Justplainbill's Weblog

November 23, 2015

Islamic Refugees in U.S. who’ve already killed Americans, JR John USN [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, gun control, handguns, Historical context, Islam, Obama Foreign Policy, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, self-defense, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:00 pm

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 6:24 AM

Two Al Q’ieda Terrorists Wo Killed American Soldiers Entered United States Through Refugee Program

By Capt Joseph R. John, on November 23, 2015

Despite the fact that Islamic Syrian Refugees, with fake passports, were among the ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist who murdered 129 peaceful Parisians casually dining in restaurants and others who were attending a music concert in Paris on Friday night, November 13, 2015, and despite the fact that thousands of the Islamic Refugees are single males of military age from throughout the broader Middle East not just from Syria, and despite the fact that Obama is ignoring the FBI’s repeated warning, that because documents do not exist, they cannot determine if the Islamic Refugees have terrorist ties, Obama is doubling down and insisting all the Islamic Refugees, estimated to be over 80,000 this year, must be permitted to enter the US under every condition—they have been entering and resettled non-stop. It may be helpful for clear thinking Patriotic Americans, who care about their safety, and the safety of their families, review the following litany of how Radical Islamic Terrorists (many falsely classified as refugees) who were allowed to enter the US have murdered and/or attempted to murder American citizens.

On May 20, 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani Radical Islamic Terrorist, attempted a car bombing in New York City’s Times Square using his dark blue 1993 Nissan pathfinder sports utility vehicle. Luckily the improvised explosive device’s ignition source malfunctioned. He was arrested after he was trying to board Emirates Flight 202 to Dubai at JFK International Airport on May 21st. Shahzad admitted attempting the car bombing and said that he trained at a Pakistani Islamic Terrorist Training Camp. Shahzad had been listed on the U.S. Government Travel-Lookout List since 1999, because he was bringing in large amounts of cash into the US (approximately $82,500) between January 1999 and April 2008. Eric Holder said the Pakistani Taliban Islamic Terrorists directed the attack and may have financed the attempted car bombing in Times Square.

According to a report released by the House Homeland Security Committee in 2010, two Al Q’ieda terrorists who had killed American soldiers in Iraq were able to enter the US as refugees, (details of that can be read in the below listed article). Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” An FBI report stated that two Al Q’ieda Islamic Terrorists were caught handling weapons, including a machine gun and a missile launcher, and that they planned to smuggle the weapons to Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq.

The Tsarnaev brothers entered the US as Islamic Refugees at age 9 and 16, were radicalized, and when they came of age, they planned and executed a Radical Islamic Terrorist attack to murder American spectators in Boston, watching the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013; they employed explosive devices in backpacks, killing 3 and wounding 264 innocent Americans citizens.

On May 3, 2015, three Radicalized Islamic Terrorist from Phoenix, AZ, Nadir Sofi (a Pakistani who live & trained in Pakistan), Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem (who supplied the firearms and ammunition used in the attack), and Elton Simpson (who trained with Islamic Terrorists in Africa) planned an attack on a free speech event showcasing controversial cartoons of Mohammed in Garland, Texas by Nadir and Elton executed the shooting and tried to enter the Curtis Culwell Center where the event was being held. Just minutes before the attack took place, a Twitter account with the username “Shariah is Light” posted a message saying “may Allah accept us as mujahedeen” and ending “Texas attack”; both attackers had pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The account was suspended soon after. The two gunmen drove into the parking lot for the Curtis Culwell Center, immediately jumped out with automatic rifles, and started firing at an unarmed schools security officer who was hit in the leg; an off duty traffic policemen killed both of them.

On July 16, 2015, Mohammed Yousef Abdulazeez, who was born in Kuwait, had Jordanian citizenship, and lived in the United States since grammar school was Radicalized like the Tsarnaev brothers. He planned and executed an attacked on a US Armed Forces Recruiting Center and a US Naval & Marine Corps Reserve Center in Chattanooga, TN killing 4 US Marines and one US Navy Petty Officer.

On November 14, 2015, Fox News reported Border Patrol Agents in Arizona caught three Muslim Saudi Arabian Nationals trying to evade a highway checkpoint. They were captured in an area considered one of the hottest smuggling routes in the US, and just a few miles from where, two days later, Border Patrol Agents in Sonora, Arizona arrested five Muslim Pakistani Nationals and one Muslim Afghani National who were caught trying to enter the US illegally thru the wide open Arizona Border.

In Texas during the week of November 16, eight Syrians Muslims Nationals were caught trying to cross the US border from Mexico. When coupled with the 6 Syrian Muslim Nationals caught in Honduras with stolen doctored Greek passports, trying to travel to the US/Mexican Border, and another Syrian Muslim National with a fake passport who was caught in Costa Rica trying to head up to the US/Mexican Border, the steady flow of Middle East Illegal Aliens has raised serious concerns of the US Border Patrol.

If the 24 above listed all male (none of the Muslims carrying fake passports were “widows and orphans”) Saudi, Pakistani, Afghani, and Syrian potential Radical Islamic Terrorist were apprehended within a 10 day period trying to enter the wide open southern border illegally with fake passports, they are only the tip of the spear, because the US Border Patrol still doesn’t have the help that an effective Border Fence would provide in controlling the wide open southern border. The border patrol state they can only apprehend about 40% of the illegals entering the United States, so it appears during that same 10 day period, 60 potential Radical Islamic Terrorist successfully entered the US illegally.

Over the last 7 years, thousands of Muslim Illegal Aliens from the Middle East, with fake passports have been entering the United States and have been seeking Asylum as refugees. The left of center liberal media establishment refuses to report on the wholesale entry of thousands of potential Radical Islamic Terrorist from the Middle East who have been illegally entering the United States across the wide open southern border. A Syrian immigrant in New York, Arafat Succar, says ISIS sleeper cells of Radical Islamic Terrorists are already present in America and waiting for orders to strike. Succar also tells the New York Post, “You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m John Doe, and they give it to you.” Succar says it is incredibly easy for ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists to obtain authentic looking (but fake) identification papers in Syria and then to pose as a refugee to infiltrate in foreign countries.

After 7 years of the cover-up by DHS and the left of center liberal media establishment, the Border Patrol Union is reporting directly to Congressional Committees of the illegal entry of Muslim males from the Middle East thru the wide open southern border, who following illegal entry, seek and are granted Asylum as Muslim refugees by the Obama administration, but that is not the case for Christians entering the wide open southern order seeking Asylum because of the genocide being perpetrated against them by ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists.

Amid Washington’s raging debate over the 10,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees already entering the United States (the first of 250,000 Muslim Syrian Refugees Obama intends to grant Asylum to) there is an unfair controversy that has developed, to put it mildly. In April and May 2015, 27 Assyrian Christians (17 men and 10 women) who were driven from their ancient homeland on the Plains of Nineveh in Iraq by ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists, crossed into the US from Mexico at the San Diego Border Crossing; they immediately sought Asylum from the Christian genocide being executed by ISIs Radical Islamic Terrorists, explaining they were being crucified, burned alive, shot, beheaded, and raped in their ancient homeland.

When the 27 Assyrian Christians arrived in San Diego thru the wide open southern border, unlike the 400,00 Illegal Alien Central Americans, they immediately turned themselves in and officially sought Asylum from the Christian Genocide. They requested to join their friends and families in the thriving Iraqi Christian community in El Cajon and San Diego where the Christian community had homes and jobs for the 27 Assyrian Christians. But unlike the 400,000 Central Americans Illegal Aliens who illegally entered the United States in June and immediately received Asylum to remain in the US, the door to America is being slammed shut on the 27 Assyrian Christians by Obama; they are being deported by Obama and their bids for asylum from religious persecution and genocide has been rejected, while 10,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees without proper documentation are being permitted to enter the US and being resettled

The FBI has informed the Congress that 250 Muslim, many who went thru Obama’s Fast-Track Program to become American citizens, many who are Somalis who entered the United States thru the UN Refugee Resettlement Program, have traveled to the Middle East and Africa to train with ISIS then join ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists in committing genocide against Syrian and Assyrian Christians. Recently several men from the large community of Somali refugees in Minnesota were apprehended by the FBI trying to join ISIS. The FBI have broken up over 70 cells of ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists in all 50 states, and are investigating over 900 cases concerning potential Radical Islamic Terrorist plots to strike the United States, many of those cases are in Muslim Refugee communities, or concern first generation Americans of Middle Eastern and African descent.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has proposed the first piece of legislation in the Senate that will stop Syrian Islamic Refugees from entering the US to add to the over 700,000 Islamic Refugees that Obama has brought into the United States thru the UN Refugee Resettlement Program, and he has resettled them throughout the United States without telling Federal law Enforcement or Governors of the states where they now reside. Senator Cruz Senate Bill is S. 2302, the “Terrorist Refugee Infiltration Prevention Act” has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The bill immediately halts the resettlement of Islamic refugees..

There is a “Refugee Resettlement Racket” underway in the United States, the details are listed in the attachment, that “Refugee Resettlement Racket” is being funded by Republican led Congress to support the Obama administration, it is a program that has been going on for 7 years, and the American people know nothing about it. It is costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. The “Refugee Resettlement Racket” is a threat to the National Security of the United States because, according to the FBI, there is no way to verify if those Muslim Refugees have terrorist ties, and the law enforcement agencies are blocked from learning where they are being resettled.

Each year, for the last 7 years, Obama has been bringing in thousands of Muslim Refugees (99% Muslim, and 1% Christian), thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program, Obama has been accepting more Muslim Refugees each year, for 7 years, than all the countries in the world combined (the numbers now exceed 700,000 and the cost is staggering); in addition thousands of Middle East Muslims are flooding across the wide open southern border each year. The UN Refugee Resettlement Office has repeatedly refused to accept any of the 300,000 Middle East Christian Refugees for resettlement in the US, thru the Un Refugee Resettlement Program; they are being housed and fed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency.

Obama is responding to the ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks in Paris with a rhetorical fusillade against Republican for the supposed bigotry. It is a ploy as brilliant as it is disgustingly cynical. Obama is a co-author of this refugee crisis, he has let is fester and expand for 7 years, and after he warned Assad not to cross his red line, and Assad did, Obama did absolutely nothing. However, Obama did supply Al Q’ieda and ISIS with weapons thru Benghazi—another gun running operation, just like “Fast and Furious” where Obama authorized another gun running operation providing weapons the Mexican Drug Cartels.

As Walter Russell Mead write, No one other than the Butcher Assad and the unspeakable al-Baghdadi, is as responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria as Obama.” Instead of helping the millions of Syrian refugees in their homeland for the last 7 years, he did nothing and now wants the American people to accept the refugees. Somewhere deep inside Obama’s supposedly Niebuhrian conscience even he must suspect there is some truth to this. And even if his denial is total, he must understand that a great many historians and Americans will side with Mead in this appraisal.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bi-partisan American SAFE Act of 2015 with a vote of 289-137 (which included 47 Democrats who voted for approval). The legislation was co-authored by an endorsed Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Ryan Zinke, Cdr-USN (Ret) (SEAL). The American SAFE Act simply calls for “a pause” in bringing in thousands of Muslim Refugees, only until the refugee screening process can be guarantees for each refugee by the Director of FBI and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Get this!!! Obama has threatened to veto the legislation. Every American should honestly ask themselves why Obama would refuse to work with the FBI to ensure that ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist are prevented from entering the United States? There are only several reasons why Obama wouldn’t support such a “Pause.”

Copyright 2015, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Report: Al Q’ieda Terrorists Entered United States Through Refugee Program

DHS Secretary said ISIS may exploit refugee resettlement program

BY: Ali Meyer

November 18, 2015 4:05 pm

Two al Qaeda terrorists who had killed American soldiers were able to enter the country as refugees, according to a report released Wednesday from the House Homeland Security committee. Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” In 2010, they were caught handling weapons, including included a machine gun and a missile launcher, that they planned to smuggle to insurgents in Iraq.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more than that,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. “And these are trained terrorists in the art of bomb making that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me.”

The committee’s report found that the administration’s refugee resettlement program proposal will have a limited impact on alleviating the overall crisis but could have serious ramifications for U.S. homeland security.”

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, admitted in October at a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee that organizations such as the Islamic State might attempt to exploit the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

“It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process,” he said Obama’s refugee resettlement program is now under scrutiny after deadly terrorist attacks in Paris killed more than 120 people and left more than 300 injured on Friday. It is suspected that one of the terrorists entered the country as a refugee.

In addition to these attacks, men in Minnesota were apprehended by the feds for trying to join the Islamic State. There is growing concern that the state would be a recruiting ground for the Islamic State because of its large community of Somali refugees.

The report was released after a nearly year-long investigation evaluating challenges with allowing Syrian refugee flows into the United States.

Governors from many states are now refusing to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in their states.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees—any one of whom could be connected to terrorism—being resettled in Texas,” said Gov. Greg Abbott.

“There is an undeniable connection between our refugee resettlement program and the increased risk of a terror attack within the United States,” said Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“There have been roughly 70 terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 and scores of young people who are first or second generation refugees and immigrants who have become involved in some way with Islamist jihadists, either by undertaking attacks here or traveling overseas to join a terrorist group, or both,” she said.

However, proponents of the program say that refugees have to go through the highest level of scrutiny by intelligence and security government agencies. “All refugees, including Syrians, are admitted only after successful completion of this stringent security screening regime,” a senior Obama administration official said

“Our federal government has been in denial about the adequacy of our screening of arrivals in all categories,” said Vaughan. ”Not only have we not been able to screen effectively, we have not been able to control the activities of radical groups once they are here and become embedded in immigrant communities and able to recruit new followers.”

Requests for comment from the White House were not returned by press time.

November 20, 2015

Quick Note: Immigration & Citizenship 20 Nov 15

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, handguns, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:25 pm

Said it before, so many of the details are posted in earlier posts.

1. All of Islam is required by the Shar’Ia, the Qu’Ran, and the Hadith, to participate in Jihad, see the post with the over 100 direct citations to the Qu’Ran;
2. Muslims are required to either participate directly, as in violent terrorist attacks as Mohammed requires in the Hadith, or indirectly through cultural infiltration in Jihad. The only exceptions are widows, orphans, and the last male of a family. These exceptions are required to pay a Jihad support tax;
3. Obama lost his, if he ever had one, U.S. citizenship when Soetoro adopted him. For those of you who question this, the quick answer is, “go ask Angelina Jolie if the children that she has adopted from Africa are U.S. citizens or are they still citizens of their countries of origin”;
4. Fulbright scholarships are only available to Non-U.S. citizens ONLY. Obama-Soetoro attended both Occidental College and Columbia University on a Fulbright Scholarship. In order to get a Fulbright Scholarship, the applicant MUST submit proof of non-U.S. citizenship, either a passport or a sealed and certified birth certificate; &
5. My first maternal immigrant was recruited by Lincoln’s union army in 1863. He acquired his U.S. citizenship through honorable military service. My paternal grand-parents came here legally from Poland to avoid the world war. My paternal grand-father was a Polish Patriot running from the Russian secret police. My father’s generation and those subsequent, have all been born in the U.S.

All of my ancestors integrated themselves into U.S. culture. A significant number of us have served honorably in the U.S. military, myself a U.S. Marine with a combat deployment.

It is not just this first group getting in, it is that once they are in, they will be able to vet the second, third, &c waves, none of whom will integrate into American Society & Culture. This is the soft, indirect Jihad of cultural destruction.

And, I keep getting emails regarding my position as a secessionist being either Tea Party or unpatriotic. I draw those of you who question my patriotism and adherence to my oath to the U.S. Constitution to read The Declaration of Independence, then the constitution of 1787, and then the absurdity of the recent SCOTUS rulings on Obama-care and on same sex marriage. Read again the Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. post. The High Federalist/ Marshallistas have completely destroyed the 1787 constitution.

The Surete, the French Security force, has just reported that two of the Paris terrorists came through Greece as Syrian refugees.

Another victim has died in hospital.

Paris, and France in general, has one of the most restrictive in democratic countries gun control laws. If they had a 2nd Amendment, do you really think that the casualty count would be this high?

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has recently stated that most of these people do not meet the legal definition of refugees. He suggests that those looking at this issue, read the statute for the legal reasons for sanctuary to be granted. Most of these Syrian Refugees do NOT meet the definition. Go read the statute, it includes as one of several elements that the applicant have a proven fear of death/ genocide if he is returned to his point of origin. This means that those in safe camps near Turkey, or arriving here from Europe, or any other non-combatant territory, are ineligible for resettlement, as they are leaving safe havens, thus there is no threat of death or genocide. http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii

Semper Fi and God Bless America!

November 18, 2015

A Quick Note on the “Syrian Sunni Immigration Crisis” – 18Nov15

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 9:41 pm

Ok, both political parties are screaming and yelling about all sorts of issues related to this subject but neither side, once again, is touching what may be the most important issue:

Where are the jobs for these proposed 100,000 – 250,000, mostly male Sunni refugees who are mostly uneducated and with almost no fluency in English, especially when we have an actual unemployment rate of close to 18% (box six, not box three, read the earlier posts)?

We have no jobs for Americans with high school diplomas from U.S. schools. Where are the jobs for these Syrian Sunnis?

Come to that, where are the jobs for all of those “dreamers” who have third grade Central and South American educations, and again, no fluency at all in English?

October 27, 2015

Barack Obama is not seeking “legacy”, by Sylvia Thompson (concur nc)

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, gun control, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Putin, Racism, Religion, Russia, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:04 pm

Sylvia Thompson column
Barack Obama is not seeking “legacy”

Sylvia Thompson
Sylvia Thompson
October 26, 2015

To the many gullible souls out there who truly think that Barack Obama is “legacy building” in his all-out assault on America, I implore you to bow out of the conversation because you are not seeing clearly.

The term legacy carries positive connotations of something bequeath that is to the receiver’s benefit. Everything that Barack Obama does is calculated to destroy America, which he despises. This man no more cares about legacy than he fears being properly prosecuted by the white political leaders whose responsibility it is to remove him from office.

I focus on white leaders, because whites are still in the majority and they fill the majority of political offices. If the majority of political operatives were of some other ethnicity, I would lodge my complaint against that group. Ethnicity is an issue only because Obama is half-black and he uses that fact to intimidate guilt-conflicted white people. Otherwise, he would have been impeached and likely in prison for treason by now.

Barack Obama’s sole aim has been, since he first entered politics and continues as he winds down this presidency, the complete destruction of America as it was founded.

It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans who must listen to elitist pundits on Fox news and elsewhere, and political drones in either party endeavor to make Obama’s behavior fit a pattern of normalcy. Attributing his destructive policies to “legacy building” is either self-delusion on the part of the people who make that claim or cowardliness.

This is my take.

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran has nothing to do with legacy but rather to enable a Muslim nation to wage nuclear war with America and Israel – the two nations that he most despises. Does anyone wonder why Russians praise Vladimir Putin despite what the rest of the world might think of him? Putin cares about his country, that’s why.

Obama despises the American military because traditionally it has been a mainstay of America’s strength, and our strength infuriates him.

Imposition of a polluting homosexual, anti-Christian agenda upon the military ranks destroys unit cohesion and literally terrorizes male members with the prospect of sodomy rape. Such rapes have increased since the forcing of open homosexuality in the ranks, against the will of a majority of members I might add. Couple that with an infiltration of women, for whom all standards of strength must be reduced, and Obama attains his goal of emasculating and demoralizing the forces.

He could not care less about a legacy of making the forces more diverse. Besides, President Truman diversified the military as much as it should be when he integrated it. Obama’s objective is its destruction.

Obama reopened relations with Cuba because Cuba is Communist. Legacy is not his concern here either, but rather to scuttle America’s attempts to keep Communist influence out of the Americas. That Cuba has major issues with human rights does not matter. Like his Marxist African father before him, he despises the West and all that it represents.

Obama lawlessly declares open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, because he wants to overrun America with third-world people who bring little more than dependency with them. This tactic not only does not ensure a legacy, but rather it guarantees the eventual conversion of America itself into third-world status, if it is allowed to continue.

Bill Clinton started the travesty of increasing the numbers of third-world immigrants at the expense of culturally more suited immigrants from European and European-influenced nations, but Obama has taken the trend to lawless, destructive extremes. He is fully aware that many of these invaders have no intention of assimilating.

It is only the outcry of a majority of Americans that holds back this hateful invasion scheme, and Donald Trump’s entry onto the political scene to oppose that scheme is a saving grace for our nation.

These are but a few instances of behavior that display the loathsome character of Barack Hussein Obama. And he is allowed to roam freely through the American landscape poisoning and polluting as he goes, sure in the realization that no one will stop him because he is “black.”

The day that we no longer have to hear the prattle about his “legacy building” will not be soon enough for me.

Many, many Americans are thoroughly fed up with Barack Obama and the spineless crop of political leaders who ignore his criminality. It is yet unknown whether Republicans will ever garner the backbone to become a true opposition party and hold him accountable. Promising signs are the House conservatives’ getting rid of establishment types John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker and Speaker hopeful, respectively, and Donald Trump’s entry into the 2016 presidential race with enough money and testicular fortitude to tell the Establishment and the Left where to shove it.

Should these positive trends not continue and the 2016 election cycle yield no movement to counter all the harm that Barack Obama has done to this nation, I think there will be massive disruption. Those folks in the National Rifle Association ads currently running on television seem very serious to me, and that is a good thing.

Sylvia Thompson is a black conservative writer whose aim is to counter the liberal spin on issues pertaining to race and culture.

Ms. Thompson is a copy editor by trade currently residing in Tennessee. She formerly wrote for the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley California Newsletter and the online conservative blog ChronWatch, also out of California.

She grew up in Southeast Texas during the waning years of Jim Crow-era legalized segregation, and she concludes that race relations in America will never improve, nor will we ever elevate our culture, as long as there are victims to be pandered to and villains to be vilified. America is better served without victims or villains.

© Copyright 2015 by Sylvia Thompson
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/sthompson/151026

September 25, 2015

Freedom of Religion, by Joseph John Capt USN ret [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:42 pm

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 5:59 AM

Pope Francis In America . . . . .His Blessed Message “Freedom of Religion”

By Capt Joseph R. John, September 25, 2015

When the Pope Francis arrived in the United States, despite the fact that the left of center liberal media establishment has been reporting for many days, how his visit would somehow be very negative for Republicans seeking their nomination for the presidency, that the visit would be very good for Obama, Progressives, Socialists, and Leftists in the Democratic Party because of his heartfelt views of climate change and his support for immigration. Pope Francis simply shredded the continued misleading reports coming out of the left of center liberal press trying to shape public opinion in favor of Obama—-he spoke of the love of Jesus Christ, the importance of the family, his support for traditional marriage, nurturing & protecting life in all stages of development, his opposition to abortion, sharing the gospel, welcoming immigrants, and compassion for the less fortunate. One of Pope Francis’ major messages was in support of the US Constitution, that the left of center liberal press has been ignoring and Obama continues violating:

“Freedom of Religion”

The US Armed Forces has been laboring under the relentless attacks by the Obama administration of their God given right under the US Constitution, of their “Freedom of Religion” which continues to be violated and is under relentless attack by civilian appointees of the Obama administration in the Department of Defense. Since it is a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the actions of those civilian appointees in DOD should be prosecuted in US Federal Court by Republican leaders of the House and Senate. Those relentless attacks have manifested themselves in many different ways over the nearly 7 years Obama has been in office, that the left of center liberal media establishment has been covering up from the American people, some of those examples are as follows:.

The religious right of Chaplins to read letters from their Cardinals in the pulpit to their parishioners in the US Armed Forces is being forbidden. A Chaplin was punished for using verses from the Bible to provide sustenance and soothing in a suicide prevention class for Combat Veterans with PTSD. Chaplains have been ordered not to distribute Bibles to returning wounded Combat Veterans like they once did unless a Bible is specifically requested by a wounded service member. Chaplains have been forced to have same sex marriages in their chapels despite the fact that their well held religious beliefs and teachings do not approve of those ceremonies. Chaplains in VA Hospitals have been ordered to cover over the alter with the cross with plastic opaque covers by VA Officials in Washington. Each Christmas progressives attack nativity scenes that were once displayed on military bases & have changed the Merry Christmas message to happy holiday. Although it is against military regulations to promote political views on military bases–lesbian, gay, bisexual, & transgender (LGBT) personnel are encouraged to hold “Gay Pride Month” events on every military base including the Pentagon. The Color Guard of the US Armed Forces and military personnel in uniform have been ordered to march in “Gay Pride Parades” even though it is against military regulations. The display of religious verses on computers, desks, and the presence of Bibles have been forbidden at a service members work space by new regulations. SMSgt Philip Monk, USAF was relieved of duty by his Lesbian CO after refusing to compromise his Christian views on homosexuality. Gay males and bisexual personnel have been recruited into the US Armed Forces resulting in the sexual assault on 11,000 straight males last year. Obama is the first Commander-in-Chief who has refused to protect the “Freedom of Religion” of members of the US Armed Forces; for 239 years, every other President of the United States has always guaranteed the “Freedom of Religion” of members of the US Armed Forces.

For nearly 7 years there has been no outrage expressed by the Obama administration condemning the barbaric genocide of hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Assyrian Christians and the violation of their “Freedom of Religion” by Radical Islamic Terrorists in the Middle East (ISIS and Al Q’ieda Terrorist created by the Muslim Brotherhood). However, Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Royal Family in England, the UK Prime Minister, the King of Jordan, the President of Egypt, the President of Kurdistan, the Prime Minister of Japan, The President of Russia, the Prime Minister of Australian, President George W. Bush, Reverend Billy Graham, the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Prime Ministers of every NATO nation, the Prime Minister of Israel, Religious Leaders of every Christian denomination throughout the world, the current list of candidates seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States, 51 Congressmen who petitioned Obama to protect the Assyrian Christians being murdered in the Middle East, many US Senators, Christians worldwide, and the Secretary General of the United Nations who have all expressed their revulsion of the barbaric genocide being prosecuted by ISIS, Al Q’ieda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Those world leaders have all raised their voices in unison to demand that the bloody genocide of Syrian and Assyrian Christians by crucifixions, beheading, burning alive, burying them alive, cutting children in half, shooting families in mass graves, raping & murdering young Christian girls, and selling Christian women into white slavery be stopped. To date Obama has refused to condemn the wholesale genocide of Christians. He is the only major national leader in the free world nation who has not called for a cessation of the genocide of Christians by Radical Islamic Terrorists. Obama’s failure, for the last 4 years, to condemn the genocide of Christian’s in the Middle East, and call for their “Freedom of Religion” in the Middle East is deafening, and is contrary to the vocal opposition of Pope Francis and all the other above listed world leaders.

The goal of Progressivism, Communism and Socialism has always been to destroy religion; they tried to destroyed Christianity in China, Russia, Cuba, East Germany, and the other Soviet Bloc nations during the Cold War. They tried to do so, because religion freedom has always been critical to the functioning of every Democracy; the citizen’s belief in religion contributes significantly toward the rule of law, to a stable citizenry, and to a civil society. For the past 239 years, millions of Americans regularly attended a church or a synagogue of their choosing, where they were taught by the religious leaders of the churches and synagogues about God & the scriptures, and whose teachings they believed in, because they trusted their religious leaders.

Democracy in the Republic has worked for 239 years, because the American citizens voluntarily chose to obey the laws; people were not only accommodating the Republic’s laws and operating in an ordered society, but by obeying civil laws, they were also accommodating their belief in a righteous God. If Progressives, Socialists, Leftists and Communists can sufficiently minimize or eliminate religion in the US, society can’t possibly hire enough Police Officers to maintain law and order—the goal of those forces. Progressives, Leftists, Socialists, and Communists who are the allies of Obama in the US, and the left of center liberal media establishment have collectively and relentlessly attacked religious teachings & beliefs, because “religion is one of the main pillar of a stable democracy.” Now not only is religion in the military under attack by the agents of the Obama administration, but Police Officers and the US Justice System in the nation are also under attack by those same agents who are intent on destabilizing the Republic.

Without religion, democracy will die; please watch the below listed comments by a Harvard Professor Clay Christensen (it is only 90 seconds long)

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=YjntXYDPw44&sns=em

The American people were so very fortunate to have Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ, grace the United States with his presence at this important period in the Republic’s history, and to hear his religious messages promoting the world views of the Catholic Church-, and most importantly:

“Freedom of Religion.”

God Bless Pope Francis and God Bless America!

Copyright 2015, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=h1

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

September 15, 2015

Immigrants or invaders? An eyewitness report [c]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, crime control, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 4:47 pm

Third World Invasion: Eyewitness Description, September 5, 2015

SEPTEMBER 6, 2015 BY TNO STAFF— IN EUROPE · 15 COMMENTS

An eye-witness account from Kamil Bulonis, a Polish travel blog writer, who was present on the Italian-Austrian border on September 5, 2015, as swarms of Third World nonwhites poured across the border to invade Austria and Germany (A translation from Polish): (Please note: all pictures from the Hungarian-Austrian border)

trash-02

“Half an hour ago on the border between Italy and Austria I saw with my own eyes a great many immigrants … With all solidarity with people in difficult circumstances I have to say that what I saw arouses horror… This huge mass of people – sorry, that I’ll write this – but these are absolute savages… Vulgar, throwing bottles, shouting loudly “We want to Germany!” – and is Germany a paradise now?

I saw how they surrounded a car of an elderly Italian woman, pulled her by her hair out of the car and wanted to drive away in the car. They tried to overturn the bus in I travelled myself with a group of others. They were throwing feces at us, banging on the doors to force the driver to open them, spat at the windscreen… I ask for what purpose? How is this savagery to assimilate in Germany?

I felt for a moment like in a war… I really feel sorry for these people, but if they reached Poland – I do not think that they would get any understanding from us … We were waiting three hours at the border which ultimately could not cross.

Our whole group was transported back to Italy in a police-cordon. The bus is damaged, covered with feces, scratched, with broken windows. And this is supposed to be an idea for demographics? These big powerful hordes of savages?

Among them there were virtually no women, no children—the vast majority were aggressive young men … Just yesterday, while reading about them on all the websites I subconsciously felt compassion, worried about their fate but today after what I saw I am just afraid and yet I am happy that they did not choose our country as their destination. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people – neither culturally nor financially. I do not know if anyone is ready. To the EU a pathology is marching which we had not yet a chance to ever see, and I am sorry if anyone gets offended by his entry …

I can add that cars arrived with humanitarian aid – mainly food and water and they were just overturning those cars…

Through megaphones the Austrians announced that there is permission for them to cross the border—they wanted to register them and let them go on—but they did not understand these messages. They did not understand anything.

And this was the greatest horror … For among those few thousand people nobody understood Italian or English, or German, or Russian, or Spanish … What mattered was fist law… They fought for permission to move on and they had this permission— but did not realize that they had it! They opened the luggage hatches of a French bus—and everything that was inside was stolen within short time, some things left lying on the ground …

Never in my short life had I an opportunity to see such scenes and I feel that this is just the beginning.”

[secession]

September 3, 2015

An Israeli-Iran Nuclear War, by John Bosma [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, China, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Iran, Islam, Military, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Religion, Russia, Treason — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:58 pm

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 6:01 AM

The below listed article from American Thinker was forwarded from the Honorable Orson Swindle, III, Lt Col/USMC (Ret) (Vietnam POW), Senior Advisor to the Board of Directors of the Combat Veterans For Congress PAC, and is a current member of the Board of Directors of Citizens Against Government Waste.

The Honorable Orson Swindle served as a Commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission from December 18, 1997 through June 30, 2005. From 1981 to 1989 Mr. Swindle served in President Ronald Reagan Administration where he directed financial assistance programs to economically-distressed rural and municipal areas of the country. As Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development he managed the Department of Commerce’s national economic development initiatives directing seven offices across the country. His impressive biology is listed on the Leadership page of the Combat Veterans For Congress Web site.

His comment in forwarding the below listed article are as follows: “Look at what our liberal, self-serving Democrats in Congress and this incredible Fraud in the White House have done to our Country!!! Does it concern you?”

We encourage the wide distribution of the below listed article so the American people can fully comprehend how Obama continues to intentionally destabilize the Middle East while enabling Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and how he is putting the US’ 70 year traditional Sunni allies, Israel, and the United States in the cross hairs of Iran’s newly developed nuclear weapons systems.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: ORSON SWINDLE
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Articles: Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Israel-Iran Nuclear War
To: Orson Swindle

American Thinker

Down Arrow

August 23, 2015

Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Israel-Iran Nuclear War

By John Bosma

The signing of a Munich-class agreement with Iran that hands it more than it ever hoped to pull off represents a shocking, craven American capitulation to an apocalyptic crazy state: a North Korea with oil. Nothing in Western history remotely approaches it, not even Neville Chamberlain’s storied appeasement of another anti-Semitic negotiating partner.

But it also augurs the possibility of a nuclear war coming far sooner than one could have imagined under conventional wisdom worst-case scenarios. Following the US’s betrayal of Israel and its de facto detente with Iran, we cannot expect Israel to copy longstanding US doctrines of no-first-nuclear-use and preferences for conventional-weapons-only war plans. After all, both were premised (especially after the USSR’s 1991 collapse) on decades of US nuclear and conventional supremacy. If there ever were an unassailable case for a small, frighteningly vulnerable nation to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to shock, economically paralyze, and decapitate am enemy sworn to its destruction, Israel has arrived at that circumstance.

Why? Because Israel has no choice, given the radical new alignment against it that now includes the US, given reported Obama threats in 2014 to shoot down Israeli attack planes, his disclosure of Israel’s nuclear secrets and its Central Asian strike-force recovery bases, and above all his agreement to help Iran protect its enrichment facilities from terrorists and cyber warfare – i.e., from the very special-operations and cyber forces that Israel would use in desperate attempts to halt Iran’s bomb. Thus Israel is being forced, more rapidly and irreversibly than we appreciate, into a bet-the-nation decision where it has only one forceful, game-changing choice — early nuclear pre-emption – to wrest back control of its survival and to dictate the aftermath of such a survival strike.

Would this involve many nuclear weapons? No – probably fewer than 10-15, although their yields must be sufficiently large to maximize ground shock. Would it produce Iranian civilian casualties? Yes but not as many as one might suppose, as it would avoid cities. Most casualties would be radiological, like Chernobyl, rather than thermal and blast casualties. Would it spur a larger catalytic nuclear war? No. Would it subsequently impel Russia, China and new proliferators to normalize nuclear weapons in their own war planning? Or would the massive global panic over the first nuclear use in anger in 70 years, one that would draw saturation media coverage, panic their publics into urgent demands for ballistic missile self-defense systems? Probably the latter.

The Iranian elite’s ideology and controlling political psychology is inherently preferential towards nukes and direct population targeting as a way to implement Shi’ite messianism and end-times extremism. Iran is a newly nuclear apocalyptic Shi’ite regime that ranks as the most blatantly genocidal government since the Khmer Rouge’s Sorbonne-educated leaders took over Cambodia in April, 1975. Senior Iranian officials have periodically tied nuclear war to the return of the Twelfth Imam or Mahdi, which Iran’s previous president anticipated within several years. This reflects not just the triumphalist enthusiasm of a new arriviste nuclear power that just won more at the table than it dared to dream. It also reflects a self-amplifying, autarchic end-days theology that is immune to both reality testing and to Western liberal/progressive tenets about prim and proper nuclear behavior.

Admittedly, Iranian leaders have lately resorted to envisioning Israel’s collapse in more restrained terms through Palestinian demographic takeover of the Israeli state and asymmetric warfare. Still there remains a lurid history of Iranian officials urging the elimination of Israel and its people, of allocating their nukes to Israeli territory to maximize Jewish fatalities, of Iranian officials leading crowds in chants of “Death to Israel!” Iran’s government also released a video game allowing players to target various kinds of Iranian ballistic missiles against Israeli cities – this as part of intensive propaganda drumming up hatred of Jews. A more recent video game envisions a massive Iranian ground army marching to liberate Jerusalem. In all, Iran’s official stoking of genocidal Jew hatred is far beyond what Hitler’s government dared to advocate before the 1939 outbreak of World War 2.

The deliberate American silence over Iran’s genocidal intentionality sends an unmistakable signal to Israel that the US no longer recognizes a primordial, civilizational moral obligation to protect it from the most explicit threats imaginable. It is truly on its own, with the US in an all-but-overt alliance with its worst enemy. The shock to Israel’s leaders of this abrupt American lurch into tacitly accepting this Iranian intentionality cannot be understated. Iran is violating the core tenets of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, a US initiative after the Tokyo and Nuremberg war-crimes trials to codify genocide as a crime against humanity. Now the US is silent.

But this shift is also recent. Every US government prior to President Obama would have foresworn nuclear talks with such a psychopathic regime or would have walked out in a rage upon such utterances. Yet Iran’s genocidal threats have had no discernible effect on Obama’s canine eagerness for a deal. It’s as if 75 years ago a US president had cheerfully engaged in peace talks with Hitler and his SS entourage despite learning the details of the Nazis’ secret Wannsee Conference where Hitler signed off on the Final Solution for the Jews. But whereas Hitler had the sense in that era to keep that conclave secret, Iran’s Wannsee intentionality toward Israel and world Jewry has for years been flamboyantly rude-and-crude and in-your-face. That this Iranian advocacy of a second Holocaust drew no objection from the US negotiators of this deal should make moral pariahs out of every one of them – including our president and Secretary of State.

These two factors alone, especially the abrupt evaporation of the US’s ultimate existential bargain with Israel through Obama’s de facto alliance with the mullahs, would drive Israel to the one attack option it can unilaterally use without running short of munitions and experiencing the massive US coercion embedded in that dependence. But there are other reasons why early Israeli nuclear pre-emption is not only justified but almost mandatory.

First, it is too late to stop Iran’s bomb-making momentum with conventional weapons or sanctions. That nation’s science and technology base is robust and improving. It has learned to domestically produce high-performance gas centrifuges whose uranium gas output is such that smaller numbers of them are needed for breakout. The US spent decades and many billions at labs like Oak Ridge National Laboratory on composites, software-controlled magnetic bearings, gas flow separations, thermal controls and ultra-precision manufacturing for these thin-wall, very-high-speed devices. Yet Iran has come up the centrifuge learning curve with surprising speed. Its metallurgists are familiar with a novel aluminum forging method that may yield nanophase aluminum shells so strong that they approach the centrifugal strength usually associated with more demanding composite-shell gas centrifuges. Also, Iran’s bomb engineering and physics can tap the sophisticated bomb designs and re-entry vehicle (RV) skills of North Korea, which is reducing the weight and mass of its H-bombs to fit on ballistic missiles and whose collaboration with Iran reportedly included Iranian technicians at North Korean bomb tests.

Other technology sources in the Nuclear Bombs R Us cartel for wannabe proliferators set up by rogue nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan of Pakistan include China, Russia and Pakistan. Worst of all, under the US-Iran deal, Iran’s ballistic missiles can improve their reliability, accuracy, throw-weight and their post-boost RV-release thrusters.

Second, Iran’s underground nuclear targets are likely harder than American and Israeli hard-target munition (HTM) developers have assumed. Why? Because Iranian engineers have perfected the world’s toughest concrete, developing mixtures using geopolymers, quartz powders (called fume) and metal and ceramic fibers. The result is hardness levels reportedly up to 50,000-60,000 psi in experimental samples. This means that even shallow “cut and cover” hard targets like the Natanz centrifuge enrichment plant, an armored complex in an excavated pit that is then covered, can resist destruction by the US’s most lethal hard-target bomb: the 30,000-lb “Massive Ordnance Penetrator.” Only the B-2 and the B-52 can carry the MOP. Yet while the MOP can penetrate ~200 ft into 5000-psi targets, it only reaches 25 feet into 10,000-psi concrete – and Iranian cement for new or up-armored underground bunkers has likely progressed well beyond that.

US and Israeli HTM alternatives include staged-warhead penetrators and – high on the wish list – novel energetic chemistries with orders-of-magnitude more power than current HTMs. Tactical HTMs with up to four sequential warheads use precursor warheads to blast an initial opening for larger follow-through charges to destroy tanks, fortifications and bridge piers. But these impact at slow speeds compared to what’s needed to kill deep hard targets. The latter need super hard casings (probably single-crystal metals) and packaging to keep their sequenced charges intact during violent impacts of thousands of feet/second (fps). One benchmark is the Department of Energy’s Sandia lab’s success years ago in firing a simulated hard-target RV into rock at 4400 fps. Similarly, reactive-material (RM) munitions and next-generation HEDM (high-energy-density material) explosives and energetic chemistries with orders-of-magnitude more power look promising for the future. But these require years of iterative fly-redesign-fly testing to assure they’ll survive impact with their deep targets.

Bottom line: with even the US’s best non-nuclear HTMs marginal against Iran’s critical deep targets, Israel’s HTMs probably wouldn’t do the job either, being lower in kinetic energy on target. Alternatives like using HTMs to destroy entrances to such targets and ventilation shafts may work – but unless Iranian military power and recovery are set back months or years, this damage would be repaired or worked round. Moreover, nuclear facilities tunneled into mountains would be almost impossible to destroy with conventional weapons.

Still, the brains behind Iran’s nuclear bomb, missile and WMD is concentrated in soft targets like the Iranian universities run by the IRGC (Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps), custodian of the bomb program). These can be hit by conventional weapons under a Peenemunde targeting strategy to kill as many weapon scientists and technicians as possible. (This recalls Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s directive for British bombers to target the residential housing on the small Baltic island where Hitler had sited his V-2 rocket program.) Alternatively, conventional or nuclear EMP (electromagnetic pulse) or HPM (high-power microwave) weapons could destroy for months all the computers and communications that support university-hosted bomb work. This would keep these scientists and surrounding urban populations alive.

Third, Obama’s decision to provide Iran “training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems” is the clearest indicator that this accord is aimed squarely at Israel. Why? It eliminates the sole option Israel has left now that it lacks the US-supplied conventional HTMs to destroy unexpectedly hard deep targets, forcing it at best into a slow-motion conventional weapons-only campaign. This would expose it to brutal political and military blowback by Iran and its Chinese, Russian and European suppliers – and by an enraged American president. In essence, it appears that the Obama regime has under the accord deliberately stripped Israel of every option except nuclear pre-emption – which Obama, in typically liberal-progressive fashion, assumes would never happen. Ergo, Israel would be forced to accommodate Iranian military supremacy.

Fourth, what may drive an early Israeli nuclear attack are two considerations: (a) Russian S-300 ATBM/SAMs (anti-tactical ballistic missile/surface-to-air missile) in Iranian hands; and (b) Hezbollah’s thousands of missiles. Russia’s agreement to supply Iran four batteries of its fearsome S-300 by late August for defending priority targets would make it very difficult for Israel to mount the complex precision bombing strategies needed for tough targets. The S-300, the world’s best, can knock down high-speed aircraft from near ground level to almost 100,000 feet. It can also engage some ballistic missiles.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s arsenal of more than 60,000 rockets (by some estimates) is a much greater threat to Israel, especially its air force, than is appreciated. Hizballah has retrofitted an unknown fraction of these missiles, whose range now covers almost all of Israel, with GPS and precision guidance, allowing them to hit critical targets. Unfortunately, Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling interceptors were designed on the assumption that most incoming missiles would be inaccurate and so the interceptors could be saved only for those approaching critical targets. The result? Hizballah rocket campaigns targeting Israeli airbases and other military targets could quickly run Israel out of interceptors. Iran could easily order such a campaign to throw Israel off balance as it focuses on the deadly US-abetted nuclear threat from Iran.

An Israeli nuclear pre-emption is thus eminently thinkable. Every other option has been stripped away by Obama’s decision, concealed from Israel, Congress and our allies until it was too late to challenge, to let Iranian bomb-making R&D run free and to harden Iran’s bomb-making infrastructure against Israel – while imposing lethal restrictions on Israeli countermeasures and forswearing any US and allied military attacks, such as B-2’s and B-52’s dropping MOP bombs.

The die is now cast. Nuclear pre-emption becomes attractive to a nation in extremis, where Israel is now:

…Israel needs to impart a powerful, disorganizing shock to the Iranian regime that accomplishes realistic military objectives: digging out its expensive underground enrichment plants, destroying its Arak plutonium reactor and maybe Bushehr in the bargain, killing its bomb and missile professionals, scientists and technicians, IRGC bases, its oil production sites, oil export terminals and the leaders of the regime where they can be found.

…its initial strike must move very fast and be conclusive within 1-2 hours, like the Israeli air attack opening the 1967 Six-Day War. The goal is to so stun the regime that Israel controls the first and subsequent phases of the war and its ending. This means that Israel must hit enough critical targets with maximum shock – and be willing to revisit or expand its targets – so as to control blowback and retaliation from Iran’s allies. In essence, this involves a very fast-paced Israeli redesign of the Middle East in the course of a nuclear war for survival.

…what is poorly appreciated is that nuclear weapons from 10 to 300 kilotons (KT) – depending on accuracy – can destroy deep hard targets to 200+ meters depth by ground coupling if they penetrate merely 3 meters into the ground (Effects of Nuclear Earth Penetrators and Other Weapons: National Research Council / National Academy Press, 2005, pp. 30-51). Israel could lower bomb yields or achieve deeper target kills by its reported tests of two-plane nuclear attacks in which the first plane drops a conventional HTM like a GBU-28 to open up a channel; the second plane drops its tactical nuclear bomb into that ‘soft’ channel for greater depth before bursting. This unavoidably would produce fallout on cities downwind. Fortunately, the same medical countermeasures used for radiological accidents (Chernobyl accidents, etc.) – potassium iodide pills (available domestically from http://www.ki4u.com) – can be airdropped for use by exposed urbanites.

…the more important objective, however, is decapitation and economic paralysis by EMP and HPM effects that destroy all electronic, electrical and electromechanical devices on Iranian territory. While a high-altitude nuclear burst would affect most of Iran’s territory, it may not be necessary if smaller, lower-altitude weapons are used.

…A small number of nuclear weapons (10-15?) may suffice: one each for known underground hard targets, with one held in reserve pending bomb-damage assessments; several low-yield bombs for above-ground bomb-related depots; and low-yield neutron weapons to hit IRGC and regime targets while avoiding blast and fallout. Reactors can be hit with conventional HPM pulse weapons to burn out electrical, electronic and electromechanical systems for later reactor destruction by Special Forces. A targeting priority (using antipersonnel conventionals) would be university-hosted bomb/missile scientists.

…Israeli F-15s and F-16s provide the most accurate delivery for the initial phase – assuming that the S-300 batteries can be decoyed, jammed or destroyed (where Israeli air force experience is unmatched). The small stock of Jericho-2 ballistic missiles probably would be held in reserve. They can’t be used against buried targets unless their re-entry vehicles (RVs) are fitted with penetrator casings and decelerators like ribbon parachutes (used to slow down US test RVs for shallow-water recovery at Pacific atolls) to avoid disintegrating on impact. (Both methods require flight-testing, which is detectable.) Israel’s Dolphin subs in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean can launch nuclear or (probably) conventional cruise missiles with cluster munitions for IRGC targets.

The final issue is how Israeli and US leaders would operate in these conditions. An Israeli decision to go nuclear would be the most tightly held decision in history, given the prospect of out-of-control blowback by our current president if that was leaked. Still, Israel sees itself being driven into a Second Holocaust corner, possibly within weeks as the S-300s begin deploying around Iran’s nuclear targets. Once it decides nukes are its only way out, it would simulate and map out all possible event chains and surprises once it launches. Unavoidably, it would also have to decide what to do if it learns the US is feeding its pre-launch mobilization information to Iran, using its electronic listening posts and missile-defense radars in the region. It may have to jam or destroy those US sites.

For the US, however, this no-warning nuclear war would land like a thunderbolt on an unprepared White House that would likely panic and lash out as Obama’s loudly touted “legacy” goes up in smoke. The characteristic signatures of nuclear bursts would be captured and geolocated by US satellite. The commander of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) under Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs would call the White House on the famous red phone. (As one of the few civilians who sat through a red phone alert at NORAD in July 1982, after a Soviet missile sub launched two test missiles off the Kamchatka Peninsula, I can testify it is a frightening experience for which nothing prepares you.) Given the psychology of our current president and his emotional investment in his Iran deal, what might follow could challenge the military chain of command with orders that previously were unthinkable.

Now retired, John Bosma draws on a 40-year background in nuclear war-gaming and strategic arms control (SALT 1 and 2, Soviet arms-racing and SALT violations, US force upgrades) at Boeing Aerospace (1977-1980); congressional staff and White House experience (1981-1983) in organizing the “Star Wars” ballistic missile defense (BMD) program and proposing its “defense-enforced strategic reductions” arms-control model adopted by the Reagan State Department; military space journalism (1984-1987); and technology scouting in conventional strategic warfare, rapid (1-2 hours) posture change in space, novel BMD engagement geometries with miniature air-launched interceptors, counter-WMD/terrorism, naval BMD and undersea warfare. Clients included DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the Missile Defense Agency, the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Advanced Systems and Concepts Office, the Navy and the He follows Israeli forces and BMD and has studied Iran’s nuclear R&D programs. All of his work is open-source

August 17, 2015

Another “I toldya so” on Hillary, thanks go to Butch [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, China, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Iran, Islam, Media Check, Military, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Treason — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:27 pm

http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/16/real-email-question-hillary-clinton-sell-us-intelligence/

The real email question: Did Hillary Clinton sell US secrets?

By: streiff (Diary) | August 16th, 2015 at 03:00 PM | 35

While the media is focusing your attention on the shiny object that is her email server, the real story is not being told. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Hillary Clinton, or members of her inner circle with her connivance, purloined highly classified US intelligence and either sold it, traded it, or used it for personal gain. This is not a conspiracy theory and it is not hyperbole. Stick with me for a moment.
The smokescreen

Via the AP:

On Monday, the inspector general for the 17 spy agencies that make up what is known as the intelligence community told Congress that two of 40 emails in a random sample of the 30,000 emails Clinton gave the State Department for review contained information deemed “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information,” one of the government’s highest levels of classification.

The AP story, along with much of the rest of the media is trying to give two impressions:

First, the Clinton abstracted classifed information and included it in her emails, again AP

Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

Second, that there is all kinds of confusion about security classification

Nothing in the message is “lifted” from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls “parallel reporting” — different people knowing the same thing through different means.

We’ve all seen this behavior before with Clinton and her confederates in the media. Rose Law Firm records? Cattle futures? Whitewater? First it is “nothing to see here, move on.” Next it is “it is all so complicated, how could a somewhat addled old lady possibly keep it straight?”
This is bulls***

According to the Intelligence Community IG this is what was found in the documents David Kendall turned over on the famous “thumb drive” :
clinton ig snip

Focus your attention on the last line. Now let’s see what this means let’s go to John Schindler of 20committee.com writing at The Daily Beast:

• TOP SECRET, as the name implies, is the highest official classification level in the U.S. government, defined as information whose unauthorized release “could cause exceptionally grave damage to national security or foreign relations.”

• SI refers to Special Intelligence, meaning it is information derived from intercepted communications, which is the business of the National Security Agency, America’s single biggest source of intelligence. They’re the guys who eavesdrop on phone calls, map who’s calling whom, and comb through emails. SI is a subset of what the intelligence community calls Sensitive Compartmented Information, or SCI. And these materials always require special handling and protection. They are to be kept in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, which is a special hardened room that is safe from both physical and electronic intrusion.

• TK refers to Talent Keyhole, which is an intelligence community caveat indicating that the classified material was obtained via satellite.

• NOFORN, as the name implies, means that the materials can only be shown to Americans, not to foreigners.

If you are interested in the permutations of security classifications at the TS level, this is a good primer.

The focus here is TK. This document the IC IG is talking about is satellite imagery. That is all it could have been. The Keyhole-series satellite is a recon satellite that produces imagery. It doesn’t produce anything else. What the IG found is not a passing reference to classified information or something State produced independently.
How did it get there?

The information we are talking about had to have originated on a highly secure network, one that was certified to handle SCIF-level information. (See page 43 for details) At some point it migrated from a SCIF to a highly secure network to Clinton’s email to her server. To get the document from the secure channel to the non-secure channel requires conscious effort. IT CANNOT HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. This is evidenced by the fact that it appears someone stripped classifications from documents:

The claims come after the Clinton campaign stuck to the argument that the Democratic presidential candidate, while secretary of state, never dealt with emails that were “marked” classified at the time.

“Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email. No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to supporters Wednesday.

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton’s emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

“If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings,” the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. “[S]omewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC’s server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC’s personal email.”

This seems to be true because the Clinton campaign is pushing the “retroactive classification” story line and the IC IG implies that the images have been properly marked for their report which implies they were not properly marked when recovered.
Say what?

Now we have a situation where a person or persons downloaded highly classified images in a SCIF environment, or scanned hard copies of documents in a SCIF (cleared persons can bring electronic devices into a SCIF and there are dozens of scanner apps for smartphones and tablets. Clinton and her clique would undoubtedly be cleared.), ported those electronic files over to a non-secure computer and emailed them to someone using Hillary Clinton’s server. These particular images were emailed by or to Hillary Clinton.
If you want to stop now just remember this:

The information the IC IG is talking about a) could not have accidentally ended up in Clinton’s email, b) it was altered to remove security classifications, and c) there has to be a reason someone selected this information, from among the wealth of top secret information Clinton had access to, to steal.
Why would anyone do that?

Now that we’ve dismissed the idea that the classified material was classified post facto, or it was mentioned in passing and accidentally ended up in Hillary’s email, the question becomes one of a) why anyone would remove highly classified material from a secure environment, b) strip the security markings on highly classified satellite imagery and c) send it via un-secure email. These answers go to motive and state of mind. They wanted to sanitize the imagery as much as possible so no casual observer could tell it was classified (which asks another why? question which we will get to) and it was sent via un-secure email because the intended recipient did not have SCIF access.

What we know for certain is that Clinton could not have been contemplating saving this information for use in her memoirs because her memoirs would require State and Intelligence review and someone would have identified the imagery as TS//TK.
The beginning of a trail…

We know that Hillary Clinton relied to some degree on intelligence briefings sent to her by her loyalist and vicious attack poodle, Sid Blumenthal. This arrangement came to light when Blumethal’s AOL account (I am not making that up) was accessed by a Romanian hacker nicknamed ‘Guccifer.’ Via Politico:

Sidney Blumenthal did not write or know the source of any of the Libya intelligence he passed on to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top Clinton ally told investigators on the House Select Committee on Benghazi Tuesday in a closed-door deposition.

Blumenthal, subpoenaed by the committee, also did not verify any of the intelligence he forwarded to the nation’s top diplomat. Instead, Blumenthal was copying and pasting memos from Tyler Drumheller, a former CIA operative who was looking into a Libya-related business venture, and sending them to Clinton, two people familiar with his testimony told POLITICO.

“One of the folks providing her the largest volume of information was simply and merely a conduit of someone who … may have had business interest in Libya,” said panel ChairmanRep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) 80% (R-S.C.) at the end of a nearly nine-hour interview. “We have a CIA, so why would you not rely on your own vetted source intelligence agency? In this case, there was no vetting, no analysis of credibility whatsoever.”

And:

In her early months in office, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in contact with unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal more often and on a wider range of topics than was previously known, a set of about 3,000 Clinton emails released Tuesday night by the State Department revealed.

While Blumenthal’s role as a provider of off-the-books intelligence reports on Libya has stirred controversy, the newly disclosed emails show he also acted as an intermediary with officials involved in the Northern Ireland peace process and shared advice with Clinton on issues from Iran to British politics to how to blame China for the breakdown of global climate talks.

Blumenthal claims he didn’t actually know anything, that he was only an intermediary passing information from a former CIA official, Iraq War critic (I know, those are redundant terms) and would-be political player named Tyler Drumheller.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had access to the world’s top intelligence agencies and their resources, but at the most turbulent moment of her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat, she received a stream of intelligence on Libya and the Benghazi attack by a former CIA official working outside the government, sources said.
…
Since his retirement, Drumheller has also contributed to various Democratic politicians, according to records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2005, he contributed a combined $800 to the Senate campaigns of former Sens. Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, and donated $500 to Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-New Jersey, in 2011, the Center for Responsive Politics said.
And…

We know at least two Clinton cronies followed her to State: Cheryl Mills (Chief of Staff) and sweet Huma Abedin (Deputy Chief of Staff). They also had Clinton foundation email addresses. Both Mills and Abedin held the status of ‘special employees’ which allowed them to hold other jobs while working at State. Mills was on the board of NYU’s Abu Dhabi campus, general counsel for NYU, and on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. Abedin worked for an investment consultancy called Teneo Holdings and was also on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation. We don’t know their security access but it would be safe to say they saw everything Hillary did.
What happened to the imagery?

Either Clinton sent top secret material via her private email to herself to archive for grins or the Clinton server was only a way station on its way somewhere else. Simply keeping the images for some future use doesn’t make sense to me as it is a high risk-low payoff action. The more likely scenario is that something was done with the images, something that benefited one or more Clintons.

A logical route would be Clinton gets info from Blumenthal who gets info from Drumheller. Clinton sends info to Blumenthal who sends info to Drumheller.

But if Blumenthal, or someone like him, handled the outgoing classified information did they also act as a bag man, collecting money for the imagery?

What did Drumheller, or someone like him, get for his efforts if he received the imagery? Was he merely a bit player at the fringe of Democrat politics who was releasing his inner Walter Mitty by sending bulls*** intel analyses to Hillary? Maybe in hopes of become Director of Central Intelligence after her coronation? Did he get paid by Clinton? Or was the operation a quid pro quo where he received classified materials that he could sell to others and curry favor and impress others to gain access to other political players? Did someone in Abu Dhabi get the images? Or did they end up at Teneo Holdings to help bolster some investment decision? One of these answers is better than the others.
…or it could have been run of the mill Clinton corruption

Alternatively, once could ask were these images and other information used to sweeten the pot for various kleptocrats and dictators who paid extortionate amounts of money for speeches by Bill Clinton? Suppose a Third World dictator… let’s imagine in Central Asia… paid Bill Clinton… let’s just throw a number out there… $500,000 for a speech. Suppose as part of the deal that Clinton client also received satellite imagery or signal intercepts that increased their life expectancy. Is there any evidence of this? No. But neither is there any proof it didn’t happen. As we learned during the administration of GHW Bush, it is not the quality of the evidence that requires an investigation, rather it is the seriousness of the allegation.
Searching for a fall guy

Clinton’s story is “I didn’t know squat.” That is as plausible as Obama’s Justice Department wants to make it. But either someone gave her the images and she sent them or they had log in access to her email and sent them for her. Her only real defense, given her access to classified material and a Keyhole satellite image would have been instantly recognizable, is that someone used her email to send it.

But how did they get into Hillary’s email? Did Hillary handle the images? I don’t think she had the technical chops — and is way too smart — to scan/download satellite imagery, strip the security classification, and email them. Did Cheryl Mills, an attorney, do this? Lawyers do stupid stuff all the time but usually it has the patina of cleverness attached. That leaves Huma.

With no security classification, Sid Blumenthal has plausible deniablity. He can say he got the images (this is assuming that at some point he did receive them) but assumed they were unclassified.

This makes one logical fall guy Tyler Drumheller. Drumheller would instantly recognize the Keyhole imagery so stripping the security classification wouldn’t muddy the water much for him if it ever went to court. But anyone he gave/showed the imagery to would not necessarily know the source which could provide some degree of cover. Unfortunately, we will never know Mr. Drumheller’s true role in this as he died of pancreatic cancer on August 2, 2015.

July 30, 2015

The Truth About Western “Colonialism”, by Bruce S. Thornton [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, Econonics, Education, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Islam, Media Check, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:58 pm

The Truth About Western “Colonialism”
July 29, 2015 10:35 am / 12 Comments / victorhanson
How the misuse of a term legitimizes the jihadist myth of Western guilt.

by Bruce S. Thornton // Defining Ideas
Photo via Front Page Magazine

Photo via Front Page Magazine

Language is the first casualty of wars over foreign policy. To paraphrase Thucydides, during ideological conflict, words have to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which is now given them.

One word that has been central to our foreign policy for over a century is “colonialism.” Rather than describing a historical phenomenon––with all the complexity, mixture of good and evil, and conflicting motives found on every page of history––“colonialism” is now an ideological artifact that functions as a crude epithet. As a result, our foreign policy decisions are deformed by self-loathing and guilt eagerly exploited by our adversaries.

The great scholar of Soviet terror, Robert Conquest, noted this linguistic corruption decades ago. Historical terms like “imperialism” and “colonialism,” Conquest wrote, now refer to “a malign force with no program but the subjugation and exploitation of innocent people.” As such, these terms are verbal “mind-blockers and thought-extinguishers,” which serve “mainly to confuse, and of course to replace, the complex and needed process of understanding with the simple and unneeded process of inflammation.” Particularly in the Middle East, “colonialism” has been used to obscure the factual history that accounts for that region’s chronic dysfunctions, and has legitimized policies doomed to fail because they are founded on distortions of that history.

The simplistic discrediting of colonialism and its evil twin imperialism became prominent in the early twentieth century. In 1902 J.A. Hobson’s influential Imperialism: A Study reduced colonialism to a malign economic phenomenon, the instrument of capitalism’s “economic parasites,” as Hobson called them, who sought resources, markets, and profits abroad. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin, faced with the failure of classical Marxism’s historical predictions of the proletarian revolution, in 1917 built on Hobson’s ideas in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Now the indigenous colonized peoples would perform the historical role of destroying capitalism that the European proletariat had failed to fulfill.

These ideas influenced the anti-colonial movements after World War II. John-Paul Sartre, in his introduction to Franz Fanon’s anti-colonial screed The Wretched of the Earth, wrote, “Natives of the underdeveloped countries unite!” substituting the Third World for classic Marxism’s “workers of the world.” This leftist idealization of the colonial Third World and its demonization of the capitalist West have survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of Marxism, and have become received wisdom both in academe and popular culture. It has underwritten the reflexive guilt of the West, the idea that “every Westerner is presumed guilty until proven innocent,” as French philosopher Pascal Bruckner writes, for the West contains an “essential evil that must be atoned for,” colonialism and imperialism.

This leftist interpretation of words like colonialism and imperialism transforms them into ideologically loaded terms that ultimately distort the tragic truths of history. They imply that Europe’s explorations and conquests constituted a new order of evil. In reality, the movements of peoples in search of resources, as well as the destruction of those already in possession of them, is the perennial dynamic of history.

Whether it was the Romans in Gaul, the Arabs throughout the Mediterranean and Southern Asia, the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Mongols in China, the Turks in the Middle East and the Balkans, the Bantu in southern Africa, the Khmer in East Asia, the Aztecs in Mexico, the Iroquois in the Northeast, or the Sioux throughout the Great Plains, human history has been stained by man’s continual use of brutal violence to acquire land and resources and destroy or replace those possessing them. Scholars may find subtle nuances of evil in the European version of this ubiquitous aggression, but for the victims such fine discriminations are irrelevant.

Yet this ideologically loaded and historically challenged use of words like “colonial” and “colonialist” remains rife in analyses of the century-long disorder in the Middle East. Both Islamists and Arab nationalists, with sympathy from the Western left, have blamed the European “colonialists” for the lack of development, political thuggery, and endemic violence whose roots lie mainly in tribal culture, illiberal shari’a law, and sectarian conflicts.

Moreover, it is blatant hypocrisy for Arab Muslims to complain about imperialism and colonialism. As Middle East historian Efraim Karsh documents in Islamic Imperialism, “The Arab conquerors acted in a typically imperialist fashion from the start, subjugating indigenous populations, colonizing their lands, and expropriating their wealth, resources, and labor.” Indeed, if one wants to find a culture defined by imperialist ambitions, Islam fits the bill much better than do Europeans and Americans, latecomers to the great game of imperial domination that Muslims successfully played for a thousand years.

“From the first Arab-Islamic empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire,” Karsh writes, “the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams.”

A recent example of this confusion caused by careless language can be found in commentary about the on-going dissolution of Iraq caused by sectarian and ethnic conflicts. There is a growing consensus that the creation of new nations in the region after World War I sowed the seeds of the current disorder. Ignoring those ethnic and sectarian differences, the British fashioned the nation of Iraq out of three Ottoman provinces that had roughly concentrated Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a in individual provinces.

There is much of value to be learned from this history, but even intelligent commentators obscure that value with misleading words like “colonial.” Wall Street Journal writer Jaroslav Trofimov, for example, recently writing about the creation of the Middle Eastern nations, described France and England as “colonial powers.” Similarly, columnist Charles Krauthammer on the same topic used the phrase “colonial borders.” In both instances, the adjectives are historically misleading.

France and England, of course, were “colonial powers,” but their colonies were not in the Middle East. The region had for centuries been under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. Thus Western “colonialism” was not responsible for the region’s dysfunctions. Rather, it was the incompetent policies and imperialist fantasies of the Ottoman leadership during the century before World War I, which culminated in the disastrous decision to enter the war on the side of Germany, that bear much of the responsibility for the chaos that followed the defeat of the Central Powers.

Another important factor was the questionable desire of the British to create an Arab national homeland in the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, and to gratify the imperial pretensions of their ally the Hashemite clan, who shrewdly convinced the British that their self-serving and marginal actions during the war had been important in fighting the Turks.

Obviously, the European powers wanted to influence these new nations in order to protect their geopolitical and economic interests, but they had no desire to colonize them. Idealists may decry that interference, or see it as unjust, but it is not “colonialism” rightly understood.

No more accurate is Krauthammer’s use of “colonial borders” to describe the region’s nations. Like all combatants in a great struggle, in anticipation of the defeat of the Central Powers, the British and French began planning the settlement of the region in 1916 in a meeting that produced the Sykes-Picot agreement later that year. But there is nothing unexceptional or untoward in this. In February 1945, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met in Yalta to negotiate their spheres of influence in Germany and Eastern Europe after the war. It would be strange if the Entente powers had notlaid out their plans for the territories of the defeated enemy.

Thus as part of the peace treaties and conferences after World War I, the French and British were given, under the authority of negotiated treaties and the supervision of the League of Nations, the “mandates” over the former Ottoman territories lying between Egypt and Turkey. In 1924 the goal of the mandates was spelled out in Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant: “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

Thus the nations created in the old Ottoman territory were sanctioned by international law as the legitimate prerogative of the victorious Entente powers. There was nothing “colonial” about the borders of the new nations.

One can legitimately challenge the true motives of the mandatory powers, doubt their sincerity in protesting their concern for the region’s peoples, or criticize their borders for serving European interests rather than those of the peoples living there. But whatever their designs, colonizing was not one of them. Indeed, by 1924 colonialism had long been coming into question for many in the West, and at the time of the post-war settlement the reigning ideal was not colonialism, but ethnic self-determination as embodied in the nation-state, as Woodrow Wilson had called for in February 1918: “National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent.” The Anglo-French Declaration issued a few days before the war ended on November 11, 1918 agreed, stating that their aims in the former Ottoman territories were “the establishment of National Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.”

Again, one can question the wisdom of trying to create Western nation-states and political orders in a region still intensely tribal, with a religion in which the secular nation is an alien import. That incompatibility continues to be an ongoing problem nearly a century later, as we watch the failure of nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the hopes of the Arab Spring dashed in the violence and disorder of the Arab Winter.

But whatever the sins of the Europeans in the Middle East, colonialism is not one of them. The misuse of the term may sound trivial, but it legitimizes the jihadist narrative of Western guilt and justified Muslim payback through terrorist violence, now perfumed as “anticolonial resistance.” It reinforces what Middle East scholar J.B. Kelly called the “preemptive cringe,” the willingness of the West to blame itself for the region’s problems, as President Obama did in his 2009 Cairo speech when he condemned the “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.”

This apologetic stance has characterized our foreign policy and emboldened our enemies for half a century. Today the region is in more danger of collapse into widespread violence and more of a threat to our national interests than at any time in the last fifty years. Perhaps we should start crafting our foreign policy on the foundations of historical truth and precise language.

July 16, 2015

Martial Law in the U.S., by Robert Richardson [nc]

Filed under: crime control, Econonics, Education, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, gun control, handguns, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, self-defense, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:46 pm

Martial Law in the United States: How Likely is it, and What will happen under Martial law?
Filed under Man-made Disasters, Preparedness, Threats
Posted by: Robert Richardson

The march towards martial law is something that is often ignored by the general public, often labeled as Quackery or something belonging on conspiracy websites. But what’s happening in this country is exactly what our founders warned us about, and martial law is something they took very, very seriously.
What is martial law?

If you’re looking for a definition, then Martial Law basically means using state or national military force to enforce the will of the government on the people.

Under a declaration of martial law, Constitutional freedoms and liberties are suspended, and civilians are no longer entitled to their civil rights. It basically allows the government, or a tyrannical politician, to shred the Constitution and impose its will through military force.
History of Martial Law in the United States of America

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
Winston Churchill

In one way or another there have always been tyrants who have used the power of government to suppress and control the public. But if we are looking for specific examples of Martial Law being used inside the United States, we don’t have to look very hard or far to find them.

Using the strictest definition of the term, we can see the roots of martial law in America take hold during the lead up to the Revolutionary war. Although there were many reasons for the war, including resistance to taxes imposed by the British parliament, the main catalyst was England’s decision to use military troops to enforce everyday law throughout the colonies.
The beginning of the end? The Civil War Ushers in a Strong Central Government through Martial Law Enforcement

Civil War Soldiers

Flash forward a hundred years, and many of the most egregious examples of martial law can be found throughout the civil war. While today’s history books largely ignore the real reasons for the war, or the many atrocities committed by President Lincoln, the facts of what really happened cannot be disputed.

The reason we have lost so many of our liberties can be tied directly to the civil war.

On September 15, 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. While history contends the war was fought to end slavery, the truth is, Lincoln by his own admission never really cared about freeing slaves. In fact, Lincoln never intended to abolish slavery, his main interest was centralizing government power and using the federal government to exert complete control over all citizens. The abolishment of slavery was only a byproduct of the war; it actually took the 13th amendment to end slavery, since Lincoln actually only freed Southern slaves, not slaves in states loyal to the Union.

During the Civil War, Lincoln continually violated the Constitution, in some cases suspending the entire Constitution that he swore to uphold.

He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus without the consent of congress.
He shutdown newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to Union policy or spoke out against him.
He raised troops without the consent of Congress.
He closed courts by force.
He even imprisoned citizens, newspaper owners and elected officials without cause and without a trail.

Our founders were very wary of using the military to enforce public policy, and concerns about this type of abuse date back to, and largely influenced, the creation of the Constitution. The founders continually warned about using military force to uphold law and order; unfortunately, most Americans are rather ignorant of history and are even more ignorant to what our actual founders intended when they created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What will happen under Martial law?

Military Style SWAT Team Raid

The actual words martial law will probably never be used.

The first thing you will likely see is a declaration of a “State of Emergency”. This may be done nationally, in cases of war or a large-scale terrorist attacks; or it may happen locally, as witnessed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

In August of 2005, New Orleans was declared a disaster area and a state of emergency was declared by the governor. This allowed state officials to order evacuations and forcefully remove residents from their homes, suspend certain laws, confiscate firearms, and suspend the sale of items like liquor, firearms and ammunition.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police, the U.S. Marshalls office, and the Louisiana National Guard forcibly confiscated over 1,000 legal firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Depending on the reasons behind the declaration you may also see:

The suspension of the Constitution, probably starting with the first and second amendment.
Confiscation of firearms; it has happened and it will happen again.
Suspension of Habeas corpus: Imprisonment without due process and without a trail.
Travel Restrictions, including road closures and possibly even quarantine zones.
Mandatory Curfews and Mandatory Identification.
Automatic search and seizures without warrant.

When can Martial Law be enacted?

Military Force

When Martial Law can be enacted is a pretty touchy subject, largely because our founders never intended the federal government or a standing army be permitted to take such actions. Unfortunately, most people accept these unconstitutional activities, and are more than willing to give up their essential liberties in exchange for peace of mind and not having to think for themselves.

This is something Benjamin Franklin warned about when he famously wrote,
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

How likely is martial law in the United States?

Let’s face it, this country is a ticking time bomb. From widespread social unrest, crime and violence to a growing national debt which includes an entire subset of our population that depends on government assistance to exist, the writing is on the wall: Trouble is Coming.

Riots in the Streets of America

In my opinion, we are already under a form of martial law. The founders never intended standing armies policing the citizens of the United States; sadly that is exactly what we have.

Drones, armored vehicles with high power weapons, tanks, and battlefield helicopters are no longer something that you see on some foreign battlefield; it’s now standard operating procedure at police stations throughout the country. Our federal government has poured billions of dollars into militarizing and taking over our country’s local police forces, in what can only be described as a domestic military force or standing army meant to enforce federal law.

President Bush Expands Martial Law Authority

George Bush Signing Bill

On September 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122). The law expanded the President’s authority to declare Martial Law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and actually allowed the President to take charge of National Guard troops without state governor authorization.

While certain aspects of the bill were rolled back in 2008, President Obama used the 2012 NDAA to further strengthen the Executive offices ability to declare Martial Law, and added provisions that would allow military troops to detain U.S. citizens without a trial.

President Obama Forms National Police Task Force; Uses Social unrest as Justification.

Obama Signing Bill

In March of 2015, the Obama administration put together a task force that outlined rules for our nation’s police.

In his Task Force on 21st century policing report, he outlined the formation of a National Policing Practices and Accountability Division within the federal government. The report went on to describe how the Department of Homeland Security could be used to “ensure that community policing tactics in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are incorporated into their role in homeland security.”

Increasing number of Joint Police/Military Drills are using American Citizens as Theoretical Threats.

Military Style Police Force

From the Jade Helm Military drills that classified Texas and Utah as hostile zones, to National Guard troops in California using crisis actors to portray “right-wing” U.S. citizens in their training exercises, there is a growing number of military style drills that are portraying American citizens as the perceived threat.

Back in 2012, an army report about the future use of the military as a police force within the United States looked at theoretical situations where the U.S. Army could be used against Tea Party “insurrectionists” who take over U.S. cities. During that same time period, the Department of Homeland Security released a report titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States,” where they outlined who the federal government sees as the largest terrorist threat in the country – that threat was U.S. citizens with extreme “right-wing” views.

The United Stated of America that our Founders created is gone; it’s been replaced by a system that has grown so powerful that most people don’t even realize they’ve become enslaved by that very system.

So how likely is Martial Law in the United States? Well, it’s already here; unfortunately, most people will choose to ignore the reality of the situation.

June 17, 2015

Postcolonial Rot Spreads Beyond Middle East Studies, by Bruce. S. Thornton, [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Education, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Iran, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Racism, Religion, Uncategorized, Valerie Jarrett, Yemen — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:21 pm

The Postcolonial Rot Spreads Beyond Middle East Studies
June 17, 2015 3:06 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine

middle-east-scholarshipsIn theory, Middle East Studies programs are a good idea. One of the biggest impediments to countering modern jihadism has been the lack of historical knowledge about the region and Islam. But even the attention and urgency that followed the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have not led to such knowledge. The result has been policies pursued both by Republicans and Democrats that are doomed to fail, as the current chaos in the region attests.

Rather than enlightening citizens and policy-makers, Middle Eastern Studies programs have darkened our understanding. As Martin Kramer documented in his important 2002 study Ivory Towers on Sand [3], most programs have become purveyors not of knowledge but of ideology. Under the influence of literary critic Edward Said’s historically challenged book Orientalism––“a work,” historian Robert Irwin has written [4], “of malignant charlatanry, in which it is hard to distinguish honest mistakes from willful misrepresentations”­­––Middle East Studies programs, Kramer writes, “came under a take-no-prisoners assault, which rejected the idea of objective standards, disguised the vice of politicization as the virtue of commitment, and replaced proficiency with ideology.” The ideology, of course, comprised the old Marxist narrative of Western colonial and imperial crimes, a Third Worldism that idealizes the dark-skinned, innocent “other” victimized by Western depredations, and the juvenile romance of revolutionary violence.

Yet Said’s baleful influence has not been limited to Middle East Studies programs, one of which has been created at my campus of the California State University, replete with theproblems [5] Kramer catalogues. It has insidiously corrupted much of the humanities and social sciences, operating under the innocuous rubric of “postcolonial” studies, which to the unwary suggests a historical rather than an ideological category. Through General Education courses that serve students across the university, and in departments like English that train primary and secondary school teachers, Saidian postcolonial ideology has been shaping the attitudes and presumed knowledge of Islam and the Middle East far beyond the reach of Middle East Studies programs.

Said’s dubious argument in Orientalism is that the work of Western scholars on the Middle East embodied “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient,” thus creating the intellectual infrastructure for justifying colonialism and imperialism. As such, every European scholar perforce was “a racist, an imperialist, and totally ethnocentric.” For social science and humanities departments committed totally to the multiculturalist melodrama of white racism and oppression of the dark-skinned “other,” Said’s work seemingly provides scholarly bona fides to ideas that are in fact expressive of illiberal grievance politics.

English departments have been particularly vulnerable to Said’s work, for he overlaid his bad history with watered down Foucauldian ideas about the relationship of power to discourse. Thus English professors seduced by the poststructuralist theory ascendant in 1978 when Orientalism was published found in that book a seemingly sophisticated theoretical paradigm that shared both poststructuralism’s disdain for objectivity and truth, and its “hermeneutics of suspicion,” the notion that the apparent meaning of a discourse is a mask for the sinister machinations of power at the expense of the excluded “other.”

More important, postcolonialism is a politically activist theory, bound up as it is in the politics of the Middle East, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now English professors could avoid the legitimate charge that poststructuralism, despite its patina of leftist ideology, was in fact an evasion of politics, a “symbolic politics,” as historian Russell Jacoby put it, “a replacement for, and a diversion from, the gritty politics of the community and the street.” On the contrary, the purveyors of postcolonialism were on the barricades, struggling to liberate Palestinians and other Muslims oppressed by a neo-imperialist America and its puppet Israel. Rather than pampered elitists guaranteed jobs for life, now the professors could fancy themselves freedom fighters and champions of the ex-colonial brown peoples still exploited and oppressed by the capitalist, racist West.

Finally, the dogma of multicultural “diversity” now firmly enshrined in American universities likewise has found Saidian postcolonialism a useful tool for interpreting and teaching literature, one that exposes the Western literary canon’s hidden racism and oppression. Moreover, in a university like Fresno State, half of whose students are minorities, a postcolonial perspective can establish a rapport with minority students who are encouraged to interpret their own experiences through the same lens of unjust exclusion and hurtful distortions of their culture and identity. At the same time white students are schooled in their privilege and guilt, minorities can be comforted by a narrative that privileges them as victims of historical oppression, one masked by the unearned prestige of the classics written by “dead white males.” Now minority students learn that Shakespeare’s Caliban is the true hero the Tempest with whom they should identify, the displaced victim of rapacious colonialists and slavers like Prospero who unjustly define the indigenous peoples as savages and cannibals in order to justify the brutal appropriation of their lands and labor.

Over the thirty years I have taught in the California State University, I have seen this transformation of the English department. Reading lists dominated by contemporary ethnic writers are increasingly displacing the classics of English literature, and even when traditional works are on the list, the books are often taught from the postcolonial perspective. New hires more and more comprise those Ph.D.’s whose specialties lie in ethnic or “world” literature, replacing the Shakespeare scholars and others trained to teach the traditional English and American literary canon. The traditional content of a liberal education––“the best which has been thought and said in the world,” as Matthew Arnold wrote––is disappearing, replaced by multicultural melodramas of Western crime and guilt.

More important for the culture at large, many of these students will go on to earn teaching credentials and staff public schools. They will carry the postcolonial ideology into their own classrooms, influencing yet another generation and reinforcing a received wisdom that will shape their students’ understanding of the important threats to our national security and interests emanating from the Middle East, especially jihadism. And it will encourage ordinary citizens to assent to the demonization of our most valuable regional ally, Israel, currently battling the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement that can more easily gain traction among those who from grade school to university have been exposed to the postcolonial ideology.

The damage done to our foreign policy by Middle East Studies is obvious. The influence of the godfather of such programs, Edward Said, on the social sciences and humanities departments like English is more insidious and subtle. But it is no less dangerous.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/bruce-thornton/the-postcolonial-rot-spreads-beyond-middle-east-studies/

URLs in this post:

[2] Middle East Forum: http://www.meforum.org/

[3] Ivory Towers on Sand: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/IvoryTowers.pdf

[4] written: http://www.amazon.com/Lust-Knowing-Orientalists-Their-Enemies/dp/0140289232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434065002&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+irwin+for+lust+of+knowing

[5] problems: http://www.campus-watch.org/survey.php/id/70

Copyright © 2015 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.

May 12, 2015

Authority to approve treaties UNCONSTITUTIONAL [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Business, China, Econonics, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Japan, Media Check, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 3:31 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrjassoc@earthlink.net
May 11 at 4:37 PM
FYI
From: Joseph R. John [mailto:jrjassoc@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 2:29 PM
To: ‘Cdr William Ise’62, USN (Ret) (JAGC)
Subject: Republicans Congressional Leaders Giving Obama “Unconstitutional” Authority to By-Pass Congress in Approving Treaties

Bill,
In light of your comments with regard to the subject issue, you should review the below listed legal argument submitted by Dr Dennis Jackson. He states that there is no legal authority to delegate this type of authority because Congress does not have the right or authority to delegate this to a third party and surly not to the executive branch.
Specific mention is made of the Hamilton’s Paper 84 in his sophisticated argument, and he refers to the argument Madison made in Federalist Paper 45. You should share this with attorneys you communicate with and seek their support to ask their Senators not to pass the TPA Bill, because among many other destructive provisions, it eliminates all borders of the United States. We as a nation are in extremis because of the stupidity of the Republican leadership in Congress—this secret bill with thousands of pages no one has even seen is more destructive than Obamacare.

Respectfully,
Joe

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USN(Ret)
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109
Cell: (310) 989-8778

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
From: Dennis Jackson Monday, May 11, 2015 8:11 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: RE: Republicans Congressional Leaders Giving Obama “Unconstitutional” Authority to By-Pass Congress in Approving Treaties

Federalist Paper 45, Madison stated that the “powers.. delegated are few and defined”…

First we need to know what delegated means. Someone with authority allowed a subordinate to exercise the authority that is specifically defined. There is no authority to delegate this authority because congress does not have the right or authority to delegate this to a third party and surly not to the executive. Specific mention to Hamilton’s Paper 84 should be made here. Please see the paper, if you do not have a copy you can find a PDF on line so you can search it.

The Federalist has been used 291 times by the Supreme Court for guidance, it is Prima Facie intent of the Framers in developing the Constitution. The Federalist has also been used over 1500 times by lesser authorities in treatise, legal article and law reviews, it is a far gone conclusion.

The Debates also known as Elliot’s Debates are the foundation for the Federalist and are the notes from Madison who was the Secretary of the Convention. It is Gospel in the legal world. It is also available in PDF form. Until we as free men understand the system as it was intended we will forever be tilting windmills. The illusion created by decades of Marxist Methodology and socialist ideology is rampant. It may be past the breaking point. At the end of the day we are accountable for not informing ourselves. Relying on the officials who populate the halls of congress is about a smart as putting the wolf in the sheep pen to stand guard. We are the sheep dogs, those who know a lie when we hear it. We, as Samuel was commanded, are the watchmen on the wall and the protectors of the Republic.

It is sort of like navigation. The first things you do is fix your position. Without that you don’t know where you have come from or where you are going. It is that simple. The founding documents are the very least of the navigational tools. This is basic seamanship on the waters of history. It is our responsibility to know and be able to fix our position with whom ever we connect with. I have done this and even commented on a Socialist site. The response I got was many positive comments. The lady wrote me and commended my approach even though I identified myself as an NRA Life Patron Member, as Firearms Instructor and a Strict Construction Constitutionalist. There were other things as well but I am trying to be brief.

I have had other encounters and each time I quote Book and Verse of the Constitution , it original intent and the purpose for which it was written I get no takers fro an otherwise ravenous pack. The core issue her is, and there is always a core issue around which all the orbiting sub arguments are anchored to, none of the Socialists really understand the Document. They have been spoon fed the swill they regurgitate. When they get the truth in correct logical form they have no where to go. The truth is a powerful tool when you are able to articulate it. If you get caught in the rhetoric and succumb to the reaction to choke the shit out of some ass hole who desperately deserves it you loose. If you stay the course and don’t succumb and respond with truth and correct logic, as in Aristotelian Logic, they clam right up because that are not trained to combat logic. Its like a shoot out with a bunch of guys wielding clubs, slaughter.

So if you will look at this document that I am sending it will fix a position for you. Not only will it fix the position for the subject that I intended it for, immigration, it will fix the position for the instant cause in your communication. I think that I perhaps have sent this along but I wanted to refresh your memory and illustrate how simple a thing is if we simply educate ourselves. In other terms Jesus fought with the Pharisees for the same reason. They perverted the law with the “traditions of men”. This is the same way our Law, the Constitution, is being cut to pieces. We are fighting the same type of corruption with these critters who have sold their soul to Lucifer. Don’t believe me??? Get a copy of Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”. He actually dedicated his book to Lucifer. The Biblical prophesies are exactly true and no one is in touch enough to see it. Remember the Jews were in denial right up to and into the gas chambers.
My gratitude to you sir. You are an honorable man and I am glad to see such in this day. I hope you take my words in the spirit in which they were intended. I may be a bit terse but I think candy coating is about as smart as shooting yourself in the foot. A word on how to treat these rascals and old Hindu Proverb:

“If you feed a serpent milk you only increase its venom.”

God Bless and Thank You for Your Service,
Dennis Jackson
________________________________________
From: jrjassoc@earthlink.net
To: jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Subject: Republicans Congressional Leaders Giving Obama “Unconstitutional” Authority to By-Pass Congress in Approving Treaties
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 00:34:40 -0700
On Tuesday the Republican leadership will encourage the House and Senate to vote to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Initiative; the bill is known as “Trade Promotion Authority” or TPA—no one has even seen thousands of pages of Obama’s Secret Trade Bill —now the Republican leadership is saying “we will have to pass it to see what is in it”. The Republican leaders are planning to give Obama “Carte Blanche” to enter into “Fast-Track Trade Treaties” in “total secrecy” eventually with future countries such as Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc., because Obama will be able to add other countries to this agreement, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL; it “short circuits the legislative process” which requires a two thirds majority vote of the US Senate to approve Treaties. Republican leaders are planning to give Obama unprecedented power to curtail Congressional checks and balances on Treaties, even while they have been watching him for 6 ½ years, violate Federal Immigration Laws, the US Constitution, and Freedom of Religion for members of the US Armed Forces.

The TPA Bill has many damaging provisions, among them, it will allow millions of foreign workers to be given visas to enter the US at a time when 104 million Americans are unemployed, the TPA will open the way to import dangerous foods products that will negatively affect the health of unsuspecting Americans, according to Congressman Alan Grayson (R-FL-9) it will ship millions of American jobs overseas, it will “force the US” to abide by UN & EPA business destructive unproven climate change regulations, will “force the US” to abide by the UN’s Small Arms Trade Treaty(ATT) which was voted down by the US Senate & violates the 2nd Amendment’s provision that allows American citizens to purchase and sell their small arms, and it will force the US Congress to abide by every UN Treaty, undermining the sovereignty of the United States.

The TPA initially embraces 12 nations including the US, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore; however there is a provision in the agreement that allows Obama to add other countries in the future, like Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, etc.. The TPA is a secret Obama Law, like the secret Obamacare Law, that will allow the free flow of Mexican, South American, and Asian workers to enter the US (not only will the southern border remain wide open, but the US will no longer have any borders “at all”, or any barriers to entry), the millions of new entering foreign workers will willingly work for exceptionally lower wages under substandard conditions. Details in thousands of unread pages of this law have not been read or worked out, yet the Republican leadership is giving Obama “Fast-Track” authority to make any and all decisions in all and every treaty with the initial 12 countries and as many additional countries Obama decides on in the future, without Senate ratification (all future trade treaties will no longer be subject to the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority of the US Senate for ratification). Republican leaders are enhancing Obama’s control of foreign policy, while making the Congress irrelevant.

In order to deal with the millions of Americans who will be losing their jobs because of the TPA Bill, under the radar, the Republican leadership of the House and Senate is crafting a bill to go along with TPA, known as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill to be passed on the same day the TPA Bill is passed—-it should more appropriately be entitled the “Put all American Workers on Welfare Bill Because of the TPA Bill”. That new Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill specifically targets workers and farmers who lose their livelihood, because of this “Stupid TPA Bill” being promoted by the Republican leadership in Congress, which will result in millions of Americans losing their jobs because of what Obama will authorize in secret “Trade Treaties” with foreign countries, that will be devastating to the labor movement and jobs in the United States.

Once Obama uses his “Fast-Track” authority to agree with UN Regulations, Congress would not be able to modify or amend those TPP provision entered into solely by Obama himself, without Congressional involvement at all, and Obama’s individual decision would have the force of the “law of the land” under the US Constitution. This proposed “living agreement” by Republican leaders in Congress will seriously undercut the re-employment of 104 million unemployed Americans, because as a “living agreement”, it would leave the southern border of the US to be even more porous than it is today, and will allow Obama to change immigration policy “at will” without Congressional approval—those proposed provisions of the TPA are absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Republican leaders are approving the massive immigration of millions of Illegal Aliens from Mexico and from 12 other countries.

The Republican leadership will surrender its authority to write Federal Immigration Laws by passing TPA, thus enabling Obama to use his pen to simply authorize the importation of millions of non-Christian Asian, Japanese, Malaysian, Brunei, Darussalam, Singapore, and eventually Chinese and Iranian workers. According to the Greek Catholic Relief Agency, for over 6 ½ years, Obama has refused to allow any of the 300,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christian refugees in the Middle East to enter the US, while Canada has been resettling those Syrian and Assyrian Christians. Obama’s has only been allowing the entry of Muslim refugees thru the UN Muslim Refugees Resettlement Program, and has been intentionally excluded Christians. Now the Republican leadership is giving Obama the right to bring in millions of Asian immigrant workers who are also not of the Christian faith.

Obama has been resettling hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees in 195 cities across the nation without elected state and city officials being provided with specific details on who is being resettled in their cities, and without informing them who is going to pay for the health care, resettlement costs, transportation costs, education of refugee children, the welfare costs of refugee families, food stamps, and housing costs for hundreds of thousands of those Muslim refugees being brought into their communities.

Supporters of this aggressive secret Obama initiative include Democratic Progressives in Congress, Democratic Congressman Danny K. Davis who received an award from the Communist Party in 2012, David Cortright who is Obama’s close Chicago associate on the Committee for a Sane Nuclear policy (SANE), Communist Tom Hayden who is a member of “Progressives for Obama”, Democratic Congressmen in the “Hanoi Lobby” who are aggressively supporting normalization of relations with Cuba, Cora Weiss who is a strong supporter of Communism & a member of the Anti-War Movement, Adam Hersh from the liberal Center for American Progress, the left of center liberal media establishment, and the Democratic Progressive Caucus. Those Leftists, Marxists, Progressives, and Communists, have been getting the very aggressive support of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, who have been working with the Democratic Progressive Caucus in Congress to pass the TPA (the 70 member Caucus includes Socialists, Progressives, Marxists, and Communists members of Congress),
.
The AFL-CIO Unions are on solid footing in their opposition to this “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority”. Responsible and clear thinking Democrats in Congress are against giving Obama “Fast-Track” authority with this labor damaging bill’ it will allow millions of new workers to enter the US, will force the Congress to abide by environmental protection standards that will restrict business development & job growth in the US, will allow currency manipulation, and will allow millions of new Mexican Illegal Alien workers to legally enter & work in the United States. The Republican leaders in Congress should use some degree of “Common Sense” and wait for 19 months, before they give the occupant in the Oval Office any trade promotion authority, and only if that trade authority is very limited. Hopefully the new occupant of the Oval Office, unlike Obama, will be a pro-American president who supports and abides by the provisions of the US Constitution.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has alerted the American people about the dangers of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) speeding through Congress and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that TPA would help push. Senator S essions said, “The president has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting Congressional checks against those actions,” he said in a “critical alert” dispatched by Senator Session’s office. Senator Sessions and several outside groups said Obama could change immigration policies between trading partners “at will” without any Congressional oversight. “The plain language of TPA provides avenues for Obama and trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S. — including issuing visitor visas that are used as worker visas,” said Senator Sessions. The bases of that charge is a phrase in TPA calling it a “living agreement.” Sessions said that means that they can be changed after Congress approves them, and also that countries can be added in the future, including China. “It leaves it open for a president to change it without Congressional approval,” warned Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Congress should not surrender its authority to write immigration laws to either the executive branch, to trade negotiators, and definitely not to international trade tribunals,” she added.

The Republican Leadership of the House and Senate are planning to give Obama free rein with “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority”, with full the knowledge of Obama’s very dangerous anti-American track record, and his pro-Marxist/Communist initiatives. Even the most casual observer of Obama’s dangerous foreign policy initiatives can’t help but understand that, in the past 6 ½ years, Obama foreign policy decisions have consistently favored the enemies of the Republic like Radical Islamic Terrorists in Libya, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam, Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iran, Radical Islamic Terrorist in the Muslim Brotherhood, Chavez’s Socialist Venezuela, Castro’s Communist Cuba, and Putin’s anti-American Russia—they have all collectively and repeatedly expressed their intent to destroy the Republic as it was created by the Founding Fathers.

A newly elected pro-American Patriotic US President would judiciously apply trade promotion authority negotiations by entering into separate Trade Treaties with 12 Asian and South American countries, while abiding by the provision of the US Constitution that requires a two thirds majority vote of the US Senate to approve each treaty. The American people need to rise up and oppose Obama’s secret TPA Bill by calling their Senate representatives at (202) 224-3121 and by sending FaxGrams to their Senate and Congressional representatives telling them to reject Obama’s “Fast-Track” authority which will permit Obama to enter into and force the Congress to abide by all UN Treaties, and will also permit Obama to enter into future secret treaties with countries such as Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, etc. This most recent initiative by Republican leadership in the House and Senate, follows their inept funding of Obamacare, illegal Immigration, and Obama’s wide open southern border policy thru September 2015, is approaching insanity and would be akin to allowing the fox into the chicken coop.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USN(Ret)
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

To:
The Honorable Citizens of the United States, the House of Representatives, the Senate and Justices

Dear Souls:

I am delivering this message to inform you of a dire situation within our country. We, the People of the United States have been besieged by those who think so little of us as to consider us their prey. We are scorned, made light of and our system of election has even been accosted by those who would steal by fraud and deceit our very birthright. I cannot say that every person so situated is part of the faction that seeks to unilaterally place themselves above the law, without authority and to the detriment of the People as a whole. As human beings who are lawful citizens of these United States we are entitled to be fairly treated and our elected officials be in obedience to the Law they swore to uphold.

It both saddens and infuriates me to witness the destruction of our country by those who would make themselves our masters. We are not their servants, their slaves or surfs. We not only have the right to be free, we have the duty to demand and to exercise the mechanisms with which to free ourselves and the responsibility to ourselves and our posterity to make it so. But we cannot exercise that right and duty in the darkness of ignorance, we must be informed. We must understand the foundation of our system. To do this we must consult not those who pervert the Great Charter of our system of government but those who conceived and put this government to order. Those who bled and died lost their fortunes and families are the authority; the ones whose souls could not condone servitude are the voices that we must rediscover, not those who pretend and usurp.

I am sorry to say we have criminals in office, not by my word or act but their own. If it be their ignorance then they have this opportunity to correct it, if not they expose themselves for the traitors to the People they are.

CRIMINALS IN OFFICE

The legislature and others in government service or office have erected for themselves an elite status not authorized by the Constitution. As such it cannot be authorized by any law made in pursuance to the Constitution. Harry Reid says it’s the Law of the Land get over it, we say ok the Law of the Land. O’l Harry is quick to use the Law against the mere citizen but not on himself. Let’s examine the Law of the Land and just how these elites have made themselves lords over us.

We now live in a country where the people who make the law do not obey it. There is no authority to treat everyone differently or put one class of people over another. There is no grant of privilege by the Law of the Land to allow those who hold office any more right that the rest. A brief look into the basic law, the Constitution, and its history and intent will show any such notion to be completely without substance either inferred or expressly stated. Neither wealthy politicians of the right or the socialist exhibit any difference in this one idea.

The wealthy claim their elite status is due to their superior acumen in financial and economic affairs, while the socialists claim their elite status is due to their support of the down trodden and disadvantaged. But the common theme of them both is that they should be entitled to a status which is above their fellow. They grant themselves exemption from the same rules they enforce on others because they occupy a public office. The problem is that there is no such grant of authority and the status is one that is created for their sole benefit. In fact the overwhelming evidence is that there is to be no such distinction.
The delegates while debating the Constitution, the Framers, consistently put forth the effort to make sure no aristocratic class was set up or developed through service in government or holding office. In other words, no elite ruling class was intended. In fact the arrangement of and separation of powers and division of delegated authority was intended to prevent the formation of an aristocracy. This they were so intent upon it surfaced in the debates time and again. From Elliott’s Debates, the Notes of Madison during the Convention:
“We should remember that the people never act from reason alone. The rich will take
the advantage of their passions, and make these the instruments for oppressing them.
The result of the contest will be a violent aristocracy, or a more violent despotism.
The schemes of the rich will be favored by the extent of the country. The people in
such distant parts cannot communicate and act in concert. They will be the dupes of
those who have more knowledge and intercourse. The only security against
encroachments will be a select and sagacious body of men, instituted to watch against them on all sides.”

Mr. MASON. “……Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.”

“Mr. BUTLER. There is no right of which the people are more jealous than that of
suffrage. Abridgments of it tend to the same revolution as in Holland, where they
have at length thrown all power into the hands of the senates, who fill up vacancies
themselves, and form a rank aristocracy.”

“Col. MASON ……. His idea of an aristocracy was, that it was the government of the few over the many. An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. The purse-strings should never be put into its hands.”

Madison gives us several methods of creating this aristocracy. The chief of these methods is for the legislature to control the electors or the candidates. This brings us to mind of targeting the conservative groups, like the Tea Party, by the IRS. When we see the lax enforcement of the laws and congress’ lack of energy in pursuing and punishing the offenders we begin to wonder why. Certainly the power of the two major political parties and the apparent cooperation of the main stream republicans to defeat outsiders we are left with at least a question in our minds. But the example represents mischief’s want to exclude those who are not of like mind and further consolidate the power in the hands of the few, the elite.

Mr. MADISON was opposed to the section, as vesting an improper and dangerous
power in the legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental
articles in a republican government, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the
legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A
republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy, as well by limiting the
number capable of being elected as the number authorized to elect. In all cases where
the representatives of the people will have a personal interest distinct from that of
their constituents, there was the same reason for being jealous of them as there was
for relying on them with full confidence, when they had a common interest. This was
one of the former cases. It was as improper as to allow them to fix their own wages, or
their own privileges. It was a power, also, which might be made subservient to the
views of one faction against another. Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions
may be devised by the stronger in order to keep out partizans of a weaker faction.

Madison’s Notes on the Debates

The continued persistence of the IRS in targeting conservative groups and the proposed new “rule change” further exhibit both the use of the bureaucracy to harass a political group. The IRS’ informal attack against conservative groups that are attempting to exert a lawful right, to freely associate on political subjects has been directly challenged by a bureaucratic agency. How convenient for the politicians. They have no control over the creature they have created. It is allowed to run amok, exactly as Madison gave example to, and harass a weaker faction. Never mind that free speech was exactly political speech during the Colonial period. Without any meaningful act of oversight by the legislature we have evidence again of the mindset of this “elite” class to preserve itself and position. If you add the support of the Chamber of Commerce and their explicit stated goal of spending tens of millions on candidates who support immigration reform, the Trans Pacific Partnership and the other “business friendly” agenda of the Chamber, we see a continuation of the same. The votes of the people become less and less meaningful and the “elite” secure their position by any means available, legal or otherwise. Don’t forget there are Democrats who want this Trans Pacific Partnership, just like Democrat legislators Waters and Pelosi voting to bail out the banks on the backs of the American People because they or family members had interests in the banks. Of course they are the “elite” they deserve it…..

The real question is, do the “elite” have some special privilege, secured by the Law of the Land?? Do they have the right, the authority to manipulate the system of elections, the economy and the government in order secure to themselves and their friends privilege that the People as a whole do not??? Of course we must consult the Law of the Land, remember what Harry said, in order to find out. We have seen the intention of the Framers when they were in debate discussing the Constitution. They were of a mind, so the records show, that no “aristocracy” was to be condoned and that they were initiating specific steps to block the formation of an “elite”.

The Framer’s line of reasoning continues into the Federalist Papers. The propensity of the “elite” to grant themselves special exemptions from the laws they wrote was addressed specifically. The writings of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison have been use over 1500 times to interpret the Constitution by the legislature and the courts. Madison states it best in Federalist 57. Madison places a great amount of emphasis on favoritism in the making and executing laws and makes it perfectly clear that it is the citizen’s duty through his vigilant manly spirit which is the guardian and intolerant force against such abuses of the legislature as well as the proper function of a Republican system:
“I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. “
The Federalist, Paper 57, James Madison
Madison continues on to denounce the practice of elitist abuses in regard to the law and pronounces it the path to tyranny. He states plain language that the true and intended operation of the system “the nature of just and constitutional laws” was the safeguard but availing that it would be the American Spirit and strength as men and women.
“If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America — a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”
Federalist 57
So Madison states the “whole system” was intended to be a bar against favoring any person or group or people, especially an elite legislature of government/ruling class. A debased spirit that tolerates the legislature making laws for others it does not obey. Madison’s explanation is very enlightening. How far have we come to allow this to happen??? Shall we not be ashamed and unworthy of the liberty so hard won by blood, fortune and sorrow that we may be defeated as a debased spirit. Are we so debased of our own right of being that we gladly shackle ourselves to the yoke of oppression???

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any authority granted by the People to the officers, officials and employees of the government to violate any law by virtue of their office. The legislature does not get to pass judgment on itself for the violations of laws, only violations of virtue and ethical infractions. Article I Section 3 Clause 7 granting authority for impeachment only involves the removal from office. The offenders are still liable for criminal acts:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Article I Section 3 Clause 7

The Constitution specifically states that the legislators are immune from arrest from and to sessions and are not liable for things said on the floor of their respective assemblies. But that is all the privilege they get. Treason, felonies and Breach of the Peace are expressly stated as charges they are liable for without reservation. Remember the term felonies….

Here is the exact text of the Constitution:
“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Article I Section 6 Clause 2, United States Constitution
The Constitution also states that there are to be:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States….”,
Article I Section 9 Clause 8.
The concept has come through a clear line of reasoning form the Debates of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and finally in express terms in the body of the Constitution itself. This is the limit of authorization for the legislature and their very specific and limited immunity. We find no enlargement of privilege that even remotely allows the elected officials the right to violate the laws, either those in existence or even those they create. Such a law is immediately unconstitutional and without authority to make from the outset. It is an overreach of authority, one they do not have even in the plain language of the document itself. Where no authority is given and it is expressly forbidden any attempt to enact of even solicit such a mere piece of legislation is a violation of the Constitution and the oaths they all took.
Now look at the law that the politicians are violating every day the law they would change to dis- enfranchise you with by creating, with a stoke of a pen, a voting block so large that the People, the rightful citizens, would be overwhelmed and their very right to a meaningful vote be stolen:

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
8 USC Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . .
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . .
in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in
respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . .
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA
274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local
government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who
lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him
or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an
employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Just how many politicians have spoken at pro “immigration” rallies, how many town and city councils have created “sanctuary cities” or even states, all felons. Now remember representatives and senators may be arrested for felonies without regard to the limited immunity, even while in session.
Not only have these criminals committed felonies for encouraging illegal aliens (Yes they are illegal aliens not illegal immigrants, the crooks use immigrant or immigration to make is seem less lawless.) People who invade our borders are aliens and they are illegal. They have never entered the immigration process. They never intended to enter the path to be lawful citizens. They have intentionally broken the law of the federal government, the state governments and something called the Law of Nations. Calling a lemon and apple does not make it an apple……
The example the whole “immigration” thing is an example of the song and dance these varmints go through to pull the wool over your eyes. They will not be above board and be forthright, they are afraid of what would happen if you Citizens knew the truth. Most are attorneys so ignorance of the law should never be a defense, it isn’t to us. There is no privilege to ignorance to the Constitution. If they took the oath they should know what they are signing on for.
Did I mention that you as a citizen, having knowledge of a Felony being or has been committed you can arrest the perpetrator????? Yep all legal like and in some states you may use force…. Remember there is no immunity for felonies for the legislators. So don’t be shy, they will not when they impose their hypocritical garbage on you. You can get more details at Google on citizen’s arrest. Do it right if you decide to. Don’t forget tell your friends, make it a party. So here is notice to them and to you. Tell the Criminals we don’t want any more criminals in office.
God Bless and Good Hunting,
Publius

May 6, 2015

Protestors: Y’all are now “On Notice”

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Iran, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, Treason, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:36 pm

Protestors: Y’all are now “On Notice”
Posted: 6 May 2015

Not too long ago, a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state employee stood in front of a polling place, cudgel in hand, cursing Whites, declaring that Blacks must rise up and kill all White babies or they will “kill us,” and Holder & Obama, and now Lynch, have declared that this is Free Speech pursuant to the 1st Amendment. Now, as a matter of law, since this man was a state employee, killing White babies and White Genocide, by virtue of the legal concept, “under color of law”, are now the official policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The concept of “under color of law” was used to allow the deep pockets of state governments to be invaded by Civil Rights Activists when county sheriffs or municipal police departments sicced dogs or cudgeled protestors back in the day when discrimination was considered unacceptable.

The very idea that a private citizen should not be allowed to hire a private venue to hold an artistic contest under protection of the 1st Amendment, and should be held accountable for the acts of terrorists, is, to say the very least, confusing. The cowardly idea that we should be silent because, in the case of Islam, whatever point we want to make will lead to a violent confrontation is an indictment of those who propose it as to cowardice.

Speaking the truth is more important than this absurd posturing that, ‘well, if it may lead to violence, you must remain silent or be accountable for the result’. If this position be acceptable to Americans, then we Americans would not be. The Founders of this Nation knew by 1772 that their continued demands for the Rights of Englishmen were leading to a violent confrontation.

Here is an unpleasant truth: Mohammed was a pedophile. He liked and married seven-year-old girls.

Here is another unpleasant truth: there are over 109 verses in the Qur’An calling for violence, beheading, lying to infidels, slavery, rape of slaves, that all Christians and Jews are the sworn enemies of Islam, and a calling to arms against all unbelievers. (List available at: http://www.justplainbill.wordpress.com.)

Here is another unpleasant truth: there is no such thing as radical Islam. All Islam is the same. There are two proofs. The first Proof is that there has never been a Reformation since the original recital. The second proof is that any Muslim Cleric may declare a Fatwah applying to all 1.4 Billion Muslims at any time, effective immediately, to end all violence, yet none have been issued.

The people in Texas have an indisputable, irrevocable 1st Amendment Right, to hold a private, non-violent, artistic contest in a private venue on any subject so chosen, the same as those who promoted the Mapplethorpe Exhibit, where defecating on the American Flag, and using the American Flag as a floor mat, were considered Free Speech, even though there was considerable, albeit restrained, counter-protest.

If the anti-Texas posturing were acceptable, then from now own, as shown by the recent college student flag defiling causing a violent reaction by a veteran, all flag defilers are on notice that they will be held personally responsible for all subsequent violence.

Therefore, from now on, all protestors are on notice, that if there is any violent counter to whatever it is that they are protesting, the violence and destruction therefrom is the legal liability of the initial protestors.

April 4, 2015

thereligionofpeace.com [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, crime control, Econonics, Education, Elections, Foreign Affairs, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Iran, Islam, Law Enforcement, Media Check, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Racism, Religion, US Constitution, Valerie Jarrett, Yemen — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 2:51 pm

TheReligionofPeace.com
Guide to Understanding Islam

What does the
Religion of Peace
Teach About…

Violence

Question:

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today’s Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse). Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill in his cause.

Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”

Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”

Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”

Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”

Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ in verse 16.

Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65) – The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Muslim (1:30) – “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Bukhari (52:73) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.”

Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”

Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”

Muslim (19:4294) – “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Bukhari 1:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.” The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 – “Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.” One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Additional Notes:

Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, then things change.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran plainly says. They reach subjectively for textual context across different suras to try and mitigate the harsher passages. Even though the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, Muslim apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret the verses without their “assistance.” Like many religious people, they want the text to fit their pre-established moral framework.

Far from being mere history or theological construct, the violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

So ingrained is violence in the religion that Islam has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He actually inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to attack in self-defense, this is an oxymoron that is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).

One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”

Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then, within the closer community, early Meccan converts battled later ones. Hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance – because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to learn that the evidence of the Quran and the bloody history of Islam are very much in contradiction to this.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally… and too many others who couldn’t care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page

© 2006-2016 TheReligionofPeace.com. All rights reserved.

February 16, 2015

Freedom of Speech, censorship, Islam, how about the 2nd Amendment? [nc]

Filed under: Anti-American Politicians, Econonics, Elections, Islam, Law Enforcement, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama Foreign Policy, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:36 pm

Erasmus
Religion and public policy

Previous
Next
Latest Erasmus
All latest updates

Religion, Europe and Denmark
Shooting at cartoonists, again
Feb 15th 2015, 15:31 by B.C.

Timekeeper

Copenhagen cafe attacked by terrorist

THE terrorist shootings in Denmark are the latest skirmish in Europe’s ongoing contest between freedom of expression and radical Islamists, and as with January’s attacks in Paris, they targeted both the press and the Jewish community. On Saturday afternoon, one person was killed and three police officers wounded when a gunman opened fire on a free-speech debate at a Copenhagen cafe (pictured) hosted by a controversial Swedish cartoonist, Lars Vilks. Hours later, a Jewish man was killed and another two police were injured near a synagogue. Today, police said they had killed the presumed perpetrator of both attacks after he opened fire on them.

Denmark is where this battle, part physical and part moral, got started a decade ago, after a Danish newspaper’s publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad led to riots. This is unsurprising, since the country presents an extreme case of western Europe’s paradoxical religious order. Christianity is historically privileged but practised in a serious way by only a small minority. Islam is numerically small but followed more passionately, at least by a substantial minority of its adherents; Muslims are quite sharply divided over how to interpret their faith. Judaism is even smaller and feels increasingly vulnerable. A substantial share of the population is either completely indifferent, or mildly hostile, to religion in all forms.

Mr Vilks, who escaped yesterday’s assault unhurt, has been involved in the conflict for years. He received multiple death threats after publishing a sketch in 2007 that depicted Muhammad as a donkey. Scandinavia in general has been the object of Islamist ire ever since the start of the so-called Danish cartoons affair in September 2005, when the Copenhagen newspaper Jyllands-Posten carried 12 drawings of Islam’s prophet; they were then republished by a Norwegian newspaper.

The cartoons affair had some dramatic immediate effects. In early 2006, there were protests across the world, with up to 200 people reported killed. This wasn’t a spontaneous outburst of rage, but a well-orchestrated one. A delegation of Muslims from Denmark had toured the heartlands of their faith, drawing attention to the sketches. As boycotts of Danish products were proclaimed in many Islamic countries, the government called it the country’s gravest foreign-policy crisis since 1945. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (later, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC) condemned the drawings and redoubled its efforts to establish the principle that blasphemy should be barred by law. The Economist argued that Western leaders were doing a poor job of defending free speech.

Over the next few years, some mildly reassuring things happened. An alternative voice for Danish Islam emerged, the centre-right politician Naser Khader who condemned the anti-cartoon activists as an unrepresentative minority who were bent on making political capital. One of the most active anti-cartoon campaigners, Ahmed Akkari, had a change of heart and said he had become a believer in free speech. (It’s slightly worrying that he now finds Greenland a more comfortable place to live than Denmark.) Even the OIC, under American pressure, has soft-pedalled its efforts to persuade the UN to criminalise blasphemy.

This weekend’s events, coming hard on the heels of last month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, could reignite passions. But one of Denmark’s most passionate free-speech advocates, who happens to be of Muslim heritage himself, is adamant that now would be the worst possible time for politicians to slacken, even by careless use of language, their determination to protect liberty of expression.

Jacob Mchangama, a lawyer and founder of a human-rights think-tank called Justitia, told me it would be a disaster if his country were to grow faint-hearted in its defence of free speech. “There can be no truce in the struggle between secular democracy and extremism,” he says.

Above all, politicians should avoid the trap of saying or implying that violence was really the fault of provocateurs, or that religious insult was to be equated with physical injury. Giving in to that sort of relativism would be letting down those followers of Islam who were brave enough to stand up for free speech, and indulging in a sort of “bigotry of low expectations”, said Mr Mchangama, whose paternal forebears were Muslims from the Comoros Islands. A good point.
Previous

Gender, violence and religion: When north and south agree
Next

Submit to reddit

View all comments (197)Add your comment
More from The Economist

Daily chart: Islam in Europe
Daily chart: Islam in Europe
Starbucks in Britain: A loss-making machine
Starbucks in Britain: A loss-making machine
What Russia wants: From cold war to hot war
What Russia wants: From cold war to hot war

Britain’s role in the world: Muscle memory
German-Americans: The silent minority
The unbalanced global economy: American shopper

Zimbabwe’s economy: Nothing for money
University endowments: The lolly and the Ivies
Rolls-Royce: Rolls with the punches

Readers’ comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

January 22, 2015

Education and Class, From The Economist [Applies everywhere, not just U.S.]

Filed under: Bail-out, Business, Econonics, Education, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:43 pm

Education and class
America’s new aristocracy
As the importance of intellectual capital grows, privilege has become increasingly heritable
Jan 24th 2015 | From the print edition

Timekeeper

WHEN the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination line up on stage for their first debate in August, there may be three contenders whose fathers also ran for president. Whoever wins may face the wife of a former president next year. It is odd that a country founded on the principle of hostility to inherited status should be so tolerant of dynasties. Because America never had kings or lords, it sometimes seems less inclined to worry about signs that its elite is calcifying.
Advertisement

Thomas Jefferson drew a distinction between a natural aristocracy of the virtuous and talented, which was a blessing to a nation, and an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, which would slowly strangle it. Jefferson himself was a hybrid of these two types—a brilliant lawyer who inherited 11,000 acres and 135 slaves from his father-in-law—but the distinction proved durable. When the robber barons accumulated fortunes that made European princes envious, the combination of their own philanthropy, their children’s extravagance and federal trust-busting meant that Americans never discovered what it would be like to live in a country where the elite could reliably reproduce themselves.
In this section

America’s new aristocracy
The black flag in Africa
Unblocking the pipes
First—and last—do no harm
How to catch the overfishermen

Reprints
Related topics

Thomas Jefferson
United States

Now they are beginning to find out, (see article), because today’s rich increasingly pass on to their children an asset that cannot be frittered away in a few nights at a casino. It is far more useful than wealth, and invulnerable to inheritance tax. It is brains.

Matches made in New Haven

Intellectual capital drives the knowledge economy, so those who have lots of it get a fat slice of the pie. And it is increasingly heritable. Far more than in previous generations, clever, successful men marry clever, successful women. Such “assortative mating” increases inequality by 25%, by one estimate, since two-degree households typically enjoy two large incomes. Power couples conceive bright children and bring them up in stable homes—only 9% of college-educated mothers who give birth each year are unmarried, compared with 61% of high-school dropouts. They stimulate them relentlessly: children of professionals hear 32m more words by the age of four than those of parents on welfare. They move to pricey neighbourhoods with good schools, spend a packet on flute lessons and pull strings to get junior into a top-notch college.

The universities that mould the American elite seek out talented recruits from all backgrounds, and clever poor children who make it to the Ivy League may have their fees waived entirely. But middle-class students have to rack up huge debts to attend college, especially if they want a post-graduate degree, which many desirable jobs now require. The link between parental income and a child’s academic success has grown stronger, as clever people become richer and splash out on their daughter’s Mandarin tutor, and education matters more than it used to, because the demand for brainpower has soared. A young college graduate earns 63% more than a high-school graduate if both work full-time—and the high-school graduate is much less likely to work at all. For those at the top of the pile, moving straight from the best universities into the best jobs, the potential rewards are greater than they have ever been.

None of this is peculiar to America, but the trend is most visible there. This is partly because the gap between rich and poor is bigger than anywhere else in the rich world—a problem Barack Obama alluded to repeatedly in his state-of-the-union address on January 20th (see article). It is also because its education system favours the well-off more than anywhere else in the rich world. Thanks to hyperlocal funding, America is one of only three advanced countries where the government spends more on schools in rich areas than in poor ones. Its university fees have risen 17 times as fast as median incomes since 1980, partly to pay for pointless bureaucracy and flashy buildings. And many universities offer “legacy” preferences, favouring the children of alumni in admissions.

Nurseries, not tumbrils

The solution is not to discourage rich people from investing in their children, but to do a lot more to help clever kids who failed to pick posh parents. The moment to start is in early childhood, when the brain is most malleable and the right kind of stimulation has the largest effect. There is no substitute for parents who talk and read to their babies, but good nurseries can help, especially for the most struggling families; and America scores poorly by international standards (see article). Improving early child care in the poorest American neighbourhoods yields returns of ten to one or more; few other government investments pay off so handsomely.

Many schools are in the grip of one of the most anti-meritocratic forces in America: the teachers’ unions, which resist any hint that good teaching should be rewarded or bad teachers fired. To fix this, and the scandal of inequitable funding, the system should become both more and less local. Per-pupil funding should be set at the state level and tilted to favour the poor. Dollars should follow pupils, through a big expansion of voucher schemes or charter schools. In this way, good schools that attract more pupils will grow; bad ones will close or be taken over. Unions and their Democratic Party allies will howl, but experiments in cities such as battered New Orleans have shown that school choice works.

Finally, America’s universities need an injection of meritocracy. Only a handful, such as Caltech, admit applicants solely on academic merit. All should. And colleges should make more effort to offer value for money. With cheaper online courses gaining momentum, traditional institutions must cut costs or perish. The state can help by demanding more transparency from universities about the return that graduates earn on their degrees.

Loosening the link between birth and success would make America richer—far too much talent is currently wasted. It might also make the nation more cohesive. If Americans suspect that the game is rigged, they may be tempted to vote for demagogues of the right or left—especially if the grown-up alternative is another Clinton or yet another Bush.

Everyday Muslims on an Outing, from John [nc]

Filed under: Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Law Enforcement, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 7:33 pm

These are NOT radicals. These are everyday Muslims enjoying themselves, notice, near the end, what they are drinking and doing.

Muslims & WWII Cemetery

WW II – British Military Cemetery in Libya. See this video while it’s available and before it is removed!!!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=RtgbvotqVFE%3Frel%3D0

January 20, 2015

Why 12 U.S. Presidents have kept Cuba Isolated, Capt Joseph John, USN, [nc]

Filed under: Business, Econonics, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Media Check, Military, Political Commentary, Politicians, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 6:15 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Jan 19 at 5:45 PM

During Obama’s run for the Presidency in 2007, we alerted our supporters that there were photos of Che Guevara plastered on the walls of Obama’s campaign headquarters in Texas. Che was the hard core Communist revolutionary who was killed while trying to export Communism to Bolivia; he was being lionized by Castro and by supporters in Obama’s presidential campaign. While Castro’s Cuba is on the ropes economically, Obama is coming to the rescue of such a dangerous and oppressive Communist regime by recognizing Castro Cuba; lifting economic sanctions, supporting tourism, and allowing free trade, without insisting on concessions before recognizing such an oppressive Communist Cuban Government.

The New Black Panther Party has been receiving instruction in terrorist tactics and bomb making in Castro’s Cuba for the past 6 years, and Obama’s new travel policy will enhance that terrorist training (all terrorist training for the New Black Panther Party must cease prior to recognition). American Black Revolutionaries, who have assassinated US Police Officers over the years, then fled to Cuba, have been given a safe haven by Castro (their return should be demanded prior to recognition). There are 100,000 political prisoners in Cuban prisons & labor camps and Obama should demand that Castro allow fundamental human and religious freedoms for political prisoners (they should be should be freed prior to recognition). The financial support generated by the new tourist trade will permit Castro to export Communism and weapons to communist revolutionaries throughout South America; (there should be restrictions imposed on the export of Communism throughout South America prior to recognition) A US Embassy in Cuba should not be funded by Congress until the above listed concessions are imposed and actually put in place by Castro’s Cuba.

Up until Obama was elected, Castro’s weak economy restricted him from aggressively exporting Marxism–Leninism Communism for 53 years (yet he still had some successes in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Guatemala). Preventing the export of Marxism–Leninism Communism throughout the Western Hemisphere was the very reason why, for 53 years, 12 Democratic and Republican US President from President Dwight Eisenhower to President George W. Bush isolated Cuba, and why sanctions worked to a great degree for those 53 years (the below listed article further explains those facts). With the full knowledge that Castro murdered up to 17,000 free Cubans, Obama is coming to the aid of Castro’s Communist Cuba, by, pledging to lift all economic sanctions and establish diplomatic relations, just at the precise moment when Venezuela’s economic miseries have required it to cut off its huge billion-dollar subsidies to Cuba, and at the same time Russia’s economic weakness has cut off financial support to Cuba. Nothing has changed in Cuba’s oppressive Communist regime in 53 years, but “What a coincidence” that Obama is coming to Castro’s Communist regime financial aid, just at the very time Venezuela and Russia can no longer provide financial support.

Obama’s Radical Islamic foreign policies has destabilized the Middle East and his failure to properly engage ISIL while it is killing thousands of Assyrian Christians contributed in large measure to turning the Middle East into the most violent area of the world. Now Obama’s Marxist foreign policy aimed at South America will further destabilize another part of the world, The Western Hemisphere. The new financial support generated by tourism, by Obama lifting of economic sanctions, and by allowing expanded business trade will permit Castro’s Cuba to export communism aimed at undermining democratic governments throughout the Western Hemisphere, and it will continue to aid the New Black Panther Party to foment violent racist streets demonstrations within the United States. No other US President in 53 years has supported such an inept and dangerous foreign policy which will undermine the National Security interest of the United States and create a dangerous environment for its citizens. The Congress should use the power of the purse to prevent the construction of an embassy in Cuba, should oppose the lifting of economic sanctions of Castro’s oppressive Communist Governments, and should do all it can to restrict trade with Cuba.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why We Isolated Cuba for 53 Years

Commentary By

Lee Edwards

Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards is the author or editor of 20 books, including biographies of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Edwin Meese III as well as histories of The Heritage Foundation and the movement as a whole.

Contrary to what President Obama has asserted, U.S. sanctions have worked. Communist Cuba is so economically weak it cannot export Marxism-Leninism as in the past, and pro-democracy advocates have become emboldened.

For more than five decades, presidents, Democratic and Republican, politically isolated and economically sanctioned Communist Cuba for the best of reasons. Here are four of them:

Cuba has been a communist prison since Fidel Castro came to power. From 1959 through the late 1990s, more than 100,000 Cubans were placed in forced labor camps, prisons and other places of incarceration. Between 15,000 and 17,000 people were shot. Castro justified his reign of terror with these words: “The revolution is all; everything else is nothing.”
Communist Cuba exported Marxism-Leninism throughout Latin America, in Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela and especially Nicaragua, which was taken over by the Marxist Sandinistas in the late 1970s. Another target was the small island nation of Grenada, which was to function as the third leg of a communist triangle of Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua. President Reagan foiled the communists’ plans by freeing Grenada from a pro-Moscow radical regime. As a Venezuelan communist leader explained, the Cuban revolution was like a “detonator.”
Communist Cuba often provided the ground troops for the Soviet Union’s strategy of inciting Third World revolution, especially in Africa. From 1975 to 1989, according to “The Black Book of Communism,” Cuba was the major supporter of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola. Castro sent an expeditionary force of 50,000 men to Angola, explaining in part why for decades Moscow propped up the Castro regime in the amount of $5 billion a year.
Communist Cuba brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 when it allowed the Soviet Union to build sites for offensive nuclear missiles aimed at major cities in the United States. Castro knew what he was doing: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev has said that Castro requested a Soviet nuclear attack on the United States.

As The Washington Post editorialized, President Obama pledged to lift economic sanctions and establish diplomatic relations at the precise moment when Venezuela’s economic miseries seriously threatened its huge billion-dollar subsidies of Cuba and when more and more Cubans were pressuring the Castro regime to allow fundamental human freedoms.

The Castro regime was on the ropes, but in the words of Cuban dissident Yoani Sanchez, “Castroism has won.” Today, Fidel must be smiling and lighting up a large El Rey del Mondo cigar in his Havana palace.

January 16, 2015

FBI Confirms 19+ Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes in the US – What are your elected officials doing about this???? [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Military, Police, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, Religion, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 5:03 pm

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Jan 15 at 4:51 PM

The FBI is aware of 19 Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes operating mTostly in remote and wooded areas in 15 states, however there may be as many as 35 affiliated compounds throughout the United States under development. The paramilitary communes are training indigenous “home grown” Muslim converts; they are Islamic enclaves were residents live under Sharia Law. The communes are gated no-go zones with armed guards at the entrance; they are off limits to non-Muslims; Police tend to avoid the enclaves. A shadowy Pakistan-based group, Jamaat al-Fuqra, and its main US front group, Muslims of America, Inc. (MOA) operate the communes and controls the paramilitary training.

The leader of all the communes is Pakistani cleric, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who move to the US in 1979, when he began development of the Islamic Paramilitary Commune network. Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani was investigated by the Pakistani Government for possible involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and he encourages members of the commune to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training.

Headquarters for the Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes is in Islamberg, New York. The Islamic Paramilitary Communes trains and radicalizes young men and women; they are trained in the use of small arms, strangulation techniques, and military tactics. In 1992 the Islamic Paramilitary Training Commune in Buena Vista, CO was raided and shut down by Law Enforcement, previously the Islamic Training Commune in Baladulla, CA was raided and shut down by Law Enforcement in 1991.

Most of the recruits living and training in the Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes are African-Americans who converted to Islam while doing time in state and federal prisons. There have been run-ins with the law involving murder and financial scheming as far back as the 1990s. In 2007, the FBI documented that members of Jamaat al-Fuqra were involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three fire bombings, one attempted fire bombing, two explosive bombings, and one attempted explosive bombing. The below listed articles provides additional information.

Why would the Federal government allow terrorist training camps to exist on US soil, where the occupants are taught to execute military style attacks. The way to eliminate theses Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes that are a major National Security threat, is to have the US Senate and the US House Intelligence Committees designate Jamaat al-Fuqra and its main US front group, Muslims of America, Inc. as terrorist groups that are a threat to the National Security Interest of the United States. If that were done the remaining Islamic Paramilitary Training Communes could be closed as the tow communes were shut down in 1991 1nd 1992. Would Pakistan allow the United States to set up Paramilitary Training Camps in Pakistan. Politically correctness pushed by the Obama administration in the media, in federal government bureaucracies, in the Congress, in the FBI, in the CIA, and in other Intelligence agencies is responsible for allowing this dagger thrust to remain aimed at the heart of the security of the United States. .

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXCLUSIVE

22 terror camps verified inside U.S.

Groups fly under radar as Congress seems unconcerned

Leo Hohmann

Leo Hohmann is a news editor for WND. He has been a reporter and editor at several suburban newspapers in the Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina, areas and also served as managing editor of Triangle Business Journal in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Last week’s brazen attack by a “home-grown” terrorist cell in France that targeted the staff of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has drawn renewed interest in potential cells operating inside the United States.

And there are many.

The FBI is aware of at least 22 paramilitary Islamic communes in the U.S., operated by the shadowy Pakistan-based group Jamaat al-Fuqra and its main U.S. front group, Muslims of America Inc.

With U.S. headquarters in Islamberg, New York, the group headed by Pakistani cleric Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani operates communes in mostly remote areas of California, Georgia, South Carolina, New York, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, Michigan, Tennessee and other states.

The FBI describes the MOA compound in Texas, called Mahmoudberg, as an enclave and “communal living site.” Located in Brazoria County along County Road 3 near Sweeny, Texas, it was discovered a couple of years ago by the FBI through a tip from an informant in New York.

The Texas commune, in a heavily wooded area, is estimated by a local resident to encompass about 25 acres. It dates back to the late 1980s, the resident said, which is confirmed by the FBI documents previously reported on by WND.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-usa.jpg

Graphic courtesy ConservativePapers.com

Graphic courtesy ConservativePapers.com

Pamela Geller, author of the Atlas Shrugs blog and the book “Stop the Islamization of America,” has been following the militant training compounds since 2007.

Gilani’s group operates a slick website in which a female narrator in one promo video waxes beautifully about how the group has rescued many young Americans from a life a crime, drugs and poverty. The group claims to focus on a ministry to “indigenous American Muslims.” One would never guess from the video that the group trains young men and women in the use of small arms and military tactics.

Most of the recruits living at these communes are African-Americans who converted to Islam while doing hard time in state or federal prisons, Geller says. They have operated “under the not-so-watchful eye” of the FBI since the early 1980s, she says, but few Americans are aware of their existence all these years later.

“Probably they haven’t been raided because Jamaat al-Fuqra is not listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government and because there is a great reluctance among government and law enforcement agencies across the board, no matter who is president, to appear to be anti-Muslim,” Geller told WND. “These compounds say they’re peaceful Muslim communities, and the government wants to give the impression that such things can exist in the U.S. without any trouble.”

Indeed, MOA has operated freely under the watch of every president since Ronald Reagan. The group’s leader, Gilani, moved to America from Pakistan in 1979 and has been developing his network of communes ever since. He was once investigated by the Pakistani government for possible involvement in the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Some reports say he has as many as 35 affiliated compounds throughout the U.S., although only about 22 of the sites have been verified.

There have been run-ins with the law involving murder and financial scheming back in the 1990s.

In 1991, after a MOA bomb plot in Toronto was foiled, a federal search warrant for three suspects was issued and a nearly 45-acre compound about 70 miles south of Dallas was raided. The location of the compound corresponds to a reference in an FBI document obtained by the Clarion Project that says about seven MOA members purchased property near Corsicana, Texas.

Federal officials found four mobile homes; three military, general-purpose tents; and six vehicles. Also discovered were loose ammunition, books on counter-terrorism techniques and weaponry and various items with “Jamaat Fuqra Land” written on them.

Another compound in Buena Vista, Colorado, was raided and shut down by state authorities in 1992. But there have been no raids on any of the encampments since the 1990s.

See the penetrating investigative film that exposed the subversive plans of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception”

Murder, firebombing

A 2007 FBI record states that members of the group have been involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings and one attempted bombing.

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government,” the document states. “Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”

The document also says Muslims of America is now “an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.”

Robert Spencer, author of the JihadWatch blog and several books about radical Islam, says the communes operate much like Europe’s “no-go zones,” which are Islamic enclaves where adherents live under Shariah law and are off limits to non-Muslims. Police also tend to avoid the enclaves.

“Yes, there are similarities. They’re both very hostile to outsiders and have a history of hostility to law enforcement, and there has been evidence that police are hesitant to go into these communes just as they are in Europe,” Spencer told WND.

They are different in that they operate mostly in remote rural areas of the U.S., unlike the urban no-go zones in Europe’s major cities.

A mystical sect of Islam

Gilani is a follower of Sufi Islam, an ancient mystical sect that believes in miracles, signs and wonders.

Some Middle East historians have described the Sufis as more moderate and peaceful than their Sunni or Shiite cousins, but this is a mistake in Spencer’s view.

The Chechen jihad against the Russians was led by Sufis from the 19th century until the influx of Wahhabi Arabs in the late 20th century.

And Hassan al-Banna, one of early leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, prescribed Sufi exercises for Brotherhood members, Spencer said.

“They’re more mystical, but that does not mean they reject the principles of violent jihad,” he said.

Muhammad al-Ghazali, a Persian philosopher and founder of the modern Sufi movement in the late 11th century, “was very clear and strong in speaking about the necessity of waging violent jihad,” Spencer said.

The FBI report on Muslims of America has been heavily redacted but clearly says the group has engaged in murders and fire bombings in the U.S.

“So that’s the FBI speaking not some Islamophobe,” Spencer said.

Gilani, who did not immediately respond to WND’s request for an interview, teaches that Muslims should be self-sustaining and separate from the broader American culture. But he also purports to teach that they foster “good relations with our Christian brethren,” according to the group’s website.

Watch MOA’s promotional video below, casting itself as a mystical sect concerned about humanitarian-based rescues of Americans trapped in a life of crime and drugs.

Christian Action Network did a documentary on the elusive Gilani in 2009. The documentary shows the Christians being greeted at the entrance to a compound in New York with tremendous hostility.

“Christian Network was told by the local cops not to go there and not to bother them but they went anyway, and neighbors said they heard firearms training and all kinds of things going on there,” Spencer said.

Check out the Christian Action Network’s acclaimed documentary, “Homegrown Jihad,” which blew the whistle on Muslims of America communes and what its recruits are taught.

According to their own video, the MOA groups are all about peace, miraculous sightings of Allah and the mystical healing of incurable diseases from AIDS to cancer. They also make a point of claiming to develop their brand of Islam within the framework of being good American citizens.

This is all written off by Spencer as “window dressing” and Geller agrees.

“All Islamic groups make similar claims – including the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates,” Geller said. “These claims have to be balanced against the group’s others words, and its actions. MOA members have been involved in murders and firebombings in the U.S.”

They have also been involved in violence against other Muslims.

The Islamic spiritual leader Rashad Kalifa was one of the victims. He was a Muslim scholar who translated the Quran into English and also developed a teaching based on a Quranic numbering system that marked him as a false prophet and a heretic by many Muslims, including those affiliated with the MOA. Kalifa was found stabbed 29 times in the kitchen of a Tuscon mosque in 1990. One member of MOA was found guilty of conspiracy in the killing and sentenced to 69 years.

“We should monitor them very closely. Hold hearings if necessary (in Congress),” Geller said. “Conduct a thorough investigation of each of these compounds with or without hearings.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was one member of Congress who tried to get her colleagues to pay more attention to groups like MOA, but had little success.

“For years we’ve heard viable reports and seen photos and video tape suggesting Islamic jihadist training camps located in states such as Texas, Georgia and elsewhere. U.S. national law enforcement agencies have a duty to secure the safety of the American people – that is the number one duty of government,” Bachmann told WND.

But the federal government, and increasingly state and local governments, have been more concerned about offending Muslims and bowing to the wishes of Muslim Brotherhood front groups like Council on American-Islamic Relations, she said.

“For law enforcement to fail to investigate reports of U.S.-based terror training camps or to turn a blind eye to incitement activities in U.S.-based Islamic centers is to intentionally avoid a tragic reality of American life,” she said. “In retrospect, wouldn’t it have been better for the U.S. military to have acted on their evidence and suspicions of the Fort Hood shooter? Wouldn’t it have been better for the FBI to have investigated the Islamic center of Boston prior to the Boston marathon bombing?”

“The clues to see Islamic jihad were and are in front of our eyes,” Bachmann added. “If only our government had the political will to see and act upon them.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/22-terror-camps-verified-inside-u-s/#H1WIKmGzo8MPYdJE.99

January 9, 2015

While Paris Burns, Obama’s apptee gets set to import 70,000 Muslims into USA [nc]

Filed under: Econonics, Elections, Global Intel, Historical context, Illegal Aliens, Islam, Political Commentary, Politicians, Racism, US Constitution — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — justplainbill @ 10:16 pm

Joseph R. John
To
‘USBPSSA Robert M. Trent, (Ret) (WO2/ANG/USMC)’
Today at 3:55 PM

Bob, Thank you. We believe the below listed Assistant Director USCIS will most likely rubber stamp the entry of 70,000 Muslim refugees from Syria without properly completing the necessary background investigation on each refugee to determines if their acceptance would endanger the National Security interest of the United States. Her department doesn’t have the thousands of well-trained intelligence analyst required to do the in depth background investigation on each refugee.

Obama has quietly agreed to resettle 70,000 Muslim refugees throughout the US as part of the UN Resettlement Program, and is putting the refugees on a fast track for US citizenship; the Obama administration has accepted more Muslims than all the other nations in the world combined. These new Muslim immigrants are posing a major security risk, will cost $10 billion to resettle, and some of the Muslim immigrants may have previously joined ISIL. Some of the Somalis that were on the fast track program, and received US citizenship have already gone to fight for ISIL in Syria and when they return will pose a serious threat to the United States. It has been reported that Al Q’ieda is infiltrating the UN Resettlement Program to obtain legal acceptance as US citizens in the US.

In addition, DHS’s Immigration Service will approve the issuance of Social Security numbers and work permits to 5 million Illegal aliens, without doing the proper investigation required to determine if the 5 million illegal aliens have resided in the US for 5 year, are not convicted criminals, or have any terrorist links. The Obama administration has rented new office space, and is are hiring 1000 new employees, with no experience, to accomplish the detailed review and processing of each Illegal alien. If each of the 1000 new employees reviewed 5 illegal aliens each day on a 5 day week, it would normally take over 4 years to process the 5 million Illegal aliens, but those new employees will be directed to rubber stamp each application with little or no investigation, and it won’t take 4 years to process them.

It is very dangerous for the National Security interest of the United States to issue social security numbers and work permits for 5 million Illegal aliens and fast track 70,000 Muslim refugees for US citizenship without doing the in proper depth background investigations on each individual, in order to determine if they are convicted felons, involved in drug smuggling, and to determine if they have terrorist ties. The Obama administration seems to be approving one program after another that is destabilizing the National Security interest of the Republic

Respectfully,

Joe

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: Robert Trent [mailto:roberttrent1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 6:25 PM
To: aaa aaa
Subject: Assistant Director USCIS

See where we are going…

MEET OUR NEW ASST DIRECTOR FOR US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION…

Another “qualified” appointment by BO in Homeland Security. No doubt she’ll be essential to his Muslim immigration efforts.

Unfortunately, this is true and she is another unqualified, inexperienced Obama appointee!!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fatimanoor.asp

Meet Fatima Noor, President Obama’s latest appointment to a high level position in the Department of Homeland IN-Security, the post of Assistant Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration.

cid:4EF6A03A-BFE7-4E1E-BB41-7EC7ECC9E0C7

Ms. Noor has little if any experience in the compliance or enforcement fields. Her total experience in government related work is limited

to volunteer work with World Relief Memphis and as activities coordinator the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

She majored in psychology with minors in Spanish and Arabic international relations.

She recently completed a month-long research fellowship in Muslim psychology hosted by Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, yes you read that correctly . an entire month long research fellowship ; her research will be ongoing as part of her work the DHS.

No, this is not a joke.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.