Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 30, 2015, 09:57:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
90557 Posts in 2292 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Truth About the Muslim 9-11 Celebrations in New Jersey... on: Today at 08:14:08 PM

The facts and the eyewitnesses.  Donald Trump's statement has been corroborated.

November 30, 2015  Danusha V. Goska

On November 21st, 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said to supporters in Birmingham, Alabama, "Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down."

Trump's assertion sparked a national verbal wrestling match. Mainstream media and cultural leaders rushed to insist that no American Muslims celebrated 9-11. George Stephanopoulos dismissed accounts as mere "internet rumor." Snopes' Kim LaCapria argued that Muslims celebration of 9-11 is a "claim [that] was long since debunked." LaCapria, quoting an American Psychological Association article, theorized that those who report seeing Muslims celebrate 9-11 suffer from false memory syndrome. The page LaCapria linked to makes no mention of the 9-11 terror attacks and LaCapria cites no research by any scholar who studied self-identified witnesses of Muslim celebrations in NJ. The New York Times wrote that "a persistent Internet rumor of Muslims celebrating in Paterson, N.J., was discounted by police officials at the time.

A search of news accounts from that period shows no reports of mass cheering in Jersey City." Reuters claimed that "Paterson officials promptly issued a statement denying the report." National Public Radio's crack investigators "could not turn up any news accounts of American Muslims cheering or celebrating in the wake of Sept. 11." A Slate headline insisted that Muslims celebrating 9-11 is "one of the oldest 9/11 urban legends." Buzzfeed quoted, with approval, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper, "This has been one of these vile memes on the anti-Islam hate sites for some time, but there's actually no evidence to support it whatsoever." Buzzfeed also quoted the Anti-Defamation League, "It is unfortunate that Donald Trump is giving new life to long-debunked conspiracy theories about 9/11."

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution, blogging at Lawfare, is among the most self-righteous, highhanded, and inflammatory in his condemnation of Trump and also Ben Carson. These people, Wittes insisted, are spreading the equivalent of "blood libel … being used … to whip up the ignorant into murderous mobs … They are either lying or they are delusional. And assuming they are not suffering both from the same hallucination, they are lying in a fashion calculated to instill anger and hatred against a minority population at a time when nerves are raw, fears are high, and tempers are short. There are a lot of names for this. None of them is nice."

Wittes' charge of blood libel raises the stakes. Blood libel was used as an excuse to murder Jews in pogroms and it can be associated with tens of thousands of deaths. Wittes identifies blood libel as "medieval" and Christian – his meaning is plain. Christians are bad people who are bigoted against others; bigotry is a relic of the past.

In fact blood libel is neither exclusively Christian nor is it medieval. Blood libel goes back at least to Pagan, Classical Rome. In 1910, in Shiraz, Iran, a Jew was accused of murdering a Muslim girl. Muslims injured and killed Jews, and 6,000 Jews were dispossessed. Blood libel is so popular in the modern Muslim world that a 2001 TV series, "Horseman without a Horse," featured it. But to address actual facts, Wittes writes, would be beneath him. "I'm disinclined to rehash the tawdry history of this episode in any detail. To engage the substance of it feels a little to me like arguing with Holocaust deniers."

Even the Facebook page for Weird NJ insisted that no Muslims celebrated 9-11. Weird NJ is a publication usually dedicated to describing phenomena like the Ghost Boy haunting of Clinton Road. When people who promote belief in the Jersey Devil start insisting that an event never happened, you know something is up.

Prof. Irfan Khawaja of Felician College and Al Quds University acknowledges that some Muslims did celebrate 9-11. The group was much smaller than Trump mentioned, so the entire story can and must be labeled a "lie" rather than "an exaggeration." Khawaja writes, "He said that 'thousands and thousands' of people were cheering in Jersey City. That's a blatant lie."

The intense effort by empowered voices to erase an event matters. It is more than a footnote in the 2016 presidential race. Several factors are at play here. They include censorship of truth in order to meet the demands of political correctness, an utterly wrongheaded attempt to protect Muslims, an attempt that will only harm Muslims, and profound racism – the racism of an empowered elite who are convinced that average Americans are nothing but "ignorant murderous mobs."

In a May 5, 1920 photograph of Lenin delivering a speech, Trotsky is clearly visible. After Trotsky fell out of favor, he was airbrushed out of the photo. The Soviets were also good at smearing any speaker of inconvenient truths as too insane to be heard. We must reject the Soviet concept of truth. Truth is truth, even if it is politically incorrect. And truth is our friend. Truth is the friend of non-Muslims and Muslims alike.

I lived in and worked in Paterson, NJ, in the 1980s to 1990. I loved my Arab and Muslim friends then, and I love them now. In our many hours-long debates, many of my Arab and Muslim friends expressed enthusiastic and unshakeable support for terrorism. Not all did so; my Muslim friend Emmie's utter rejection of terrorism is described here. I wasn't surprised when 9-11 happened. As horrible as that day was, in one small sense, I experienced a pinprick of relief. Finally, I thought, we can start having an honest conversation about the support that even otherwise good but profoundly misguided people can voice for terrorism.

That conversation has yet fully to emerge. We are still too afraid of saying politically incorrect things. This censorship isn't just a bad thing for non-Muslims. It's a bad thing for Muslims as well. Those who witnessed the 9-11 celebrations, their friends and loved ones see much effort being exerted to smear and silence them, and to negate the historically important truth they speak. This silencing will only increase resentment against Muslims. An open and free public conversation will serve everyone's best interests.

People whom I trust told me that they witnessed the celebrations. None agreed to be named here. They know that speaking this truth in public sets them up for attack. One witness is my former student. He is an Italian-American, an A student who attended class regularly and handed in assignments on time. He is a responsible adult who worked during the day and took courses at night. Almost a decade ago, during a long conversation that touched on many topics, he told me of the celebration he witnessed. He named the location, the public library on Main Avenue.

Another witness was a prominent figure in Democratic politics, in which I used to participate. His account was similar to my student's account. The two men don't know each other. A third witness permits me to quote her here. "I stopped for gas in Belleville immediately after the second fall and there were two men in the station cheering at the TV coverage as if they were watching the Super Bowl and their team was winning." I have known this woman for years. I have to rely on her in financial and other matters. She has never lied to me.

There are tried-and-true methods to assess truth. These include Occam's Razor, multiple accounts, cui bono, and consistency with otherwise verified data. All of these can be applied in the accounts of Muslims celebrating 9-11.

Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is best. Numerous New York and New Jersey residents insist that they or those close to them saw New Jersey Muslims celebrate 9-11. New Jersey radio station 101.5 quotes some of these accounts here. A sampling:

Tom Penicaro: "I worked for PSEG in Clifton on the Paterson boarder and I witnessed it firsthand. They were celebrating in the streets cheering and stomping on the flag. I am a Marine and I remember very very clearly because I was so pissed I wanted to engage them with a bat I had in my van."

William Hugelmeyer: "I was working in the jail when the attacks occurred. Once it was clear it was a terrorist attack, we had inmates celebrating. This instantly caused a lockdown. As you could imagine, many other inmates and officers didn't share their jubilation."

John Pezzino: "They were in the streets banging on the cars trying to drive through the crowd in the street. The Muslims were shouting death to Americans and Allah is great other crap I didn't understand. We were amused until a car with 3 young women mistakenly turned on to main st. The muslims were banging on their windows and screaming, thats when we came out of our car and pushed the muslims off their car helped them back out and get back to the Parkway."

Walter Emiliantsev: "I lived in NJ at the time on Demott Ave., Clifton! When I tried to go to Paterson to my brother in laws shop, I usually took Main Ave. There were so many people dancing on Main, I couldn't get through! I KNOW what I saw!"

Occam's Razor suggests that when numerous people, using their first and last names in a public forum, and providing concrete details that can be checked, all provide similar accounts of public behavior, chances are they are telling the truth. It is possible that all of these people, as Kim LaCapria suggests, are suffering from false memory syndrome, or are all attempting to whip up murderous hatred against Muslims, as Benjamin Wittes accuses, but neither LaCapria nor Wittes provides any support for their smears.

Cui bono directs us to consider "who benefits" from a statement. New Jersey has one of the largest Muslim populations in the US, after Michigan. New Jersey's Muslim population constitutes the second highest, by percent, in the US, after Illinois and above Michigan. New Jersey Muslims wield political clout. Note Republican Governor Chris Christie's nomination of Sohail Mohammed for the New Jersey Superior Court in spite of intense pressure, and Christie's dismissal as "crap" any concerns that New Jerseyans might have about sharia law. Note also that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man had the basis to beat, torture, and rape his 17-year-old wife because he believed that Islam granted him this right. Muslim political clout may explain why so many empowered voices insist that the 9-11 celebrations never happened.

Too, no decent New Jerseyan wanted to see retaliatory attacks against Muslims in our state. Many speculate, and some report as fact, that police, journalists and local officials downplayed or denied Muslim celebrations to protect Muslims from retaliatory attacks.

In contrast, those who insist that they witnessed Muslim celebrations have nothing to gain by making these statements publicly, and everything to lose. First, many of those speaking out now have no public record of making these statements previous to this controversy. They saw what they saw and they kept it to themselves, or told only those closest to them, for the past fourteen years. It is only the attempt to expunge this historical fact from public memory, and to smear and disgrace anyone who speaks this truth, that caused witnesses to come forward. They are average New Jerseyans simply telling the truth in the face of a wave of censorship and demonization that could cost them their friends or their jobs.

Are accounts of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9-11 consistent with other verified data? Indeed they are.

Palestinians make up a large percentage of Paterson's Muslim population, so much so that the neighborhood where the 9-11 celebration is alleged to have taken place is sometimes nicknamed "Little Ramallah." Local businesses are often named for Palestinian landmarks, for example the Al-Quds restaurant, Al-Quds Halal meat and the Al-Quds bakery. Paterson has a large Hispanic population; there are businesses with the provocative and irredentist name of El Andalus Discount Store and Andalus Islamic Fashion. Paterson Palestinians are not shy about expressing their opposition to Israel, see here. Indeed, Paterson's City Hall famously flew the Palestinian flag. One Paterson resident, Moneer Simreen, is quoted referring to Palestine, not the US, as "our country." Americans, Tariq Elsamma said, "need to obey our needs because we are a large community." Paterson's mayor, Jose Torres, wore a kaffiyeh and supported making Ramallah Paterson's sister city.

Even those who deny that any American Muslims celebrated 9-11 acknowledge that Palestinians overseas did celebrate the attacks. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are familially related to Palestinians in Paterson.

Further, polling data indicate that there is not inconsiderable support for terror among some Muslims, with support varying by group. In a 2005 FAFO Foundation poll, a significant percentage of Palestinian respondents supported "Al Qaeda's actions like bombings in USA and Europe." A 2013 Pew Poll found that 40% of Palestinians support suicide bombing in defense of Islam. In the same poll, only one percent of Muslims in Azerbaijan voiced support for suicide bombing.

Finally, we know that six of the 9-11 hijackers lived in Paterson, NJ, and they used the computers of a nearby campus in planning their attacks.

There are all too many non-Muslims who voice support for terror as well. One notorious example: Ward Churchill, a white American university professor of European, Christian descent called the 9-11 victims "little Eichmanns." Other non-Muslims say that poverty or injustice justifies terrorism.

Good people of all beliefs need to say, without ambiguity or apology, that Western Civilization is worth maintaining, and that terrorism is both immoral and a tactical dead-end. If Muslims don't like an aspect of public life, they can change it through organizing and hard work. But we aren't having that conversation to the extent that we should. Instead too many of our cultural elites are apologetic about Western Civilization, and too eager to make excuses for terrorism.

No, Ms. LaCapria, there is no evidence that the people who witnessed New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9-11 suffer from false memory syndrome. No, Benjamin Wittes, those who witnessed the celebrations are not "lying delusional murderous mobs." Rather, the real bigots and racists are those who demonize the honest New Jerseyans who risk censure by simply stating what they saw. From universities, newspaper suites and think tanks, the erasers of history look down on average Americans and sneer. They believe the worst of the American people. They are convinced that if Americans know one small fact – that some New Jersey Muslims celebrated on 9-11 – we will rise up with our pitchforks and torches and erupt into slaughter. They are the delusional ones.

Americans are nice people. We are not especially bigoted. We know that 9-11 happened. Most Americans probably suspect that some minority of Muslims celebrated, openly or in secret. It's been fourteen years, and the pogrom that some have been perversely hoping for and trying to foment never happened.

What we need is frank speech. We need to talk to our Muslim fellow citizens about why some of them celebrated on 9-11. And we need to – through speech – convince those who celebrated 9-11 that they are mistaken. The day that we do so will be a good day. We delay that day by denying that these celebrations ever happened.
2  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Geller: "I Warned About European Demise Six Years Ago" on: November 23, 2015, 07:03:31 AM
I warned about demise of Europe 6 years ago

Posted By Pamela Geller On 11/22/2015

The mainstream media and Barack Obama may be surprised by what happened in Paris on Nov. 13. I was not. I have seen this coming, and warned about it, for years now.

On Dec. 31, 2009, I wrote an article for the Washington Times, “Europe’s looming demise,” on the disastrous Euro-Med agreement. In it, I predicted that the freedom of movement between European Union nations and their Muslim Mediterranean partners would be disastrous: Open borders would unleash a hijrah, a mass migration of Muslims into Europe, resulting in jihad violence and, ultimately, the end of Europe as a home of free societies.

The pioneering historian Bat Ye’or warned of all this in her groundbreaking book, “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.” She exposed the initial Euro-Med plan, showing conclusively that what is happening now is not by accident or chance. This was a deliberate scheme to outmaneuver America and make Europe into a rival superpower – a scheme that started with de Gaulle. Instead, the Europeans outmaneuvered themselves.

Breaking the story of the unthinkable immigration policies of the Euro-Med partnership which would lead to the demise of Europe, in that 2009 article I quoted the human rights group, Stop Islamization of Europe, part of our umbrella organization, Stop Islamization of Nations, explaining that in the Euro-Med plan, “Europe is to be Islamized. Democracy, Christianity, European culture and Europeans are to be driven out of Europe. Fifty million North Africans from Muslim countries are to be imported into the EU.”

In another article in Newsmax in January 2010, I wrote: “Because of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership between the European Union and Islamic states in the Middle East, by the year 2050 the Islamic population of Europe will be 25 percent to 30 percent of the total population. There will be perhaps over 100 million Muslims in Europe. The effects on European civilization, and on Europe’s relationship with the United States, are all too easy to imagine.”

In that piece, I asked: “Why would Europe get involved again with such evil, and simultaneously take in such a diabolical and disastrous immigration bomb? And that’s what this is.” Around the same time, I titled another Newsmax article, “Euro-Mediterranean Plan Will Make Jihad Attacks Easier.”

Now it is all taking place just as I had warned. My predictions became reality on Nov. 13, 2015. The jihadists identified as perpetrating the Islamic slaughter of 132 people (most under the age of 30) in Paris were from an astonishing number of European and Middle Eastern countries.

The ease of movement across Europe without papers, etc., has made the tracking of jihadists across the continent almost impossible. Currently, E.U. passport holders only undergo a cursory visual passport inspection, to respect their “freedom of movement.”

At this point, emergency measures are mere Band-Aids that won’t fix years of infiltration.

Breitbart reported, “Europe’s home and interior ministers are expected to agree tightened security measures at the external borders of the Schengen zone, at a summit in Brussels today. Emergency plans have been drawn up to ensure that everyone travelling into the Schengen Zone will have their details checked against the Schengen System Watchlist, a database used to flag criminals.” Too little, too late.

Security officials in Europe have admitted that borders in Europe are “like a sieve.” The French didn’t even know that Paris jihad murderer Abdelhamid Abbaoud was in the country until after the mass slaughter. Abbaoud was able to move between the Middle East and Europe with relative ease.

And now it has been established that some of the Paris jihad attackers came into Europe as part of the migrant influx. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has said that Europe’s passport-free Schengen zone may be ended if Europe is unable to “take responsibility” over its borders.

When I wrote these articles, I was widely ridiculed and derided, even by some who were concerned about the Muslim influx into Europe. But had my warnings been heeded, Paris and the world might not be embroiled in this crisis now.

I wrote in that 2009 Washington Times article: “Been to Europe lately? Thought it was bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet. The passage of the Lisbon Treaty, hailed by Barack Obama, nailed the coffin shut on national sovereignty in Europe.” Then I concluded the article with this: “This internationalism is already destroying what has made Europe free and great. And now Mr. Obama seems to want to do the same to America.”

It’s happening now. It’s happening now with a swiftness and decisiveness that makes it clear that European and American elites saw all this coming as well as I did, and actively worked to bring it all about, rather than to prevent it. “The people of Europe,” I wrote back in 2009, “fought it, but were overwhelmed by their political elites and the lack of American leadership in this age of our Marxist, collectivist U.S. president.”

Will Americans allow the same thing to happen here, or will we fight to protect and defend our nation before it is too late?

3  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim "Hero" in Paris Bombings a Myth... on: November 21, 2015, 08:45:55 AM
As I suspected all along - now we get the real story regarding Crafty's earlier posts about this Muslim security guard.  But hey!  Why should the establishment media correct their story? It's useful to advance their narrative - even if it is a lie.  Correcting it will only invite "backlash against Muslims.":

The Muslim Security Guard Who Saved Paris and Other Progressive Myths

by JAMES DELINGPOLE18 Nov 2015  for Breitbart News.

Did you hear about the Muslim security guard called Zouheir at the Stade de France in Paris who, like, singlehandedly foiled what would have been the worst terrorist incident of Friday night?

Of course you did!

Perhaps you even felt as strongly as the Tweeter below did that it was so important the story deserved to go viral. As indeed it duly did. Among those who eagerly repeated it was that much-loved disseminator of truth, Piers Morgan, in a Mail on Sunday piece which since mysteriously appears to have been taken down.

Why did it go viral? Because, as we know, quite the most important thing after any new terrorist atrocity committed by the Religion of Peace is for all right thinking people — renowned anti-gun campaigner and human rights crusader Piers Morgan, for example — to demonstrate how totally and utterly “nothing to do with Islam” they know the incident to have been.

Hence, for example, the #illridewithyou hashtag which emerged in 2014 when a deranged Islamist murdered two hostages in a Sydney cafe. Never mind the dead (cafe manager Tori Johnson and barrister and mother of three Katrina Dawson): the real victims of the incident, as all sensitive people understood, were all those Muslims in Australia who might now feel they were being given funny looks and somehow held responsible for this inexplicable act by one of their co-religionists which, of course, had “nothing to do with Islam”­™.

So an enterprising girl called Tessa Kum hit on the bright idea of turning it into a heartwarming internet meme about how someone had spotted a girl in a hijab looking uncomfortable and got-at on a train and had cheerfully volunteered, “I’ll ride with you.”

Everyone loved this story — especially the Guardian, obviously — because it showed a) how totally delightful, shy but quietly appreciative, and totally unthreatening most Muslims are and b) how incredibly sensitive, non-judgemental, caring, tolerant, non-racist, enlightened and un-Islamophobic all the people who retweeted the hashtag were. (Plus, you never know, if there were any Islamists going through people’s Twitter feeds and deciding who to kill next, then maybe this hashtag might act as a kind of defence against the dark arts spell. Not that they were thinking about that when they did it. Well, only a bit…)

The only problem with this too-good-to-be-true story is that it wasn’t actually true. Not only was the inspiring incident either exaggerated or made up, but worse, the woman who made it go viral — that’s Tessa Kum — turned out to be the author of several mildly unhinged, anti-white, racist blog posts.

Still, it didn’t diminish the public’s appetite for delightful stories about white people interacting with Muslims on public transport. Here’s another one which was on Buzzfeed just last month. This time the hero was a man called Dante who spotted a woman wearing a niqab on a train. He sat next to her. So pleased was he with his own reckless decency and courage that he then posted a story about his magnificence on his Facebook page, urging people not to be “judgemental.” They weren’t. They loved it so much that this story too went viral.

It makes you wonder, given the massive appetite for this sort of thing, whether Buzzfeed oughtn’t to open a new vertical consisting entirely of stories like this. Perhaps it called be called “Religion of Peace, Fun and Friendship.” Possibly, it could be run by the Telegraph’s Radhika Sanghani.

But enough great new vertical ideas, already. We must return to that heartwarming tale of the Muslim security guard who allegedly foiled the plot to blow up the Stade de Paris. This, it turns out, wasn’t true either…

…as the French newspaper Liberation was the first to reveal in this investigative piece.

“Every tragedy needs its heroes…” it begins. Then it goes on to explain how the story appears to have begun with a perfectly accurate story in the Wall Street Journal, which quoted a guy called Zouheir describing how another security guard had foiled the plot of a terrorist to blow himself up on the terraces in front of the France/Germany match. This then mutated into a series of stories and tweets about how it was Zouheir himself who had saved the day. Which he didn’t. (And which, even if he had, he’d probably wish to keep very quiet right now, what with the need to avoid possible retribution from fellow adherents to his peace loving religion).

“Every tragedy needs its heroes…” Yeah, sure, but do you realise how tough it is on these occasions to find ones that fit the right religious profile?
4  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama Actions Shield Most Illegals From Deportation... on: November 20, 2015, 07:34:35 AM
Obama actions shield most illegals from deportation even as courts stall amnesty

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, November 19, 2015

President Obama's marquee deportation amnesty has been stalled by the courts, but the rest of his executive actions on immigration, announced exactly a year ago, are moving forward — including his move protecting more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants from any danger of deportation.

The amnesty, dubbed Deferred Action for Parental Accountability was supposed to grant full tentative legal status — including work permits, Social Security numbers and driver's licenses — to more than 4 million illegal immigrants. It has been halted by a federal appeals court, and its fate will soon rest with the Supreme Court.

But the rest of the dozen actions Mr. Obama announced on Nov. 20, 2014, are still advancing, including a far-reaching set of priorities that effectively orders agents not to bother deporting nearly all illegal immigrants.

"There are 7 or 8 or 9 million people who are now safe under the current policy. That is a victory to celebrate while we wait for the Supreme Court," said Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who was among the chief cheerleaders pushing Mr. Obama to go around Congress and take unilateral steps last year.

The actions — often mislabeled by the press as executive orders — also included changes to the legal immigration system, such as making it easier for spouses of guest workers to also find jobs; allowing foreigners who study science and technology at U.S. universities to remain and work in the country longer; pushing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship; and waiving the penalty on illegal immigrant spouses or children of legal permanent residents so they no longer have to go to their home countries to await legal status.

On enforcement, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, called for a more coordinated approach to border security, and that paid off with a major drop in arrests of illegal immigrants in the Southwest. Apprehensions were at their lowest levels since the 1970s.

At Mr. Obama's direction, Mr. Johnson announced changes that would let most rank-and-file illegal immigrants off the hook and instead focus deportation efforts on serious criminals, gang members and other security threats, and only the most recent of illegal border crossers.

"Immigration and Customs Enforcement is doing what I told them to do — to reprioritize and focus on convicted criminals," Mr. Johnson said this month as he took stock of the changes. "This is the general direction that the president and I want to go when it comes to how we enforce immigration law — focusing on threats to public safety and border security for the American public."

The changes are already having a major effect. Deportations, which peaked at nearly 410,000 in fiscal year 2012, dropped to about 230,000 in fiscal year 2015, which ended Sept. 30. But Mr. Johnson said more of those being deported are the serious criminals and safety threats he wants his agents to worry about.

Indeed, if agents adhere strictly to his priorities, some 9.6 million of the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the country have no real danger of being deported, according to an estimate this year by the Migration Policy Institute.

"The enforcement priorities announced last year, if strictly enforced, do protect the vast majority of unauthorized immigrants from being deported, because most immigrants have been here a long time and haven't committed a serious crime," said Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the institute's U.S. immigration policy program.

The number could go even higher, depending on how agents follow some of Mr. Johnson's other instructions. The secretary had said even some illegal immigrants with serious criminal offenses on their records should be allowed to stay if they had mitigating factors, such as deep family or community ties.

Immigrant rights activists said they are still waiting for those special circumstances to be applied more broadly.

Mr. Johnson also has been pushing, with some success, to try to get sanctuary cities to buy into limited cooperation with his deportation agents. He scrapped the Secure Communities program that trolled state and local prisons and jails for illegal immigrants and replaced it with the Priorities Enforcement Program, which targets only serious criminals.

"It is tremendously harder now to deport even criminals, much less garden-variety illegal aliens. They have truly dismembered the immigration enforcement system, from the Border Patrol to the immigration courts," said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stricter immigration controls.

But the jewel of the executive actions was the deportation amnesty, which was delayed first by a federal district court in Texas and last week by an appeals court.

All sides in the debate agree that was a huge blow to Mr. Obama.

"Without being able to give away a benefit, like a work permit, these changes are less permanent, and easier to undo in some ways, than would have been the case had the president been able to implement DAPA," Ms. Vaughan said.

Mr. Obama said he took the series of steps in response to inaction from Congress, where his push for a broad bill granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship stalled in 2013. Frustrated by Republicans, Mr. Obama waited until after the 2014 elections, then announced his go-it-alone approach.

Many of the steps are works in progress.

Homeland Security has issued proposals to carry out the leniency program for illegal immigrant spouses and children of green-card holders and to allow foreign students in science and technology to stay longer. Both of those still need to be finalized, as does a proposal expanding hardship waivers.

Other moves were easier to accomplish: Homeland Security now accepts credit card payments for citizenship fees.

© Copyright 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
5  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / ISIS an Engineered "False Flag" Threat? on: November 19, 2015, 07:07:25 AM
I'm not necessarily endorsing this theory.  Brandon Smith obviously considers it to be fact, not speculation - but I tend to think there are some rather large holes in his argument.  Nevertheless, I'm interested in the opinion of the folks here on the forum about this.  It's a rather long piece, with some good suggestions for self-protection, but my primary interest is in his thesis that ISIS has been created by globalists to provide an opportunity for imposing martial law:

ISIS Is Being Aimed At The West By Globalists - Here’s What We Can Do About It

Wednesday, 18 November 2015    Brandon Smith

Over the past year and a half, I have been writing on the engineered nature of ISIS, delving deeply into its history and its backing by Western intelligence agencies in articles such as “Is Martial Law Justified If ISIS Attacks?” as well as “What Will You Do When Tyranny And Terrorism Work Hand In Hand?” and “The Time Is Ripe For A False Flag Attack On American Soil.”

Specifically, I compared the ISIS phenomenon to another establishment-backed terrorist program that began at the onset of the Cold War in Europe and was publicly exposed in the 1990s. That program was called Operation Gladio.

Gladio involved the manipulation of existing extremist groups as well as the complete fabrication of terrorist cells within Europe claiming to be “left-wing.” The reality was that these terrorist cells were made up of intelligence agency operatives (including CIA operatives) acting as handlers often for duped scapegoats and patsies. These proxy terrorists initiated decades of attacks in Europe, which focused on shootings and bombings in public areas with full media saturation. Gladio-influenced cells, such as Action Directe, carried out at least 50 different violent attacks in France in the 1970s and 1980s, along with groups like Red Army Faction, Black September and the PLFP.

Governments across Europe began using the attacks as a rallying cry for a centralized one-European nation; that cry culminated in the formation of the EU.

Operation Gladio began in France in 1947, when French Interior Minister Edouard Depreux revealed the existence of a secret stay-behind army codenamed “Plan Bleu.”

In France in 1948, the Western Union Clandestine Committee (WUCC) was created to coordinate secret unorthodox warfare. After the creation of NATO a year later, the WUCC was integrated into the military alliance under the name Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC).

The former director of the French intelligence service DGSE, Adm. Pierre Lacoste, said in a 1992 interview with The Nation, that France’s “secret army” was involved in terrorist activities against Charles de Gaulle, whom the CIA wanted to assassinate.

De Gaulle was apparently not entirely innocent in the Gladio affair, either. De Gaulle was very familiar with a secret organization called Service d’ Action Civique. It ended up being exposed as a training ground for Gladio Agents under Jaques Foccart, a government “adviser” who would go on to mastermind multiple military coups in Africa. Whether de Gaulle was fully aware of this problem is not known. It was discovered, though, that SAC had infiltrated communist student groups in the late 1960s through the 1970s and attempted to provoke violent actions.

De Gaulle was eventually driven out of office after the 1969 failure of the Referendum of Regionalisation. He was replaced by Georges Pompidou, who (what a surprise) was an avid promoter of European unification (centralization). Pompidou founded the French arm of the Pan-European Union Movement. And immediately after he took de Gaulle’s position, he helped initiate the European Communities Summit, which led directly to the formation of the European Union structure.

Gladio was not fully exposed to the wider public until 1990 when Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti came forward to the senate with detailed information.  After the information hit the mainstream, the European Parliament was forced to write a resolution against any future false flag projects.  Clearly, they have since ignored these promises.

For more information on Gladio, I highly recommend the intensively researched book “NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe” by Daniele Ganser, as well as the 1992 BBC documentary “Operation Gladio.”

As I have stated time and time again, government engineered crisis is designed to do one thing: drive the fearful public toward more centralization and less freedom. Although Operation Gladio was later exposed, it was too late; Gladio (along with other clandestine economic measures) had achieved the goal of a malleable citizenry desperate for more centralized governance; a social attitude which led to a transnational union in Europe with a single currency mechanism.

What does this have to do with ISIS? In order to defeat an enemy, you have to know where he comes from, what his motivations are, and who pulls his strings if he has any.  As I predicted in the pieces linked at the beginning of this article, ISIS has now been exposed as being supported if not entirely funded and managed by Western covert intelligence through documents obtained from the Department of Defense by Judicial Watch, making ISIS very similar to Gladio in its origins and tactics.

This DoD paper should not have been at all surprising to most of us in the liberty movement. The West had been shifting militants from Libya into Syria just before protests suddenly erupted into all-out war. Instructors from the U.K. and France, under U.S. advisement, had been training militants in Jordan specifically for the purpose of invading and disrupting Syria and overthrowing president Bashar Assad. This training continued well after it became clear that the same militants had formed under the banner of ISIS.

Establishment elites have openly applauded the radicalization of insurgents in Syria. The Council on Foreign Relations argued that the inclusion of what they called “extremist al-Qaida elements” in the Syrian insurgency “improved the moral” of the movement, stating that the “Free Syrian Army needs al-Qaida now.” The CFR acknowledges that the goal of al-Qaida operatives in Syria is not necessarily to overthrow Assad, but to establish an Islamic state. Despite this, the CFR continued to support the same strategy of militant training to overthrow Assad.

The facts are this:

- ISIS was created by covert intelligence and continues to be trained and supplied by Western governments.

- The tactics ISIS uses, including monstrous acts of genocide, were clearly taught to them by covert intelligence interests (look into the School of the Americas for similar programs), considering ISIS insurgents continue to receive aid from Western intelligence despite their behavior.

- Western governments are well aware that ISIS agents have been inserted into refugee camps and are being imported into Europe and the U.S.

- ISIS smugglers have openly admitted to this infiltration plan, yet the U.S. and EU governments continued the immigration surge.

- Lower echelon ISIS fighters that have actually been captured and interviewed apparently have wide-ranging views on Islam and are not the staunchly unified theocratic zealots the Western public has been led to believe. This is a considerable departure from groups like al-Qaida (also Western funded and trained), which required complete theological conformity.

In truth, the only unifying drive of many captured ISIS fighters has been a concerted hatred of the West and the U.S. in particular due to our government’s complete destabilization of the Middle East. Meaning, the establishment (globalists) brought chaos to the Middle East, then conjured the rise of ISIS out of that despair, then used ISIS to recruit young men with a hatred for the West, and has now led those fighters right to our doorstep.

The escalation of force in Syria by both Russia and the West is likely now useless, as thousands of ISIS insurgents have been removed from the combat zone and transported exactly where they prefer to be — right next door to us. But defeating ISIS has never been the goal.

One must conclude given these facts that the plan by the establishment to force public acceptance of Syrian mass immigration was a Trojan horse strategy to plant ISIS extremists within deadly proximity to western civilians. But why?

Again, this is yet another Gladio-style program designed to strike terror in the hearts of the public and condition them into accepting even greater centralization and less freedom. A European superstate with common border security and a single government authority will certainly be on the table soon. Not to mention, martial law is essentially in place in France today and will be expanded to other EU members as the attacks continue. As with Gladio, Europeans should expect many more events like the Paris attacks in the months to come.

The U.S. is set to receive over 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next couple months. Unlike in Europe, where numerous activist groups have been able to partially track numbers and types of people within refugee groups, Americans have little access to information surrounding Syrian immigration to the U.S. I suspect that, as in Europe, the claims that the refugees are only “single mothers, children and religious minorities” is mostly false, and many of them are actually single military-age males.

In the U.S., the federal government has been legally positioning for martial law for years, from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its indefinite-detention-without-trial provisions that apply to citizens, to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and mass surveillance measures without warrant, to resource confiscation provisions through executive order that apply during any event the White House labels an “emergency,” to elitist insiders like Wesley Clark planting the concept on national television of World War II-style internment camps for citizens deemed hostile to the status quo.

I would also point out that the U.S., and the global economy in general, is currently witnessing a massive slowdown rivaling the credit collapse of 2008. Widespread terrorist attacks are a perfect rationalization for a complete lockdown of Western peoples, as well as a perfect distraction from the banker-generated economic implosion that is progressing in exponentially harsher stages as we head into 2016.

Another major advantage to consider to the Paris attacks is that now, with a Syrian passport being conveniently found on one of the terrorists (possibly fake), the war in Syria is given greater rationale while the immigration plan continues unabated. NATO countries are gearing up for a large-scale assault in the region, while Russia is already entrenched. Imagine the potential for an “accidental” trigger event between the East and West as Russian troops and planes come within spitting distance of NATO troops and planes.

Americans should see a Paris-level attack as inevitable in the near term. They should expect similar events in unusual areas of the country, including more suburban and rural areas to ensure that no one feels safe anywhere. They should expect that said attacks will be high frequency and that they will occur in a coordinated manner. This is how Gladio operated, and this is undoubtedly how ISIS will operate.

The question is: What can be done about it?

We must first recognize that ISIS is only a surface problem; the deeper problem is corrupt governments across the globe creating dangerous terrorist groups out of thin air.  That said, ISIS is still a threat, and must be dealt with along with globalists.

If the government insists upon financing and training dangerous militant groups and directly immigrating them along with Syrian refugees without any vetting whatsoever, if they insist on wide open borders, then there is not much we can do to prevent ISIS from slipping into the U.S. We also cannot go the fascist route and round up every Muslim in the name of security as some neocons are suggesting; this is exactly what the elites want, public support for liberty destroying measures against one group that can then be applied to ALL groups.

We can, though, take some measures that we should have been instituting all along.

Higher pressure on prime immigration centers: Legal immigration should not be an issue normally, but it has been made an issue due to deliberately lax security measures by the federal government. If the government is not going to take action, then the American people must. There are a limited number of these relocation centers in the U.S.; and activist pressure could be applied, along with pressure on local and state officials. Michigan, Texas  and Alabama among other states have publicly announced that they will not be taking any more refugees until the government revises its vetting standards. That is a perfectly rational approach. Although I suspect the hour may be too late to disrupt the flow of ISIS sleeper cells into our country, we should do what we can to end the current insane immigration policies.

Locally managed border security: The federal border patrol simply is not getting the job done right now. And the great threat is that once an attack does occur within the U.S., the federal government will suggest a militarization of the border (or the entire nation) rather than taking simple measures they should have taken long ago. You see, the goal of false-flag terror is to motivate the public to demand more government power. This is why followers of the neoconservative mindset are idiotic. The establishment CREATED the problem of ISIS and potential ISIS immigration. And when it all goes sour, neocons cry out that the same government needs expanded militarized authority to do its job. I say, “No more.”

Border security should be handled at the local level rather than the federal level, meaning the people of the vulnerable states should be organizing their own security measure, patrols, alarms, response teams, etc. I am so tired of hearing that we should “let the professionals do the job.” Frankly, there are no “professionals” in the area of border security seeing as we now have wide-open borders. The locals have every right to secure their own states and will probably do a better job that the federal government ever has.

Your tactical response kit: Build an active-shooter kit for your vehicle and ALWAYS carry a sidearm, either open carry or concealed if you have a CCW. I open carry at all times as a matter of principle and have never been asked to leave an establishment as a result. But if you are worried about confrontation with people or businesses, then simply carry concealed. Open-carry citizens could dissuade attackers from striking a particular place altogether through blatant show of force, while CCW holders are less visible. There are advantages to both.

An active-shooter kit would require a lightweight folding-stock rifle or a short-barrel AR-style pistol with an arm brace, a lightweight tactical vest with mags and ammo, ballistic plates, smoke, a rifle light (for dark indoor spaces in particular; night vision with limited depth perception is far less effective than a simple light), a trauma kit with pressure bandages, celox gauze, tourniquets, chest seals, decompression needles, etc., as well as a radio communications kit.  All gear should be tailored to the individual's expertise and needs.  This kit should be placed in a nondescript backpack or carrying case for easy transport. Obviously, train with all of your gear extensively before using it in the field.

Personal and team training for active shooters: The only way Americans can guarantee any measure of safety from a Paris-style attack is for as many citizens as possible to be armed and trained. This means mentally training to go TOWARD the sound of the shooting, rather than to run away from it, as well as tactical methods to marginalize a shooter’s ability to move and project violence. Team training is a must, and you should already be working within a group to learn how to function in combat without danger of friendly fire or misdirected fire that might put innocent bystanders at risk.

The common argument against citizens defending themselves is that they are untrained and are “likely to do more harm than good.” This is nonsense. One armed person in Paris could have made all the difference, as this man armed with a .38 revolver did when his church in South Africa came under attack by terrorists. Another argument is that when armed citizens respond aggressively to an attack, they risk being mistaken as terrorists by authorities. I have to point out that the authorities rarely arrive in time to accomplish anything, let alone mistake you on the scene as a terrorist while defending yourself.

Military-grade training far superior to the training mandated by law enforcement is widely available to U.S. citizens. It is time to accept that this is the world we live in now. Are you going to put blind faith in a corrupt government system that has deliberately put you in harm’s way, or are you going to take proactive measures to protect yourself and those around you? Make no mistake; your safety is in your hands whether you like it or not.

6  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: November 17, 2015, 11:09:31 AM
Or dropping his pants and hoping to attract some hot young college women infidels... tongue
7  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Lennon's "Imagine"... on: November 16, 2015, 06:29:00 PM
Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier" actually featured this obscenity as its final clip of the show.  As if this were some great display of courage and compassion.
Lennon's song has always sickened me - paean to communism that it is.  Infantile and pretentious at the same time.  The French should have run this guy out of there with pitchforks.
8  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / LA Times: Muslims Fear "Backlash" in France... on: November 16, 2015, 06:07:14 AM
LA Times: Muslims in France fear reprisals after Paris jihad massacre


This is always the mainstream media preoccupation after a jihad attack: portraying Muslims as victims of a generally nonexistent “backlash.” There is always a steady stream of articles like this one after every fresh jihad murder, and never, ever any articles about Muslim communities redoubling their efforts to show themselves to be loyal citizens and rooting out the jihadis.

“French Muslims fear reprisals in wake of Paris terrorist attacks,” by Christina Boyle, Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2015 (thanks to Darcy):

In this heavily Muslim suburb of Paris, there was a nagging fear in the back of many minds on Sunday: Would the latest spasm of violence in the name of Islam bring retaliation against their community?

“Of course we are scared,” said one worshiper at the Evry-Courcouronnes mosque, an ethnically diverse community full of low-rise public housing about 20 miles south of the center of Paris.

“We didn’t choose for this to happen. The people who carried out the murders were not Muslim, they were not fanatics, they were assassins. But not everyone sees that.”

Maybe that’s because it’s so hard to see when the assassins explain themselves in terms that are so very Muslim.

In the wake of Friday’s terrorism strikes in Paris, some residents of this suburb – built in the 1970s to offer a cheaper, more spacious alternative to city living, but now mostly home to poorer immigrants – faced the possibility that some might view them as the enemy.

Already, French officials have warned of the possibility of cracking down on mosques deemed as harboring Muslim radicals.

The French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, said Sunday that the state of emergency declared Friday gives the government the means to act more quickly against those “who preach hatred in France,” including through expulsions and the “dissolution” of radical mosques.

“I didn’t wait for the state of emergency to track down radical imams who preach hatred and to address places of worship where they preach that hatred,” Cazeneuve said in an interview with France 2 TV. He said the expansion of government powers will allow the authorities to be “much quicker in the expression of the republic’s resolve … in the face of terrorism.”

No public mention has been made of targeting mosques in Courcouronnes, but that hasn’t stopped residents here from worrying about the general atmosphere across Europe.

It didn’t help that far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen quickly called on fellow citizens to “annihilate Islamist fundamentalism” and to “take back control” of their borders….

Muslims in France are upset about this? Yet we’re constantly told that the Muslims in the West are moderates who abhor “Islamist fundamentalism.” So why would they not want it annihilated?
9  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Grand Lesson Of Paris Attacks... on: November 15, 2015, 10:14:37 AM
Raymond Ibrahim: The Grand Lesson of the Paris Jihad


What is the grand, take away lesson from yesterday’s jihadi/terrorist attack in Paris, that left 129 dead and hundreds injured?

Is it a result of the mass influx of Muslim migrants into Europe—including Islamic State operatives?

Is it yet another reflection of Islam’s unwavering Rule of Numbers, which holds that, wherever and whenever Muslims grow in numbers—and they make for a large minority in France—the same acts of “anti-infidel” violence that are endemic to the Islamic world grow with them?

For all who are uninformed, the above are certainly lessons associated with the Paris attack.  But they are not the grand lesson.

The grand lesson is that such attacks must and will continue to multiply in severity.  Why?  Because Western nations, their leaders and media talking heads continue to be shocked and dismayed.  As Judith Berman writes for the Gatestone Institute today:

One of the most surprising aspects of the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night is how “deeply shocked” members of the European political establishment appeared to be.

Angela Merkel, David Cameron and the Pope all expressed their condolences — and “deep shock” — at the well-coordinated, citywide terror attacks in six different places across Paris…

Even “NBA players express shock, sympathy over Paris terrorist tragedy.”

What is truly shocking is that so many are still shocked.  When someone is shocked, they are essentially saying they have no idea how a specific event, in this case yesterday’s Paris attack, came to pass.

In turn, this means that all the factors that led up to such terrorist attacks—from an already large Muslim presence further engorged with more Muslim migraters, to an inability to speak honestly about Islam’s supremacist and violent teachings—will continue unabated.

And that means many more such attacks and worse will continue.  Count on it.

10  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fighting Back Against Tyranny... on: November 13, 2015, 07:39:13 AM
Methods For Fighting Back Against Collectivist Tyranny

Wednesday, 11 November 2015   Brandon Smith

In any examination of historical precedence, it is easy to see that the sheer number of collectivist and tyrannical systems have far outweighed any experiments in individual liberty. I have explored the reasons for this in numerous articles, including recent pieces such as “How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation” and “The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power.” To summarize, there is a driving desire among weaker-minded people to seek control over other people in the name of arbitrary standards of safety as well as arbitrary standards of “civil” conformity. While such people proclaim publicly that they do what they do for the “greater good,” in reality they seek only to satiate a private lust for power.

In the darkest corners of their souls, many people have personal aspirations to attain godhood in their own little worlds. And if they cannot achieve such godhood outright on their own, then they will join a mob with similar aspirations so that they can at least feel omnipotent through vicarious tyranny.

This is why collectivism and individualism are mutually exclusive. A collectivist uses force or manipulation to compel the masses to accept a society that follows his personal ideology. An individualist adheres only to the tenets of natural law and the non-aggression principle. He believes force is justified only when the personal liberties of an individual are threatened by others. And he demands that if he participates in any society, it be voluntary. Collectivism is society through coercion. Individualism promotes society through voluntary cooperation. The two philosophies cannot coexist.

I'll say it again because there are some people out there with severe reading comprehension issues; the definition of collectivism requires the prioritization of the group over the rights of the individual.  Collectivism by its very nature denies or destroys individualism and individual choice in this prioritization.  Collectivism therefore requires the engineered organization of individuals predicated by COERCION, or force.  Period.  If a group organizes voluntarily, then it is NOT collectivist.  If a group is organized through force and manipulation, then it IS collectivist. Period.  Bananas are yellow.  Oranges are orange.  The sky is blue.  Two plus two equals four.  And, collectivism compels participation by force, while voluntary community does not.

There is no rational debate to be made against this clear dichotomy.  It is truly amazing how some folks cannot seem to grasp the very obvious difference between collectivism and voluntary community; the same people that will likely still attempt to argue that collectivism and individualism are "not mutually exclusive" after reading this very article.

I certainly would never make the claim that most collectivists are intelligent...

The collectivist threat is not merely due to environmental factors alone. As the psychologist Carl Jung outlined in his collected papers titled “The Undiscovered Self,” at any given point in history at least 10% of the human population has inherent (but often latent) psychopathic tendencies. Less than 1% of these people will actually act out their full psychopathy under stable social conditions. However, in times of great distress or political and economic upheaval, the psychopathic 10% are given a kind of playground in which to let the devil out; Jung called this the “collective shadow.”

As I have explained in the past, these are the “useful idiots” within any society. They are the reason why there will never be a time now or in the future in which collectivist oppression will not be a potential threat, and why individualists will have to remain forever on guard. That said, they are only a part of the bigger problem. In almost every instance of mass tragedy or despotic government, an elitist minority pulls the strings of the useful idiots, aiming them like a shotgun at individualists in order to clear a path for total centralization. The elites are another horror altogether.

These are the men and women who EMBRACE their psychopathy. It is not latent or subconscious; it is a fully integrated and accepted part of their psychological life. They have found that psychopathy can be an effective tool for gaining power and influence when average people around them are less vigilant or less confrontational due to fear or apathy. And contrary to popular belief, psychopaths CONSTANTLY organize into effective working groups, some of them vast and global in scope, as long as there is the promise of mutual benefit involved.

This is not to say that they organize around “gain” alone. Elitists have their own pervasive ideology and their own rationalizations for seeking control of others.

They see themselves as “philosopher kings” as described in Plato’s 'Republic,' exemplary and “special” people who are born with the inherent genetic capacity to rule over the masses with the utmost clarity. They believe they know what is best not only for you, but for the human experiment in total. Their goal is to construct a sociopolitical apparatus that will allow them to have complete overreaching influence over every aspect of every individual life, up to and including the erasure of that life if they think it serves their ends.

"...You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner…” — George Bernard Shaw, Fabian socialist, from 'The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism'

"My conclusion is that a scientific society can be stable given certain conditions. The first of these is a single government of the whole world, possessing a monopoly of armed force and therefore able to enforce peace. The second condition is a general diffusion of prosperity, so that there is no occasion for envy of one part of the world by another. The third condition (which supposes the second fulfilled) is a low birth rate everywhere, so that the population of the world becomes stationary, or nearly so. The fourth condition is the provision for individual initiative both in work and in play, and the greatest diffusion of power compatible with maintaining the necessary political and economic framework.” — Bertrand Russell, member of the Fabian Society, from 'The Impact Of Science On Society'(Note: Russell believed that individuals should be given at least the illusion of choice within minor aspects of society in order to maintain their willing participation.)

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … t remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.” — Edward Bernays, father of modern propaganda, from 'Propaganda'

Elitists are rarely as open about their true intentions as the men quoted above. They often entice the public with fantastical promises if collectivist systems are supported, including: equality of wealth and prosperity; reduction of labor and increases in leisure time; incredible technological advances; universal education; universal healthcare; the end of nationalism, resulting in the end of war, resulting in infinite global peace; etc.

When they are not able to sell the public on a particular aspect of collectivism, they will create artificial divisions and artificial crises in order to engineer chaos. As per the Hegelian dialectic, when we are thoroughly tenderized by fear and disaster, the elites return to the scene with a “solution” to their original crime, a solution that usually involves more collectivism.

So how do individualists fight back against collectivism, elitists and the useful idiots they exploit? Here are some practical strategies that anyone can employ in his daily life.

Stop Participating In False Paradigms

Yes, in the everyday world there are leftists and right wingers, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. People subscribe to particular ideologies and philosophies backed by fundamental differences in belief. These divisions between regular people are indeed real. However, it is important to realize that at the gatekeeper level in these systems, the leadership in both parties subscribe to the same goals. They are not divided. They are part of the elitist structure. And while their rhetoric differs cosmetically, in policy and in action they will always work to destroy individual liberty and promote collectivism, whether they claim to be on the right or the left.

This reality also applies to supposed conflicts between nations. If two nations appear to be at odds with each other, yet the leadership of each nation remains in league with the same international elitists (bankers, Fabians, globalists, etc.), then their conflict is a sham designed as theater for the masses.

Refuse to participate in false paradigms. Point out the inconsistencies of BOTH parties or sides and identify how each works against individualism and toward collectivism. Do not affiliate with any group or institution that has a demonstrated history of antagonism towards individual freedom or that partners with known collectivist (globalist) organizations and frontmen. If you are going to fight for any side, make sure it truly represents liberty through its actions and associations.  Rhetoric is meaningless.

Decouple From Dependency On Corrupt Systems

As our economic situation becomes more and more dire, people are much more apt to become dependent on the system for survival, and this is an intentional result. I would not expect, for example, that the 94 million people in the U.S. who have been unemployed for so long they are no longer counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics should refrain from government aid or cut themselves off from welfare measures and become immediately self-reliant. They should, however, consider working toward that goal over time; and so should everyone else.

This is not quite as impossible as it seems. Can you produce or repair items that act as survival necessities? Can you teach a necessary skill? If so, then you are already well on your way to independence. Once you have a necessary skill, trade is possible outside the controlled economic framework. The more individuals involved in an alternative economy, the more diversity of skill sets will be available and the more prosperous that voluntary community will become.

The ultimate achievement in my view would be similar in aspects to the American agrarian models of the past with the integration of helpful technology: completely voluntary communities in which free trade is the foundation; the existence of grid water and grid power is unnecessary; food production is local and ample rather than reliant on national or international freight systems and the artificial scarcity of corporate farming models; and security is provided by each individual for himself, as well as for the community, through voluntary neighborhood watches or militias.

All of this starts with each individual taking action to become a producer, rather than a wage slave or welfare slave.

Organize Locally With People Of Like Mind

Again, organizing voluntarily is counter to collectivism.  Collectivist systems cannot be defeated unless you are willing to establish a competing model that works better while maintaining freedom. This is not hard to do, considering collectivist models are failure-driven machines that devour people and use them as fuel to move society as a whole towards a “greater good” which is neither great nor good.

As outlined above, independent localism is the answer. It is a voluntary structure that encourages self-reliance and preparedness, while making production and innovation the mainstays of a healthy society. It rewards personal success and achievement, rather than punishing it. And, it helps a larger percentage of wealth to keep cycling locally, rather than being siphoned out of communities by governments or government-chartered and protected corporations.

Localism always starts small, with families, friends and neighbors. But as your organization continues to make life better for those involved, it will inevitably attract more participants.  The redundancy of localized economies would also protect people from economic collapse.  In fact, without the forced interdependency of centralized collectivist economic models, large scale financial crises would probably become a thing of the past.

Educate Children Privately

I’ve been saying it a lot lately, and I’ll say it again: Public schooling as it stands today is an apparatus for brainwashing, nothing more. With the dismal world ranking of U.S. students in math, science and reading, I hardly see what service public education is actually performing in America. The only service public schools do seem to excel at is indoctrination, with children now being immersed in collectivist lessons through Common Core and being conditioned into pacifism and fear through insane zero-tolerance policies.

The only working solutions available for parents today are to decouple from the federally dominated public school system and place their children in a well-vetted private school or to home-school. Any sacrifice, financial or otherwise, is worth it to save American children from a vicious system of propaganda and conditioning that could conceivably suppress their individualism and warp them into collectivist monsters.

Arm And Train For Self-Defense

I think it should be pretty obvious that there is a simple reason behind the collectivist habit of attempting to disarm common people: Armed people are harder to manage or control.  If an armed population was not a threat to collectivists then they would not keep trying to disarm everyone. Therefore, if you are not armed and trained in self-defense, then you are not a threat to collectivists.

You can be the most brilliant of thinkers with pristine logic and truth on your side; but without the means and ability to destroy an attacker or tyrant, you are nothing in the grand scheme. Intellectual warriors are not really warriors. And as a writer, I will say in all honesty that the threat of the pen is not mightier than the threat of the sword.

Keep in mind, though, that it is not enough to merely purchase a firearm or shoot at the range. Team tactics and training are essential for free people, which is why they are so admonished by collectivist elements in our society. Train with friends and family or with your Community Preparedness Team, as I do through Oath Keepers; but learn tactical methodologies and how to fight with others. Present a viable danger to collectivists, or be subsumed by them.

Remove The Elitist Hierarchy

Eventually, the fight between individualism and collectivism will become physical rather than informational. There is no way around it. The more individuals begin to decouple from the corrupt system and construct their own alternative framework, the more violent collectivists will turn in response. The virtue of self-defense requires that tyrants be cut off from their means to project violence onto others.

While it is impossible to stop the inherent nature of psychopathy other than to participate in communities where psychopaths are not welcome or encouraged, there is the matter of organized elitism to deal with.

Any fight for freedom from collectivists will require the removal of command and control. This is the only way that humanity can be given breathing room to rebuild without remaining under constant preplanned threat. There are, in fact, many organizations that openly work toward collectivist oligarchy, from central banks (this means central bankers in ALL nations, not just in the West), to the Council On Foreign Relations, to Tavistock, to the Rand Corporation, to the International Monetary Fund or the Bank for International Settlements, to Bilderberg, to the Fabian Society, etc. These institutions need to be dismantled by any means necessary and the participants removed from positions of control. Make no mistake; it will take a war before such people give up the reins of power. This is the inevitable cost of individualism and the inevitable cost of freedom.

11  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Israeli Soldiers Disguised as Muslims Raid Hospital, Kill Terrorists... on: November 12, 2015, 12:52:20 PM
This is REALLY rich.  Predictably, the establishment media is outraged.  How dare the Israelis kill these Palestinian terrorists!?

12  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: November 12, 2015, 11:05:26 AM

Uh - YES - we want to say that - the polls show most Americans will be sympathetic to that position - certainly more so that the Democrat "amnesty for everyone" position.  The reality is that we must at least threaten to do this - as Trump understands and is doing forcefully right now - doubling-down and saying he will have "deportation squads."  This is how you negotiate and get what you want. Simply saying this is going to scare the crap out of many illegals and cause them to self-deport if Trump or Cruz wins.

While ultimately we may well settle for something less than this extreme - it needs to be stated just the way Trump and Cruz are stating it.  These people and their children are here illegally.  PERIOD.  Send them back - and until the question of birthright citizenship is settled (which I believe it will be correctly if Trump or Cruz is elected - such that no such right exists) the children can choose to either stay here or go back with their parents.  This is not an ethical or compassion issue.  It is a legal issue.  Taking the left's bait and accepting their premise that it is "mean" to send these people back is unilaterally surrendering - which Republican have raised to an art until recently when people such as Cruz came along.
13  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tonight's Debate... on: November 10, 2015, 11:02:52 AM

If you have Internet access, you can go to the Fox Business Network site, and watch the debate live online.  Also - many local Fox affiliates are carrying the debate on their channel tonight.
14  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 09, 2015, 06:24:29 PM
No sh*t Sherlock.  That's not what I'm arguing and you know it.  A wise man considers the evidence before believing a claim.  You can't PROVE I didn't fly to Mars yesterday and have sex with an alien, so that claim deserves equal weight to the evidence that Hillary lied under oath, I suppose???  Let's not play childish games here on a serious forum.
15  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 09, 2015, 04:59:31 PM

One cannot compare documented evidence with "what IF the other side does this too?" and then say that there is equivalence.  There is a HUGE difference between documented evidence of lying and criminal activity, and rumor and innuendo without any proof.  The former generally applies to Hillary Clinton and her husband, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett, Lois Lerner, et. al.  Accusations without evidence form the bulk of the "argument" the Democrats present against going to war in Iraq.  Yes - there is corruption in both parties - but it cannot be said that it is unknowable which side is more credible in a particular circumstance.  Horowitz's book presents mountains of documented evidence.  One needn't "take his word" for anything.  Show me the evidence that Bush and Cheney were plotting to go to war with Iraq before 9-11, and I will take that assertion seriously.  Certainly the liberal press would love to prove this.  Yet they haven't been able to.  Yet we have mountains of evidence of Bill and Hillary's wrongdoings.  Show me the equivalence.
16  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Iraq and WMD... on: November 09, 2015, 03:03:40 PM
ppulatie is accepting the Left's false premise that the primary reason the Bush administration decided to go into Iraq was that they were presumed to have had WMD.  By the way - it has now been established that they DID IN FACT have WMD - as demonstrated by the stockpiles of chemical weapons later uncovered.

That aside - the PRIMARY reason we went into Iraq is that Saddam Hussein had defied multiple U.N. resolutions mandating inspections.  The Bush administration decided this could not be tolerated any longer.  I suggest you read David Horowitz's superb book "Party of Defeat," which sets the record straight in excruciating, precise detail.  The Left has re-written history regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq with the willing participation of the establishment media and the Democrat Party.

There simply is no parallel whatsoever with Hillary Clinton's career-long record of virtually non-stop lies going back at least as far as the Watergate committee, where she was fired by a Democrat, who explicitly stated that she was dishonest and had deliberately tampered with evidence.  This was the reason for her termination.  But once again - the establishment media - a virtually fully-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, has chosen to downplay and/or not report this and any of countless other instances of dishonesty by Mrs. Clinton and her husband.
17  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Judge Andrew Napolitano: Hillary Clinton Unfit for Public Office... on: November 09, 2015, 01:54:07 PM
We cannot allow Hillary Clinton, 'midwife to chaos' and a public liar, to be our next president

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published October 29, 2015

The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd captured the moment last weekend when she referred to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “the midwife to chaos” in Libya. Dowd apparently came to that conclusion after watching Clinton bobbing and weaving and admitting and denying as she was confronted with the partial record of her failures and obfuscations as secretary of state, particularly with respect to Libya.

The public record is fairly well-known. In March 2011, President Barack Obama declared war on Libya. He did this at the urging of Clinton, who wanted to overthrow Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi so she could boast of having brought “democracy” to the region.

She and Obama conspired to do this even though former President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had publicly praised Gadhafi as an ally in the war against terrorist groups and even though the U.S. was giving the Qaddafi government more than $100 million a year in foreign aid.

Obama did his best to avoid constitutional norms. He deployed American intelligence agents on the ground, not troops, so he could plausibly deny he had put “boots” on the ground. He did not seek an American national consensus for war because Libya presented no threat whatsoever to the U.S. He did not obtain a congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires because he couldn’t get one. And he did not seek United Nations permission, which is required to attack a fellow U.N. member.

Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar?

He did obtain a U.N. embargo of the shipment of weapons into Libya, and he secured a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over portions of Libya. In order to enforce the no-fly zone, NATO sent jet fighters over the skies of Libya. The jets were guided and directed by American intelligence agents on the ground to bomb Libyan planes on the ground, which had been paid for by American taxpayers.

To pursue her goal of a “democratic” government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government. So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming -- unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.

Once this plot was hatched, Clinton and her fellow conspirators realized that some of these rebel groups were manned by al-Qaida operatives; and selling or providing arms to them is a felony -- hence the reason for months' worth of missing and destroyed Clinton emails. How could someone running for president possibly justify providing material assistance to terrorist organizations in the present international climate?

Flash-forward to Clinton’s public testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last week. Clinton had three audiences to address. Her immediate audience was the committee, whose members generally did not know how to ask questions of a witness trying to hide the truth. Her second audience was the American people, who will recall little more than 15-second sound bites and general impressions of her testimony. Her third (unseen) audience consisted of the FBI agents and federal prosecutors who are investigating her.

That audience was looking for perjury, misleading statements and what federal law calls “bad acts.” Perjury is lying under oath. Misleading Congress is criminal and consists of testimony that employs deceptive language so as to create an untruthful impression. Bad acts constitute repeated behavior demonstrating moral turpitude -- usually a pattern of deception.

The FBI agents surely heard Clinton mislead Congress when she answered a hard question about arms going to rebels by saying “I think the answer is no” and again when she answered a question about arming private militias by saying it may have been considered but wasn't “seriously” considered. And they heard her directly commit perjury when she was asked whether she knew about our country's supplying arms to Libyan rebels directly or indirectly and she answered, “No.”

How could she answer "no"? She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it. How could she answer "no"? The FBI and CIA advised her -- in documents that are now public -- that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives. How could she answer "no"? This reached a crisis point when some of those operatives used their American-made weapons to murder U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Then the cover-up began. At the same time Clinton was telling her daughter and the Egyptian prime minister within hours of Stevens’ death that al-Qaida killed him and after the CIA told her the plot to kill Stevens had been hatched 12 days earlier, she told the public that Stevens was killed by spontaneous demonstrators angered about a cheap anti-Islam video, the producer of which she vowed to “get.” She later angrily dismissed questions over this cover-up by arguing, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The difference it makes goes to the heart of the American electoral process. Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar who, for personal political gain, midwifed terror and chaos in a country that was our ally and whose words and behavior have continually demonstrated that she is utterly unworthy of belief?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
18  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The Atlantic: Freedom of Speech Victimizes Muslims... on: November 09, 2015, 01:41:48 PM

November 9, 2015  Daniel Greenfield

There was yet another decision in the Bible Believers case.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday found that Wayne County violated the constitutional rights of a group of religious proselytizers who were kicked out of an Arab-American cultural festival in 2012.

In a rare reversal of a previous decision from three-judge appeals court panel, an en banc review by 15 judges yielded a majority ruling that Wayne County is civilly liable to the group of evangelical Christians who sued after being ordered to leave the festival by sheriff's deputies.

The court found that even though the group attended the festival with the intention of offending Muslims using "loathsome" messages of "gross intolerance," their speech is protected by the First Amendment, and should have protected by the sheriff's office.

This is a thoroughly predictable outcome. It used to be the standard liberal position. "Used to" being the key words. The Atlantic's Garrett Epps claims that the First Amendment victimizes Muslims.

Bible Believers displays vividly the underlying strength of the American commitment to free speech—and the troubling shadow that commitment inevitably casts.

The troubling shadow being... freedom.

But we pay a price for this freedom, and not everyone pays the price equally. The First Amendment imposes on us all the duty to maintain the peace even when our deepest beliefs are denounced. But that duty is doubly onerous for minorities, because they must endure such abuse more often and longer.

In a country that is 70 percent Christian, Muslims account for less than one percent of the population. Since 9/11, powerful religious and political figures have been openly campaigning to strip this tiny population of the protections of the Constitution.

It's a typical leftist tactic to flip a freedom around into a burden. Look who suffers under freedom of speech. Minorities. To protect them, we might maybe sorta have to get rid of it.

Isn't freedom just privilege? What about voting? It rewards the majority. Think of the heavy burden of democracy on the minority? Wouldn't they be better off under an enlightened dictator?

In that context, the Bible Believers’ speech, though protected, was far from harmless... I wish I could talk to Irv Feiner about Bible Believers. He was a better lawyer than many who took the bar, and a better American than those who tried to ruin his life. His imagination, I think, would have room for concern about both the Muslim people of Dearborn and the aggressive bigots who destroyed their peaceful fair.

As opposed to the aggressive Muslim bigots who violently attacked them while shouting Allah Akbar?

Epps assumes that freedom of speech just empowers majorities to attack minorities. But Muslims are a global majority compared to Americans and the internet makes few distinctions between global Muslim hatred and local Muslim hatred. That's what enabled Anwar Al-Awlaki to do what he did. Muslim terrorists in the US are often the products of international Muslim hate speech.

When it comes to inciting hatred that leads to violence, the disproportionate share of it remains on the Muslim side. Despite the constant chatter about Islamophobia and blowback, thousands of Americans have been killed by Muslim hatred. The number of Muslims killed by Americans out of bigotry is so small that it has to be padded out by non-bigoted violence like the Chapel Hill shootings or hoax cases like Shaima Alawadi.

If freedom of speech empowers majorities at the expense of minorities, consider the Islamic alternative found throughout the Muslim world, in which speech critical of Islam is a crime while Islamic attacks on others cannot be challenged by non-Muslims.

Furthermore, the heckler's veto in the West has been exercised far more frequently by Muslims. Just ask a cartoonist.

The attacks on the First Amendment on behalf of Muslims attempt to impose a heckler's veto in the name of political correctness that is often indistinguishable from the one which Muslims impose by violence. If Epps thinks the First Amendment is such a burden, he should living without it in Pakistan or Iran.

What happened in Dearborn showed the danger of that kind of thinking. We've let Nazis march through Skokie and allowed Westboro's protesters to scream hate at the funerals of soldiers. Yet somehow Muslims are special. They deserve an exemption from American freedoms when no one else does. That's not protection. That's privilege.

19  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Collectivism Gains Ground... on: November 07, 2015, 10:24:54 AM
The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power

Wednesday, 04 November 2015    Brandon Smith

While many divisions within our society are arbitrary or engineered, there is one division that represents perhaps the most pervasive and important conflict of our time; the division between collectivists and individualists.

Now, people who do not understand the nature of collectivism will often argue that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive because individuals require groups in order to survive and thrive. However, a “group” is not necessarily a collective.

For some reason the core fundamental of collectivism – the use of psychological coercion or physical force to compel participation – goes right over the heads of many skeptics. A group does not have to be collectivist. Any group can and should be voluntary. Collectivism is NOT voluntary. Therefore, collectivism and individualism are indeed mutually exclusive. Collectivists and individualists cannot exist in the same space at the same time without eventually coming into conflict. There is simply no way around it.

From the position of the liberty minded (or the average Libertarian), collectivism is by far the inferior of the two philosophies. Collectivists often boast of the social and economic “harmonization” collectivism creates, as well as the mobilization of labor to “streamline progress.” The reality is that artificially rigged harmony is no harmony at all. If people are forced to homogenize and get along through fear, then peace has not truly been accomplished.

Human beings must come to their own conclusions on cooperation and tolerance in their own time. They cannot be manipulated and shoehorned into a “utopian” framework. Problems will result, like genocide, which tends to erupt during almost every attempt at collectivist utopianism.

Economic harmonization is even less practical, with government force inevitably used to confiscate resources from one group to give to another group, essentially punishing success or frugality. This creates an environment in which achievement becomes less desirable. When people do not have individual incentive to pursue achievement, they see personal effort as wasted. Innovation and entrepreneurship fall by the wayside, and society as a whole begins to diminish in prosperity. Without individual accomplishments and ingenuity, the group is nothing but a hollow mindless ant hill.

Another argument which usually arises is that individualism leads to “selfishness” and the dominance of wealth devouring machines like corporations. I would remind collectivists that corporations exist only through the legal framework and protections of corporate personhood created by governments, and without government protections and favor, corporations could not exist. It is by collectivism, not individualism, that corporatocracy thrives.

At the same time, collectivists consistently blame individualist "free markets" for the numerous ailments of nations.  Yet another misrepresentation considering America has not had true free markets in well over a century, and most other nations have never had true free markets in their history.  Feudalism and its child Socialism have always been present to plague mankind.

There are no merits to collectivism that are not accomplished with greater success by individualism and voluntary community. In fact, collectivism only serves to enrich and empower a select few elites while destroying the future potential of all other individuals.

Given the disturbing nature of collectivism, one would think that attempts at collectivist societies would be a rarity, shunned by most people as akin to inviting cancer into the body. Unfortunately, cultures based on individualism are the minority in history.

The average collectivist is not usually much of a beneficiary of collectivism. We call these people “useful idiots” or “sheeple” who unknowingly serve the darker machinations of elitists while under the delusion that they are changing society for the better. The reason useful idiots participate in collectivism are many, but I have found that across the spectrum these people tend to be weak willed, weak minded, and by extension, possess a rabid desire for control over others.

It is perhaps no coincidence that “intellectuals” (self proclaimed) tend to end up at the forefront of modern efforts for collectivism. While the poor and destitute are often exploited by collectivism as a mob to be wielded like a battering ram, it is the soft noodle-bodied and fearful academia that acts as middle management in the collectivist franchise. It is they that desire the power to impose their “superior” ideologies on others, and since they are too weak to accomplish anything on their own, they require the cover and momentum of collectivist movements to give them the totalitarian fix they so crave. In other words, they believe in humanitarianism by totalitarianism.

Individualism is under constant and imminent threat as the collectivist obsession with control grows. The ultimate end game of collectivists is to derive submission from individuals, to corner people into handing over their individualism willingly.  It is not enough for them to merely apply force, the greatest power is in the power of consent.  Here are the most common tools used by collectivists to obtain power and manufacture consent from the masses.

The Illusion Of Consensus

Collectivists rely greatly on the force of a well-aimed mob to convince the general public they have the consensus position; that they are in the majority. Appearing to be in the majority is the single most important goal of a collectivist movement, even if they are in reality a small minority. The anonymity of web activism gives the force of the mob a new potency. No more than a dozen collectivists working in tandem can wreak havoc in multiple web forums or harass numerous individualist publications while giving casual readers the impression that their ideology is “everywhere.”

The key here is that collectivists understand that the average person does not want to be seen as too contrary to the majority. They understand that the majority view matters to the public, even if the majority view is utterly wrong. If collectivists can convince enough people that their ideology is the majority view, they know that many people will blindly adopt that ideology as their own in order to fit in. The lie of consensus then becomes a self perpetuating prophecy. This problem will remain forever a danger as long as people continue to care at all about the majority view.

The Destruction Of Core Institutions

Those institutions people consider “core institutions” are sometimes vital, and sometimes not. That said, it is the openly admitted objective of collectivists through socialist-style movements to destroy core institutions so that there is no competition to their new system. A collectivist society cannot allow citizens to have any loyalties beyond their loyalty to the group or the state.

So, individual liberties must be degraded or removed, as per the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution as a “living document.”  Religious institutions must be painted as shameful affairs for stupid barbaric cave-people. And, the family unit must be broken apart. This is done through economic depravity so pronounced that families never see each other, through state influence over children through public schooling, and through identity politics and propaganda which create sexual and racial conflicts out of thin air.

Dominating Discussion

This coincides with the idea of artificial consensus, but it goes beyond the use of the mob. In our daily lives we are now bombarded with collectivist messages — in mainstream news, in television shows, in movies, through web media and print media. The money behind these outlets belongs to a very small and select group of people, but through them the collectivist worldview is injected into every corner of our society. I would call this propaganda by attrition; an indirect but steady insertion of collectivism creating an atmosphere in which the ideology becomes commonplace even though it is being promoted by a limited number of people.

Exploiting The Youth

When we are young, most of us spend a great deal of time and energy working to be taken seriously. The question is, should we be taken seriously?

In my view and the view of the liberty minded, it really depends on the person’s actions, experience, efforts and accomplishments. Most younger people have little to no experience in life and haven’t had the time to accomplish much. They are still learning how to function in the world, and what kind of goals they want to pursue (if they ever pursue any goals). Because of this, it is hard for those of us who have gone through considerable struggles in life and reached a certain level of achievement to take them seriously when they decide to stroll into a room and pontificate on their moral and philosophical superiority. It makes me want to ask; what the hell have you ever accomplished?

This is not to say that there are not ingenious young people out there, or ignorant and lazy older folks. There are. But collectivist movements seek to exploit younger generations exactly because of their general lack of experience and naivety, as well as their feelings of entitlement when it comes to respect.

Collectivism almost always utilizes a theory called “futurism” in order to appeal to the young. The theory, which was a leading philosophy behind the rise of fascism, proclaims that all new ideas are superior in their social usefulness and all old ideas and beliefs should be abandoned like so much dead skin. According to futurism, those who cling to old ideas and principles are an obstacle to the progress of society as a whole.

The funny thing is, the ideas usually expounded by collectivists are as old as time — elitism, feudalism, totalitarianism, etc. None of these methodologies are “new” by any stretch of the imagination, but collectivists repackage them as if they are some grand new secret to Shangri-La. Younger adherents of collectivism latch onto futurism almost immediately. For, if all new ideas are superior, and all old ideas are barbaric, and younger people are the purveyors and consumers of everything new, then this means that it is the youngest generations that are the wisest, and the village elders that are naïve. By default, the young become the village elders without them ever having to struggle, make sacrifices, learn hard lessons, suffer loss, rise to challenges, or accomplish anything.

The enticing nature of this sudden groundswell of cultural respect is simply far too much for the average person college age or younger to ignore. Collectivism gives the young what they think they want, then uses them as tools for greater conquests.

Forcing Society To Accept The Lowest Common Denominator

Collectivism requires the homogenization of society, to the point that individualism is frowned upon and success is treated as negligible. Whether it is public schools lowering standards to the point that students with little or no reading comprehension graduate, or businesses being forced to lower standards in the name of “diversity” while rejecting employees with superior skill sets because they do not belong to a designated victim group, or government institutions like the military lowering physical standards to accommodate far weaker candidates in the name of “gender parity” while putting every soldier’s life at risk in the process, we are constantly being asked to accommodate the lowest common denominator instead of reaching for the highest level of excellence.

This makes the concept of success a bit of a joke. For “success” within such a system is easy as long as one follows the rules; excelling as an individual is not a factor. And by success I mean being allowed to survive, because that is the best you are going to get in a collectivist structure. The only way to fail is to not follow the rules, rules which may be arbitrary or idiotic at their core. Individualists are immediately punished for thinking or acting outside the box, when this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. A society built on the lowest common denominator is a society destined for collapse. Individuals are systematically weeded out in the name of homogenization and all of their potential achievements and innovations disappear with them.

The nightmare of collectivism is the defining battle of our age. It is in this era that we will decide whether or not individual liberty and freedom of thought are more important than the illusory security and “harmony” of the collective.

I, for one, long to see a future in which individual enterprise is allowed to thrive and voluntary participation is the root principle on which our culture functions; a future in which state power is reduced to zero, or near zero, and government force is no longer an acceptable means by which one group can seek to control another group. I may not see this world in my lifetime, but the liberty-minded can make it possible for newer generations by avidly defending ourselves against collectivism today. As pointed out in the beginning, collectivism and individualism cannot coexist; confrontation is inevitable. Recognizing this, and preparing for it, is our duty as free human beings.
20  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Stratfor analysis of ISIS... on: November 05, 2015, 10:17:25 AM
IMHO this analysis is seriously flawed.  ISIS is not comparable to the Branch Davidians or any other tiny cult.  The Islamic State by its very nature is appealing to Muslims world-wide of which there are billions.  Its beliefs teachings and actions are rooted in orthodox Islamic doctrine.  This is not a movement that is simply going to fade away.  It must be confronted and defeated.  Interestingly, this latest incident which appears to have been planned and executed by ISIS (the downing of the Russian passenger jet) may prove to have dire consequences for the group.  Vladimir Putin is not one to sit idly by like Barack Obama when his country is attacked.  If history is any guide, his reponse will be brutal and crushing.  We can only hope.
21  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ted Cruz Moves to Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization... on: November 04, 2015, 09:21:05 PM

22  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Emails Show Hillary to be a Liar... on: November 04, 2015, 02:42:48 PM

23  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Emails Show Hillary to be a Liar... on: November 04, 2015, 02:42:17 PM

24  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / More Emails Show Hillary to be a Liar... on: November 04, 2015, 02:41:51 PM

25  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: November 04, 2015, 01:47:41 PM
Hillary has to be one of the most evil, nasty women on the planet.  She's proven this over the course of her career from the time she was fired for dishonesty while working on the Watergate committee.  The way she has left her husband's female victims to twist in the wind, and even actively worked to destroy them is also illustrative.  That she should claim to be an advocate for women is a sick joke.
26  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Has A Market Crash Already Begun? on: November 03, 2015, 09:09:37 PM
Experts Fear A Stealth Crash Has Already Begun: “Risk Is Flashing Red”

Monday, 02 November 2015   Mac Slavo

It is more clear than ever that the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program will eventually bring destruction to the planet.

The world doubled down on risk after the 2008 crisis with nearly unlimited liquidity, and now debt is threatening to drown the global financial market. Cheap credit is about to saddle down those who got themselves overextended. Many private borrowers and states alike face default, bankruptcy and/or a failure to pay their obligations. Mathematically, the problem is just waiting to explode.

It is just a matter of when the music stops. But has it already?

Some are suggesting that things are already so bad that a crash has already set in, but without the headlines and fanfare.

This stealth crash is evidenced by conditions so bad they precipitate a chain reaction of further financial destruction. According to the London Guardian things are simply too far gone: “the debt levels are too high, productivity growth too weak and financial risks too threatening.”

Via the London Guardian:

A predicted global meltdown passed without event. But there are enough warning signs to suggest we are sleepwalking into another disaster
The 1st of October came and went without financial armageddon. Veteran forecaster Martin Armstrong, who accurately predicted the 1987 crash, used the same model to suggest that 1 October would be a major turning point for global markets. Some investors even put bets on it. But the passing of the predicted global crash is only good news to a point. Many indicators in global finance are pointing downwards – and some even think the crash has begun. Let’s assemble the evidence.
First, the unsustainable debt. Since 2007, the pile of debt in the world has grown by $57tn (£37tn). That’s a compound annual growth rate of 5.3%, significantly beating GDP. Debts have doubled in the so-called emerging markets, while rising by just over a third in the developed world.[…] What we’ve done with credit since the global crisis of 2008 is expand it faster than the economy – which can only be done rationally if we think the future is going to be much richer than the present.This summer, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) pointed out that certain major economies were seeing a sharp rise in debt-to-GDP ratios, which were well outside historic norms. In China, the rest of Asia and Brazil, private-sector borrowing has risen so quickly that BIS’s dashboard of risk is flashing red. In two thirds of all cases, red warnings such as this are followed by a major banking crisis within three years.The underlying cause of this debt glut is the $12tn of free or cheap money created by central banks since 2009, combined with near-zero interest rates. When the real price of money is close to zero, people borrow and worry about the consequences later.Oil collapsed first, in mid 2014, falling from $110 a barrel to $49 now, despite a slight rebound in the interim.


In short, as the BIS economists put it, this is “a world in which debt levels are too high, productivity growth too weak and financial risks too threatening”. It’s impossible to extrapolate from all this the date the crash will happen, or the form it will take.

No one knows when an official “crash” is going to take place, or if they would recognize it if it were already here, but wealth is being transferred at an incredible rate that is driving people into poverty, dependence and desperation.

What is clear is that the financial system that has been put in place is apparently not even capable of holding things together for a decade before they fall apart again.

The same Federal Reserve that was supposedly put in place to end volatile booms and busts is today directly creating them. Monetary policy is perhaps the driving force of today’s misfortune. The situation is reaching a dangerous quickening point, if it has not already arrived. As the article noted,

“When the real price of money is close to zero, people borrow and worry about the consequences later.”

But the consequences are piling up. The entire economy rests on the actions of the Fed, which is engaged in massive market manipulation – albeit legal under the powers assumed by this private agency. Admittedly, the Fed is inflating the stock market, all while destroying the jobs, business, savings, investments and opportunities of regular people.

If Yellen raises rates, the debt crunch begins, and there may be nothing that can hold back the bloods-in-the-streets level of crisis that will occur when people across the world can no longer pay, and can’t borrow any more. There may be higher rates within a year.

Meanwhile, the Fed continues to float enormous volumes of money to feed the looming disaster. It is worsening, and many are already over the edge. As financial experts put it months ago, the market today is “uniquely crash prone.”

Things have been set-up to fail, and giving the Federal Reserve more power than ever to control the markets has only assured the next phase of the collapse will be even worse.
27  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 03, 2015, 12:52:44 PM
Also notice how the media today (as Rush Limbaugh illustrated with a media montage of clips) is giddy with excitement that Carson is supposedly overtaking Trump in the polls.  Never mind that they don't take Carson seriously, either.  As Newt has pointed out - these two have been the front-runners from the beginning, and the press is acting as if they aren't serious candidates, and can't wait for them to go away.  These people are in for a very rude awakening.  I think George Will is already constipated just thinking about it...
28  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: November 02, 2015, 06:43:53 PM
Obama is hell-bent on making sure a Republican can't win this next election.  Make no mistake.
29  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: November 02, 2015, 12:37:53 PM
And more precisely - Islam's stated goal is world domination and conquest.  Unbelievers are to be converted, enslaved, or executed.  There are no other options.
30  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ben Carson's Campaign Manager Wants to Re-Invent the Debates... on: October 29, 2015, 03:16:31 PM
Sounds like an excellent plan to me.  It's time for Reince Priebus to be fired, btw.  Last night was a travesty.
31  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Obama and Iran... on: October 28, 2015, 08:59:36 PM
Again, GM is precisely correct.  What far too many still fail to understand after 7 years of Barack Obama is that HE IS ACHIEVING HIS GOALS.  He is not incompetent.  He is achieving exactly what he set out to do - knock the United States of America down on the world stage.  The truth is that Barack Obama would love to see Iran wipe Israel off the map.  He would consider this a service to the world, and with the added benefit of not having to use the U.S. military.  This is the ugly truth.  That millions of American Jews don't understand this is a tragedy.
32  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2016 Presidential on: October 28, 2015, 04:04:06 PM
I wouldn't be at all surprised if REPUBLICAN operatives have given this moderator ammunition to take out Trump.  That's how much he is despised by the Republican establishment.
33  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Limbaugh: "This Budget Paves The Way for President Hillary Clinton"... on: October 28, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Rush Limbaugh makes an excellent point here.  This is how far the Republican Party leadership has sunk.  I might add that Paul Ryan's supposed "disgust" for the process is an act - the fix was in from the beginning - and he agreed to it with Boehner.

34  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Muslim preschool girl holds knife, says "I want to stab a Jew"... on: October 28, 2015, 08:28:37 AM

35  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 26, 2015, 05:27:47 PM
CCP - I know what I saw and heard.

Here is the transcript:

WALLACE:  Are you surprised that not a single Democrat on that committee had a single pointed question for Clinton about the very real issue about what happened in Benghazi? 

WOODWARD:  Well, Watergate was about a series of crimes, well established.  And so, it was the Republicans who eventually turned on Nixon, and it was a bipartisan inquiry.  Here, it’s not.  It clearly is partisan.  And, you know, look—

WALLACE:  But the death of those four Americans isn’t partisan. 

WOODWARD:  No—and there are legitimate questions here. 

WALLACE:  But they didn’t ask them. 

WOODWARD:  Yes.  Well, but here’s the issue.  You have inconsistencies.  But there—this is a tragedy.  And it should be investigated.  You’re right.  And she should answer.  And, you know, she did or attempted to answer all of those questions.  But there’s no crime here on her part.  And to try to criminalize this or suggest, as some people have said, oh, she’ll be in jail.  There’s no evidence of a crime.  There is evidence of inconsistency.  I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives.  People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly. 

36  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 26, 2015, 02:50:41 PM
Yes, precisely - in the same manner that we knew Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter and got away with it, and the press didn't seem to care.  Hillary was fired by a life-long Democrat from the Watergate investigation committee for lying and trying to subvert rules.  He called her "explicitly dishonest."  That was when she was 27.

As Rush Limbaugh likes to say: "Scandals and illicit affairs are 'resume enhancements' for Democrats in the media's eyes."  Republicans are crucified for the same offenses.
No where is this more evident than in  Bob Woodward's disgusting appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, in which he maintained that notwithstanding the fact that Hillary lied, "there is no criminal activity here, and frankly, she got away with all this and Democrats don't care."  He said this with a wry smile, as if to say "So fuck you, Republican Party.  We have our double-standard, and we'll continue to enforce it.  It matters not a whit that Richard Nixon was forced from office for something that pales in comparison to the Clinton's scandals."
37  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: October 26, 2015, 01:51:49 PM
I generally agree with Marc that Savage is not a reliable source, but even a broken clock is right twice a day - and Savage's comments here are valid, I agree.
38  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Michael Savage: "We've Lost The Battle" on: October 26, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
October 24, 2015 - World Net Daily

A major battle in a war over the future of Western civilization has been lost as millions of migrants from the Middle East who largely oppose Judeo-Christian values and have no intention of assimilating flood the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other nations, talk-radio host Michael Savage told his listeners Tuesday.

Savage said he received an email from someone he described as "far smarter than I am" and "farseeing."

"He said to me, 'It's over.'"

Paraphrasing the email, Savage said that what German Chancellor Angela Merkel is "doing to Germany, what the weakling is doing to England, what the socialist is doing to France, what Obama the psychopath is doing to America, will render this country non-existent in less than 50 years."

"And I said to him, 'Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong,'" Savage recalled to his audience.

"But the fact of the matter is, the world is changing in ways you could never have imagined."

Savage later affirmed to a caller that he hasn't given up, noting he presents in his upcoming book, "Government Zero: No Borders, No Language, No Culture," "40 actions to save America," including in the private sector and at the state and local government level.

"We haven't lost the war. The war has just begun," Savage said. "Because 30 million to 40 million Americans are finally awakened to what the psychopath has done to this country, and they want to stop him from doing more. They want to stop him before it's too late."

Savage criticized President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Merkel and other Western leaders with a provocative comparison he recognized could be misunderstood.

They are doing, he said, what Adolf Hitler did in reverse: Instead of invading other countries, they are letting foreigners invade their countries.

"Hitler was a psychopath," Savage said, who "invaded other countries to impose his nation's, let us say, his distorted values and race on other countries."

"What is Obama doing?" Savage asked. "He's invading his own country with people of other races and other cultures and other languages to wipe away the predominant language, the predominant culture of his own nation. He is equally mad.

"Barack Obama is as equally mad as Adolf Hitler in that regard," Savage emphasized.

"Write it down," Savage said, directing his words to establishment media. "Maybe it will make it to CNN: 'Talk-show host says Obama as crazy as Hitler, because he's invading his own country with foreigners.' But they'd better get the whole quote correct. And I don't know if they're capable of it."

Savage said Merkel "is invading Germany with foreigners."

"She's invading her own nation," he said.

Regarding the war for Western Civilization – which was built largely on English common law, Judeo-Christian morality "and the uniquely American principles of individualism and self-reliance" – Savage also referenced the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Some 50 years later, he asked, "Can anyone say that has worked out well?"

39  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history on: October 24, 2015, 04:38:30 PM
Exactly.  Democrats simply don't care - which they are proving in the polls.  There really isn't any such thing as a "conservative Democrat" anymore.  There are damn few conservative Republicans, but at least they exist.
40  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Hillary's dishonesty... on: October 24, 2015, 10:20:18 AM
The Republican Party leadership is too damn scared of "media backlash" if they attack any Democrat - Hillary and Obama included.  These kind of punch-backs will ONLY occur if a candidate willing to speak plainly gets the Rep. nomination - a.k.a. Trump or Cruz - maybe Carson.  They certainly won't get any backup from the party leadership.  They will have to go it alone and lead by example.  I believe that if the candidate does this - he/she will crush Hillary at the polls.
41  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: October 23, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
Precisely, GM.
42  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Bottom Line: Hillary Lied & Allowed 4 Americans to be Murdered... on: October 23, 2015, 12:52:08 PM
Hillary: I Didn't Blame Benghazi On The YouTube Video

Four pinocchios for the pantsuit.

October 23, 2015
Matthew Vadum

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony yesterday before the congressional committee formed to investigate the deadly Benghazi debacle that she allowed to happen and then tried to cover up can be summed up in two words: she lied.

Boiled down: Despite mountains of email evidence to the contrary, Clinton denied that she previously blamed the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that took four American lives on an at-the-time unwatched anti-Islam YouTube video. She denied that left-wing slime merchant and Clinton groupie Sidney Blumenthal was her advisor. She even denied having a computer on her desk at the State Department. (The Washington Post has what appears to be a largely accurate complete transcript of the hearing.)

Hillary wants Americans to believe that her official government emails, sometimes containing top-secret classified information, that she sent around the globe through the insecure, hacker-friendly private email server created to facilitate anticipatory bribes for the would-be U.S. president funneled through the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, don't say what your lying eyes tell you they say.

Republicans made the case yesterday that foreign policy neophyte Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton crony with business interests in Libya, had easy access to Clinton while her own ambassador struggled heroically to reach her. The many requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for extra security measures fell upon deaf ears.

Hillary effectively blamed Stevens for getting himself killed, saying he was supposed to take care of his own security. “We were really counting on Chris to guide us and give us information on the ground,” Clinton said when questioned methodically by Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.).

Clinton denied Blumenthal was an advisor of hers even though he regularly barraged her with emails and their relationship goes back decades. "He was not advising me, and I have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that."

It's still a complete and utter mystery to Clinton why American facilities were targeted in Benghazi, Libya. Really. She said that.

"None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex," she told the Benghazi Select Committee on Thursday. "There were probably a number of different motivations." So it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.

None of this comes as a surprise to Clinton watchers.

New York Times columnist William Safire famously dubbed her "a congenital liar," and that very same left-wing newspaper now admits that “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s explanations about her use of a personal email account as secretary of state have evolved over time.” Evolved? That's one way of putting it.

With the acquiescence -- and at times, complicity -- of a perennially incurious media, Hillary's verbal jousting skills have saved her many times over her decades of political wheeling and dealing. Now that Clinton is campaigning to succeed President Obama, she was much more polished and composed this week than during her previous, now-infamous congressional testimony on the Benghazi saga. That was in 2013 she when she donned Coke bottle eyeglasses chosen perhaps to elicit sympathy related to her reportedly significant health problems.

Her attitude on that day two years ago could be distilled to one word: whatever.

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," she shouted. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

During the televised proceedings yesterday, Clinton, one of America’s most accomplished sociopaths, alternated largely between looking thoughtful or bored. Her pulse probably never got above 85, even at the height of the richly deserved tongue-lashing she received from Republican lawmakers. Like another famous sociopath whose surname she shares, Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton's apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn't actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters.

Clinton, who seems able to function just fine with what must be chronic cognitive dissonance, said minutes before Jordan's question:

I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Jordan fired back:

We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that's not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don't know what is. And that's certainly what -- and that's certainly how the American people saw it.

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film," Clinton wrote Egypt's prime minister the night of the attack. "It was a planned attack, not a protest." But in public Clinton continued to blame the "offensive" video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip.

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said "Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators."

So, in "Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions," he said. In "Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks." The congressman continued:

One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The ambassador didn't report a demonstration. He didn't report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the command center that night on the ground said no protest, no demonstration; two intelligence reports that day, no protest, no demonstration.

The Benghazi attack, Jordan said, began at 3:42 p.m. Eastern time and ended around 11:40 p.m. that evening. He continued:

At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the State Department. It says this, "Mission under attack, armed men, shots fired, explosions heard." No mention of video, no mention of a protest, no mention of a demonstration. But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the ambassador have reported it? Mr. Hicks's response, "Absolutely." For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable ... and if it had been reported, he would have been out the back door within minutes and there was a back gate.

"Everything," Jordan said, "points to a terrorist attack ... and yet five days later Susan Rice goes on five TV shows and she says this, 'Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video,' a statement we all know is false." Rice was "off the reservation," according to State Department experts in the agency's Near Eastern Affairs bureau.

"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary," he said. At 10:08 p.m. while the attack was still in progress, Clinton released a statement insinuating that a video inspired the assault. "Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," it read.

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) tried to drive home the point that interest in the Benghazi saga has long been a bipartisan affair in the U.S. Congress. “The House of Representatives, including some Democrats I hasten to add, asked this committee to write the final accounting of what happened in Benghazi.”

But previous congressional investigations, he added, were a joke.

Gowdy stressed that his committee is the “first committee” to go through more than 50,000 pages of documents, “to thoroughly and individually interview scores of other witnesses, many of them for the first time,” “to demand access to relevant documents from the CIA, the FBI, the Department Of Defense and even the White House,” and “to demand access to the emails to and from Ambassador Chris Stevens.”

He added, “How could an investigation possibly be considered serious without reviewing the emails of the person most knowledgeable about Libya?”

The committee was the “first” and “only” panel “to uncover the fact that Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal email on her own personal server for official business and kept the public record, including e-mails about Benghazi and Libya, in her own custody and control for almost two years after she left office.”

Gowdy impugned the motives of the Accountability Review Board that began studying the Benghazi debacle soon after it happened, noting that Clinton name-dropped the panel an astonishing 70 times in previous congressional testimony. That sham investigation was headed by former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, a useful idiot for Islam who is spending his twilight years crusading against the so-called Islamophobia that infects the ignorant bigots and rubes across the fruited plain who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion.

Noting that the members of the ARB were “hand-picked” by State Department leadership, Gowdy said:

The ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton. The ARB never reviewed her emails. And Secretary Clinton's top adviser was allowed to review and suggest changes to the ARB before the public ever saw it. There's no transcript of ARB interviews. So, it's impossible to know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. Because there's no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the ARB interviews with any particularity at all.

The ARB’s work is “not independent” and not an example of accountability, he said. It is “not a serious investigation.” And if “previous congressional investigations were really serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens' emails?” and “why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses, including agents on the ground who experienced the attacks firsthand?”

On the eve of the Thursday hearing, Democratic members of the Select Committee released a so-called full transcript from an official interview with Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and Chief of Staff to Clinton at the Department of State. Democrats claimed they acted at "to correct the public record after numerous out-of-context and misleading Republican leaks.” Democrats must have calculated that the testimony of a longtime Clinton crony would somehow have an exculpatory effect from which her presidential campaign would benefit.

But not all of the Democratic Party's press release writers -- outside the mainstream media, that is -- are gifted, antisocial, Alinskyite liars of Hillary's caliber. Clinton usually can at least keep the lies more or less straight in her head, and like her husband, treats parsing as bloodsport, while engaging in at times brutally effective misdirection and superficially plausible semantic contortions.

The press release accompanying the 307-page document boasts that it is a “full transcript of the Select Committee’s interview with former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills,” but is it really? It contradicts itself a few sentences later, describing the document as mere “excerpts of Ranking Member Cummings questioning Ms. Mills[.]” This wording suggests that only one lawmaker – a grandstanding, media-savvy, hyper-partisan Democrat on a Republican-controlled panel – questioned Mills at the hearing. It is very hard to believe not even one Republican wanted to take a shot at Mills.

But it is much easier to believe that Democratic congressional staffers aimed to score political points for releasing Mills's entire testimony when it reality they cherry-picked only the parts that put Clinton in the most favorable light.

The press release claims that the transcript provides “significant evidence that Secretary Clinton was deeply engaged during and after the attacks and took action to ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel, even as intelligence assessments of the attacks changed more than once during this period.”

“Republicans are spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan campaign to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) was quoted as saying.

No doubt he was referring to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Ca.) uber-gaffe earlier this month that ended his run to replace outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio). Many drew an inference from McCarthy’s comments that congressional Republicans were trying to torpedo Clinton’s presidential campaign at the expense of the truth. "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable," McCarthy told Sean Hannity. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."

In the end, conservative commentator Erick Erickson shrugged, calling the Benghazi hearing "a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection."

He continued: "Mrs. Clinton is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions." Although she has gotten flustered under questioning, such incidents will "make her a martyr to her own side ... Democratic voters are not going to reject Mrs. Clinton even if she were to admit that she had flown to Benghazi and joined Al Qaeda in the attack."

Given the Hillary mania that grips so much of the Democratic Party and some leftists' positively morbid craving to put a woman in the Oval Office at all costs, Erickson may have a bit of a point.

And if Republican congressional leadership continues with the same old lackadaisical, self-sabotaging approach in which the white flag is waved before the first shot has been fired, the Benghazi committee won't accomplish much apart from generating revenue for fundraising consultants on both sides of the aisle.

The disturbing likelihood that Hillary Clinton will get away with her crimes remains, regardless of how noble, inspiring, and determined to get at the truth Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy may be.
43  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Money, the Fed, Banking, Monetary Policy, Dollar & other currencies, Gold/Silver on: October 22, 2015, 01:35:57 PM

What you are missing is that the U.S. dollar only enjoys its present value because other nations are using it as the world's reserve currency.  With our massive debt, and no political solution happening (this is reality) it's only a matter of time - and I believe a short time - before the dollar loses this reserve status.  If we are lucky, at that point it may be worth 50 cents.  It will quickly decline from there.  Financial collapse, civil unrest and starvation will then ensue - and there is NOTHING that any politician is going to be able to do to stop this from happening.  We've backed ourselves into a corner with massive devaluation through money printing to the point that there is no way out other than collapse and rebuilding.  This is why I and many others have been advising that you prepare for the worst, with stocks of food, ammo, and PHYSICAL gold and silver, as well as barterable commodities.  The BEST we can hope for, assuming a Trump or a Cruz gets elected, is that the damage can be somewhat reduced.  The collapse, however - will NOT be avoidable.
44  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Proof the U.S. is Actually Bankrupt... on: October 22, 2015, 10:24:04 AM
I might point out that Brian Wesbury tries to use the objections this author refutes to argue the U.S. government is not bankrupt. 
He is well-aware of these facts, and in my view is a liar working to deceive the public and serve his own interests.

Yes, The U.S. government Really Is Bankrupt - Here’s Proof...

Monday, 19 October 2015 05:54    Simon Black

I’ve long-stated that the government of the United States is completely insolvent.

And that is 100% true statement.

The government’s own numbers show that official liabilities, including debt held by the public and federal retirement benefits, total $20.7 trillion.

Yet the government’s assets, including the value of the entire federal highway system, the national parks, cash balances, etc. totals just over $3 trillion.

In total, their ‘net worth’ is NEGATIVE $17.7 TRILLION… a level that completely dwarfs the housing crisis.

If you include the government’s own estimates of the Social Security shortfall, this number declines to NEGATIVE $60 TRILLION.

And it gets worse every year.

Now, is this balance sheet an accurate reflection of reality? Do we really trust the bean counters to tell us what the United States of America is really worth?

Surely there must be significant intrinsic value to the United States military, for example.

Or the US government’s ability to collect taxes.

Or what about the value of all the natural resources underground?

These must all be HUGELY positive and would swing the government’s net worth back in the right direction.

Guess again.

The US military is certainly one of the best-trained and most effective forces in history.

But it’s difficult to place a substantial value on it when the government can no longer afford to use it.

And even when they do use it, the overall cost of doing so is negative.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the taxpayers $4 trillion. But where’s the financial benefit?

Aside from a few defense contractors profiting handsomely, the Chinese got most of the oil.

ISIS ended up with much of Iraq. And Iran made out like a bandit, with the US government taking out its most threatening neighbors free of charge.

Mission accomplished.

Bottom line, even the best asset in the world can end up being a big liability if it’s used improperly.

So what about the tax authority of the US government? If Uncle Sam can collect $3 trillion in tax revenue each year, surely that must count as a huge asset.

And it absolutely is. If you conduct a Present Value calculation of the future tax revenue of the US government discounted by the official 2% rate of inflation, the US government’s ability to tax its citizens is ‘worth’ $150 TRILLION.

But… if you’re going to count the government’s tax authority as an asset, you have to be intellectually honest and consider the expenses as liabilities.

Think about it: yes, the government brings in tax revenue every single year. But for nearly every year over the last seventy years, they’ve spent far more money to deliver on the promises they’ve made to their citizens.

Those promises are liabilities. And given the government’s spending history since the end of World War II, the liabilities far exceed the tax authority asset.

More importantly, though, isn’t it a little bit scary to consider that the government’s #1 asset is its ability to steal money from you?

Or that the only way the government can make its liabilities go away is by defaulting on the promises it has made to its citizens?

That’s their only way out: steal from you, and default on you.
45  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer Discusses Recent Violence in Jerusalem... on: October 22, 2015, 09:45:44 AM
As usual - Robert cuts through all the B.S. -

46  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump: Revoke Passports of Those Who Leave for ISIS... on: October 21, 2015, 02:22:18 PM
Trump: Revoke Passports of those who leave to fight for ISIS, Look at closing some mosques:

by IAN HANCHETT20 Oct 20154,709
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated he would revoke passports from people who go overseas to fight for ISIS and “You’re going to have to certainly look at” closing mosques “if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear” on Tuesday’s “Varney & Co” on the Fox Business Network.

Trump [relevant remarks in first video] re-iterated his prior claim about George W. Bush and September 11th, he did say that former President Bill Clinton, along with Bush holds responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He added, “Now, was Clinton possibly, also guilty? Yeah, yeah sure. He should have maybe been more vigilant. And he actually said he knew about Osama bin Laden. I knew about Osama bin Laden, because I wrote about him in my book, I think 19 months before the World Trade Center came down.”

He was also asked [relevant remarks begin in the second video] “Now, in the UK, in Britain, they’ve obviously got a terror problem. They’ve got a lot of youngsters going over to fight for ISIS, about — just under 1,000 are going over there, and they’ve got a whole new series of proposals to deal with this, including withdrawal of passports from some of these people who’ve gone –.”

Trump responded, “Absolutely good, good.”

After host Stuart Varney continued, “And closing some mosques, would you do the same thing in America.” Trump answered, “I would do that. Absolutely. I think it’s great.”

When asked if you could close a mosque, Trump then stated, “Well, I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t heard about the closing of the mosque. It depends, if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it. But I can tell you one thing ,if somebody goes over and they want to fight for ISIS, they wouldn’t be coming back.”

Trump responded to a question about Democratic proposals for paid family leave with, “Well, it’s something that’s being discussed. I think we have to keep our country very competitive, so, you have to be careful of it, but certainly there are a lot of people discussing it.” Regarding a $15 an hour minimum wage, he said, “We have to keep our similar answer. You have to keep our country competitive. One of the reasons companies are leaving is because salaries are too high.”

When asked if he would pledge to have no new taxes, Trump said he could, but wouldn’t on the show, and “could certainly think about doing that. Because my taxes, and under my plan, as you know, I’m reducing taxes, I think more than any other candidate, by far.” He continued that this was no new taxes is “where my mindset is.”

He also added that he wasn’t a “big fan” of the minimum wage proposal, and expressed disagreement with free universal pre-K. He further expressed support for repealing Dodd-Frank and building the Keystone XL Pipeline while stating he opposes breaking up big banks.

47  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: October 21, 2015, 09:54:00 AM
Again - GM is on point.

The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims - including those in this country - support, either tacitly or explicitly - the imposition of Sharia law - which is antithetical to our Constitution.
There are NO programs in any mosque in America to teach that the violent, totalitarian aspects of Islam are incorrect doctrine.

When we see evidence of these programs, we can re-evaluate whether or not Islam deserves protected status as a religion in this nation.  Until then - the burden is upon MUSLIMS to provide this evidence.  Exactly ZERO evidence to this effect has been produced.

The fact that there are a very few "good" Muslims willing to work against this understanding of Islam does not change this fact, any more than the fact that there were some (very few) Nazis in name only who spied and provided intel to the Allies in WWII.

48  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam as a "religion"... on: October 20, 2015, 03:43:54 PM
Precisely, GM.

Sooner or later, western civilization is going to be forced into acknowledging that Islam is not simply a religion - certainly NOT in the sense that our Founding Fathers intended when they conceived of the concept of "freedom of religion."  Islam is much MORE than a religion - it in fact could be said to be a totalitarian, repressive ideology of world domination with a "god" tacked-on explicitly for the purpose of using "freedom of religion" as subterfuge.  Islam is nothing more nor less than Naziism with a supreme being added to the ideology.  As such, it is antagonistic and antithetical to our western values.  It explicitly denies our foundational concept of human rights.

Such a belief system does not deserve, in fact - MUST NOT BE GIVEN - protected status as a "religion" if our civilization is to be preserved.
49  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Mosque blocked in MI... on: October 20, 2015, 12:29:25 PM
Difficult?  Really?  Seems to me this is an overwhelmingly positive development - to the extent it demonstrates Americans are educating themselves about Islam.
This nation is committing suicide by continuing to allow virtually unlimited Muslim immigration, and the constant anti-American preaching that takes place in 95% of all mosques in this country - if not more.  It's about time someone stood up and shouted "NO MORE."  The alternative is the conquest of our Western civilization and 1,000 years of darkness.
50  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / GOP Establishment Readies War Against Trump... on: October 20, 2015, 07:49:56 AM
Panicked establishment gets ready for war against Trump

By BYRON YORK (@BYRONYORK) • 10/19/15 6:02 PM

This weekend was an inflection point in the Republican presidential race — a moment in which some significant part of the GOP establishment came out of denial and realized Donald Trump might well become their party's nominee.
"The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win," noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. "I've heard that from everybody. I don't hear anybody saying he can't win the nomination anymore."

That doesn't mean Republicans have made their peace with a Trump victory. On the contrary — some are preparing to do whatever it takes to bring him down. Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party's likely nominee

"Massive resistance," was the answer. "He's not a conservative."

Insiders have watched as Trump defied what many believed were immutable laws of the political universe. First they thought Trump wouldn't run. Then they thought voters wouldn't take a reality-TV star seriously. Then they thought gaffes would kill Trump as they had other candidates. None of that turned out as expected.

But there is one belief Trump has not yet tested, and that is the political insiders' unshakeable faith that negative ads work.

"I don't think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire," says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It would force him to spend money. That's when this starts to get real for him." ("Points" refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

There is no central anti-Trump conspiracy. But one group that would like to play a leading role in taking him down is the Club for Growth. In September, the Club ran two ads against Trump in Iowa — 2,000 points — with one arguing that Trump is not a true conservative and the other hitting Trump for his support of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain.

McIntosh is looking for donors to fund an anti-Trump campaign that would hit hard in the month before voting begins. It might be a Club for Growth production, or it might be a combination of efforts. "There is no other group that has decided to do it," says McIntosh. "There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it."

The triggers for the anti-Trump onslaught would likely be: 1) if next month arrives with Trump still in the lead, and 2) if Trump begins airing his own ads. "Once that starts, you'll see a lot of people saying we've waited long enough," notes McIntosh.

While that is going on, officials at the Republican National Committee vow to stay out of things. Asked what role the RNC might play in any movement against Trump, strategist and spokesman Sean Spicer said, "None. None. Zero. It is up to Republican voters to decide who our nominee is, not the RNC." Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.

The anti-Trump campaign will face several challenges. The biggest is the voters who support Trump. Conservative groups like the Club believe they can convince those voters that Trump is not a true conservative. Perhaps they can. But what if a large number of his voters are not wed to conservative orthodoxy as defined by Washington-based organizations?

The other problem is Trump himself. If he decides to spend serious money on his campaign — and some GOP veterans still aren't convinced he will — he can launch a serious counterpunch to any anti-Trump campaign.

And then there is the fact that Trump is improving as a candidate. Just look at Sunday's interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he was sharp, focused, and forceful. A talented candidate who does something over and over again will get better at it. Trump is better than he was just a month ago, which is not good news for his opponents.

Some anti-Trump Republicans still harbor hope Trump will begin to fade all by himself. Yes, Trump, who has been atop the RealClearPolitics average of national polls for three months straight, has outlasted the various flavor-of-the-months from the 2012 GOP race. But opponents point out that Rudy Giuliani led the poll average for an incredibly long time four years earlier — from February 2007 to January 2008 — before sinking when voting actually began. Their hope is the same will happen to Trump.

It could. But a closer look at the 2007-2008 polls shows that Giuliani was almost always trailing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And of course, ignoring the early states killed his candidacy. Trump, on the other hand, is on top in those three states, plus Nevada — all the states that will vote first in February. His organization is growing. He is hiring smart operatives. The Giuliani analogy doesn't apply.

Which makes it more likely that the anti-Trump forces will ultimately have to take it on themselves to go on the attack. Their core belief is that Trump cannot withstand a long and withering bombardment of negative ads. But core beliefs have been cast aside repeatedly in this race. That might happen again.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!