Justplainbill's Weblog

November 17, 2014

Mitchell Paige, Col. USMC

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Nov 15 at 11:45 AM

A truly remarkable combat action you no doubt know about, but the details are worth reviewing again—Semper Fi

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: Ron Martin
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:54 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Mitchell Paige – Marine

Thought this needed sharing !

Semper Fi !

GBA,

Ron

In case some have forgotten or never knew the story of Mitchell Paige…

History at Guadalcanal ……and one of our nation’s finest!

DOWN TO ONE MARINE

On November 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, California, southeast of Palm Springs .

He was a combat veteran of World War II. Reason enough to honor him. But this Marine was a little different. This Marine was Mitchell Paige.

It’s hard today to envision — or, for the dwindling few, to remember — what the world looked like on 26 October 1942.

The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal.

As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Browning machine guns, manning their section of the thin khaki line which was expected to defend Henderson Field against the assault of the night of 25 October 1942, it’s unlikely anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 desperate and motivated Japanese attackers?

Nor did the commanders of the Japanese Army, who had swept everything before them for decades, expect their advance to be halted on some jungle ridge manned by one thin line of Marines in October of 1942.

But by the time the night was over, The Japanese 29th Infantry Regiment has lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its 2,554 men, historian David Lippman reports. The Japanese 16th Regiment’s losses are uncounted, but the [US] 164th’s burial parties handled 975 Japanese bodies. … The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is probably too low.

Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that night were all the men in Mitchell Paige’s platoon; every one. As the night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were still manned.

The citation for Paige’s Medal of Honor Citation defines the event: “When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machinegun section with fearless determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering fire.”

In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed Brownings (the same design which John M. Browning fired for a continuous 25 minutes until it ran out of ammunition, glowing cherry red, at its first U.S. Army demonstration) and did something for which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his arm, firing as he went.

The weapon did not fail.

At dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley was first to discover the answer to our question: How many able-bodied Marines does it take to hold a hill against two regiments of motivated, combat-hardened Japanese infantrymen who have never known defeat?

On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige alone sat upright behind his .30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what the dawn would bring.

One hill: one Marine.

But “In the early morning light, the enemy could be seen a few yards off, and vapor from the barrels of their machine guns was clearly visible,” reports historian Lippman. “It was decided to try to rush the position.”

For the task, Major Conoley gathered together “three enlisted communication personnel, several riflemen, a few company runners who were at the point, together with a cook and a few messmen who had brought food to the position the evening before.”

Joined by Paige, this ad hoc force of 17 Marines counterattacked at 5:40 a.m., discovering that this extremely short range allowed the optimum use of grenades. They cleared the ridge.

And that’s where the previously unstoppable wave of Japanese conquests finally broke and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an insignificant island no one had ever heard of, called Guadalcanal .

But who remembers, today, how close-run a thing it was, the ridge held by a single Marine, in the autumn of 1942?

Some time after, when the Hasbro Toy Company telephoned asking permission to put the retired Colonel’s face on some kid’s doll, Mitchell Paige thought they must be joking.

But they weren’t. Today, that’s his face on the little Marine they call “G.I. Joe.”

October 27, 2014

CA Dem (CA 50) Falsely claims to be a Navy Seal to get votes , Capt Johns [nc]

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 3:21 AM

James Kimber, the Democrat candidate running for Congress has been found guilty of a “Stolen Valor” offense; for impersonating a US Navy SEAL; Kimber is running against an endorsed Combat Veteran For Congress, Congressman Duncan, D. Hunter. Capt-USMCR (R-CA-50) http://www.hunterforcongress.com . Kimber wore a Navy SEAL Trident device on his US Navy enlisted uniform signifying he qualified as a US Navy SEAL, and misrepresented the fact that he went thru and successfully completing a very rugged 6 month qualification regimen. The details of Kimber’s dishonorable misrepresentation are explained in the below listed article

Navy SEALs complained about Kimber’s dishonest representation and told him to stop wearing the Navy SEAL Trident on his uniform, Kimber ignored their request for one year. It took the Commanding Officer of Kimber’s ship, the USS Reid, to dress Kimber down before an assembly of the entire crew to get his attention. Until the Captain gave Kimber a direct order to remove the Navy SEAL Trident device from his uniform and stop impersonating a US Navy SEAL, Kimber refused to remove the Trident device from his uniform.

Kimber should be rejected by voters in the 50th Congressional District for the dishonorable act of “Stolen Valor”; he is someone who could easily become another one of the many dishonorable politician in Congress we often read about. We honor any Veteran who served his country in the US Armed Forces, but we are very rough on members in the US military who violates a sacred trust and misrepresents the fact that they qualified for a Warfare Designation they are no qualified for, or did not earn the medals that they are wearing on their uniforms. For that reason we have our doubts that Kimber could be trusted not to lie again, especially when misleading the American people and his constituents, on issues of vital interest, would be in his best interest to be untruthful or misleading in his press releases.

The American people do not need to elect another politician to Congress whose word would be suspect, someone who might misrepresent facts and support the multiple lies being told to them about so many Obama administration scandals, by the occupant in the Oval Office. It has been very difficult to keep track of the many intentionally misleading statements and bold faced lies emanating from the White House, Obama administration Cabinet officials, elected members of Congress.

The misleading statements and lies emanating from Obama administration and Congress continue unabated because for 6 years, the left of center liberal media establishment has failed to fulfill the responsibility it was tasked with and given a unique special status by the Founding Fathers, in order for them to conduct honest investigative journalism to keep all government officials honest. The left leaning press continues to be dishonest in their flagrant failure to conduct honest investigative journalism; they continues to cover up one Obama administration scandal after another.

Californians and San Diegans should ask themselves why the Democratic Party would endorse someone who is guilty of “Stolen Valor”, and whose veracity would be suspect in the future, as the standard bearer to run for Congress in the 50th Congressional District. On November 4th, we encourage all voters in the 50th Congressional District to reelect Congressman Duncan D. Hunter to Congress, and voters in 20 states to elect the other 30 endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress listed in the attachment. The 31 endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress will tell the American voters the truth on issues of vital importance to the Republic.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

He Wore a Navy SEAL Trident Without Earning It and Now He’s Running For Congress

Oct. 23, 2014 Elizabeth Kreft

James Kimber, a Democratic served more than 20 years in the Navy, but the “unearned trident” incident nearly cost him his career.

Kimber the Democratic congressional candidate for California’s 50th district, wore a U.S. Navy SEAL trident for more than a year without ever completing the training for the elite force. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune,

The Navy SEAL Trident is a highly recognizable and coveted piece of military insignia that includes an eagle holding a Navy anchor, a trident and a flintlock-style pistol. It is issued only to officers and enlisted service members who complete the Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, a six-month course held at the Naval Special Warfare Training Center in Coronado, Calif.

The newspaper reported that Kimber started SEAL training at the Naval Special Warfare Training Center in Coronado, California, in 1990, but hurt his back during an obstacle course exercise. According to the Union-Tribune, “He remained at the base for several months, and was eventually assigned to the guided-missile frigate Reid.”

James Kimber while he was an enlisted Navy member. (Image source: Kimber for Congress)

A source familiar with the case told TheBlaze Kimber didn’t take the trident off until he was “called out” by SEALs who questioned his timeline.

“The SEALs showed up to the ship and started questioning his story and brought it up to the captain,” he said.

Kimber, who now works as a physician’s assistant, acknowledged to the Union-Tribune that the ship’s captain brought him before the crew and reprimanded him.

“I know this is a big thing and I am very sorry,” said Kimber, who was 32 at the time. “I knew what I was doing, and it was a terrible mistake that I hope doesn’t negate everything else I have done in my life and what I am doing now.”

The SEAL trident is a highly recognizable and coveted insignia with a golden eagle holding a Navy anchor, a trident and a flintlock-style pistol; the badge is issued only to officers and enlisted members who complete the six-month Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.

Despite the incident, Kimber eventually achieved the rank of senior chief before retiring in 2002. He acknowledged that he thought the trident story would emerge during the campaign, and that he planned to address questions about it if it came up.

“I knew when I decided to run that this might come up, and said to myself that I would answer it if it did,” Kimber said. “It was more than 20 years ago and it was a horribly embarrassing and stupid thing to do … fortunately, I was able to finish my Navy career.”

Kimber, a Democrat, is attempting to unseat three-term Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, who continues to serve in U.S. Marine Corps Reserves and took part in combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hunter said Kimber’s situation is unfortunate.

“He served his country for 20 years and that is worthy of appreciation,” he said.

But a spokesman for Hunter’s re-election campaign told TheBlaze a question of “stolen valor” cuts deep, especially in military community.

“In a place like San Diego, where Navy SEALs are part of the community, this stings more than it would ordinarily, even if it was 20 years ago, because we’re talking about someone who is running for office, who cites his military background, and who would be expected to uphold the public trust,” the spokesman said.

The Kimber campaign office did not return TheBlaze’s request for comment.

October 26, 2014

Stephen Flatow, from Rabbi Brenner Glickman [c]

[ Additional commentary at the end: Keep in mind while reading this, that the timeline for Counselor Flatow’s actions actually start in the 1970’s when this “Foundation” was taken over by the Iranian Theocracy. Thus, the criminal activity detailed herein, took place during the following administrations: Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, H Bush, and Obama.]

Stephen Flatow: The Amazing Story of What One Person Can Accomplish
By Rabbi Brenner Glickman, Rosh Hashanah 5775/2014

Tonight, I will tell you a story. It is the true story of a seemingly inconsequential man who, driven by passion and determination, has accomplished the extraordinary. It is a David and Goliath story of our times, and it continues to unfold. When you hear this story, I think you will agree that someone needs to write a book about this man. I can’t believe that no one has yet.

Our hero’s name is Stephen Flatow. He is a real-estate attorney in northern New Jersey. He does title work, mostly, out of a small, cluttered office. He is well-regarded in his field, but not especially well known. He makes a living. He is famous, however, in other circles, as an activist. His courage and determination are unmatched. This lone man has stood up to the greatest powers and has not blinked. He has challenged the State Department, the Justice Department, the courts, and the largest banks in the world. He has failed and prevailed, stumbled and triumphed, over and over again. He does not quit. He is driven by the love of his daughter, a daughter who was killed by a suicide bomber twenty years ago. This is his story.

Alisa Flatow was a student at Brandeis University. She chose to spend a semester studying abroad in Jerusalem. After a few months in Israel, she and her roommates decided to spend a weekend at a beach resort in Gaza. This was 1995, soon after the Oslo accords, and Gaza was still under Israeli control. It seems unfathomable now, but people used to vacation in Gaza at the beach resorts. On the way to the beach, their bus was struck by a van filled with explosives. The terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the killing. Seven Israeli soldiers riding on the bus were killed. Alisa was severely wounded, but she did not die right away. The terrorist van was filled with shrapnel that exploded through the windows of the bus and struck her head. She was unconscious, but her body was unharmed.

The doctors called her father in America, and told him to come right away. When he landed in Ben Gurion airport, government agents met him on the runway, and escorted him straight from the plane to the hospital. By the time he arrived, Alisa was brain-dead. The doctors offered their condolences, and asked the father if he would be willing to donate her organs.

This was not a simple question. The Flatow family was Orthodox and observant. It was not customary for Orthodox Jews to donate organs, and they were not sure it was allowed by Jewish law. So the parents called their rabbi and asked what to do. He told them to donate the organs, and so they did.

That single act became a sensation in Israel. To understand its significance, I need to give a little background information. There is much in Jewish law and custom that would discourage organ donation. It has been our longstanding tradition to treat a dead body as sacred. Our custom is to watch over it, cleanse it, and prepare it carefully for burial. The body is buried whole and unaltered. That is why rabbinic authorities have generally discouraged autopsies.

But organ donation is special. It presents the opportunity to save a life. In Jewish law, the saving of a human life takes special precedence. You can violate just about all the other commandments if you can save a life. Therefore, Jewish law does not just allow organ donation, it requires it. Reform and Conservative rabbis immediately encouraged organ donation, and by the 1970s, Orthodox rabbis did as well.

The problem was that most Jews in Israel were not aware of this. The rates of organ donation were extraordinarily low. Israel was part of a European consortium of organ sharing nations, but was suspended because too few Israelis were registered donors. It was a stunning irony for a nation famous as an innovator of advanced medical technologies. The problem was that Israelis knew about the tradition of burying a body whole; they were not so aware that their rabbis allowed organ donation.

Throughout the 1970s and 80s, various medical groups and the government in Israel tried to educate the public, but nothing worked. Organ donation rates were terribly low. People were desperate for organs, but few were donating. It just wasn’t what people did.

And then the Flatows offered their daughter’s organs to the people of Israel. The news made headlines in every newspaper throughout the nation. Her heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, and corneas were able to save six lives in Israel. Notably, at least one of the recipients was Arab Palestinian. The people of Israel were amazed, and grateful. They had felt so alone in suffering against terrorism, and here this family from America made such a gesture. They felt that the world Jewish community was with them. We were one.

Days later, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin came to Washington DC and spoke before a gathering of 12,000 American Jews. What he told them would be printed in newspapers throughout America. He spoke about what Alisa’s gift meant to the Israeli people. “Today,” he said, “her heart beats in Jerusalem.” There is more. After Alisa’s death, the Flatows lives were shattered. Alisa’s mother withdrew into herself and her home. But the father, Stephen, decided to take action. He wanted justice. It was widely reported that the State of Iran was the sponsor and financial backer of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It angered him that there were no consequences for Iran. They had funded his daughter’s murderers, and no one was doing anything about it. The bomber himself was killed. The terrorist ring was being pursued by Israel. Stephen Flatow decided to take it upon himself to go after Iran.

A lawyer by training, he sought justice through the courts. He had a brilliant idea. If he and other victims of terror could file suit against Iran, they could exact punishment on the regime. They would make it costly for states to sponsor terror, and then maybe Iran would think twice about doing it again.

But there was a problem. United States law did not allow private citizens to sue foreign governments. It was expressly forbidden. So Stephen Flatow went to Washington to change the law. His senator, the Jewish Frank Lautenberg, happened to be in Israel at the time of Alyssa’s death. He took a special interest in her family and drafted legislation. Flatow testified before congress, and even gained the backing of President Clinton. Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 to make an exception to the longstanding rule. In cases of state-sponsored terror, individual US citizens could sue foreign nations for damages in US courts. It was the first victory.

It did not last. The courts threw it out. So back to Washington he went for a new law, one written specifically to override the objections of the court. Once again he sued the state of Iran in a US court. But his time, one of his allies became an adversary. The Clinton administration began to see Flatow as interfering in national diplomacy. The White House was against Iran, but they did not want Flatow dictating the terms. So the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case, and actually filed a brief in support of Iran and against the victims of terror. Once more, Flatow returned to Congress and this time he got a third law that gave citizens even more strength to sue foreign governments, this time with teeth.

Finally, in 1997, he received his judgment. A court ruled in favor of the Flatows and against Iran. The family was awarded $26 million in compensatory damages, and over $200 million in punitive damages.

But the issue was hardly over. How do you collect money from a rogue state? They weren’t paying. Stephen Flatow devised a plan. Since the United States had ended diplomatic ties with Iran following the rise of the Ayatollah, the Iranian embassy in Washington and the residence of the Iranian ambassador have been in control of the United States Government. The State Department holds them in trust with the goal of returning them to Iran someday when relations resume. Stephen Flatow now had a ruling that said the Iranian government owed him $247 million. He sought possession of the embassy and the residence, property owned by Iran. The State Department refused. They feared that if the United States confiscated sovereign property here, our embassies and properties abroad would become threatened. So instead, they paid Flatow $20 million from US funds with the understanding that the United States would collect that money from Iran someday.

Stephen Flatow was furious. His goal was not to get money. His goal was to make Iran pay so they would stop sponsoring terror. He had won in court and he had received money, but Iran had still not paid one cent.

And this leads to the third chapter of this amazing saga. Stephen Flatow did not give up. He began to look for other assets in the United States that were owned by the government of Iran. Officially, there were none. United States sanctions prohibited Iran from doing any business in the United States, or for anyone to do business with Iran in the United States. But Flatow had suspicions that a charitable foundation in New York was actually a front, laundering money for the Iranian regime.

Why would the Iranians funnel their money through New York? Because the financial exchanges are there, and you can’t get anything done internationally without going through New York’s markets. Iran’s economy, its nuclear weapons development, its sponsorship of Hezbollah and other jihadists groups – all required moving money across currencies. They needed a secret foothold in New York. The Alavi Foundation was established decades ago by the Shah to promote Iranian culture abroad. It owned a gleaming skyscraper on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, between Rockefeller Center and the Museum of Modern Art. Ivan Boesky used to office there. Stephen Flatow did a lot of digging, and then filed papers in court demonstrating that the foundation and the building were secretly operated by the Iranian government. And if they belonged to the state of Iran, they were subject to his financial ruling.

Stephen Flatow’s case was a civil matter, but it came to the attention of a young analyst sitting in a cubicle at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. If what Flatow was saying was true, there was some serious criminal wrongdoing going on. That young analyst’s name was Eitan Arusy. Before he starting working for the District Attorney, he served in the Israel Defense Force as a spokesman. He was one of the first responders to the scene of the carnage on the day that Alisa Flatow’s bus was bombed. He had a special interest in the case. The district attorney’s office did their own digging, and came to the same conclusion as Flatow – the Alavi Foundation was actually a front for Bank Melli, the State of Iran’s government-owned national bank. But how did the Iranians do it? How did they get their money in and out of the United States? The district attorney’s office soon discovered that two European Banks, Credit Suisse and Lloyds of London, were moving money and falsifying documents for the Iranians. When the FBI raided the records of the charity, they found vast deposits from Credit Suisse and Lloyds. The banks cooperated with investigators. They provided emails and memos detailing how they took Iranian money and sent it to the United States in their own names. Without admitting guilt, Lloyds agreed to pay a fine of $350 million, and Credit Suisse $536 million.

They were not alone. It was soon discovered that most of the major European banks were laundering money for the Iranians into the United States, in direct violation of US law. Barclays Bank settled in 2010, paying the United States $298 million. In 2012, ING, Standard Chartered, and HSBC also settled. HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion.

Then came the big one. While all these banks were making deals with the US government, two employees of BNP Paribas became whistleblowers. They shared with investigators that their bank had laundered tens of billions of dollars of Iranian money. They had also laundered money for Sudan while its regime was committing genocide.

BNP is the largest bank in France. This summer you may have seen the news. BNP became the first bank to admit guilt in laundering money for the Iranian government. They agreed to pay $8.9 billion in fines to the United States. It was far and away the largest penalty ever paid by a bank in history. The New York Times headline said it best: “A Grieving Father Pulls a Thread that Unravels BNP’s Illegal Deals.” A dad lost his girl. The hole in his life will never be filled. He thinks about her every day. He never gives up. He is a small-time attorney doing title work in New Jersey. But his tenacity and his grit and his smarts were beyond anyone’s estimation. This one man in New Jersey uncovered an international conspiracy of bank fraud.

The story is not over. Stephen Flatow is not done. The man who instantly changed the culture of organ donation is Israel is trying to do the same here in America. He takes every opportunity to speak to Orthodox congregations to encourage organ donation. Though the rate of donation consent in America is strong at 60%, the rate among Flatow’s fellow Orthodox Jews is only 5%. He is on a mission to change that.

He and his wife have also established a foundation in Alisa’s name. They sponsor young Jewish women from around the world to take a semester of study in Jerusalem. The money they have received in their fight against Iran is now sponsoring women’s Torah study and the vitality of the State of Israel.

And, in the months ahead, he may finally achieve his goal of making Iran actually pay. A federal judge has the ruled that the assets of the Alavi Foundation be liquidated. The gleaming office tower in New York and other properties around America will be sold and the proceeds will go to the victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. That will be Iranian money. Finally, Iran will pay a price.

All of this because of one man in Northern New Jersey. One man who never quit.

Earlier this summer, I did my own digging and I found Stephen Flatow’s contact information. I sent him an email.

Dear Mr. Flatow,

My name is Brenner Glickman and I am a rabbi with a congregation in Sarasota, Florida. I admire you and am writing a sermon about you and your family for this High Holidays. Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do for Israel and America.
You are an inspiration.

He replied the same day:
Dear Rabbi Glickman,

Thanks very much for your note. But it’s really Alisa who has been the source of strength and encouragement these past 19 years. As I like to remind people , I’m still her father and we do anything for our children.
Stephen Flatow

[Aside from the obvious corruption evident in the entire narrative, here are some things that are passed over; both FINRA and the OCC were established decades ago to prevent all of this. High members of the administrations listed in my opening comment MUST have known, including those at the Cabinet Level, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Department of Labor, Securities and Exchange Commission, to list just a few. Whether or not these cabinet level officiasl informed their respective president or respective chief of staff, is a matter for the pertinent Congressional Oversight Committee.

Y’all keep wondering and sending me emails about secession, but it is the only way to get rid of this institutional corruption which never reaches the media, much less your notice. I redirect your attention to, once again, the posts below on wealth, economics, education, and the argument for secession.

Secession is the only way to remove all of the bureaucrats who have allowed this form of corruption to exist for as long as it has, and to prevent its continuance.]

October 21, 2014

UN/Obama Arms Limitations threaten Israel, Republic of China, and YOU

Joseph R. John
To
jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Sep 12

The assault on Americans Citizen’s rights to own and bear arms in accordance with provisions of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is being threatened by the Obama administration’s support for the UN Small Arms Treaty This UN Small-Arms Treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme.

The below listed Op-Ed by Admiral James A Lyons’52 USN (Ret) (former Commander of the US Pacific Fleet and the Senior US Military Representative to the United Nations) is a warning all Americans of the threat ;posed by Obama to void provisions of the Second Amendment by signing the UN Small-Arms Treaty, allowing the UN to control small arms in the United States.

Obama has the support of the elected Democrat Senators to approve the UN Small Arms Treaty. Those Democrat Senators who agree with Obama, standing for re-election in November should be defeated at the polls. The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress in the attachment, running for election in 2014 (three of whom are running for the US Senate), support the rights of all Americans to acquire and bear arms in accordance with the US Constitution. .

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: Adm James A. Lyons, Jr
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 6:19 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Op-Ed – Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat

My latest op-ed published in the Washington Times today.

All The Best
Ace

James A. Lyons, Jr.
Admiral, USN (ret)
President/CEO

LION Associates, LLC
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/lyons-small-arms-treaty-big-second-amendment-threa/#
LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
Ceding Senate constitutional authority to the U.N. would be unwise

By James A. Lyons

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Lost Gun Rights Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Enlarge Photo

Lost Gun Rights Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times more >

In a little-noticed action, the U.N. General Assembly on April 2, 2013, adopted by “majority vote” an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with the objective of regulating the international trade in conventional arms from small arms to major military equipment. The treaty’s lofty objectives were to foster peace and security by limiting uncontrolled destabilizing arms transfer to areas of conflict. In particular, it was also meant to prevent countries that abuse human rights from acquiring arms.

While the record of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty discussions makes no mention of it, the genesis for regulating the unrestrained transfer of conventional arms to conflict areas, Third World countries and human rights violators was a key policy of President Carter’s administration. Shortly after his inauguration in 1977, he initialed a policy of restraint on conventional-arms transfer and linked such control to the human rights record of potential recipients, particularly in Latin America. To implement this policy, the Carter administration proposed to the Soviet Union, the world’s second-leading supplier of arms, that it open negotiations to conclude such an agreement. These meetings were known as the Conventional Arms Transfer Talks.

The first region selected was Latin America, because there was less competition there than anywhere else in the world between the United States and the Soviet Union. As the director of political-military affairs, I was the Joint Chiefs of Staff representative in the U.S. delegation, which was headed by Les Gelb from the State Department. Suffice to say, after four meetings over a 12-month period and the “delusion” that a successful agreement could be achieved, the talks collapsed. The esoteric objectives may sound good in the faculty lounge, but they fail to pass muster in the real world.

The Soviets were always the reluctant suitors in this enterprise. They were not about to restrict the transfer of arms in areas that they viewed to be in their political interests. Certainly, there was not unanimity of purpose in the Carter administration. The Joint Chiefs of Staff viewed the objectives as an unnecessary infringement on our strategy and sovereignty.

For the record, the Obama administration’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy issued on Jan. 16 embraces many of the objectives of the Carter administration’s policy, as well as the current U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. However, it makes no mention of either one.

A number of major defects in the U.N. treaty were detailed in a letter sent to President Obama in October 2013 by 50 senators — both Republicans and Democrats. The first problem was that the treaty was adopted by majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly, not by consensus, a condition called for by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After entry into force, the senators contend, the Arms Trade Treaty can be amended by majority vote of signatory countries, effectively negating the Senate’s constitutional treaty power and handing it to foreign governments. Even the State Department concedes, the senators wrote, that the treaty “includes language that could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel.”

Of most concern is the infringement on our constitutional rights, the senators charged. The Arms Trade Treaty “includes only a weak nonbinding reference to the lawful ownership, use of, and trade in firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights.” When coupled with the treaty’s ceding of interpretive authority to other countries, this poses a direct threat to the Second Amendment.

It should be noted that neither of Virginia’s senators, Mark Warner or Tim Kaine, signed the Senate letter against a U.N. treaty that threatens Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, and undermines American sovereignty.

Failing to sign the letter is not the first time Mr. Warner went AWOL on the Arms Trade Treaty. In January 2013, before Secretary of State John F. Kerry signed the treaty, the Senate passed a budget amendment sponsored by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of “upholding Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine were among the 46 voting “nay” on the amendment.

Supporters of the treaty say there’s nothing to worry about, because the Second Amendment is a constitutional protection, and nothing in a treaty can undermine it. Gun rights champions strongly disagree. “The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, following Mr. Kerry’s signing of the treaty. “This treaty threatens individual firearm ownership with an invasive registration scheme. The NRA will continue working with the United States Senate to oppose ratification of the ATT.”

With 50 senators opposed to the Arms Trade Treaty, we can hope its prospects for Senate advice and consent are small — with or without the support of liberals such as Mr. Warner and Mr. Kaine. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also need to indicate clearly their concern, as it affect our strategy and sovereignty.

James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

September 16, 2014

ISIL’s Worst Enemy, IHS Janes [nc]

IHS.com Products Advertise Client Login

Home
Defence
Security
Industry
Multimedia
Press
Events
Magazines

HOME SECURITY TERRORISM & INSURGENCY ARTICLE
Terrorism & Insurgency
Analysis: YPG – the Islamic State’s worst enemy
Michael Stephens, JDW Correspondent – IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly
11 September 2014
A fighter from the People’s Protection Units (YPG) – a Syrian Kurdish militia – uses a DShK heavy machine gun to defend the strategically important Rabia crossing on the Iraqi-Syrian border against Islamic State fighters on 6 August 2014. (PA Photos)

While the Islamic State (IS) has swept away the armies that have stood before it, a little-known group fighting its own war against the extremist group has done remarkably well.

The People’s Protection Units (Yekîneyên Parastina Gel: YPG) are the defence force of the Democratic Administration of Rojava: the de facto autonomous Kurdish region that has been formed in northeast Syria since the outbreak of that country’s conflict in 2011. Currently engaged in combat against the IS on five front lines across northern Syria, the YPG is perhaps one of the only forces that knows how to take on the extremists at their own game.

Relying on speed, stealth, and surprise, it is the archetypal guerrilla army, able to deploy quickly to front lines and concentrate its forces before quickly redirecting the axis of its attack to outflank and ambush its enemy. The key to its success is autonomy. Although operating under an overarching tactical rubric, YPG brigades are inculcated with a high degree of freedom and can adapt to the changing battlefield.

The IS has fared well against more static forces using Soviet-based doctrines, which have proven wholly incapable of countering its highly mobile forces. Both the IS and the YPG, however, have emerged from the ashes of the Syrian conflict and have adapted their fighting styles to the territory in which they operate.

The YPG relies heavily on snipers, backed by mobile support weaponry (mainly 12.7 mm Russian-issue heavy machine guns) that carve up the battlefield and suppress enemy fire. It also uses roadside bombs to limit enemy movement and prevent outflanking manoeuvres, particularly at night.

While Iraqi Kurdish forces (known collectively as the peshmerga) are receiving military assistance from countries including France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, the Syrian Kurds have received little such help. Accusations that they remain close to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces withdrew from Kurdish territory in 2012, and that they are closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is fighting for Kurdish independence from Turkey, make them an unpalatable choice.

Turkey in particular believes the YPG to be a tool of Damascus, while those who believe the Rojava government’s aims run against the goals of the Syrian opposition often accuse the Syrian Kurdish region of being a haven for Iranian influence.

The Syrian Kurds are essentially operating in an isolated canton facing the IS to the south and a deeply suspicious and hostile Turkey to the north, while Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) cannot decide whether they are friend or foe.

As a result, YPG units are poorly equipped. None observed by IHS Jane’s during a recent visit to Syrian Kurdistan used body armour or helmets. Weapons and ammunition are purchased on the black market.

The Syrian Kurds have also suffered significant casualties in the constant attacks and counterattacks along the 900 km front. For example, the battle of Jazza’a (a strategic town on the Syria-Iraq border that protects the humanitarian corridor) lasted for nine days from 19 August and cost both sides tens of casualties.

Yet the YPG’s lines have yet to break when attacked by better-equipped IS forces. The YPG has even managed to expand into Iraq, largely thanks to the retreat of the KRG’s peshmerga from around Mount Sinjar following the IS advance in early August. The persecuted Yazidi minority fleeing the conflict were protected by YPG units before making their way north via the humanitarian corridor running through northeast Syria into Turkey.

Eager to avenge IS atrocities, many Yazidis have asked the YPG for weapons and training. The YPG has so far trained more than 1,000 in one-week military courses and sent them back to Sinjar, where they operate as local defence units under YPG and PKK supervision. The result is that the YPG now occupies areas in Iraq previously controlled by the peshmerga.

YPG officials deny having permanent intentions on Iraqi territory, but it is unclear what the future holds. Even if the YPG withdraws from the Sinjar area, the Yazidi units left behind appear loyal to the YPG, not the peshmerga. For their part, the Iraqi Kurds have insisted there can be no discussion on this matter and that the YPG presence is a violation of sovereignty.

For now the YPG and peshmerga appear to be putting their differences aside. However, serious problems could emerge once the IS threat recedes. Indeed, both Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish officials told IHS Jane’s they will try to resolve the issue amicably, while each casting the other side as the instigator.

The future for the YPG holds more conflict. The IS is unlikely to cease its attacks on the Kurds for the time being, given that they control strategic border crossings and block the road from its capital in Syria’s Al-Raqqah across to the city of Aleppo. Syria’s Kurds appear capable of holding out, but they know that more martyrs (who are glorified in their culture) will fall before the IS is permanently beaten back.

September 8, 2014

Immigration Reform, by Cmdr Matt Shipley, USN [nc]

[taken from Cmdr Shipley’s blog: American Founding Principles, found in wordpress.com]
Immigration Reform
Jul16

The youthful tidal wave plunging over America’s southern border has brought the immigration debate to a critical crescendo. While most Americans are struggling with what is the moral and ethical thing to do with the children, the two political parties are struggling with how they are going to out-maneuver the other in a political chess match that has the future control of America at stake. The debate centers on giving citizenship, with full voting privileges, to people who come to America illegally.

Nearly every decision, collectively made by elected officials is done with one of two main goals in mind; either to stay in political power or gain more political power. These two goals are the prime motivator for nearly every decision made, every law passed, and every political speech delivered. In short, human political philosophy holds, if a law is passed that is beneficial for the people, then so much the better, but if it is not and one can politically get away with it, then so be it as long as the law increases their chances for re-election.

For example, the Democratic Party puts millions of taxpayer dollars into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two failed but still government-supported home loan institutions that were at the center of disastrous housing bubble. In return Fannie and Freddie heavily donate to Democratic Party candidates.

Another example is the Republican Party framing national security issues in a way to validate massive defense spending. While national defense is vitally important and government funding of it is certainly constitutional, the amount of spending and the manner in which it is spent exceed the nation’s defense requirements. The military industrial complex that has grown out of this spending supports an interventionist foreign policy[1] vice a defensive foreign policy and the money made by the military industrial complex goes back into supporting Republican candidates all at tax payer expense.

Some may see this as an unwarranted cynical view, but it is a regretful fact of human nature that has become more prevalent as America drifts farther and farther away from its Reformed Christian foundation.[2] Individual politicians may go to Washington for altruistic reasons, but they too are frequently caught up in party politics if they have a desire to be re-elected.

The electorate must take this into consideration when weighing arguments made about questions of national magnitude. Politicians will always frame their arguments in the best light, but in order not to be led astray by political double talk and duplicitous reasoning, citizens must look past the window dressing and see the political motives behind each argument.

Immigration is not about fairness, hospitality, morality, or even the welfare of immigrants, it is about changing the electoral demographics of America. The Democratic Party has championed the illegal immigration cause, and now Hispanics, who according to the US Census Bureau’s 2013 statistics, make up 17.1% of the US population and overwhelmingly support Democratic party candidates. If the Democratic party continues to be successful in expanding privileges for illegal immigrants and in thwarting voter identification laws to make it easier for illegals to vote in elections, then the Democratic party will more easily remain in control.

If this happens, it will leave the Republican party no choice but to pander to the same voting block of illegal immigrants and Hispanics. At that point, we might as well invite the politicians from the countries from where the immigrants came to come run our county as well, because the results will be nearly identical.

If you personally do not like the thought of living under the government in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, or Nicaragua, then you should think twice about supporting any politician pandering to illegal immigrants or the community that supports them. In spite of the narrative advanced by supporters of illegal immigration, the majority of Americans are completely fine with legal immigrants, who entered America in compliance with American immigration law.

Before anyone of us answers what is moral and ethical in the current unfolding humanitarian crisis, we should consider for what purpose “We the people” gave Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”[3] and how that power should be wielded in our present time.

Congress first passed an act dealing with “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” on March 26, 1790, that stipulated an alien must be a “free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years…and making proof … that he is a person of good character.”

From a 21st century perspective, this is sure to seem like a very “racist” statement, yet when put within an 18th century context we should all be able to see it for what it was, a statement of self-preservation.

While people of non-European ethnicity and skin color lived in America as freemen during our struggle for independence and even made significant contributions to that independence, they were the exception not the rule. Their contributions came primarily from an adopted world view that was not common in the countries or continents from where they descended. Whereas, “white” people who came primarily from Europe could easily be assimilated into American culture without too much risk of their overwhelming the culture and changing it irrevocably.

Preservation of American culture was the goal of our earliest immigration laws and it should be the goal of our current immigration laws as well. Much has changed since the 18th century and skin pigmentation is not and rightfully should not be a factor in determining modern day immigration eligibility, but a person’s motives for immigrating and their world view still should be.

On January 29, 1795, Congress passed another naturalization act that extended the length of time of eligible residency to five years and added the stipulation that an applicant must make proof that they are “of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”

If illegal immigrants do not respect our laws in coming to America, what evidence is there to support the claim they will respect our Constitution afterwards? By breaking our immigration laws they have demonstrated a lack of moral character and complete disregard for our laws and our way of life.

In 1795, the term of eligibility was extended to five years to better assimilate 18th century immigrants into American culture. What would it take to assimilate modern immigrants coming across our southern border?

Most all Americans welcome with open arms anyone who wants to come to America for the purpose of upholding the principles that made us free, but if immigrants come or came illegally, they have already demonstrated the lack of character to do this and no amount of time will change this within them.

It is for this reason, citizenship with full voting privileges should never be an option for anyone who has ever come or will come to America illegally. While mass deportation is not a fiscally or functionally viable option, selective deportation should be swift and sure to any legal or illegal immigrant, given amnesty or not, who does not conform to American laws, language, or customs.

On November 6, 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. This act passed Congress as a quid pro quo in which one political party accepted amnesty and full voting privileges for illegal aliens living continuously in the United States since 1982; the other political party accepted increased border security to deter further illegal immigration and avert another immigration crisis.

Since the immigration deterrent portion of this measure has proven completely unsuccessful, the other part of the quid pro quo should be equally null and void by rescinding voting privileges of all illegal immigrants, no matter when they arrived.

Rescinding voting privileges needs to be enacted at the State level, because the Constitution did not originally grant the national government authority over who is authorized to vote. Except for the clause “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislator” [4] no other clause in the Constitution addresses voter qualifications. This means, without a legitimately ratified amendment granting voter qualification authority to the national government, which the Fourteenth Amendment is not,[5] the national government is restricted from making any law concerning voter qualifications.

Another issue the coercively and fraudulently ratified Fourteenth Amendment has caused, is the “anchor baby” issue in which illegal immigrants claim citizenship for their children simply because they are born on American soil. It takes more than being born in America to be an American and it is past time our national government legally recognizes this. Children reared by parents who openly violated US law in coming to America are not the people we want as citizens.

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act was based on the flawed theory that if the US limited job opportunities through employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, mass illegal immigration would stop. This theory may have proved true if our national government had not created a social welfare state in which nearly everything needed in society is provided free of charge. This list includes education at publicly funded schools, health-care at hospital emergency rooms, housing and even spending money directly from the national government. Such handouts make it possible for people coming from third world countries to live better in America than they did from where they previously lived without even getting a job. What reasonable, and most likely desperate, person would pass up such an opportunity?

Nationally imposed minimum wage laws also contribute to continued illegal immigration, because illegals are willing to take sub-minimum wage pay “under the table” and still live better than they did before they came.

Eliminating all social welfare spending at every level of government,[6] de-funding public schools,[7] allowing hospitals to determine to whom they will provide charitable health-care, restricting voter privileges indefinitely for all illegals, and allowing States or even individual counties to set minimum wage standards, if they so choose, within their jurisdiction would go a long way to deterring mass illegal immigration. Even if these measures would not stop mass illegal immigration, they would significantly reduce the tax burden Americans now bear to support others transgressing our laws and it would eliminate a major political motive to encourage and protect illegal immigration.

While the children inundating our southerner border is a heart rendering situation, our national government, which is already deeply in debt, does not have the resources to provide for the volume of children flooding in, much less every child in the world living under similar situations and conditions.

Neither is it the responsibility of the American taxpayer to bear this burden; it is the responsibility of the adults living in the society from where these children have come to change their government in a way that will rectify the wrongs they are living with instead of exporting the ideology that created the corrupt, tyrannical beast under whose authority they now suffer. Americans were and still are willing to fight for their independence, others must be willing to fight for their own as well.

The President, who frequently has claimed he has “a pen and a phone”, should stop pretending to hide behind an obscure law written to prevent human sex trafficking and immediately send the children back to where they came. If for no other reason than to dissuade others from sending more children our way and further overwhelming our ability to provide for them.

To answer the ethical and moral dilemma of the youthful human tidal wave plunging across America’s southern border, we as a nation, should not support their remaining in America funded by our tax dollars and we should minimize expenditures made in handling them, because there is nothing charitable about giving other people’s money away.[8] But, if individuals or groups want to take fiscal responsibility of the children or adopt them outright then our President, Congress and every other citizen should encourage them to do so.

[1] American Founding Principles, Constitutional Foreign Policy, August 28, 2013.

[2] American Founding Principles, Freedom in America: The Unifying Idea, June 17, 2013.

[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

[4] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1.

[5] The Fourteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified on July 9, 1868, but the northern controlled House and Senate
had made ratification of the amendment a requirement for “allowing” the individual Confederate States to
“rejoin” the union. Not only did their coercion not work, but several “Union” States: New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky,
California, Delaware and Maryland, also refused to ratify the amendment. Unable to obtain the three fourths
of the States required to ratify it, Congress did the next best thing and announced that it had been ratified
and acted as if it were.

[6] American Founding Principles, Who is General Welfare?, October 15, 2012.

[7] American Founding Principles, Fixing Public Education, September 13, 2012.

[8] American Founding Principles, Who is General Welfare?, October 15, 2012.

August 29, 2014

Injustice, by Earl, [nc]


Does anyone remember Detective Melvin Santiago? He was a Jersey City
police officer who was shot to death just a month ago, on July 13th. Santiago
was white. His killer, Lawrence Campbell, was black. Does anyone recall
Obama appearing before national television and calling for justice for
Officer Santiago’s family? Does anyone recall Eric Holder rushing to Jersey
City to see that justice was done?

How about Officer Jeffrey Westerfield. He was a Gary, Indiana police
officer who was shot to death last month on July 6th. Westerfield was white.
His killer, Carl LeEllis Blount, Jr. was black. Where was Obama? Where was
Holder?

Or Officer Perry Renn? He was an Indianapolis, Indiana police officer who
was shot to death just last month on July 5th, the day before Officer
Westerfield was killed. Officer Renn was white. His killer, Major Davis, was
black. I don’t recall any mention by Obama about the untimely death of
Officer Renn. And, I doubt that Eric Holder rushed to Indianapolis to make
sure justice was done. Or, maybe I just missed it.

Vermillion Parish Deputy Sheriff Allen Bares was gunned down by two men
just last June 23rd in Louisiana. Deputy Bares was white. His two killers,
Quintlan Richard and Baylon Taylor, were black. Was Obama outraged? Did
Eric Holder rush to Louisiana to make sure that the family of Deputy Bares
found justice?

Right here in our own state, Detective Charles Dinwiddie of the Killeen
Police Department was murdered by Marvin Lewis Guy, a black male. Officer
Dinwiddie was white. This happened on May 11th, just over two months ago. I
don’t even recall seeing anything about that on the news. Certainly,
the white citizens in Killeen didn’t take to the streets to loot and burn
businesses. Again, I don’t recall any mention by Obama or Holder.

Then, there is Officer Kevin Jordan of the Griffin, Georgia Police
Department. He was gunned down just two months ago on May 31st. Officer Jordan was black. His killer, Michael Bowman, was white. This was a white man murdering a black police officer. Where was Jesse Jackson? Where was “The Reverend” Al Sharpton? Was there looting and burning on the streets of
Griffin, Georgia? No. In fact, I don’t recall hearing about this one in the
news, as well. Why? You can draw your own conclusions.

Over the past 60 days, there have been five reported deaths of police
officers by gunshot in the US. Of those, four were white officers who were
murdered by black men. Blacks complain that white officers threaten black men more aggressively on the street.

You can draw your own conclusions on that one, as well.

​WAS IT MENTIONED THAT THE BLACK POPULATION OF THE USA IS 13%????​

August 28, 2014

Stealth Jihad, 2014 ISNA (Islamic Society of N.A.), Detroit, from Thomas More Law Center [nc]

Thomas More Law Center News Alert

Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Detroit ISNA Conference – Stealth Jihad for The Subjugation of America

ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) will be holding its annual convention in Detroit this weekend beginning Friday, August 29 and ending September 1. ISNA was designated by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. A 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum introduced in that trial identified ISNA as one of its front organizations. The memorandum further stated the Brotherhood’s “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Detroit ISNA Conference – Stealth Jihad for The Subjugation of America

Astonishingly, despite ISNA’s terrorist ties, former President Jimmy Carter will be the convention’s keynote speaker. Carter, also, recently called for the legitimization of Hamas, which is listed by the US government as a terrorist organization. In addition to Carter, several other prominent non-Muslim political leaders will be speaking at the convention.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, about an hour’s drive from Detroit, commented, “The participation of these political leaders is giving the ISNA convention the cover of respectability and as a result is enabling ISNA and other the other Muslim extremists at the convention to achieve their goal of a “Grand Jihad” to subjugate America.”

An integral aspect of ISNA’s plan for the subjugation of America is to portray itself as a peaceful, mainstream charitable institution. It is part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of “civilization jihad.” While most Americans are focused on violent jihad, civilization jihad is even more dangerous to American security. According to Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, it is “a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating Shariah gradually into Western societies.”

Erick Stakelbeck, a terrorism expert and author of the book “The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy,” compared the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy to that of “termites.” “The Muslim Brotherhood in America and really around the world are like termites. They burrow into a host society. They eat away at it until the day comes where they are ready to make their move.”

Siraj Wahhaj, one of the scheduled speakers at the conference, was the first Muslim cleric to deliver opening prayers to Congress. In his prayer he recited from the Koran and asked God to guide America’s leaders “and grant them righteousness and wisdom.” A year later, he told a Muslim audience in New Jersey that, “If only Muslims were more clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” He was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In one of his sermons, Wahhaj said: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing, and the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

Abdurahman Alamoudi conducted the Muslim Brotherhood’s most successful infiltration of our political and defense establishments. He advised Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. He penetrated and compromised our military and both the Democrat and Republican national organizations. He established the Muslim Chaplain Program for the Defense Department. He was the certifying authority for Muslim chaplains serving with the U.S. military. He appeared with President Bush at a press conference days after the 9/11 attacks. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department publicly admitted that Alamoudi was the top Al-Qaeda fundraiser in the United States. Alamoudi is currently serving a 23-year prison sentence for his terrorist related activities.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood, told a youth conference in Toledo, Ohio in 1998, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America.”

August 3, 2014

Current News from France, from John Fasb, [nc]

Our wonderful media SURE DON’T KNOW HOW TO REPORT THE NEWS(Please read and forward):

Subject: FRANCE

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently not
being reported as it should.

To give you an idea of what’s going on in that country where there are now between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews, here is an E-mail that came from a Jew
living in France.

Please read! “Will the world say nothing – again – as it did in Hitler’s time?” He writes: “I AM A JEW — therefore I am forwarding this to everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back and do nothing.

Nowhere have the flames of anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France …

1. In Lyon , a car was rammed into a synagogue and set on fire.

2. In Montpellier , the Jewish religious center was firebombed.

3. so were synagogues in Strasbourg and Marseilles ;

4. so was a Jewish school in Creteil – all recently.

5. A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with Molotov cocktails

6. and on the statue of Alfred Dreyfus, in Paris , the words ‘Dirty Jew’ were painted.

7. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars.

8. The bus that takes Jewish children to school in Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

9. According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen 10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past 30 days.

10. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been defaced with slogans proclaiming ‘Jews to the gas chambers’ and ‘Death to the Jews.’

11. A gunman opened fire on a kosher butcher’s shop (and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse, France

12. A Jewish couple in their 20’s were beaten up by five men in Villeurbanne -France (the woman was pregnant).

13. A Jewish school was broken into and vandalized in Sarcelles , France .. This was just in the past week

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a friend, or merely a person with the capacity and desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do – at least – these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don’t ever let yourself become deluded into thinking that this is not your fight.

I remind you of what Pastor Neimollersaid in World War II:

‘First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.’

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and, unlike them, France exports more than just oil and hatred.

So boycott their wines and their perfumes

Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs.

Boycott their movies.

Definitely boycott their shores.

If we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and, whatever else we may know about the French, we most certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a hurricane in the face of well-directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends, and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of good conscience that you know and let them know that you – and the people that you care – about need their help.

The number one bestselling book in France is…. ‘September 11: The Frightening Fraud’ which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon!

PLEASE PASS THIS ON. LETS NOT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF! THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIM

​​E.

Cu

« Newer Posts

Blog at WordPress.com.