Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
January 17, 2018, 03:45:59 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106624 Posts in 2398 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
51  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro... on: August 07, 2016, 10:12:05 PM
Crafty:  LOL cheesy  My best friend in CT who is Jewish says the same thing, though he likes her opinions generally.  He says she reminds him of the pushy, dominating and abrasive Jewish women he grew up surrounded by in West Hartford, CT.    grin
52  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jeanine Pirro's Devastating Indictment of Hillary Clinton... on: August 07, 2016, 01:30:46 PM
This is apparently only available on the Fox site - be sure to adjust the volume using the gear icon at the lower-right of the screen.  It is her opening statement from last night's show:
53  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Would the Founders Have Considered Islam a "Religion?" on: August 05, 2016, 08:55:33 PM

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

August 5, 2016  William Kilpatrick 

Reprinted from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By PAMELA GELLER on July 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 23, 2016, By Robert Spencer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BBC added:

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

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

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

- See more at:
55  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Posted on Behalf of Crafty Dog... on: July 22, 2016, 10:18:40 PM

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 19, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like depression. Or the weather.

Propaganda rarely gets more obvious than this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not all troubled loners are created equal.

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

Once again this is what propaganda looks like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ByPAMELA GELLER on July 15, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

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

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

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prosecutor: I do not have that information.

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

- See more at:
59  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama's Obscene Exploitation of Dallas Police Murders... on: July 13, 2016, 03:18:45 PM
Obama’s Obscene Exploitation of the Dallas Massacre

Exploiting dead police officers to promote #BlackLivesMatter.

July 13, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 12, 2016  By Robert Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Pamela Geller on July 12, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the credentials of the “experts”?

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

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

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

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

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

- See more at:
62  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Has the Race War Obama Wants Begun??? on: July 08, 2016, 05:07:08 PM

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

July 8, 2016  Matthew Vadum 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrities weighed in with vapid and condescending observations.

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

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

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

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

Let’s go over what we know.

The Advocate in Baton Rouge reports that on July 5,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How reassuring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with that, counselor.

And just wait until the authority-hating terrorists of Black Lives Matter turn on you.
63  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How Obama's Student Loan Program Makes College Impossible to Afford... on: July 08, 2016, 11:11:02 AM

And the Democratic solution is to double down on it.

July 8, 2016  John Perazzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 5, 2016  Daniel Greenfield  

Is anyone seriously surprised?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are a nation of rebels.

7.4.2016 - Daniel Greenfield 

How will you celebrate the Fourth of July?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are a nation of rebels.

7.4.2016  - Daniel Greenfield

How will you celebrate the Fourth of July?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yosef Abramowitz - The Jerusalem Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also drove him to work hard.

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But she is only the tip of the iceberg.

June 29, 2016  Robert Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, 24 June 2016 00:41 Brandon Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

June 24, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it will not end there.

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

It is time to break those chains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 23, 2016
Robert Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

An eyewitness to the incident, Jolene Payne, recounted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 23, 2016
Matthew Vadum

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

For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moore continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama ignored ISIS, Americans died.

June 22, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And these orders were quite explicit.

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

Omar answered the call in Orlando.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘She was scared to death’

There was no knife involved, Payne said.

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

Hacked documents are latest leaked by "Guccifer 2.0"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 20, 2016 2:25 pm By Christine Williams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 20, 2016
Robert Spencer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 20, 2016

Matthew Vadum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 17, 2016
David Horowitz

Reprinted from

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

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

The left is blaming Christians, Republicans, and guns for the Orlando slaughter. The president and Hillary are claiming that ISIS is on the run – a lie flatly contradicted by the CIA director himself. They want to disarm Americans. If Hillary is elected, borders will stay open, and protecting Muslims will take priority over fighting Islam’s holy war against us.

In other words, Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run. Where, to take one example, is Ted Cruz? He claims to be a patriot and care about the Constitution, but he is AWOL — sulking like Achilles in his tent over personal slights he can’t get past to fight for his country’s survival. The Republican leader of the Senate and his second-in-command have both announced they will not participate in the presidential election, while the leader of the House makes clear his extreme embarrassment over Trump’s proposals to establish immigration policies appropriate to a nation under siege. This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.

There are actually two wars we are engaged in– one with the Islamic caliphate and the other with an American left that refuses to recognize the enemy we face or the magnitude and nature of the threat. In this internal war, too many on the right have taken a course whose only practical effect can be seen as a betrayal of their cause. Erick Erickson has summed up the view of the Republican renegades in this succinct phrase: “We are in the midst of a murder-suicide pact that will be our ruination.”

This is, in fact, a precise description of what the #NeverTrump right is up to. But in Erickson’s inversion of reality, it is “the Republican Party [that] intends to murder the nation and commit suicide along the way.” What Erickson and his fellow saboteurs, led by Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol, want is for the Republican Party to block Trump and repudiate the record number of Republican primary voters who nominated him. This would actually be a Republican suicide in November – one that would indeed “murder the nation.”

Although the defection of the Republican leadership from the field of battle is still ongoing, there has been a break in the ranks of the #NeverTrump spoilers. Two of their leading intellectual figures, Hugh Hewitt and Andy McCarthy, have finally come to realize not just the futility of their efforts but their destructiveness as well. For the sake of the nation, let’s hope that there are a lot more such reversals on the way.

Meanwhile, the really big problem remains that of the Republican leadership, which thinks that “We’re stuck with Trump but we won’t dump him!” is an appropriate battle cry. As we all know, the Democrats are vicious, unprincipled attack dogs with a kept and unprincipled media in their camp. Passivity in the face of this blitzkrieg is, in practice, no different than a white-flag surrender. Paul Ryan summed up Republican fatuity in his answers to media questions in the wake of Orlando about whether he’s still supporting Trump. Ryan’s answer: he would be defending Republican principles in this election. Well, Paul, principles aren’t running in this election. Candidates are. And unless Republicans rally around Trump, and Trump beats Hillary, Republican principles are going down with him.
82  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller: Trump is Right, and He Must Win... on: June 16, 2016, 01:50:17 PM
Pamela Geller: Trump Is Right, and He Must Win

by Pamela Geller15 Jun 2016

The post-jihad denial that we see in the wake of every Islamic attack since 9/11 has made possible the wild successes of Islamic groups that are waging jihad in the cause of Islam.

After every jihad terror attack, Islamic supremacists and their paid shills in the media unleash relentless, vicious attacks upon those of us who oppose jihad. Never do we hear or see them go after the Islamic texts and teachings that fuel this war.

A case in point was a Salon article published Tuesday: “Donald Trump’s war with Islam: A campaign rooted in pernicious religious discrimination,” by Simon Maloy. Maloy said that the Orlando jihad massacre gave Trump “the opportunity he needed to define the campaign he intends to run: a campaign that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.”

He accused Trump of running a campaign “that casts the Muslim faith and its practitioners – both inside and outside the U.S. – as antagonistic to American interests.” Trump’s speech in the wake of the Orlando jihad massacre was, according to Maloy, “a relentlessly ugly diatribe that unambiguously embraced the pernicious and anti-American idea that a person’s religious faith makes them a threat to national security.”

The idea that the depraved left sees the murdered nightclub-goers as an “opportunity” for Trump is as vicious as the attack itself. Trump sounded a warning, and he was right to do so. It was not Donald Trump who made Islamic jihad “antagonistic to American interests”; the jihad doctrine itself is antagonistic to American interest and freedoms. How many thousands have to die in the cause of Islam?

In his speech, Trump said that he would “suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” He is right. After the Boston Marathon jihad bombing, my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), called for the following:

— AFDI calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal.
— AFDI calls for surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed.
— AFDI calls for curriculum and Islam-related materials in textbooks and museums to describe the Islamic doctrine and history accurately, including its violent doctrines and 1,400-year war against unbelievers.
— AFDI calls for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations with Sharia-based constitutions and/or governments.
— AFDI denounces the use of Sharia law in any Western court or nation.
— AFDI advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote jihad in our nations.
— AFDI calls for an immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into nations that do not currently have a Muslim majority population.
— AFDI calls for laws providing that anyone seeking citizenship in the United States should be asked if he or she supports Sharia law, and investigated for ties to pro-Sharia groups. If so, citizenship should not be granted.
— AFDI calls for the cancellation of citizenship or permanent residency status for anyone who leaves the country of his residence to travel for the purpose of engaging in jihad activity, and for the refusal of reentry into his country of residence after that jihad activity.
— AFDI calls careful investigation of Muslims resident in non-Muslim country who have obtained naturalized citizenship or permanent residency status, to ensure that that status was not obtained under false pretenses.
— AFDI calls for the designation of the following as grounds for immediate deportation: fomenting, plotting, financing, attempting or carrying out jihad attacks; encouraging or threatening or attempting to carry out the punishments Islamic law mandates for apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, fornication or theft; threatening or attempting or carrying out honor murders, forced marriage, underage marriage, female genital mutilation, or polygamy.
— AFDI calls for the U.S. and other free nations to have jihad, as it is traditionally understood in Islamic jurisprudence to involve warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, declared a crime against humanity at the U.N., or to withdraw from the U.N. and have its headquarters moved to a Muslim nation.
— AFDI calls for legislating making illegal the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities.

How many people would be alive today had American politicians heeded our calls? Instead, we are blacklisted, smeared, libeled, and defamed, while pro-jihad groups are feted on Capital Hill.

But Maloy complained that Trump’s focus was “on Muslims exclusively – not radicalized Muslims, but every Muslim person outside the U.S. He referred to the expanded admittance of refugees from Syria as potentially ‘a better, bigger version of the legendary Trojan Horse.’ Per Trump, Hillary Clinton, as president, would ‘be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East with no system to vet them, or to prevent the radicalization of their children.’ It’s all fearmongering based on lies and prejudice.”

Such idiocy is without peer. ISIS has vowed to send jihad killers to the west via migration. They are coming — why let them in? No, not all migrants are Muslim soldiers, but enough are to cause unimaginable death and destruction. Would you eat from a bowl of M & M’s if you knew two of them were laced with cyanide?

Muslims groups such as the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have urged Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. Muslim groups have demanded that law enforcement agencies dismantle counterterror programs. Muslim groups demand adherence to sharia in the language used in counterterror training material: the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines just days before the Orlando jihad massacre forbidding agents from using the words “jihad” and “sharia” in connection with terrorism because doing so offended Muslims.

Maloy is likewise interested in policing language to avoid offending Muslims, saying of Trump’s immigration proposal: “It’s reprehensible, and it’s the kind of language that results in people getting hurt… If your goal is to promote the radicalization of a population within your own borders, having a major party presidential candidate talk about them all as if they’re criminals is an excellent way to go about it.”

No. What is reprehensible is how viciously the lapdogs for jihad blame the victim — led by the scrubber-in-chief in the White House. They call upon the targets to change their behavior, to subjugate themselves to Islam. Maloy is saying that Trump has to change his language or else Muslims will become “radicalized.” Last year, the mainstream media likewise said that the jihad assassination attempt on my free speech event in Garland, Texas was my fault, that I was taunting Muslims. Were the gay revelers in the Pulse nightclub last Saturday night taunting Muslims? Based on that flawed logic, yes. Our very way of life taunts sharia-adherent Muslims.

Jihad terror attacks present a unique opportunity for Islamic supremacists and jihadis. First, the kill, which is a great victory in the cause of Islam. The successful jihad attack attracts more Muslims and converts to the cause.

Secondly and most importantly, terror-tied groups like CAIR, their lapdogs in the enemedia, and pro-Islamic politicians like President Obama use the slaughter to push, proselytize, lie, deceive, and talk, talk, talk up Islam (while denigrating all other religions) on every major media news channel.

Trump is right. He was wrong about Garland, but he surely gets it now. And this is why he is so wildly popular — because finally, someone with a huge platform is calling out the enemedia and the dhimmi press, and giving them the long overdue, much-needed middle finger they so richly deserve.

Trump must win in order for this nation to survive. Trump must win if we are to prevail in this worldwide war against freedom.
83  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Islamic Terrorism is not Domestic Terrorism on: June 15, 2016, 01:01:04 PM
Islamic Terrorism Is Not Domestic Terrorism

The Orlando massacre is not “homegrown extremism.”

June 15, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Obama described the massacre carried out by Muslim mass murderer Omar Mateen as “an example of the kind of homegrown extremism that all of us have been concerned about.” But there’s nothing “homegrown” about Omar Mateen. Omar was fighting for a foreign ideology. He just happened to be born in this country. Being born in America does not make him a domestic terrorist.

One of our biggest errors in the fight against Islamic terrorism has been to treat it as a domestic terrorism problem. Islamic terrorism is not domestic terrorism. Not even when its perpetrators, like Omar Mateen or Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, are born in the United States.

What distinguishes domestic terrorism from international terrorism is not the perpetrator’s place of birth.

One of the worst foreign terrorists in American history was Anton Dilger, who, like Hasan, was born in Virginia. As part of the German terrorist campaign against the United States during WW1, which included attacks such as the Black Tom explosion that damaged the Statue of Liberty and was heard in Philadelphia, Dilger plotted a biological warfare campaign that would decimate American horses. Working out of a laboratory near the White House, he experimented with anthrax on animals and his fellow operatives worked to infect as many horses as they could.

This entire episode of history has been largely forgotten. As have its lessons.

Anton Dilger was an international terrorist, despite being born to a Civil War hero, because his agenda was foreign, not domestic. Domestic terrorists seek political change in the United States. International terrorists seek to damage the United States. They are interested in domestic politics only to the extent that it serves their larger agenda for damaging the United States.

Islamic terrorists are not seeking domestic political change the way that Bill Ayers was. They are not domestic elements, but foreign elements. And yet we treat them as if they were domestic terrorists.

Our current strategy of trying to prevent radicalization while assuming that what Islamic terrorists want is to destabilize our political system by “dividing” us is a domestic terrorism response. It might or might not be effective if we were dealing with a domestic terror threat, but we aren’t.

Contrary to what Obama claims, Islam has not always been a part of our history. It isn’t part of us today. It is no more a “part of us” than the German nationalists of WW1 and WW2 who plotted against us were a part of us. Even the most radical left-wing terrorist has something in common with us. The Islamic terrorist has nothing in common with us. He does not share any part of our worldview. He did not emerge from some fork in the road of our history like the left-wing terrorist did. He does not seek to modify our system, but to utterly destroy it and replace it with something completely alien.

Left-wingers radicalize Americans. But they do so by exploiting existing liberal beliefs. Obama demonstrates this every time he invokes some element of American history or thought to push a radical agenda. One crisis after another is manufactured to push people further to the extremes of the left.

This is how radicalization actually works.

Nidal Hasan was not “radicalized”. He was never an American. He was a proud Muslim who happened to be born in the United States. His beliefs did not shift along a domestic political spectrum. Instead, like the German terrorists of WW1, he found that his allegiance to a foreign power impelled him to work against America. This isn’t radicalization. It’s patriotism. But his “Patria”, his homeland, was not ours.

The “Patria” of Islamic terrorists may be the Islamic State, some Al Qaeda emirate or Pakistan or Iran. It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that they are a foreign enemy. And our strategy of fighting “radicalization” makes no sense because the problem isn’t radicalism, it’s alienism.

Domestic terrorism springs from a structural conflict within the politics, history and worldview of a nation. Typical examples are left-wing and right-wing terrorism. Contradictions within a nation’s ideals are pushed to the limits resulting in conflict. Arguments over which values should be emphasized and to what degree can lead to radicalism. But Islamic terrorism does not spring from a conflict within America.

Islamic terrorism is a foreign element that has been imported into the United States. It does not emerge from structural conflicts within our society. It cannot be resolved by moving in any direction on the domestic spectrum. It is purely an alien entity that has no natural home within the United States.

In Islamic terrorism, radicalization can only occur within the spectrum of Islam, not within an American spectrum. Which is why Countering Violent Extremism programs to combat Islamic terrorism awkwardly lecture to Muslims about Islam. Underlying the botched CVE enterprise is the recognition that Islamic terrorism is a foreign element. But if Islamic terrorism is a foreign element then efforts to counter it by treating it as a domestic problem are doomed to fail just as treating a sore toe with an antacid is doomed to fail. CVE covertly carries within it the acknowledgement of its own failure.

There is only one element driving Islamic terrorism in the United States. And that is Muslim immigration.

Once we recognize that Islamic terrorism is a foreign element, not a domestic element, then we must also recognize that there can only be only one answer to it. If one of your glands is malfunctioning, then medical intervention will attempt to restore your body to its proper balance. But if the problem is that you are drinking poison, then the only possible solution is to stop drinking poison.

Domestic political radicalism needs to be treated. Foreign radicals just have to be kept out of the country. They are not our problem because they are not a part of us.

The solution to Islamic terrorism is to stop treating it as a domestic problem. Once upon a time we viewed Islamic terrorism as a foreign problem. When the World Trade Center was first bombed, we did not think in terms of radicalization. We saw foreign enemies infiltrating the United States and plotting against us. We didn’t worry what made them that way. Their mindset was not our problem.

After 9/11, we began treating Islamic terrorism as a domestic problem. The process really took off under Obama. The only accepted view now is that Islamic terrorism has to be countered at a domestic level. We have to work with Muslim groups to counter radicalization while making them feel as included as possible in our society. This same program has failed miserably in Europe. It will fail in America.

The only answer to Islamic terrorism is to treat it as a foreign threat. To quarantine its carriers and to build barriers against the entry of the alien virus of its ideology.  

We must recognize that Islamic terrorism is not a domestic insurrection, but a foreign act of war and that it must be fought abroad by force and at home through border control.

And if we do that, we will win.
84  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Furious Baraq defends his refusal to name the enemy on: June 15, 2016, 07:51:11 AM
Video: Furious Obama defends his refusal to name the enemy: “What exactly would using this language accomplish?”


“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

Indeed. But calling things by their right names is always preferable to obfuscation and dissimulation. If there is an Islamic jihad threat, we should call it an Islamic jihad threat. One rhetorical question Obama notably didn’t ask was, “Would calling this threat what it really is help us understand the enemy better and formulate more effective ways to counter it?” To that, the answer is yes.

And his talk about refusing to “validate” al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is just ludicrous. Islamic jihadis aren’t looking to the President of the United States for validation. They aren’t looking to non-Muslims to validate their Islamic authenticity. This is just an excuse for not speaking honestly about the threat, and it’s a dangerous one, since it prevents our law enforcement and military authorities from understanding the threat properly.

“Obama goes on tirade against Trump over ‘dangerous’ Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam,'” by Kevin Liptak and Stephen Collinson, CNN, June 14, 2016:

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama lit into Donald Trump on Tuesday, turning the tables to make the impassioned case that Trump is the one who’s un-American.

Obama’s extraordinary denunciation of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was about far more than a personal intervention on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the ugly general election campaign.

The commander in chief’s fury, which seethed out of him in a stunning soliloquy on live television, amounted to a moment of historic significance: a president castigating one of the two people who could succeed him as beyond the constitutional and political norms of the nation itself….

“Where does this stop?” Obama asked Tuesday, condemning Trump’s renewal of his call for a ban on Muslim migration and claims that “thousands and thousands” of Muslims are pouring into the country with the “same thought process” as the terrorist behind the Orlando massacre.

“Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently?” Obama asked. “Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?”…

“That’s not the America we want,” he said. “It doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It will make us less safe.”…

Obama also expressed fury at critiques of his foreign policy, pushing back against criticism for not using the term “radical Islamic terrorism” and calling the debate “a political distraction.”

“What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?” Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. “Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?” he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.

“Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above,” he said. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”…

Much of the criticism has centered on Obama’s refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam,” which the White House argues unfairly maligns the entire Islamic faith.

In a brief statement following Obama’s remarks, Trump said Obama “claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.”

“When I am president, it will always be America First,” Trump said. He was expected to respond more fully during an evening event in North Carolina….

In his remarks Tuesday, the President defended his actions against ISIS, lauding the work of the U.S. military in going after terrorists. He said changing his wording about the threat would not alter those efforts….

85  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: Trump has a Realistic Plan for Fighting the Jihad... on: June 14, 2016, 09:06:14 PM

Courtesy of Donald Trump.

June 14, 2016  Robert Spencer

We’ve gotten so used to politically correct obfuscation about Islam being a religion of peace that preaches tolerance and non-violence that Donald Trump’s words in his address Monday were startling: “Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions. Remember this, radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American. I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people are targets of persecution and intimation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.”

Trump continued: “This is not just a national security issue. It’s a quality of life issue. If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans — women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam and we need to do it now.”

One may quibble about whether jihad violence and Sharia oppression in Islam are really “radical,” but the fact is that Donald Trump has become the first nominee of either party since 9/11 to reject the usual nonsense about how jihadis believe in and preach a twisted, hijacked version of the religion of peace. Even more importantly, Trump is now the first presidential candidate since maybe John Quincy Adams to recognize that the problem posed by Islam is not just restricted to the specter of violent jihad attacks, but is, given Sharia oppression of women, gays, and non-Muslims, very much, as Trump put it, a “quality of life issue.”

Trump declared his determination to prevent more jihad attacks such as the one in Orlando Saturday night above all by reiterating his proposal temporarily to “suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.” CNN huffed: “Critics of Trump's policies, however, have pointed out that the perpetrator of the Orlando massacre was born in the U.S.”

Those critics are not being honest. What Trump actually said was that the Orlando jihad mass murderer was born “of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.” He noted, quite correctly, that “the bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place, was because we allowed his family to come here,” and pointed out, quite rightly, that “we have a dysfunctional immigration system, which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens properly….We’re importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our president. Even our own FBI director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of people we’re letting into America. ”

Can any truthful person seriously dispute that? Tashfeen Malik, who, along with her husband Syed Rizwan Farook murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino last December 2, had passed five separate background checks from five different U.S. government agencies. If the U.S. did not have a “dysfunctional immigration system,” she would never have been in the country in the first place. And neither would her husband, about whom Trump noted that he was “the child of immigrants from Pakistan and he brought his wife, the other terrorist from Saudi Arabia through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.”

Trump skewered Hillary Clinton for having “repeatedly refused to even say the words radical Islam until I challenged her yesterday.” He quoted her fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism” and opined “she’s in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”

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

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

Another foray into political incorrectness in Trump’s speech was his insistence that the Muslim community in the U.S. has “to work with us. They have to cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad. They know it. And they have to do it, and they have to do it forthwith….The Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what’s going on. They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn’t turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was furious. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper claimed that “law enforcement authorities have repeatedly stated that they have tremendous cooperation from the Muslim community.” CAIR’s hypocrisy is astounding, as it has more than once advised Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. In January 2011, its San Francisco chapter featured on its website a poster that read, “Build A Wall of Resistance / Don’t Talk to the FBI.” In November 2014, CAIR-Florida’s “14th Annual Banquet Rooted in Faith” in Tampa distributed pamphlets entitled “What to do if the FBI comes for you” and featuring a graphic of a person holding a finger to his lips in the “shhh” signal.

Another CAIR pamphlet, entitled “Know Your Rights: Defending Rights, Defeating Intolerance” featured a graphic of the Statue of Liberty likewise making the “shhh” symbol. Cyrus McGoldrick, a former official of Hamas-linked CAIR’s New York chapter, even threatened informants, tweeting with brutal succinctness: “Snitches get stitches.” Zahra Billoo of CAIR-San Francisco regularly tweets that Muslims have no obligation to talk to the FBI, and should contact Hamas-linked CAIR if the FBI asks to talk to them.

This is the group criticizing Trump for noting that Muslim communities have not been any significant help in rooting out jihadis from among them?

Trump’s most revolutionary proposal was for an overhaul of our entire foreign policy establishment and the assumptions upon which it rests – assumptions that have led us into numerous blind alleys and failed initiatives. He said: “The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow like nobody has ever seen before. These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region. That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism not nation building. No more nation building. It’s never going to work.”

Indeed. It didn’t work in Iraq. It hasn’t worked in Afghanistan. We have poured billions into Pakistan since 9/11 to help them fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Pakistani government has funneled a good deal of that money to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Trump said it: “And by the way we’ve spent almost $5 trillion over the years on trying to nation build in the Middle East and it has been complete and total disaster.” Yet despite the fact that its policies have failed again and again and again, the foreign policy establishment keeps reappointing and promoting those responsible for those failures, allowing them to make more mistakes in ever-larger arenas. But no candidate has ever challenged that establishment – until now.

Trump offered one more common sense that no establishment politician has thought to or dared to make: he suggested that there needs to be a reconfiguration of our alliances, which are still based on the Cold War. “NATO,” he said, “needs to change its focus and stop terrorism....America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.”

Indeed. The world is on fire courtesy of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If America votes in November for more of the same, we will soon be engulfed in those flames as well. On Monday, Donald Trump outlined an unprecedentedly realistic plan for putting out the fire.
86  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Jewish LGBT "leader" Worries About Backlash Against Muslims... on: June 13, 2016, 07:36:24 AM
Head of Jewish LGBTQ group fears for Muslims after Orlando jihad massacre


Muslims were not, of course, the victims of the Orlando jihad massacre, but to Leftists, Muslims are always the victims of every jihad terror attack that other Muslims perpetrate. Idit Klein doesn’t worry that more gays will be the targets of Islamic jihadists; instead, she is worried that “vilification of the Muslim community will certainly be in part a result of this tragedy.”  This is a constant refrain after every jihad attack, but that vilification never actually materializes. Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is not “vicious rhetoric,” but an attempt to prevent more jihadis from entering the country. Does Klein have an alternative proposal for how to accomplish that?

No innocent persons should be subjected to “vilification.” The problem is that people such as this Idit and so many others like her classify as “vilification of the Muslim community” any honest examination of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists. And so nothing effective is done to frame the jihad threat realistically, as no one in power wants to be accused of this “vilification.”

Idit Klein

“Head of Jewish LGBTQ group fears for Muslims after attack,” by Amanda Borschel-Dan, Times of Israel, June 13, 2016:

The first calls and emails Idit Klein received after hearing the news of the horrific attack that killed at least 50 at an Orlando gay bar on June 12 were from Muslim leaders expressing their sorrow and solidarity.

“Within a very short time of news breaking about the attack colleagues in the Muslim community reached out to say, ‘Our hearts are with you, our prayers are with you. What can we do to express our solidarity?’” said Klein.

Since 2001, Klein has served as executive director of Keshet, a Boston-based national non-profit organization with a $2m. annual budget that works in some 200 communities for LGBTQ equality and inclusion in Jewish life….

For Klein, the immediate condemnation by American Muslim leaders is “historically important.”

Among the many Muslim voices, the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Florida) released a statement shortly after the attack condemning the killings.

“We condemn this monstrous attack and offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and loved ones of all those killed or injured,” said CAIR-Florida’s Orlando Regional Coordinator Rasha Mubarak. “The Muslim community joins our fellow Americans in repudiating anyone or any group that would claim to justify or excuse such an appalling act of violence.”

Klein said that although some “courageous leaders” have pushed their community, Islam is not known to be progressive on LGBTQ issues. The widespread condemnation of the massive attack which targeted the gay community is “a reason to feel some hope even in this time of sadness….

Klein is equally troubled by the prospect of a backlash against the American Muslim community — those who reached out first upon hearing the news Sunday morning.

This is an election year which has seen a December 2015 call from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslim immigration. The attack, fears Klein, “will inflame the very vicious rhetoric we’ve been hearing regarding Muslims and the Muslim community.

“Vilification of the Muslim community will certainly be in part a result of this tragedy,” she said.
87  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / THE ENEMY IS HERE AND IS STALKING US... on: June 12, 2016, 12:12:01 PM
That is the salient point to take away from this event - finally.  Islam is INHERENTLY violent.  Imams around the world have called for slaughtering infidels during the month of Ramadan.

When will the media stop using these bullshit "hate crime" and "lone wolf" terms?  The enemy is known - his motivation is KNOWN.  It is ISLAM.  Not "radical Islam,"  - ISLAM.

We are at war - and the enemy is HERE on our soil.  Either you recognize and acknowledge this or you make yourself a willing victim.  It is long past time for we in the warrior community to be vigilant and armed EVERYWHERE we go.  This could happen anywhere - and I think that sadly - it has only begun.
88  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer: Ramadan in Orlando, Florida... on: June 12, 2016, 07:57:46 AM
Ramadan in Orlando, Florida: Muslim murders 20, wounds 42 at gay nightclub after taking hostages


“Police said the gunman was believed to be in his 20s was not a local man, and the FBI believe he may have ‘leanings to radical Islamic terrorism.'”

Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani recently called on Muslims to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America.”

We tried to sound a warning on this, and were vilified for doing so. When AFDI ran ads highlighting the mistreatment of gays in Islamic law, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which is its city council, issued a resolution condemning not that mistreatment, but our ads. Gay advocates such as Theresa Sparks and Chris Stedman attacked us for daring to call attention to the institutionalized mistreatment of gays under Islamic law. Their gay advocacy doesn’t extend to standing up to Sharia oppression of gays, even though that oppression is far more virulent and violent than anything from “right-wing extremists” in the U.S. And you can’t blame them: given the Leftist/jihadist alliance, it’s clear that if they spoke out against Sharia mistreatment of gays, they would no longer be invited to the best parties, and might even be branded as “right-wing.” Their moral cowardice and duplicity, however, are obvious, and monstrous in the light of what has just happened in Orlando.

Will gay leadership wake up to the jihad threat now? Probably not. Instead, they will issue a call for gun control and a declaration of solidarity with Muslims who are experiencing backlash, and leave it at that.

“‘We consider this an act of terrorism’: Suspected Islamic extremist shoots dead at least 20 dead at Florida gay club after bursting in ‘wearing a suicide vest’ and taking hostages – injuring a further 42,” by Matt Hunter and Jenny Stanton,, June 12, 2016:

A suspected Islamic extremist wielding an assault rifle and a handgun has killed about 20 people after taking party-goers hostage inside a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The gunman was carrying a suspicious device, possibly a suicide vest, when he opened fire inside Pulse in the early hours of this morning.

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said authorities have not determined the exact number of people killed, but that ‘approximately 20’ have died. Another 42 people were taken to hospital.

An FBI spokesman said the mass shooting is being investigated as an act of terrorism. He explained authorities are looking into whether this was an act of domestic or international terror, and if the shooter was a lone wolf.

Police said the gunman was believed to be in his 20s was not a local man, and the FBI believe he may have ‘leanings to radical Islamic terrorism’.

The killings took place less than four miles from where The Voice singer and YouTube star Christina Grimmie, 22, was shot dead at The Plaza Live in Orlando on Friday.

Party-goers were urged to ‘get out and keep running’ as bullets started flying at around 2am local time.

Eyewitnesses described the gunman having a bomb strapped to himself when he started shooting today.

At around 6.00 local time (11am GMT) police said on Twitter: ‘Pulse Shooting: The shooter inside the club is dead.’ Officers described it as a ‘mass shooting’.

One man who said he was inside the club posted that the shooting broke out around 2 a.m. and that he heard about 40 shots being fired.

Police earlier carried out an controlled explosion at 5.15 local time (10.15am GMT today). but it is not yet clear whether that was linked with the gunman’s death.

It was thought that at least one hostage had been locked in a bathroom with gunshot wounds.

Around 100 officers were involved in the hostage situation before the gunman was killed.

During the gunfire, an officer was shot, but he was saved by his helmet.

Local TV reporter Stewart Moore said that more than 20 people had been shot with an assault rifle.

Jon Alamo said he was at the back of one of the club’s rooms when a man holding a weapon came into the front of the room.

‘I heard 20, 40, 50 shots,’ Alamo said. ‘The music stopped.’

Club-goer Rob Rick said it happened around, 2 a.m., just before closing time. ‘Everybody was drinking their last sip,’ he said.

He estimated more than 100 people were still inside when he heard shots, got on the ground and crawled toward a DJ booth.

A bouncer knocked down a partition between the club area and an area in the back where only workers are allowed. People inside were able to then escape through the back of the club.

Christopher Hansen said he was in the VIP lounge when he started hearing gunshots.

‘I was thinking, are you kidding me? So I just dropped down. I just said please, please, please, I want to make it out,’ he said. ‘And when I did, I saw people shot. I saw blood. You hope and pray you don’t get shot.’

He continued to hear shooting even after he emerged, where police were telling people to back away from the club. He saw injured people being tended to across the street.

Mina Justice was outside the club trying to contact her 30-year-old son Eddie, who texted her when the shooting happened and asked her to call police.

He told her he ran into a bathroom with other club patrons to hide. He then texted her: ‘He’s coming.’

‘The next text said: `He has us, and he’s in here with us,” she said. ‘That was the last conversation.’

Ricardo Almodovar was in the nightclub. He said: ‘Shooter opened fire at around 2.00am. People on the dance floor and bar got down on the floor and some of us who were near the bar and back exit managed to go out through the outdoor area and just ran.

‘I am safely home and hoping everyone gets home safely as well.’ Juan Rivera said on Twitter: ‘Never seen so many dead bodies on the floor, God is good that my friends and I didn’t get shot’.

Anthony Torres heard people screaming that others in the nightclub were dead.

Rosie Feba was in the club with her girlfriend and described the moment the shooting happened to the Orlando Sentinal.

She said: ‘Everyone was getting on the floor.I told her [girlfriend] I didn’t think it was real, I thought it was just part of the music, until I saw fire coming out of his gun.’

A police dispatcher described the incident as an ‘active shooting’. Officers are advising locals to stay away from the area.

He said: ‘There are injuries. I am not sure if there are any deceased at this time.’

‘Officers are going in to search the building and to get people out,’ the dispatcher said.

The police department posted on their official Twitter account: ‘Multiple injuries. Stay away from the area.’

Pulse nightclub said on its Facebook account: ‘Everyone get out of Pulse and keep running.’

Dozens of officers and medics are at the scene including Orlando Fire Department’s bomb squad and hazardous material team.

Police have not given any further updates on the hostage situation or the gunman….
89  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 10, 2016, 10:00:09 AM

I must respectfully disagree with you.  Democrats are ROUTINELY much more vulgar than Trump has ever been.  The media simply don't focus on it endlessly - in fact they treat it as if it's no big deal.  Witness Joe Biden's comments about Indians, Harry Reid about Obama being a "Clean, articulate black guy," etc., etc., etc.  This idea that independents are SO OFFENDED by vulgarity and will go running straight into the Democrats' arms at the first mean word out of a Republican's mouth is absurd.  The Democrats OWN racist, bigoted and vulgar commentary, and it surely hasn't hurt them with independents in any of the last several elections.  It's high time someone called out the Democrats for exactly the scum they are - and simply told the truth about how they have destroyed the inner cities of every place they have controlled politically for 50 years or more.  I repeat - no Republican has had the balls to simply do this.  Trump does.
90  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Donald Trump on: June 10, 2016, 08:59:35 AM

My point (and Mathew Vadum's in the article below) is that Trump is defending himself, and has very good reasons for doing so.  Why Republicans have this obsession with "decorum," when clearly the Democrats have ZERO concern with this - and use it quite effectively against Republicans routinely - is beyond me.  It's as if Republicans have chosen to unilaterally disarm themselves in a war - and that's exactly what it is - make no mistake - and the enemy is quite willing and eager to take up those weapons and use them against us, knowing we will not respond in kind.  Donald Trump recognizes the folly of this, and refuses to go along with this suicidal mindset.  He will fight fire with fire, and is not afraid (unlike most Republicans) to do so.  I can't wait to hear his speech on the Clintons on Monday laying out the long, ugly history of their criminal behaviour and record of poor "decorum" that makes Trump look like a saint in comparison.  No other Republican has the balls to do this.  This is why Republicans continue to lose elections.  They have no idea how to fight.
91  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Stewart Rhodes: Patriots Must Step Up to Protect Americans Against Assault. on: June 09, 2016, 07:45:33 PM

An article posted in the morning hours of June 09, 2016, [HERE] is titled:

San Jose Undercover Cops: “Trump Supporters were running for their lives – We were unable to help”…

In light of several key factors arising from the article at Conservative Treehouse, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes wishes to issue a statement, which I will post below.  However, let us first set the tone by viewing a video clip from YouTube:

In addition to posting the above video in their article, the “Conservative Treehouse” also has furnished some police reports from City of San Jose, California, which include —

Under Cover San Jose Officer #1: […] Throughout the afternoon and evening I watched several individuals wearing “Trump” articles of clothing getting punched, kicked and pushed.

Under Cover #2: […] I was assigned to the Covert Response Unit and dressed in a plainclothes capacity. … As time came closer to 18:00 more protesters arrived; mostly younger males and females between the ages of 14 to 25.  … some began burning the United States flag in the middle of the street. It became inherently dangerous for anyone wearing a hat or T-Shirt in support of Trump.  I observed Trump supporters being spit on, objects being thrown at them, punched, kicked and even robbed of their personal belongings.  In these instances I observed victims running for their lives because protesters began adopting the mob mentality and attacking people.  I was unable to make contact with any of these victims due to my undercover capacity and fear for my own safety as well.

I strongly recommend going to the original article and following their embedded links, where readers will learn about the Mayor’s complicity in the police stand-down and the official policy for police to allow this to take place outside a Trump for President rally on June 02.  Example:

San Jose Police Chief Garcia admitted his officers were instructed not to stop violent protesters from beating the Trump rally attendees. In addition the San Jose Mayor has openly admitted to approving the San Jose police departments plans, and blamed Donald Trump for having the audacity to have a rally in “his city“.

Do go to the original site and check the other embedded links to get yet more insight into what transpired, and did not transpire but should have. And if you want to go up a level or two in your perception of today’s America, check out Michael Shaw’s outstanding work on the Globalization of California.

Message From Stewart Rhodes

No American, anywhere, whether you agree with their views or not, should be attacked for expressing their God given (and Constitution protected) rights of free speech and assembly, and their right to participate in our political process. And no police officer, who has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, should obey any order to not protect the rights of people to peaceably assemble and express their views, and should refuse any order to stand by and do nothing as violent, criminal thugs assault Americans who are simply exercising their rights. It is a disgrace to have the police obey such orders, and an act of treason for the politicians to give such orders.

If officers are so outnumbered that they are concerned for their own safety, that is one thing, but to not intervene because some oath breaking, partisan scumbag politician orders them to stand down, so the politician’s thuggish foot-soldiers have a free hand to terrorize and assault other Americans, is inexcusable. Whatever happened to “Protect and Serve”? The fundamental justification for having police, or having government at all, is to protect people against predatory violence. These violent communist and La Raza racist thugs are the true “Brownshirts” of modern America, attempting to use violence and intimidation to shut down free speech and assembly.

If the police will not protect Americans from violent assault meant to punish them for their political views, and meant to silence them by force, then Americans will have to protect themselves, and each other, from such violence.

I call on all patriotic Americans to step up and protect the weak, the elderly, the vulnerable among them against these thugs, wherever they strike. Veterans, you have a particular obligation and duty, under your oath, to step up and protect your fellow Americans by stepping in between them and these thugs.  In the absence of police protection, Veterans need to step in the gap and form up five to eight man security teams who can serve as escorts and rescue people from being beaten.

As anyone versed in defensive tactics or combatives will tell you, whenever anyone is sucker punched there is a very real and serious risk that they will fall and then hit their head on the concrete, on a parking block, on a curb, on a parked car, etc and that secondary impact can, and does, result in death.  A person can also be stomped and kicked to death by a mob in short order. These are deadly threat mob assaults and must be treated as such.

Anyone attending any event targeted by these radical leftist extremists needs to realize they are in a tactical situation that requires them to prepare for the worst and to take steps to protect themselves. They should go in groups of four or more, and among them needs to be people who are fit enough, and trained enough, to hold their own in a melee. If you are a fit, strong veteran, you have a duty to be the “sheepdog” and walk with those who are less able to defend themselves. Go in groups, and be ready to defend yourselves and others.

Any Oath Keeper who goes out and protects people who are under such threat of assault is doing the right thing. And we need to be willing to do that for ANY American under such threat, even if we disagree with their political views (for example, even if you disagree with Democrats who will be attending the DNC, or any other Democrat gathering, you should be willing to protect them if they are assaulted by violent radicals, and the same for Republicans attending the RNC). This org is non-partisan for a very good reason. We must stand for the rights of all Americans, at all times, in all places.

When we stepped up in Ferguson, MO and protected Natalie, of Natalie’s Cakes and More (who happens to be a black woman), and her neighbors, we didn’t ask them what political party they belonged to, or what their politics were. It didn’t matter. We protected them because it was the right thing to do, and because no American should be assaulted, murdered by arsonists, or raped, robbed, or looted. Same here.

I will be holding an urgent Oath Keepers BOD and leadership call tomorrow night to discuss this situation and how we can help. But all patriots, regardless of what group they are in, need to step up and protect people against such violence and attempts to use force to chill their speech.

These are intolerable acts of thuggery that must be stopped.

For the Republic,

Stewart Rhodes

PS – the San Jose Police Department has issued a statement, defending their inaction, saying:

While several physical assaults did occur, the police personnel on scene had the difficult task of weighing the need to immediately apprehend the suspect(s) against the possibility that police action involving the use of physical force under the circumstances would further insight the crowd and produce more violent behavior.

What a load of bull.  I just got off the phone with veteran police officers and tactical trainers Greg McWhirter (former Indianapolis cop and current Montana corrections) and John Karriman (Missouri Police Academy Defensive Tactics instructor) and both of them stated that standing down is exactly opposite of what the San Jose police should have done, and only emboldened the thugs, producing more violent behavior, since the thugs could clearly see that the police would do nothing to stop them.  The right answer was to drop a hammer on the first thugs to commit assault, including using less than lethal rubber baton shotgun rounds if needed (thugs hate and fear shotguns) and pepper balls.  Make an example of a few, and the rest tend to back off (just like any gaggle of bullies).  The excuse given by the department is akin to a cowardly husband saying “don’t resist Martha, or it will make them angry, just let them have their way” which usually results in rape and murder of both of them.   It gives the thugs a green light and the thrill of doing as they wish right in front of the police.  What’s next?   Will “politically correct” cops let someone be beaten to death in front of them out of fear of inciting the crowd to more violent behavior?   Given how fast someone can be beaten to death by a mob, that nobody was killed here was just blind luck, and certainly not because of anything the San Jose Police Department did.

92  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Trump is Right to be Suspicious of Judge... on: June 09, 2016, 01:54:03 PM
Trump Is Right to be Suspicious of Judge

And sorry, lefties: “La Raza” means “Master Race.”

June 9, 2016 - Matthew Vadum -

Donald Trump has every right to question the impartiality of a “pro-Mexican” judge presiding over the Trump University lawsuit and doing so does not make him a racist or a bigot of any kind.

The stampede of weak-kneed Republican office-holders tripping over each other in a frenzied rush to denounce the presumptive GOP nominee for president shows how the Left’s pathological ideas about race continue to dominate the thinking even of so-called conservatives who ought to know better. Yell “racist!” and Republicans run for the hills.

As Pat Buchanan opines, “[t]o many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.”

To recap, the real estate magnate has said that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an Indiana-born U.S. citizen whose parents emigrated from Mexico, is issuing unfair rulings against him in a high-profile class-action lawsuit. Trump claims the trial judge’s prejudice relates to his promise to crack down on illegal immigration and build a wall along the border with Mexico to keep illegal aliens out.

Curiel ordered that internal documents from Trump University be made public. The ruling caused elation among reporters, including 20 from the Washington Post who are digging for dirt about the candidate, as they began fantasizing about winning the Pulitzer Prize for taking down a Republican presidential candidate.

Trump said it is "just common sense" that Curiel’s connections to Mexico explain his anti-Trump rulings.

"He's a member of a club or society very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he's got bias," Trump said Sunday. "This judge has treated me very unfairly. He's treated me in a hostile manner, and there's something going on." Trump also said it is “possible” a Muslim judge might also be biased against him because he advocates a temporary ban on the entry of Muslims into the U.S.

Trump is right. Judges can be influenced, sometimes inappropriately, by their life experiences.

Besides, Trump was merely echoing remarks by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a person of Puerto Rican ancestry, who said her ethnicity and upbringing affect her rulings. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

So if Trump’s comments were racist – and in this writer’s opinion they were not – then so were Sotomayor’s. Sotomayor is met with applause; Trump is met with sputtering vituperation.

Despite the hysterical accusations against Trump coming from politicians in both parties, it needs to be pointed out that he never said that there is something about being Mexican or of Mexican ancestry that makes a person incapable of being an impartial judge. It’s not a congenital or a genetic thing. He said that this particular Obama-appointed judge, Gonzalo Curiel, who belongs to a left-wing Latino lawyers’ group, has an axe to grind because his parents came from Mexico.

Curiel is a member of a group called San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA). SDLRLA’s website identifies National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a race-baiting leftist group that strongly condemns Trump’s immigration policy proposals, as part of its “community.” The group is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) which called Trump “racist” last year for promising to secure the border and vowed to target Trump’s “business interests” with boycotts.

Identity politics and whiny racial grievance-mongering is what SDLRLA and possibly every group with la raza (“the race” in English) in its name is about.

The very concept of la raza is racist, but more on that in a moment.

Trump is right to be concerned about the fact that in 2014, when Curiel certified the class action, he appointed Robbins Geller to act for the plaintiffs. That firm has reportedly shelled out $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez (R), said the circumstances of the case “at least raise a legitimate question to be considered.”

“Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he’s getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them — and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan political reasons.”

The litigation deals with consumer complaints regarding the now-defunct Trump University, a pricey 3-day seminar about selling real estate. The plaintiffs allege that the school was a scam but plenty of former students give it top marks.

It’s not like Trump can blow off questions about the case because it is before the courts. The legal case has become a political issue and Trump is absolutely entitled to defend himself. His opponents bark endlessly about it every day. During primary season, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called it a “fake university” and used it to support his argument that Trump was a “con artist.”

The presidential campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton has been pounding Trump for days. “Trump U is devastating because it’s a metaphor for his whole campaign: promising hardworking Americans a way to get ahead, but all based on lies,” campaign press secretary Brian Fallon wrote on Twitter.

The great irony in all of this is that the left-wing Latino groups accusing Trump of racism are the real racists.

Created by the far-left Ford Foundation in 1968, the National Council of La Raza argues that la raza “is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.” President Janet Murguia claims la raza “simply refers to the Hispanic people and it is a nod to our common heritage.”

Similarly, the SDLRLA claims la raza means “the people” or “the community.”

According to Google Translate, the Spanish noun raza means “race, breed, colorcast.” If these radical groups wanted to express the idea of “people” in their names they could have chosen gente, pueblo, personas, habitantes, nación, or súbditos. For “community,” they could have selected comunidad, colectividad, sociedad, común, union, or mancomunidad.

Of course, Murguia and Judge Curiel’s group are lying. La raza can be translated as “the master race,” and the concept of the “Hispanic” was only invented in 1972 by President Richard Nixon, four years after NCLR was founded.

As Mark Krikorian of the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has explained, the concept of la raza emerged as Nazism gained steam in the 1920s and was the brainchild of former Mexican secretary of public education Jose Vasconcelos. The politician and thinker has been called the “cultural caudillo” of the Mexican Revolution.

La raza “can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority,” New Mexico Highlands University professors Guillermo Lux (history) and Maurilio Vigil (political science) wrote.

They continued:

“Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case.”

(Mestizo, by the way, is a Spanish word used in Latin America to refer to someone who is of mixed race, usually the child of a person of Spanish descent and an American Indian. One third of U.S. Hispanics identify as mixed-race while mestizos “represent a racial majority in Mexico[.]”)

So la raza really does mean “the Master Race, but rather than based on notions of racial purity, La Raza’s inherent, biological superiority is based on its hybridity, on the mixing in Latin America of, in Vasconcelos’s words, ‘the black, the Indian, the Mongol, and the white,’” writes Krikorian. La raza really means that “Hispanics, and specifically Mestizos, are superior to those of us unfortunate enough not to be part of the cosmic race.”

La raza “was a source of pride for many Latinos, the most militant of whom adopted the motto: ‘Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada’ — ‘For the race, everything, outside the race, nothing,’" according to Jerry Kammer, also of CIS. This la raza ideology animates the reconquista movement which aspires to return the territory the U.S. took from Mexico to Mexican sovereignty. Some radicals wish to recreate Aztlan.

A hero of the Left, labor organizer Cesar Chavez, a natural born American of Mexican ancestry, thought la raza was a dangerous, un-American concept.

“I hear about la raza more and more,” he said.

“Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and our fear is that it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican.”

That Chavez viewed this kind of Mexican race-consciousness as destructive was reinforced by his lieutenant LeRoy Chatfield around 1970.

"Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It's phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. … He said to me just the other day, 'Can't they understand that that's just the way Hitler started?' A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit's sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it's related to Hitler's concept."

Donald Trump may not even realize just how right he happens to be.

93  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Why Do Our Leaders Sing the Praises of Ramadan??? on: June 09, 2016, 10:59:44 AM
Hugh Fitzgerald: You Don’t Have To Be Muslim To Love Ramadan

June 8, 2016 3:48 pm By Hugh Fitzgerald

Why is it that Western politicians, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and David Cameron, think they must send out messages of such heartfelt solidarity to the world’s Muslims on Ramadan? Of course they send out messages as well for Diwali (Hindus and Buddhists), Passover (Jews), Christmas and Easter (Christians), but not with the suggestion that this or that religious holiday is somehow meant to include all of us as well-wishers, when some of us only wish to be counted out, or – equally disturbing – to sing the praises of a religious observance that is insufficiently understood.

Why does Ramadan appear to get special treatment? And why do these politicians presume to speak for us, as when Hillary Clinton sends a brief message that starts “As we begin Ramadan,” with that “we” implicating non-Muslims in what is, after all, a religious observance for Muslims only. That “we” is properly a “they.” Why did she not write, more accurately because less inclusively: “As Ramadan begins, I wish all Muslims….”or “As Ramadan begins for Muslims, I wish them…,” thus being polite, but no longer implying that “we” all share in Ramadan?

David Cameron offered an especially treacly and “inclusive” Ramadan greeting this year, and the very first sentence of his message to Muslims everywhere insists on implicating all of us in what should only be their epithet:

    It’s the holy month of Ramadan…

Why did Cameron have to say that Ramadan is “holy” to non-Muslims? Why could he not have said “It’s Ramadan, that month holy to Muslims,” or “It’s the month of Ramadan, holy to Muslims”?

    – a time when mosques open their doors, community centers welcome in their neighbors, and even churches and synagogues offer up their spaces as Muslims break their fasts – and people of all faiths and none are often asked to join.” (But these open-to-all iftars are not just for simple breaking-bread fellowship, but occasions for propagandizing, or even proselytizing, for Islam, as those who have attended these affairs well know.)

    Coventry Cathedral is holding its own multi-faith iftar. In Manchester, they’re combining an iftar with England’s European Championships appearance. And homeless shelters up and down the country are holding ‘Iftars with the Homeless’.

    Of course, fasting is what comes to mind when we think of Ramadan.

Not all Muslims agree; what comes to mind for some of them, when they think of Ramadan, is that it’s the perfect time to conduct Jihad: “The month of Ramadan in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the righteous ancestors was a month of forthcoming. The greatest battles during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) occurred in this blessed month, the month of jihad, zeal, and enthusiasm.” For more on Ramadan as the month of Jihad, see here.

    It’s part of the month that really puts Muslims’ faith to the test, especially during these long, warm days. But there is much more to it. There is all the energy and money people donate to those who are less fortunate, and all the extra time spent in prayer and contemplation.

Cameron ought to know, but may not, that Muslim charity is directed only toward fellow Muslims; he ought to have said “all the energy and money Muslims devote to less fortunate fellow Muslims” — which changes the sense considerably.

    Uppermost in all our minds…

“All our minds”? Are we all Muslims now?

    …this Ramadan are those whose lives have been torn apart by the twin evils of Assad and Daesh,…

Are these equivalent evils — the Alawite aligned with Shi’a Muslim Iran and hereditary despot, Assad, and the Sunni Muslim fanatics of Daesh (the Islamic State)? Or are the latter far more dangerous to non-Muslims than the former?

    …all those families spending this holy month…

The epithet is again imposed on non-Muslims for whom Ramadan is not “holy.” Why?

    …in refugee camps, mourning loved ones, yearning to go back to school or to work…

News of the scandal of the “Syrian refugees,” so many of whom are not from Syria, but assorted Muslims from as far away as Pakistan and Afghanistan, many of them seeking “refuge” in those European countries offering the most generous benefits, where they need not trouble themselves to seek work, has apparently not reached 10 Downing Street. Just consider the demonstration of the Muslim migrants’ “yearning for work” in Sweden where, last year, out of 162,000 “refugees” who arrived, exactly 464 are now employed. Some yearning.

    …wondering whether they’ll ever return home again.

And how many of those Muslim “refugees” have given any sign, over the last decade, of wanting to return home from Europe?

    Our thoughts, whatever our backgrounds or beliefs, are with them.

Again Cameron presumes to speak for all of us: “Our thoughts.” Notice, too, the casual feelgood dismissal of differences – “whatever our backgrounds or beliefs” — which no Muslim would endorse.

    And we must continue to support the people of Syria and the region, as we work towards a lasting political solution. Because that’s who we are as a country. We won’t walk on by again.

    So this Ramadan, let’s renew our resolve to help those victims. Let’s continue to come together for iftars and community events. Let’s celebrate the proud, multi-racial, multi-faith democracy we live in.

Cameron attributes to Ramadan a significance for non-Muslims that it does not as yet possess: it’s because it’s Ramadan that, he suggests, we renew, we continue, we celebrate. That is, all of us, in first-person-plural harmony. He might have written more to the real point: “Both Muslims and non-Muslims should renew their resolve to fight fanaticism and to ensure that minorities everywhere are safe.” Not a sentiment to which Muslims could openly object, even if they know to whom – themselves — it is really being addressed. And the distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim is usefully maintained.

    To everyone in Britain and around the world, Ramadan Mubarak.

Ramadan Mubarak “to everyone,” not just Muslims? Are we all Muslims now? And greetings not only in Britain but “around the world”? Why not at least limit greetings, if greetings there must be: “To Muslims in Britain, Ramadan Mubarak”?

Muslims would not have taken kindly to having Cameron presume to speak for them by having them appear to share in his Christmas or Easter or Passover or Diwali greetings, and he has been careful not to do so. Muslims are taught not to acknowledge the religious observances of others. But he does presume to speak for all non-Muslims in his specious sharing of the observance of Ramadan.

As for his “proud, multi-racial, multi-faith democracy,” this is a pollyannish figment of Cameron’s imaginative multicultural boosterism. Not everyone in Britain has forgotten the Muslim terrorist attacks on the buses and Underground, the butchering of Fusilier Rigby, and the sex-grooming gangs up and down the land, all contributing to a justified and growing anxiety over the Muslim presence in the country.

Barack Obama has issued his own equally fulsome Ramadan greetings:

    For many…

Should this not be “For many Muslims…”?

    …this month is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities.

To repeat yet again: “compassion” — i.e., charity — “for those less fortunate” is, in Islam, limited to fellow Muslims; Muslims are not supposed to give alms (zakat) to non-Muslims. This is often overlooked, because many non-Muslims are unaware of it, and even if they do know about the rules for Muslim “charity,” it seems churlish for non-Muslims to mention them (“Muslims are supposed to aid only other Muslims”), and Obama does nothing to set things straight. He might, however, simply have omitted that misleading phrase about “compassion for those less fortunate,” or he might have praised Muslims for “making a special effort during Ramadan to support less fortunate members of their own community,” which is less stark than “Muslims offering support for less fortunate Muslims.”

As for Ramadan being the perfect time to “focus on…unity across communities,” Obama presumably means a “unity” of Muslims with other faith groups. But Muslims are taught to regard themselves as the “best of peoples,” and non-Muslims as the “vilest of creatures” for whom all manner of punishments await. What “unity” could there possibly be between the “best of peoples” and the “vilest of creatures”?

Obama also remarks on the history of Muslims in America: “There are those whose heritage can be traced back to the very beginning of our nation, as well as those who have only just arrived.” This fits in with incessant Muslim attempts at backdating their presence in America, to insert themselves into the historical narrative much earlier, as a means of legitimizing their presence, and then pushing that “Islam has always been part of America” nonsense. This campaign reached its absurd zenith when State’s Phyllis McIntosh issued a report in 2004 entitled “Islamic Influence Runs Deep in American Culture.” In this report, she found a non-existent Muslim in Columbus’s crew: “Islamic influences may date back to the very beginning of American history. It is likely that Christopher Columbus, who discovered America in 1492, charted his way across the Atlantic Ocean with the help of an Arab navigator” (flatly untrue). “May date back” and “It is likely that” are weasel words designed to protect from criticism a claim that is made up entirely out of whole cloth. Then there is the other dubious claim — made with very slight supporting evidence — that, among the African slaves brought to America were some who had been Muslims in Africa. But even were that to have been true, a handful of Muslim slaves, living in an overwhelmingly Christian environment, outside a Muslim community, without either mosques or the texts necessary to help perpetuate the faith, would have had their Islam extinguished by the next generation.

In fact, a scarcely discernible, and very tiny, Muslim presence came very late to America. The first community of Muslims to have founded a mosque in the United States did so in a building borrowed for that purpose, in 1929; the first building erected as a mosque dates to 1935. Obama ought to have left out claims that Muslims arrived “at the very beginning of our nation,” rather than transmit what is a staple of Muslim propaganda. Or he might have written, with studied vagueness: “While many American Muslims have only just arrived, others can trace their heritage to earlier periods of our history.”

Then there is Obama’s parting remark about wishing “to honor the contributions of Muslims in America and across the world.” I have no idea what impressive contributions he has in mind, but along with others “in America and across the world,” I await with bated breath President Obama’s detailed list of Muslim Achievers.

To sum up:

Despite their extravagant expressions of solidarity with, and admiration for, Muslims on the occasion of Ramadan, nowhere in their remarks do either Cameron or Obama demonstrate real understanding of Islam. They should be – are they? — aware that Muslims are forbidden to reciprocate, that is, to offer similar greetings to non-Muslims on the occasion of any non-Muslim religious holiday – e.g., Christmas, Easter, Passover, Diwali. Some Muslims become incensed even at the non-religious observances of non-Muslims; campaigns by clerics to convince Muslims not to participate in such innocuous holidays as Valentine’s Day, or Thanksgiving, are not unknown. That being the case, there should be even less felt need or sense of obligation for non-Muslims to offer up such fulsome praise for this Muslim religious observance; a few sentences would have been quite enough.

In their choice of words, both Cameron and Obama make it appear that Muslim charity is extended to non-Muslims, but the only sanctioned object of Muslim alms-giving (zakat), during Ramadan (as at all other times), is fellow Muslims. And neither one explains why, during this month which – Obama informs us – “is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience,” Muslim violence does not recede, but surges.

One hopes that other commentators — freer to speak the truth than do our leaders, or those “taking a leadership role” — will continue to correct the record, dialing back on this insensate Infidel enthusiasm for Ramadan, both silly and sinister, before it becomes “not just for Muslims anymore.”
94  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ann Coulter: "Shocker! Media Calls Trump Racist!" on: June 08, 2016, 09:22:39 PM

June 8, 2016 - Ann Coulter.

Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel's persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it's because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media -- and most of the GOP -- have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he'll build a wall. Now they're outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he'll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens' "human rights" are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association -- "La Raza" meaning THE RACE.

Let's pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people -- much less one with the words "THE RACE" in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I've done some research and it turns out ... THAT'S ALL WE'VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking "white judges" and "all-white" juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago -- that's not an error; I didn't mean to type "decades" and it came out "weeks" -- the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: "All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence."

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the "perception" of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck's entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can't question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford's death sentence was the "all-white jury."

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he'd shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he'd had a .38 in his waistband -- the murder weapon was a .38 -- and the gunshot residue on Ford's hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the "real killers" were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here's how the Times described Ford's trial: "A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race."

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a "white judge" or "all-white jury," and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called "THE RACE."

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women's and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers' opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman's fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left's religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that's "textbook racism," according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we're talking about American blacks, there's a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You're not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her "wise Latina" speech, in which she said "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

But Trump is a "racist" for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that "[a]s a Hispanic," Restrepo would bring "ethnic ... diversity to the court."

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it's vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can't be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that's "racist."

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE'S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don't bring up everything we've said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They're betting they can intimidate Republicans -- and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That's right, Wolf, I don't have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans think they're getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.

95  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Hillary - Career Criminal... on: June 08, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
Hillary Clinton has a decades-long documented history of dishonesty and outright disregard for the law.  Let's not forget that she was kicked off the subcommittee investigating Watergate by a DEMOCRAT, who called her "extremely dishonest."  That the press has covered for her all these years is despicable.  Donald Trump is correct that she should not even be eligible to run for President considering her history.  What she has done makes what Richard Nixon did pale in comparison - and yet he was crucified in the press and in the court of public opinion for those relatively minor offenses.  How far we have sunk as a nation from a moral sense when 70% of Democrats believe that Hillary should continue to run EVEN IF SHE IS INDICTED. 

I personally find the oft-repeated refrain that Trump is equally as bad as Hillary both laughable and disgusting.  A Hillary presidency would consign this nation to a 4 or 8-year continuation of Barack Obama's policies, from which we would never recover in our lifetimes.  That the anti-Trumpers can't see this obvious fact and see the obvious and easy choice to be made between the two bodes very badly for the future of this country.
96  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Spencer: Ramadan: Month of Jihad... on: June 07, 2016, 05:24:16 PM
Ramadan: Month of Jihad

As Muslims struggle to increase their devotion to Allah, expect more mass murder.

June 7, 2016
Robert Spencer

Another Ramadan is upon us, and no less an authority on Islam than Barack Hussein Obama has assured us that “for many, this month is an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities.” Meanwhile, a Muslim whom Obama would disparage as a “violent extremist” who has hijacked the religion of peace, Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, called on Muslims to use this Ramadan to “get prepared, be ready … to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers…especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America.”

Ramadan 2016 began with the news that a group of Muslims in Jordan were so filled with pious fervor that they murdered five Jordanian intelligence officers in an attack on a security office. The perpetrators may have been acting upon the understanding of Ramadan that a jihad group enunciated back in 2012: “The month of Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators. One of our groups aided by Allah managed to bomb a bus full of Jewish tourists, plunderers of holy lands, after careful tracking. The holy war is not confined to a particular arena and we shall fight the Jews and the Americans until they leave the land of Islam.”

So which is it? Is Ramadan a time to “an opportunity to focus on reflection and spiritual growth, forgiveness, patience and resilience, compassion for those less fortunate, and unity across communities,” or is it “a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers”?

In fact, it’s both. During Ramadan, Muslims are exhorted to renew and deepen their devotion to Allah. Hence it is a time when they’re supposed to grow more generous and kind toward their fellow Muslims. However, the Qur’an says: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves” (48:29). If the Ramadan imperative is to become more devout, the Muslim who applies himself diligently to the Ramadan observance will simultaneously become more both merciful to his fellow Muslims and more severe against the unbelievers.

Murdering infidels thus doesn’t contradict the spirit of Ramadan; it embodies it.
The Kavkaz Center, a website operated by Chechen jihadists, explained in a 2010 article that the idea of Ramadan as a time for warfare against infidels went back to Muhammad’s time: “The month of Ramadan in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the righteous ancestors was a month of forthcoming. The greatest battles during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) occurred in this blessed month, the month of jihad, zeal and enthusiasm.”

Obama is, true to form, severely misleading the American people when he focuses exclusively upon Ramadan’s exhortation to charity (the part of the Qur’an verse about being “merciful” to one’s fellow Muslims) without mentioning its imperative to terrorize infidels (the other part, about being “severe” toward the unbelievers). But as we have seen already in Jordan, all too many Muslims around the world are fully aware of that part of the Ramadan observance, and are ready to carry it out.

It is folly to pretend that the aspect of Ramadan that makes it a more dangerous time for non-Muslims doesn’t exist: dangerous, suicidal folly. But the fact that no one in the public square even thinks to question Obama’s Ramadan congratulations, which roll around every year in the same form, shows how widespread that folly is. Obama’s Ramadan message for this year concluded: “I can think of no better way to mark my Administration’s last celebration of Ramadan as President than to honor the contributions of Muslims in America and across the world for Eid. Ramadan Kareem.”

What contributions of Muslims in America? He has alluded to them before, but once again he didn’t bother to list any, and of course no one asked. That Muslims have made great contributions to America (beyond spurring tremendous developments in airline security, that is) is simply an unquestionable dogma of our silly and stupid age; no one needs ask the President for examples, because those contributions are taken as axiomatic, with only “Islamophobes” questioning them. That there aren’t any actual such contributions is an inconvenient fact, to be sure, but one so thoroughly obscured by propaganda that everyone feels it can be safely ignored.

The cognitive dissonance here equals that about Ramadan itself. And as our Ramadan follies and willful blindness continue, more Infidels will die.
97  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The False Comparison of Trump to Hillary... on: June 07, 2016, 12:00:35 PM
The False Comparison of Trump to Hillary

Unveiling the false equivalence.

June 7, 2016
Bruce Thornton

A lot of Republicans still upset over Donald Trump winning the nomination resort to a false equivalence between Trump and Clinton in order to justify sitting the election out or even voting for Hillary.

Take a recent example by the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. First he lists Hillary’s manifold sins that Trump is innocent of: lying to the parents of the Benghazi victims, promising to nominate hard-left jurists to the Supreme Court, and supporting Obamas’ high-tax economics and unconstitutional amnesty of illegal aliens.

Then Ponnuru offers a catalogue of Trump’s sins Hillary hasn’t committed: mocking a reporter’s disability, indulging a preposterous conspiracy theory about Ted Cruz’s father and Lee Harvey Oswald, threatening a trade war with China, or threatening war crimes against the families of terrorists. Trump’s list presumably balances Hillary’s flaws, in order to make the point that both Trump and Hillary are equally distasteful, thus making the election a Hobson’s choice for principled conservatives.

But this comparison is false and misleading, for Trump and Clinton have had very different careers with different obligations and responsibilities.

Most obviously, Donald Trump is a private citizen who has never held public office. He is a businessman in a world where decorum and class often aren’t as important as sharp elbows and tough negotiating skills, where making a profit is more important than consistency or sparing people’s feelings. His goal is to make money, and his flamboyant life-style is our culture’s sign of his skills and success at doing so. Moreover, his flaws of personality and character, like his rude bluster and outrageous claims, are not, alas, that exceptional or different from those of millions of other private citizens, which may explain his populist appeal. And in his line of work, especially as a reality television star, such braggadocio and insensitivity may be assets. Intellectuals of more delicate sensibilities and refined manners may not like such déclassé qualities or grubby dealings, but most of them don’t live in a hard, risky world of tough negotiations and profit and loss.

Hillary Clinton is in a very different line of work from Trump’s. Her whole life has been spent as what we laughably call a public servant. In other words, she is supposed to be working not for profit or her own status and enrichment, but for the public weal. For progressives, that means striving for “social justice,” income equality, the abolition of prejudice and bigotry, the emancipation of women, the improvement of the middle class, and the salvation of the planet from the merchants of death by carbon. This is what she tells us over and over, and this is her case for why she should be president.

But while Trump’s character flaws have been assets in his profession, Hillary’s arrogant sense of entitlement, relentless money-grubbing, chronic mendacity, and obvious dislike of people other than her minions all undercut her claims to be a public servant, and help explain why she has serially failed at that role.

Of course, some presidents have shared the same flaws as Hillary, but they at least showed some restraint in exploiting their position for private gain, and at least could pretend to be a warm “people person,” as the ghastly phrase goes. Even Richard Nixon appeared on Laugh In. But Hillary has been inept at camouflaging her unseemly ambitions and even pretending to be a caring tribune of the people––in contrast, say, to Elizabeth Warren, who is just as much a hypocritical one-percenter as Hillary, but manages to come across as sincerely passionate. With Trump, however, you know exactly what you’re getting.

Finally, if a businessman like Trump fails, he reaps most of the damage. But if a “public servant” like Hillary fails, the security and interests of every single one of us are damaged, even as she advances her own political and fiscal interests as much as Trump does. Trump’s alleged shenanigans with Trump University are nothing compared to Hillary’s exploitation of her position as Secretary of State to steer money to her foundation, which is to say to herself, her husband, her daughter, her friends and political cronies, no matter the damage to America’s interests. Trump’s inconsistencies and alleged exaggerations about his net worth or charitable contributions are a dog-bites-man story compared to Hillary’s lies about Benghazi and her private email server. Nothing Trump has publicly said or done is as self-servingly despicable as Hillary’s implications that the grieving families of the four dead Americans in Benghazi are not telling the truth about her personal promise to them to “get” the obscure producer of the on-line video supposedly responsible for the attacks, when she knew that claim was untrue.

In short, Trump has been accountable to the bottom line. Hillary has been accountable to the people. Trump has succeeded in his job; Hillary has failed abysmally at hers. Making the two equally unpalatable to the principled voter is making a false equivalence between two different kinds of public life.

Perhaps Trump’s flaws would make him a bad president. But other presidents who had flaws equally distasteful––such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton––managed to do some good things as president regardless. With Trump there’s at least a chance he could turn out to be a better president than his bluster and insults suggest. Hillary, on the other hand, has a long public record of using her position for personal gain, and putting her ambition ahead of her responsibilities to the country she supposedly serves. Her role as First Lady was marked by bungling health care reform, indulging silly fantasies of a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and allowing herself––an “I am woman hear me roar” feminist––to be publicly humiliated by her satyr husband while attacking his victims. Her tenure in the Senate lacked any substantive legislative achievements, and her stint as Secretary of State furthered Obama’s destruction of America’s global influence, power, and security from Syria to the South China Sea. It may be possible that she could experience a road-to-the-White House conversion and become a good president, but given everything we know from her 25 years of public “service,” the probability is close to zero.

With Trump, in contrast, we know that at least he won’t be as destructive to our political order as Obama has been. With Hillary the odds are much higher that she will continue Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of our country into an E.U.-like technocratic regime of smug elites whose aim is to erode individual freedom and compromise our country’s sovereignty. Worse yet, if she becomes president, she will most likely nominate two or three Supreme Court justices, creating a court that will gut the and First and Second Amendments and legitimize further the dismantling of the Constitution’s divided powers and limited executive. And don’t put your faith in the Republican Senate that confirmed Loretta Lynch to shoot down every one of Hillary’s picks, even if that means eight years of an eight-member court.

The November election is not a choice between two equally bad candidates. It’s the moment when we reject the candidate who we know, based on her long public record of corruption, lying, and grasping for power and wealth, will take us further down the road to political perdition.
98  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Greenfield: Trump's Islam Narrative is Just Reality. on: June 06, 2016, 12:48:36 PM
Trump’s Islam Narrative is Just Reality

Islam really does hate us.

June 6, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

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

Former NSA head Michael Hayden recently joined a chorus of Trump’s critics blasting him for offending Muslims. “The jihadist narrative is that there is undying enmity between Islam and the modern world, so when Trump says they all hate us, he’s using their narrative," he said.

That’s true. It’s also meaningless because in this case the narrative is reality.

Jihadists do hate us. Islam has viewed the rest of the world with undying enmity for over a thousand years. Some might quibble over whether a 7th century obsession really counts as “undying”, but it’s a whole lot older than Hayden, the United States of America, our entire language and much of our civilization.

Islam divides the world into the Dar Al-Islam and the Dar Al-Harb, the House of Islam and the House of War. This is not just the jihadist narrative, it is the Islamic narrative and we would be fools to ignore it.

The White House is extremely fond of narratives. The past month featured Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, taking a victory lap for successfully pushing his “narrative” on the Iran deal. Rhodes takes pride in his narratives. His media allies love narratives. But none of the narratives change the fact that Iran is moving closer to getting a nuclear bomb. Narratives don’t change reality. They’re a delusion.

Narratives only work on the people you fool. They don’t remove the underlying danger. All they do is postpone the ultimate recognition of the problem with catastrophic results.

Islamic terrorism is a reality. Erase all the narratives and the fact of its existence remains.

Instead of fighting a war against the reality of Islamic terrorism, our leaders have chosen to fight a war against reality. They don’t have a plan for defeating Islamic terrorism, but for defeating reality.

So far they have fought reality to a draw. Ten thousand Americans are dead at the hands of Islamic terrorists and Muslim migration to America has doubled. Islamic terrorists are carving out their own countries and our leaders are focused on defeating their “narratives” on social media.

Hayden repeats the familiar nonsense that recognizing reality plays into the enemy narrative. And then the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is by refusing to recognize its existence out of fear that we might play into its narrative. But Islamic terrorism doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.

You don’t have to believe in a bomb or a bullet for it to kill you. A plane headed for your office building or a machete at your neck is not a narrative, it is reality. If we can’t tell the difference between reality and what we believe, then reality will kill us. And nothing we believe will change that.

We are not fighting a war of narratives with Islam. This is a war of bombs and bullets, planes crashing into buildings and blades digging into necks. And yet the men in charge of fighting this war remain obsessed with winning a battle of narratives inside the Muslim world. They have no plans for winning the war. Instead they are occupied with managing the intensity of the conflict, taking out the occasional terrorist leader, bombing only when a jihadist group like ISIS has become too powerful, while waiting for their moderate Muslim allies to win the war of narratives for them by discrediting the jihadists.

The narrative mistake is understandable. The left remains convinced that it can get its way through propaganda. Its record is certainly impressive. But it’s strictly a domestic record. Getting Americans to believe seven strictly irrational social justice things before breakfast is very different than convincing the members of a devout tribal society with a deep sense of history that they really don’t want to kill Americans. All that the narrative war accomplished was to show that the propagandists who convinced Americans to vote for their own exploitation have no idea how to even begin convincing Muslims to do anything. Think Again Turn Away was an embarrassment. Various outreach efforts failed miserably. American politicians devoutly apologize for any disrespect to Islam, but Muslims don’t care.

Hayden isn’t wrong that there is a narrative. But Nazism also had a narrative. Once the Nazis had power, they began acting on it and their narrative became a reality that had to be stopped by armed force. But at a deeper level he is wrong because he isn’t reciting the Islamic or even the jihadist narrative, but a deceptive narrative aimed at us in order to block recognition of the problem of Islamic terrorism.

The Islamic narrative isn’t just that we hate them. More importantly, it’s that they hate us. Muslim terrorists are not passively reacting to us. They carry a hatred that is far older than our country. That hatred is encoded in the holy books of Islam. But that hatred is only a means to an end.

Hatred is the means. Conquest is the end.

Assuming that Muslims are oppressed minorities is a profound intellectual error crippling our ability to defend ourselves. Islamic terrorism is not an anti-colonial movement, but a colonial one. ISIS and its Islamic ilk are not oppressed minorities, but oppressive majorities. Islamic terror does not react to us, as men like Hayden insist. Instead we react to Islam. And our obsession with playing into enemy narratives is a typically reactive response. Rising forces generate their own narratives. Politically defeated movements typically obsess about not making things worse by playing into the narratives that their enemies have spread about them. That is why Republicans panic over any accusation of racism. Or why the vanilla center of the pro-Israel movement winces every time Israel shoots a terrorist.

Western leaders claim to be fighting narratives, but they have no interest in actually challenging the Islamic narrative of superiority that is the root cause of this conflict. Instead they take great pains not to offend Muslims. This does not challenge the Islamic supremacist narrative, instead it affirms it.

Rather than challenging Islamic narratives, they are stuck in an Islamic narrative. They are trapped by the Muslim Brotherhood’s narrative of “Good Islamist” and “Bad Islamist” convinced that the only way to win is to appeal to the “Good Islamist” and team up with him to fight the “Bad Islamist”.

The “moderate” Muslim majority who are our only hope for stopping Islamic terrorism is an enemy narrative manufactured and distributed by an Islamic supremacist organization. When we repeat it, we distort our strategy and our thinking in ways that allow us to be manipulated and controlled.

It isn’t Trump who is playing into jihadist narratives, but Hayden and everyone who claims that recognizing Islamic terrorism plays into enemy narratives while failing to recognize that what they are saying is an enemy narrative.

The very notion that the good opinion of the enemy should constrain our military operations, our thinking and even our ability to recognize reality is an enemy narrative of unprecedented effect.

And this is the narrative that our leaders and the leaders of the world have knelt in submission to.

Narratives only have the power that we assign to them. No narrative is stronger than reality unless we believe in it. Not only have our leaders chosen to play into the enemy narrative, but they have accepted its premise as the only way to win. And so they are bound to lose until they break out of the narrative.

99  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Horowitz Destroys the "Never Trump" Argument... on: June 06, 2016, 11:20:18 AM
The Never-Trump Diehards

Time to admit defeat and fold your tents.

June 2, 2016
David Horowitz

Reprinted from Breitbart.

One would have though that having failed to stop Trump’s nomination and then failed to find a prominent figure to lead their third-party effort, the beltway renegades would have been embarrassed enough to crawl under a nearby rock where they might ponder their lost credibility and squandered influence. Who, after all, could take seriously a movement launched through a tweet announcing an “impressive” candidate with a “good chance” to alter a national election, who turned out to be an obscure writer with no footprint in the political world?

But if one expected the beltway boys to have second thoughts about their nihilism, one would have been wrong, at least for now. Eyebrows had barely settled when the magazine whose manifesto launched the movement published a list of reasons for their anti-Trump sentiment that others must have missed. Why did they miss them? Because they were “obscured by the fog of political war,” and therefore “insufficiently studied and understood.” Preposterous as this explanation might seem after seven or eight months of Trump-pounding by National Review, Commentary, the Weekly Standard and the vast liberal media conspiracy, the actual reasons proposed by Nicholas Frankovich are even more so.

I will confine myself to the three coherent ones:

“The so-called alt-right, a fusion of nationalism with anti-Semitism and white separatism, has attached itself to Trumpism. Feed the host, and you feed the parasite.” That’s the reason, according to Frankovich – insufficiently studied and understood. But this makes about as much sense as blaming Trump for the violent fascists who “protest” his speeches. To be fair, Frankovich concedes that Trump himself is not a racist or anti-Semite, and also that most of his supporters are innocent, as well. But then he leaps to absurdities like this: “One reason that conservative writers are more likely than the average conservative to be Never Trump may be that they know that the alt-right exists. They spend more time in the political corners of the Internet where that particular virus that the Trump campaign has emboldened is still largely confined.”

So the big, insufficiently understood reason for Never Trump is that somewhere in the political corners of the Internet is a virus that Trump has somehow emboldened, but which is still largely confined to those corners. Perhaps the Never Trumpers haven’t noticed that the virus of anti-Semitic, anti-white racism is out in the streets in large and violent numbers, protesting Trump rallies, or swelling the ranks of Bernie supporters, or that Bernie himself has picked three anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist allies to be on the platform committee of the Democratic Party. If Trump’s virus is still confined to fringe characters on the Internet and Bernie’s and Hillary’s are out in the streets and on the Democrats’ platform committee, what reason can there be for opposing the one man (because he’s the candidate, fellas) who can stop them?

This leads Frankovich “to a second under-examined reason that many conservatives oppose Trump’s candidacy: It has had the effect of legitimizing race-based grievance and of expanding the sphere of speech that is considered taboo, or politically incorrect.” In other words, since Trump has had the balls to blast through the orthodoxy of the left-wing party line, he has also expanded the sphere of politically incorrect speech, which includes racism! How about the racism of the Democratic Party, which remains, after all is said and done, politically correct?

Democrats support racial preferences in hiring, in school admissions — in fact, in virtually every aspect of public life. Democrats control every large inner city, every killing zone – Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis – and control them 100%, and have done so for fifty to a hundred years. Every racist oppression in inner-city America, the failed schools that deny minority children a shot at the American dream, the welfare systems that drive fathers out of the homes and encourage dependency at every level, are products of Democratic policies.

Yet, the Never Trumpers are upset not over the perpetuation of this racist nightmare, which their campaign could make possible, but over the fact that Trump has expanded the discourse – the freedom to speak! – of American politicians and their constituents.

Finally, according to Frankovich, “Trumpism reflects a degradation of American culture but also promotes it. Some of Trump’s fans thrill to his transgression of commonly accepted standards of decency and decorum. Others tolerate it, for the sake of some good they hope he might achieve.” Thinking about this transgression, I am put in mind of a quip from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall: “Lyndon Johnson is a politician. You know the ethics those guys have. It’s like a notch beneath child molester.”

The transgression is ongoing; only one side gets to do it more than the other. When Democrats warn voters that black churches will burn if Republicans are elected, as they have done in several presidential campaigns, or accuse Republicans of wanting to put blacks back in chains, as Joe Biden did in the last election, does that lie within the bounds of “accepted standards of decency and decorum”?

The degradation of the political culture is now a fact of political life, as Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton knows all too well. Does fighting back in kind equate to a promotion of degradation? If it does, should one not do it? Should Trump fight with one hand tied behind his back like other Republicans? Should Trump’s chief Republican rivals also have refrained from taunts in kind?

What Frankovich and the Never Trumpers refuse to see is that the political contest as waged by Democrats – and not only Democrats – is already a form of war. Trump’s political style and tactics have allowed him to prevail on a primary battlefield where no one thought he could survive.

Now the battle is with a racist party that wants to dismantle our borders and cripple our defenses in the holy war that Islamists are waging against us. There is no neutral ground. Nor is there a referee to impose rules of decorum and punish transgressors. Only the electorate can do that. The Republican electorate, however, has already spoken on this issue. Their nominee is Trump, and anyone who cherishes our constitutional system is bound to respect that.

Or have the honesty to declare their support for the other side. Or sit the battle out. What is not acceptable is to sabotage your own army in the field and pretend that you don’t want the enemy to win.

100  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Andrew Napolitano: Hillary on the Ropes... on: June 05, 2016, 09:00:03 PM
Hillary On The Ropes

By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a yearlong investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Mrs. Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Mrs. Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Mrs. Clinton, none used a private server and, though Gen. Powell and Miss Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Mrs. Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general’s report is damning to Mrs. Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Mrs. Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department information technology folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

In addition, the report rejects her argument — already debunked by the director of the FBI — that the FBI is merely conducting a security review of the State Department’s email storage and usage policies rather than a criminal investigation of her. The FBI does not conduct security reviews. The inspector general does. This report is the result of that review, and Mrs. Clinton flunked it, as it reveals that she refused to comply with the same State Department storage and transparency regulations she was enforcing against others.

Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act. She preferred to go dark, or back to the 19th-century technology of having documents read aloud to her.

This report continues the cascade of legal misery that has befallen her in the past eight months. The State Department she once headed has rejected all of her arguments. Two federal judges have ordered her aides to testify about a conspiracy in her office to evade federal laws. She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than grave.

We know that Mrs. Clinton’s own camp finally recognizes just how dangerous this email controversy has become for her. Over the Memorial Day weekend, John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, sent an email to her most important donors. In it, he recognizes the need to arm the donors with talking points to address Mrs. Clinton’s rapidly deteriorating support with Democratic primary voters.

The Podesta email suggests attempting to minimize Mrs. Clinton’s use of her private server by comparing it to Gen. Powell’s occasional use of his personal email account. This is a risky and faulty comparison. None of Gen. Powell’s emails from his private account — only two or three dozen — contained matters that were confidential, secret or top-secret.

Mrs. Clinton diverted all of her email traffic to her private server — some 66,000 emails, about 2,200 of which contained state secrets. Moreover, Gen. Powell never used his own server, nor is he presently seeking to become the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land.

The inspector general who wrote the report was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013, after Mrs. Clinton left office. He did a commendable job — one so thorough and enlightening that it has highlighted the important role that inspectors general play in government today.

Today every department in the executive branch has, by law, an inspector general in place who has the authority to investigate the department — keeping officials’ feet to the fire by exposing failure to comply with federal law.

If you are curious as to why the inspector general of the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s years as secretary did not discover all of Mrs. Clinton’s lawbreaking while she was doing it, the answer will alarm but probably not surprise you.

There was no inspector general at the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary — a state of affairs unique in modern history; and she knew that. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?

• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of seven books on the U.S. Constitution.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!