Overblog Follow this blog
Administration Create my blog
July 4 2016 2 04 /07 /July /2016 17:38

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

 

I’m not a huge believer in the American’s Left interpretation of the Disestablishmentarian Clause of the First Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or … (Amendment I: FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION; National Constitution Center)

 

The Left and Secular Humanists interpret this clause as meaning religion (Founding Fathers meant Christian Church) and State must be absolutely separated from each other. No government in the Church and no Church in the government. But you can read the clause. Tell me where it is written that a separation must exist. YOU CANNOT because there is no such wording!

 

All the clause says is that the Congressional Branch of the Federal government shall make NO LAW establishing a state religion or as the Founders understood, no state Church established by the Federal government.

 

In fact, did you know that several of the original 13 States retained their Established Christian Church for some time after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land for the United States of America? The Federal government was constitutionally forbidden from enacting any law pertaining to religion on State level because of the Disestablishmentarian Clause in the 1st Amendment and the 10th Amendment which states:

 

 “The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 ([SCOTUS Decision of 2/14] 1931). – “About the Tenth Amendment”; Tenth Amendment Center)

 

It is a bit interesting that the Tenth Amendment Center in the quote above, that a 1931 SCOTUS decision is used as an affirmation of the purpose of the 10th Amendment. Why is it interesting? Because SCOTUS is the very reason that the Left has successfully utilized the term Living Constitution to make laws not authorized by the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Of the Thirteen Original States after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, several had Established Churches even after the Civil War. Here is post-ratification State Established Churches with the year Establishment ended:

 

  1. Virginia – 1830

 

  1. New York – 1846

 

  1. Massachusetts – 1833

 

  1. Maryland – 1867

 

  1. Delaware – 1792

 

  1. Connecticut – 1818

 

  1. New Hampshire – 1877

 

  1. Rhode Island – 1842

 

  1. Georgia – 1798

 

  1. North Carolina – 1875

 

  1. South Carolina – 1868 (Actually a SCOTUS decision ended all State support of Christian institutions in 1925 to be retroactive to 1868: “14th Amendment to US Constitution was ratified by South Carolina in July 1868. The US Supreme Court ruled that this amendment ended state support of religion in all US states in ruling of Gitlow v. New York, 1925” [The link within the quote is by the Blog Editor])

 

  1. Pennsylvania – 1790

 

  1. New Jersey – 1844

 

… (Religion in the Original 13 Colonies: ProCon.org; Last updated on 1/6/2009 7:26:00 AM PST)

 

I believe most of these states disestablished soon after the Constitution was ratified but was involved in some kind Church oriented support via organizations until the end date list above. In all cases it was the state legislature that ended Church Establishment and not SCOTUS. Primarily in the early 20th century SCOTUS began extra-constitutionally whittling away at the religious freedoms of the Christian Church influencing government on the local, state and federal level.

 

Here is an excerpted short scope on how SCOTUS evolved to acquire more power than intended by the Framers of the Constitution:

 

Marbury v. Madison, 1803

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

 

With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.

 

 

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.”

 

Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

 

 

Roe v. Wade, 1973

The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion.

 

Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman’s right to choose. The opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman’s right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled, the decision stands as one of the Court’s most controversial.

 

(Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in Supreme Court History; ConstitutionFacts.com)

 

Specific to throwing out Original Intent Disestablishmentarian Clause:

 

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

 

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

 

 

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

 

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

 

 

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

 
1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 

 

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 
 

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

 

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

 

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

 

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which Uncons[titutional] evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

 

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

 

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

 

(U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (arranged by date); Secular Web - Internet Infidels)

 

I find it ironic that an atheistic group like the Secular Web provided the information I needed to demonstrate the manipulation by SCOTUS of the 1st Amendment Disestablishmentarian Clause away from the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent.

 

You have to realize that the Leftist transformation agenda implemented strongly by Obama would continue if Crooked Hillary is elected by either adoring Dem voters and/or duped anti-Trump voters. A Crooked Hillary Administration would certainly nominate more SCOTUS Justices that would adhere to the Living Constitution principles over Original Intent principles. It is the Living Constitution principles is what has allowed SCOTUS to successfully erode the U.S. Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it as a tool of limited government by We The People as opposed to the ruling elites of the Establishment from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

 

The elitist Establishment is very supportive of the globalist agenda of the United Nations. It is my humble opinion the Left of America and the globalist Left of the UN is using Islam as a tool to completely disenfranchise Christianity as the moral influence of the Western World. This is the reason the Multiculturalists of Europe, the American Left and the UN is hot to encourage Muslim migration to Western nations. The Leftist gamble to use Islam as a tool is dangerous to the point of idiocy.

 

The purists of Islam – often called Radical Islam by blind PC Westerners – have their own agenda. These adherents of the literal wording of the Quran, Hadith and Sira desire to establish a global Caliphate under the submission principles of Sharia Law. There is no room for Western Liberty or the U.S. Bill of Rights in Islam. Western principles of Liberty and the rule of Law are absolutely contrary to Islamic principles of submission. By the way, the Arab to English of Islam is peace is a lie. The phrase is better rendered Islam is submission is the more accurate translation.

 

So when I read that the UN is giving special privileges to Islamic worshippers over Christian worshipper (as well as excluding other non-Muslim religions), it chaps my hide a bit.

 

In case you don’t follow the duplicitous hypocrisy of the United Nations, that world body has elevated “radical” Muslims to high positions. Notoriously Saudi citizens are on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in leadership positions.

 

And more recently I discovered from Eagle Rising that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Evidently UN globalism is dictating to sovereign nations how they teach Christianity to children in private and public schools. In this report on the UNCRC is saying children experiencing compulsory Christian rituals is violating their freedom of conscience:

 

… the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,”

 

Here’s the full article.

 

JRH 7/4/16

********************

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

 

By Tim Brown

July 1, 2016

Eagle Rising

 

Here is just another in a long line of examples of why the United States needs to not only defund the United Nations, but remove ourselves from it and the organization from our soil. In a recent paper put out by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

 

The Telegraph reports:

 

Britain must stop forcing children to attend Christian school assemblies because it undermines their human rights, a United Nations committee has said in a controversial new report.

 

The authors called on ministers to repeal a law demanding a daily act of Christian worship at schools because it may contradict a child’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

 

The report was produced by an 18-person group of “independent experts” of “high moral character” including representatives from Bahrain, Russia and Egypt.

 

Critics dubbed the demand “ludicrous” and said the government should responded by “respectfully” putting the report “in the bin”.

 

It was just one of 150 recommendations about where Britain could be contravening the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.

 

“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,” reads a portion of the report.

 

Surely, Oliver Cromwellhttps://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?source=bk&t=freedomoutpos-20&bm-id=default&l=ktl&linkId=05863f09f11d8a9288905259e06439c7&_cb=1467392942017 is rolling over in his grave as he was one who defended Protestant Britain from King Charles’ tyranny and treason.

 

“The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school,” the report added.

 

Britons called the report “ludicrous” and “mad.”

 

“The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise,” Parliament Minister David Burrowes told The Telegraph. “It is recognizing and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries’ classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong.”

 

However, some in the UK were all too happy with the report, namely anti-theists.

 

The British Humanist Association Director Pavan Dhaliwal said, “The UK state fails its young people in far too many ways today. Almost uniquely among economically developed countries, it segregates them in schools along religious lines. We are pleased to see the UN agree with us that UK law needs to change.”

 

So, parents have been sending their kids to school knowing full well that this has been going on, but don’t have a problem with it because they hold to Christianity, right? On what authority does the UN act to even recommend interfering or giving advice or counsel to anyone regarding children, Christianity, education or parenting? They just simply are attempting to usurp authority.

 

Parents have a duty before God, apart from any law being enforced on them, to train up their children and teach them the Law of God. They should be doing this at home, in my opinion. I have constantly encouraged parents to take advantage of free homeschool curriculum and remove their children from public indoctrination centers. While I agree that if there is going to be schooling like in Britain that having the Biblehttps://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?source=bk&t=freedomoutpos-20&bm-id=default&l=ktl&linkId=a5bffdbfeac8e33d30c6e8bc2f0b734a&_cb=1467392907780 taught and expounded upon is a good thing, I do not agree that it somehow violates a child’s human rights. In fact, leaving a child without a worldview based on the teachings of the Bible leaves them open for all sorts of faulty thinking, much like those of the British Humanist Association. They forget that true liberty only exists under the Lawgiver, and that only tyranny exists apart from Him.

 

Reposted With Permission From Freedom Outpost.

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

______________________

Disestablishmentarianism, Constitution, SCOTUS & UN

John R. Houk

© July 4, 2016

____________________

The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason

 

About Tim Brown

 

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, husband to his wife, father of 10, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the brand new Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.

 

Copyright © 2016. EagleRising.com is a member of Liberty Alliance. All rights reserved. 

 

About Eagle Rising

 

Eagle Rising seeks to share breaking news about culture, media, politics, etc., from a Christian perspective.

 

Eagle Rising is a division of Bravera Holdings, LLC. Founded in 2013 by Gary DeMar and Brandon Vallorani.

 

READ THE REST

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Immigration Counterjihad Christianity
write a comment
June 30 2016 5 30 /06 /June /2016 17:52

 

Geert Wilders is one of my Counterjihad heroes in exposing the dark side of Islam’s theopolitical ideology. He leads the Dutch Party for Freedom (Dutch acronym: PVV), a political party in the Netherlands which their Left Wing and Multiculturist politicians fear, hate and loathe. Why? Wilders represents the political stand in Europe that understands that Islam is a religion that will destroy Western Civilization if allowed to enter unrestrained via immigration. Adherents to Islam demand that the host nation they conform and acquiesce to the tenets of Islam which demands a life led under Sharia Law not only for adherents but also that non-Muslim Westerners conform.

 

Wilders understands that the Sharia minded Muslim enclaves that have risen in the Netherlands is a threat to all things Dutch in that society. Unfortunately for Wilders and Dutch nationalists, such thinking spoken out loud have been criminalized not only in the Netherlands but the entire European Union (EU) of nations – incidentally the recent Brexit vote in the United Kingdom (UK).

 

With that intro of Geert Wilders I stumbled upon a Wilders video (about four minutes) courtesy of the Gatestone Institute email alert.

 

JRH 6/30/16

******************

VIDEO -- Geert Wilders: Stand for Freedom!

 

June 30, 2016 at 12:30 am

Gatestone Institute

 

Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders discusses the dangers of the Islamization of the West and the growing influence of Sharia law. He outlines his plans to defend the identity and civilization of the West from indoctrination.

 

VIDEO: Geert Wilders: Stand for Freedom!

 

 

Posted by Gatestone Institute

Published on Jun 29, 2016

 

Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders discusses the dangers of the Islamization of the West and the growing influence of Sharia law. He outlines his plans to defend the identity and civilization of the West from indoctrination.

 

__________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." — John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts -- analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and READ THE REST

 

Blog Editor: I’m afraid I went a bit rogue. I did not ask or receive permission to use the Gatestone content. If told to remove, I will comply.

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Immigration
write a comment
June 29 2016 4 29 /06 /June /2016 12:48

 

John R. Houk

© June 29, 2016

 

By now you have read that the Dem members of House Benghazi Committee has said to the effect: Nothing to see here. Move along. Obama and Hillary did a fantastic job with being upfront about the September 11, 2012 Islamic terrorist attack in which four Americans lost their lives – one of which was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. And do vote for Hillary since she always truthful and full of integrity.

 

Of course Dem voters will either believe the whole bag of horse-pucky or will not care because they are all in for the Leftist transformation of America. Why else would they vote a crook?

 

Here is lying through her teeth:

 

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Makes Statement On Benghazi Report | MSNBC

 

 

Posted by MSNBC

Published on Jun 28, 2016

 

Hillary Clinton makes an official comment about the Benghazi report that was released by the House Republicans and the other investigations that have been conducted.


» Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc

About: MSNBC is the … a Marxist propaganda machine for Obama, Hillary and Dems in general … err I mean READ THE REST

 

If you Google the media outlets on the Benghazi Committee Reports, you will note all the Left Wing ones and the pretend Mainstream Media claim that Hillary is exonerated with NO NEW INFO. I tell you what – The GOP members paint an entirely different story than Hillary and her Dem acolytes.

 

Did the GOP find a smoking gun? No, because the Obama Administration and the Obama regime State Department have done all they can to stall, withhold, and not cooperate with GOP investigators.

 

The GOP Benghazi Committee Members’ News Conference on June 28 makes it quite clear that Obama and Hillary screwed up for the PR purpose of ensuring Obama’s 2912 election victory and deceive voters that Hillary is an outstanding and experienced individual to run for POTUS in 2016.

 

VIDEO: Trey Gowdy Benghazi Report FULL Press Conference 6/28/16 - House Select Committee [57:42]

 

 

Posted by LesGrossman2015

Published on Jun 28, 2016

 

Trey Gowdy holds press conference on new benghazi report june 28 2016. House Select Committee on Benghazi Report Members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi held a news conference to release their report on the September 2012 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans died including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

 

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) refused on Tuesday to accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of lying about the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in. After spending a reported $7 million dollars investigating the Benghazi attacks, House Republicans released their report this week, but it found no new evidence of wrongdoing by the former secretary of state.

 

At a press conference on Tuesday, reporters pointed out that Gowdy’s committee had fueled attacks on Clinton for months. “There are bumper stickers and T-shirts all over this country that say, ‘Hillary Clinton lied, people died,'” one reporter noted during Gowdy’s press conference. “Is that true?” “You don’t see that T-shirt on me and you’ve never seen that bumper sticker on any of my vehicles and you’ve never heard me comment on that,” Gowdy insisted. “I’m asking you to read [the report]. I’m not going to tell you what to be on the lookout for. I’m going to tell you there’s new information.” “And it fundamentally changes the way that I view what happened before, during and after,” he added. “I actually trust you to read the report for yourself and draw your own conclusions.” “But you are the expert,” another reporter interrupted. “What do you think? Do you think she lied?” “I’m not going to assign — that, that’s a word you couldn’t use in a courtroom,” Gowdy stuttered in response. “It’s just in [Clinton’s] public statements to us, there was less definitiveness. So, you’re going to have to decide for yourself.”

 

Trey Gowdy (R.- SC) and his committee members addressed the media about the 800-page findings. Although Chairman Gowdy and his fellow GOP members have repeatedly noted that this purpose of their investigation was not about the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Gowdy told MSNBC this morning, “We mention… Clinton’s name less times than the Democrats do” in their report), a reporter pressed the Chairman about a popular takeaway from the Benghazi events. “There are bumper stickers and tee-shirts all over this country that say ‘Hillary Clinton lied, people died’… is this true?” asked the reporter. “You don’t see that tee-shirt on me, and you don’t see that bumper sticker on any of my vehicles,” responded Gowdy succinctly. “And you’ve never heard me comment on that.”

 

As he had done throughout the press conference, Gowdy repeatedly urged not only the gathered members of the press but also the American public to read the 800-page report for themselves. “I’m not gonna tell you what to be on the lookout for. I’m gonna tell you there’s new information.” The panel found no new wrongdoing on the part of the former Secretary of State, who is the presumed nominee for the Democratic party in the 2016 Presidential race, though it slams the inadequate resources leading up to the 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead in Libya.

 

This morning on CNN’s New Day, committee member Jim Jordan (R. – Ohio) said, “The overall report, it’s about the facts, what happened… [but we] thought it was important to ask the questions. Why were we still in Benghazi when almost every other country had left? Why did we stay in Benghazi when the security situation was so terrible, so dangerous? And why did the administration mislead us?” [Blog Editor: I divided the description into arbitrary paragraphs.]

 

Wherever LesGrossman2015 got his description, there is the appearance of trying to be balanced; however, it still smacks of giving Hillary a pass.

 

The Republicans post with pdf links for the public to read their 800-page report. It is entitled “Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report”.

 

Fox News has a very good analysis of news conference and the report: “House Benghazi report slams administration response to attacks”.

 

JRH 6/29/16

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Conspiracy Theory Counterjihad Crime
write a comment
June 27 2016 2 27 /06 /June /2016 15:44

Do you hate Jews? If you are studious Muslim you might answer of course – it is encoded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. If you are a Nazi or Neo-Nazi you would probably answer yes, your delusional hero uncle Adolf taught you to hate Jews in his writings.

 

Are you an American, a Westerner and/or a Christian? Do you hate Jews (Profanity Warning – Pat Condell condemns Jew-hatred)? SHAME ON Y0U if you answer yes.

 

Are you a Progressive and hate Jews (FrontPageMag & DTN) because Israel exists and those poor non-entity Palestinians have told you they are victims? Then you are a deluded idiot.

 

Any hatred of a people or religious faith is an evil. From a Christian perspective, hating Jews is just plain ungodly. If you think the Jews are collectively responsible for the Crucifixion of Christ, you should their hand. Without Christ’s death and Resurrection, you to realize we would still be lost to the Fallen nature of Adam that the Resurrected Jesus redeemed us from.

 

It is wrong to blame Jews for the Crucifixion, that was actually a collaboration Roman leadership (Gentiles) and the Jewish Sanhedrin leadership. Does anyone persecute Italians for being Christ-killers?

 

Norma Zager wonders out loud if there is an inoculation for hate. Why? Antisemitism is again raising its ugly head among those that should be enlightened to see the idiocy of Jew-hatred in this day and age of the 21st century.

 

JRH 6/27/16

**********************

What Me Worry?

 

By Norma Zager

Sent: 6/26/2016 7:59 PM

 

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” John F. Kennedy

 

So many years ago, and I purposely choose not to remember, Alfred E. Newman graced the cover of Mad Magazine begging the question, “What Me Worry?”

 

An icon of sorts, Alfred’s question became a watchword or guide for my generation.  Peace love and rock n’ roll seemed to fit perfectly into the parameters of “What Me Worry?”  And we didn’t, at least not much until we entered adulthood and found ourselves face to face with actual life.

 

Now it seems to me I feel compelled to raise the question once again, but the worry somehow seems implicit in the question itself, “what me hate?” There is so much hate around us these days; it is almost impossible to escape its ravages or virus-like movement through our lives.

 

Would one invent a vaccine to eradicate hatred? I actually wonder how many earthlings would choose to sign up for a dose.

 

And that is my conundrum.

 

For as I have come face to face with the ugliness of hatred, I now must admit to myself it is a conscious choice and one that is dictated by a willingness to believe lies about those very people we seek to dislike and blame.

 

As a Jewish person I have faced anti-Semitism numerous times. Whether from gentiles or self-hating Jews, the effects are always nauseating and unsettling, and after a bout with a hater I am left spent and weary as a sickly feeling courses through my veins until I can finally dispel its effects.

 

The most difficult task coming face to face with anti-Semitism is what to do. Shall I speak up? Shall I defend Israel? Shall I remain mute, retain relationships and betray my true self? What is my responsibility and how far shall I go? Perhaps to even refuse a job as I once did.

 

Is there a way to make a hater stop hating or a denier accept truth? What is gained by my leaping into the fray and becoming emotionally involved? These are questions only one can answer for oneself.

 

Do I wish I could remain mute, slough it off and change the subject? Yes, I do. Am I able to do so and not hate myself? No, unfortunately not. So either way I wind up feeling like a ton of ugliness was dumped on my head. I suppose that is a problem that has no answer. Hate does not possess a path for winning on any level.

 

Yesterday I came face to face with a hater. Oh of course hatred robes itself in intelligence. Academia prides itself on being above the fray. By their sheer acumen they can better discern fact from fiction, the cause from effect and of course who is to blame for the ills of the world. They believe they are right, defenders of the truth, and feel no remorse when pulling out the trite and careworn blame-the-Jews theories from their intellectual toolbox.

 

And yet laughingly for them it all still comes back to one answer: The Jews are to blame of course.

 

I should not have been shocked when speaking yesterday with an educator who firmly believes Israel is an occupier and killer of innocent Palestinians and that the problems of the Jewish people could be blamed directly on Israel’s behavior in the Middle East.

 

And yet I still find it hard to believe that in the wake of all the information available about Israel’s desire to live in peace with her neighbors and terrorist groups like Hamas that attack innocent Israelis on a daily basis, one would have accumulated the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision.

 

But no, it is still the Jews that are at fault. Or as the anti-Semite asked me yesterday, “Don’t Palestinians have rights? It was their land,” and on and on and on with all the crazy rhetoric that fuels the fires of hatred. Sadly, she believes her assumptions are truth, and being so accomplished intellectually she thus has the right to make this choice.

 

What I find so amusing is that even after the world has seen what the Arab world is capable of – stonings, killings, murdering homosexuals, cutting off heads, burning people alive and barbaric behavior in the most primitive forms – it still chooses to side with them against the Jewish people.

 

It is not information haters seek, it is merely a reason to hate, to fuel the fires of their racist rants.

 

I cannot speak for Muslims, although I know only too well they are suffering terribly for those among them who pay homage to a culture of hatred and evil.  My heart goes out to them, and I hope they as a religion find a way to escape from this dark cloud that has risen above them.

 

I can however speak as a Jew.  I have seen that in a world filled with evil, a Jewish life brings far less on the open market. Although it seems our Christian brethren have now succumbed to the ravages of evil as well, with few to cry out against their tormentors.

 

There is no excuse for hatred and racism if one can forego one’s prejudices and accept the facts. I am not saying Israel or the Jewish people are perfect and without flaws; perfection does not exist on this earth and never will, and we are all a little right and a little wrong at times. I am only saying that when faced with a scenario that includes hating evildoers or a Jew, haters, sadly, opt to blame the Jew.

 

It does not matter how many missiles rain down on Israeli children before they are forced to fight back; it does not matter how many leaflets are dropped by the IDF warning Palestinians to leave their homes and find safety because Israeli jets are coming; it does not matter how many Palestinian leaders hide their weapons in kindergartens or hospitals to rack up scores of victims to serve their PR purposes; it will always be the fault of the Jews.  Because that is the choice the haters make and they will never change.

 

Winston Churchill said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

 

Perhaps it is only in the end the world will finally acknowledge the truth, but I highly doubt the haters will choose to see it even then.

 

It is clear to me that Friedrich Nietzsche was correct when he wrote, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” I suppose as long as this is the case the haters will hate, the idealistic will defend and the pragmatists will stand aside and let them fight it out.

 

I often wonder who will win, and that is what truly gives me pause. For it seems more and more each day it is haters 6,000,000+ and defenders of the truth 0.

 

So I must ask myself once again as I have so many times before, “What Me Worry?”

 

You bet I do.

_______________

This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

© Israel Monitor, June, 2016

 

First Published June 25, 2016

Contact:  bussel@me.com

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Israel
write a comment
June 27 2016 2 27 /06 /June /2016 12:28

Ari Bussel is a frequent contributor on my blog. This submission is about three comments to an anti-Trump post in the Jewish Journal by David Suissa. The three comments are pro-Trump. The third comment is penned by Ari Bussel. If you read this blog you are probably aware that I have been in Trump’s corner since Senator Ted Cruz looked at the math, realized he could not secure the GOP nomination and so dropped (or suspended) out of the nomination race. I am a Trumper primarily because the alternative is crooked Hillary, one of the most corrupt American politicians next President Barack Obama and former President Slick-Willie Clinton.

 

Ari’s submission includes the anti-Trump post entitled “Republicans must dump Trump”. Ari placed the article at the end of the comments, but if you want to know what the three comments are defending against you may wish to scroll down and read the Suissa article first.

 

JRH 6/27/16

***********************

3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article

Republicans must dump Trump

 

Article By David Suissa

Comments Submitted by Ari Bussel

Originally: Jewish Journal

Sent: 6/26/2016 2:26 PM

Focus: Three Comments to Suissa Article

 

[COMMENTS] In the order they were written:

 

1) Lily Steiner (lilily@earthlink.net):

 

David SHAME ON YOU! Do you not understand who 'We the people' are? Do you have so much disdain for people that do not agree with you? Do you have to be right to the exclusion of the Democratic process? Is your ego so huge that just because you have taken a vendetta to Trump anyone that does not also see it is wrong? Has it ever occurred to you that you may be, perhaps, just a little wrong yourself? Do you care nothing about a free and democratic election? Can you not even entertain that you are one of the elitists causing the problems. Do you not understand that the SILENT MAJORITY, who do not usually even vote, have taken the time and trouble to leave their chairs and couches and go out and show their support for a candidate they can finally support?

 
I don't know how we have survived almost 8 years of the current leadership, and in fact we have not yet, as he has deeply and widely embedded Islamists into every department and level of government in a way, only someone like Trump can weed out.

 
But you of all people David, the wonderful father that you are, MUST understand that to raise a family as good and supportive and respectful and dedicated to a father like Trump, especially after 2 failed marriages, that type of father, that type of man cannot even come close to your close minded description of his character. The Trump kids, who grew up in wealth and privilege and the pain of 2 divorces, are exemplary citizens, ALL OF THEM, and totally support and respect their father. Do you in any way question that as their foundation and nurturer he could be anything but a man of solid values and integrity? You've raised many kids, you know the challenges, and how they turned out could only be a testament to his moral fiber.

 
All men have egos, and Trumps main challenge is that he is not a smooth charismatic speaker. So yes, you elitists will jump on media extracted sound bites that paint him so negatively, but take the time to see the substance of his 'straight from the hip, unfiltered' comments and you will not see lines of insulted workers of all backgrounds waiting to add their stories of the despicable boss they had, you will find stories and comments of a man that treated everyone fairly and equally.

 
When the media tried to show how awful he was to women, you had those same women come out and support him, showing the media, the folks you are supporting, to be totally biased with a lack of integrity to the truth. Now you, David, join them too!  

You have created the most shameful column you have ever written. You besmirched the good character of a man who doesn't need the power or aggravation or home or airplane that come with this office. Trump is running because he really does want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT again. With all the votes on the ground and support of all the We The People, not acknowledging him as the Republican Candidate shows you to have a TOTAL DISREGARD for the democracy we enjoy. I respect your disapproval of Trump, even though it does diminish you in my eyes, but I respect your right to your opinion. Your suggestion that we overthrow the democratic process because you feel you are smarter than the rest of us, is just plain ego on your part, far more vulgar than anything you describe in Trump.

 

2) Paul Schnee (sch290@hotmail.com):

 

During the last 12 months nobody has won any money betting against Donald Trump. As I understand it the gravamen of Mr. Suissa's argument is that some method should be found to deny the will of the primary voters either before or at the Republican convention in July. This suggestion would have been more beneficially applied to Obama's candidacy in 2008. Had it been successful the likelihood of a populist Trump candidacy, which seems to horrify Mr. Suissa even more than the 8 mirthless, poisonous and treacherous years of Obama's presidency, would have been remote. Denying the will of the people is a conceit of the political elite as Prime Minister Cameron just discovered on Thursday.

 

Those conservatives and Republicans who will not support Donald Trump because they imagine themselves to be too politically pure, too morally superior, too well educated and too sophisticated because they consider Trump to be an unprincipled quasi-liberal vulgarian are committing a costly form of sanctimony which will hand over America and the Supreme Court to a political party which has abandoned Israel, supports the hate-group, Black Lives Matter, and whose members have moved so far to the left they would be unable to see the center if they were standing on top of a ladder looking through a pair of binoculars.

 

3) Ari Bussel (bussel@me.com):

 

Dear David,

 

Good writing evokes emotions and transfers the piece from the writer to the reader.

 

I am not going to say you are misguided, wrong or otherwise delusional.  I have read at least two lengthy comments to that effect.  Quite on the contrary, I immensely enjoyed, as always, reading your column.  The comments show that people read your column and that what you write affects them, sufficiently to drive them to engage in a discussion with you and/or with the piece.

 

I wonder, and you might too, of all the very many columns you have written this year, is that the single most “profound” or “comment-enticing” one.  Time will tell.  And your readers may think differently than you (each holds a different column of a writer as “most memorable”).

 

I would say, though, that had your “Dump Trump" been published a few weeks ago, it would have been timely, suggestive and thought-provoking.  As it is now, it is stale, outdated and plain sour.

 

The current timing is similar to all those Britons who, moments after the final Brexit results were announced, started calling for another vote, and will likely demand another and another … until their vote is the one that prevails!  Two million, three million and the count is rising.  But how many of them voted to separate in the first place?

 

You admit that “Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates.”  You do not question the process; you simply do not like the results. Thus, you call to tailor new regulations, just so that we can change what is truly rightfully earned and fait accompli.

 

You care not that you undermine the integrity of the process, and that is exactly how Democrats today behave; as if they are the owners of the process, and the process must therefore fit itself to them.

 

You advocate somewhat similar to Ehud Barak’s call, at present time in Israel, for a “rebellion” or an “uprising” or anything of the sort, simply because he does not like the current government and/or because he is desperate seeing the “Left,” of which he is a part, evaporating to non-existence.  [I wonder what would happen if I were to use the same about the sitting President of the United States.  “Ousting” or “Rising Against” or anything similar, and I might find myself - in a best case scenario - in a jail cell, keys thrown to oblivion.]

 

You further suggest to Republican leaders to take the long view, the high road and to set an example.  You say, inter alia:

 

Republican leaders must say to America, "We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can't in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction." 

 

Since when did party leaders - Democrats or Republicans - do the right thing?  They care about one thing, and one thing only - perpetuating the status quo:  immense power and wealth, corruption and politics all concentrated in their hands.

 

Out of necessity - like the Israelites at the Red Sea, with the Egyptians fast approaching - Republican leaders finally understood the demand of (everyday) Republicans - we, the (simple) people, those who have a single, legitimate vote - and internalized the call to stop “Washington Politics.”  Further they understood (not so much by choice, but by sheer and overwhelming reality) that if the party is to survive, they must unite and reflect the people; not the comforts of the status quo where they rule and “let the people be damned!”  Thus you call for them to do the right thing; they have already done so.

 

In Biblical times, Nachshon jumped into the raging waters.  In current day Washingtonian politics, it was the Speaker of the House who was last remaining at the edge of the cliff, refusing to jump to save the institution, the party and himself.  He had no choice but to finally relent as well.

 

Once Paul Ryan announced he will vote together the entire party behind its presumptive nominee, the last fort of opposition to the New Reality has fallen.  Had your column appeared until that moment, it would be a wonderful, thought-provoking, reality-questioning piece.  

 

But as it was published after that tipping point, it is nothing but a lamentation of a sore loser; and I know you are not.

 

Imagine a similar column published moments after the Berlin Wall was toppled on 11/9/1989 or at the time President Reagan said, on 6/12/1987, “Tear Down This Wall!”  Timing - all the difference in the world.

 

DJT might be a narcissist, but what is new under the sun?  Are we not completing eight years under another similar narcissist (“it is my way, and only my way!”), simply from the other side of the aisle?  The difference is that with one we had to undergo eight long years of subjugating everything we hold dear (from the Constitution, tumbled under his feet, to the medical care we used to get to anything else that was “life in America” before BHO) to him, and you seem to be afraid of the next four years of “narcissism break[ing] loose.”

 

Anything - either Clinton or Trump - will be better than what we have endured thus far.  As a Republican all my life, and for the sake of America, I hope it will be DJT.  My vote will be for him.

 

Always,

 

Ari Bussel

bussel@me.com

 

+++

From the Jewish Journal

 

Republicans must dump Trump

By David Suissa

 

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr

 

It's bad enough when a narcissist is so full of himself that even a defeat can't humble him. Win or lose, he's always right. Imagine, then, what happens when an extreme narcissist starts to win, and wins big. All narcissism breaks loose. He goes from being drunk on his greatness to being totally plastered.

 

This is what is happening to Donald Trump.

 

He has passed the drunken phase. His stunning victories in the Republican primaries, his endless media exposure and his raucous rallies have become like cocaine-heroin speedballs to the part of his brain that triggers his ego. Blinded by self-love, he has doubled down on his offensiveness and recklessness. 

 

His critics inside the Republican party say, "What did you expect? This is who Trump is." But I think it's worse than that.

 

What we're seeing now is Trump becoming more and more Trumpish, a man so hypnotized by his own success that he can't see himself unraveling (with a 70 percent disapproval rating). He can hire and fire advisers, but it won't help, because he can't help himself.

 

If Trump pulls off a miracle and wins the White House, we will have an unhinged leader of the free world, intoxicated by his greatness, prone to even more recklessness. 

 

But even if he loses, which is more likely, we will still have to brave another few months of Trumpian bile. Come November, there won't be anyone left to offend. We will all need a National Detox Day.

 

Among the many fallouts of this cringe-inducing year is how Trump's crassness has overshadowed some genuine grievances among his working-class voters. Many of them feel, rightfully, that the economic recovery has left them behind and the Washington establishment has ignored them.

 

Some Trump voters also are tired of seeing their country getting ripped off, whether by a badly run war in Iraq that squandered $3 trillion, a badly negotiated nuclear deal that empowered a terror-sponsoring Iran, or unfair trade agreements that have cost American jobs.

 

The great GOP tragedy of 2016 is that it was a vulgar and divisive circus clown who figured out how to tap into many of those grievances.

 

In the beginning, many of us saw the Trump phenomenon as a harmless and amusing sideshow. Now, we see it is contaminating a party -- and a nation.

 

That's why Republicans must do everything they can to dump the Trumpster.

 

This is no longer about partisan politics; it's about defending the honor of our country. As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said recently, "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary."

 

With their convention only a month away, for Republicans that time is now. Trump's beyond-the-pale behavior justifies looking for every possible angle in the playbook to allow delegates to nominate another candidate.

 

Yes, it'll be messy, but as John Fund writes in National Review Online, there are expert opinions in support of freeing up the delegates:

 

"Curly Haugland, a member of both the Republican National Committee and the convention's Rules Committee, has co-authored with Sean Parnell a persuasive mini-book, 'Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate,' to make the case that delegates to the GOP convention are free to vote their conscience."

 

Denying Trump the nomination is a long shot, to be sure. Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates. Still, this is one of those torturous moments when one imperative overrides another. If there is a legitimate way to replace Trump with another candidate, it must be tried. 

 

Republican leaders must say to America, "We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can't in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction." 

 

Politicians and operatives inside the GOP who have mocked and criticized Trump but are nevertheless supporting him are simply proving his point about the cronyism of the political class. The only way they can salvage their integrity is to throw themselves at the mercy of principle and work to replace him.

 

This would be good not only for America -- in the long run, it also would be good for the Republican Party.

 

"There will always be other Trumps until Republicans decide to make defeating Trumpism a cause, even if that means short-term losses," former Democratic speechwriter Jon Favreau writes on The Ringer website. "If the party does not become more welcoming and inclusive, young people and other voters will tune it out."

 

Donald Trump is too narcissistic to learn from his experience, either in victory or in failure. The Republican Party cannot afford to become like him.

 

To read this article online, visit jewishjournal.com.

__________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

As you might relate, there were some typos in the comments – something we all do when placing comments ourselves. I used spellcheck to edit.

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
June 26 2016 1 26 /06 /June /2016 11:36

Did you know that history shows that walls ultimately are ineffective in keeping armed invaders out of nations? HOWEVER, history also shows that walls are very EFFECTIVE in keeping unwanted – as in alien – migrants out of nations. Historian Tim Newark (at time of post website down used cache link) lays out the details.

 

JRH 6/26/16 (Hat Tip: Right Alerts [6/26/16] and eHeadline.com)

**********************

History shows Trump is right to build a border wall, says historian Tim Newark

 

OF ALL presidential candidate Donald Trump’s plans for reviving the fortunes of the USA, the one that has attracted the most scorn and criticism is building a wall between the US and Mexico.

 

 

By Tim Newark, Historian

PUBLISHED: 08:29, Fri, May 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:09, Fri, May 27, 2016

Sunday Express

 

Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall between the US and Mexico has attracted criticism

 

But is he crazy or do walls serve a useful purpose in an age of failing states and mass migration? And if walls work then shouldn’t we have some in Europe? As we hear that net migration into the UK is back to record figures maybe it’s time to start getting those brickies busy.

 

I’ve just come back from China and walked a section of its famous Great Wall.

 

Snaking over mountains for hundreds of miles, it is an impressive building achievement as everyone knows but what is a little surprising is that sections of it are short, sometimes just 15ft tall.

 

An angry warrior with a ladder could easily climb over it. The same is true if you visit sections of Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland. But that’s not the point.

 

These ancient walls weren’t built to stop a few fearless tribesmen but to halt a problem all too familiar to us today: mass migration.

 

Chinese and Roman emperors invested vast fortunes in creating an obstacle to halt huge crowds of economic migrants travelling in wagons and on horseback and funnel them through fortified checkpoints.

 

Ancient walls were built to stop mass migration

 

You definitely can’t heave a wagon over the Great Wall of China. But is there a place for old-fashioned walls in a high-tech age? The Israelis certainly think so. Their Green Line Wall runs for 430 miles in the West Bank and has dramatically cut the number of suicide bombings and assaults by Palestinian terrorists.

 

In Northern Ireland Peace Walls have successfully countered inter-communal violence between Protestants and Catholics.

 

In Europe it is true that since the collapse of the Berlin Wall Europeans have been busy dismantling barriers and until recently you could travel for hundreds of miles across eastern and central Europe without encountering any barbed wire or checkpoints. Such were the joys of the passport-free Schengen Area, claimed the EU, but that has all changed with the eruption of mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa.

 

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited hundreds of thousands of migrants to her country she forgot to ask the permission of the smaller countries they had to march through to reach Germany. She assumed they could be forced to agree after the fact.

 

Migrant crisis in Europe

 

But the Austrians said “No!” They ignored the diktats of the EU and erected their own secure fences to stop the flow of immigrants as did other neighbouring countries, including Hungary, Serbia and most importantly Macedonia.

 

These physical obstacles backed up by security forces stopped the flow dead – so much so that Greece complained of having to host thousands of migrants stuck on their territory.

 

Such has been the destabilising effect of hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants entering strongly Christian countries that Austria this week just narrowly avoided voting in the first far-Right head of state in Europe since 1945.

 

Unless the EU gets a grip of the situation and starts erecting more effective barriers along the southern borders of Europe then European populations will start voting for ever more extreme leaders. That firm barrier should also mean naval vessels in the Mediterranean that return migrants to their points of departure, not just rescue and help them claim asylum in Europe.

 

Europeans have been busy dismantling barriers since the collapse of the Berlin Wall

 

Spain already has an autonomous enclave in Morocco at Ceuta and the EU could fund more such walled secure areas along the North African coast where intercepted migrants could be housed and ultimately returned to their own countries or safer neighbouring states.

 

The flow needs to be reversed for the good of their own countries otherwise the drain of minds and talents will leave homelands the poorer for it.

 

Anyone who has recently travelled to France by ferry or train will have noticed the increasingly fortified character of Calais where fences have helped reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into Britain. This is our Great Wall and – with or without Brexit – we need it to remain tall and strong and if necessary extend it.

 

Immigration has made Britain, the USA and Europe rich and dynamic but it needs to be managed and controlled. Americans know that and many Latinos, who have lived and worked legally for years in the US, agree with Mr Trump and his determination to build a wall along its Mexican border.

 

Greece complained of having to host thousands of migrants stuck on their territory

 

There already are short sections of fences and walls along the border and Trump simply proposes to link them all up. He says he will get Mexicans to pay for it by increasing fees on visas and border crossing cards. A tax on wire money transfers by Mexican immigrant workers via companies such as Western Union might also raise funds.

 

Trump is hitching his political future to this grand project because walls send out a powerful international message.

 

They say we value the peace and security of our citizens and, though guests are welcome, they must enter legally and abide by our rules.

 

That’s why the Chinese and Roman emperors built theirs and Trump wants to build his.

 

Europe needs to learn the lessons of history and start constructing our own Great Wall.

 

____________________

Copyright ©2016 Express Newspapers. "Daily Express" is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

 

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics Immigration
write a comment
June 24 2016 6 24 /06 /June /2016 14:39

Intro Michel Wyss’ ‘The Ideology of ISIS

Edited by John R. Houk

Intro date: 6/24/16

 

I found a very interesting PDF written by Michel Wyss circa 2015 while he was attending the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy located in Israel. I took it upon myself to convert the PDF into a Word document in order to cross post Mr. Wyss’ analysis of ISIS.

 

Michel Wyss Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy photo

 

There is not much accessible info on Michel Wyss but what I did find shows him to be a very interesting young man. Apparently his native language is German yet proficiently speaks English and French. He claims to have a lesser knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic but still uses the descriptive word “proficiency” when adding them to his language skills. He has gone to school in Europe, Israel and the USA to develop his expertise. Wyss’ last entry at LinkedIn (2015-16) shows has moved beyond student to an expert researcher:

 

Ragonis Scholarship for 2015/2016

 

Ragonis Foundation, International Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)

 

July 2015

 

Recipient of an initial grant for a research proposal on Iranian Proxy Warfare in the Middle East (research to be conducted within a year).

"Promoting Research in Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security

The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC), are pleased to announce an annual scholarships awarding to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security.

The scholarships will be given in memory of Architect, Major Eyal Ragonis z"l, for his military and civilian accomplishments. The scholarships'​ aim is to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security by IDC Herzliya students as well as IDF soldiers and officers."

 

Michel Wyss LinkedIn photo

 

Now I share this to demonstrate that Michel Wyss is well qualified to make the insightful analysis he has made about ISIS.

 

I don’t know if this was Michel Wyss’ intention, but his essay brings a bit of understanding how Multicultural Leftists seem to be way more supportive of Islamic ideology than they should be.

 

Enjoy the read.

 

JRH 6/24/16

*********************

The Ideology of ISIS

 

By Michel Wyss

January 1, 2015

PDF version located: Academia.edu

MA Program: Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy

University: Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya - Israel

 

Introduction

 

 

This research paper examines the ideology of the Salafi-Jihadist organization ISIS (also known as Islamic State, ISIL, Daesh). It offers a brief description of the Salafi-Jihad doctrine and discusses the four core functions of ideology and how they apply in the case of ISIS. It further describes how the ideology of ISIS shares many similarities with modern ideologies, in particular Marxism-Leninism, and examines what distinguishes it from other ideologies, mainly its incorporation of religious motifs. Finally, the paper concludes by arguing that the Salafi-jihad ideology of ISIS is a synthesis of the characteristics of modern ideologies and a very particular interpretation of Islam and discussing some of the ensuing counter-terror policy implications.

 

Defining Salafi-jihad ideology

 

 

According to Drake, ideologies are “the beliefs, values, principles, and objectives - however ill-defined or tenuous - by which a group defines its distinctive political identity and aims” (Drake 1998, pp. 54-55). More to the point, ideologies are “links between thoughts, beliefs and myths on the one hand, and action on the other hand” (Moghadam, 2008, p. 14).

 

The ideology of ISIS can be described as “Salafi-Jihad” (cf. Moghadam, 2008) or “jihadist-

 

Salafism”, the combination of “respect for the sacred texts in their most literal form [with] an absolute commitment to jihad” (Kepel, 2002, p. 220). In its essence, Salafi-Jihad contends that the Muslim world is suffering from a conspiracy by the West and as a response, it advocates the return to the practices and beliefs of the first three generation of Muslims, the salaf al-salih (pious ancestors), by means of violent jihad; the latter characteristic distinguishing jihadists from non-violent Salafists engaging in dawa (the call to Islam) which are essentially non-violent proselytizing activities (cf. Moghadam, 2008/2009).

 

The core functions of ideology

 

 

Modern ideologies fulfill four core functions: They raise awareness, diagnose the situation, form identity, and formulate a remedy (Moghadam, 2008). All of them can be applied to the ideology of ISIS: True to its Salafi-Jihadi creed, the organization alleges that the Muslim world is in a sorry state. ISIS statements cite Quranic verses that describe the pre-Islamic Arabs as the "[most] miserable nation, [fewest] in numbers and [the most] divided" (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014) and their propaganda videos refer to the purported humiliation and suffering Muslims have to endure in the lands of the “infidels” (kuffar) (cf. Eye of IS, 2014). According to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the reason for this predicament lies in a conspiracy by the “Jews”, “Crusaders” and their Arab “apostate” allies (Van Ostayen, 2014). Al-Baghdadi also praises its soldiers as “heroes of Jihad […] who defy humiliation and injustice […] and will never abandon fighting”, even if “only one soldier of them remained” (ibid.). Hence, ISIS attempts to instill in its adherents a new identity that offers belonging to a supranational entity, which can offer comfort and security, for recent converts who feel experience an identity crisis, but also to those who feel disoriented by modernity (Moghadam, 2008). Indeed, many Western foreign fighters of ISIS are often recent converts (cf. Kohlmann/Alkhouri, 2014). Finally, Al-Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph and “leader of the believers” (amir al-mu’minin), rules that every Muslim has the obligation to wage violent jihad in order to defeat the infidels (Van Ostayen, 2014). This obligation is known in the Salafi-Jihad doctrine as fard ayn (individual duty) (Moghadam, 2008/09).

 

The modern roots of the ISIS doctrine

 

 

Even though ISIS advocates establishing a society mimicking the times of Prophet Muhammad and that is based on a strictly literal interpretation of Quran and Sunna purified from any religious innovation such as the incorporation of rationality (Haykel, 2007), its Salafi-Jihad doctrine is very much a product of modernity and shares many traits with other modern ideologies, especially revolutionary socialist ones such as Marxism-Leninism (Rabasa et al., 2006). Like Marxism-Leninism, Salafi-Jihad exhibits an internationalist outlook with a complete disregard for the borders of countries that are envisioned as part of the Islamic caliphate. ISIS’s breaching of the border between Iraq and Syria, which was lauded by its propagandists as “the end of Sykes-Picot”, exemplifies this (Black, 2014). Both Marxism-Leninism and the Salafi-Jihad are essentially universal, with the establishment of the caliphate, a goal shared by all Salafi-Jihad organizations (Byman, 2013), being “the religious equivalent of Marx’s Communist utopia” as Steven Holmes puts it (from Moghadam, 2008, p.

 

15). Both Marxism-Leninism and ISIS claim to be inspired by a quest for “justice”, a theme that is regularly mentioned in ISIS statements, for example calling its adherents as “fighting against injustice” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014).

 

More to the point, both ideologies divide the world into two irreconcilable camps; capitalists and the proletariat in the case of Marxism-Leninism, whereas Salafi-jihad insists on the dichotomy of Muslim believers on one hand and infidels and Muslim apostates (which are not considered “real” Muslims) on the other. Insisting on the unbridgeable difference between the in- and the out-group is an important feature of ideologies; the latter is perceived not only as different but also as opposed and even hostile to the former and hence becomes a legitimate target (Drake, 1998; Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message from November 2014 serves as a case in point. In it he sets forth a priority list of ISIS’s targets, beginning with rafidah (a derogatory term for Shiites), followed by the tawagith (the Arab “apostate” regimes) and finally the West (Van Ostayen, 2014). He justifies violence against these enemies with their alleged enmity against Islam, or rather what ISIS perceives to be Islamic (ibid.).

 

Ideological groups demand from their adherents a great amount of commitment and loyalty (Moghadam, 2008). Individual members have to submit completely to their doctrines. ISIS is no exception in this regard. The group is said to have killed in less than two months at least 120 foreign fighters who wanted leave to Syria/Iraq and return home (Tufft, 2014).

 

The role of religion

 

 

While ISIS and the Salafi-Jihad doctrine in general share many similarities with modern secular ideologies, they also exhibit certain features that distinguish them from them, mainly through their incorporation of religion. Salafi-Jihad refer to themselves and their enemies in religious terms, they frame their strategies and goals as being religious in nature, and they use their very particular interpretation of religious sources such as the Quran and Sunna as a justification for acts of violence (Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message may again serve as an example. He refers to ISIS fighters repeatedly in religious terms, calling them

 

“heroes of Jihad”, “lions of tawhid” (the oneness of god) or “people of wala w’al barah”

 

(allegiance and disavowal, the exemplification of Salafi-Jihad’s “with us or against us”-mentality). Similarly, he labels ISIS’s enemies as “Jews”, “Crusaders”, “infidels”, and “apostates” (Van Osstayen, 2014).

 

As mentioned above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine frames waging violent Jihad as fard ayn, and Baghdadi claims this to be the individual duty of each and every Muslim (ibid.). According to him, this is the only way to defy humiliation and suffering and to restore the glory of Islam. In particular, and the Quranic ban on self-murder notwithstanding, Salafi-jihadists promote suicide attacks as “martyrdom operations” (cf. Moghadam, 2008/09), reframing them as permissible sacrifices for the sake of Allah (fisabillah), and they believe that for this very reason, their eventual victory is inevitable (Hafez, 2007). ISIS makes sure to praise its suicide bombers and urges others to follow in their footsteps (Bell, 2014). Some of its propaganda videos depict suicide attacks from multiple angles while anasheeds (religious vocal chants) praise the attackers sacrifice for Allah (ertyanna, 2014).

 

Finally, ISIS, like other Salafi-Jihadi groups, selectively cites religious sources to justify their violence (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014). This justification is especially important when it comes to violence against other Muslims. Salafi-Jihadists vindicate their violence by declaring the targeted Muslims to be apostates, a process that is known as takfir.

 

Whereas Al Qaeda has used takfir to justify its fight against the moderate Arab regimes but has refrained from the “most extreme takfiri approach” (Byman, 2014, p. 458), ISIS has embraced it in a way that is reminiscent of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria (Zelin, 2014) and was accused by a high-ranking Al Qaeda official – who was later assassinated, allegedly by ISIS – of “too much takfir” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014a).

 

Conclusion: The ISIS doctrine as a synthesis of modern ideology and a particular

 

interpretation of Islam

 

 

As was shown above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine of ISIS exhibits the traits of any modern ideologies such as drawing a sharp distinction between its adherents and those who oppose it (essentially everyone who does not completely agree with it), but additionally incorporates a set of religious themes based upon its distinct interpretation of Islam emphasizing violent struggle against the “infidels”. Hence, it needs to be understood as a religious ideology (Moghadam, 2008).

 

 

This entails certain counter-terror policy implications: On one hand, combating ISIS and Salafi-Jihad in general has to be understood as fighting against an ideology, and not a whole religion (ibid.). On the other hand, taking into account the religious themes of this particular ideology demands that security agencies not only have to deal with ISIS itself and its members but also with organizations, in particular in the West, which disseminate the same ideology without being violent themselves or breaking the law. Finally, the fact that ISIS, like any other group adhering to ideologies, chooses to ignore any information that contradicts its doctrine, should be used against the organization. As Moghadam rightly argues, it needs to be pointed out that groups like ISIS and other Salafi-Jihad adherents, who claim to defend

 

Muslims, first and foremost engage in killing Muslims themselves (Moghadam, 2008).

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Bell, S. (2014, June 16). Canadian ISIS member’s online ‘wake up call’ urges muslims to follow example of calgary suicide bomber. National Post, Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/16/canadian-isis-members-online-wake-up-call-urges-muslims-to-follow-example-of-calgary-suicide-bomber/

 

Byman, D. (2013). Fighting Salafi-jihadist Insurgencies: How much does religion really matter? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(5), 353-371.

 

Byman, D. (2014). Buddies or burdens? Understanding the Al Qaeda relationship with its affiliate organizations. Security Studies, 23(3), 431-470.

 

Drake, C. J. M. (1998). The role of ideology in terrorists’ target selection. Terrorism and Political Violence, 10(2), 53-85.

 

ertyanna. (2014). Isis filmed two suicide attacks by car. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da6_1393495276&use_old_player=0

 

Eye of IS. (2014). Islamic state caliphate eid greetings from the land of khilafah 720p.

 

Retrieved December 30, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuZ7oGptwb8

 

Hafez, M. M. (2007). Martyrdom mythology in Iraq: How jihadists frame suicide terrorism in videos and biographies. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(1), 95-115.

 

Haykel, B. (2009). On the nature of Salafi thought and action. In R. Meijer (Ed.), Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement (pp. 33-57). Columbia: Columbia University Press.

 

Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The trail of political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Kohlmann, E. & Alkouri, L. (2014). Profiles of foreign fighters in Syria & Iraq. CTC Sentinel, 7(9), 1-5.

 

Moghadam, A. (2008). The salafi-jihad as a religious ideology. CTC Sentinel, 1(3), 14-16.

 

Moghadam, A. (2008/09). Motives for martyrdom: Al qaeda, salafi jihad, and the spread of suicide attacks. International Security, 33(3), 46-78.

 

Rabasa, A.; Chalk, P.; Cragin, K.; Daly, S. A.; Gregg, H. S.; Karasik, T. W.; et al. (2006).

 

Beyond Al-Waeda. Part 1. The Global Jihadist movement (No. MG-429). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

 

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014).  ISIS spokesman declares caliphate, rebrands group as

 

“Islamic state”. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/isis-spokesman-declares-caliphate-rebrands-group-as-islamic-state.html

 

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014a). Message attributed to zawahiri's arbiter in syria gives advice to ISIL. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://ent.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/message-attributed-to-zawahiri-s-arbiter-in-syria-gives-advice-to-isil.html

 

Tufft, B. (2014, December 29, 2014). Isis 'executes up to 200 fighters' for trying to flee jihad and return home. The Independent, Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-executes-at-least-120-fighters-for-trying-to-flee-and-go-home-9947805.html

 

Van Ostayen, P. (2014, November 14, 2014). Audio message by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - even if the disbelievers despise such. Message posted to https://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/audio-message-by-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-even-if-the-disbelievers-despise-such/

 

Zelin, A. Y. (2014). Al-Qaeda disaffiliates with the Islamic state of Iraq and Al-Sham (Policy Alert. Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/al-qaeda-disaffiliates-with-the-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham

 

________________________

Wikipedia has a bit more detail about IDC Herzliya located in Israel:

 

The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Hebrewהמרכז הבינתחומי הרצליה‎‎Ha-Merkaz ha-Bentehumi Hertseliyya; abbreviated IDC Herzliya) is a private, not-for-profit, and nonsectarian, research university in Israel founded in 1994 by Uriel Reichman.[1] It is located at Herzliya, in the Tel Aviv District, and is classified as an independent non-budgeted academic institution.[2]

 

IDC Herzliya has 8,000 students currently enrolled for undergraduate and graduate degrees, including 2,000 international students from 86 countries around the world.

 

In 2014 the IDC Herzliya was ranked the most successful academic start-up institution in Israel and outside of the United States, ranking first in Israel and twenty one in the world.[3] In the same year IDC law graduates achieved the highest passing rate at the national bar examination of all Israeli academic institutions.[4] Moreover, the IDC Herzliya has been ranked first of 66 Israeli academic institutions in terms of student satisfaction for four consecutive years.[5] In addition, the IDC Herzliya has been the only academic institution in the world who has won the international Jean Pictet International Humanitarian Law competition, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in consecutive years, winning it twice in 2010 and 2011.[6]

 

READ THE REST (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 8 June 2016, at 13:45.)

 

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
June 23 2016 5 23 /06 /June /2016 17:46

John R. Houk

© June 23, 2016

 

I was browsing the Google+ communities that I belong to and came across a 41-minute speech of Donald Trump. The speech was hugely anti-Hillary and smacked around like a crooked ragged doll. For all of Hillary’s half-truth innuendos and outright lies campaigning against Trump, the anti-Hillary speech was a tour de force of triumph. Trump exposed every bit of the hypocrisy that Hillary has been tossing like dried cow-pies at the presumptive GOP nominee for POTUS. Essentially Trump’s speech rebuttals forced Hillary to slip on some wet slimy cow-pies which she also found on her face after ground impact.

 

I had a slight problem with two points of Trumps speech:

 

  1. Inviting disgruntled Sanders voters to vote for Trump for real change against establishment politics.

 

  1. Highlighting Trump’s stand against the U.S. invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush’s direction.

 

In the case of inviting disgruntled Sanders voters onto the Trump although potentially helpful for election is ideologically dangerous. Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist which means a big dose of taking everyone’s and redistributing it to people who are undeserving able bodies workmen who didn’t earn the money. Obama is a discreet Socialist/Marxist and Hillary follows that path of redistribution clandestinely as well. BUT Bernie (actually to his credit for truthfulness) forget the traditional Dem Party fooling American voters, let’s just be honest and tell that the Dems want to transform America into a failed faux-utopia. AND SANDERS VOTERS ABSOLUTELY BUY INTO THE MYTH OF UTOPIAN SOCIALISM! If Trump welcomes Sanders voters he may want to do that with a pro-Capitalist caveat.

 

As to invading Iraq, I then believed and still believe it was important to rid the world of the real Butcher of Baghdad in Saddam Hussein. Saddam was despotic dictator that terrorized his populace with equal opportunity. The Shia Muslims and the Kurdish Sunni Muslims were targets of often bloody oppression. And any Sunni Muslims that were not a part of Saddam’s Arab tribalistic affiliation faced his venom at any hint of backbone against the dictator’s regime. And there was the continuous threat against Israel that included sending scud rockets to Israel in the first Iraq war against American allies and the USA. Also let’s not forget at least two Saddam’s sons who marched around lawlessly even kidnapping women off the street to rape them. I might be wrong, but it seems the least persecuted group under Saddam Hussein were the indigenous Christian population. However, I have no doubts the Iraqi Christians had their share of Saddam persecution just not on the level of the rest of Iraqis and certainly not on the level Christians are currently experiencing under ISIS control.

 

It is my opinion that the big mistake with GW’s invasion of Iraq was the attempt to nation build Iraq as a single nation under the same ethnic-religious divides that existed from British creation right through the horrific regime of Saddam Hussein. The nation building would probably worked if Iraq was divided into at least three independent nations roughly along the lines of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.

 

I understand the geopolitical reasons as to why GW didn’t divide Iraq up. Those reasons largely were the probability the huge Shia population would have become at least a dominion of Iran. And neither Turkey (our ally at the time) nor Iran (troublesome U.S. enemy) were too fond of an independent Kurdish nation since both those nations had significant Kurdish citizens also persecuted by Turkey and Iran.

 

American Leftists like to use the hindsight that no nuclear material was found in Iraq capable of making nukes. AND YET the Dems read the same Intelligence reports the Bush Administration read and signed-off on invading Iraq’s crazy Saddam. There are some legitimate reports that Russian Spetsnaz forces clandestinely transferred the usable WMD material Assad’s Syria (See Also HERE) and it is absolutely proven that U.S. naval vessels shipped yellowcake (See Also HERE) from uranium to Canada for reasons or purposes I’m currently unaware of. So it is understandable that American Intelligence erred on the side of inflating Saddam’s nuke capabilities. Saddam was so crazy that even a hint of the possibility of a nuke potential should have been good enough to remove the Butcher of Baghdad. ANYWAY, Hillary thought so as well (See Also HERE). She voted for invasion with the same Intelligence reports.

 

So, below is the full anti-Hillary speech from Donald Trump giving us a clue that he won’t lay down for the Left like Mitt Romney did and I’m following that with a FrontPageMag article showing the Trump speech closer to reality than the stench protruding from Hillary’s lips.

 

JRH 6/23/16 (Hat Tip: Josh S 6/22/16 - 4:57 PM - United We Stand G+ Community)

********************

VIDEO: Full Speech: Donald Trump Delivers Anti-Hillary Clinton Speech in NYC (6-22-16)

 

 

Posted by Right Side Broadcasting

Published on Jun 22, 2016

 

Wednesday, June 22, 2016: Full replay of Donald Trump's anti-Hillary Clinton speech at Trump SoHo in New York City. 

Full Speech: Donald Trump Delivers Anti-Hillary Clinton Speech in NYC (6-22-16)

 

+++

LIAR, LIAR PANTSUIT ON FIRE

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

 

By Matthew Vadum

June 23, 2016

FrontPageMag.com

 

Editor’s note: Credit goes to Dr. Bob Shillman for the title of this article.

 

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

 

For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Moore continued:

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Not so. In fact, the New York TimesNew YorkerWashington PostWall Street JournalPolitico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS News have all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.

 

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

 

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

 

What is clear is that he seems to know nothing about the Clinton family and has been asleep throughout Barack Obama's Saul Alinsky-inspired presidency.

____________________________

Trump Speech Shows Real Crooked Hillary

John R. Houk

© June 23, 2016

___________________________

LIAR, LIAR PANTSUIT ON FIRE

 

ABOUT MATTHEW VADUM

 

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."

 

© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM


About FRONTPAGE MAG 

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining READ THE REST

 

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
June 22 2016 4 22 /06 /June /2016 14:54

 

An Intro to “Orlando is 'wake-up call of all wake-up calls'

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro date: June 22, 2016

 

WND sent me a book promotional that I believe is truly relevant for right now. The book exposes how the Obama Administration has transformed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from a protect American citizens’ department, into a protect Muslims at-all-costs organization even if the Muslim may show a tendency for Islamic terrorism. The book is by former DHS agent Philip Haney and WND journalist Art Moore and it is entitled “See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes The Government’s Submission to Jihad”.

 

The promotional email itself is penned by former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Since it is penned by Ms. Bachmann I think it might be a good guess that elements of the email are a part of the Forward she also penned for See Something Say Nothing.

 

The email has what appears to be a video of Michele Bachmann getting ready to promote the book however, the link embedded on the email takes one directly to the WND Super Store purchase page. The purchase page does have even more data about the book but no Bachmann video as implied by the email. Since I was in Bachmann’s corner while she was in the House in exposing radical Islam which made her an initial favorite of mine in the 2012 race for President (gag, she lost ultimately to Mitt Romney), I am going to post a few Bachmann book promotion videos from the WND Youtube channel.

 

The longer of the Bachmann promotionals will be in this intro and the shorter promotional will be in the body of the WND email roughly located in the same place. Also the WND Super Store page has a book trailer which I couldn’t figure out how to embed. So I will use a WND Youtube channel version I don’t think is quite as impressive as the one on the purchase page which the email links to several times if you desire to watch the original.

 

Michele Bachmann’s email starts out with making the Haney-Moore book relevant by tying it to the Orlando Massacre which she leaves the impression that act of Islamic terrorism was a result of Obama desiring to protect the civil rights of terrorists more than the lives of law abiding American citizens.

 

VIDEO: Former Rep. Michele Bachmann: Why I believe DHS Whistleblower Phil Haney

 

 

Posted by WNDTV

Published on Jun 16, 2016

 

One day after a prominent U.S. Muslim leader reacted to the November 2015 Paris attacks with a declaration that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam, President Obama made the same assertion.

Who exactly is the enemy we face, not only in the Middle East but also within our borders? Is it "murderers without a coherent creed" or "nihilistic killers who want to tear things down," as some described ISIS after 130 people were brutally slain and another 368 injured in a coordinated attack on Western soil that authorities say was organized with help from inside France's Muslim communities.

After the Paris attacks, Obama, himself, described ISIS as "simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations."

But how much do words and definitions really matter? According to the legendary military strategist Sun Tzu, if "you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one (battle) and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

When the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was "preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and READ THE REST

 

JRH 6/22/16

********************

Bachmann: Orlando is 'wake-up call of all wake-up calls'
Former congresswoman relied on 'patriot' DHS whistleblower Philip Haney

 

Attribution: Michele Bachmann

Sent: 6/21/2016 6:00 AM

Email sent from: WND

 

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., urged Americans to stop deceiving themselves about the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism and admit the obvious: We're at war.

"This is the wake-up call of all wake-up calls," Bachmann told WND. "This is an unbelievable tragedy that we saw. It isn't just a mass shooting; it's another jihadist attack against America. America is at war. We're under attack on our own soil. Remember, George W. Bush said we'd have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. Well guess what, we're fighting them here."

 

VIDEO: Former Rep. Michele Bachmann endorses book SEE SOMETHING SAY NOTHING

 

Posted by WNDTV

Published on Jun 15, 2016

 

Visit our website: http://www.wnd.com/
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WNDTV-294590057337142/  

 

Bachmann made the comments to WND editor Art Moore, co-author with former Department of Homeland Security agent Philip Haney of "See Something, Say Nothing." Haney, who spearheaded investigations at the National Targeting Center, specialized in uncovering Islamic terrorist networks. However, his investigation was shut down by the Obama administration because of fears his research showed a connection between terrorism and Islam. Since the Orlando attack, Haney has alleged a connection between Sunday's terrorist attack in Orlando and the attack in San Bernardino, California, in December.

Bachmann spoke of her experience working with Haney and contrasted his professionalism with the Obama administration's seeming determination to promote a mythical version of a peaceful Islam.

"What Philip's story is telling us is that we're going down the wrong road," Bachmann said. "Innocent Americans have gotten killed by following this false fantasy delusional view of Islam, that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. ... Not all Muslims believe it, but this radical ideology is subscribed to by people who continue to carry out these terrorist attacks."

 

Bachmann slammed President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as not really serious about stopping terrorism.

"Just as we saw, the FBI did in fact conduct not just one, not just two, but three interviews with this killer down in Orlando," Bachmann charged. "Three interviews, and they couldn't stop this guy. He had all sorts of, not even red flags, but blaring billboards about who he was, who his connections were and what his intentions were. And we still couldn't stop him."

Has our own government already surrendered to Islamic jihad? A national security insider uncovers the terrible truth. Philip Haney's "See Something, Say Nothing" is available now from the WND Superstore.

"If we had all these clues and we still couldn't stop him, we really aren't serious about stopping terrorism. What this tells us is we have to change course. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is going down the same road of Barack Obama's failed policies. It was her failed policies that got four Americans killed in Benghazi. Innocent Americans just got killed this weekend. This is a serious matter. It's time to wake up."

Bachmann called for a screening and vetting process at the borders of the United States to prevent the admission of Muslims committed to an extremist ideology.

 

"When we get a real view [of radical Islamic ideology], then we'll understand that at the border, we'll do vetting of people and find out what their ideology is," she said. "And if they share these views, they shouldn't be allowed into the United States because they intend upon violent acts upon people and institutions here.

"In any sane country, you protect yourself and your institutions. We no longer act with sane, common sense thoughts anymore."

In a time of madness, Bachmann identified Haney as a model for what a federal employee should be, calling him a "patriot" and a "constitutionalist." She also revealed she had worked with Haney when she was in Congress and had a seat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"A lot of time in front of these committees, we get a very whitewashed, sanitized version of what is going on because the agencies want to look good when they come before Congress," she recalled. "They don't want problems to be exposed; they want to look good. Our job is to find out what the truth is, what's going on. In the area of intelligence, we deal with America's classified secrets, and in particular, our focus was on terrorism. This is an extremely important job we have in Congress to keep the American people safe, and so I took this very seriously."

Read more about "See Something Say Nothing"

As a result, Bachmann had her staff seek out experts who could tell her what was really going on when it came to threats to the United States.

"I was casting about, trying to find out more information than what I was getting in front of the Intel committee," she recalled. "I just felt like I was not getting the full and complete picture. And I asked my assistant to find good, credible people. She brought in Philip Haney to me. The reason I found him credible is because he was working on the inside. He knew what he was talking about. I knew enough about his area of jurisdiction that I knew he knew what he was talking about.

"But more than that, he had facts, knowledge and information that he had put together. And it was clear to me that this was a guy whose motivation and purpose wasn't personal. He wasn't trying to self-promote; he was a genuine public servant."

 

According to Bachmann, she and Haney worked together "as a good team." She paid tribute to the analyst's ability to find connections and patterns, a skill which made him a successful counter-terrorism agent but also a threat to the Obama administration.

"Philip Haney had information," she said, explaining his situation. "He found patterns. He did exactly what he was told to do so 'If you see something, say something.' He did that, and when he did that, he was punished for doing his job. I saw what he was doing. I saw his information, and I took it to committee chairs, to committee sub-chairs. I tried to get his information published as far and wide as I possibly could because America needed a course correction. We needed to change our policy."

Bachmann accused the federal government of deliberately concealing the motivations for Islamic terrorism.

"The bottom line is the administration made a decision that Islamic ideology has nothing to do with terrorism," she alleged. "Well, if you listen to the terrorists themselves, it's just the opposite. Almost 100 percent of the terrorists point to Islamic ideology as the reason they do what they do. But the United States government wasn't even allowed to look in that direction.

"The official view that Hillary Clinton follows, that Barack Obama follows, is what was forced upon Philip Haney. And he was a person that wanted to follow the truth, not a delusional view, a false view of Islam."

Bachmann said the example of Haney should serve as a rallying point for reforms to protect politically incorrect whistleblowers within the American government.

"There are good people who know what's going on," she commented. "They said something. And when they said something, they were punished for it. That's wrong; that's gotta stop. We've got to change the rules so that if they see Islamic terror, they can actually point to the cause and not be punished for it."

Has our own government already surrendered to Islamic jihad? A national security insider uncovers the terrible truth. Philip Haney's "See Something, Say Nothing" is available now from the WND Superstore.

 

[Blog Editor: The WND email goes on to promote another book. I am not sharing that part, but if you have interest the book is entitled “STOLEN SOVEREIGNTY: HOW TO STOP UNELECTED JUDGES FROM TRANSFORMING AMERICA (HARDCOVER)” by Mark Levin.]

 

+++

SEE SOMETHING, SAY NOTHING - (HARDCOVER)

 

 

DETAILS

 

by Philip Haney and Art Moore

 

"Autographed Edition" available exclusively from the WND Superstore. Signed books are precious treasures. An autographed book from your favorite author can turn an item of personal value into a cherished keepsake and a wonderful addition to any book collection. To Purchase your copy, Click Here.

 

Product Description

 

One day after a prominent U.S. Muslim leader reacted to the November 2015 Paris attacks with a declaration that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam, President Obama made the same assertion.

 

Who exactly is the enemy we face, not only in the Middle East but also within our borders? Is it "murderers without a coherent creed" or "nihilistic killers who want to tear things down," as some described ISIS after 130 people were brutally slain and another 368 injured in a coordinated attack on Western soil that authorities say was organized with help from inside France's Muslim communities.

 

After the Paris attacks, Obama, himself, described ISIS as "simply a network of killers who are brutalizing local populations."

 

But how much do words and definitions really matter? According to the legendary military strategist Sun Tzu, if "you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one (battle) and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

 

When the Department of Homeland Security was founded in 2003, its stated purpose was "preventing terrorist attacks within the United States and reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism." The Bush administration's definition of the enemy as a tactic, terrorism, rather than a specific movement, proved consequential amid a culture of political correctness. By the time President Obama took office, Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders in the United States were forcing changes to national security policy and even being invited into the highest chambers of influence. A policy known as Countering Violent Extremism emerged, downplaying the threat of supremacist Islam as unrelated to the religion and just one among many violent ideological movements.

 

When recently retired DHS frontline officer and intelligence expert Philip Haney bravely tried to say something about the people and organizations that threatened the nation, his intelligence information was eliminated, and he was investigated by the very agency assigned to protect the country. The national campaign by the DHS to raise public awareness of terrorism and terrorism-related crime known as If You See Something, Say Something effectively has become If You See Something, Say Nothing.

 

In "See Something, Say Nothing," Haney – a charter member of DHS with previous experience in the Middle East – and co-author Art Moore expose just how deeply the submission, denial and deception run. Haney's insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy within and punishing those who reject its narrative.

 

Haney discloses:

 

  • How the Bush administration stripped him and other frontline officers of their ability to define the threat;

 

  • How much the Obama administration knew in advance of the Boston Marathon bombing and how it launched an ongoing cover-up on behalf of a major ally;

 

  • The administration’s stealth policy to protect Islamic leaders with supremacist beliefs and violent-jihadist ties, allowing them to freely travel between the U.S. and the Middle East;

 

  • The scope of access to the White House and the classified information the Obama administration gave to members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups;

 

  • The damning intelligence on Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders invited to sit at the table and help form national-security policy;

 

  • The "words matter" memo imposing the demands of radical U.S. Muslims leaders on the DHS, including stripping intelligence and official communications of any mention of Islam in association with terrorism;

 

  • The purging of training material that casts Islam in a negative light;

 

  • The erasing and altering of vital intelligence on terrorists and terror threats;

 

  • The fear-based tactics imposed by the Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S. and their accomplices that paralyze officials, members of Congress and any Department of Homeland Security employee who dares to expose or resist their agenda; and

 

  • Much more …

 

In this well-documented, first-person account of his unique service with DHS, Haney shows why it's imperative that Americans demand that when they see something and say something, the servants under their charge do something to prevent a cunning, relentless enemy from carrying out its stated aim to "destroy Western Civilization from within."

 

About the Author

 

Art Moore is an editor for WND.com and its monthly magazine and book-publishing division. He entered the media world as a public relations assistant for the Seattle Mariners and a sports correspondent for Associated Press Radio. Moore served for ten years in Eastern Europe with a Christian organization and earned a master's degree in communications from Wheaton College. Before joining WND shortly after 9/11, he was a reporter for a daily newspaper and senior news writer for Christianity Today magazine.

 

Philip Haney studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before becoming a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 as a Customs & Border Protection agriculture officer. After advancing to an armed CBP officer where he served several tours of duty at the National Targeting Center near Washington, DC, where he quickly was promoted to its Advanced Targeting Team, an unprecedented accomplishment for an agent on temporary duty assignment. Officer Haney won numerous awards and commendations from his superiors for meticulously compiling information and producing actionable reports that led to the identification of hundreds of terrorists. He has specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement. He retired in July 2015.

 

Product Details

 

  • Hardcover: 240 pages

 

  • Publisher: WND Books (May 24, 2016)

 

  • Language: English

 

  • Dimension: 6 x 9 inches

 

  • ISBN-13: 9781944229207

 

VIDEO: Philip Haney: Why I wrote See Something, Say Nothing

 

 

Posted by WNDTV

Published on May 18, 2016

 

Order your copy of See Something, Say Nothing here: http://superstore.wnd.com/See-Something-Say-Nothing-Hardcover  

In "See Something, Say Nothing," Haney – a charter member of DHS with previous experience in the Middle East – and co-author Art Moore expose just how deeply the submission, denial and deception run. Haney's insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy within and punishing those who reject its narrative.

Visit our website: http://www.wnd.com/
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WNDTV-294590057337142/   

________________________________

Review all the investigative works WND has done here.

 

Call Toll-Free to Order: 
If you prefer to order by phone, you can call our friendly, Midwestern customer service reps
toll-free at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266),
Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm Central.

 

WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006

Copyright 1997-2016 WND.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.



 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad Conspiracy Theory Politics
write a comment
June 21 2016 3 21 /06 /June /2016 15:30

 

On June 18 I cross posted Michael DePinto’s false flag thoughts pertaining to the FBI and the Orlando Massacre shooter Omar Mateen: “5 More Reasons to Question the Official Story of the Orlando Shooting”.

 

DePinto posited that Mateen was an FBI plant to influence the Obama government to confiscate guns and eventually declare Martial Law – hence the “False Flag”. He actually makes a good case but I am still more willing to blame the Caliphate agenda of purist Muslims (ISIS, Wahhabis (See HERE and HERE), Salafis, Muslim Brotherhood & American affiliates, Deobandis (scroll to page 4 of PDF), Gulën Movement (a little more detail), Gilani’s Jamaat ul-Fuqra & Muslims of the Americas and more including Twelver Shias.

 

I am more inclined to agree with Tony Cartalucci of the irony that the FBI and CIA took a Muslim informant (e.g. Omar Mateen) to embed in radical groups who then become sympathetic to the theopolitical ideology sent to inform on and thus become radicalized.

 

Cartalucci is a bit critical of the practice however, I do see it as a very good tool in clandestine operations to combat American enemies. In the case of Mateen, if Cartalucci is correct, the FBI (and other Intel organizations using the same practice) is extremely reluctant to expose themselves to the harshness of political correctness which might elicit investigations of wrong doing. I’ll let you decide on the level of culpability that should be leveled against the FBI.

 

JRH 6/21/16

***************

THE FBI, NOT "ISIS," RADICALIZED THE ORLANDO SHOOTER

 

By and Sourced from: Tony Cartalucci

Published: June 20, 2016

BlackListedNews.com

 

As predicted, the FBI is revealed to have approached Orlando shooting suspect Omar Mateen in 2013 with informants posing as terrorists in an attempt to "lure" him into participating in a terrorist attack.

 

Image: As scary as any cartoon villain - and ironically - quite literally a manufactured villain. Marcus Robertson is not only a former US Marine, but also a long-time CIA and FBI asset. He runs an extremist website on American soil with absolute impunity and is likely one component of the FBI's counterterror entrapment pipeline. 

 

USA Today's TC Palm reports in an article titled, "Exclusive: PGA Village residents want answers from security firm," that (emphasis added):

 

The FBI launched an investigation into Mateen after Sheriff's Office officials reported the incident to the agency. As part of its investigation, the FBI examined Mateen's travel history, phone records, acquaintances and even planted a confidential informant in the courthouse to "lure Omar into some kind of act and Omar did not bite," Mascara said. The FBI concluded Mateen was not a threat after that, Mascara said.

 

This is in line with the FBI's practice of approaching and entrapping potential terror suspects by posing as terrorists themselves and aiding and abetting them in the planning and preparations for high-profile attacks. These undercover operations include everything from "casing out" potential targets, to the obtaining and training with actual, live explosives, to the purchasing of small arsenals of firearms including the sort of semi-automatic rifles and pistols used by Mateen during the Orlando shooting.

 

Image: FBI Director James Comey.

 

In addition to the FBI's undercover operation, it is now also revealed that Mateen frequented the website of another FBI/CIA informant, Marcus Dwayne Roberson, a former US Marine, turned bank robber, turned US government informant.

While US politicians, law enforcement officials, and media networks attempt to claim Robertson's extremist website, the "Timbuktu Seminary," was his own independent project, the extent of his association with the US government makes this difficult, if not impossible to believe. Instead, it appears to be the perfect mechanism to feed the FBI's entrapment pipeline, attracting and identifying possible suspects for the FBI to then approach and "investigate."

The National Review's article, "The Orlando Jihadist and the Blind Sheikh's Bodyguard," would report (emphasis added):

 

According to Fox News, Omar Mateen, the jihadist who carried out the mass-murder attack at a gay nightclub in Florida this weekend, was a student of Marcus Robertson, an Orlando-based radical Muslim who once served as a bodyguard to Omar Abdel Rahman — the notorious “Blind Sheikh” whom I prosecuted for terrorism crimes in the early to mid 1990s. 

 

The National Review also reported that (emphasis added):

 

In Robertson’s case, it is reported that he agreed to work for the government, gathering intelligence both overseas and in the United States. According to Fox, however, he was expelled from the covert informant program in early 2007 after attacking his CIA handler in Africa.

 

But Robertson's stint with the CIA was not the only time he would work for the US government after his service in the US Marine Corps. The National Review leaves out the fact that before his dismissal from the CIA, he was an informant for the FBI between 2004 and 2007.

The Daily Beast in its article, "Was Orlando Shooter Omar Mateen Inspired by This Bank-Robbing Ex-Marine?," would report (emphasis added):

 

“Plaintiff worked as a covert operator for the FBI Terrorist Task Force from 2004 until 2007, performing operations in the United Sates [sic] and internationally with and against suspected and known terrorist organizations,” Robertson says in court papers. 

Robertson remained in touch with American law enforcement and intelligence officials when he moved back to the United States, according to court papers filed by his attorney, “served as a confidential source in domestic terrorism investigations from Atlanta to Los Angeles.”

 

Is the American public expected to believe that a US government asset who received special training in the military and served as an informant and operative for both the FBI and the CIA would somehow, suddenly be allowed to drop off the US government's radar and be allowed to run an extremist website in the United States?

 

Image: How far do undercover FBI investigations go? How about building a van-bomb for a suspect after taking him to a public park to detonate real explosives? The FBI's own affidavit reveals that is precisely what FBI informants did while investigating Portland, Oregon terror suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud. Did the FBI's attempts to lure the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, into committing a terror attack contribute in his radicalization? The FBI must answer to this. 

 

Indeed, no American should believe this. Robertson was step one in Omar Mateen - the Orlando shooter's - radicalization. The FBI's attempt to pose as terrorists to lure Mateen into going along with a terrorist attack was step two. Though the FBI has so far failed to disclose the details of that investigation, comments made by FBI Director James Comey himself indicate that FBI informants may have worked on Mateen for up to 10 months.

Between exposure to Robertson's extremist propaganda, honed after years of working as an informant and operative identifying and exposing terror suspects, and the FBI's own informants over the course of months, if not years, it is clear that the US government and its "counterterrorism" measures radicalized Mateen - not "ISIS."

The Guardian in its article, "CIA has not found any link between Orlando killer and Isis, says agency chief," further highlights this blatant truth by reporting (emphasis added):

 

The Central Intelligence Agency chief has not been “able to uncover any link” between Orlando killer Omar Mateen and the Islamic State, despite Mateen’s stated allegiance to the jihadist group during Sunday’s LGBT nightclub massacre.

 

If Omar Mateen was a "homegrown terrorist," the FBI served as the gardeners.

The American public must now demand the details of the FBI's undercover work regarding Omar Mateen, as well as the truth behind any enduring ties between Robertson and the US government. If Robertson has no connections with the US government, an explanation as to why he is allowed to operate an extremist website on American soil must be provided.

For political and ideological opportunists attempting to seize upon the Orlando tragedy to uphold an example of "Islamic extremism," it is especially ironic that the facts indicate that the act of terrorism was entirely divorced from "Islam," and instead the result of America's ongoing view of terrorism as a convenient and versatile geopolitical tool, rather than a threat to genuinely combat. 

That quite literally every aspect that contributed to Omar Mateen's radicalization is directly connected to the US government itself, illustrates just who the real threat is that American's should fear - the threat within the halls of its own government - not "terrorists" dwelling beyond them. 

_____________________

Blacklisted News Radio is hosted by Doug Owen. Topics discussed on the broadcast cover a BROAD RANGE of topics, with a primary focus on war and freedom in the technocratic age of the 21st century.

 

Topics that cut like a knife, guaranteed!

 

http://www.blacklistedradio.com/

 

http://www.blacklistednews.com/

 

 

 

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Conspiracy Theory Counterjihad
write a comment

Overview

  • : ubiquitous8thoughts
  • ubiquitous8thoughts
  • : This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.
  • Contact

Search

Links