for Mr. Mateen.

The threat of Islamic terrorism does not just come from a network of armed organizations such as Hamas and ISIS, who are operating ‘over there’ in the Middle East. In fact, branches of the same global network have been established here in America, and they are operating in plain sight, at least to those of us who have been charged with the duty of protecting our country from threats, both foreign and domestic….
25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Comey Blows The Whistle, But Won't Recommend Indictment... on: July 05, 2016, 03:38:00 PM
FBI: HILLARY LIED AND ILLEGALLY SENT CLASSIFIED EMAILS, BUT WE WON'T DO A THING ABOUT IT

July 5, 2016  Daniel Greenfield  

Is anyone seriously surprised?

Yes all sorts of people might have gone down for this. But the idea that government, in its current state, would hold a presidential candidate from the government party accountable for anything less than choking a nun to death in broad daylight while cackling evilly was always a pipe dream. (And probably not even then.)

Hillary Clinton has a vast and influential network at her disposal. And the current administration backs her to the hilt. Furthermore, Lynch no doubt made it clear to the FBI that no charges would be pursued no matter what. And that made the outcome inevitable.

The FBI investigation provides plenty of ammunition for the election. It makes it crystal clear that Hillary Clinton lied about not sending classified emails. But it also states that it isn't going to do a thing about it.

Here's Comey trying to sum up the classified email abuses

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”


 
But....

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

The clear evidence standard is of course absurd, because Clinton and her people knew the regulations and clearly violated them. That standard would apply to any other employee, yet Hillary is allowed to act as if she had no idea of what the law was or that she was violating it.

So Comey demolishes Hillary's lies about classified emails on the one hand and then shrugs the whole thing off on the other. You can see that as the action of a man in an impossible spot who does his job demolishing the alibi and then walks away having provided the information while knowing that it can be used politically, but not criminally.

Effectively he's blown the whistle but can't do anything about it.
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / We Are A Nation of Rebels... on: July 04, 2016, 07:20:42 PM
Greenfield: Our Eternal War for Independence

We are a nation of rebels.

7.4.2016 - Daniel Greenfield 

How will you celebrate the Fourth of July?

With fireworks and parades, hamburgers and hot dogs, sweating bands playing Sousa marches and parades down Main Street? Will you remember the men who fell in the first war and all the following wars that were fought to preserve our political and personal independence from foreign and domestic tyrannies? Will you consider what you might have done in the days when revolution was in the air?

Those are all good things. They remind us to celebrate and what it is we are celebrating.

I sat on the warm grass beneath the shade of a spreading fig tree listening to a band run through a repertoire of everything from Yankee Doodle Dandy to Over There. An elderly disabled veteran with a flag listened intently to the orchestra and a small child clambered awkwardly up a tree as his father worriedly urged him to climb down. It could have been a scene from any century. The Fourth is timeless.

It is timeless because it is still going on. The War of Independence went on underneath that fig tree, it continues on in your town, your city and in your community on this day and on every day.

Independence Day is a commemoration, but it is not a mere commemoration. The struggle is not over.

America became America out of a hatred of powerful central government. The War of Independence was not a battle between two countries. America’s Founding Fathers started out as Englishmen who wanted to preserve their rights from a distant and out of touch government.

The War of Independence was a civil war between those who wanted a strong central government and those who wanted to govern themselves. The fundamental breach between these two worldviews led to the creation of an independent nation dedicated to the preservation of independence. This independence was not mere political independence. It was personal independence.

America as a separate nation did not yet exist. Even the Constitution that embodies its purpose was a decade, a war, a failed experiment in government and many bitter debates away.

Nations come and go. Political unions are created and dissolved. There are nations today named Egypt and Greece that have little in common with the historical entities that once bore those names. The Declaration to which those remarkable men pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor was not for a flag, which then still bore the Union Jack, or for the invention of yet another administrative body, but for the rights of peoples, nations and individuals to be free to exercise their personal and political rights.

The war for these things was fought, but it has not ended. It began then, but it continues today.

It is not a war against King George III. It is the ongoing struggle between the people and those who would govern them that is at the heart of our independence.

There are two visions of how men are meant to live today, just as there were in 1776. Revolutions and wars may occasionally clarify these visions, but they do not permanently resolve them. New governments are quick to adopt old tyrannies. Freedom is a popular rallying cry for rebels. But few rebels wish to be rebelled against. That is what made America unique. That is what still does.

We were not meant to be a society of sinecures for public servants. We did not come into being to be ruled by bureaucrats. Our birth of freedom was not meant to give way to the repression of a vast incomprehensible body of regulations administered by an elite political class in Washington D.C.

Americans are rebels. And if we are not rebels, then we are not Americans.
We are not a nation founded by men and women who followed the rules. It is not our capacity for obedience that makes us true Americans, but our capacity for disobedience.

The Declaration of Independence was a document of rebellion by a band of rebels. “Damned rebels” as the big government monarchists saw them. The men who signed it pledged their lives because they expected to be executed for treason. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were acts of rebellion against the entire order across what was then seen as the civilized world.

American greatness came about because we were willing to break the rules. It was only when we began following the rules, when as a nation we made the maintenance of the international order into our notion of the greatest good and when as individuals we accepted the endless expansion of government as a national ideal that we ceased to be great. 

When we think of great Americans, from Thomas Jefferson to the Wright Brothers, from Andrew Jackson to Daniel Boone, from Theodore Roosevelt to today’s true patriots, we think of “damned rebels” who broke the rules, who did what should have been impossible and thumbed their noses at the establishments of the day. American greatness is embodied in individual initiative. That is why the Declaration of Independence places at the center of its striving, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It was for these individualistic ends of freedom that government had to be derived from the consent of the governed, that a war was fought that changed the world and it is these ends that we must celebrate.

Rebellion does not always mean muskets and cannon. Long before the War of Independence, we had become a nation of rebels who explored the wild realms of forests and streams, who forged cities out of savage lands, who argued philosophy and sought a higher purpose for their strivings, who refused to bow to their betters out of an accident of birth. And at our best, we are still rebels today.

When we dissent from the system, we rebel. When we refuse to conform, when we think differently, when we choose to live our own lives instead of living according to the dictates of our political rulers and pop culture arbiters, then we are celebrating the spirit of freedom that animates the Fourth.

When we defy the government, when we speak out against Obama and the rest of our privileged ruling class, when we demand the right to govern ourselves, when we fight to hold government accountable, when we question what we are told and the need to be told anything at all, then we are keeping that old spirit of rebellion alive. We are still fighting for our independence from government every day and every year that we choose to live as free people. That is the glorious burden of freedom.

Freedom is not handed to us. It is not secured for us by politicians. Like the Founding Fathers, we are made free by our fight for freedom. Preserving their legacy cannot be meaningfully recreated through any means other than the committed struggle for the same ideals.

This Fourth of July, celebrate by continuing to be a rebel, question and challenge the left’s worship of government. And don’t stop on the Fifth or in July. Or in any year or any decade or any century.

We here at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and at Front Page Magazine don’t.

Our family of writers, activists and commentators, and that includes you, inspired by David’s courageous spirit continue to question authority, challenge government and fight for the independence of the individual against the tyrannies of the radical left and Islamic theocracy, every day, week and month of the year.

And we welcome you to our revolution.
27  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / We Are A Nation of Rebels... on: July 04, 2016, 07:19:22 PM
Greenfield: Our Eternal War for Independence

We are a nation of rebels.

7.4.2016  - Daniel Greenfield

How will you celebrate the Fourth of July?

With fireworks and parades, hamburgers and hot dogs, sweating bands playing Sousa marches and parades down Main Street? Will you remember the men who fell in the first war and all the following wars that were fought to preserve our political and personal independence from foreign and domestic tyrannies? Will you consider what you might have done in the days when revolution was in the air?

Those are all good things. They remind us to celebrate and what it is we are celebrating.

I sat on the warm grass beneath the shade of a spreading fig tree listening to a band run through a repertoire of everything from Yankee Doodle Dandy to Over There. An elderly disabled veteran with a flag listened intently to the orchestra and a small child clambered awkwardly up a tree as his father worriedly urged him to climb down. It could have been a scene from any century. The Fourth is timeless.

It is timeless because it is still going on. The War of Independence went on underneath that fig tree, it continues on in your town, your city and in your community on this day and on every day.

Independence Day is a commemoration, but it is not a mere commemoration. The struggle is not over.

America became America out of a hatred of powerful central government. The War of Independence was not a battle between two countries. America’s Founding Fathers started out as Englishmen who wanted to preserve their rights from a distant and out of touch government.

The War of Independence was a civil war between those who wanted a strong central government and those who wanted to govern themselves. The fundamental breach between these two worldviews led to the creation of an independent nation dedicated to the preservation of independence. This independence was not mere political independence. It was personal independence.

America as a separate nation did not yet exist. Even the Constitution that embodies its purpose was a decade, a war, a failed experiment in government and many bitter debates away.

Nations come and go. Political unions are created and dissolved. There are nations today named Egypt and Greece that have little in common with the historical entities that once bore those names. The Declaration to which those remarkable men pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor was not for a flag, which then still bore the Union Jack, or for the invention of yet another administrative body, but for the rights of peoples, nations and individuals to be free to exercise their personal and political rights.

The war for these things was fought, but it has not ended. It began then, but it continues today.

It is not a war against King George III. It is the ongoing struggle between the people and those who would govern them that is at the heart of our independence.

There are two visions of how men are meant to live today, just as there were in 1776. Revolutions and wars may occasionally clarify these visions, but they do not permanently resolve them. New governments are quick to adopt old tyrannies. Freedom is a popular rallying cry for rebels. But few rebels wish to be rebelled against. That is what made America unique. That is what still does.

We were not meant to be a society of sinecures for public servants. We did not come into being to be ruled by bureaucrats. Our birth of freedom was not meant to give way to the repression of a vast incomprehensible body of regulations administered by an elite political class in Washington D.C.

Americans are rebels. And if we are not rebels, then we are not Americans.
We are not a nation founded by men and women who followed the rules. It is not our capacity for obedience that makes us true Americans, but our capacity for disobedience.

The Declaration of Independence was a document of rebellion by a band of rebels. “Damned rebels” as the big government monarchists saw them. The men who signed it pledged their lives because they expected to be executed for treason. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were acts of rebellion against the entire order across what was then seen as the civilized world.

American greatness came about because we were willing to break the rules. It was only when we began following the rules, when as a nation we made the maintenance of the international order into our notion of the greatest good and when as individuals we accepted the endless expansion of government as a national ideal that we ceased to be great. 

When we think of great Americans, from Thomas Jefferson to the Wright Brothers, from Andrew Jackson to Daniel Boone, from Theodore Roosevelt to today’s true patriots, we think of “damned rebels” who broke the rules, who did what should have been impossible and thumbed their noses at the establishments of the day. American greatness is embodied in individual initiative. That is why the Declaration of Independence places at the center of its striving, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It was for these individualistic ends of freedom that government had to be derived from the consent of the governed, that a war was fought that changed the world and it is these ends that we must celebrate.

Rebellion does not always mean muskets and cannon. Long before the War of Independence, we had become a nation of rebels who explored the wild realms of forests and streams, who forged cities out of savage lands, who argued philosophy and sought a higher purpose for their strivings, who refused to bow to their betters out of an accident of birth. And at our best, we are still rebels today.

When we dissent from the system, we rebel. When we refuse to conform, when we think differently, when we choose to live our own lives instead of living according to the dictates of our political rulers and pop culture arbiters, then we are celebrating the spirit of freedom that animates the Fourth.

When we defy the government, when we speak out against Obama and the rest of our privileged ruling class, when we demand the right to govern ourselves, when we fight to hold government accountable, when we question what we are told and the need to be told anything at all, then we are keeping that old spirit of rebellion alive. We are still fighting for our independence from government every day and every year that we choose to live as free people. That is the glorious burden of freedom.

Freedom is not handed to us. It is not secured for us by politicians. Like the Founding Fathers, we are made free by our fight for freedom. Preserving their legacy cannot be meaningfully recreated through any means other than the committed struggle for the same ideals.

This Fourth of July, celebrate by continuing to be a rebel, question and challenge the left’s worship of government. And don’t stop on the Fifth or in July. Or in any year or any decade or any century.

We here at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and at Front Page Magazine don’t.

Our family of writers, activists and commentators, and that includes you, inspired by David’s courageous spirit continue to question authority, challenge government and fight for the independence of the individual against the tyrannies of the radical left and Islamic theocracy, every day, week and month of the year.

And we welcome you to our revolution.
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Superb Article on Elie Wiesel and His Life... on: July 04, 2016, 07:05:13 AM
Was Elie Wiesel Happy?

Yosef Abramowitz - The Jerusalem Post


“You came for me?” asked a bewildered Mikhail Gorbachev.

“As a Jew, I owe you that much,” responded Elie Wiesel.

French president Mitterand sent Wiesel aboard a government plane to Moscow, where he met Gorbachev immediately after the 1991 coup failure, several months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

“When Gorbachev saw me he was moved. I asked myself, why was he moved, with tears in his eyes? Because he had just realized that his friends were not his friends. Every single one had betrayed him. Those whom he had elevated, abandoned him. I have rarely seen a man as lonely as he was. And here comes a young Jew, and says I’m here to help you, to give you support. I was thinking: I’m a yeshiva bucher from Sighet, and all of a sudden I’m involved with presidents, bringing personal messages, and traveling in government planes. I was surprised.”

Wiesel’s life-long self-image as “a yeshiva bucher from Sighet” provided important hints not only into his pre-Holocaust life, but also insights as to how the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize laureate viewed himself. Wiesel has been described as a modem prophet, a moving writer, a brilliant teacher and even a Jewish superstar. He is best known, however, as a survivor of Nazi horrors. Yet to keep describing Wiesel in all the obituaries as a survivor does an injustice to the totality of his life and accomplishments. Elie Wiesel did not merely survive, he triumphed. And if he would have paused long enough to consider it toward the end of his remarkable life, he might even have said he was happy.

Passing away at 87, Wiesel marked nearly 60 years since the publication of the best-selling Night and almost three decades since being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. “I can’t believe it,” he said in a conversation with this writer, smiling and shaking his head at the incredible path his life had taken.
x

Books were everywhere at Wiesel’s home on the 26th floor of a nondescript Upper East Side Manhattan apartment building. A visitor is first confronted by thousands of books in Hebrew, Yiddish, French, and English that cover nearly every inch of space between the floor and ceiling of the L-shaped living room. One upper shelf in a corner is devoted to the more than 30 titles bearing Wiesel’s name. People are not aware that when he was a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, he was also being seriously considered for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Two framed pictures are the lone exceptions to the otherwise book-lined walls. When Wiesel sat at his large desk, he faced on the far wall a sketch of Jerusalem. When he turned around to use the computer, he looked right into a dark black-and-white photograph of the house in Sighet where he grew up, which is featured in his memoirs along with 16 pages of family photos.

“Since I began writing, I always face that house,” he said in a television interview. “I must know where I come from.”

Eliezer Wiesel was born in the picturesque town of Sighet, below the Carpathian mountains that were once home to the Ba’al Shem Tov, the father of Chasidism. Tantalized by Chasidic tales his grandfather told, Wiesel’s happiest childhood memories were punctuated with singing Shabbat songs, eating chocolates and studying a page of Talmud under a tree while the other youngsters played ball.

“He was a little sickly and certainly what we call bookish,” recalled Professor David Weiss Halivni, who studied in cheder with Wiesel in Sighet. Halivni, a former professor of religion at Columbia University and one of Wiesel’s closest friends, said that even as a child, Wiesel was “artistically more sensitive” to the mystical teachings of their teacher. Halivni believed Wiesel's sense of humor was conditioned as a child. “Maybe he had a premonition,” he said.

“We were in the ghetto together. He was on the last transport. I was on the first. I left on Monday, he left Thursday,” recalled Halivni. “So we came to Auschwitz at different times.”

“We met in Auschwitz,” said Rabbi Menashe Klein. Wearing a black Chasidic robe, tzitzit, white beard and sidelocks, Klein strikes one as Wiesel’s Old World alter ego. This is perhaps how Wiesel himself might have looked had his life, his studies, and his preoccupation with mysticism not been interrupted by history. “Somehow we got to Buchenwald and were liberated there together,” he said. “We went to France then, and Professor Wiesel attended the Sorbonne. I, on the other hand, kept dwelling in our Torah.”

Rabbi Klein, whose study in Brooklyn was also crowded with religious books, explained that Wiesel took a different path after the war as a result of the shock of his experiences during the Holocaust.

After the war, Wiesel studied in Paris, where he earned money directing a choir. Later he became the Paris correspondent for the Israel daily, Yediot Aharonot, earning $30 a month. His big break came when he moved to New York to work with the Yiddish Forward, earning $175 a month as a copy editor; writer and translator. “I remember when he lived on 103rd Street,” says Halivni. “He had only a small room, narrow, dark—you could see the poverty. I remember him sitting on the floor surrounded by records of Bach. At that time he was practically starving.”

In 1956, Wiesel stepped off a curb in Times Square and was struck by a speeding taxi. Following the accident, which left him hospitalized for seven months, Wiesel desperately needed money and tried covering the United Nations on crutches for Yediot. Golda Meir, then foreign minister, took pity on the young journalist and would invite him back to her hotel suite, where she would prepare omelets and tea and brief him on the day’s events. In 1967, his books, which had been commercial failures, began to sell, and Wiesel was able to leave daily journalism to concentrate on book writing.

So powerfully embedded in the popular psyche is Wiesel’s association with the Holocaust that many would find it surprising that the topic rarely came up in his classes or in his writings.

“When people didn’t talk about the Shoah, I felt I had to. So many people are doing it now, I don’t need to any more,” he explained. In fact, he always thought twice about raising the issue. “I’m afraid of making it into a routine. I want it that whenever I mention the word Shoah, I should stop for a second and my voice should tremble, my whole being should tremble before pronouncing that word.”

Halivni left public speaking about the Holocaust to Wiesel. “But when he comes to see me,” he said, “He listens and I shout.”

While the Holocaust rarely figures prominently in Wiesel’s public life in the later years of his life, his sensitivity as a survivor gave him an appreciation for every moment, and for life’s fragility. He and his wife, Marion, used to travel on separate flights. “Just in case,” he said, like a quick prayer, eyes flashing toward Heaven.

It also drove him to work hard.

“There are people who want to do more than they can. Wiesel is one of them,” said Rabbi Klein, who, like Wiesel, went to sleep late and woke up early to study and write. “For Wiesel, the Nobel Peace Prize is no more than a ladder, a step, toward fulfilling a goal for which he remained alive: to do for the Jewish people.”

“A person cannot live with the feeling that they have achieved the highest,” said Halivni, who claimed that the Nobel Prize had been a mixed blessing for Wiesel.

“The Nobel Prize did not become an end, rather a new beginning. He realizes that the Nobel Prize was given to him as ‘Mr. Jew,’ and therefore he owes it to the Jewish people. In a sense it entails a greater responsibility. It has imposed a burden on him; the possibility of extending help, because of his connections, is much bigger. There is nothing more frightening for a sensitive person than having power.”

While New York is far from Sighet, Elie Wiesel was never far from the forces that molded his childhood: chasidism and the Holocaust. And the struggle of these two forces to coexist in one soul is what shaped Elie Wiesel until his last day, providing the creative tension for his achievements and writings. Deep within him lay a young yeshiva bucher from Sighet; deep within he believed he survived the Nazi horrors for a purpose.

* * *

Clad in a well-tailored gray suit and hugging a velvet blue Torah scroll, Elie Wiesel danced in a tight circle with his friends and sang songs of praise to the God he had so often challenged. Wiesel was glowing; gone was the trademark somber look that is naturally chiseled in his sullen, handsome face. It was Simchat Torah for the Jewish people. Yet for Wiesel it was more; it was also his birthday.

“We never celebrated birthdays at home,” Wiesel said of his childhood. He rarely celebrated the occasion because “to me every minute is a victory.”

Wiesel credited his sanity to his family and friends. “I read, I listen to music, I speak with friends. My life is full. The main thing is not to waste time.” But then he added, “Sometimes I think that I too am insane. I was always in the minority, like the madman. When I began to talk about trying to teach the Shoah, how many others were there? When I began for Russian Jewry, how many others were there then?” “What keeps Wiesel sane?” pondered Rabbi Menashe Klein. “We sing together, eat together, daven together, walk together. He comes here before every holiday. Mostly we meet, we talk.” Klein says that Wiesel, who sang in a choir as a child, still loved to sing Chasidic melodies. “He would begin singing Friday night at 5:30 p.m. and wouldn’t stop until after 2 a.m.”

Wiesel said that his daily study of Jewish texts was essential for him. “I love to study. It gives you a good sense of proportion. After all, what Rambam says maybe is more important than the article I wrote for The New York Times.”

Wiesel's preoccupation with books began early. When others were hording food and valuables, the young Wiesel brought books to study onto the cramped cattle car to Auschwitz.

Dr. David Weiss Halivni and Wiesel expressed their friendship by always speaking Hebrew to each other. Halivni was one of the few who could really make Wiesel laugh. “The lightest moments we have are when we bring up characters from Sighet,” he said.

What kind of characters? There was the shadchan (matchmaker), Ziegenfeld, who always walked with an umbrella. And then there was the tall shochet (ritual slaughterer) and his short wife. And many others. “Hardly a conversation passes when we don’t talk about Sighet,” Halivni said. “When describing these things, recapturing the comical aspects of Sighet, then I see him having a hearty laugh.”

Was Wiesel happy? To his friends, the question seemed irrelevant. “We never think in those terms,” said Halivni. He explained that Chasidic spirituality gave Wiesel freedom—a second liberation—and that Wiesel “needs the joy of Chasidut because he cannot always live in the shadow of the Holocaust.”

Wiesel, hesitant to allow an affirmative answer, gave a traditional response. “We don’t speak about happiness in our faith, we speak about simcha vesasson (joy and gladness). What do we ask for? Shalom, yes. We mainly ask for Yirat shamayim (fear of heaven), for study, for chaim shel Torah (life of Torah). What is Torah? Meaning. My life has been the pursuit of meaning, not joy.”

For Wiesel, without a Jewish context there was no enjoyment. When asked. about simcha vesasson in his own life, he paused briefly, and then his words flowed in his soft French accent. “Nineteen forty-eight, when Israel was born. I remember that Shabbat in Paris. I felt joy that came from history. Then the ‘67 war. Shichrur Yerushalayim (the liberation of Jerusalem), something that remains with me. And Simchat Torah in Moscow with young people.”

Yet “there is something missing, and when something is missing, happiness can’t be present because happiness means nothing is missing. What is missing?” The Boston University professor paused and then answered the question. “Certainty. You have the haunting feeling that history is trying to purge itself of its demons, of its nightmares with the pursuit of violence of bloodshed, of hatred.

“In this generation, the pursuit of pleasure is at the expense of happiness. Pleasure is instant pleasure. Everything we are obtaining is instant. Instant meaning, instant love, instant philosophy, instant truth.

“The Gaon of Vilna said that the hardest mitzvah to accomplish is ‘v’samachta bechagecha' (rejoice in your holidays). ‘Do not steal,’ ‘do not kill,’ everything is easy. ‘Vesamachta bechagecha!’ To make sure that you rejoice,” Wiesel said energetically.

Wiesel’s voice then became barely audible, his downward gaze was steady. His consciousness seemed to have been transported to another time. “Another kind of joy, even deeper than that, and more personal, was the birth of my son... even more, the brit of my son. To me in my life, it has the importance of the birth of Israel, the reunification of Jerusalem. I felt it in my body, in every cell of my body....”

The phone broke his trance, and Wiesel walked over to his executive-size mahogany desk to answer it. On it sit two photographs: One of him with his wife and their son Shlomo-Elisha, and one a close-up of their son, both taken at least 35 years ago. Wiesel named his son after his father, who was in the camps with him and died only weeks before Wiesel’s liberation. “I was 16 years old when my father died,” writes Wiesel in his memoirs.

“My father was dead and the pain was gone. I no longer felt anything. Someone had died inside me, and that someone was me.”

“My father had no official position in the community, he was a kind of intercessor in the community, he was a grocery store owner,” Wiesel said in a tone of great respect. “Somehow, I don’t know how, he always defended the Jews with the authorities. Therefore, when something would happen, they would come to my father.” At times his father was so busy with Jewish communal business that the young Wiesel would only see him at home on the Sabbath.

Wiesel himself had no official position in the Jewish community, yet he has served as an intercessor with heads of state, including President Reagan prior to his trip to Bitburg and President Clinton, to ask him to do more to help the Bosnians. As Prime Ministers, both Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu tried convincing Wiesel to accept the position of President of the State of Israel. “The need to help Jews, I think I am following in my father’s footsteps and I think he would have wanted it that way,” said Wiesel. Wiesel said that he has only recently realized the similarities between himself and his father, and explains that it took a long time to come to this conclusion “because of kibbud av (respect of one’s father), I didn’t dare compare myself with him. He saved Jewish lives; I didn’t. I try to teach, but he saved Jewish lives. He was arrested, he was tortured. I was not. So how can I compare myself to him?” Just as Wiesel struggled with being a son, he also wrestled with being a father. “The hardest is to be a good father, always” confessed Wiesel. Halivni says that it is not easy being the son of a great man. Shlomo-Elisha, a Yale graduate who now works in finance, had been heard to say, half-jokingly: “It’s hard growing up in a house where your dad is the arbiter of morality in the 20th century.”

Wiesel believed that “the father-son relationship is a test, both for the father and for the son. When the son leaves home, it is harder for the father than for the son,” he said, hoping not to betray the privacy of his family life while trying to convey the love and understanding he had for his son. “The son has to free himself on the one hand, and at the same time be loyal,” he said, speaking perhaps about both his relationship with his father and his son’s with him. “The hardest things are the most rewarding.”

Yosef I. Abramowitz, Elie Wiesel’s student, serves as CEO of Energiya Global Capital and can be followed @KaptainSunshine
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary's "Serious Lack of Competence" Cost Lives at Benghazi... on: June 29, 2016, 07:18:21 AM
HILLARY’S 'SERIOUS LACK OF COMPETENCE' COST LIVES AT BENGHAZI

But she is only the tip of the iceberg.

June 29, 2016  Robert Spencer

Former CIA officer D. W. Wilber noted in The Hill Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions leading up to the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya as a whole were “lunacy on a grand scale”: “Additional security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to the United States.” Hillary’s “trust in the various militia factions to set aside their longstanding differences and establish a governing body in the war torn country illustrates another amateur mistake.” But it wasn’t. It was a professional mistake.

In reality, Hillary’s actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.

This is the kind of disastrous miscalculation preached by establishment foreign policy wonks including the likes of the puerile and silly Will McCants (and the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution in general), Max Abrahms (and the Council on Foreign Relations in general), and a host of others that the State Department and other foreign policy entities hire by the pound.

The foreign policy establishment is a bipartisan creation, and both parties refuse to challenge its hegemony. The Republicans, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings showed Tuesday, continue instead to let Hillary and Obama off the hook, and don’t even come close to challenging the entrenched foreign policy bureaucracy. Breitbart News noted that the final report from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)’s committee refused “to blame President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as refus[ed] to say directly if Clinton lied to the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.”

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible.”

Bozell detailed the many failures of Gowdy’s inquiry: “The causes, events and circumstances regarding the attacks on the American personnel and facilities at Benghazi are still a mystery to the American people. Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer. Why did this administration deliberately lie about the video? No answer. Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the multiple failures of the military? Should the Secretary of State be held responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department decisions? Not according to this report. They wouldn’t even state that Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by committee members, prove she had! But they did blame a ‘rusty bureaucratic process.’”


That “rusty bureaucratic process” is a product of the foreign policy establishment that led us into this mess. Hillary Clinton is just their most prominent exponent — which does not in the least exonerate her. It’s just to say that not only does Hillary Clinton’s influence over the U.S. government in whatever capacity need to be decisively rejected; the whole foreign policy establishment needs to be swept out, cherished and unquestioned assumptions rejected, and the edifice remade by people who are more realistic and unafraid to base policy on unpleasant realities rather than upon politically correct wishful thinking.

Even worse, right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of those slain there recounted that Secretary of State Clinton spoke to him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.” And she did. The filmmaker, who went by several different names, had a record full of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on the Internet – which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious video to YouTube.

For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the U.S. for Obama’s war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the technicality of the probation violation (while thousands of more serious probation violators walked the streets), but for insulting Muhammad. His arrest was a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. He was nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

That, too, was a reflection of the foreign policy establishment’s determination to compel Americans to stop doing anything and everything that any Muslim might construe as offensive to Islam. Reflecting the establishment policy also were Hillary’s fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” In response to that, Donald Trump recently opined that Hillary was “in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”

Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?

Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.

The foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brexit Implications... on: June 24, 2016, 01:48:28 PM
Brexit Vote Passes! Here's How Alt-Market Called It When No One Else Did

Friday, 24 June 2016 00:41 Brandon Smith

Yes, in case you fell asleep before the votes were tallied, the UK referendum has passed and global markets are currently in a freefall we have not seen since 2008.  In this case, I'm going to have to trumpet my successful call here.  For all the general flak I received in emails for my predictions of a Brexit passage including in my article 'Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out Or Something Else' which was published during the height of the polling disinformation frenzy, I think it is important to explain how I was able to discern how the vote was likely to turn out when no one else did.

Also, if there were other analysts that did predict a Brexit win and I am overlooking them, please list their names and where they made those predictions in the comments below so that we can give them their due credit.

Here's why the vast majority of analysts were caught with their pants down on the UK referendum:

1) They assumed that the Brexit will hurt globalists - In the article linked above, I outlined why the Brexit actually aids international financiers and central banks by creating a scapegoat for a market crash that was ALREADY going to happen.  Rather than re-explaining my position, here is a large portion of quotations from that article:

I believe the Brexit vote may be allowed to succeed, here’s why…

1) Elites including George Soros have suddenly decided to dive into the market to place bets on the negative side. Dumping large portions of their stock holdings, shorting equities and buying up gold and gold mining shares. Soros has been preparing his portfolio for a successful Brexit vote while at the same time publicly warning of the supposed dire consequences if the referendum passes.  The last time Soros put this much capital into the markets was in 2007, just before the crash of 2008.

2) The IMF and the BIS have been warning since late 2015 (for six to eight months) that a global economic downturn is on the way in 2016. We saw considerable volatility at the beginning of this year, and markets are due for another shock. The last time the BIS and IMF were so adamant about an impending crash was in late 2007, just before the 2008 market plunge.

3) While the Federal Reserve has not yet implemented a second rate hike (I still believe they could use a rate hike this year to stab markets in the back if necessary), Janet Yellen pulled a maneuver which was almost as upsetting to investors. After the Fed policy meeting last week, markets were moderately exuberant and stocks were rising, then, Yellen opened her mouth and blamed the Brexit for the rate hike delay…

Here is what the Fed has done: By delaying the second hike for another month, and then blaming the Brexit vote as a primary reason, they have created a bit of a paradox. If the Brexit vote passes, the Fed is asserting that they may not hike rates for a while, giving market investors the impression that the global economic recovery is not all that it is cracked up to be. If the Brexit vote fails, then the Fed MUST hike rates in July, otherwise, they lose all credibility. I believe Yellen’s claim that the Brexit vote was the cause of the hike delay was highly deliberate. It has triggered what may become a growing firestorm in equities and commodities.

From the point of view of investors, if the Brexit passes, then all hell breaks loose. If the Brexit fails, then the Fed will hike rates and once again, all hell breaks loose. Or, the Fed refuses to hike rates even though its number one scapegoat is out of the picture, it loses all credibility, and all hell breaks loose.

It’s a lose/lose/lose scenario for the investment world, which is probably why global markets plunged after Yellen’s remarks. Investors have been relying on the predictability of central bank intervention for so long that now when ANY uncertainty arises, they run for the hedges.

The Fed decision to blame the Brexit for their rate hike delay could indicate foreknowledge of a successful Brexit vote.

4) The recent murder of British lawmaker Jo Cox is perhaps the weirdest piece in the puzzle of the Brexit. For one thing, it makes no sense for a pro-Brexit nationalist (Thomas Mair) to attack and kill a pro-EU lawmaker when the polls for the “Leave” group were clearly ahead. One could simply argue that the guy was nuts, but I’m rather suspicious of “lone gunman,” and his insanity has yet to be proven.  I see no reason for this man, insane or not, to be angry enough to kill while the Brexit side was winning in all the polls.

If someone was using him as a weapon only to discredit the Brexit vote or sway the public towards staying in the EU, you would think that they would have initiated the murder closer to the day of the referendum when it would have the most effect. The information flooded public has days to digest new data and forget Jo Cox.

My theory? Thomas Mair has handlers or he is just a mentally disturbed patsy, and his purpose is indeed to paint the Brexit movement as “angry” or crazy. But this does not necessarily mean the intent behind the assassination of Jo Cox was to break the back of the Brexit movement. Rather, the goal may only be to perpetuate a longer term narrative that conservatives in general are a destructive element of society. We kill, we’re racists, we have an archaic mindset that prevents “progress,” we divide supranational unions, we even destroy global economies. We’re storybook monsters.

Even the cultural Marxists at the Southern Poverty Law Center somehow produced documents allegedly linking Mair (a veritable unknown) to Neo-Nazi groups in 1999. Wherever the SPLC is involved, the official story is always skewed.

The murder of Jo Cox has had a minimal effect on Brexit polling numbers.  In the end, the elites may find Thomas Mair more useful as a mascot for the Brexit AFTER the vote, rather than before the vote.

So now the Brexit movement, which is conservative in spirit, is labeled a “divisive” and “hateful group”, and if the referendum is triumphant, they will also be called economic saboteurs.

I thoroughly agree that the internationalists do not usually allow economic developments of a global nature to occur if those events are damaging to their base of power.  The problem is, Brexit is not damaging to their base of power in the long run.  In fact, the elites are aided by the Brexit because now they have British pro-sovereigns and the principle of sovereignty itself to blame for a market crash that they have actually been engineering for years.

2) They Believed The Polling Numbers - I take polling numbers into account at times but they are ultimately meaningless when you are dealing with global economic events.  As I point out above, such events are thoroughly played by internationalists.  What people should have been looking at instead of skewed polling numbers was the behavior of elites prior to the vote.  George Soros' latest market bets were clearly on a crash (I'm sure he just raked in a handsome profit), and central bankers from around the world congregated at the Bank for International Settlements in preparation for the vote.  Janet Yellen blaming the Brexit for the Fed's refusal to raise rates in June should have been a red flag for everyone.  When in doubt, always look at what the elites are doing with policy and their own money.

3)  They Have Grown Cynical - After eight years of constant market manipulation, the Liberty Movement in particular has grown rather cynical about whether or not the fundamentals even matter anymore.  I'm here to tell you, they do matter.  However, stocks today are not based on fundamentals, they are based on dubious investor psychology and algo-trading computers.  When investor psychology is broken, the markets are suddenly reminded of the terrible fundamentals of our economic system and stocks begin to crash.  Eventually, fundamentals will win over false financial optimism.  The international banks are well aware of this, and are merely allowing circumstances by which they can crash the markets THEIR WAY instead of allowing the markets to crash naturally.  Too many analysts overlooked the usefulness of Brexit to the elites because of their crippling cynicism.

4) They Missed The Bigger Picture - If all an analyst does is track equities and sometimes commodities, they are never going to grasp what is happening in the economy.  Our financial system is not based entirely on numbers and graphs; it is a sociopolitical apparatus.  Political and social developments can indeed signal what might happen in stocks and on mainstreet.  The relations are there, but they are often indirect.  In 2016, EVERYTHING is snowballing with tension.  It was only a matter of time before something snapped.  The timing of the Brexit amidst these tensions led me to believe it had a high probability of being a trigger for the next leg down.

So, the big question now is what happens as the circus continues?  I will be writing a comprehensive article on what is likely to occur over the next few months in markets and everywhere else in response to the Brexit event.  Look for that article to be published early next week.  I do believe that central banks around the world are probably going to take action at some point in the near term to mitigate the market collapse and slow it down slightly.  As I have always said, this is a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of the global economy; the elites want to steam valve the system down and are probably not going to allow a complete freefall.

You will most likely see a mainstream media campaign to marginalize the importance of the Brexit.  They will claim that the referendum is not necessarily binding yet. That it will take years to be instituted.  Frankly, this is not relevant.  Again, the markets are based on psychology first, and the damage has already been done.  Watch for further market disruptions to pile on before the U.S. elections, including other EU member states suggesting their own referendums.

Stay tuned to Alt-Market for further analysis...

 

Regards,

Brandon Smith, Founder of Alt-Market.com
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Brexit Will Change America and the World... on: June 24, 2016, 12:35:50 PM
How Brexit Will Change America and the World

Britain is free of global government. America can be next.

June 24, 2016
Daniel Greenfield


​Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Yesterday the British people stood up for their freedom. Today the world is a different place.

Celebrities and politicians swarmed television studios to plead with voters to stay in the EU. Anyone who wanted to leave was a fascist. Economists warned of total collapse if Britain left the European Union. Alarmist broadcasts threatened that every family would lose thousands of pounds a year if Brexit won.

Even Obama came out to warn Brits of the economic consequences of leaving behind the EU.

Every propaganda gimmick was rolled out. Brexit was dismissed, mocked and ridiculed. It was for lunatics and madmen. Anyone who voted to leave the benevolent bosom of the European Union was an ignorant xenophobe who had no place in the modern world. And that turned out to be most of Britain.

While Londonistan, that post-British city of high financial stakes and low Muslim mobs, voted by a landslide to remain, a decisive majority of the English voted to wave goodbye to the EU. 67% of Tower Hamlets, the Islamic stronghold, voted to stay in the EU. But to no avail. The will of the people prevailed.

And the people did not want migrant rape mobs in their streets and Muslim massacres in their pubs. They were tired of Afghani migrants living in posh homes with their four wives while they worked hard and sick of seeing their daughters passed around by “Asian” cabbies from Pakistan in ways utterly indistinguishable from the ISIS slave trade while the police looked the other way so as not to appear racist. And, most of all, they were sick of the entire Eurocratic establishment that let it all happen.

British voters chose freedom. They decided to reclaim their destiny and their nation from the likes of Count Herman Von Rompuy, the former President of the European Council, selected at an “informal” meeting who has opposed direct elections for his job and insisted that, “the word of the future is union.”

When Nigel Farage of UKIP told Count Von Rompuy that “I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better,” he was fined for it by the Bureau of the European Parliament after refusing to apologize. But now it’s Farage and the Independence Party who have had the last laugh.

The majority of British people didn’t want Count Von Rompuy and his million-dollar pension, or Donald Tusk, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and the rest of the monkeys squatting on Britain’s back.

Count Von Rompuy has lost his British provinces. And the British people have their nation back.

The word of the future isn’t “union.” It’s “freedom.” A process has begun that will not end in Britain. It will spread around the world liberating nations from multinational institutions.

During Obama’s first year in office, Count Von Rompuy grandly declared that “2009 is also the first year of global governance.” Like many such predictions, it proved to be dangerously wrong. And now it may just well be that 2016 will be the first year of the decline and fall of global governance.

An anti-establishment wind is blowing through the creaky house of global government. The peoples of the free world have seen how the choking mass of multilateral institutions failed them economically and politically. Global government is an expensive and totalitarian proposition that silences free speech and funnels rapists from Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan to the streets of European cities and American towns. It’s a boon for professional consultants, certain financial insiders and politicians who can hop around unelected offices and retire with vast unearned pensions while their constituents are told to work another decade. But global government is misery and malaise for everyone else.

The campaign to stay in the EU relied on fear and alarmism, on claims of bigotry and disdain for the working class voters who fought and won the right to decide their own destiny. But the campaign for independence asked Britons to believe in their own potential when unchained from the Eurocratic bureaucracy. And now Brexit will become a model for liberation campaigns across Europe.

And it will not end there.

Brexit showed that it is possible for a great nation to defy its leaders and its establishment thinkers to throw off its multinational chains. And while the European Union is one of the biggest prisons forged by global government, it is far from the only one. America and Britain are sleeping giants covered in the cold iron links of multinational organizations that limit their strength and their potential.

It is time to break those chains.

Americans who want to cut their ties with the United Nations have found Brexit inspiring. Leaving the UK was once also seen as a ridiculous idea at the margins that could never be taken seriously. Serious politicians refused to listen to it. Serious thinkers refused to discuss it. And then it gathered speed.

There is growing opposition even among Democrats to treaties like the TPP. Trump has challenged NAFTA. Americans across the political spectrum are suspicious of economic treaties and organizations. Support for Brexit came from Labour areas in the UK. Support for Trump’s challenge to multinational treaties and alliances could very well come from unexpected places, like Bernie Sanders backers.

Brexit has shown us the weakness of the multinational establishment. Its vast bureaucratic power rests on using the media to suppress political dissent. When the media’s special pleading fails to stop the democratic process, it is more helpless than any dictator when the outraged mob pours into his palace.

What was true of Britain, is also true of America. Our elites are just as impotent. The power they have illegally seized is defended zealously by a media palace guard that spends every minute of every day lecturing, hectoring and messaging Americans. But when no one listens to the media, then the men and women who run our lives, who feed off us like a colony of parasitic insects, are helpless.

Their power is purely persuasive. When we stop listening, then we are free.

That is the lesson of Brexit. It is the future.

The future is not a vast behemoth of global government that swallows up nations and individuals, that reduces democratic elections to a joke and eliminates freedom of speech, but the individual. The elites have gambled everything on big government, big media and big data. But all of those lost to Brexit.

They lost to Brexit in the UK. They can lose in the US too. And they will lose.

The power of the establishment is illusory. Like the naked emperor, it depends on no one challenging it. The harder it is challenged, the harder it will fall. Brexit was an impossible dream. Then it was reality.

Our impossible dreams, the policies that conservatives are told by the establishment are not even worth talking about, can be just as real as Brexit.

If we are willing to fight for them. 
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Media, law-enforcement cover-up Idaho Migrant Sex Assault... on: June 23, 2016, 12:43:32 PM
Muslim Migrant Sex Assault Comes to Idaho

But the big story is the law enforcement and media cover-up.

June 23, 2016
Robert Spencer

The first hint that something was amiss with this story came in the initial media report about it: Idaho’s “KMVT has confirmed that a reported sexual assault that possibly occurred near the Fawnbrook Apartments is being investigated by the Twin Falls Police Department. The incident allegedly occurred on June 2.” Why the five-day gap between incident and news report? Unexplained. Even more curiously, the story added: “Several unconfirmed reports concerning the case are circulating on social media.” Why would social media be filled with unconfirmed reports about this particular sexual assault? Unexplained.

The explanation for both of these curious aspects of the story came from Twin Falls residents, who began a petition asking that authorities act against the perpetrators, explaining:

    The little girl was at the FAWNBROOK apartment buildings where both her parents and grandmother reside. She was playing in between those two apartment units when 3 boys (from 2 Syrian refugee families, ages 8, 10, 13) pulled a knife on her, held it to her throat, forced her into the laundry unit, stripped her naked, raped, and urinated on her. The 13 year old “coached” the younger boys as he videoed. Due to age restraint the boys could not ejaculate but did urinate on her.

But at a local city council meeting, instead of being outraged by this incident and determined to bring the guilty to justice, council members were openly contemptuous and hostile toward citizens who were expressing their concerns about it. Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs was dismissive: “There was no gang rape, there was no Syrian involvement, there were no Syrian refugees involved, there was no knife used, there was no inactivity by the police. I’m looking at the Drudge Report headline: ‘Syrian Refugees Rape Little Girl at Knifepoint in Idaho’ – all false.”

The only problem with this was that Loebs’ string of denials left the essentials of the story intact. The perps were not Syrian, but they were Muslim migrants. There was no rape, but there was sexual assault. The Twin Falls residents’ petition was revised:

    This little girl, as stated in the news, was assaulted, and urinated on by three boys under the age of 18. The boys took her into a laundry room and proceeded to take part on the previous stated actions which was videotaped by the eldest boy. The incident as well as the video was submitted to the police department. However, due to the ages of the children involved, this case is being sealed. Many people in this community are in awe, and outraged that minimal consequences will be served to these boys and their parents for this vile incident.

An eyewitness to the incident, Jolene Payne, recounted:

    This happened three weeks ago around 3:30. I was sitting on my porch patio and I looked over and saw this boy taking pictures with a camera. He was from Africa or somewhere overseas, standing outside the laundry room taking pictures of kids in the laundry room. I found them in there. I knew there was something going on because the boy (with the phone camera) was acting funny, he was taking pictures but he was telling the two younger boys what to do….The door was cracked enough for him to see the pictures he was taking. I opened that door and I almost fainted when I saw what was going on and here I’m a nurse. What a pitiful thing for a poor little girl to go through.

    The worst thing was the way they peed all over her clothes and on her too, and I thought that was one of the meanest things I’ve ever saw done....The little girl had no clothes on. The boys took them off. The littlest boy said "we didn’t do it, he told us to," pointing to the older boy. They’re just kids that have a mother and they moved here from overseas. The women don’t even talk any English, some of them do, but others don’t. They wear long dresses and long black things on their heads.

Since this horrifying story involved Muslim migrants, the mainstream media went into full cover-up mode, focusing on Loebs’ denials to portray the whole thing as right-wing anti-immigrant hysteria. As Daniel Greenfield has noted, that, not the sexual assault, became the story:

    Story of Syrian refugees raping Idaho girl is false: authorities - New York Daily News

    No, Syrian refugees didn't rape a child in Idaho: Right-wing urban myth - Salon

    False story on social media charges Syrian refugees raped Idaho girl - Spokesman

We have seen in recent days, with the White House’s inept attempts to conceal Orlando jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen’s Islamic declarations, that covering for Islam seems to be what the Obama administration considers its primary responsibility. The mainstream media, always in Obama’s pocket, is following along: Muslim migrants brutalizing a little girl in Idaho? That’s not a story. Angry Idaho residents protesting against law enforcement inaction about the assault? That’s not a story, either. Idaho residents getting some details of the story wrong? That’s a story – see, folks? This isn’t about the risks and dangers of importing huge numbers of Muslim migrants. It’s about the racism and xenophobia of ordinary Americans. As are all mainstream media stories having anything to do with Islam in the U.S.
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary: Liar, Liar - Pantsuit on Fire... on: June 23, 2016, 11:10:29 AM
Liar, Liar Pantsuit On Fire

And with Donald Trump's renewed focus, is the comeuppance of economically illiterate "Crooked Hillary" at hand?


June 23, 2016
Matthew Vadum


Hillary Clinton's bizarre claim that billionaire businessman Donald Trump will cause a recession if elected to the presidency was overshadowed yesterday as Trump took deadly aim at the pathological liar's horrifying public service track record.

For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.

"As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face," Clinton said in a speech to the faithful in Raleigh, N.C. "He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash."

Around the same time, Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, laid into "Crooked Hillary" with a vigor and focus that Americans haven't seen for a while. Trump's speech, in which he accurately described Clinton as a "world-class liar," was very well received and is making left-wing pundits nervous -- for good reason.

Unlike Trump's address, Clinton's speech was a carefully constructed alternate reality held together by a tissue of leftist lies. Clinton's oration was an economically illiterate catalog of hoary Marxist cliches, or as Dr. Bob Shillman quipped, "liar, liar, pantsuit on fire."

Clinton offered a vague outline of her disastrous socialistic economic agenda, largely a continuation of President Obama's anti-growth policies and tainted as it is by a focus on so-called social justice objectives at the expense of economic growth and individual rights.

She spoke nonsensically of "growth that’s strong, fair, and lasting ... that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country." To keep her union thugs happy, Clinton vowed to "say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," and no to the "assault on the right to organize and bargain collectively."

Ignoring the fact that she served front and center in a radically left-wing administration that over the last nearly seven and a half years has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Clinton promised "to make this economy work for everybody ... building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington."

Leftists like Hillary enjoy anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and abstract concepts because they can't win policy arguments on the merits. They prefer fabricating monsters they can slay.

Guns and gas-guzzling SUVs "kill" people, they routinely claim as if machines were sentient, volitional beings. To them the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times. And like their cousins the Keynesians, they treat the economy like a circus animal that can be manipulated and taught tricks, instead of as the product of billions of individual decisions made every day by producers and consumers.

Clinton dredged up one of the Left's favorite and most insidious talking points, declaring "it is way past time for us to guarantee equal pay for women."

The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work.

Critiquing President Obama's claim that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013 that the 77-cent figure "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."

"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's," she wrote. "In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."

The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.

"Excessive inequalities such as we have today reduces economic growth," Clinton said, pretending she likes the market economy. "Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits," she said, paying homage to candidate Obama's mantra that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"There are great ideas out there," Clinton said. "And we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top." The "Wall Street corporations and the super rich," also known as her most ardent supporters, must be made to "pay their fair share of taxes."

She promised to "make college debt-free for all" and to "rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employers and few ship profits and jobs overseas."

Clinton defended the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She belittled Trump for highlighting the corruption endemic to the enterprise that is primarily devoted to enriching the Clinton family.

Trump is trying "to distract us" by "attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world," she said with a straight face. "It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things."

The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore dismantled what he called Clinton's "Twilight Zone" grab bag of proposals. A related speech Hillary gave the previous day "was vacant of ANY ideas at all about how to help the economy. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty. "

Moore mocked her claim that here "in America we pay our bills," a reference to what he called "Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in historically low interest rates." The Obama administration in which Clinton served has generated some $8 trillion of new debt, which is hardly "paying the bills."

"It's passing them on to the next generation," Moore wrote.

Clinton's claim that Trump doesn't understand the new economy and job creation, is "a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of... politics."

Moore continued:

    "The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another uncomfortable problem. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spent $830 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high."

Clinton "is selling the American voters sand in the desert: four more years of stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the U.S. is on the wrong, not the right track."

Trump fired back at Hillary yesterday, hitting her hard enough that Clinton worshippers are getting anxious.

Slate's Michelle Goldberg lamented that the tide may be turning against the Benghazi bungler Trump paints as a corrupt, money-grubbing, political hack. Crestfallen, the diehard leftist called Trump's Wednesday speech on Clinton's record dishonest and demagogic but "terrifyingly effective" and "probably the most unnervingly effective" speech the man has ever given.

"In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide," speaking "for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist." Instead, he took aim at "Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment."

“Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” Trump said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and declared her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”

Goldberg treated Trump's address as brilliant performance art in which he "interwove truth and falsehood into a plausible-seeming picture meant to reinforce listeners' underlying beliefs."

Pretending her readers were complete idiots ignorant of Hillary's history, Goldberg wheeled out Washington establishment yes man David Gergen to denounce what he called Trump's "slanderous speech." On CNN an animated Gergen made a fool of himself by castigating Trump for relying on the exhaustively documented allegations of graft and corruption in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.

Regurgitating the self-serving nonsense peddled by leftist slander shop Media Matters for America, the "conservative misinformation" monitor that Hillary herself takes credit for founding, Gergen said that the "book has been basically discredited."

Not so. In fact, the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS News have all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.

Gergen added, "I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody."

Why Gergen has attained such prominence at this level in the Washington punditocracy is unclear.

What is clear is that he seems to know nothing about the Clinton family and has been asleep throughout Barack Obama's Saul Alinsky-inspired presidency.
34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Hillary and Obama Caused the Orlando ISIS Attack... on: June 22, 2016, 01:03:09 PM
How Hillary and Obama Caused the Orlando ISIS Attack

Obama ignored ISIS, Americans died.

June 22, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

The media has desperately tried to blame anything and everything for the Orlando Muslim massacre. The bloodshed by a Muslim terrorist has been attributed to guns, homophobia, family problems and mental illness. By next week, the media may be blaming global warming and UFOs.

But Omar Mateen told his Facebook friends and a 911 operator exactly why he was doing it. Omar killed 49 people as part of the Islamic State’s war against America.

The motive is there in black and white. This was one of a number of ISIS attacks. The roots of the Orlando attack lie in Iraq forcing us to dig down into Obama’s disastrous mishandling of ISIS. Without understanding what went wrong in Iraq, we cannot understand what happened in Orlando.

Under Bush, Al Qaeda in Iraq had been on the run. Under Obama, it began overrunning the region.

In 2009, Obama vowed a “responsible” end to the Iraq War. He claimed that the “starting point for our policies must always be the safety of the American people”. But the safety of the American people was the first casualty of his foreign policy. In 2011, he hung up his own “Mission Accomplished” sign and boasted that “The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year.” It did not and would not.

Obama claimed that his withdrawal from Iraq and his invasion of Libya were both examples of successful policies. Both countries are now ISIS playgrounds. The “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” Iraq he told the country we were leaving behind was a myth. The new Libya was an equally imaginary and unreal place. ISIS gained power and influence as a result of that chaos. And it used that influence to kill Americans.

Today the battle for Fallujah is raging. When ISIS first took the city, Obama breezily dismissed them as a JayVee team.  He specifically insisted that ISIS posed no serious threat to America. “There is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

“Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city… And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us,” he said.

It is now blatantly and indisputably obvious that ISIS is a direct threat to us. Orlando is yet another reminder of how deeply wrong Obama was about ISIS. Instead of taking action, Obama chose to ignore the expansion of ISIS until it had become a major threat. As a result of its victories, Al Qaeda in Iraq went from an Al Qaeda affiliate to declaring the Islamic State while commanding the allegiance of Muslims around the world. Omar Mateen was one of those Muslims.

If Obama had not dismissed ISIS early on, it would never have gained the level of support that it did. And the Orlando massacre might never have happened.

But Obama was not the only proudly neglectful parent of ISIS. The two key elements in the rise of ISIS were the withdrawal from Iraq and the Arab Spring. The withdrawal gave ISIS freedom of action in Iraq allowing it and its Shiite frenemies in Baghdad to roll back the stability of the Surge. The Arab Spring however destabilized the region so badly that ISIS was able to expand into countries like Syria and Libya. The migration of Jihadists into the region swelled its ranks enormously and turned it from a local problem into a global one.

And the Arab Spring was a project of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama created space for ISIS in Iraq, but Hillary Clinton opened the door for the rise of ISIS in Libya and Syria. Together they helped make ISIS into a regional and then a global player.

Hillary Clinton tried to blame the “internet” for the Orlando attack. But Al Gore’s magical internet did not shoot 49 people in Orlando. For that matter it did not “radicalize” Omar Mateen.

Omar, like many other Muslims, was impressed by the ISIS victories that Hillary’s Islamic regime change project had made possible. He viewed these triumphs not as the result of a disastrous State Department and White House policy, but as proof of the religious authority of ISIS. Omar wanted to join the fight.

Muslim terrorism existed before ISIS. It will exist after ISIS. But there is no doubt that the Islamic State’s claim to having revived the Caliphate and its impressive string of victories against the Iraqi military convinced many Muslims that they were religiously obligated to follow its orders.

And these orders were quite explicit.

ISIS had called for attacks in America during Ramadan. “Hurt the Crusaders day and night without sleeping, and terrorize them so that the neighbor fears his neighbor,” ISIS had told Muslims in the US,

Omar answered the call in Orlando.

Attempting to blame fellow Americans for the actions of ISIS, as Obama has done by emphasizing gun control, only plays into the hands of the Muslim terror group behind the attack. The NRA did not carry out this attack. ISIS did. And ISIS benefited from Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy which allowed it to expand its reach and its popularity until its network of Muslim supporters could strike anywhere.

Obama and Hillary do not want to discuss the role that they played in creating the global conditions that led to the Orlando attack. It’s more convenient for them to blame it on Republicans by emphasizing gun control or homophobia, but discussing an ISIS attack without mentioning ISIS is like talking about WW2 without mentioning Nazi Germany. It’s intellectually dishonest and strategically senseless.

The Orlando massacre was not a local event, but a global one. It must be viewed within the context of a series of ISIS attacks in Europe and America. And ISIS became a global threat on Obama’s watch.

During these pivotal years, Hillary Clinton was the highest ranking foreign policy figure in the country. It is absurd for her to argue that she bears no responsibility for the rise of ISIS. And Hillary Clinton has even defended Obama over his “JayVee” dismissal of ISIS as a direct threat to America.

The Orlando massacre is yet another example of the consequences of Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy. It is not the first such consequence and it will not, by any means, be the last.
35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Idaho: 5-year-old girl sexually assaulted by Muslim boys... on: June 22, 2016, 07:41:17 AM
Cops, media hide Idaho girl’s sex assault by Muslim migrants

JUNE 21, 2016 4:12 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

The authorities are in frenzied denial mode about this story. And as is increasingly the norm these days, they’re lying. Journalist Leo Hohmann has found the facts to cut through the Idaho authorities’ politically correct denial and mainstream media obfuscation:


“Cops, media hide Idaho girl’s sex assault by Muslim migrants,” by Leo Hohmann, WND, June 21, 2016:

A 5-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by two boys at an apartment complex in Twin Falls, Idaho — while a third boy filmed the attack — and some local residents are charging the police and city officials with covering up the fact that the boys are from Muslim immigrant families from Sudan and Iraq.

Although not yet confirmed, the alleged perpetrators, ages 14, 10 and 7, appear to be from refugee families.

In a new twist to the story, the Twin Falls City Council met Monday night and was given an earful by residents who warned last year that exactly this type of criminal behavior was being invited into their community through refugee resettlement.

“Islam has declared global jihad on us,” Vicky Davis of Twin Falls told the council. “And Obama, this administration, is bringing them in as fast as he possibly can.”

“They’re on your head, your head, your head, yours, yours,” she said as she pointed at each member of the council.

Twin Falls is one of more than a dozen “pockets of resistance” across the U.S. where residents are protesting the arrival of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and other Muslim nations.

A protest rally took place in the city last fall and residents have been seeking more transparency from the College of Southern Idaho, which is resettling refugees in the area.

The alleged sexual assault occurred on June 2 at Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls. The low-income complex houses at least two immigrant families from Sudan and Iraq.

WND talked to residents of Fawnbrook who sent photographs of women in burqas on the grounds at different times of day.


This photo was taken outside the juvenile detention center in Idaho showing family of two of the Sudanese boys who allegedly stripped and sexually assaulted a 5-year-old girl while an older boy filmed them.

Earlier reports that multiple “Syrian” refugees had gang-raped the girl “at knife-point” were inaccurate, however.

“There was no gang rape, there was no Syrian involvement, there were no Syrian refugees involved, there was no knife used, there was no inactivity by the police,” Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs told the Spokesman Review, a local newspaper. “I’m looking at the Drudge Report headline: ‘Syrian Refugees Rape Little Girl at Knifepoint in Idaho’ – all false.”

But an attack did occur and it was perpetrated by Muslim migrants.

Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who lives at the complex, told WND she was an eye witness to the incident and gave her account to police the day after it happened.

“This happened three weeks ago around 3:30. I was sitting on my porch patio and I looked over and saw this boy taking pictures with a camera,” Payne told WND. “He was from Africa or somewhere overseas, standing outside the laundry room taking pictures of kids in the laundry room.”

She said she immediately walked over to the laundry room and opened the door.

“I found them in there. I knew there was something going on because the boy (with the phone camera) was acting funny, he was taking pictures but he was telling the two younger boys what to do,” she said.

She said the boy filming the assault is 14 and the two who were inside the laundry room with the girl are ages 7 and 10, all of whom she described as having “dark cloudy skin and curly hair.”

When she flung open the door she found a disturbing scene.

“The door was cracked enough for him to see the pictures he was taking. I opened that door and I almost fainted when I saw what was going on and here I’m a nurse,” Payne said. “What a pitiful thing for a poor little girl to go through.”

The “little tiny white girl, 5 years old,” was standing there with her clothes off. The two younger boys were also naked.

“The police came and then the next day detectives came and talked to me alone,” Payne said.

“All I know is what I told them. The worst thing was the way they peed all over her clothes and on her too, and I thought that was one of the meanest things I’ve ever saw done,” she added. “And we know those kids must know a lot more than the kids in America of that age. I’ve never seen any of them do anything like that to little girls, and we have a lot of children around here.”

“The little girl had no clothes on. The boys took them off. The littlest boy said ‘we didn’t do it, he told us to,’ pointing to the older boy. They’re just kids that have a mother and they moved here from overseas. The women don’t even talk any English, some of them do, but others don’t. They wear long dresses and long black things on their heads.

‘She was scared to death’

There was no knife involved, Payne said.

“I saw two boys and one little girl scared to death,” she continued. “I told them boys you better get your clothes on. She was scared to death, crying ‘Grandma Jo, Grandma Jo, help me.’ I’m not her grandmother but that’s what all the kids around here call me.”…
36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Latest leak of Clinton documents by "Guccifer 2.0"... on: June 21, 2016, 02:52:58 PM
DNC Researched Clinton Speeches, Travel Records

Hacked documents are latest leaked by "Guccifer 2.0"



JUNE 21--The latest document dump from “Guccifer 2.0,” the hacker who breached the Democratic National Committee’s servers, shows that party officials have researched Hillary Clinton’s prior travel on private jets, the Clinton Foundation’s investments, and the Democratic presidential candidate’s speech contracts.

The hacker this morning began distributing more than 250 files--totaling thousands of pages of records--that appear to have been prepared by DNC research staff.

In e-mails to TSG, “Guccifer 2.0” claimed to be from Romania (like “Guccifer”) and portrayed himself as a “hacktivist” with “a lot of fans” and an “unknown hacker with a laptop.” He also chafed at TSG’s prior description of him as a felon. “Ok, but stop calling me the vandal. I'm not a criminal I'm a freedom fighter,” the hacker wrote.

As for the DNC’s claim that the breach was the work of Russian intelligence agents, “Guccifer 2.0” dismissed the assertion as a “Total fail!!!” In recent correspondence, the hacker has used an AOL France e-mail account.

The bulk of the material released today centers on Clinton’s position on scores of domestic and international issues and criticisms leveled against her by assorted opponents. The documents include Clinton’s counterarguments to those attacks from Republican officials and other foes.

Along with Clinton’s tax returns, personal financial disclosure reports, and U.S. Senate travel records, the DNC dossier included copies of contract documents related to the presidential candidate’s paid speeches.

In addition to a “standard” $225,000 fee, Clinton required a “chartered roundtrip private jet” that needed to be a Gulfstream 450 or a larger aircraft. Depending on its outfitting, the Gulfstream jet, which costs upwards of $40 million, can seat 19 passengers and “sleeps up to six.” Clinton’s contract also stipulated that speech hosts had to pay for separate first class or business airfare for three of her aides.

As for lodging, Clinton required “a presidential suite” and up to “three (3) adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides” and up to two extra rooms for advance staff. The host was also responsible for the Clinton travel party’s ground transportation, meals, and “phone charges/cell phones.”

Additionally, the host also had to pay “a flat fee of $1000” for a stenographer to create “an immediate transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks.” The contract adds, however, “We will be unable to share a copy of the transcript following the event.” (3 pages)
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NPR Whitewashes Orlando Shooter's Motive... on: June 21, 2016, 11:13:58 AM
NPR whitewashes Mateen’s jihadist motive, calling his pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State a publicity stunt

June 20, 2016 2:25 pm By Christine Williams

In the name of political correctness, the leftist ideologues are at it again, abetting jihadists by publicly denying their destructive ambitions for the West. This time, it’s NPR stating that Mateen “evoked ISIS as a ‘cover story’ to gain more publicity.”

This make-it-up-as-you-go approach has no limits in the propaganda war against truth. It’s a privilege to be living in a free democracy where such folly can be openly exposed as the risk to public safety that it is.

It wasn’t enough for broadcaster Scott Simon that Mateen pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, or that Mateen cased Disney and the Pulse in the company of his wife; it wasn’t even enough that “Disney notified FBI the couple may have been casing Disney in April”; and that on the day of the Pulse massacre, Mateen posted on the internet: “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance.” For Simon, this was all part of an elaborate publicity stunt.

In addition, although the FBI released transcripts of 911 calls that Mateen made during his massacre and they were redacted with content relating to Islam removed, according to Robert Spencer “even what has been released shows that Orlando jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen was acting avowedly in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings.”

2016-06-20-cbs-tm-911redactions
“NPR: Mateen Only Evoked ISIS as a ‘Cover Story’ to Gain ‘More Publicity’…for Shooting 100!”, by Tim Graham, NewsBusters, June 20, 2016:

    On NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday, the play-down-Islam game was in full swing. The headline online was “Orlando Shooter Update: Few Warning Signs Point To Radicalization.”

    NPR anchor Scott Simon said unnamed federal officials [translation: Obama appointees?] were “struck by the fact that the shooter, Omar Mateen, doesn’t seem to have exhibited any of the warning signs often associated with radicalization. They’re exploring whether Mateen invoked ISIS’s name not because he follows that group, but perhaps in hopes of getting more publicity for his attacks.”….
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Hasn't Orlando Shooter's Widow Been Arrested??? on: June 20, 2016, 02:41:10 PM
Arrest the Widow, Investigate the Family

The Orlando jihad mass murderer was anything but a “lone wolf.”


June 20, 2016
Robert Spencer

Noor Salman, the wife of Omar Mateen, the Orlando gay nightclub jihad mass murderer, has gone missing, and with good reason: she explodes the idea that Mateen was a “lone wolf” terrorist. She should be arrested – but now she is gone.

Salman witnessed him selling his house to his brother-in-law for $10 – a clear indication that the couple knew jihad was in the offing. She has admitted to law enforcement authorities that she and her husband had recently been “scouting Downtown Disney and Pulse [the nightclub where the jihad massacre took place] for attacks.” Mateen texted her during his massacre, asking if she had seen the news; she responded that she loved him.

As authorities deliberated over whether or not to arrest her, Salman herself showed more dispatch. Last Wednesday, the killer’s father, Seddique Mir Mateen, told reporters that Salman was “no longer here.”

No one seems to have asked Seddique Mateen himself where she has gone, but he probably knows. There are, after all, numerous indications that he may not be as upset about his son’s jihad massacre as he has claimed: he is an open supporter of the Taliban, and the morning after the murders, he posted online a video in which he claims that he was “not aware what motivated” Omar to “go into a gay club and kill 50 people,” but then he adds: “God will punish those involved in homosexuality,” as it is “not an issue that humans should deal with.”

Despite Seddique Mateen’s professed puzzlement over his son’s actions and denial that Omar had been “radicalized,” is it really any wonder that a man who grew up in a household in which the Taliban were held up as positive role models would turn out to be a jihad terrorist? Omar Mateen is known to have cheered at school when al-Qaeda flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001; is it likely that his father, a supporter of al-Qaeda’s allies and collaborators the Taliban, rebuked him for doing so?

While not revealing where Noor Salman is, the family issued a statement saying: “Noor is completely innocent and [was] unaware of the attacks.” It added the claim that she is unable to comprehend “cause and effect.” The mainstream media, always anxious to exonerate Islam from responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings, even dragged out Salman’s middle school teacher to say: “Noor had difficulty with retention, she had difficulty with conceptualizing, understanding, all challenges to her. She tried hard. She was very sweet.”

All that may be so, but Noor Salman is an adult now, and her difficulty in middle school is irrelevant to whether or not she aided her husband in preparing for his jihad massacre. She should have been arrested, and the whole family needs to be investigated. Former Department of Homeland Security official Philip Haney responded trenchantly to common media claims that Mateen was “self-radicalized”: “As though nobody knew anything – that’s completely preposterous. If you know anything about the Islamic worldview, family and community is ultimately central to everything they do. The concept of operating alone is anathema to the Islamic worldview. They just don’t do it. So, self-radicalization – what does that even mean any more? Nobody is self-anything in this world we live in.”

Yet the feds let Noor Salman slip through their fingers – and whatever Muslim community in which she is hiding now isn’t calling the police to alert them of her whereabouts. Was the FBI too complacent in its politically correct dogma that Muslims in America all hold to a benign, peaceful form of the faith, and that any Muslim in the U.S. who becomes a jihad murderer must have been “radicalized on the Internet,” to be too concerned about the possibility that Omar Mateen’s family was complicit in his attack? How long will it be before Seddique Mateen and the rest of the family absconds, as did Noor Salman?

The Orlando jihad massacre was eminently preventable: the FBI questioned Omar Mateen but deemed him unworthy of close scrutiny, even after a gun shop owner reported him; agents didn’t even bother to visit the shop. This was after Mateen bragged to coworkers about jihad ties, but the FBI called off investigation, dismissing the coworkers as “Islamophobic,” and after Mateen threatened to kill a sheriff and his family, and the FBI dismissed the threat. Now they have let Noor Salman slip through their fingers. Would it have been “Islamophobic” to arrest her? And how many more Americans have to die before the politically correct fantasies that hamstring law enforcement today are discarded?
39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America (and pre-emptive dhimmitude) on: June 20, 2016, 01:45:53 PM
Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off U.S. List
And Hillary Clinton adjutant Huma Abedin has ties to both of them.

June 20, 2016

Matthew Vadum


​The Saudi Arabian government apparently had so much clout with previous U.S. administrations that they refused to designate as terrorist organizations two terror-funding Islamofascist groups linked to Huma Abedin, now the vice-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Abedin is joined at the hip to Hillary. She is to Mrs. Clinton what Valerie Jarrett is to President Obama.

That two deadly terrorist groups avoided proper scrutiny for years is a chilling reminder of how close Mrs. Clinton's political network is to the brutal Muslim Brotherhood, possibly the Left's favorite Islamist operation. It also underlines the extent to which Islamist enemies of the United States have infiltrated the American political establishment. And it takes on added importance now that polls show the pathologically dishonest Alinskyite radical who wrote the communitarian manifesto It Takes A Village has a significant lead over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Sifting through archived media reports, Breitbart’s Lee Stranahan discovered it was known in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks that the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and its parent entity the Muslim World League (MWL), both of which are directly funded by Saudi authorities, were financial backers of al-Qaeda.

“The Saudis have probably done more to penetrate Al Qaeda than any other foreign intelligence service, but Al Qaeda in turn has penetrated the Saudi regime,” Newsweek reported the month after 9/11.

Although the IIRO, whose website calls the group the International Islamic Relief Organization of Saudi Arabia (IIROSA), and MWL “have been used by bin Laden to finance his operations,” they were “left off the list of groups sanctioned by the United States last week, U.S. officials hinted … in order to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.”

The League acknowledges on its website that it is “engaged in propagating the religion of Islam” and “elucidating its principles and tenets.” It also engages in strategic lying, known in the Islamic world as taqiyya. The League “is well known for rejecting all acts of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures,” its website claims, adding that it does “not intend to undermine, dominate or practice hegemony over anyone else.”

It claims on the site that it has “external centers,” “external offices,” and “Islamic centers” in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, United Kingdom, and other countries.

IIRO describes itself as “a charity organization emanating from the Muslim World League.”

Its annual report from 2011/2012 indicates that “thousands of mosques have been built with an average of one mosque a day” and that it has “1,222 staff” worldwide. Under its "Holy Qur'an and Da'wa Program" it has "8,044 male and female students memorizing Qur’an and learning Islamic studies in 306 centres and Qur'an circles." IIRO has "304 Qur'an teachers and supervisors" in "these centres in 29 countries around the world” and sponsors "338 Islamic preachers” in those 29 countries.

Clinton protégé and campaign vice-chairman Huma Abedin, her parents, and her siblings all have intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim World League has reportedly taken in more than $1.3 billion since 1962 from the Saudi government to promote Wahhabism. The League, warns Andrew C. McCarthy, is the Brotherhood’s “principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Abedin, who is married to disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), has never publicly explained her disturbing connections to the people who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 or why, despite those ties, she ought to be trusted with state secrets. And when courageous politicians like former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have tried to sound the alarm about who Abedin really is, they have been relentlessly mocked by the media and politicians from both parties. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) famously suffered from an acute outbreak of faux chivalry on the Senate floor when congressional colleagues dared to ask legitimate questions about Abedin’s loyalty to this country.

Few recall that when Bill Clinton was president in 1996, the CIA believed the International Islamic Relief Organization helped to underwrite six terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan. Harper’s reported in 2004 that the former head of IIRO’s office in the Philippines, who happened to be Obama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, “had been linked to plots to ‘target the pope and U.S. airlines.’”

The year 1996 was also eventful for Abedin. That year the young Michigan-born woman returned to the U.S. after years of living with her jihadist parents and soaking up the militant Islamic culture of Saudi Arabia. She promptly began working for then-first lady Hillary as an intern in the White House. At the same time Abedin was a member of the executive board of the George Washington University chapter of the Muslims Students Association, which was created by the MWL in the 1960s. In 1996 Abedin also began working as assistant editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an Islamist publication of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA).

The Institute was founded in 1979 by the entrepreneurial Islamist Abdullah Omar Naseef who at the time was vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Naseef, who became MWL secretary-general in 1983, hired the late Dr. Zyed Abedin, Huma’s father, as managing editor of the Journal, and the Abedins relocated to the repressive Saudi kingdom. Huma’s mother is the publication’s editor-in-chief and her brother and sister also work there as editors.

The Harper’s article from 12 years ago added that the U.S. intelligence community believed MWL employees took part in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Even though both MWL and IIRO funded al-Qaeda, Newsweek reported in October 2001, the Bush administration “left the two organizations off the list of designated terrorist groups in order to spare the Saudi government from embarrassment.” It’s not clear why the Clinton administration suppressed the truth about the two organizations.

Stranahan is optimistic that despite the frantic lies of the Left, the facts about Hillary and Huma will receive proper attention in the current election cycle.

“Defenders of Clinton and Abedin have attempted to spin concerns about Abedin’s disturbing connections as a crazed right-wing conspiracy theory, but the facts are coming out, and with America focused on the presidential race and terrorism, it is just a matter of time before the truth comes out.”

Meanwhile, even as the nation grieves for the 49 innocent Americans gunned down June 12 by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen at a gay club in Orlando, Fla., members of the media seem blissfully unaware that for five years Hillary Clinton had a real live jihad-loving terrorist on the payroll at her family foundation.

Gehad el-Haddad, an Islamic terrorist leader who jumped straight from his job at the terrorist-friendly international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to a post with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, received a life sentence back home last year for seditious Islamist activities.

The professional propagandist may have learned about forcing Sharia law on Egyptians while he was "city director," a senior communications post, at the Clintons' charity from August 2007 to August 2012. (Note: Gehad is the Egyptian version of the Arabic word jihad.) Haddad was the lead English-language spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood and a frequent apologist for the since-ousted President Mohamed Morsi’s violent crackdowns on civil liberties. He put his spin doctoring skills to use downplaying Brotherhood supporters' attacks on women and children.

Hillary Clinton, of course, headed the U.S. Department of State during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 that ousted longtime U.S. ally and anti-Islamist Hosni Mubarak and cleared the way for Morsi, an Obama ally.

It beggars belief that Clinton didn’t know about Haddad’s employment with the Brotherhood. A mere month after Haddad quit his Clinton Foundation job for full-time employment with the Brotherhood in 2012, Morsi received an invitation to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative, a high-profile project of the foundation.

These things are all just incredible coincidences, Clinton’s defenders will insist.
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Paul Ryan - Republican Quisling... on: June 17, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
Paul Ryan threatens to sue Donald Trump if he tries to enact temporary ban on Muslim immigration

JUNE 17, 2016 3:06 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Paul Ryan and the Republican establishment seem determined to do two things: to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States this November, and to make sure that nothing impedes the huge influx of Muslim migrants into the U.S.

Yet San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik had passed five separate background checks from five separate US government agencies. Ahmad al-Mohammed and one other of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country.

Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all. So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe, and now the U.S. as well? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September 2015, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”

Paul Ryan doesn’t care. He only cares that the bipartisan politically correct establishment retains its power.


“Paul Ryan says he might sue Donald Trump if he tried to enact the Muslim ban,” by Allan Smith, Business Insider, June 17, 2016:

Paul Ryan considers Donald Trump’s proposal to indefinitely ban Muslim immigration into the US to be executive overreach.

And during an interview with The Huffington Post, uploaded on Friday, the House speaker said he’d “sue any president that exceeds his or her powers.”

Ryan, who said Trump supported the separation of powers when the speaker endorsed the presumptive Republican nominee, released part of his agenda regarding executive overreach this week.

However, Ryan is not totally sure if Trump enacting a ban on Muslims entering the country would be outside of presidential authority.

“That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” Ryan said, pointing to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. That act was meant to exclude immigrants from certain countries from coming to the US in the aftermath of World War II.

On Monday, Trump made the appeal that he could legally enact such a ban as president.

“The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons,” he said at a rally. “I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we fully understand how to end these threats.”…
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Horowitz Slams Erick Erickson and "Never Trump" movement... on: June 17, 2016, 01:38:38 PM
The ‘Never Trump’ Murder-Suicide Pact

June 17, 2016
David Horowitz


Reprinted from Breitbart.com.

Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America’s mortal enemy in the Middle East – and every Democrat to a man and woman defends his betrayal; Hillary Clinton violates the Espionage Act and delivers classified secrets, including information on an impending drone attack, to America’s enemies – and every Democrat to a man and woman defends her. Obama and Clinton lie about matters of war and peace – and every progressive publicly swears they are telling the truth.

But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting “radical Islam,” securing America’s borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself.

The left is blaming Christians, Republicans, and guns for the Orlando slaughter. The president and Hillary are claiming that ISIS is on the run – a lie flatly contradicted by the CIA director himself. They want to disarm Americans. If Hillary is elected, borders will stay open, and protecting Muslims will take priority over fighting Islam’s holy war against us.

In other words, Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run. Where, to take one example, is Ted Cruz? He claims to be a patriot and care about the Constitution, but he is AWOL — sulking like Achilles in his tent over personal slights he can’t get past to fight for his country’s survival. The Republican leader of the Senate and his second-in-command have both announced they will not participate in the presidential election, while the leader of the House makes clear his extreme embarrassment over Trump’s proposals to establish immigration policies appropriate to a nation under siege. This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.

There are actually two wars we are engaged in– one with the Islamic caliphate and the other with an American left that refuses to recognize the enemy we face or the magnitude and nature of the threat. In this internal war, too many on the right have taken a course whose only practical effect can be seen as a betrayal of their cause. Erick Erickson has summed up the view of the Republican renegades in this succinct phrase: “We are in the midst of a murder-suicide pact that will be our ruination.”

This is, in fact, a precise description of what the #NeverTrump right is up to. But in Erickson’s inversion of reality, it is “the Republican Party [that] intends to murder the nation and commit suicide along the way.” What Erickson and his fellow saboteurs, led by Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol, want is for the Republican Party to block Trump and repudiate the record number of Republican primary voters who nominated him. This would actually be a Republican suicide in November – one that would indeed “murder the nation.”


Although the defection of the Republican leadership from the field of battle is still ongoing, there has been a break in the ranks of the #NeverTrump spoilers. Two of their leading intellectual figures, Hugh Hewitt and Andy McCarthy, have finally come to realize not just the futility of their efforts but their destructiveness as well. For the sake of the nation, let’s hope that there are a lot more such reversals on the way.

Meanwhile, the really big problem remains that of the Republican leadership, which thinks that “We’re stuck with Trump but we won’t dump him!” is an appropriate battle cry. As we all know, the Democrats are vicious, unprincipled attack dogs with a kept and unprincipled media in their camp. Passivity in the face of this blitzkrieg is, in practice, no different than a white-flag surrender. Paul Ryan summed up Republican fatuity in his answers to media questions in the wake of Orlando about whether he’s still supporting Trump. Ryan’s answer: he would be defending Republican principles in this election. Well, Paul, principles aren’t running in this election. Candidates are. And unless Republicans rally around Trump, and Trump beats Hillary, Republican principles are going down with him.
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller: Trump is Right, and He Must Win... on: June 16, 2016, 01:50:17 PM
Pamela Geller: Trump Is Right, and He Must Win


by Pamela Geller15 Jun 2016


The post-jihad denial that we see in the wake of every Islamic attack since 9/11 has made possible the wild successes of Islamic groups that are waging jihad in the cause of Islam.

After every jihad terror attack, Islamic supremacists and their paid shills in the media unleash relentless, vicious attacks upon those of us who oppose jihad. Never do we hear or see them go after the Islamic texts and teachings that fuel this war.

A case in point was a Salon article published Tuesday: “Donald Trump’s war with Islam: A campaign rooted in pernicious religious discrimination,” by Simon Maloy. Maloy said that the Orlando jihad massacre gave Trump “the opportunity he needed to define the campaign he intends to run: a campaign that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.”

He accused Trump of running a campaign “that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.” Trump’s speech in the wake of the Orlando jihad massacre was, according to Maloy, “a relentlessly ugly diatribe that unambiguously embraced the pernicious and anti-American idea that a person’s religious faith makes them a threat to national security.”

The idea that the depraved left sees the murdered nightclub-goers as an “opportunity” for Trump is as vicious as the attack itself. Trump sounded a warning, and he was right to do so. It was not Donald Trump who made Islamic jihad “antagonistic to American interests”; the jihad doctrine itself is antagonistic to American interest and freedoms. How many thousands have to die in the cause of Islam?

In his speech, Trump said that he would “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” He is right. After the Boston Marathon jihad bombing, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), called for the following:

— AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.
— AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.
— AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.
— AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.
— AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.
— AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.
— AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.
— AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.
— AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.
— AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.
— AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.
— AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.
— AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.

How many people would be alive today had American politicians heeded our calls? Instead, we are blacklisted, smeared, libeled, and defamed, while pro-jihad groups are feted on Capital Hill.

But Maloy complained that Trump’s focus was “on Muslims exclusively – not radicalized Muslims, but every Muslim person outside the U.S. He referred to the expanded admittance of refugees from Syria as potentially ‘a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.’ Per Trump, Hillary Clinton, as president, would ‘be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children.’ It’s all fearmongering based on lies and prejudice.”

Such idiocy is without peer. ISIS has vowed to send jihad killers to the west via migration. They are coming — why let them in? No, not all migrants are Muslim soldiers, but enough are to cause unimaginable death and destruction. Would you eat from a bowl of M & M’s if you knew two of them were laced with cyanide?

Muslims groups such as the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have urged Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. Muslim groups have demanded that law enforcement agencies dismantle counterterror programs. Muslim groups demand adherence to sharia in the language used in counterterror training material: the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines just days before the Orlando jihad massacre forbidding agents from using the words “jihad” and “sharia” in connection with terrorism because doing so offended Muslims.

Maloy is likewise interested in policing language to avoid offending Muslims, saying of Trump’s immigration proposal: “It’s reprehensible, and it’s the kind of language that results in people getting hurt… If your goal is to promote the radicalization of a population within your own borders, having a major party presidential candidate talk about them all as if they’re criminals is an excellent way to go about it.”

No. What is reprehensible is how viciously the lapdogs for jihad blame the victim — led by the scrubber-in-chief in the White House. They call upon the targets to change their behavior, to subjugate themselves to Islam. Maloy is saying that Trump has to change his language or else Muslims will become “radicalized.” Last year, the mainstream media likewise said that the jihad assassination attempt on my free speech event in Garland, Texas was my fault, that I was taunting Muslims. Were the gay revelers in the Pulse nightclub last Saturday night taunting Muslims? Based on that flawed logic, yes. Our very way of life taunts sharia-adherent Muslims.

Jihad terror attacks present a unique opportunity for Islamic supremacists and jihadis. First, the kill, which is a great victory in the cause of Islam. The successful jihad attack attracts more Muslims and converts to the cause.

Secondly and most importantly, terror-tied groups like CAIR, their lapdogs in the enemedia, and pro-Islamic politicians like President Obama use the slaughter to push, proselytize, lie, deceive, and talk, talk, talk up Islam (while denigrating all other religions) on every major media news channel.

Trump is right. He was wrong about Garland, but he surely gets it now. And this is why he is so wildly popular — because finally, someone with a huge platform is calling out the enemedia and the dhimmi press, and giving them the long overdue, much-needed middle finger they so richly deserve.

Trump must win in order for this nation to survive. Trump must win if we are to prevail in this worldwide war against freedom.
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Islamic Terrorism is not Domestic Terrorism on: June 15, 2016, 01:01:04 PM
Islamic Terrorism Is Not Domestic Terrorism

The Orlando massacre is not “homegrown extremism.”

June 15, 2016
Daniel Greenfield


Obama described the massacre carried out by Muslim mass murderer Omar Mateen as “an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been concerned about.” But there’s nothing “homegrown” about Omar Mateen. Omar was fighting for a foreign ideology. He just happened to be born in this country. Being born in America does not make him a domestic terrorist.

One of our biggest errors in the fight against Islamic terrorism has been to treat it as a domestic terrorism problem. Islamic terrorism is not domestic terrorism. Not even when its perpetrators, like Omar Mateen or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, are born in the United States.

What distinguishes domestic terrorism from international terrorism is not the perpetrator’s place of birth.

One of the worst foreign terrorists in American history was Anton Dilger, who, like Hasan, was born in Virginia. As part of the German terrorist campaign against the United States during WW1, which included attacks such as the Black Tom explosion that damaged the Statue of Liberty and was heard in Philadelphia, Dilger plotted a biological warfare campaign that would decimate American horses. Working out of a laboratory near the White House, he experimented with anthrax on animals and his fellow operatives worked to infect as many horses as they could.

This entire episode of history has been largely forgotten. As have its lessons.

Anton Dilger was an international terrorist, despite being born to a Civil War hero, because his agenda was foreign, not domestic. Domestic terrorists seek political change in the United States. International terrorists seek to damage the United States. They are interested in domestic politics only to the extent that it serves their larger agenda for damaging the United States.

Islamic terrorists are not seeking domestic political change the way that Bill Ayers was. They are not domestic elements, but foreign elements. And yet we treat them as if they were domestic terrorists.

Our current strategy of trying to prevent radicalization while assuming that what Islamic terrorists want is to destabilize our political system by “dividing” us is a domestic terrorism response. It might or might not be effective if we were dealing with a domestic terror threat, but we aren’t.

Contrary to what Obama claims, Islam has not always been a part of our history. It isn’t part of us today. It is no more a “part of us” than the German nationalists of WW1 and WW2 who plotted against us were a part of us. Even the most radical left-wing terrorist has something in common with us. The Islamic terrorist has nothing in common with us. He does not share any part of our worldview. He did not emerge from some fork in the road of our history like the left-wing terrorist did. He does not seek to modify our system, but to utterly destroy it and replace it with something completely alien.

Left-wingers radicalize Americans. But they do so by exploiting existing liberal beliefs. Obama demonstrates this every time he invokes some element of American history or thought to push a radical agenda. One crisis after another is manufactured to push people further to the extremes of the left.

This is how radicalization actually works.

Nidal Hasan was not “radicalized”. He was never an American. He was a proud Muslim who happened to be born in the United States. His beliefs did not shift along a domestic political spectrum. Instead, like the German terrorists of WW1, he found that his allegiance to a foreign power impelled him to work against America. This isn’t radicalization. It’s patriotism. But his “Patria”, his homeland, was not ours.

The “Patria” of Islamic terrorists may be the Islamic State, some Al Qaeda emirate or Pakistan or Iran. It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that they are a foreign enemy. And our strategy of fighting “radicalization” makes no sense because the problem isn’t radicalism, it’s alienism.

Domestic terrorism springs from a structural conflict within the politics, history and worldview of a nation. Typical examples are left-wing and right-wing terrorism. Contradictions within a nation’s ideals are pushed to the limits resulting in conflict. Arguments over which values should be emphasized and to what degree can lead to radicalism. But Islamic terrorism does not spring from a conflict within America.

Islamic terrorism is a foreign element that has been imported into the United States. It does not emerge from structural conflicts within our society. It cannot be resolved by moving in any direction on the domestic spectrum. It is purely an alien entity that has no natural home within the United States.

In Islamic terrorism, radicalization can only occur within the spectrum of Islam, not within an American spectrum. Which is why Countering Violent Extremism programs to combat Islamic terrorism awkwardly lecture to Muslims about Islam. Underlying the botched CVE enterprise is the recognition that Islamic terrorism is a foreign element. But if Islamic terrorism is a foreign element then efforts to counter it by treating it as a domestic problem are doomed to fail just as treating a sore toe with an antacid is doomed to fail. CVE covertly carries within it the acknowledgement of its own failure.

There is only one element driving Islamic terrorism in the United States. And that is Muslim immigration.

Once we recognize that Islamic terrorism is a foreign element, not a domestic element, then we must also recognize that there can only be only one answer to it. If one of your glands is malfunctioning, then medical intervention will attempt to restore your body to its proper balance. But if the problem is that you are drinking poison, then the only possible solution is to stop drinking poison.

Domestic political radicalism needs to be treated. Foreign radicals just have to be kept out of the country. They are not our problem because they are not a part of us.

The solution to Islamic terrorism is to stop treating it as a domestic problem. Once upon a time we viewed Islamic terrorism as a foreign problem. When the World Trade Center was first bombed, we did not think in terms of radicalization. We saw foreign enemies infiltrating the United States and plotting against us. We didn’t worry what made them that way. Their mindset was not our problem.

After 9/11, we began treating Islamic terrorism as a domestic problem. The process really took off under Obama. The only accepted view now is that Islamic terrorism has to be countered at a domestic level. We have to work with Muslim groups to counter radicalization while making them feel as included as possible in our society. This same program has failed miserably in Europe. It will fail in America.

The only answer to Islamic terrorism is to treat it as a foreign threat. To quarantine its carriers and to build barriers against the entry of the alien virus of its ideology.  

We must recognize that Islamic terrorism is not a domestic insurrection, but a foreign act of war and that it must be fought abroad by force and at home through border control.

And if we do that, we will win.
44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Furious Baraq defends his refusal to name the enemy on: June 15, 2016, 07:51:11 AM
Video: Furious Obama defends his refusal to name the enemy: “What exactly would using this language accomplish?”

JUNE 14, 2016 5:48 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

Indeed. But calling things by their right names is always preferable to obfuscation and dissimulation. If there is an Islamic jihad threat, we should call it an Islamic jihad threat. One rhetorical question Obama notably didn’t ask was, “Would calling this threat what it really is help us understand the enemy better and formulate more effective ways to counter it?” To that, the answer is yes.

And his talk about refusing to “validate” al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is just ludicrous. Islamic jihadis aren’t looking to the President of the United States for validation. They aren’t looking to non-Muslims to validate their Islamic authenticity. This is just an excuse for not speaking honestly about the threat, and it’s a dangerous one, since it prevents our law enforcement and military authorities from understanding the threat properly.



“Obama goes on tirade against Trump over ‘dangerous’ Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam,'” by Kevin Liptak and Stephen Collinson, CNN, June 14, 2016:

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama lit into Donald Trump on Tuesday, turning the tables to make the impassioned case that Trump is the one who’s un-American.

Obama’s extraordinary denunciation of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was about far more than a personal intervention on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the ugly general election campaign.

The commander in chief’s fury, which seethed out of him in a stunning soliloquy on live television, amounted to a moment of historic significance: a president castigating one of the two people who could succeed him as beyond the constitutional and political norms of the nation itself….

“Where does this stop?” Obama asked Tuesday, condemning Trump’s renewal of his call for a ban on Muslim migration and claims that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims are pouring into the country with the “same thought process” as the terrorist behind the Orlando massacre.

“Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently?” Obama asked. “Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?”…

“That’s not the America we want,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.”…

Obama also expressed fury at critiques of his foreign policy, pushing back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism” and calling the debate “a political distraction.”

“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?” Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. “Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?” he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.

“Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above,” he said. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”…

Much of the criticism has centered on Obama’s refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam,” which the White House argues unfairly maligns the entire Islamic faith.

In a brief statement following Obama’s remarks, Trump said Obama “claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.”

“When I am president, it will always be America First,” Trump said. He was expected to respond more fully during an evening event in North Carolina….

In his remarks Tuesday, the President defended his actions against ISIS, lauding the work of the U.S. military in going after terrorists. He said changing his wording about the threat would not alter those efforts….

45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: Trump has a Realistic Plan for Fighting the Jihad... on: June 14, 2016, 09:06:14 PM
FINALLY: A REALISTIC PLAN FOR FIGHTING THE JIHAD AND PROTECTING AMERICANS

Courtesy of Donald Trump.

June 14, 2016  Robert Spencer

We’ve gotten so used to politically correct obfuscation about Islam being a religion of peace that preaches tolerance and non-violence that Donald Trump’s words in his address Monday were startling: “Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions. Remember this, radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American. I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people are targets of persecution and intimation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.”

Trump continued: “This is not just a national security issue. It’s a quality of life issue. If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans — women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam and we need to do it now.”

One may quibble about whether jihad violence and Sharia oppression in Islam are really “radical,” but the fact is that Donald Trump has become the first nominee of either party since 9/11 to reject the usual nonsense about how jihadis believe in and preach a twisted, hijacked version of the religion of peace. Even more importantly, Trump is now the first presidential candidate since maybe John Quincy Adams to recognize that the problem posed by Islam is not just restricted to the specter of violent jihad attacks, but is, given Sharia oppression of women, gays, and non-Muslims, very much, as Trump put it, a “quality of life issue.”

Trump declared his determination to prevent more jihad attacks such as the one in Orlando Saturday night above all by reiterating his proposal temporarily to “suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.” CNN huffed: “Critics of Trump's policies, however, have pointed out that the perpetrator of the Orlando massacre was born in the U.S.”

Those critics are not being honest. What Trump actually said was that the Orlando jihad mass murderer was born “of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.” He noted, quite correctly, that “the bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place, was because we allowed his family to come here,” and pointed out, quite rightly, that “we have a dysfunctional immigration system, which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens properly….We’re importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our president. Even our own FBI director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of people we’re letting into America. ”

Can any truthful person seriously dispute that? Tashfeen Malik, who, along with her husband Syed Rizwan Farook murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino last December 2, had passed five separate background checks from five different U.S. government agencies. If the U.S. did not have a “dysfunctional immigration system,” she would never have been in the country in the first place. And neither would her husband, about whom Trump noted that he was “the child of immigrants from Pakistan and he brought his wife, the other terrorist from Saudi Arabia through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.”

Trump skewered Hillary Clinton for having “repeatedly refused to even say the words radical Islam until I challenged her yesterday.” He quoted her fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism” and opined “she’s in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”

Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?

Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. The bottom line, to borrow one of Trump’s pet phrases, is that Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.

Another foray into political incorrectness in Trump’s speech was his insistence that the Muslim community in the U.S. has “to work with us. They have to cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad. They know it. And they have to do it, and they have to do it forthwith….The Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what’s going on. They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn’t turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was furious. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper claimed that “law enforcement authorities have repeatedly stated that they have tremendous cooperation from the Muslim community.” CAIR’s hypocrisy is astounding, as it has more than once advised Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. In January 2011, its San Francisco chapter featured on its website a poster that read, “Build A Wall of Resistance / Don’t Talk to the FBI.” In November 2014, CAIR-Florida’s “14th Annual Banquet Rooted in Faith” in Tampa distributed pamphlets entitled “What to do if the FBI comes for you” and featuring a graphic of a person holding a finger to his lips in the “shhh” signal.

Another CAIR pamphlet, entitled “Know Your Rights: Defending Rights, Defeating Intolerance” featured a graphic of the Statue of Liberty likewise making the “shhh” symbol. Cyrus McGoldrick, a former official of Hamas-linked CAIR’s New York chapter, even threatened informants, tweeting with brutal succinctness: “Snitches get stitches.” Zahra Billoo of CAIR-San Francisco regularly tweets that Muslims have no obligation to talk to the FBI, and should contact Hamas-linked CAIR if the FBI asks to talk to them.

This is the group criticizing Trump for noting that Muslim communities have not been any significant help in rooting out jihadis from among them?

Trump’s most revolutionary proposal was for an overhaul of our entire foreign policy establishment and the assumptions upon which it rests – assumptions that have led us into numerous blind alleys and failed initiatives. He said: “The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow like nobody has ever seen before. These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region. That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism not nation building. No more nation building. It’s never going to work.”

Indeed. It didn’t work in Iraq. It hasn’t worked in Afghanistan. We have poured billions into Pakistan since 9/11 to help them fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Pakistani government has funneled a good deal of that money to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Trump said it: “And by the way we’ve spent almost $5 trillion over the years on trying to nation build in the Middle East and it has been complete and total disaster.” Yet despite the fact that its policies have failed again and again and again, the foreign policy establishment keeps reappointing and promoting those responsible for those failures, allowing them to make more mistakes in ever-larger arenas. But no candidate has ever challenged that establishment – until now.

Trump offered one more common sense that no establishment politician has thought to or dared to make: he suggested that there needs to be a reconfiguration of our alliances, which are still based on the Cold War. “NATO,” he said, “needs to change its focus and stop terrorism....America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.”

Indeed. The world is on fire courtesy of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If America votes in November for more of the same, we will soon be engulfed in those flames as well. On Monday, Donald Trump outlined an unprecedentedly realistic plan for putting out the fire.
46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jewish LGBT "leader" Worries About Backlash Against Muslims... on: June 13, 2016, 07:36:24 AM
Head of Jewish LGBTQ group fears for Muslims after Orlando jihad massacre

JUNE 12, 2016 8:03 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Muslims were not, of course, the victims of the Orlando jihad massacre, but to Leftists, Muslims are always the victims of every jihad terror attack that other Muslims perpetrate. Idit Klein doesn’t worry that more gays will be the targets of Islamic jihadists; instead, she is worried that “vilification of the Muslim community will certainly be in part a result of this tragedy.”  This is a constant refrain after every jihad attack, but that vilification never actually materializes. Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is not “vicious rhetoric,” but an attempt to prevent more jihadis from entering the country. Does Klein have an alternative proposal for how to accomplish that?

No innocent persons should be subjected to “vilification.” The problem is that people such as this Idit and so many others like her classify as “vilification of the Muslim community” any honest examination of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists. And so nothing effective is done to frame the jihad threat realistically, as no one in power wants to be accused of this “vilification.”

Idit Klein

“Head of Jewish LGBTQ group fears for Muslims after attack,” by Amanda Borschel-Dan, Times of Israel, June 13, 2016:

The first calls and emails Idit Klein received after hearing the news of the horrific attack that killed at least 50 at an Orlando gay bar on June 12 were from Muslim leaders expressing their sorrow and solidarity.

“Within a very short time of news breaking about the attack colleagues in the Muslim community reached out to say, ‘Our hearts are with you, our prayers are with you. What can we do to express our solidarity?’” said Klein.

Since 2001, Klein has served as executive director of Keshet, a Boston-based national non-profit organization with a $2m. annual budget that works in some 200 communities for LGBTQ equality and inclusion in Jewish life….

For Klein, the immediate condemnation by American Muslim leaders is “historically important.”

Among the many Muslim voices, the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Florida) released a statement shortly after the attack condemning the killings.

“We condemn this monstrous attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” said CAIR-Florida’s Orlando Regional Coordinator Rasha Mubarak. “The Muslim community joins our fellow Americans in repudiating anyone or any group that would claim to justify or excuse such an appalling act of violence.”

Klein said that although some “courageous leaders” have pushed their community, Islam is not known to be progressive on LGBTQ issues. The widespread condemnation of the massive attack which targeted the gay community is “a reason to feel some hope even in this time of sadness….

Klein is equally troubled by the prospect of a backlash against the American Muslim community — those who reached out first upon hearing the news Sunday morning.

This is an election year which has seen a December 2015 call from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslim immigration. The attack, fears Klein, “will inflame the very vicious rhetoric we’ve been hearing regarding Muslims and the Muslim community.

“Vilification of the Muslim community will certainly be in part a result of this tragedy,” she said.
47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / THE ENEMY IS HERE AND IS STALKING US... on: June 12, 2016, 12:12:01 PM
That is the salient point to take away from this event - finally.  Islam is INHERENTLY violent.  Imams around the world have called for slaughtering infidels during the month of Ramadan.

When will the media stop using these bullshit "hate crime" and "lone wolf" terms?  The enemy is known - his motivation is KNOWN.  It is ISLAM.  Not "radical Islam,"  - ISLAM.

We are at war - and the enemy is HERE on our soil.  Either you recognize and acknowledge this or you make yourself a willing victim.  It is long past time for we in the warrior community to be vigilant and armed EVERYWHERE we go.  This could happen anywhere - and I think that sadly - it has only begun.
48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: Ramadan in Orlando, Florida... on: June 12, 2016, 07:57:46 AM
Ramadan in Orlando, Florida: Muslim murders 20, wounds 42 at gay nightclub after taking hostages

JUNE 12, 2016 8:13 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

“Police said the gunman was believed to be in his 20s was not a local man, and the FBI believe he may have ‘leanings to radical Islamic terrorism.'”

Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani recently called on Muslims to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America.”

We tried to sound a warning on this, and were vilified for doing so. When AFDI ran ads highlighting the mistreatment of gays in Islamic law, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which is its city council, issued a resolution condemning not that mistreatment, but our ads. Gay advocates such as Theresa Sparks and Chris Stedman attacked us for daring to call attention to the institutionalized mistreatment of gays under Islamic law. Their gay advocacy doesn’t extend to standing up to Sharia oppression of gays, even though that oppression is far more virulent and violent than anything from “right-wing extremists” in the U.S. And you can’t blame them: given the Leftist/jihadist alliance, it’s clear that if they spoke out against Sharia mistreatment of gays, they would no longer be invited to the best parties, and might even be branded as “right-wing.” Their moral cowardice and duplicity, however, are obvious, and monstrous in the light of what has just happened in Orlando.

Will gay leadership wake up to the jihad threat now? Probably not. Instead, they will issue a call for gun control and a declaration of solidarity with Muslims who are experiencing backlash, and leave it at that.


“‘We consider this an act of terrorism’: Suspected Islamic extremist shoots dead at least 20 dead at Florida gay club after bursting in ‘wearing a suicide vest’ and taking hostages – injuring a further 42,” by Matt Hunter and Jenny Stanton, Dailymail.com, June 12, 2016:

A suspected Islamic extremist wielding an assault rifle and a handgun has killed about 20 people after taking party-goers hostage inside a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The gunman was carrying a suspicious device, possibly a suicide vest, when he opened fire inside Pulse in the early hours of this morning.

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said authorities have not determined the exact number of people killed, but that ‘approximately 20’ have died. Another 42 people were taken to hospital.

An FBI spokesman said the mass shooting is being investigated as an act of terrorism. He explained authorities are looking into whether this was an act of domestic or international terror, and if the shooter was a lone wolf.

Police said the gunman was believed to be in his 20s was not a local man, and the FBI believe he may have ‘leanings to radical Islamic terrorism’.

The killings took place less than four miles from where The Voice singer and YouTube star Christina Grimmie, 22, was shot dead at The Plaza Live in Orlando on Friday.

Party-goers were urged to ‘get out and keep running’ as bullets started flying at around 2am local time.

Eyewitnesses described the gunman having a bomb strapped to himself when he started shooting today.

At around 6.00 local time (11am GMT) police said on Twitter: ‘Pulse Shooting: The shooter inside the club is dead.’ Officers described it as a ‘mass shooting’.

One man who said he was inside the club posted that the shooting broke out around 2 a.m. and that he heard about 40 shots being fired.

Police earlier carried out an controlled explosion at 5.15 local time (10.15am GMT today). but it is not yet clear whether that was linked with the gunman’s death.

It was thought that at least one hostage had been locked in a bathroom with gunshot wounds.

Around 100 officers were involved in the hostage situation before the gunman was killed.

During the gunfire, an officer was shot, but he was saved by his helmet.

Local TV reporter Stewart Moore said that more than 20 people had been shot with an assault rifle.

Jon Alamo said he was at the back of one of the club’s rooms when a man holding a weapon came into the front of the room.

‘I heard 20, 40, 50 shots,’ Alamo said. ‘The music stopped.’

Club-goer Rob Rick said it happened around, 2 a.m., just before closing time. ‘Everybody was drinking their last sip,’ he said.

He estimated more than 100 people were still inside when he heard shots, got on the ground and crawled toward a DJ booth.

A bouncer knocked down a partition between the club area and an area in the back where only workers are allowed. People inside were able to then escape through the back of the club.

Christopher Hansen said he was in the VIP lounge when he started hearing gunshots.

‘I was thinking, are you kidding me? So I just dropped down. I just said please, please, please, I want to make it out,’ he said. ‘And when I did, I saw people shot. I saw blood. You hope and pray you don’t get shot.’

He continued to hear shooting even after he emerged, where police were telling people to back away from the club. He saw injured people being tended to across the street.

Mina Justice was outside the club trying to contact her 30-year-old son Eddie, who texted her when the shooting happened and asked her to call police.

He told her he ran into a bathroom with other club patrons to hide. He then texted her: ‘He’s coming.’

‘The next text said: `He has us, and he’s in here with us,” she said. ‘That was the last conversation.’

Ricardo Almodovar was in the nightclub. He said: ‘Shooter opened fire at around 2.00am. People on the dance floor and bar got down on the floor and some of us who were near the bar and back exit managed to go out through the outdoor area and just ran.

‘I am safely home and hoping everyone gets home safely as well.’ Juan Rivera said on Twitter: ‘Never seen so many dead bodies on the floor, God is good that my friends and I didn’t get shot’.

Anthony Torres heard people screaming that others in the nightclub were dead.

Rosie Feba was in the club with her girlfriend and described the moment the shooting happened to the Orlando Sentinal.

She said: ‘Everyone was getting on the floor.I told her [girlfriend] I didn’t think it was real, I thought it was just part of the music, until I saw fire coming out of his gun.’

A police dispatcher described the incident as an ‘active shooting’. Officers are advising locals to stay away from the area.

He said: ‘There are injuries. I am not sure if there are any deceased at this time.’

‘Officers are going in to search the building and to get people out,’ the dispatcher said.

The police department posted on their official Twitter account: ‘Multiple injuries. Stay away from the area.’

Pulse nightclub said on its Facebook account: ‘Everyone get out of Pulse and keep running.’

Dozens of officers and medics are at the scene including Orlando Fire Department’s bomb squad and hazardous material team.

Police have not given any further updates on the hostage situation or the gunman….
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 10, 2016, 10:00:09 AM
CCP:

I must respectfully disagree with you.  Democrats are ROUTINELY much more vulgar than Trump has ever been.  The media simply don't focus on it endlessly - in fact they treat it as if it's no big deal.  Witness Joe Biden's comments about Indians, Harry Reid about Obama being a "Clean, articulate black guy," etc., etc., etc.  This idea that independents are SO OFFENDED by vulgarity and will go running straight into the Democrats' arms at the first mean word out of a Republican's mouth is absurd.  The Democrats OWN racist, bigoted and vulgar commentary, and it surely hasn't hurt them with independents in any of the last several elections.  It's high time someone called out the Democrats for exactly the scum they are - and simply told the truth about how they have destroyed the inner cities of every place they have controlled politically for 50 years or more.  I repeat - no Republican has had the balls to simply do this.  Trump does.
50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 10, 2016, 08:59:35 AM
CCP:

My point (and Mathew Vadum's in the article below) is that Trump is defending himself, and has very good reasons for doing so.  Why Republicans have this obsession with "decorum," when clearly the Democrats have ZERO concern with this - and use it quite effectively against Republicans routinely - is beyond me.  It's as if Republicans have chosen to unilaterally disarm themselves in a war - and that's exactly what it is - make no mistake - and the enemy is quite willing and eager to take up those weapons and use them against us, knowing we will not respond in kind.  Donald Trump recognizes the folly of this, and refuses to go along with this suicidal mindset.  He will fight fire with fire, and is not afraid (unlike most Republicans) to do so.  I can't wait to hear his speech on the Clintons on Monday laying out the long, ugly history of their criminal behaviour and record of poor "decorum" that makes Trump look like a saint in comparison.  No other Republican has the balls to do this.  This is why Republicans continue to lose elections.  They have no idea how to fight.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!