Declassified Pages Link Muslim Brotherhood to 9/11 Network

FireShot-capture-702-Muslim-Brotherhood-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-en_wikipedia_org_wiki_Muslim_BrotherhoodMuslim Brotherhood — including Hamas — were part of the Saudi-linked Islamist network in America that assisted the 9/11 hijackers.

The recently-declassified 28 pages from the official U.S. report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks implicates the Muslim Brotherhood — including Hamas — as being part of the Saudi-linked Islamist network in America that assisted the 9/11 hijackers and Al-Qaeda in general.

On page 7, the report discusses how a suspected Saudi intelligence officer, Omar Al-Bayoumi, may have assisted two 9/11 hijackers and had links to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. It then states:

“In addition, the FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas.”

The Holy Land Foundation was later successfully prosecuted and identified as a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s wing in the United States. It was set up to finance Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, which is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

(The Brotherhood more broadly is not designated as such, but over 80 members of Congress have endorsed recently-proposed legislation to change that.)

During the course of the Holy Land trial, numerous Brotherhood entities and members were identified. The Justice Department put together a long list of unidentified co-conspirators. The list specifically named Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as Brotherhood “entities.”

On page 8, a second suspected Saudi intelligence officer, Osama Bassnan, a known supporter of Osama Bin Laden, is mentioned. Bassnan admitted to an FBI asset that he assisted the 9/11 hijackers more than Omar Al-Bayoumi did. Multiple people from the Muslim-American community warned the U.S. government that they believed Bassnan was a secret Saudi agent.

The report states that the FBI had linked Bassnan to the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorist who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Abdel-Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison. His release is a top objective of the Muslim Brotherhood.  When Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist and member of the Brotherhood, was president of Egypt, he demanded Abdel-Rahman’s release.

When you connect the dots, you’ll see the error of the West’s distinguishing between violent and (ostensibly) non-violent Islamist groups. They use the same international network and are often inseparable operationally, linking back to the same addresses, fronts, preachers, financiers, state sponsors, etc.

The information in the declassified pages should teach us the only workable policy is one that broadly targets the Islamist ideological movement  — including its state sponsors.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Eid Celebration Again Empowers Islamists Over Reformers

Giuliani at RNC: ‘We Must Not Be Afraid to Define Our Enemy’

Sudanese Cleric: ISIS Is Implementing Brotherhood Strategy

Baton Rouge Cop-Killer Linked to Nation of Islam

Headlines Misleading Describing Declassified Pages of 9/11 Report

Melania Wronged

Like the millions who tuned in this week on the first night of the Republican convention in Cleveland to see Melania Trump’s speech, I was dazzled by her beauty, struck by her sincerity, impressed by her fluency in a language not of her native tongue, touched by her obvious love for her husband and family and country, and impressed by her quiet confidence and sense of self.

In a lengthy interview I had seen a few weeks earlier of Melania with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren, it was clear that the former super model––who is formally educated, multilingual, world-traveled, and the embodiment of sophistication––was unpretentious, of a serene temperament, plain-spoken, strong in her convictions and values, and also funny and nice. And also not interested in the spotlight, but more in raising her 10-year-old son Barron with good values and morals.

So it was shocking when I woke up Tuesday morning to read and hear of the gigantic brouhaha about Melania’s alleged “plagiarism.”

Right away, I smelled a rat.

For one thing, it is almost impossible to find anything the leftist media say that is even marginally credible. Most of the lackeys, who pose as journalists, sound more like they’re on the payroll of the Hillary for President campaign or the Democratic National Committee than in the service of the American public.

Remember, these are the people who spent a full year vilifying, insulting, and lying about Donald Trump, fully confident that their viewers and readers would listen to their wisdom, only to be soundly repudiated by the American voting public.

No matter what they said, the voters, figuratively at least, spit in their faces. But in the “culture” of journalism, such repudiation never breeds self-reflection; it only breeds vengeance, and the desire to find something, anything, to take down their nemesis.

Second, it was impossible for me to picture Melania consulting a search engine and looking up the speeches of former First Ladies, finding the words of Michelle Obama, and saying to herself: “Aha…I think I’ll lift a few lines here!”

However, it was eminently plausible for me to picture a professional speechwriter that Melania admitted to Matt Lauer helped her “a little bit” being lazy and unprofessional enough to do just that, to look up former speeches and stick random sentences into the quite brilliant and original piece Melania had written herself––without her knowledge that the excerpts had been lifted!

John Hinderaker of Powerline.com, a site founded by Dartmouth College alumni and, mysteriously to me, not a fan of Mr. Trump, weighed in with an article that damned the craven media. Entitled “Plagiarism? Please,” the writer called Melania’s speech outstanding, and said that so-called lifted sentiments “are so commonplace that they probably could be drawn from any of a hundred speeches. But, is this supposed to be some kind of scandal? One could probably think of a less important issue, but it would take a while. And I wouldn’t think that either Barack Obama or Joe Biden would want to start a conversation about plagiarism.”

Citing an article in the NY Times headlined “Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s in 2008,” Hinderaker disagrees, writing that, “Michelle Obama’s best-remembered public pronouncement is her statement that `[f]or the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.’ Why? Because her husband was nominated for president. The heart of Melania Trump’s speech, on the other hand, was not the lines that she may have borrowed from Michelle Obama, but rather this tribute to America, delivered by an immigrant:

`After living and working in Milan and Paris, I arrived in New York City twenty years ago, and I saw both the joys and the hardships of daily life. On July 28th, 2006, I was very proud to become a citizen of the United States—the greatest privilege on planet Earth. I cannot, or will not, take the freedoms this country offers for granted.”

Hinderaker continues: “Do you think Michelle Obama (or Barack, for that matter) thinks it is the greatest privilege on planet Earth to be an American? No, I don’t either. I suspect that one of Melania Trump’s principal objectives in her speech was to draw that contrast between herself and Mr. and Mrs. Obama.”

Of course, a fulminating John Podhoretz from the NY Post and the obsessed anti-Trump writer Jonathan Tobin from Commentarymagazine.com put in their two-cents worth, jumping on the plagiarism charge…but to no avail.

By the time FNC’s Megyn Kelly got around to the subject at 9 p.m. on Tuesday night, it was old news, debunked by most people who recognized it as a manufactured and frivolous non-subject. Besides, two of Donald Trump’s five children were just about ready to speak on their father’s behalf.

Tiffany Trump, the 22-year-old recent Wharton Business School graduate, entranced the crowd with her beauty, articulateness, confidence and also modesty, and especially her full-hearted love and respect for her father.

And then came 38-year-old Donald J. Trump, Jr., who left every commentator on the political spectrum, as well as the entire Twitter world, either overflowing with positive “reviews” or predicting a stellar political future for the young mogul. He, too, was fulsome in his praise of and respect for his father.

The ultimate takeaway, however, was that the people who occupy the world of Donald Trump are the real thing. They are clear-eyed, confident in their views, authentically conservative, and “the real thing.”

So real, in fact, that it is unimaginable that Melanie copied anything from anyone. If any copying was done, it was by, as I said, a lazy or incompetent hire, and blame also goes to the negligent person who okayed her speech.

Or was it purposeful sabotage?! That cannot be ruled out, so egregious was this act. It remains to be seen if it was, indeed, sabotage, and if the Trump team found the culprit and promptly axed him or her.

Melania was wronged. But strong woman who she is, I have no doubt that she will go on to make dozens if not hundreds of important, inspiring, and empowering speeches as the next First Lady of the United States!

Hillary’s Imam

In Front Page today, I reveal the Democratic nominee’s close ties to “the Turkish Khomeini.”
Gulen

The Daily Caller on Wednesday revealed numerous ties between Hillary Clinton and members of the shadowy network surrounding Fethullah Gulen, the controversial Muslim cleric who has been called “the Turkish Khomeini,” and whom the Erdogan regime is accusing of instigating the coup that nearly toppled it on Friday.

According to the Caller, the Gulen camp has been one of Hillary’s numerous sources of cash, in exchange for which she gave access to the President: “a Gulen follower named Gokhan Ozkok asked Clinton deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin for help in connecting one of his allies to President Obama….Ozkok served as national finance co-chair of the pro-Clinton Ready PAC. He gave $10,000 to the committee in 2014 and $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign last year. He is also listed on the Turkish Cultural Center’s website as a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the non-profit arms of the Clinton Foundation. He’s given between $25,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton charity.”

Ozkok wrote to Huma Abedin in 2009: “Please tell Madam Secretary that it would be great if President Obama can include a 15 minutes [sic] meeting with Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the Organization of of [sic] the Islamic Conference (OIC), in his trip to Turkey.”

Obama did meet with Ihsanoglu, and later invited him to the White House. Ihsanoglu is a longtime foe of the freedom of speech; he once went so far as to liken the Danish cartoons of Muhammad to 9/11: “The Islamic world took the satirical drawings as a different version of the September 11 attacks against them.” He claimed that Muslims were “being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” and urged European legislators to criminalize “Islamophobia.”

In March 2011, Ihsanoglu gave a speech to the UN Council on Human Rights, calling upon it to set up “an Observatory at the Office of the High Commissioner to monitor acts of defamation of all religions . . . as a first step toward concerted action at the international level.” Then on April 12, 2011, the UN Council on Human Rights passedResolution 16/18, with full support from the Obama Administration. This resolution calls upon member states to impose laws against “discriminatory” speech, or speech involving “defamation of religion.” In June 2011, Ihsanoglu said that such laws were “a matter of extreme priority” for the OIC.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton affirmed the Obama Administration’s support for this campaign on July 15, 2011, when she gave an address on the freedom of speech at an OIC conference on Combating Religious Intolerance. “Together,” she said, “we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new approach.”

But how could both be protected? Ihsanoglu offered the answer: criminalizing what he considered to be hatred and incitement to violence. “We cannot and must not ignore the implications of hate speech and incitement of discrimination and violence.” But in restricting the freedom of speech, Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with, and so in place of legal restrictions on criticizing Islam, she suggested “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She held a lengthy closed-door meeting with Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC’s anti-free speech agenda, which amounted to an attempt to impose Sharia blasphemy laws upon the West. But what agreements she and Ihsanoglu made, if any, have never been disclosed. Hillary’s contact with Ihsanoglu was initiated by Gulen’s associate Ozkok.

That’s bad enough, but there is much more. According to the Daily Caller, “a Gulen-aligned group called the Alliance for Shared Values hired the Clinton-connected Podesta Group to lobby Congress on its behalf.” The executive director of the Alliance for Shared Values was also a Clinton donor. In fact, “numerous Gulen followers have donated to Clinton’s various political campaigns and to her family charity. One Gulen movement leader, Recep Ozkan, donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

The Caller states that Gulen’s teachings are “relatively moderate and pro-Western,” but there are numerous reasons to approach such claims with skepticism. Turkey’s National Security Council condemned Gulen in 1998 for “trying to undermine the country’s secular institutions, concealing his methods behind a democratic and moderate image.”

Asia News reported in 2009 that Gulen had been “criticised by a large number of secularists who believe that underneath a veneer of humanist philosophy, Gulen plans to turn Turkey’s secular state into a theocracy. Secular Kemalists have compared him to Khomeini and fear that his return to Turkey might turn Ankara into another Tehran. The governments of Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are also weary [sic] and suspicious of his ‘Turkish schools promoted by Islamic missionaries.’ At the basis of Gulen’s teachings is the notion that state and religion should be reconnected as they were in Ottoman times.”

Gulen and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are former associates who are now bitter enemies, after Gulen backed a 2013 corruption probe targeting Erdogan’s regime. And so even though Erdogan has frequently been accused of wanting to destroy Turkish secularism and restore Islamic rule, his regime has leveled the same charge against Gulen, who now lives in a secluded compound in Pennsylvania. Referring to that corruption probe, Justice Minister Bekir Bozdağ last January echoed the “Turkish Khomeini” charge and said that it ended up exposing Gulen’s sinister agenda:

“If there had been no Dec. 17 [corruption probe], or if it had been delayed and the Turkish people had failed to realize the power of this structure within Turkey, then Fethullah Gülen would have returned from Pennsylvania to Turkey just like Khomeini returned to Iran. Looking from this perspective, Dec. 17 was the day when Turkey said ‘no’ to such a transformation. The state and all its institutions have taken positions accordingly as they realized the danger.”

Gulen’s response to the Khomeini comparison was oddly pedantic and revealed more in what it did not say than in what it did. He noted that he was not a Shi’ite and that Turkey was not Iran, but never addressed the question of whether he, like Khomeini, would like to return to his home country and establish the rule of Islamic law (Sharia) there.

Erdogan is now accusing Gulen of fomenting the coup attempt against him. This is, however, unlikely, as the coup was apparently an attempt to stop Erdogan’s efforts to restore Islamic rule in Turkey, and much as Gulen and Erdogan hate each other, they both apparently share the view that “state and religion should be reconnected as they were in Ottoman times.”

Should Hillary Clinton ever have accepted money from organizations connected with Gulen – much less exchanged influence for it? If she becomes our next President, she is unlikely to end such unsavory associations. Those who are contemplating voting for her should consider carefully the likelihood that a vote for Hillary is a vote for…Fethullah Gulen, the Turkish Khomeini.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Eid Celebration Again Empowers Islamists Over Reformers

Secret document lifts Iran nuke constraints, halving time it will take for Iran to build a bomb

Major jihadist terror attack averted in downtown Jerusalem

Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe

The most recent horrific terror attack, this time in Nice, France on Bastille Day, is the latest of a string of attacks overseas as well as inside the United States.  It has shaken people around the world, causing them to question what their governments need to do to protect them.

Our leaders are forever reacting to the latest attack, placing us on an elevated defensive posture, whenever and wherever it may occur.  Often news reports are aired that show video clips of heavily armed police officers patrolling our airports and other venues in response to the latest attack no matter where the attack was carried out, to create the illusion of protecting us.

This perspective can most generously be called folly.  The terror threats we face do not go up and down like the stock market.  While it makes sense to marshal snow plow drivers and those that drive the trucks that spread salt on highways when a blizzard is forecast for the region, in preparation for the impending storm to quickly clear the roads, terrorism presents a constant threat.

The only questions are how, when, where, and how many will be killed or injured.  We are in this battle for the long haul and failure is not only not an option but would spell the catastrophic demise of our nation.

While some have simplistically said that our military alone, combating ISIS overseas can protect, the reality is that we must fight this war on two fronts- overseas and within our borders.  Domestically this battle must be waged by many elements of the law enforcement apparatus- including, especially, immigration law enforcement authorities.

This was my focus in my recent article, “Fighting The War On Terror Here, There and Everywhere.”

The 9/11 Commission was created to determine how terrorists were able to carry out deadly attacks in the United States to make certain that it would never happen again.  This is comparable to the way that the NTSB and the FAA investigate plane crashes to make the appropriate fixes.

The preface of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” begins with this paragraph:

“It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.”

That report was a companion document to the The 9/11 Commission Report which also discussed how failures of border security and the lack of routine immigration law enforcement, including the identification of immigration fraud and visa fraud, enabled terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities throughout the United States.

However, at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Visa Waiver Program which should have been terminated on September 12, 2001, has been continually expanded.  On September 11, 2001 26 countries participated in this program.  Today their are 38 member countries even though, as I wrote in a recent article, GAO Revelations: Our Open Door For TerroristsThe deadly failures of the visa waiver program, more than one-third of these countries fail to provide us with vital information about terrorists.

It should be clear that our borders and our immigration laws are our first and last lines of defense against international terrorists entering our country- yet our borders have become little more than speed bumps to those who smuggle drugs and illegal aliens.

The massive quantity of heroin and other illegal and dangerous drugs that pour across our borders 24/7 show how porous our borders are.  Those drugs are not only smuggled across the U.S./Mexican border but across our northern border and along our 95,000 miles of coastline and through our international aiports located in states across our nation.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

Furthermore most of the terrorists who have thus far been identified, including the 9/11 hijackers, were admitted into the United States through ports of entry.  Some terrorists succeeded in being granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even, in several cases, United States citizenship before they carried out terror attacks.

Meanwhile the administration continues to admit thousands of refugees from Syria even though they cannot be screened, an issue made abundantly clear by sworn testimony of James Comey, the Director of the FBI and other high-ranking officials, as I noted in my article, “Syrian ‘Refugees’ and Immigration Roulette .”

Politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties have insisted that since we cannot deport 11 million illegal aliens- the number they frequently cite, we should simply give them lawful status and somehow this would magically enable us to identify who they are.  They also claim that this would get these heretofore illegal aliens “out of the shadows.”

The only question this raises is are these proponents for such a massive legalization program ignorant or are they so driven to placate their super-wealthy campaign contributors that they are willing to lead our nation down the path to our own destruction?

Here is what you need to consider.  First of all, there are likely two or three times as many illegal aliens as they claim- this means at the very least 30 million illegal aliens would participate in any such massive program.

With numbers that humongous, there would be no way to conduct any face-to-face interviews let alone any field investigations to determine if they provided false information in their applications.  This would include their true identities- including even their actual countries of citizenship, providing terrorists with the opportunity to game this process to acquire lawful status under false identities that would enable them to embed themselves in the United States and travel freely around the United States and even overseas where they could threaten our safety and the safety of our allies.

There would be absolutely no way to determine when they actually arrived in the United States.  Therefore it would be meaningless for politicians to establish a cutoff date of entry for aliens applying for amnesty.  Illegal aliens would simply claim to have been present in the United States prior to that date and there would be no way for our adjudications officer to deny their claims.

Additionally, terrorists and wanted criminals who know that they could be identified by their bio-metrics would simply continue to hide in the “shadows.”  There would be no resources to track them down and arrest them.  The amnesty program would require all of the resources (money and personnel) allocated to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and other immigration-related components of the DHS be devoted to the amnesty program.

If we are to truly harness the immigration system for the best interest of America and Americans we need to have a much larger number of ICE agents to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States.

What is generally not known by most Americans is that while the second largest contingent of law enforcement personnel assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force are ICE agents.  Most international terrorists commit immigration law violations including visa fraud and/or immigration benefit fraud.

Yet we have precious few agents assigned to ICE- no more than 7,000 for our entire country.  More than half of those agents are assigned to pursuing customs investigations that have nothing to do with immigration.  To put this number into perspective, the Border Patrol has well over 20,000 agents, there are more than 20,000 CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at our 325 ports of entry and roughly 45,000 employees at TSA.  The NYPD has more than 35,000 police officers to protect the City of New York.  We need to have many more ICE agents.

For roughly half of my 30 year career with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), the agency that was sliced into several agencies when the DHS was created, I was assigned to the Drug Task Force and to DEA Intelligence.  I frequently assisted other law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA and many other federal as well as state and local police agencies in cultivating alien informants who were part of various ethnic immigrant communities who were eager to assist us.

As an INS agent, one of the biggest incentives I could offer to any illegal alien who was able to help us was to provide him/her with temporary employment authorization and, if the assistance was of particular importance and/or long term, we could provide such aliens with lawful immigrant status and even bring their family members to the United States.

In many instances, these informants were central to our ability to perfect criminal cases against major drug trafficking organizations and other such entities.  Such techniques could also be used to great advantage to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding Middle Eastern communities involving aliens who may be involved in supporting and plotting terror attacks.

Illegal aliens who have no criminal histories should never be ignored. Most terrorists, like most spies, understand that to embed themselves they must keep an extrmely low profile to not call attention to themselves.  Consider what the 9/11 Commission Staff Report noted:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

On November 20, 2013 ABC News reported, “Exclusive: US May Have Let ‘Dozens’ of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees.  This is not a new problem, on July 13, 2011 the Washington Times published a truly disturbing article, Visas reviewed to find those who overstayed / Aim is to find any would-be terrorists.”

Consider that on September 2, 2014 ABC News reported, “Lost in America: Visa Program Struggles to “Track Missing Foreign Students.”

Here is how this report began:

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”

Homeland Security officials disclosed the breadth of the student visa problem in response to ABC News questions submitted as part of an investigation into persistent complaints about the nation’s entry program for students.

ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern.

“They just disappear,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “They get the visas and they disappear.”

Coburn said since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, 26 student visa holders have been arrested in the U.S. on terror-related charges.

The failures of the administration to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States hobbles our efforts to protect America and Americans.

Indeed, page 54 of The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

The threats America and Americans face are real.  Our government and our leaders must finally take the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 commission seriously.  Our very survival hangs in the balance.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Does The Unthinkable

‘Bribery and Kickback Schemes’ Plague Syrian Relief Program Funded With Tax Dollars

Number of Islamist Terror Plots Against the US Rises to 89: Proactive Approach to Terrorism Needed

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Front Page Magazine.

Idaho hospital refuses to release medical records of 5-year-old raped by Muslim migrants

The more that comes out about this appalling story, the worse it gets. Authorities appear desperate to protect Muslim migrant criminals at all costs, lest the public get a negative view of the migrant influx. This article contains a good summary of the chain of events.

Twin-Falls-apartment-complex

“Exclusive — Pamela Geller: Hospital Refuses to Release Medical Records of Five-Year-Old Idaho Victim Raped By Muslim Migrants,” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, July 16, 2016:

A five-year-old girl was raped and urinated upon by three Muslim migrant boys in Twin Falls, Idaho; one of them, a 14-year-old, videotaped the attack. After the attack, instead of getting justice, the victim’s family has been abused and targeted by law enforcement and medical authorities as if they were the criminals. The mother cannot get copies of the medical records of her own child, or transcripts of 9-1-1 calls made on the day of the attack.

In examining notes taken of their conversations with the victim’s mother, I was taken aback by how contemptuous they are of her. They talk down to her, as if she were the perpetrator, not the mother of the victim of this monstrous attack.

It is outrageous. And it gets worse. The supposedly seven-year-old rapist who put his penis in the girl’s mouth, urinated on her and in her mouth, and who reportedly owned the blue pocket knife that he used to threaten her, was never even removed from his home. That family still lives next door to the victim. For the longest time, the attacker wasn’t even limited in his access to the community’s children; now he must be supervised by someone 14 years old or older. When they stipulated this, the court had to have been aware that the boy who videotaped the rape was 14. This a gross insult against this victimized family — and a direct result of a judge’s decision.

Meanwhile, the neighbor of the family who caught the perpetrators in the act, an elderly woman known to all as “Grandma Jo,” has been living in constant terror since she first happened upon the grisly scene. She has been stalked by the Iraqi family of the seven-year-old attacker. Her apartment is back-to-back with theirs; they peer into her windows and pace back and forth in front of her apartment in a clearly menacing manner.

The victim’s family has received no assistance — no financial aid from federal or state programs to help them relocate. It is almost impossible to find a place to rent because of the housing shortage due to the sudden crush of refugees. Rents have gone way up as well. The five-year-old rape victim is still living next door to the ringleader of the Muslim mob that raped her. She is terrified and won’t leave the house, as the attacker’s family members walk by the victim’s family’s windows and taunt them.

The poor girl desperately does want to play outside, but it isn’t safe to do so without parental supervision. Recently a carload of Muslim males pulled up in front of mother and daughter. The car stopped and its occupants stared them down. The mother witnessed one of the males run into the house and get something that appeared cylinder-like: at the time she was afraid it was a gun. Moments later, their house was being struck by bottle rockets. This isn’t an isolated case in Twin Falls, as there have been other reports of American homeowners having their homes struck by bottle rockets. And let’s be serious: these people are not celebrating the Fourth of July or Americanism.

The prosecuting attorney has gone out of his way to imply that this rape was false information. His interviews have led the media and public officials to deny clear facts of the case. The U.S. Attorney for Idaho even vowed to charge anyone who made false statements about the perps. The Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has whined that the case has become “a lightning rod for anti-Muslim, and anti-refugee sentiments.”

A source close to this horrifying case has struck back against the disinformation being propagated in the case, and sent me a complete time line of events. So here at last is what really happened, straight from someone who was deeply involved the whole time.

On Thursday, June 2, 2016, the little girl was assaulted by Muslim migrant boys: two Sudanese boys aged around 10 and 14, one Iraqi boy around seven years old. The girl said that they used a knife and dragged her to an apartment laundry room at Fawnbrook apartments in Twin Falls. They were caught in the act by a neighbor — Grandma Jo. According to Grandma Jo, when she opened the laundry room door, she saw two boys standing over the naked victim, urinating on her and “pulling” themselves. She told the attackers to get dressed. Then she helped the victim get dressed (in her urine-soaked clothing). A neighbor arrived to help, and the victim was taken to her family apartment. Her maternal grandmother arrived, the girl was washed and dressed, and the family called 911 three times.

Before the police arrived, the 14-year-old attacker disappeared. Eventually, Twin Falls County Sheriff personnel arrived, as well as police. They took statements. The two attackers who could be found were “scolded” and told to obey Grandma Jo. The police warned them to be good or they would come get them in a large school bus and take them to jail; they were told to obey Grandma Jo in order to avoid this.

That evening, the little girl was taken to the Emergency Room at Saint Luke’s Hospital, where she was examined for rape and blood work was taken. The girl’s parents say that at Children at Risk Evaluation Services (CARES), she was examined by a Dr. Reese. She was told to go for second evaluation on June 6 with CARES doctors. It is unclear if at this or any other time the assailants were frisked, examined, or subjected to blood or urine tests. They were not restrained or removed from their homes.

The next day, two police detectives interviewed Grandma Jo in her home. A police detective, J. R. Paredez, brought the victim a stuffed toy.

On Monday, June 6, CARES interviewed the little girl while Detective Paredez and two counselors watched. Photographic evidence was taken of what was taken at the time by the girl’s parents and a doctor to be a cut on her neck, as well as of her private area. Days later, however, the girl’s mother called CARES for an update and was told that the neck cut was actually just a scratch, and that this was determined by “blood vessel” appearance – an evaluation based on examination of a photo, not a reexamination of the victim.

The family put the victim in a day-care center in order to remove her from proximity to the perpetrators, who continued to run unrestrained in the complex. The victim’s family is poor; their sister-in-law paid the center’s $500 bill.

On June 7, KMVT, a local TV news station, published a Facebook news story on possible sexual assault at Fawnbrook.    

Six days later, on June 13, citizens address the Twin Falls City Council during “public input” to question them about the rape of the child. The next day, a collection was taken up for the girl’s family; they were presented with the money on June 15.

On June 16, the Prosecuting Attorney’s office called the family while the supporter who had taken up the collection for them was visiting their home. Both parents spoke to Janice Kroeger, the Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and told her that they wanted the attackers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The next day, a detective called the family at 11:45 a.m. to say that warrants would be issued for the arrest of the attackers, but time was needed to process them. The family was fearful of backlash from the families of the perpetrators. Several individuals began video surveillance of the area.

On Saturday, June 18, two of the perpetrators, both Sudanese Muslim migrants, were arrested. Kroeger called the victim’s family from the Prosecuting Attorney’s office to tell them that the arraignment would be Monday, June 20, at 1:00 p.m. The father of the victim told Kroeger that the family insisted on being involved in all the hearings. Curiously, Kroeger questioned his interest in the case.

At the Sudanese boys’ arraignment hearing that Monday, the family of the victim and a “nonprofessional” support person were in the courtroom. Notably, Angela “Angie” Beeson, the Director of Victim Services, was not present.

Outside of the courtroom, the parents of the victim and several of their supporters, along with Jeff Rolig, an attorney for Fawnbrook apartments, the apartment manager, Detective Paredez, and a Sergeant Wright of the Twin Falls police had a conversation about the knife that the victim (and others) said was used by the perpetrators. (The fourteen-year-old attacker had cut an eight-year-old girl two weeks before this attack; the boy used his blue pocket knife. The mother of this child had entered a complaint against him at the time of the rape, but later dropped it for fear of retaliation.)

On June 20, the family met with Grant P. Loebs, the prosecuting attorney, and Janice Kroegar at the Prosecuting Attorney’s office. Loebs rambled through a “victim’s services package list” and stated that Angela Beeson would be the victim’s advocate for the family. The parents requested a restraining order, but Loebs and Kroegar appeared uncertain if a seven-year-old could have such an order filed against him. Loebs said that he had given three interviews in order to “clear up” the confusion and “set the facts straight.” Loebs stated that “the system” was “not prepared” to deal with a seven-year-old.

Later that day, Twin Falls Police Chief Craig Kingsbury made a public statementpraising the police department, CARES, and the City Council. He called the rape “lewd and lascivious” and said it was a case of “boys acting out.”

During the next week, a supporter of the family, Julie Ruf, took dictation from Grandma Jo for her sworn affidavit. Ruf typed it up as it was spoken to her. Grandma Jo reviewed the affidavit and then took it to her bank, signed it and had it notarized. She then gave it to the victim’s parents so they could give it to their attorney.

On June 21, the Twin Falls Police Department sent an officer to search the Fawnbrook apartment complex for the knife. The officer spoke to a friend of the family who informed him that the knife was known to be a blue pocket knife that the perpetrators hid in a Russian olive tree on an empty lot nearby. Officer confirmed that the area around the tree appeared to have someone “hang out there often.” Then pictures were taken with him and kids in his police car.

On June 23, the Sudanese boys were arraigned for a second time. They were released to their parents and a second Sudanese family. Angie Beeson discussed court procedure with the parents of the victim. A supporter of the family warned Beeson that if the boys were released, they may be a flight risk; Angie answered that they would just need to be arrested again if they fled. Papers were signed by victim’s parents, but it is uncertain what they were. An observer in courtroom indicated that Janice Kroeger didn’t appear confident and was apparently reading from a book; at one point, Kroeger actually asked the judge if she was doing okay (in reference to her actions in the proceedings).

On the same day, Fawnbrook apartments issued an eviction notice to both the Sudanese and Iraqi families that were involved in the rape. The Sudanese immediately began to move out, and were gone by Monday the 27th.

The next day, Wendy J. Olson, U.S. Attorney for Idaho, issued her notorious statementwarning that giving out “false information” about the perpetrators could violate federal law. 

On June 24, a No-Contact order was issued, as per the parents of the victim’s request, against all three assailants. Sergeant Wright stated that it would not be entered into the Police Department’s record until days later.

On June 27, the mother of victim called 911 offices in Twin Falls to request a copy of her public record 911 transcripts. The woman on the phone told her that she wasn’t sure that the victim’s mother would be “allowed” to have those, and that she would need to contact the prosecutor’s office. The prosecuting attorney’s office called back with the answer that no documents would be handed over until the case was closed, because it was a sealed case.

That afternoon at a meeting of the Twin Falls City Council meeting, Twin Falls Mayor Shawn Barigar gave a soliloquy absolving the City Council of responsibility and telling the community to calm down. Julie Ruf told the council that the Iraqi child was still running free in the complex and playing among the other children. The victim and her family, consequently, were shut away in their home to protect themselves. From this evening on, the Iraqi boy remained mostly in his apartment, as did his mother or grandmother (it was difficult to determine which she was).

Also on June 27, Nevada Assemblywomen Michele Fiore and Shelly Shelton were traveling through Twin Falls on the way home, and stopped at Fawnbrook to offer aid and comfort to the victim and her family. Fiore called Detective Paredez to ask him for the case number (which the parents did not have), and was treated disrespectfully by him.

On June 28, Olson issued a second statement to clarify her inflammatory and authoritarian June 24 statement.

That day, the parents met at Jaker’s restaurant in Twin Falls with attorney Bruce Skaug. The parents requested that Julie Ruf remain with them during this meeting, but Skaug insisted otherwise, and Ruf left. The parents then signed a contract with Skaug — under duress, due to their vulnerable emotional condition. They gave Skaug Grandma Jo’s affidavit. Despite their subsequent requests that he return it, he has not done so.

In Jaker’s restaurant, Julie Ruf saw, at another table with the private investigator for Bruce Skaug, another attorney, Jeff Rolig. He was seated in a booth that placed him shoulder-to-shoulder with Skaug, with a glass and pony wall divider between them.

On June 29, the parents of the victim told Skaug to cease work on the case and to send them a copy of their contract and his billable hours.

The mother of the victim went with her neighbor to the Twin Falls Police Department: the neighbor intended to drop charges against same Iraqi boy who knifed her daughter two weeks before the rape. While she was there, Detective Paredez, Sergeant Wright, and another officer asked to speak with the victim’s mother. They escorted her behind two locked security doors and proceeded to grill and intimidate her until she was crying. Paredez specifically mentioned Assemblywoman Michele Fiore’s phone call. 

The victim’s mother had called Julie Ruf, but Ruf arrived after the police had escorted her to a back room. Ruf asked to be taken to her since she had requested it, but no officer was sent to unlock the double security doors.

Upon returning to lobby, the victim’s mother was visibly shaken, but proceeded in the lobby with a written request for her 911 transcripts. She passed the written request through the deposit drawer in the lobby. No proof of the request, or denial of it, was given to her.

On July 6, the parents called Skaug and left him a message, again to dismiss him as their lawyer. They asked him for a copy of their signed contract and billable hours, and asked him to return their paperwork.

That same day, the mother called CARES for a copy of her daughter’s medical records. A CARES employee told her that CARES does not release records and transferred her call to a second CARES employee, identified as Sarah. There followed a discussion about counseling for the victim. Sarah said that CARES did not print out medical records and told the victim’s mother that Paredez had the paperwork, and that it may already have been submitted to the prosecuting attorney.

The mother of the victim then called Paredez, using the police department’s general number). She asked him for the CARES medical records. Paredez responded that they were in the case file, and told that mother that she would need to fill out another public record request for the release of the CARES medical records.

The mother then called Angie Beeson for help with the release of the public records and medical records. Beeson told her that the case was sealed, that the parents may need to be witnesses if the case went to trial, and that “everything needs to be from your own mind.” She told the mother: “You as a mother can’t be denied medical records, but CARES may not release the records,” and that the prosecuting attorney couldn’t release anything until the case was over. The mother of victim offered to file a written request for the records; Beeson said that she would need to ask Grant Loebs, but that she shouldn’t need to put it in writing, that her word should be good enough.

The next day, July 7, Grant Loebs called the mother of victim to tell her that he had received notice from Bruce Skaug that he had been dismissed. Loebs directly asked the mother of victim why the family had dismissed Skaug; they did not give him an answer.

On July 8, there was an Admit or Deny hearing for the seven-year-old Iraqi attacker, with Judge Thomas Borreson presiding. The boy pleaded not guilty. The Protection Order against the boy was altered from 300 yards to 100 feet, and included the supervision of someone 14 and older. He remains in his home with his “mother” and unidentified adult males.

On July 9 at 11:00PM, the mother of the victim called Julie Ruf; she had been frightened by a carload of male Muslims who stopped in front of her apartment building and stared at her. She had allowed her daughter to play late after the other children went in — sunset was at about 9:30PM. She saw one male go into an apartment and get something before she went into her own home. As far as she could see, what he got appeared to be a firearm.

By 11:30PM, the family was hearing loud noises. The mother texted and then called Ruf again. Something began hitting their house. Ruf advised them to call the Twin Falls Police Department. The police arrived quickly and told the family that they believed that what had been hitting the house were bottle rockets being fired by teens nearby. The family had a terrified and sleepless night.

On July 12, Angie Beeson called father of the victim to inform him that she would no longer be acting as their advocate. She said they should contact Grant Loebs as their advocate, and also said that she would be mailing them something. Loebs later called the victim’s mother, but she did not answer. When he called again, she did answer, and Loebs talked for a very long time. He informed her that he would be their advocate now, and that they were not to contact Beeson. Loebs suggested that Beeson may have been threatened, but didn’t say so directly.

On July 13, Susan Tully of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) met with people in Twin Falls, after which she was invited to meet the victims. She apparently called Angie Beeson to attempt to resolve the victim’s issues. It is unclear whether or not she reached Beeson, but the victim’s mother was notified later that day that Tully had spoken to the prosecutor, who made sure that Tully understood that the victim’s parents could go see the paperwork (including the 911 transcripts and medical report), but could not have or make copies. 

That night, at the Twin Falls County Precinct committee meeting, Loebs spoke to the Republican members (about 35 to 40 people). An eyewitness said that Loebs referred to “the alleged raping,” claimed that there was a “quick response of the police department,” and said that the media was making things seem much worse than they were, as the incident had been “blown out of proportion.” He said that “two of the three suspects were arrested and held for four days.”

Loebs also said: “The victim’s family is confused; I spoke to them for twenty minutes the day before.” He added, “Twin Falls is not a corrupt place, it’s safe,” and said, that the case was not significant, as there were other rape cases.

This travesty of justice is ongoing. It must end. Contact these people and demand justice for this poor little girl and her family:

Grant P. Loebs (Prosecuting Attorney) 208-736-4020

Janice L. Kroeger (Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney) jkroeger@co.twin-falls.id.us(208) 733-7899

Angela “Angie” Beeson (Director of Victim Services) angela-b@co.twin-falls.id.us  (208) 736-4164

Jeff Rolig (local attorney for Fawnbrook Apartments) http://www.jroliglaw.com/   (208) 733-0075

Jeff Passadore (Head attorney for Fawnbrook Apartments)   (503) 702-0535

Bruce Skaug (208) 466-0030 Meridian, Idaho attorney

Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore http://votefiore.com/  (702) 985-8142

Nevada Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton http://www.shellysheltonnevada.com/ 

Wendy J. Olson, U.S. Attorney for Idaho  https://www.justice.gov/usao-id/meet-us-attorney

We will not be letting this case go. Watch my future articles and my websitePamelaGeller.com for updates.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Confirmed: Top Saudi Officials Aided the 9/11 Jihad Plot

Hugh Fitzgerald: French Islamologues Play at Tweedledum and Tweedledee

76% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats want to ‘Admit Fewer Refugees’

I was surprised to see that this large number—38%—of Democrats think our refugee admissions are too high!

Obama and Clinton 3

Readers you have to wade through a lot of column inches before you get to what I consider the meat of this story by AP.  It sure looks like Americans generally are not in agreement with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on admitting tens of thousands of refugees from mostly Muslim countries, especially Syrians.

Associated Press at WHIO (12 paragraphs into the story).  Emphasis below is mine:

Americans are slightly more likely to oppose than favor a temporary ban on Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States, by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin that has been strikingly consistent in AP-GfK polls conducted this year.

Sixty-nine percent of Republicans say they favor the temporary ban on Muslim immigration, while 68 percent of Democrats are opposed. Half of whites and just a third of non-whites say they favor the ban. Seventy-six percent of Trump supporters are in favor.

On a trip to Scotland last month, Trump shifted his rhetoric, saying he would instead “want terrorists out” of the U.S., and to do so, he would limit people’s entry from “specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are.”

The poll indicates that rhetorical shift could win support. Among those asked more broadly about a temporary ban on immigrants from areas of the world where there is a history of terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, 63 percent are in favor and 34 percent opposed. Ninety-four percent of Trump supporters say they favor this proposal, as do 45 percent of Clinton supporters.

“That’s a necessity for creating stability,” said Ryan Williams, 40, a health care provider from Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Most Americans — 53 percent — think the United States is currently letting in too many refugees from Syria, engulfed in civil war since 2011 and the Islamic State militant group’s de facto center. President Barack Obama has pledged to admit some 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.

Remember Hillary is on record saying she wants to admit 65,000 Syrians immediately (only 11 percent of Americans agree with her!):

Another 33 percent think the current level is about right, while just 11 percent want to let in more. About 4 in 10 think there’s a very or somewhat high risk of refugees committing acts of religious or political violence in the United States, 34 percent think the risk moderate, and 24 percent consider it very or somewhat low.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans think the U.S. should allow fewer refugees. Among Democrats, 43 percent think the current level is about right, 38 percent think the U.S. should allow fewer, and 18 percent want to allow more.

This tells me that Trump has to continue to pound the issue of refugees!  (And, that the propagandists at The Hive have their work cut out for them).

BTW, if every American could see what I’ve seen over the last two days on my road trip, these numbers would be even higher!

One more thing…I’ve heard several times lately that some Americans think that the U.S. refugee program is a temporary one for the refugees, that they only come here until things calm down in their home countries.  That is NOT the case! Refugees who come to the U.S. come here permanently and ultimately become citizens.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Nice, France Grapples With How to Combat Terrorism

The Attempted Coup Reveals Turkey’s Instability. That’s Bad News for the U.S.

These Are the Tools We Need to Win the Long War Against Islamist Terrorism

Why the Democratic Party fears Mike Pence — ‘Donald Trump on Decaf’

Donald Trump has selected Indiana Governor Mike Pence to be his running mate. Governor Pence served in Congress and was a radio talk show host. Governor Pence is a soft spoken man who characterized himself, while a radio talk show host, as “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”

In an email the Democratic Party laid out why they fear Governor Pence beginning with this statement:

Donald Trump just chose Mike Pence to be his running mate — the most extreme vice presidential pick in a generation.

The email titled “Donald Trump on decaf” states:

Before he served in Congress and as governor of Indiana, Mike Pence was a talk-radio host. He called himself “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”

Well, you can also think about him as “Donald Trump on decaf.” With a record of anti-woman, anti-immigrant, and anti-equality policies, Mike Pence is just as extreme as Trump — he’s just been a little quieter about it.

While Donald Trump might pride himself on being an outsider, Mike Pence has D.C. experience — experience pushing for a government shutdown over defunding Planned Parenthood. As governor, he was willing to hold up Indiana’s entire state budget over Planned Parenthood as well. Not to mention he tried to pass some of the most restrictive anti-choice legislation in the country and once said he “long[ed] for the day that Roe v. Wade is sent to the ash heap of history.”

Trump also must have been impressed by the fact his VP hopeful once pushed a bill to block birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and felt the American people “don’t want comprehensive immigration reform.”

It is clear the Trump has selected someone that Democrats fear almost as much as they fear Trump. They understand that a Trump administration will undo what they have worked so hard at, making America losers.

Will voters jump on the Trump train? Recent polls suggest so.

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, praised the Vice Presidential pick of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, calling Indiana Governor Mike Pence a “Ronald Reagan conservative and a consistent champion for the values and economic concerns of those who live and work on Main Street USA, without whom America cannot succeed.”

Gary Bauer: Mike Pence a ‘Ronald Reagan Conservative and Consistent Champion for Values Voters’

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, praised the Vice Presidential pick of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, calling Indiana Governor Mike Pence a “Ronald Reagan conservative and a consistent champion for the values and economic concerns of those who live and work on Main Street USA, without whom America cannot succeed.”

Bauer continued: “I have known Governor Pence for many years, even before he entered Congress. His whole life has been guided by the same principles that motivated Ronald Reagan.  He sees in Donald Trump the populist tidal wave that has dominated the country as Americans have joined together to voice their concerns about a bloated, broken government that has lost its way.

Mike Pence knows the struggles of working class Americans in the Rust Belt. While some have benefitted from big trade deals, America’s industrial base has been gutted and too many workers have been left behind. The Trump/Pence ticket will create jobs, put Americans back to work and make America great again!

Mike and Karen Pence have a strong, deep and abiding commitment to faith and family. I am especially glad that Mike Pence will be in the Oval Office offering wise counsel when it comes to the next justices for the Supreme Court who will shape this country for generations to come.”

Bauer made the importance of the Supreme Court the centerpiece of his run for the presidency in 2000, challenging the other candidates – including George W. Bush – to nominate Justices like Antonin Scalia. Bauer also headed the Citizens Committee to Confirm Clarence Thomas during that contentious nomination battle.

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump Selects Pro-Life Indiana Governor Mike Pence as His VP Running Mate

Hillary losing support among young voters — Trumpites ‘more passionate’

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Among the most likely voters ages 18 to 29, Democrat Hillary Clinton leads Republican Donald Trump by nearly two to one and Libertarian Gary Johnson by three to one, finds a new national poll of America’s 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Among likely young voters, Clinton garners 45%, compared to 23% for Trump and 13% for Johnson. Nearly one in five (19%) remain undecided. The IOP’s newest poll results – its 30th release since 2000 – looks at young voters’ opinions before the 2016 National Conventions. A detailed report on the poll’s findings is available online http://bit.ly/HarvardIOPSummerPoll2016.  Join the conversation on Twitter using #HarvardIOPPoll.

“At the Harvard Institute of Politics, we think it’s important to the future of our country that political and civic leaders take seriously the voices of the Millennials, many of whom are leading now and will lead in the future. They will be responsible for creating the future of politics,” said Maggie Williams, Director of Harvard Institute of Politics.

The KnowledgePanel® survey of 1,001 18- to 29- year-old U.S. citizens with a margin of error of +/– 3.5 percentage points (95% confidence level) conducted with the Government and Academic Research team of GfK for the IOP between June 21 and July 3 also finds:

  • Sanders still holds favored status: While Clinton enjoys a significant lead over Trump among this age group, Bernie Sanders still holds the most favorable marks, with a favorable rating of 54% to 33% among all young voters (Net favorable: +21). Clinton’s favorable rating is 31% and her unfavorable is 60% (Net favorable: -21). Since the last IOP poll in April, Clinton’s favorable rating has decreased 6 points and her unfavorable rating has increased 7 points among young Americans. In contrast, Trump’s favorable and unfavorable rating is essentially unchanged since April, 18% of 18- to 29- year-olds rated him favorable, and 74% rate him unfavorable (Net favorable: -56).
  • Clinton advantage over Trump slips in head-to-head match-up:  In the April 2016 IOP Poll, Clinton held a 36-point lead among likely voters in a two-way race against Trump, 61% to 25% with 14% undecided. In July, that lead has dropped 10 points, as Clinton now polls at 54% compared to Trump, 28%, with 18% undecided.
  • Trump voters more passionate:  Overall, likely Trump voters show higher levels of strong enthusiasm in their support for the Republican candidate when compared to likely Clinton or Johnson voters. Among Trump supporters, 36% indicated that they were “very enthusiastic” and one-third (33%) reported that they were “somewhat enthusiastic.” As for likely Clinton voters, 21% indicate that they were “very enthusiastic” and 49% reported that they were “somewhat enthusiastic.” And for Johnson, the majority of likely voters indicated that they were either “not at all” or “not very” enthusiastic about his candidacy (60%), and only 40% reported that they were either “very enthusiastic” or “somewhat enthusiastic.”
  • One-third call for “Washington reset:” When IOP polling asked young Americans about their views “related to the state of politics, government and Washington, DC today,” more than four in five called for significant change. One percent (1%) indicated that “things are great and we should not change a thing;” 17% believed “a few subtle changes may be in order;” 48% believed “significant reform is needed;” and 33% believed “we need to find a reset button and start again.” Trump and Johnson supporters were more than twice as likely to want to hit the “reset button” compared to Clinton supporters (41%: Trump; 34%: Johnson; 18%: Clinton). Those without a college degree were more likely than those currently enrolled in college or with a college degree to want to “start again” (41%: no degree; 20%: currently enrolled or with degree)

If the election for President were held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, Donald Trump, the Republican, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian, for whom would you vote?

Clinton

Trump

Johnson

Undecided

Likely Voters

45%

23%

13%

19%

All 18-29

34%

17%

15%

33%

Male

31%

20%

18%

30%

Female

37%

14%

11%

37%

White

22%

26%

17%

34%

Black

63%

2%

9%

26%

Hispanic

46%

5%

14%

33%

Methodology

The goal of the project was to collect 1,000 completed interviews with young Americans between 18- and 29- years old.  The main sample data collection took place from June 21 through July 3.  A small pretest was conducted prior to the main survey to examine the accuracy of the data and the length of the interview.

Two-thousand and twenty (2,020) KnowledgePanel members were assigned to the study.  The cooperation rate was 50.5 percent which resulted in 1,001 completed interviews included in this report (after data cleaning). Forty-two (42) interviews were conducted in Spanish with the remainder done in English.  The web-enabled KnowledgePanel® is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population.  Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides a laptop and ISP connection at no cost. People who already have computers and Internet service are permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and are sent e-mails throughout each month inviting them to participate in research. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html and by request to the IOP.

ABOUT HARVARD’S INSTITUTE OF POLITICS

Our mission at Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP) is to create the future of politics and public service every day, inspiring undergraduates to lead lives of purpose by committing themselves to the practice of politics and governing, and to public service and the countless opportunities to serve at home and around the world. The IOP was established in 1966 as a memorial to President Kennedy. More information is available online at www.iop.harvard.edu/.

GfK is one of the world’s largest research companies, with more than 12,000 experts working to discover new insights into the way people live, think and shop, in over 100 markets, every day. GfK is constantly innovating and using the latest technologies and the smartest methodologies to give its clients the clearest understanding of the most important people in the world: their customers. In 2012, GfK’s sales amounted to EUR 1.51 billion. To find out more, visit www.gfk.com or follow GfK on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gfk.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ahead of Election, House Conservatives Focus on 5 Issues

Ginsburg’s Gabfest Suggests She’s No Impartial Judge

How the GOP Senate Is Boosting Obama’s Judicial Legacy

Democrat AGs Targeting Climate ‘Dissenters’ Face Legal Demand to Disclose Ties to Environmental Groups

As This School District Sets New Transgender Guidelines, Parents Fight for Transparency

Your First Amendment Rights Are Under Attack. Here’s How We Protect Them

Republicans Slip Ex-Im Language Into Appropriations Bill, Setting Up Fall Showdown

White House Watch: Trump 44%, Clinton 37%

Rasmussen’s White House Watch reports:

Just days before the Republican National Convention is expected to formally nominate him to run for president, Donald Trump has taken his largest lead yet over Hillary Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly White House Watch survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 44% support to Clinton’s 37%. Thirteen percent (13%) favor some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is the third week in a row that Trump has held the lead, although last week he was ahead by a statistically insignificant 42% to 40%. This week’s findings represent Trump’s highest level of support in surveys since last October and show Clinton continuing to lose ground.

Clinton has cited her experience as a U.S. senator and secretary of State as making her more qualified for the presidency than Trump who has spent his life in private business. But voters now rate Clinton and Trump equally when it comes to their preparedness for the White House. That’s a noticeable shift in Trump’s favor from April when voters were nearly twice as likely to view Clinton as better qualified than her GOP opponent.

Trump now has the support of 80% of Republicans and 13% of Democrats. Clinton earns just 72% of the Democratic vote and picks up five percent (5%) of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads by 13 points, but 27% of these voters either like another candidate or are undecided.

Perhaps more troubling for Clinton is that she now trails by 17 points among white voters after the murder last week of five white policemen in Dallas which Trump has attributed to anti-police rhetoric by President Obama, Clinton and others. This is a noticeably wider gap than we have seen previously, while her support among black and other minority voters remains unchanged.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Battles Globalist Republicans

FBI Boss Comey Connected to the Clinton Foundation

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may  sign up for a free daily e-mail update. Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Federal Government Authorizes Facebook, Twitter, YouTube to Censor ‘Anti-Islam’ Speech

The censorship and discrimination against voices of freedom, along with consistent failure to act against jihad advocates and recruiters, on increasingly important social media platforms has gone on long enough. We’re suing. Pamela Geller weighs in here. AFDI press release here.

“Federal Government Authorizes Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to Censor ‘Anti-Islam’ Speech; Lawsuit Filed,” American Freedom Law Center, July 13, 2016:

Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.

Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.

As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.

Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination.  However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.

As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider[] to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”

Muise went on to explain:

“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts.  Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:

“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”

Yerushalmi concluded:

“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West.  Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam.  Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”

AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi, along with the plaintiffs in this case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, will hold a Press Call from 2:00-2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 13.  To access this press conference call, dial (641) 715-3655 and enter code 111815.

RELATED ARTICLES:

YouTube CRACKS DOWN on Diamond and Silk – Demonetizes 95% of Their Videos ‘For Supporting Trump’

Audio: Robert Spencer on Kevin McCullough Live on Black Lives Matter, the global jihad, and the Iran threat

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Why Iran Might WANT To Get Nuked After Nuking Israel

WARNING: Target Stores become Voyeurism Central

target voyeuristThe Daily Caller News Foundation reports:

Police arrested a man in Ammon, Idaho who claims to be a transgender woman after he allegedly took pictures of a woman in a Target changing room.

A woman accused the 43-year-old man, identified as Sean Patrick Smith, of trying to take a picture of her while she was in the changing room at Target, reports Local News 8. The woman said that she saw Smith reach over the wall and try to take a picture on a cell phone. She confronted Smith, who then allegedly ran away and left the store.

“The woman was begging for help as she chased the man out the door. She kept saying she wanted those pictures deleted,” an unnamed witness told The East Idaho News.Com. Sheriff’s Office Spokesman Sgt. Bryan Lovell said it is unknown whether the victim was wearing underwear at the time or not.

Detectives were able to track down Smith, who also goes by Shauna Patricia Smith, after talking to witnesses and reviewing Target’s security footage. After questioning Smith, detectives booked him in the Bonneville County Jail for one felony count of voyeurism.

Target changed its bathroom policy in April in an effort to be more “inclusive” of transgender people. “We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity,” Target said in a statement. “Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”

Detectives are investigating whether anyone else was potentially victimized.

If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al Sharpton Said NRA Only Cares About White Gun-Owners…This is How NRA Responded [VIDEO]

Man Arrested for Doing This to a Woman in a Target Changing Room

Sheriff David Clarke: “War Has Been Declared on Cops!” [VIDEO] What Obama Plans to do With His Race War

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

Crime against Blacks and Hispanics in Democrat-Run Cities

America’s ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common: All are led politically by Democratic mayors. Most, in fact, have been controlled by Democrats for a very long time. For example, Detroit, which in 2015 ranked as the nation’s most dangerous city, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961. The second most dangerous city in 2015 was Oakland, California, a Democrat stronghold since 1977. Third was Memphis, in Democratic hands since 1991. Fourth was St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1949. Fifth was Cleveland, where no Republican has been mayor since 1989. Sixth was Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967. Seventh was Milwaukee, which has elected only Democratic mayors since 1908. Eighth was Birmingham, which has been Democrat-run since 1975. Ninth was Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933. And tenth was Kansas City, Missouri, which has not seen a Republican mayor since 1991.

New York City, which in the early 1990s transitioned away from nearly half a century of Democratic leadership, serves as a case study not only of how left-wing law-enforcement policies helped breed crime and chaos for a long period of time, but also how the cessation of those policies caused crime to plummet almost instantly.

From 1946 through 1993, New York was led, in succession, by the following Democratic mayors: William O’Dwyer, Vincent Impellitteri, Robert Wagner, John Lindsay, Abraham Beame, Ed Koch, and David Dinkins. Under the stewardship of these men, the city’s crime rates rose sharply and consistently, as reflected most starkly in its homicide statistics. In 1960, some 482 homicides occurred within the confines of New York’s five boroughs. By 1970, that figure had risen to 1,117. In 1980, it was 1,814. The apex was reached under Mayor Dinkins in 1990, when 2,245 people lost their lives to violence. During the ensuing three years of Dinkins’ mayoralty, the city’s homicide totals were 2,154, then 1,995, and finally 1,946.

Throughout his four years in office, Mayor Dinkins repeatedly demonstrated weakness and indecision in dealing with criminals. In some cases, he seemed to be openly at odds with the city’s police force. For instance, in the early 1990s a Dinkins administration brochure informed its readers that there “won’t be peace” until the police stop running “young men of color … off the streets.”

In other cases, the mayor tacitly legitimized the anti-police sentiments of nonwhite minority communities. The highly publicized July 3, 1992 police killing of an armed Dominican drug dealer named Jose “Kiko” Garcia in Washington Heights, New York illustrates the point with particular clarity. In the wake of Garcia’s death, rumors swiftly spread through the local Dominican community that the officer, without provocation, had pitilessly gunned down an innocent man. Some even claimed, falsely, that O’Keefe had shot Garcia in the back, and that the officer may have been high on drugs at the time. The community’s anger grew with every unfounded allegation, and eventually erupted into six days of rioting, during which 131 vehicles were destroyed, 14 buildings were burned, 90 people were injured (74 of them police officers), and one person was killed. Dinkins, for his part, stated that the community’s “anger” about the death of Jose Garcia was entirely “understandabl[e].” “But peace I beg you for,” he added pleadingly. The mayor also met with Garcia family members and promised not only a thorough investigation of the shooting, but also that the city would pay for Kiko Garcia’s funeral. Garcia’s sister reported afterward that Dinkins “said he was very sorry and was going to help us as much as possible.”

By no means was that the only occasion when Dinkins publicly conveyed empathy for the feelings of brazen lawbreakers and racial arsonists. In early 1990, for instance, he explained that “tremendously delicate diplomacy” was needed to deal with a large group of black protesters who were waging a racially motivated boycott against a Korean grocery store in Brooklyn. Every day, from early morning until late at night, the picketers stood outside the store, frightened away would-be patrons, and derided Koreans as “bloodsuckers,” “yellow monkeys,” and “people who don’t look like us.” When a court ordered the protesters to stay at least 50 feet from the market while picketing, Dinkins’ black police commissioner, Lee Brown, actually appealed the order and refused to enforce it. After nearly four months of boycotting had virtually destroyed the market’s business, Dinkins, in a televised speech, explained that a number of “frustrating” social, psychological, and economic factors were causing the demonstrators to disobey the law. “As such frustrations build and pressures mount,” he reasoned, “people are more likely to lash out. In tough times, child abuse increases, alcohol abuse rises, and the bonds of civility and decency fray.” In a similar vein, Dinkins urged black New Yorkers to “repress” their own “rage” over the fact that they themselves “have never been free from fear of attack.” Invoking the name of Yusef Hawkins, a black Brooklyn youth who had been killed by a group of whites in racially charged circumstances nine months earlier, the mayor lamented that as a result of the “hate that was unleashed upon” Hawkins, “the city can never be fully healed, and his sacrifice must never be forgotten.”

Dinkins likewise tried his hand at appeasement in August 1991, when black mobs in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn staged three days and nights of anti-Semitic riots (murdering one Hasidic Jew in the process) in response to a traffic mishap in which a Jewish driver had accidentally struck and killed a local 7-year-old black child. Characterizing the situation as “tense” and “painful,” the mayor prevented police officers from using the force necessary to quell the violence, instructing them not to retaliate against the barrages of rocks and bottles thrown at them. “New York’s finest have been transformed into New York’s lamest,” complained police union president Phil Caruso. “Lame not only because of the severe nature of the injuries sustained—but because of the relatively lethargic, virtually inert response that police officers under an actual state of siege have been allowed to put forth.”

Dinkins’ ineffectiveness in dealing with crime had a profound effect on the quality of life in New York, as the incidence of violence in the city reached an all-time high. In 1989, before Dinkins took office, New York was ranked seventh in the Places Rated Almanac, which rates cities for their overall livability. By 1993, as Dinkins’ term drew to a close, the city had slipped to 105th in the rankings. A 1993 poll of New Yorkers found that 59% felt that life in the city had gotten worse on the mayor’s watch, while just 8% thought it had improved.

Republican Rudolph Giuliani replaced Dinkins as mayor in 1994 and quickly transformed New York into the safest big city in America. He did this chiefly by increasing the NYPD’s manpower from 28,000 officers to 40,000, and adopting a zero-tolerance approach to crime-fighting. Toward that end, Giuliani hired William Bratton as his police chief. Bratton was a proponent of the “broken windows” criminological theory which contends that maintaining urban environments in a well-ordered condition—and clamping down on petty crimes—ultimately helps prevent not only low-level vandalism, but also the commission of more serious offenses. Thus Bratton instructed police to more strictly enforce existing laws against such relatively minor infractions as subway-fare evasion, public drinking, public urination, and shakedown operations by “squeegee men” demanding payment in exchange for their unsolicited wiping of the windshields on cars stopped at red lights.

Another vital component of Giuliani’s crime-fighting approach was the use of COMPSTAT, an organizational management tool that employs Geographic Information Systems to map crime and identify specific problem areas. In weekly meetings, NYPD executives met with local precinct commanders to discuss the problems revealed by COMPSTAT and devise strategies to deal with them.

The results of Giuliani’s efforts were extraordinary, as evidenced by the fact that during his eight years in office, the incidence of homicide in the city fell dramatically, from 1,946 in Dinkins’ final year as mayor, to 1,561 in 1994, to 1,177 in 1995, to 983 in 1996, to 770 in 1997, to 633 in 1998, to 671 in 1999, to 673 in 2000, to 649 in 2001.

When Republican Michael Bloomberg succeeded Giuliani as mayor in 2002, he continued the same anti-crime strategies as his predecessor. As a result, homicide rates in the city fell even lower, with totals of 587 in 2002; 597 in 2003; 570 in 2004; 539 in 2005; 596 in 2006; 496 in 2007; 523 in 2008; 471 in 2009; 536 in 2010; 515 in 2011; 419 in 2012; and 335 in 2013.

When Democrat Bill de Blasio succeeded Bloomberg as mayor of New York in 2014, he appointed Bill Bratton as his chief of police. Despite some changes, most of the Giuliani-Bloomberg policies remained more-or-less in force, and New York’s homicide rate stayed at about the level at which it had been when Bloomberg left office.

Those who benefited most, by far, from the policies put in place by Giuliani (and later Bloomberg), were the black and Hispanic residents of such traditionally high-crime areas as Brooklyn’s 75th Precinct, Bedford-Stuyvesant’s 81st Precinct, and Harlem’s 28th Precinct. Indeed, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 79% of the decline in homicide victims citywide between 1993 and 2011. Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather Mac Donald estimates that “more than 10,000 black and Hispanic males avoided the premature death that would have been their fate had New York’s homicide rate remained at its early-1990s apex.” Also between 1993 and 2011, the number of rapes that occurred annually in New York City declined by 54.8%; robberies fell by 80.3%; felony assaults dropped by 57.8%; and burglaries were reduced by 84.6%. This means that many tens of thousands of black and Hispanic would-be victims were spared the anguish associated with those crimes as well.

Florida: Anybody but Charlie Crist for Congress

Former Governor, former Republican turned Independent, turned Democrat is running for Congress in Florida’s District 13.

According to BallotPedia:

The 13th Congressional District of Florida will hold an election for the U.S. House of Representatives on November 8, 2016.

Florida’s 13th Congressional District is rated safely Democratic in 2016. It was previously rated as a battleground, but due to court-ordered redistricting [due to a lawsuit by the League of Women Voters], the seat became much more Democratic. Incumbent David Jolly (R) is seeking re-election in 2016. He initially planned to pursue a U.S. Senate bid, but he dropped out of the race in preparation for incumbent Marco Rubio‘s entry. Jolly will face [General] Mark Bircher [U.S. Marine Corps Reserves] in the Republican primary [on August 30th, 2016]. On the Democratic side, former Governor Charlie Crist will face no primary opponent. The primary elections will take place on August 30, 2016. The general election will take place on November 8, 2016.

It is critical that District 13 say in the Republican column.

On July 11th, 2016, Gen Bircher spoke to the Pinellas County Republican Executive Committee for a little over seven minutes.  During that time, he expressed why he is seeking the office of Representative in Florida’s Congressional District 13 and made a remarkable pledge during his conclusions. Most of the presentation was off the cuff, and so rather than wait on a transcript, we are offering readers the full, unedited video.

Below is the video of that speech given by General Mark Bircher titled “The American People and America never stopped being great. What stopped being great was our government”:

To learn more about Mark Bircher visit MarkBircher.com.

New Islamic State Hit List Targets 1,700 Church and Synagogue Members in the U.S.

The list consists of 1,700 names with instructions to Islamic State followers to ‘kill them all.’

The Islamic State has released yet another “hit list,” this time targeting members of Christian churches and synagogues in the U.S.  The list consists of 1,700 names with instructions to Islamic State followers to “kill them all.”

Islamic-State-Caliphate-Cyber-Army-IP_0The list, posted by United Cyber Caliphate — the Islamic State’s (ISIS/ISIL) hacking division — was first published on July 3, as noted by SITE, an intelligence analyst group. It was subsequently deleted but reappeared three days later with more than two dozen links uploaded to separate servers.

Although the FBI doesn’t necessarily notify those on kill lists, a report by a local station in Tennessee says that the bureau had been in touch with a number of residents of Nashville to inform them that they are on the list.

“When we find information like this, we’re always doing our best to contact the public, let them know, even if we don’t understand why necessarily that information was out there or compromised,” said FBI assistant special agent-in charge Matthew Espenshade, as quoted in the International Business Times.

According to SITE, the relatively new tactic of putting ordinary citizens on kill lists – as opposed to prominent political or military figures — is indicative of a new strategy involving the “designation of seemingly random targets.” The lists are meant to stimulate lone wolf attacks and promote “widespread fear,” a known tactic of terrorism used to wear down a civilization into submitting to the demands of the terrorists.

Although fighting against ISIS’ cyber division may sound daunting, the information is not necessarily hacked. Rather, said Espenshade, the group often is publishing information that can be accessed online.

“So it’s a matter of not necessarily hacking but really searching,” he explained.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Forensic Psychiatrist: Fascinating Insights Into Orlando Shooting

Defense Intel Head: I Was Sacked for Calling Out Radical Islam

Dallas Shooting: Time to Hold Nation of Islam Accountable

Virginia Man Accused of Casing D.C. for Lone Wolf Attacks

Administration Defends UN-Funded, Anti-Israel Textbooks for Palestinians

Religious Liberty and Same-Sex Marriage Takes Center Stage in Congress

Social Conservatives Declare Victory on Bathrooms, Marriage in GOP Platform

Iowa Civil Rights Agency Says It Won’t Tell Pastors What to Preach on Sexuality

EDITORS NOTE: India Ashok from IBTimes reports, “A separate, yet related report by WSMV, highlights that the FBI has been notifying some residents in the Nashville area, alerting them about having been included in the kill list.