The world, and especially the EU was shocked at the brutality the Spanish government used in an attempt to suppress a referendum on Catalonian independence. The paramilitary Guardia Civil was particularly brutal as they invaded polling places. Over 800 people were reported injured as well as a dozen of so Guardia:
Catalonia is the extreme northeast of Spain. It consists of four provinces: Barcelona, Girona, Lleida, and Tarragona. The capital and largest city is Barcelona.
Catalonia was originally an independent principality with its own language and culture. That ended after the War of Spanish Secession in 1714, when Catalonia picked the wrong horse, Spain was essentially united by the Bourbon Philip V of Spain and Catalan was replaced on all legal documents with Castilian Spanish.
But Catalonia has remained something of a separate part of Spain, with a unique culture. During the Spanish Civil War, Catalonia, which had socialist movements as an important part of its politics dating back to the mid 19th century sided with the Republic against Franco, which again led to a certain amount of repression when Franco won, including abolishing Catalan institutions and banning the official use of the Catalan language again. Things eased up in the latter part of Franco's rule, and considerably more after Franco died in 1975.
The current independence movement started in 2014, and the current referendum proceeded as planned by Catalonia's regional government even after Spain's courts declared that the referendum was illegal. Proponents of Catalonia's independence say they won, while Spain says otherwise since in their point of view the entire referendum was illegal.
While many people now want to see Catalonia gain its independence (and the Catalonian independence movement wants to join the EU as a separate, independent country) there's an interesting detail that no one's mentioning, and it definitely figures in.
Catalonia has always trended a lot more to the Left than the rest of Spain. And it is slowly but surely in the process of Islamization, aided and abetted by its regional government. For more than a decade the Muslim population of Catalonia has been rapidly growing, because Catalonia's politicians have made it a prime destination for Muslim migrants and 'refugees.' A large part of the population, now well over 7% of Catalonia, has become radicalized (or already were) and are calling for the establishment of a Muslim state in what they still refer to by the name of their former conquest, as 'al-Andaluz.'
The Islamization was deliberately started and encouraged by the Catalonian separatist movement.
The central person of the Catalan independence movement is Jordi Pujol, who was from 1980 to 2003 the president of the Generalitat de Catalunya, literally the governor of Catalonia. Aside from being indicted along with members of his family for massive corruption and money laundering, Pujol and his cronies decided that Islamic migration was the solution to Catalonia's low birth rate and their plans for an independent Catalonia.
The separatists hoped to get lots of of cheap labor forces which they could win over as Catalonian nationalists for the separatist movement. And they also figured that these new migrants would be taught to be Catalan speakers. After all, a worker, who could only speak Catalan and Arabic and was dependent on social benefits would hardly be able to leave Catalonia.
So the Muslim population grew to more than 500,000 and even more, when you take the amount of illegal migration into consideration. In 2012, the second most common name in the province of Girona was Mohammed. In the region of Segarra (Lérida), 55% of the children born in 2014 had foreign mothers. Salt (Girona) has become a major center of Salafis and Islamists:
Besides Salt, other towns too became centers of Salafist Islam in Spain. The movement has its seat in Tarragona, but has important branches in Badalona, Calafell, Cunit, El Vendrel, Gerona, Lleida, Mataró, Reus, Roda de Bara, Rubí, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Sant Boi, Torredembarra, Valls, Vic and Vilanova. Barcelona alone has 5 Salafist mosques. Just like elsewhere, the Salafists in Catalonia preach that the Sharia law is above Spanish law, they push the development of Muslim parallel societies, and have established sharia courts and morality police that enforce the adherence to Islamic rules. Catalonia's seperatists made the same mistake Angela Merkel made. They never figured on Islam taking them over instead of integrating peacefully. Catalonia is now one of the most important Mediterranean centers of radical Islamists.And potentially a base in Europe for the takeover and expaniasion of Islamism into places like Spain, southern France and Italy.
The EU is likely to even encourage this scenario by extending EU membership and financial incentives to a newly independent Catalonia in exchange for using it as a dumping ground for the Muslim migrants and refugees countries like Denmark, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland are refusing to take. And for the surplus Muslim migrants Germany and France want to rid themselves of.
Of course the catch for that brilliant plan is that these Muslims are unlikely to be content with retaking Catalonia, or even all of Spain. They will expand north, just as they did in the 14th century.
When you take these facts into consideration and consider Spain's own history with Islam, the idea of an independent Catalonia takes on a very different aroma.
The latest Trump molehill pumped up by the media to obscure the Clinton mountains involves one of the speakers the Democrats had at their convention, Khizr Khan and his wife, to attack Donald Trump, a Pakistani Muslim couple who lost their unfortunately lost their son, a decorated vet, in Iraq in 2004.
The talking point of Mr. Khan's speech was,of course Donald Trump's 'racism' in wanting to 'ban all Muslims from America.' Of course, all Trump has proposed is extreme vetting on immigrants from certain countries ad a temporary ban until we figure out policy, but hey, why go with the truth when a lie works so well and the media will cover for you? Just ask Hillary Clinton!
Mr. Kahn claimed that 'if Donald Trump were president my son would never have come to America' which given some facts we'll look at later, might or might not have been true. And he invited Donald Trump to 'read the Constitution. If he doesn't have one, I will lend him my copy.'
Actually there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits America from refusing anyone entry under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which allows the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for whatever reason. And the sensible precautions Donald Trump is proposing make far more sense to me then our current policies of amnesty for unvetted Muslims from ISIS infested areas and lying about it to the American people.
Now, I have nothing personal against the Khans and I feel for their loss, but you know, it would have been far more moving if the Clinton campaign had one of the four Benghazi mothers speak at their convention. Oh, wait...when Benghazi mom Pat Smith appeared at the Republican convention, the Democrats laughed at her and smeared her. The PBS talking heads covering the convention even turned down the volume on her and talked over her speech as she described how Hillary Clinton lied to her about the cause of her son's death.
Hey, respect for a dead hero's mom, right? Not unless it fits in with the Left's agenda, thank you.
Now, I think Trump should have ignored Khan's attack on him. After all it's Dem politics as usual. But he unfortunately stuck his foot in it. Someone really needs to explain to him that anything he says or does is going to be deliberately misconstrued and twisted by the media. And that he also needs to stay out of silly twitter wars back and forth, and avoid interviews with hardliners owned by the Clintons masquerading as 'journalists' and 'newsmen' like George Stephanopoulos.
But given that (we'll pretend he's Mrs. Clinton for an instant and ignore the silly 'sacrifices' brouhahah), much of what he said was true.
For instance, it's perfectly true that Hillary's votes and later conduct that helped send the Khan's son to his death in 2004 along with a lot of others, particularly the games she, Joe Biden, a certain Senator Obama and Harry Reid played with funding that cost the lives of our troops.(See former Sec Def Bob Gates' book for details. He's pretty open about how livid he was hearing how they laughed about doing it& deliberately just for the politics when he served in the Obama Administration). And it was the Obama Administration's policies that made their sacrifices in vain.
It's also true that as Trump tweeted, "This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S. Get smart!"
In that context, Mr. Kahn's remarks on how terrorism has nothing to do with Islam also raise some questions in my mind. The Qu'ran, the Hadiths, the Sunna and certain recent events say something very different.
Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.
Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.
Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.
But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.
Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.
“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.
The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.
The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.
Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money.
“Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”
“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!”
Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government. {...}
“Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. [...]
But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.
The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.
“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”
Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.
For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic.
“Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”
If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.
Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.” Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.”
“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”
Those flaws are enormous (much more here) but this certainly does shed a little light on the matter, no? It certainly seems likes the real reason Khizr Khan was so outspoken against Donald Trump has to do with the fact that Khan largely makes his living via shoving unvetted Muslim migration through a leaky visa for sale loophole.
And just as an aside, Mr. Khan, when he's not brandishing the Constitution for the cameras apparently has a real fetish for the very unconstitutional sharia law ! That, along with the above facts does seem to cast some real doubt on the sincerity of what he had to say.
Finally, I have to ask, how much, really, did this have to do with his son? As painful as the loss was and as heroic as is son likely was, why cheapen that for the sake of partisan politics? And why put his wife through that? If she really was as ill as they say, with high blood pressure, this could have easily brought on a stroke. Was it worth the risk just to help get Hillary elected?
In the end, what we have here, once again, is the Democrat media pouncing on Trump's admittedly clumsy phrasing while ignoring the back story, as well as the serial lies, corruption and malfeasance of their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE: Well, what do you know! Now that it's been exposed that Khizr Khan has a law firm that
financially benefits from moving unvetted Muslim migration into America through a major loophole in our immigration laws, Breitbart reports that he's deleted his website from the internet! Here's a screenshot of what it looked like before he tried camouflaging his real interest in all this. Obviously it was never about his son at all. It was a political ploy that just happened to coflate Khan's livelihood with what he needs to keep the cash coming in - Hillary's election and a continued flow of unvetted Muslims.
The website is now gone from the Internet, and instead sends anyone who clicks on the link to his website to a page where he parked the URL until the heat dies down, run by GoDaddy.
It's notable that the entire Democrat media jumped on this without once checking out anything about Khan's affiliations, previous writings on sharia or how he personally profits from unvetted Muslim migration.
And just for giggles, here's Mike Pence doing a superb job of handling an obvious Hillary plant:
In Mrs. Clinton, we have someone who damaged national security to try and hide her own greed and corruption, someone who helped set the entire Middle East on fire, someone who willingly lied to the American people and to the grieving families of the four Benghazi dead that she left to perish when they could have been rescued. And she lied to their families literally in front of their loved one's coffins.
"There has to come a point at which you say somebody who makes those kinds of statements doesn't have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding to occupy the most powerful position in the world."
This from President Barack Hussein Obama, who while running his mouth about 'the troops' from time to time has serially treated our military and our veterans with cavalierdisrespect throughout his entire presidency. And who is he endorsing as someone he thinks is fit for the office of president?
In France, July 14th is Bastille Day, when the French revel on the anniversary of their independence and the beginnings of the establishment of their republic. In some ways it's very much like America's July Fourth. There are parades, topped by a military parade along Paris’ famed Champs-Elysées along with fireworks and gatherings in public places.
This Bastille Day, there were fireworks of a different sort.
Nice is a common seaside spot for French families to take a vacation holiday this time of year, and one of the Bastille Day attractions is a magnificent fireworks show, one of many along France's Cote D'Azur on the Mediterranean. Hundreds of people were enjoying the gorgeous sight of the fireworks reflected on the water.
This was the target of a jihadi who plowed into the crowd at full speed that was leaving the celebration on the Promenade des Anglais. In a large rented white truck,he drove through them for a kilometer of so - over a mile- chasing down more victims and even pursuing them on to the pavement in places. He then stepped out of the vehicle and opened fire indiscriminately on the traumatized milling crowd until he was shot down by police and killed. Here's what it looked like:
The death toll is at 84 so far, not counting the jihadi and rising, with a number of people in critical condition.
A large cache of heavy weapons, grenades and explosives was found in the truck. And while the authorities are still noncommital, a number of eyewitnesses have said there were two jihadis in the truck, one who fired at the crowd while the other was running people down. It would certainly make sense given the large body count. And if that's the case, one of them escaped.
And a note to President Barack Hussein Obama and Mrs. Clinton...France's strict gun laws, a mirror of how these people would love to disarm Americans doesn't stop jihadis from getting whatever weapons they want.
This particular tactic is pretty much standard operating procedure in the Middle East, although usually it takes the form of stationary truck bombs. Recently in Israel, one of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians was working at a construction site and attempted a similar attack on pedestrians using a bulldozer. Given that it was Israel, his results were nowhere near as successful as the jihad attack in Nice. He was shot down and killed by one of his intended victims in minutes.
In a separate incident, the Eiffel Tower, a symbol of France's glory and achievement is on fire.
The official line is that the fire was caused by a truck carrying fireworks that somehow caught on fire.
Odd though, since while the Eiffel Tower is also a traditional site of Bastille Day fireworks, fireworks explode rather than burn and the fireworks themselves are not set off right by the Tower, where the truck was, but some distance away.
And being iron, the Tower itself doesn't burn, although some of the buildings inside would. In fact, the last fire on the Eiffel Tower was a kitchen fire in a restaurant. But the Tower has never before been on fire like this.
The jihadi who was shot down by police has been identified as a 31-year-old Tunisian Muslim named Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel. What angers me most today is the media's attempt to portray him as a simple criminal. That's pretty much based on an interview with his Muslim cousin, who of course claimed that Bouhlel was 'not a Muslim' because he 'ate pork, drank alcohol and those are forbidden by Islam' according to the Daily Mail's account.
The 9/11 hijackers also ate pork, drank alcohol and frequently visited strip clubs, if you remember. That's allowed if you are on a jihad for Allah and need cover. So is lying to infidels is to advance Islam. To quote Mohammed himself numerous times in the Qu'ran and hadiths, 'War is deception.'
And as we also know, the back of the truck was filled with fully automatic weapons, explosives and hand grenades. Items like that aren't obtainable by a simple, inexperienced loan wolf criminal, especially not in France. Speculation on my part, but I think Bouhlel's mission (and that of his partner if he had one) was a replica of Paris; murder as many people as possible on the Promenade and then proceed to a targeted building like a club or restaurant where other jihadis were waiting, take it over, wire it with explosives to prevent a police or special forces assault and either trade the hostages for imprisoned jihadis or just simply kill off those inside.
If I'm right, than it's likely Bouhlel failed to make it to the rendezvous point because one or more of the police bullets disabled his truck, and he exited to murder a few more infidels before he was gunned down. In any event, there's no way he was some kind of lone wolf ne'er do well who simply snapped. Too much planning and preparation went into this, and too many guns and equipment were on site for one unassisted wack job to obtain on his own without a network of experienced jihadis involved. *
Bouhlel himself was allowed into France courtesy of a resident permit by France's Socialist Hollande government. And even though he committed several felonies and was on the police radar, deportation from France was never even considered. Comment typique!
Speaking of which, France's President François Hollande confirmed this was a terrorist attack in his statement. “We will continue to hit those who threaten us,” Hollande said. The attacker, he said, acted “with the intention to kill, to crush and to massacre.”
“It is clear that we must do everything we can to fight against this scourge of terrorism.”
'Everything we can' apparently consists of extending a state of emergency another three months and -wait for it - and calling up France's 'operational reservists' which includes quite a large number of totally untrained civilians for increased border control. Monsieur Le President apparently would rather not have people think too much about the fact that this jihadi didn't cross the border. He was allowed into France openly and knowingly by Hollande's government, along with a lot of others just like him.
This buffoon still thinks he's 'fighting terrorism.'
The local newspaper, Nice-Matin, is also reporting that reports that the man driving the truck shouted 'Allahu Akbar' — 'Allah is greatest' — before being shot dead by police. The old war cry...you'd think that would give Hollande a clue.
I remember 9/11 quite well, and the aftermath. Do you? After the shock of seeing 3,000 of us murdered on our own soil was absorbed, Americans reacted with visceral patriotism, adrenaline and fighting spirit. The nation was united. Young men and women were enlisting in droves in our volunteer military, people were flying American flags from their cars and the their homes, and the American people were ready to be called upon to make sacrifices for victory over our murderous enemies by our president.
What we got instead was President George W. Bush telling us that Islam was a religion of peace, that we were engaged in a 'great war on terror' with a handful of fanatics, to go shopping at the mall and let the government handle it.
The mood change afterwards was palpable. While no one I remember said so openly, may of us understood afterwards that the fix was in, especially when the Bush Administration went back to business as usual with the Saudis which was the intent all along. And Islam? It was George W. Bush and his administration that put out the welcome mat for the Saudi and Emirates funded Muslim Brotherhood Islamist front groups and jihadi mosques. Barack Hussein Obama just revved up the process on steroids, along with seeing to it that he was able to increase the Muslim population of America as much as possible with unvetted 'refugees.'
Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Ft. Hood...those are just the beginning. The French are further along simply because they started earlier, and with more gusto.
We aren't fighting 'terrorism.' We aren't even just fighting ISIS, who are just one sector, just as Japan or Italy were just one part of the Axis powers of WWII.
We're fighting exactly what the subtitle of this site, created over a decade ago says we're fighting - The War on Jihad.
While individual Muslim may be able to live peacefully in a free society, after 1,500 years it ought to obvious that Islam itself cannot, at least not the major branches. It simply isn't in its nature to play well with others, a conclusion I have to admit I avoided for sometime because of the Muslims I know and like in my own life. But after the orgy of violence in Mumbai, I realized I was fooling myself. The Muslims I know with two major exceptions are fairly secular, and the ones whom aren't have cherry-picked their own version of Islam to the point where they would be labeled heretics by your average Sunni or Shia. There are indeed others like them, but the momentum in Islam, and the part of it paid deference by many of our leaders is with Islamist fascism and jihad. As the Pew Trust polls revealed, the majority of Muslims, especially in the Muslim world understand quite well that Islam is at war with the West. We're the ones that don't.
Terrorism is merely a tactic of that war. And one reason it continues to work is because for the perpetrators and their enablers, there are no real life consequences. We're dealing with a morality alien to ours that we don't understand. Walk with me awhile on this one.
Islam is unique among the major religions because while there are obviously Muslims who live differently, it has nothing akin to the basic religious imperative that we'd call the Golden Rule of do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Not when it comes to non-Muslims. So there is no ethical payback for raping them ('what thy right hand possesses'), killing them or deceiving them.
For Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, there were simply no consequences no matter how this turned out. If he escaped, he'd be a hero to those who counted most with him as a victorious jihad warrior. As a dead man, he'd be a heroic martyr savoring the carnal delights of Mohammed's Paradise. If he were taken alive, he'd merely be an inmate in a relatively humane prison environment protected and looked up to by the other Muslim prisoners, and always with the hope that another raid might produce some hostages to be swapped for his freedom.
Nothing and nobody he cared deeply about was at risk. For him, it was a win win. That's why jihadi recruiting is so successful. A key part of stopping these attacks is to provide real world consequences for the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlels of the world as well as their paymasters,sympathizers and enablers that make the every idea of carrying them out abhorrent, frightening and repulsive. And without going into details for brevity's sake, there are many ways to do exactly that. Call it the modern version of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that worked so well in the Cold War, adapted for Islam's special characteristics.
I have a message for the people of France.
You are our oldest ally, and in our time of need you helped us gain our freedom from the tyrants who sought to oppress us. And we repaid that blood debt with interest in the Argonne, at Belleau Wood,at Saint - Mihilel and again on the beaches of Normandy. The evidence of that repayment is still buried in your soil.
In spite of the differences that have come between us at times, that long standing bond still remains, at least where I am concerned. And it compels me to be honest.
Your republic is in grave danger. Your leadership has betrayed you, and imported massive numbers of enemies to France. Just as with Vichy, they are appeasing the Germans in their attempt to dominate Europe.
You must resist if you are to retain your freedom, your honor and even perhaps your very lives. Charles Martel, your brave ancestor who crushed the Muslim invaders at Poitiers and drove them from France's sacred soil...how would he react to your present situation? What would he say? How would he advise you?
If France is to survive, you must rally around new leadership and take your country back. And you must do it now. Your election takes place in just under a year from now. How many more attacks like Paris and Nice can you absorb before then?
Fortunately, you have at least one leader to rally around, and perhaps others. Marine Le Pen is not perfect, but she is a courageous woman who at least understands the nature of the enemy that is destroying France and other ancient states in Europe.
The time to save France is now. Do it for yourselves, for your children and for your children's children. Do it so you can once again hold your heads up proudly, and so France can remain France.
And in doing so, set a proud example for other nations.
Vive La France!
J'ai un message pour le peuple de France.
Vous êtes notre allié le plus ancien, et dans notre temps de besoin vous avez aidé à nous faire gagner notre liberté des tyrans qui cherchaient à nous opprimer. Et nous avons remboursé la dette de sang avec intérêt dans l'Argonne, à Belleau Wood, à Saint - Mihilel et encore sur les plages de Normandie. La preuve que le remboursement est toujours enterré dans votre sol.
En dépit des différences qui sont venus entre nous à certains moments, ce lien de longue date reste encore, au moins là où je suis concerné. Et il me force à être honnête.
Votre république est en grave danger. Votre leadership vous a trahi, et importé massivement des ennemis à la France. Tout comme avec Vichy, ils sont apaiser les Allemands dans leur tentative de dominer l'Europe.
Vous devez résister si vous êtes de conserver votre liberté, votre honneur et même peut-être vos vies. Charles Martel, votre courageux ancêtre qui a écrasé les envahisseurs musulmans à Poitiers et les chassa de sol sacré de la France ... comment pourrait-il réagir à votre situation actuelle? Que dirait-il? Comment pourrait-il vous conseiller?
Si la France est de survivre, vous devez rallier autour d'un nouveau leadership et prenez votre arrière-pays. Et vous devez le faire maintenant. Votre élection a lieu dans un peu moins d'un an à partir de maintenant. Combien d'attaques comme Paris et Nice pouvez-vous absorber avant?
Heureusement, vous avez au moins un chef de file à se rallier autour, et peut-être d'autres. Marine Le Pen est pas parfaite, mais elle est une femme courageuse qui, au moins comprend la nature de l'ennemi qui est en train de détruire la France et d'autres Etats anciens en Europe.
Le temps pour sauver la France est maintenant. Faites-le pour vous, pour vos enfants et pour les enfants de vos enfants. Faites-le et vous pourrez à nouveau tenir vos têtes fièrement, et ainsi la France peut rester en France.
Et, ce faisant, mettre un fier exemple pour les autres nations.
President Obama is making a highly publicized visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore , his first to a mosque located in the U.S.
The purpose of the trip, according to the White House, is to “celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.”
Odd words, considering how the White House is facing court challenges over alleged violations of First Amendment freedom of religion rights for Christians, and Catholics in particular. But even more interesting is that few people are attempting to answer the question, why this particular mosque?
It's quite simple, really.
If one looks at President Obama's policies, there's one major common thread - the empowerment and support for Islamists, whether it is in Egypt, Libya, Gaza, Tunisia or at home in the U.S.
The ISB mosque is one of a large number of mosques controlled by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim brotherhood front group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror case. Several executives with that organization were convicted of illegally laundering money to aid Hamas, and the only reason the group wasn't formally indicted along with CAIR and a number of other Muslim Brotherhood front groups was because President Obama had his attorney general, Eric Holder file 'disinclination to prosecute' motions to protect them and terminate what would have been certain convictions and jail terms for most of the leaders of these groups for money laundering, perjury and material aid to terrorism.
The ISB itself has a long history of radicalism. Its imam for fifteen years, Mohammad Adam el-Sheikh came to the ISB mosque and served as imam from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 2003 after long membership in the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sudan in the 1970s. He left in 2003 to co-found the Muslim American Society, a group based in Virginia that is another front group controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. It's mosque, where el-Sheikh served as imam is the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church.
Dar al-Hijrah's previous imam was none other than Anwar al-Awlaki . He was a notorious American al-Qaeda operative who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011 and helped radicalize, among others, U.S. Army major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood Texas in November of 2009.
There are any number of mosques without this baggage available, and the White House certainly had the ability to find one. But the fact remains that President Obama chose the Islamic Society Of Baltimore, and there's no real mystery here as to the message he's sending by picking that particular one.
A great deal has been written and said about the attacks in San Bernardino, President Obama's unserious, know nothing speech in response and subjects like ISIS, Muslim 'radicalization', Islam and immigration.
Much of it has been pretty good, some of it has been insightful and a lot of it has been deliberately misleading. For a good sample of the latter read Obama bootlicker Dan Balz's piece in the Washington Post essentially calling Donald Trump the equivalent of Adolf Hitler for merely proposing the entirely reasonable suggestion that we put a temporary moratorium on migrations from certain Muslim countries until we have the ability to vet them better. At one point,Balz even equates The Donald with - wait for it- anti-Semites like Father Coughlin in the 1930's. You can't make this stuff up.
Like Obama spokesmouth Josh Earnest, it's ironic that these two minions both have surnames that are the exact opposites of their actual characters.
Another thing that's funny is that that the same people, both Republicans and Democrats whom whine constantly about our 'broken immigration system' are absolutely horrified at the idea of stopping migration to America from an increasingly dangerous part of the world until it's fixed.And that, of course, includes our president.
You might almost think they're Up To Something...and of course they are.
Have you ever wondered how things got to this state, when the most powerful military and the huge intrusive security apparatus that was assembled after 9/11 is so ineffectual that this war still goes on 14 years after 9/11 and a couple of ISIS groupies could assemble explosive devices and acquire AK 47's and thousands of rounds of ammo with their own little jihadi cell in a place like San Bernardino, plan an attack and carry it off so easily? Have you ever wondered why so many Muslims, especially younger ones become jihadis and why the problem keeps increasing?
Part of it, of course is the actual nature of Islam, much of which is fascist, cruel, misogynist and violent. Most Muslims aren't, not by any means. But it is the Islamic fascism brand name that is increasingly being imported into America and elsewhere in the Western world, and as that continues, more and more Muslims, especially younger ones are going to identify with it, because it appears to be winning.
The same thing occurred in Nazi Germany. I call it my 20-60-20 formula. Any political movement or ideology, which is exactly what Islamic fascism is, will start with a hardened core of True Believers willing to go to any lengths to win. As they get more notoriety and become more established, there will be a roughly equal amount of people who are horrified by them and who rigidly, sometimes vociferously oppose them.And then there's the 60% in the middle, some of whom may lean one way or the other but essentially are more interested in just day to day life. But as one side or the other appears to be winning, more and more of the 60% start drifting more and more to what looks the winning side. That's exactly what we're seeing now. Why has this happened?
The fact is that the last two presidents (and Mrs. Clinton) were essentially bought and sold by the Saudis, Qatar and the Emirates, along with a lot of other politicians, diplomats,and other government functionaries.
Their reward for faithful service once they left office was the funding of presidential libraries, six figure speaking fees, honorariums and 'consulting' fees, lucrative business opportunities (just research how Bill Clinton became a multi-millionaire) and generous gifts to presidential 'foundations' like the Clinton Foundation. All one needs to do is to follow the money and watch where it leads.
What the Arabs bought with their money was the US military to use as needed for their personal mercenaries, a guaranteed market for their oil while we sold our domestic oil elsewhere, immunity from any prosecution for their support for terrorism, policy influence...and oh yes, a free hand to do aggressive dawa and indoctrination for their extremely fundamentalist version of Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood front organizations who took over something like 80% of America's mosques via the North American Islamic Trust - and replaced the imams with their own radical choices.
Add appeasement of Iran and a clueless president to the mix and you have our present situation in a nutshell.
This is why whenever a jihadi attack occurs on American soil, the perpetrators can almost always be traced to attendance at a Muslim Brotherhood owned mosque with a radical imam in charge and lots of 'educational materials' promoting jihad, Islamist doctrine and martyrdom. President George W. Bush actually spoke at one of these mosques, the Saudi funded Washington Islamic Center.
The Saudis and the others were particularly willing to fund this effort not only to spread Wahhabi Islam but to get the Muslim Brotherhood firebrands out of their countries, where they posed a risk to the House of Saud and other autocratically ruled kingdoms. And they continue to fund it today, with increasing success because of the increase in Muslim migration to America, aided and abetted by the last three administrations. President Barack Hussein Obama alone has brought almost one million Muslims into America and many of them are bringing certain attitudes with them that do not mix at all well with Western culture.
Our current president is a True Believer who welcomes the alliance between prog-fascists and Islamists. And he has a number of Islamists and their sympathizers in low profile but influential positions, even in Homeland Security. If you look at his domestic and foreign policy, one common thread in both is to protect and empower Islamist and the Muslim Brotherhood, whether it's keeping them out of jail for aiding and abetting terrorism, getting into an illegal war in Libya to empower them, siccing his Department of Justice on anyone whom opposes them in the least , liberating dangerous jihadis from Guantanamo or doing his best to allow them to take over Egypt.
And that of course is the heart of the matter. Most average people in the Western World have finally gotten beyond the media fog and the absurd rhetoric of many of their so called leaders and elites to realize what many of us figured out a long time ago, that we're in a war with at least a significant portion of Islam, with what I prefer to call Islamist fascism. That's at least a start, to actually realize that we're fighting an ideology rather than 'terrorists' or 'terrorism'. And there are any number of good ideas on how to fight that war and win.
We defeated the Nazis and the Japanese in 3 and half years, starting out with a much weaker military than we have now, and they were far stronger than our present adversaries.
But the biggest problem we have, and the one that could defeat us is leadership. It is lack of it that got us to this point and a continued lack of it that will cost us even more dearly than it has already.
Hearing Barack Obama refer to himself as 'commander in chief' in his absurd 13-minute speech the other night brings the problem home. Any military leader with his record would have been relieved of command long ago.
A different Congress would have impeached Barack Obama long ago for this and many other reasons, but that's unfortunately not likely. Elections have consequences, and so does passively tolerating the results and not insisting that our representatives fulfill their oats and take action.
No progress is going to occur on winning this war until Barack Obama and his sordid gang are out of office, because winning this war is the last thing they want, believe it or not. They'd prefer to maintain their relationships with our enemies, 'manage' this and run out the clock, because while they mouth platitudes about how they're serving the country, their own personal interests take precedence over that. And that includes political interests as well as financial ones. Can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton making demands or taking the fight to some of the biggest donors to her 'charitable foundation?'
For all the bold words out there about taking out ISIS and 'fighting terrorism', it's leadership we need to focus on most of all right now. We've already seen in the last 23 years what happens without it.
And there are signs that the leadership we need is developing as the West awakens from its long, enforced slumber and realizes that the knife is at its throat.
In the meantime, we can work to install that leadership and insist that the entire baggage of political correctness and appeasement of Islamic fascism our elites have fostered is ridiculed, shamed, opposed and shouted down for the lethal poison it is. If we don't it will kill us.
Austrian Muslim groups are no longer allowed to receive foreign funds. This measure largely targets Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the country.
The law also requires any group claiming to represent Austrian Muslims to register and to use a standardized German translation of the Koran (Yes,Mr.President, they speak German in Austria, not 'Austrian) :
The law met with little opposition from the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic population, was backed by Austria's Catholic bishops, and was grudgingly accepted by the main Muslim organization. But it upset Turkey's state religious establishment.
"We want an Islam of the Austrian kind, and not one that is dominated by other countries," said Sebastian Kurz, the 28-year-old conservative foreign minister - formally the minister for foreign affairs and integration - who is easily Austria's most popular politician. [...]
Austria's biggest Islamic organization, IGGiO, accepted the law, but its youth arm opposed it, as did the Turkish-financed Turkish-Islamic Union in Austria (ATIB), which runs many mosques and has vowed to challenge the bill in the Constitutional Court.
Many of Austria's Muslims are Turkish migratory workers.
The new law also guarantees Islamic imams being allowed attend Muslims in hospitals in hospitals and be chaplains in the army, and protects Muslims' rights to eat and produce Halal food.
Just for the record, banning foreign funds going to religious groups in America and having Muslim groups register in accordance with the Smith Act so that their membership, literature and sources of funds are vetted and available for government scrutiny is something I've championed for some time. And admittedly, my target for this would be Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood groups, but to make it fair the ban on foreign funds would have to be extended to all such religious groups.
Hopefully, this is the start of a trend of sorely needed bit of sanity. Islam is simply not like other religions, and Islamists in particular need tobe watched closely and defanged.
President Obama's latest escapade involving Israel says a great deal about his deep animus towards Israel. And it raises an important question.
Our story starts with Speaker of the House John Boehner inviting Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress on Iran and on Islamist terrorism in March.
Boehner's rationale for this was a widely popular bi-partisan bill up in congress calling for large scale sanctions on Iran if the Obama administration is unable to craft a deal limiting Iran's nuclear weapons capacity. President Obama, who watered down the previous sanctions and unilaterally dispensed with them said bluntly that he'd veto any legislation regarding Iran, and made a special point of mentioning this in his State of the Union address.
President Obama's logic is that he and Secretary Kerry just need a little more time....in spite of three missed deadlines for a deal that have seen Iran's nuclear stockpile actually grow.
There’s really zero transparency about what’s actually going on. IAEA inspectors have not been allowed inside major Iranian bases like Fardo, and among many things, Secretary John Kerry was apparently 'misinformed' when he claimed over a year ago that he had an agreement with the Islamic Republic that to cease operations at their heavy water reactor at Arak, a facility with no peaceful applications designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The IAEA hasn't been allowed to inspect Arak either. Nor has it been shut down, as Kerry originally told us. Meanwhile, the Iranian Majlis is on the verge of passing legislation mandating that Iran increase its nuclear enrichment.
Small wonder Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a co-sponsor of the senate version of the bill called what President Barack Hussein Obama had to say about Iran as 'talking points straight from Tehran.'
So it's quite natural that Speaker Boehner would want the Prime Minister of Israel, who's been outspoken on Iran's nuclear threat to address congress to increase consensus on a bill that would almost certainly have to override a presidential veto. And Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu, whose country gets threatened with annihilation by Iran every other week was happy to accept.
That's when the White House literally went berserk.
The president claimed that congress had disrespected him by not clearing Netanyahu's visit with the White House, although in fact congress has the legal right to invite anyone it wants to to address a joint session.
But the president's special wrath was directed at Benyamin Netanyahu,and that was no accident, as we'll see. The president announced that he would not meet with or otherwise acknowledge Netanyahu's presence during his visit. And unnamed White House officials were quoted in the press as saying that Netanyahu had 'forgotten that Obama's going to be president for another year and a half', and that Netanyahu was 'spitting in our faces' by daring to come to America without an official presidential invitation. There were dark statements about how there would 'be a price to pay.'
The president tried to justify this by saying that the invitation by congress was a breach of protocol, and against U.S. policy to meet with a head of state this close to a national election.
He lied about that too.
For instance, a couple of months before the British general election, President Obama invited British PM David Cameron to the White House in a high profile visit that was essentially an endorsement. And just a couple of weeks ago, only four months before what's shaping up as the tightest UK election in years, the president, who is more popular in the UK than he is here did the same thing,having a meeting with Cameron, a lavish photo-op and calling him 'a great friend' and one of his "closet and most trusted partners in the world."
There have been other occasions. Remember the president's love affair with former Islamist Egyptian leader Mohammed Morsi in the run up to the Egyptian elections?
The president also had the White House release a leak alleging that Israeli Mossad Head Tamir Pardo had personally warned US senators against further Iran sanctions.
At that point, I got fairly concerned, because to my knowledge no one in Israel's security apparatus has ever said anything like that..if anything the reverse, that increased sanctions had the best chance to bring Iran to the table for real concessions. For the head of Mossad to say this would amount to him creating his own private foreign policy.
I can tell you now without any doubt whatsoever that this was a complete fabrication by the White House, and I heard it directly from several people who definitely ought to know.
A senior Israeli official delivered an uncommonly harsh attack on US President Barack Obama's administration Thursday evening, following the American report that alleged that Mossad Head Tamir Pardo had warned US senators against further Iran sanctions, in contradiction of Israel's official stance.
"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior Israeli source told Channel 2 news.
He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what was attributed to him.
"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret meeting must not leak out.” [...]
"The Head of Mossad did not say that he opposes additional sanctions on Iran,” said the spy agency Thursday.
"Mossad Head Tamir Pardo met on January 19, 2015, with a delegation of US senators,” Mossad said in a statement. “The meeting was held at the request of the senators and with the prime minister's approval. At the meeting, the Head of Mossad stressed the extraordinary effectiveness of the sanctions that have been placed on Iran for several years in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.”
"The Head of Mossad noted that in negotiating with Iran, a policy of 'carrots and sticks' must be adopted, and there are not enough 'sticks' nowadays,” it added.
Furthermore, said the agency, he “said specifically that the agreement that is being formed with Iran is bad and could lead to a regional arms race.”
Both the Mossad and the Israeli government are livid over this, and that can't help but affect the relationship with the U.S. This indeed is hardly the way an ally acts.
Of course, the real reason for all this goes well beyond the president's ego. It’s very much about the Israeli elections.
Ha'aretz is Israel's very Left wing newspaper beloved of the main stream press here and in Europe because of its political stance, even though few Israelis bother reading it.The paper's most popular edition is its English language one, although it also publishes in Hebrew. There was one article in the Hebrew edition that by an interesting coincidence, Ha'aretz decided not to translate and include in its English edition.
It was translated by IMRA (Independent Media Review Analysis), and here's a summary:
Haaretz reporter Roi Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition
today (January 26th) that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in the March
2015 Knesset Elections. One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign's national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.
V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party - rather “just not Bibi”.
As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to
Israel’s campaign finance laws.
The alliance of Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni jumped in hard on the controversy, claiming that Netanyahu is destroying Israel's relationship with the United States...and they're using Obama's money and campaign muscle to trumpet that message in the Israeli media. One of the major weaknesses of the Israeli left is that they have zero credibility with the majority of Israel's public when it comes to national security. .They now have an issue to exploit to attempt to cover for that.
The President’s strategy is blatantly obvious. He's directly interfering with democratic election of a U.S. ally in order to elect a more 'flexible' Israeli government that will cave in to Hamas/Fatah's demands. Given that his friends in Iran have already said they've given Hamas and Fatah advanced missile technology and will wage war against Israel from Palestinian controlled territory in Judea and Samaria (AKA The West Bank) this attempt to place Israel in a vulnerable position with indefensible pre '67 borders goes beyond mere malice and crosses the line to overt hostility.
The last time this happened, in 1999, President Clinton used the same tactic against Netanyahu in order to bring the hapless Ehud Barak and Labor to power. He funded Labor's campaign against Netanyahu and sent James Carville and Stanley Greenberg to run the campaign. Barak won, but the result was the Second Intifada, the death of hundreds of Jews in Arafat's war on Israeli civilians and the ascension of Ariel Sharon and Likud in 2001.
But President Obama's attempt to subvert Israel's election may actually backfire badly . Things are quite different today. Clinton was personally popular in Israel then, and Barack Hussein Obama is not, to say the least. Also, the stakes are a lot higher than they were in 1999, and most Israelis know it.
Aside from President Obama apparently being willing to try to deliver the Jews to the Iranians and those Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians in order to appease them or to destroy a valuable U.S. alliance in the process, I think it's time we took a look at whom this president protects and empowers and whom he attacks. And that goes beyond Israel.
The terrorist group Boko Haram in Nigeria have already pledged allegiance to the new Caliphate of Islamic State and have been responsible for thousands of deaths in Africa. They already control much of Northern Nigeria, and are attacking major cities like Maiduguri.
Many of their arms came from Moamar Ghaddaffi's stocks in Libya, which Islamists got their hands on after President Obama's illegal intervention in favor of jihadis and Islamists in Benghazi. The Nigerian army has frequently found itself outgunned in trying to protect its country.
The current Nigerian government under President Goodluck Jonathan has always had friendly relations with Israel, and in an effort to fight off Boko Haram negotiated a major arms deal with the Israelis which included Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopters.
The transfer of such aircraft requires a review to determine its “consistency with US policy interests,” Obama administration officials told The Jerusalem Post.
Reviews of this kind take place in the case of “any requests for one country to transfer US-origin defense items to another country,” said Ned Price, White House Assistant Press Secretary and Director for Strategic Communications.
According to a report initially published in a local Nigerian daily, ThisDay, Nigerian government officials believe a large sale was halted because of “unfounded allegations of human rights violations by our troops,” one such official is quoted saying. The Nigerian official is not named in the report.
“This,” he continued, “after the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had initially approved the purchase.”
US officials tell the Post such transfers must be consistent with a policy directive revised by President Barack Obama in January, which outlines the criteria for conventional-weapons sales.
The ostensible reason given was a report by the highly suspect NGO Amnesty International, which accused the Nigerian forces of 'human rights violations.' Since this report took place months ago, back in August of last year, why would a review take place now when the arms are desperately needed, especially after all of the presidential rhetoric linking Boko Haram with al-Qaeda and Islamic State?
The answer, again, is elections.
Nigeria's elections occur next month and President Goodluck Jonathan, whose support comes mainly from the Christian south of the country is running against Muhammadu Buhari, a retired Muslim general and former hard line dictator with Islamist leanings who has been defeated three times before in his attempts to regain power. His power base in mainly in the Muslim North.
The biggest issue in the election? Protecting the country from the attacks of Boko Haram. And with arms shipments to the Nigerian Army suspended or severely curtailed, President Jonathan's chances for re-election continue to slip, and Buhari's chances improve.
That's exactly how the Obama Administration wants it.
Just a few days ago, none other than Secretary of State John Kerry visited Nigeria to meet with both candidates.
Mr. Kerry warned that the level of American support would be influenced by the determination of Nigeria’s politicians to carry out fair and peaceful elections.
“Bottom line, we want to do more,” he said. “But our ability to do more will depend to some degree on the full measure of credibility, accountability, transparency and peacefulness of this election.” [...]
“There has been a history of violence being fomented by political parties here in previous elections,” a senior State Department official told reporters before Mr. Kerry’s meetings.
“We hope that if there is any doubt about the election that they will use their court system and not encourage their supporters to go into the streets,” said the official, who declined to be identified under the department’s protocol for briefing reporters.
There's no mention of it in this linked New York Times article, but the 'violence' involved came almost exclusively from Muslim supporters of Buhari after he was defeated by Jonathan the last time out almost two to one,in 2011. And it is Buhari who is threatening violence again if he loses this time.
Yet the Obama Administration is doing its very best to put Buhari in power by holding up desperately needed arms shipments and threatening the current president.
Scoff at this all you want. But by delaying arms shipments to Nigeria's beleaguered army, the Obama Administration is assisting Boko Haram and doing its best to help a Muslim former military dictator who already was involved in inciting sectarian violence to take power.
Whether it's Africa, Libya, Iran, Turkey, Syria Egypt or Hamas/Fatah, one thing that is consistent is the Obama Administration's support and empowerment of Islamists and its opposition and attempts to weaken any of our allies like Israel, Nigeria's Jonathan Goodluck or the al-Sissi government in Egypt who oppose them. It's a clear, unmistakeable pattern.
Perhaps it's time we started asking why.
UPDATE: Proof that Obama deliberately manufactured the nonsense about Netanyahu 'disrespecting the president'....from the New York Times, no less.
By now the world knows about the latest atrocity carried out in Paris by jihad terrorists. The wholesale murder of the staff of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo including its editor 'Charb,' Stephane Charbonnier. The murders at the magazine, the shooting of a female police officer, a car bomb exploding at a local synagogue, a gunman invading a kosher supermarket filled with women and children and killing four shoppers and wounding a number of others..these have all been covered by the media and digested by the world at large.
For a couple of days, this made headlines, but by now the world has processed it. And it is last week's news,because to really focus on it would mean we'd have to actually do something about it.
Beslan, 9/11, Boston, Bali, Mumbai, London, Itamar, Jerusalem, Nairobi, Fort Hood, Sydney, a never ending list..and those are just the ones we notice,because they're either in the West, or involve the murder of Westerners. The ones that don't barely rate a mention. In Nigeria last week for instance, Boko Haram, who have already pledged their support and allegiance to Islamic State attacked the city of Baga, near Lake Chad. The known death toll from that one attack alone is over 2,000. And it may go higher, once the final figures come in.
Chant with me, why don't you..'black lives matter!' Except when they're murdered by Muslim terrorists.
I wonder if it has occurred to many of us how much our society has normalized terrorism committed by Islamist fascists? The limitations to our freedoms we've already accepted without complaint? The millions in additional tax dollars we're forced to spend? The handcuffs we've put on ourselves and the forces we enlist to protect us because we're unwilling to be honest?
We have become acclimated to accepting Islamist terrorism as the norm, as business as usual. We've been doing it for so long it barely moves us, let alone raises the revulsion and the resolve to stop it, the normal reaction. Instead, we hide behind inane rhetoric, insipid and cowardly rationalizations and yes, hash tags.
If we were really all Charlie Hebdo, or Theo Van Gogh, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Molly Norris, or Kurt Westergaard, or Drummer Lee Rigby, or Daniel Pearl or the Fogel Family, this would have ended long ago, because we would have risen up en masse to demand that the political class do something to stop this once and for all.
We haven't. We simply ingest the latest atrocity and continue to sleepwalk. After a few words from our sponsor, of course. And the usual 'Muslims fear backlash' stories, although somehow that backlash never seems to occur.
A case in point is the recent 'Unity rally' in Paris. No one, of course, would dare call it a rally against Islamist fascism, a rally against 'radical Islam' or even a rally against terrorism. No, it was all about unity, with signs saying 'Je suis Charlie' and flags and forty world leaders marching together in the streets of Paris. Nice, until you look behind the facade.
Among the participants was the Emir of Qatar which openly funds terrorism. Also at the rally was Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu, who country has more journalists in jail than any other NATO member for what's labeled as 'un-Turkish sentiments', whose Islamist government is a haven for Hamas. It is also the country where at least one of the killers, Hayat Boumeddiene was allowed to enter France freely via a ticket from Istanbul to Spain and the country from which she was allowed to escape back to Syria.
And of course, Palestine's unelected Dictator Mahmoud Abbas was there too. Yes, Abbas, the Holocaust denier with his history of terrorism as Arafat's second in command, Abbas who is allied with the genocidal Hamas in a unity government. Interesting how that came about.
Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu had wanted to show up in Paris to take part as one of the world leaders involved. You would think he'd be a natural participant, given Israel's history of combating Islamist terrorism, and especially since about a third of the victims of the attacks were Jews.
But the Israeli PM was told outright by the French government that he was persona non grata and unwelcome, since his presence was deemed 'divisive' and would 'make having the rally difficult.'
After mulling it over for a day, Netanyahu simply told the French he was coming anyway. My sources differ on whether Abbas had already been expressly invited (the Palestinian Authority insists he was, and a private meeting between Abbas and Holland scheduled the next day seems to bear this out) or whether he was invited simply out of spite towards Netanyahu,but the fact remains that the leader of a democracy with a free press and an admirable record fighting exactly the forces responsible for last weeks' carnage was insulted and initially shunned while nations that finance and support terrorism and rigidly repress any criticism were courted and invited.
I doubt having Abbas there went a long way towards reassuring French Jews.
President Obama, for once, made the right choice in avoiding this farce although for all the wrong reasons. Because nothing is going to change, at least in the near term.
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls made a brave speech about France waging “a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”
But Socialist François Hollande is France's president and the one with power, and he most definitely did not echo Valls' sentiments. Neither did President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder, whom was present in Paris but pointedly did not attend the rally.
France's Socialist government and President Hollande in particular are hugely unpopular in France, although he got a slight boost in popularity from last weeks' events that will soon fade as things return to normal.The Socialist's election victory, in part, occurred because they carried the Muslim vote almost in a bloc.At this point, they need all the political support they can muster, so rest assured that Prime Minister Valls likely received a quiet spanking at the Élysée Palace and no 'war' is going to be declared just now.
To win a war, you first have to be willing to name your enemy and be honest about his motivations. In spite of the perpetrators murdering people while yelling 'Allahu akbar!' and 'the Prophet has been avenged', most of Europe as well as the Obama Administration were quick to say this had nothing to do with Islam. Even PM Valls referred to 'radical Islam,' and other apologists on the Left like our president referred to the perpetrators as 'radicals' who are 'distorting a peaceful religion. Others referred to them as fanatics, or as simply insane.
They aren't any of those things. They're Islamists engaged in jihad, with their actions justified by a fairly mainstream reading of the Qu'ran, even if many Muslims don't act on it - yet.
But that reading, the 'radicalization' the political class mentions every once and a while has gained precedence in the west and is directly attributable to the policies they and their willing tools have promulgated in Europe and America.
They have appeased Islamism and empowered it at every turn. They have imported huge numbers of Muslim immigrants,many of whom come with a culture that despises western freedom into our countries without bothering to ask the citizens they ostensibly represent and have increasingly not insisted on these new migrants to assimilate or respect the western culture of the host country. Instead, they have pushed 'multiculturalism' to force western culture to twist like a pretzel to appease and accommodate something that is essentially incompatible.
They've allowed and continued to allow the cancer of Islamism to grow. turning a blind eye to Islamist mosques being constructed with foreign money, to radical imams imported to promulgate jihad and in America, subversive groups like CAIR, MPAC, The Islamic Trust of North America(ITNA) the MSA and similar Muslim Brotherhood front groups to be funded and nurtured. They've been doing it for years.
The Obama Administration has even protected such groups when they were clearly involved in money laundering and material aid to officially designated terrorist entities.
Contrary to being 'crazy' or fanatic, in action these warriors of jihad are calm, deliberate and well trained as you can see from the video below. And savage, executing a badly wounded policeman whom was no threat to them as he begged for his life.
And even that shows deliberation, The policeman in question happened to be Muslim and undoubtedly mentioned it in an attempt to survive. He was shot dead in this video, reproduced worldwide, to send a message to other Muslims. Terrorism is a tactic, not a madness and this killing along with all of the others last week was tactical, not mindless butchery.
Yes, it is about Islam, although not about all Muslims. Does any rational person still doubt it? Ahmad Harqan is an Egyptian civil rights activist raised this question on a popular TV show..'What is ISIS doing now that the Prophet Mohammed and his followers didn't do?'
For his outspokenness, Hargan narrowly escaped being assassinated and was later jailed briefly for blasphemy under article 98 in the Egyptian penal code,but his point is a valid one. All one needs to do is consult the Qu'ran and read what it says and the Hadiths, the recording of Mohamed's life, times and sayings by his followers.
To themselves and to a significant number of Muslims, Islamic State is merely following in Mohammed's footsteps. Until we understand that and obtain new political leadership that understands that and is willing to act on it seriously, we will continue to wallow in this sordid, self-defeating funk as the attacks continue to grow and get more serious.
Author and speaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an outspoken advocate for freedom, a champion of women's rights in Islam, and a perceptive critic of Islamism and Salafist Islam.
You might recall that she was supposed to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University earlier this year but was 'disinvited' when Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR and the Muslim Student's Association pressured the university to caving in, a fairly hypocritical decision in view of some of the other people they've awarded these degrees to.
In a recent interview with the Washington Examiner, she explained that many westerners have no clue what goes on in many Islamic countries, and why she thought the Left was so protective of Islamist extremists:
“They feel all religions are the same, and they’re not,” she observed. “I think if I adopt the position in good faith to multiculturalists and leftists, I would say [they take the position they do] because they see them [Muslims] as victims. They see them as victims of the white man and so they think: ‘Let’s protect them from the white man. Let’s protect them from capitalism.’… That is misguided at best and malicious at worst.”
“Wherever [Islamists] gain power, you see exactly what they do: The first thing they do is they chase women out of the public space, force them to cover up, beat them up, rape them, sell them into slavery,” Hirsi Ali said.
She also revealed an amusing encounter with the man who's just a heartbeat away from the White House, our current vice president Joe Biden: Hirsi Ali recalled meeting Vice President Joe Biden at a Washington event. He informed her that “ISIS had nothing to do with Islam.” When she disagreed with him, Biden actually responded: “Let me tell you one or two things about Islam.”
“I politely left the conversation at that,” Hirsi Ali said. “I wasn’t used to arguing with vice presidents.”
Our vice president has attempting to school someone on Islam who was raised a devout Muslim,lived in 3 Islamic countries,endured female genital mutilation when she was only 5, was a member of the female auxiliary of the Muslim Brotherhood and fled to the West to avoid a forced arranged marriage.
Anyone think she might know just a tiny bit more about Islam and radical Islam than Joe Biden?
This one's even funnier than his remark during the '08 vice presidential debates insisting that the U.S. had kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
This would be even funnier except for the fact that Joe Biden,who spent his life on the Senate foreign affairs committee actually thinks he's an authority on these matters...
Regular members of Joshua's Army may recall the name Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
She was raised as a Muslima in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, survived female genital mutilation, beatings, abuse and various aspects of Somalia's internecine clan warfare and became a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood, after which her questions about Islam and the life she was leading led her to escape being 'given' in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met.and flee to Holland. There, she was granted Dutch citizenship and eventually became a member of the Dutch parliament where she became a voice alerting the people of her adopted country to the menace of radical Islam, and against the abuse of Muslim women and children in the Netherland's Islamic ghettos.
She later collaborated with the late filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on a film called 'Submission', which chronicled the plight of many Muslim women victimized as she was by the traditional tribal culture.The film caused a firestorm of protest among Muslims. Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight by a fanatic Muslim while cycling to work one morning in 2004 and then had his corpse ritually mutilated. A note was pinned to Van Gogh's corpse promising Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she was the next target, with explicit Qu'rannic details of her `crimes against Islam' as an 'apostate', a death sentence in Islam. Other death threats followed, and Ayaan has lived under 24 hour security protection ever since.
She went through the experience of being forced to move out of her apartment because her Dutch neighbors were annoyed that the security protection 'inconvenienced them' and because they were afraid that the violence directed towards Ayaan Hirshi Ali might involve them. And the Dutch government, which was obligated to pay for her security as a member of Parliament also disliked the cost, the inconvenience and the political stigma of protecting an 'enemy of Islam' in a country that's over 25% Muslim, so they found a trumped up reason to take away her citizenship and force her to step down from her seat in parliament. Whereupon, she came here to America and became a noted author and speaker. You can read her story in her books 'Infidel', 'Nomad',and 'The Caged Virgin'
Since she came to America, she's been a tireless advocate for freedom and for women's rights,at the risk of her life and safety. Among other things, she helped form the AHA Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture.
So Brandeis decided to honor Ayaan Hirshi Ali. She was to be their commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree.
But when the local chapters of Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR and the Muslim Student's Association heard about this, they went absolutely ballistic and were able to rope in enough guilty and frightened non-Muslim Lefties to go along with the mob to get Ayaan's honorary degree 'rescinded' and her invitation to speak revoked.
"This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students," said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.
"But it's not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs," she said. "A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic."
Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor "such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women's rights, who has put her life at risk for those values."
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, said, "It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views."
The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.
"This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy," Joseph Lumbard, an American convert to Islam and the chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. "They feel unwelcome here."
The university said that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that 'discussion' consisted of a phone call made simply to inform her after the decision had already be made.
A key part of the decision was said to be a statement by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in a 2007 Reason interview in which she said about Islam, "Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."
"She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women's rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world," said the university's statement. "That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University's core values."
What are those core values?
Not too long ago, Brandei, which is a Jewish sponsored but secular university awarded an honorary degree to writer Tony Kushner at the 2006 commencement, one of the most bigoted and self-hating anti-Zionists on the planet.
Kushner has a number of inflammatory statements on record, like, “The biggest supporters of Israel are the most repulsive members of the Jewish community,” and saying on another occasion that Israel’s founding a “mistake,” and that it “it would have been better if Israel never happened.”
Brandeis (at least then) had a number of pro-Israel students and faculty, but when they raised questions about the propriety of a Jewish sponsored university,especially one named after one of the leaders of the Zionist movement in America honoring the likes of Tony Kushner, here's what the university president told them.
Brandeis bestows honorary degrees as a means of acknowledging the outstanding accomplishments or contributions of individual men and women in any of a number of fields of human endeavor. Just as Brandeis does not inquire into the political opinions and beliefs of faculty or staff before appointing them, or students before offering admission, so too the University does not select honorary degree recipients on the basis of their political beliefs or opinions.
Of course, Kushner, aside from his 'anti-Zionist' credentials is outspokenly gay and a member of New York's Leftist intelligentsia. Ayaan Hirshi Ali? Well yeah, she's black, but she's a conservative who's very much off the reservation. And let's repeat the mantra, everyone...thou.shalt.not.criticize.Islam.ever.
Another interesting recipient of an honorary degree from Brandeis is Israeli author Amos Oz. Oz is a rigorously secular denizen of the Far Left who ran unsuccessfully in 1973 for the Knesset as part of the Moked (New Left/Communist Front) Party. He is sharply critical of Zionism as well as Judaism in general almost to the point of hatred, describing religious Jews as "Hezbollah in a skullcap."
Speaking in 1989 to his pals in the peace at all cost crowd in Tel Aviv, Oz described the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria as “A small sect, a messianic sect, obtuse and cruel, emerged a few years ago from a dark corner of Judaism, and it is threatening to destroy all that is dear and sacred to us, to impose on us a wild and insane blood ritual ... They are guilty of crimes against humanity, their Jewishness is of the Hezbollah kind, their Zionism is like Abu Nidal’s."
Then there was this, in one of his essays: “Why didn’t Israel develop as the most egalitarian and creative social democratic society in the world? I would say that one of the major factors was the mass immigration of Holocaust survivors, Middle Eastern Jews and non-socialist and even anti-socialist Zionists.”
“Then there were the masses of Orthodox Jews… to whom socialism meant blasphemy and atheism.”
“As for the North African Jews,” Oz writes, they were “conservative, puritan, observant and family oriented and to some extent, chauvinistic, militaristic and xenophobic.”
Oz has even maintained a friendship with Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who's currently serving five life terms in Israeli custody for the multiple murders of Amos Oz's fellow Israelis.
In short, Oz, in spite of his talent as a writer is a great example of a Jewish anti-semite. But Brandeis had no problem awarding him an honorary degree, in 1998.
I guarantee you there were no Muslims protesting about Brandeis honoring these two on the grounds of disrespect for Judaism or the feelings of religious Jewish students..
So I suppose these are the 'core values' of Brandeis. You have to be a celebrity of the Left...conservatives and classic liberals not allowed. You can criticize Judaism and Christianity all you want, but you must appease Islam in your public life,always, no exceptions allowed. Or someone could get hurt. And if you're a self-hating Leftist secular Jew who despises Israel, you're practically a slam dunk to receive an honorary degree and get an opportunity to speak and indoctrinate the students at Brandeis.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali had a few things to say about this, talking to FOX's Megyn Kelly last night:
Yesterday, Ayaan Hirsi Ali issued a statement expanding on her remarks to Megyn Kelly:
Yesterday Brandeis University decided to withdraw an honorary degree they were to confer upon me next month during their Commencement exercises. I wish to dissociate myself from the university’s statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision. On the contrary, I was completely shocked when President Frederick Lawrence called me — just a few hours before issuing a public statement — to say that such a decision had been made.
When Brandeis approached me with the offer of an honorary degree, I accepted partly because of the institution’s distinguished history; it was founded in 1948, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, as a co-educational, nonsectarian university at a time when many American universities still imposed rigid admission quotas on Jewish students. I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin. For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called “honor killings,” and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices. So I was not surprised when my usual critics, notably the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protested against my being honored in this way.
What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis. Having spent many months planning for me to speak to its students at Commencement, the university yesterday announced that it could not “overlook certain of my past statements,” which it had not previously been aware of. Yet my critics have long specialized in selective quotation — lines from interviews taken out of context — designed to misrepresent me and my work. It is scarcely credible that Brandeis did not know this when they initially offered me the degree.
What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming. Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. The “spirit of free expression” referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014. Neither Brandeis nor my critics knew or even inquired as to what I might say. They simply wanted me to be silenced. I regret that very much.
Not content with a public disavowal, Brandeis has invited me “to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.” Sadly, in words and deeds, the university has already spoken its piece. I have no wish to “engage” in such one-sided dialogue. I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck — and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater.
I take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported me and my work on behalf of oppressed woman and girls everywhere.
In a way, what Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to say about feeling sorry for Brandeis students hits the nail on the head. The confused, frightened dhimmis and Leftists who got in line with CAIR and the MSA to silence her participated in the equivalent of an intellectual honor killing. They have no idea of how Islamists regard them. They are simply Lenin's 'useful idiots' personified. And many of them will remain clueless - until the knife is at their throat.
