Hmmm. Which foreign country has a concentration of “right-wing extremists” that could have sent this threat? If this threat comes from jihadis, did the LA school district have students draw Muhammad, or provoke the poor dears in some other way?
“LA schools threat ‘came from foreign country,’” ANSA, December 15, 2015:
(ANSA) – New York, December 15 – An email threatening Los Angeles schools arrived from a foreign country, investigative sources told ABC News on Tuesday. LA School Superintended Ramon Cortines said the threat was explicitly aimed at “students at school”.
Meanwhile in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Chief William Bratton said officials there received the same threatening email and assessed it as “not credible”.
School districts throughout the country were targeted by the threatening email, De Blasio and Bratton said.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/LAUSD_logo-e1450260489485.jpg430640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-16 05:09:052015-12-16 05:09:05Los Angeles Unified School District closed after ‘credible threat’ from ‘foreign country’
Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the American Cardinal prelate of the Catholic Church, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI, who serves as the tenth and current Archbishop of New York is involved in a homosexual sex scandal.
A scorned ex-girlfriend of Keith Crist (center) emailed details of his alleged kinky sex romps with the Rev. Peter Miqueli to Cardinal Dolan (left). Photo: David McGlynn; The Main Street Wire.
The scorned ex-girlfriend of an S&M “master” to a Catholic priest went right to the top and sent Timothy Cardinal Dolan e-mails that were hardly suitable for church — laying out details of the romps that were allegedly funded with cash skimmed from the poor box.
Tatyana Gudin shared with The Post her message to the cardinal that recounted how the Rev. Peter Miqueli allegedly wore a locked Lucite chastity belt along with a dog collar during pricey sessions with his bodybuilder lover.
She also claimed to the pope’s right-hand man in America that Miqueli had an interfaith fantasy of being humiliated in Borough Park, Brooklyn, in front of a “nice Jewish girl.”
Miqueli, meanwhile, remained a pastor of St. Frances de Chantal in the Throggs Neck neighborhood of The Bronx on Friday.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan led Manhattan’s St. Patrick’s Day parade on Tuesday as grand marshal, despite backlash from faithful Catholics unhappy with the organizers’ decision to allow an openly homosexual activist group to march in the event.
“I’m as radiant as the sun, so thanks be to God for the honor and the joy,” said Cardinal Dolan on Tuesday morning, as he led 250,000 marchers down Fifth Avenue – including a delegation from “Out @ NBC Universal,” a group of gay activists who work for NBC, the network that televises the parade.
Catholic commentator Michael Voris and his team from ChurchMilitant.TV were present at the parade and were able to question Dolan on his decision during a press scrum. “Your Eminence, do you have anything to say to the loyal Catholics who find what you’re doing here a great scandal to the faith?” Voris asked.
“No, come on in. We’d love to have you,” Dolan replied.
The case involves what we have been reporting on the past few days: that a lawsuit has been filed against Cdl. Timothy Dolan, the archdiocese, and a homosexual priest and his gay-for-pay male prostitute. The priest and prostitute are accused of ripping off over a million dollars from two New Yotk parishes and using it on their homosexual fantasy sex life. The archdiocese and Cdl. Dolan are accused of being negligent and non-responsive in addressing the continued concerns of parishioners. And ChurchMilitant.com has learned of one possible reason for the lack of concern and desire to keep the story under wraps by the archdiocese.
Keep in mind that the archdiocese has known about this for a very long while, but it was only after massive press coverage, including a series of reports from ChurchMilitant.com, that the archdiocese finally sprung into public action. Father Miqueli is no longer the pastor. A resignation statement purported to have been written by him was read before every Mass over the weekend, with archdiocesan spokesman Joe Zwilling lurking around at the back of the church.
So the question: What would be the case now had the lawsuit by parishioners and subsequent media reports these past few days not happened? Answer: likely nothing. How can we say that?
Belief among Republicans that Donald Trump is their next likely presidential candidate continues to rise despite his condemnation by nearly all the other GOP candidates for proposing a temporary ban on immigrants from Muslim countries.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters now believe Trump is likely to be their party’s nominee, with 31% who say it’s Very Likely. This overall figure is up from 68% last week but still falls short of the survey’s all-time high of 74% in late October. Interestingly, however, the number who say a Trump nomination is Very Likely has moved very little.
Only 27% of GOP voters think Trump is unlikely to win the nomination, with 10% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Among voters who support Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants, 73% think he is likely to be the nominee, with 39% who say it’s Very Likely.
Overall belief among Republican voters that the billionaire developer is likely to win the nomination had generally run in the mid-50s for most weeks since Rasmussen Reports began the weekly survey in mid-August until the terrorist attacks in Paris in November. Since then his numbers have been climbing steadily through the 60s.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-im-not-going-anywhere-e1451062339246.png424318Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-12-12 13:14:422015-12-12 13:14:42Trump Change: ‘The Donald’ Moves Up Again This Week
One, two, three, four! What are we protesting for? There seems to be some confusion on campuses across the nation. But we do know that so far groups on 73 campuses have joined the Black Liberation Collective and issued “demands.” Like a lover’s spat gone on too long, the aggrieved party hardly knows what it is that is bothering them. We hear that there is “institutional racism” that permeates campuses; “microaggressions” abound. Long-standing sculptures and paintings suddenly make students hyperventilate as they undergo collective PTSD syndrome.
It’s even in a name. Over at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania the Black Student Union is demanding the renaming of Lynch Memorial Hall. Inside Higher Edreports, “Students who are pushing for the name change say that the name ‘Lynch’ has racist associations because of lynching.”
A Memorial to Lynching? Is the building a memorial to the act of lynching? “The building is named for Clyde A. Lynch, an alumnus who was president of the college from 1932 to 1950, and who died in office. He is credited with helping to keep the college functioning and growing during the Depression, no easy task for a small college without a large endowment.”
Shh, don’t tell them about our new Attorney General. They might suffer trauma at hearing the name Loretta Lynch. Or what about Lynchburg? Should the city be renamed? Yes, we have a problem in education, but it has little to do with racial discrimination and everything to do with intellectual discernment. If anything, we need to be more discriminating about whom we admit to college.
At Emory University where I taught for seven years, the administration has promised all kinds of things, such as hiring more faculty from the preferred groups and holding more and more expensive and time-consuming workshops that breed racial resentment. (I think I see the activists’ strategy!)
Having spent so many years on campuses I like to think of myself as inured to such craziness. But a couple things jumped out in the Emory administration’s response. (Apparently, the Emory students’ “Wall of Love” was not enough.) Rod Dreher at American Conservative was particularly alarmed by capitulation to the demand that students judge professors on end-of-course evaluations with
at least two open-ended questions such as: “Has this professor made any microaggressions towards you on account of your race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, and/or other identity?” and “Do you think that this professor fits into the vision of Emory University being a community of care for individuals of all racial, gender, ability, and class identities?”
Student evaluations report on faculty sensitivity. In other words, students will evaluate faculty not on their teaching ability, but on their microaggressive-ness and fitting “the vision” of a “community of care.”
Sensitivity to Need for Psychological Services: The Dissident Prof, however, was struck by the fact that the administration suggested that the need for psychological counseling services is greater among “students of color.” They are happily capitulating to “demands” that more resources be available to Black students through Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS).
The administrators, Ajay Nair, Senior Vice President and Dean of Campus Life, and Claire E. Sterk, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, proclaim, “Recognizing that mental health is an important part of student success, last spring we created a new executive-level position to lead the CAPS office.”
They note that currently, “half of the CAPS staff are people of color and 43 percent of the clients served last year were students of color, including 13 percent who identified as Black or African American.” This seems to be a disproportionate number compared to the student population.
The Wall of Love: In addition to improvements in “bias incident reporting” (yes, there are teams to handle that on campuses nationwide) more academic support, diversity inisatives, increased representation in faculty, staff, and administrators, and an expansion of GED programs to the cafeteria staff, the administrators remind protestors that The Wall of Love was led by students and supported by the Office of Multicultural Programs and Services. It was offered as “as a space for healing in light of racist comments on social media.”
More healing promised: As the traumatic week of final exams approaches, a program is scheduled “to help students prepare for exams and engage in self-care.”
“My little pony friendship is magic group shot r” by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia – Happiness Boot Camp for Black Students: Even more healing is planned for the spring semester: “For spring semester, the Office of Health Promotion (OHP) is developing a Happiness Boot Camp for Black students as part of Flourish Emory.” (Maybe they should just give a pony to every student.)
They conclude, “We look forward to further dialogue and collaborative planning on these issues in the very near future.”
At Hamilton College: Closer to where I live now, Hamilton College’s The Movement was ridiculed by the Daily Beast for its “demands” presented in such style: “We, the Students of Hamilton College, demand that white faculty are discouraged from leading departments about demographics and societies colonized, massacred, and enslaved.” The college website, however, described the goings-on as “Hamilton College Student Group Joins National Conversation”:
On Tuesday, Nov. 17, Hamilton’s Days-Massolo Center sponsored the first of a series of “crucial conversations” about students and faculty of color, inclusivity, intolerance and offensive social media posts. About 85 people attended.
The next afternoon, students marched from the Kirner- Johnson Building to Burke Library and Buttrick Hall, where the President’s office is located. On Tuesday, Dec. 1, an anonymous group of students calling themselves the Movement sent a list of demands to college administrators. That afternoon about two dozen students came to the regularly scheduled monthly faculty meeting; some read from the Movement’s demands and others asked questions or made statements. The meeting was peaceful and discussion was civil.
That’s a more than slightly different take than even the student newspaper The Spectator had. Their photos showed students at the faculty meeting in t-shirts labeled “token”–clearly there to “occupy” the meeting and take it over. Another photo shows students occupying Buttrick Hall, crowding inside and disrupting workday activities.
Editor-in-chief of Enquiry Mike Adamo suggested that Stewart could learn what “a discussion is, because it sure doesn’t involve ‘demands.'” Adamo is one of the AHI undergraduate fellows. In September, he questioned Dean of Faculty, Patrick Reynolds, and Dean of Students, Nancy Thompson, about their invitation to Rhodessa Jones. He received a generic reply from Phyllis Breland of the Days-Massolo Center, which did not even mention his request for “comment on how programming like this reflects the quality of political discussion at Hamilton.” That was after he quoted a positive review in SF Gate that described Jones’s film Birthright in which women scream, ” ‘Burn, mother—, burn.’ . . . .it is screamed, yelped, escaping primally from the women’s vocal cords. Projected onto the back of the stage is an image of the White House, and then picture after picture of Republican political figures — Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz.”
Executive Director of AHI (which sponsors Enquiry) and Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette made a comment on the college website post about the nationwide student “conversation.” Paquette noted that during his 35-year tenure at Hamilton, he has seen
no dearth of conversations by Joan Hinde Stewart or her administrators when it comes to having conversations with groups with what might be called a progressive agenda. She intends to claim “diversity” as one of her greatest legacies of her Hamilton presidency. She has no intention of being stand-offish to those who claim to be acting for the benefit of historically underprivileged groups.
Students with a right-of-center bent, however, “seem to be unworthy of conversation,” he added.
Indeed, deans at Hamilton did not deem an inquiry by an AHI undergraduate fellow regarding Rhodessa Jones’s appearance worthy of “conversation,” or even the courtesy of a reply.
“JenningsNelsonWaylon&Willie” by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia
Laugh, cry, or sing? Alas, one does not know whether to laugh or cry. But a song came to mind, a country Western song, as so often happens to the Dissident Prof, especially as she cries into her beer over the state of the academy. Lyrics follow below (with apologies to Ed Bruce, and Waylon and Willie). Most will know the tune when they see the words. But if not, there are links below, including to some karaoke music so you can sing along:
Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Go to College, by Mary Grabar, the Dissident Prof:
Students ain’t easy to love and they’re harder to mold
They’d rather give you a song than high grades or gold
Cry-baby babbles and old faded slogans
And a complaint begin a new day
If you don’t understand him, you’re racist
And you should just go away.
Mamas, don’t let your babies go to college
Don’t let ‘em take classes and spend them big bucks
Make em be plumbers and welders and such
Mamas, don’t let your babies go to college
Cause they’ll never stay sane; they’re always deranged
Even with someone they love
Students like sparkly new dorm rooms and clear trigger warnings
Nice shiny trophies and victims and talks late in the night
Them that don’t know them will hate them and them that do
Sometimes won’t know how take them
No one’s wrong, they’re just different but their pride won’t let them
Do things to make you think they’re bright.
Mamas, don’t let your babies go to college
Don’t let ‘em take classes and spend them big bucks
Make em be plumbers and welders and such
Mamas, don’t let your babies go to college
Cause they’ll never stay sane; they’re always deranged
Even with someone they love.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/black-liberation-collective-members-e1449916787470.jpeg382640Dr. Mary Grabarhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Mary Grabar2015-12-12 05:40:212015-12-12 11:14:35Silly Season at School, Protests and a Cowboy Song
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new national poll of America’s 18- to 29- year-olds by Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, finds Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) locked in a dead-heat as young Republicans’ first choice in their party’s presidential primary – and young Democrats giving the edge to Bernie Sanders (41%) over Hillary Clinton(35%) as the top selection in their presidential primary. Overall, a majority (56%) of 18- to 29- year-olds prefer a Democrat win the 2016 campaign for president over a Republican, a net increase of five points since the IOP’s spring 2015 survey was released.
The IOP’s newest poll results also show – in the wake of the mid-November Paris terrorist attacks – a solid majority (60%) support the U.S. committing ground troops to defeat ISIS. When asked how likely they would be to serve, 16% said they “have already,” “would definitely” or “would strongly consider” joining the U.S. military to combat ISIS if additional troops were needed. A detailed report on the poll’s findings is available online: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/harvard-iop-fall-2015-poll.
“For 15 years, the IOP has polled Millennials, the largest generation in U.S. history,” said Harvard Institute of Politics Director Maggie Williams. “Our fall poll shows they are deeply divided about who should lead America, focused on candidate integrity and split over whether the American Dream is alive or not. We are hopeful that political leaders will inspire and include this generation in conversations about the future of their country.”
The IOP’s 28th major release since 2000, the GFK-KnowledgePanel® survey of 2,011 18- to 29- year-old U.S. citizens has a margin of error of +/– 2.8 percentage points (95% confidence level) and was conducted online with the Government and Academic Research team of GfK for the IOP between October 30 and November 9, 2015. The poll finds:
Solid Majority of America’s 18- to 29- Year-Olds Support Sending Ground Troops to Combat ISIS. Early fall 2015 IOP polling fielded before the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks showed America’s youth split over whether to send U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS, with 48% saying they supported the action (48%: oppose) – a nine percentage-point drop in support over the past eight months (Mar. 2015: 57% support, 40% oppose). However, IOP polling re-fielded the question following the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks – finding a 12 percentage-point swing in support with a strong majority (60%) of young Americans supporting sending U.S. ground troops to combat ISIS (40%: oppose).
Entering 2016, 18- to 29- Year-Olds Prefer Democrats Maintain Control of White House. As shown in spring 2015 IOP polling, young Americans prefer that a Democrat win the White House over a Republican in the 2016 race for president. November IOP polling indicated a majority (56%) prefer a Democrat, with less than four-in-ten preferring a Republican (36%).
Donald Trump and Ben Carson locked in Dead-Heat, Ahead of Republican Presidential Candidate Field. Among potential Republican primary voters (definite, probable or 50-50; n=472), fall 2015 IOP polling showed Donald Trump (22%) and Ben Carson (20%) in a statistical dead-heat – with a strong lead over the rest of the Republican candidate field. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz captured seven (7%) percent, closely followed byRand Paul and Jeb Bush (each with 6%), Carly Fiorina (3%), Mike Huckabee (3%), Rick Santorum (3%), John Kasich (2%), Lindsey Graham (1%), Bobby Jindal (1%), Chris Christie (1%), and George Pataki (<1%) – with 17% undecided. Regardless of whom potential Republican primary voters plan to support, forty-three percent (43%) say they believe Ben Carson is “qualified to be president” (17%: “not qualified;” 41%: don’t know). Slightly more than one-third (38%) said the same about Donald Trump (39%: “not qualified;” 22%: don’t know). Seventeen percent (17%) said they were “very satisfied” with the Republican candidates for president this year (47%: “somewhat satisfied;” 25%: “not very satisfied;” 11%: “not at all satisfied”).
Starting at 1% in Spring 2015, Bernie Sanders Now Holds Lead (41%-35%) over Hillary Clinton; Most Don’t Believe “Democratic Socialist” Label Makes a Difference. While Hillary Clinton maintains double-digit leads over Bernie Sanders in national polls of likely Democratic primary voters, November IOP polling showed 18- to 29- year-old potential Democratic primary voters (definite, probable or 50-50; n=751) as an outlier – with Sanders holding a slight edge and leading Clinton 41%-35% (22%: don’t know). Less than one percent (<1%) said they supported Martin O’Malley. A strong majority (66%) of 18- to 29- year-old potential Democratic primary voters said the fact that Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist made “no difference” in their likelihood to support his candidacy. Slightly less than one-quarter (24%) said the label made them “more likely” to support Sanders, with only nine percent (9%) saying it made them “less likely.” In addition, nineteen percent (19%) said they were “very satisfied” with the Democratic candidates for president this year (53%: “somewhat satisfied;” 21%: “not very satisfied;” 6%: “not at all satisfied”).
Nearly Half of Young Americans Believe the American Dream is Dead for Them. When November IOP polling asked 18- to 29- year-oldsif the “American Dream is alive or dead” for them personally, respondents were nearly evenly split (49%: “alive;” 48%: “dead”). While no significant difference was found based on race or ethnicity (whites – 49% said “alive;” African-Americans – 44% said “alive;” Hispanics – 52% said “alive”), respondents’ level of education did play a role. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) college graduates said the American Dream was alive for them personally, compared to only 42% of those not in college/never enrolled in college saying the same. Additionally, a significant majority of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters said they believed the American dream was “dead” (Trump voters – 61%: American Dream “dead,” 39%: “alive;” Sanders voters – 56%: American Dream “dead,” 44%: “alive”).
America’s 18- to 29- Year-Olds Say Integrity, Level-Headedness and Authenticity – Not Experience – Most Valued Attributes in Future President. When the IOP’s fall poll asked 18-29 year olds what attributes they valued most in a presidential candidate, integrity (51%), level-headedness (33%) and authenticity (26%) topped the list – with political experience (18%) and business experience (11%) trailing behind.
70% of 18- to 29- Year-Old Republicans, 31% of Democrats Support Building a Wall on the Border of the U.S. and Mexico. Forty-three percent (43%) of America’s youth said they supported building a wall on the border of the United States and Mexico, with a slim majority (53%) saying they oppose the idea. Support differed among Republicans (70%: support; 28%: oppose), Democrats (31%: support; 68%: oppose) and Independents (42%: support; 56%: oppose).
Engagement Slipping Since 2011: 20% of America’s Youth Say They Are Politically Engaged; Less Than Half Say They Are Following 2016 Campaign. Only two-in-ten (20%) of America’s young adults said they considered themselves “politically engaged and active,” a drop of five percentage points compared to IOP polling conducted during the same pre-election time period four years ago (fall 2011: 25%). When fall 2015 IOP polling asked America’s young adults “how closely do you follow the 2016 presidential race?” – only 46% said they were following the campaign “very” or “somewhat” closely (52%: “not very” or “not at all”).
Methodology
The goal of the project was to collect 2,000 completed interviews with young Americans between 18- and 29- years old. The main sample data collection took place from October 30 through November 9. A small pretest was conducted prior to the main survey to examine the accuracy of the data and the length of the interview.
Four thousand four hundred and forty-one (4,441) KnowledgePanel members were assigned to the study. The cooperation rate was 45.2 percent which resulted in 2,011 completed interviews included in this report (after data cleaning). Eighty-three (83) 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.
Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, was established in 1966 as a memorial to President Kennedy. The IOP’s mission 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, governing, public service and the countless opportunities to make a difference in the world. 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_group.
Social Tag: #HarvardIOPPoll
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/carson-clinton-sanders-trumpjpg-78606bef76e4c42a-e1449843320373.jpg361640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-12-11 09:16:482015-12-11 09:16:48Harvard Poll: Trump, Carson Lead Republican Primary — Sanders Edging Clinton Among Democrats
Phillip Haney, former DHS counterterrorism intelligence expert was interviewed on Fox News, The Kelly File, Thursday night, December 10, 2015. He claimed his Intelligence Review Unit (IRU) had compiled information that identified a group of 300 potential jihadis involved with the Pakistani Deobandi Salafist movement including the Al Huda women’s Islamic Institute with schools in Pakistan, Canada and the US. We have written about Tashfeen Malik’s attendance at the Al- Huda madrassa in Multan, Pakistan. She had also allegedly been a supporter of the Imam of the extremist Red Mosque in Islamabad. According to reports from CBC News, three girls and a woman who were students at the Al-Huda Islamic Institute in Mississauga, Ontario had left Canada endeavoring to join Isis in Syria.
Haney also tracked Deobandi Mosques here in the US including the Dar al Uloom Al Islamlyah-Amer in San Bernardino, California where Sayed Razwin Farook, Malik’s late husband and co-perpetrator of the massacre on December 2nd, had been a member. Haney alleges that his DHS IRU after receiving a commendation for its findings was asked by the State Department to cease its profiling of Islamic organizations. Haney claims that based on the information his IRU had compiled Farook would have been put on a no fly list and Ms. Malik would have been denied a K 1 fiancée Visa. We note that Haney says that because of State and civil rights group complaints the data was destroyed after funding of the surveillance program ended in 2012. Doubtless more will be forthcoming about Haney’s accusations.
A former Homeland Security employee says he likely could have helped prevent the San Bernardino terror attack if the government had not pulled the plug on a surveillance program he was developing three years ago.
Philip Haney told Megyn Kelly that as part of his investigation, he was looking into a collection of global networks that were infiltrating radical Islamists into the U.S.
But a year into the investigation, Haney said they got a visit from the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, who said that tracking these groups, was problematic because they were Islamic.
His investigation was shut down and 67 of his records were deleted, including one into an organization with ties to the mosque in Riverside, Calif., that San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook attended.
Haney explained that if his work was allowed to continue, it could possibly have thwarted last week’s attack.
“Either Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because association with that mosque, and/or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his association with a known organization,” Haney explained.
Watch this Fox News Kelly File segment with DHS Whistleblower Haney:
A Daily Mailreport provided further information on the scope of Haney’s IRU surveillance:
Speaking with Fox News on Thursday night, Haney explained that in the early 2000s he had been working in a passenger analysis unit at the Department of Homeland Security in Atlanta.
As part of his job, he was expected to investigate individuals and organizations with potential links to terrorism, so security services could monitor their movements into and out of the U.S.
Haney explained that he began investigating dozens of individuals with links to a fundamentalist Pakistani group called the Deobandi Movement, and its sub-groups al-Huda and Tablighi Jamaat.
He claims the groups were using the visa waiver program to move suspected radicalized individuals in and out of the U.S. and so he began tracking them, entering their details into a DHS database.
Eventually, his efforts were picked up by the National Targeting Center, an umbrella organization within the US Customs and Border Protection, and he was asked to work for them instead – focusing specifically on Deobandi, al-Huda and Tablighi Jamaat.
Haney says that, during the course of his investigation, he was given an award for identifying more than 300 potential terrorists with links to the groups.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Philip B. Haney (center), former DHS special agent, on the Kelly File. Photo: Fox News.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/121015_whistleblower-e1449832925501.jpg360640Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2015-12-11 06:25:402015-12-11 09:10:06DHS Whistleblower: We had information that would have prevented the Slaughter in San Bernardino!
On December 8, 2015, Judicial Watch (JW) issued a press release about a long sought Pentagon email sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and aide, Jake Sullivan, from Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on the evening of September 11th, 2012. The Bash Pentagon email was sent just after the attack by Ansar al-Sharia and others at the Benghazi Special Missions Compound. The JW release noted:
Judicial Watch today released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.
Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”
The first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 pm local time – 3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC. The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 am local time the following morning – 6 p.m. ET.
Thanks to Tom Fitton and Chris Farrell at Washington, DC-based JW, we now know that U.S. special operations assets were “spinning up” to go to the aid of beseiged U.S. personnel in Benghaziwithin hours of the attack on the evening of September 11, 2012. If launched that operation might also have spared the lives of former Navy Seals and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods who were killed in a mortar attack of suspicious origins on the morning of September 12. Did Former Secretary of State Clinton, currently 2016 Democrat Presidential front runner deny release of those special operator assets?
Ken Timmerman, veteran investigative journalist discusses the background in a Daily Caller op-ed published today, “Benghazi “smoking gun” email unmasks Hillary Clinton”. Chris Farrell of JW will be speaking at the Tiger Bay Club in Pensacola, Florida on Friday, December 11, 2015. Doubtless we and others in attendance will ask questions about the Pentagon and other Clinton private server classified emails.
The House Special Benghazi Committee under Chairman, Trey Gowdy (R-SC) has acquired the alleged “smoking gun” email prior to Mrs. Clinton’s October 22, 2015 testimony, but was missing key evidence they needed to be able to question her effectively about it. Since the Committee member Rep. Lynn Westmoreland went to Africom headquarters in early December to interview top officials and line officials, hopefully they now have that evidence. The Pentagon email raises questions that need answers, if the American public is to assess the integrity and truthfulness of both Ms. Clinton and former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta.
Watch this FoxNews Special Report segment on the Pentagon email obtained by JW.
Over the period July through October 2014, we ran a multiple part series called “Death in Benghazi” in the New English Review. Northwest Florida Talk Radio station, 1330amWEBY conducted two major interviews with Ken Timmerman, author of Dark Forces: The Truth about What Happened in Benghazi. In “Death in Benghazi: Part 1 The Attack,” NER July 2014 , we asked about whether resources could have been deployed in time to spare Ambassador Stevens and communications aide, Stan Smith and possibly prevent the mortar attack at the CIA annex on the morning of September 12, 2012 that took the lives of Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Here is Timmerman’s assessment of why the Pentagon email released by JW is significant.
Touted by FoxNews as a “possible smoking gun,” the email from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s chief of staff shows that special operations teams within a few hours flight from Benghazi were preparing to deploy as early as 7 PM Washington time on the night of the attacks, well within the time needed to get to Benghazi before the deadly mortar strike that killed U.S. Navy Seals Glen Doherty and Ty Woods.
You would think such a key piece of evidence would have been the first thing the State Department turned over to Congressional investigators. After all, it establishes that help was “on the way” to our diplomats and special operators and intelligence officers under siege.
Panetta aide Jeremy Bash emailed Mrs. Clinton’s top aides at 7:09 PM, to let them know that quick reaction forces, then stationed in Europe, were “spinning up as we speak” to deploy to Benghazi.
“Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to secure the approval from host nation,” Bash wrote. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us.”
Bash said he had just tried to call them at State, but that they were all in a meeting with Secretary Clinton, hence the email.
We know from the timeline submitted to Congress by the Defense Department exactly which forces Bash was referring to. They included a Delta Force hostage rescue team based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina that was on call 24/7, two Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons based in Rota, Spain, and the Commander’s In Extremis Force (CIF) for European Command, also known as C-110.
C-110 was a fifty-man team of Special Operations troops with their own airlift, specially composed to be able to respond to precisely the type of emergency that was then occurring in Benghazi.
They were trained in hostage rescue operations and “hot” extractions. This was the Unit most suitable for Benghazi. When they got word to start “spinning up,” they were in Croatia on a training mission, just a two-to-three hour flight from Benghazi.
As Bash sent his email, General Carter Ham, commander of Africa Command (Africom), initiated the process to transfer them from Eucom to Africom, temporarily placing them under his direct orders. The Unit commander ordered his men to begin loading their gear into their C-130s. All they needed was the go-ahead from State.
And that’s where it died. Hillary Clinton did not want U.S. Special Operations forces coming into Libya with “guns ablazing.” Instead of flying directly to Benghazi, C-110 was told to “stage” in Sigonella, Italy. Meanwhile, Panetta counter-manded General Ham’s order, and returned C-110 to the authority of EUCOM.
This is the key piece of information Mrs. Clinton and her protectors have fought tooth and nail to keep from Congress and the U.S. public until now. Why? Because it contradicts all the earlier timelines presented by the State Department, the CIA, and the Department of Defense, and shows that U.S. forces could have rescued our men in Benghazi before the fateful 5 AM mortar strike, if only Mrs. Clinton had given the go-ahead. Only a lawsuit by Judicial Watch forced its release.
I investigated this timeline and Mrs. Clinton’s role in blocking military assets from reaching Benghazi in my book Dark Forces: the Truth About What Happened in Benghazi. I interviewed senior Africom commanders, unit commanders, spec-ops officers and others with direct knowledge of the U.S. Forces available for deployment that night.
In the redacted version of his testimony that was ultimately released by the House Armed Services Committee, General Ham said the main reason he didn’t go balls to the wall to get forces to Benghazi was simple. “We were never asked,” he said.
Pathetic, but true.
The Bash email shows that the Pentagon was asking – two hours earlier than previous timelines have revealed. So far, the State Department has not released the response that Mrs. Clinton’s minions sent back to Bash. But we know what it was: stand down.
Glen Doherty and Ty Woods soon found out what it was as well.
Timmerman’s accusation begs the question of was there a stand down order issued by Clinton?
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
LOS ANGELES, CA /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Move over, television – the Internet has become a driving force behind politics and political campaigns.
The Center for the Digital Future has found that large and growing percentages of Americans now view the Internet as vital in key aspects of politics – for conducting campaigns, for generating political power, and for making elected officials more accountable.
The Center’s study found that 74 percent of all respondents agree that the Internet has become important for political campaigns, up from 71 percent in the previous study and a new high for the Digital Future studies that began in 1999.
“The Internet has become a vitally important tool for users seeking political information during campaigns,” saidJeffrey I. Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future and creator of the World Internet Project.
“Fifty years ago, television surpassed newspapers as the primary communication medium for people seeking information for political campaigns,” said Cole. ” Now the Internet is assuming a much more prominent role in political communication – for learning more about candidates, for sharing political views, for mobilizing constituents, and especially for fundraising.”
“And we have found significant changes in the number of users who believe that the Internet can become a tool for political power and voter influence,” Cole said.
The findings on the role of the Internet in the political process are featured in the thirteenth edition of the Digital Future Report, released today by the Center. The 171-page report for 2015 explores more than 100 issues involving the impact of online technology in the United States.
New high levels of agreement about the Internet in the political process
All of the following are the highest levels to date for the Digital Future Project:
Sixty-seven percent of users agree or strongly agree that going online can help people better understand politics, up from 63 percent in 2013.
Forty-two percent of users agree or strongly agree that by using the Internet, people like them can have more political power, an increase from 37 percent in 2013.
Forty-two percent of respondents believe that by using the Internet, public officials will care more about what people like them think, up from 32 percent in 2013.
Forty-one percent agree or strongly agree that the Internet gives people more say in what the government does, up from 32 percent in 2013.
“These trends are clearly demonstrated in recent political campaigns,” Cole said. “In 2008, the Republicans did not pay attention to social media, but Barack Obama used digital communication in his first presidential campaign as a primary tool in developing his power base. Now social media is integral to all campaign strategies – Democratic or Republican.”
2015 Digital Future Report: Background
The Digital Future Report has been produced annually by the Center for the Digital Future since 2000, and is the first to develop a longitudinal panel study of the views and behavior of Internet users and non-users in the United States. The survey, conducted from October 2014 to January 2015, has a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percent. The annual report of survey findings, now in its 13th edition, is the longest continuing study of its kind. The study’s broad categories include:
Internet Users And Non-Users: Who Is Online? What Are Users Doing Online?
Since 1999, the Center for the Digital Future (digitalcenter.org) in the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism has examined the behavior and views of a national sample of Internet users and non-users in major annual surveys of the impact of the Internet on America. The center also created and organizes the World Internet Project, which includes similar research with 37 international partners.
About the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
Located in Los Angeles at the University of Southern California, the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism is a national leader in education and scholarship in the fields of communication, journalism, public diplomacy and public relations. With an enrollment of more than 2,200 students, USC Annenberg offers doctoral, master’s and bachelor’s degree programs, as well as continuing development programs for working professionals across a broad scope of academic inquiry. The school’s comprehensive curriculum emphasizes the core skills of leadership, innovation, service and entrepreneurship and draws upon the resources of a networked university located in the media capital of the world.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Internet-1.jpeg398640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-12-10 04:56:052015-12-10 05:06:40Study: Internet now the ‘driving force’ in creating political power, voter influence and accountability
The three candidates (officially filed with Federal Election Commission) for the Constitution Party presidential nomination will seek support at a business meeting of the Constitution Party of Florida — now qualified to run the party’s presidential candidate on the November ballot. Other candidates may enter the primary race before the Constitution Party’s national nominating convention in Salt Lake City April 17, 2016.
Presentations will be given by:
J.R. Myers, the founder and three-term Chairman of the Alaska Constitution Party, was its 2014 gubernatorial nominee receiving 2.5 percent of the vote. A Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor, he works as a Behavioral Health Consultant for the Kenaitze Tribe.
Scott Copeland is an ordained and licensed minister and served on the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention Executive Board for three terms. He works for a land-surveying firm and is author of Your 2012 Middle Class President.
Patrick Anthony Ockander of San Antonio Texas is a Licensed Vocational Nurse and earned an Army Combat Medic Badge while deployed in the Iraq war (2006-2007). He is the author of Defending Our Constitution and Restoring Power to the People.
When: Saturday, December 12, 2012, 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. Where: AmericInn Hotel, 5931 Fruitville Road, Sarasota (one mile off I-75) • [941] 342.8778 • www.americinn.com/hotels/fl/sarasota Contact: Peter Gemma, Sarasota, 941-487-8484 National Executive Committee member
ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY:
The Constitution Party was founded in 1992, when a number of independent state parties united to form the U.S. Taxpayers Party. In 1999, the organization changed its name to the Constitution Party to better reflect its core beliefs. It has fielded candidates for president in every election since its founding: the 2012 presidential ticket was headed by former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode. In 2014, the Constitution Party ran more than 150 candidates who earned over 1,440,000 votes. To learn more about the Constitution Party click here.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/contitution-party-logo.jpg351640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-12-10 04:39:322015-12-10 04:39:32Florida: Three Constitution Party Presidential Candidates to Speak at State Party Meeting
“If You See Something, Say Something™” the DHS slogan goes (yes, it is trademarked). “It takes a community to protect a community,” the feds continue. “Informed, alert communities play a critical role in keeping our nation safe.” No doubt. But the best information in the world is of little use if social pressure prevents one from disclosing it. Such was the case before the San Bernardino tragedy, when a man living near terrorist Syed Farook’s Redlands home noticed suspicious-looking Middle Eastern men in the area. But he “decided not to report anything,” wrote CBS Los Angeles, “since he did not wish to racially profile those people.” Ah, the power of a lie — to silence. And to kill.
And it’s time to kill that lie. This starts with grasping a simple truth: There is no such thing as “racial profiling” or “religious profiling” per se. There is only good criminal profiling and bad criminal profiling. The good variety considers all relevant factors, based on sound criminological science, regardless of political concerns. The bad kind discriminates unjustly among those factors and only allows greater suspicion and scrutiny of people who aren’t politically favored.
For example, I’m a member of one of the most profiled groups in the nation: males. Police view men much more suspiciously than women because men commit an inordinate amount of the crime. If this is just, however, shouldn’t we apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of crime? And if considering racial factors is “racial profiling” and must be eliminated, isn’t considering sexual factors “sex profiling”? Shouldn’t it also be forbidden?
Of course, racial factors are considered all the time. If a white man is cruising a bad neighborhood in an expensive car, the police may stop him because they know the probability is relatively high he’s there to buy drugs. And at one time part of the profile of someone in the methamphetamine trade was “white,” as white motorcycle gangs used to be its main players.
Profiling is simply a fancy name for the “application of common sense.” As economist Dr. Walter Williams has pointed out, it’s a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, an Israeli airport-security agent could make far better judgments if he could spend a month living with every prospective traveler, getting to know him and his family. But since this is unrealistic, the agent has to assess probabilities based on the little information he has. And rest assured that the Israelis scrutinize young Muslim men far more closely than elderly Norwegian grandmothers.
We all engage in profiling, as it’s necessary for survival. If a person avoids a group of rough-hewn young men walking down the street, refuses to buy a car off a sleazy-looking used-car salesman, or if a child is wary of petting a strange dog, the individual has engaged in “profiling.” To refuse to thus act would be as silly as a cat not avoiding dogs because there are the odd canine-feline friendships. It could win you the year’s Darwin Award.
Doctors practice profiling, too, when they assess the diseases and conditions for which a patient should be screened. To use some examples Dr. Williams has cited, Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate; black men have a prostate cancer rate twice that of white men; and physicians check women and not men for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop it, and recommend prostate exams for men over 40. When a doctor does this, is he guilty of “racism,” “sexism” and “ageism”?
Reality: if he didn’t consider these relevant racial, sex-related and age-related factors when conducting his duties, he’d be a bad doctor. In light of this, let’s finish the following sentence: If a policeman doesn’t consider relevant racial, sex-related and age-related factors when conducting his duties, he’s _ ___ _________.
Oh, note that any politician, activist or voter who encourages him to be a _ ___ _________ is a bad citizen.
And there are many relevant group-related factors for authorities to consider. Men account for 81 percent of all violent-crime arrests; those aged 15–24, though only 14 percent of the population, account for approximately 40 percent of all arrests; and 96 percent of all crime in NYC is committed by blacks and Hispanics. Should these facts be ignored by authorities?
There are belief-oriented factors in crime as well. There was quite a bit of terrorism in the 1970s, perpetrated mainly by left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, anti-Vietnam War protesters and the Black Panthers. Thus, harboring these groups’ beliefs was part of the terrorist profile. Today, almost all the terrorism bedeviling us is committed by Muslims. Should authorities in 2015 play the three-monkeys game and ignore a clear-cut and consistent belief-oriented association with terrorism?
FACT: “Muslim” is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile. Anyone who denies this in political correctness’ name is hurting our country and should be shamed, stigmatized and ostracized. He should hear: “You’re a bad person. You’re a malefactor. And you’re aiding and abetting terrorism.”
Mind you, even those who rail against good profiling — using the propaganda term “racial profiling” — profile using racial factors. They just do it all wrong. Immediately after the San Bernardino shooting, MSNBC suggested it might be the work of pro-lifers (profile: “white”). CNN opined that it could have been perpetrated by militia types (profile: “white”). It was the kind of dishonesty inspiring some leftists to claim that white people are our biggest terror threat. Yet this assertion uses a raw-numbers comparison of murderers from a group representing 62 percent of the population with those from a group representing less than 2 percent of it, conflates a category with a creed (non-ideological mass killings with Islam-inspired incidents), and confuses acts of deranged minds with global jihad. Moreover, as I illustrated last year using statistical analysis, it’s a myth that whites commit in inordinate percentage of mass shootings.
Despite this, we’re supposed to believe criminal profiling is criminal itself when applied to some of the most criminally inclined groups. You can profile men. You can profile the young. You can profile whites. But profile Muslims or some other thought-police favored group, and you’re told you’re bigoted. It isn’t consistent application of good criminological science that indicates prejudice, however. Rather, that’s reflected in refusing to do so, in discriminating when applying that science — in contravention of its own findings.
During a presidential debate years ago, Ambassador Alan Keyes, a black man, was asked by a moderator if he’d be upset if a policeman stopped him because he was black. Keyes responded (I’m paraphrasing), “Yes, I’d be upset. I’d be upset at all of the young black men who committed crimes and caused authorities to look upon me more suspiciously.” We can all get offended, or pretend to be offended, by reality. But since I as a man want to be safe from crime, I accept that “male” will often be part of a criminal profile. If a young person wants to be safe from crime, he’ll accept that “young” will often be part of a criminal profile. If a black person wants to be safe from crime, he’ll accept that “black” will often be part of a criminal profile. Now, here’s another sentence to finish: If a person calling himself Muslim wants to be safe from terrorism, he’ll accept that “______” __ ____ __ ___ _________ _______.
If a politician can’t fill in those blanks, then that’s precisely what he’s shooting in the war against Muslim terrorism.
EDITORS NOTE:Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com. The following countries ban the entry of Jews: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/profiling.jpg351640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-12-09 17:42:142015-12-10 04:25:06“Racial” and “Religious” Profiling Now — or Death Later
From U.S. and Canadian news reports comes evidence that the murderous Jihadi couple, Tafsheen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farooq had allegedly long been radicalized. The picture above from ABC News is a shot taken on July 27, 2014 when the couple went through customs at O’Hare International Airport after Ms. Malik had secured a K-1 fiancée Visa to come to the U.S. with her intended husband Farooq.
The Customs photo caught them in Sharia compliant garb reflective of professing fundamentalist Muslims. They were returning from an extensive trip that took Farooq to Saudi Arabia to meet Malik and hence to her parent’s home in Multan in Central Pakistan before returning together to California. There is the suspicion that Ms. Malik had undergone formal radicalization in her native Pakistan. Information on Malik’s background is emerging from independent investigations about her attendance at an Al Huda women’s Islamic Academy in Multan, one of several across Pakistan propounding a Salafist Islamic doctrine.
Tashfeen Malik studied at Al Huda, a chain of religious institutes that teach a fundamentalist strain of Islam, while she was enrolled in a university in Pakistan’s Punjab region several years ago, according to two fellow students.
The two former classmates of Malik’s at Bahauddin Zakariya University in the city of Multan said she regularly attended Al Huda classes, whose stated objective is to bring women “back to their religious roots.”
“She used to go to attend sessions in Al Huda almost every day,” said one of the former classmates, who spoke on condition she not be identified. “She was not too close to any class fellow.”
The former classmate said that Malik, who studied pharmacology at the university, did not share her thoughts on religious issues.
Pakistani security expert points out the ‘fundamentalist’ Islamic doctrine propounded by Al Huda:
Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani security analyst, said Al Huda teaches women “fundamentalist” ideas, though it does not necessarily promote a jihadist agenda.
“I call Al Huda the fourth generation of religious seminaries. It does not promote use of violence but takes you closer to the red line,” she said. “Now, it is a personal decision to cross the red line and take or give one’s life.”
Siddiqa said that the impact of the institutes is widespread, because a child who attends can influence other members of her family. “People would be familiar with, for instance, a daughter going to an Al Huda changing the mother and eventually the entire household. This dynamic is mirrored in more traditional seminaries as well.”
Malik, 29, was born in Pakistan to a land-owning, politically influential family in Karor Lal Esan, in southern Punjab province. Though Malik’s family moved to Saudi Arabia when she was a child, she returned to Punjab to study pharmacology at Bahauddin Zakariya University from 2007 to 2012.
One of her professors, Dr. Nisar Hussain, recalled her as “a very hardworking and submissive student,” and “an obedient girl.” He said she came to school veiled.
“She was religious, but a very normal person as well,” Hussain said in an interview. “I cannot even imagine she could murder people.”
A family member in Pakistan who asked not to be identified said that she had been a “modern girl” who changed during college.
After university, Malik returned to Saudi Arabia. In the last few years, she entered into a relationship with Syed Rizwan Farooq, a Southern Californian of Pakistani descent who she met online.
Another Pakistani academic expert noted the credo expounded in the Al Huda seminaries:
Sadaf Ahmad, an assistant professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, has written that Al Huda founder Farhat Hashmi’s denunciation of various cultural practices and disapproval of Westerners and Indians gives women a new conception of their identity as Muslims.
Ahmad found Al Huda graduates “very intolerant and judgmental toward people who were different from them.”
While in Multan, [Malik] also attended a religious school, which Pakistani intelligence officials on Monday identified as the Al Huda International Seminary. The school is a women-only madrassa with branches across Pakistan and in the U.S. and Canada, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations.
The Canadian branch is based in Mississauga, Ont., according to the foundation’s website.
Al Huda’s founder, Farhat Hashmi, who now lives in Canada, has been criticized for promoting a conservative strain of Islam, though the school has no known links to extremists.
Hashmi was not available to comment on Monday, as she is currently in Pakistan, said a staff member at the school’s Canadian branch. The school also released a statement condemning the shooting in California and saying it was looking to increase security around its Mississauga campus.
Hashmi is on the payroll of Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in Canada:
Hashmi’s name surfaced on the payroll of one of Canada’s largest Islamic organizations, despite her not actually working there. An audit in 2011 revealed the Islamic Society of North America Canada was trying to help her immigrate to Canada.
Note the heavy concentration of extremist support in the central region of Pakistan and Malik’s course of study:
The region where the school is located, however, is home to thousands of extremist seminaries, with hundreds of them linked to al-Qaida and the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan, which supports Islamic militants battling archrival India in the disputed region of Kashmir and is widely believed to have ties to insurgents in Afghanistan, has long turned a blind eye to institutions that teach radical interpretations of Islam.
Malik spent more than a year at Al Huda, taking classes six days a week, the school’s spokeswoman Farrukh Chaudhry told The Associated Press.
She enrolled in a two-year course to study the Qur’an, its translation and interpretation, but did not finish the course, Chaudhry added. Malik was a student there from April 17, 2013 until May 3, 2014, when she handed in her last paper in the first-year curriculum, the spokeswoman said.
“According to our records, this girl didn’t complete the course,” Chaudhry said, speaking over the phone from the southern port city of Karachi where she is based. “She told us that she was going to get married in two months, and after that she will leave for America.”
Pakistani police and intelligence are conducting further investigations into Malik and her family:
Pakistani authorities have also been looking into Malik’s time in Multan. Police and intelligence agents have searched the house where she lived on two occasions since Friday. Shabana Saif, a counterterrorism official, said intelligence agents seized documents, family photo albums and a laptop belonging to Malik’s sister, Shahida, who was studying engineering at a Pakistani college. It is not clear whether the house, which has been sealed, was owned by Tashfeen or her father.
Watch this AFP TV video report on the Pakistani University where Tashfeen Malik studied:
You may recall this comment from Asra Nomani, former Wall Street Journalist, author and colleague of the late Daniel Pearl in Pakistan from Sunday’s NBC Meet the Press segment on Islam and ISIS:
I saw it in 2002, went to Islamabad, Pakistan, and met women who were supporting this ideology. I call them the Taliban Ladies Auxiliary back then. This young woman in California would’ve been a star member of it.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured photo, obtained by ABC News, shows Tashfeen Malik, center, and Syed Rizwan Farook, right, going through Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on July 27, 2014.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ht_malik_farook_airport_BUGGED_BG_lf_151206_4x3_992-e1449591903100.jpg430640Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2015-12-08 11:27:502015-12-08 15:07:32VIDEO: Tafsheen Malik Radicalized at Women’s Islamic Academy
In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.
One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.
Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.
“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”
Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.
We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”
In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.
It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”
This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”
Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”
The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider
Saudi Arabia’s determined spread of extremist Wahhabist Islamist ideology to the farthest corners of the world (spending an estimated $100 billion over the past 30 years to build mosques and supply them with radical preachers, and to endow universities with Middle Eastern study programs) as well as their involvement in 9/11;
Turkey, which likely serves as the Islamic State’s de facto tactical base.
The current administration’s engagement of extremists in the Islamic world has also been reflected through America’s support of the Muslim Brotherhoodin Egypt and at home.
However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.
All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.
The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”
In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/United-State-California-Shooting-Memorial-640-e1449563623837.gif339640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2015-12-08 03:36:372015-12-08 03:36:37San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy
On Sunday Venezuela completed its legislative election for 2015. Current Communist President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro has acknowledged defeat from Sunday’s elections.
This was the worst beating for the ruling “Chavismo” movement since Hugo Chavez took power in 1999.
Somebody dropped a banana down his pants and let a monkey lose.
The freedom forces on Sunday crushed the Communist forces controlling Venezuela.
They have won the legislature for the first time in 16 years giving them the power to bury Comrade President Nicolas Maduro’s oppressive Cuban style rule.
The opposition Democratic Unity coalition won 99 seats to the Socialists’ 46 in the 167-national National Assembly, the election board said, with some districts still to be counted. Capitalism has been restored in the state legislature.
Thousands of Fireworks were set off in celebration. The Communists had on only once choice and that was to shut down their planned victory parties pack up their Hammer and Sickles and head home.
Patriots, time is drawing near quickly when the opposition leadership in Venezuela being held in jails modeled after Fidel’s Castro’s gulags will be free. This is good news.
Last month Argentina fired its Communist leadership.
Next November President Obama, the Communist sitting in Washington D.C. and his Democrat Party will face the same slap in the face and hopefully will face prosecution for his crimes against the Republic.
Whether from his gun running operation to the Mexican Cartels, or for shipping weapons to the Islamic State in Syria via the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya and the list goes on.
This prosecution for crimes against the U.S. Constitution and freedom loving people in this great republic will be accomplished from the new Justice Department.
This will be implemented by President Trump. Plans are already in the works. Mr… Obama should probably start looking to hire attorneys now.
I would encourage the GOP led congress and its leadership to send a letter of congratulations to the Democratic Unity coalition leadership and to send a letter to
President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro demanding the immediate release of all political prisoners from Venezuelan jails.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/venezuela-libre-e1449523558477.jpg426640Geoff Rosshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeoff Ross2015-12-07 16:28:042015-12-07 16:28:04Freedom for Venezuela
In the midst of the swirl of events following the Jihad massacre in San Bernardino, a “Summit for 20 Western Muslim Voices for Reform against the Islamic State and Islamism,” was organized in Washington, D.C. At the conclusion a news conference was held at the National Press Club. The press conference capped a two day conference the purpose of which was to publish Declaration of Muslim Reform principles. At the rostrum was an international contingent of reformers from Canada, the U.S., Europe and Pakistan. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Forum for Islam and Democracy was the organizer and moderator of the event. A list of the organizations and participants can be found here. The principles of the reform declaration, as published in a Gatestone Institute article, co-authored by Dr. Jasser and Raheel Raza are:
We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.
We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language, belief, religion, sexual orientation and gender expression.
We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty.
Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights.
We stand for peace, human rights and secular governance. Please stand with us!
Watch this You Tube video of the Muslim Reform Summit press conference:
Washington Islamic Center custodian removing Muslim Reform Movement Declaration December 4, 2015. Source: Muslim Reform Movement.
Following the conclusion of the National Press Club event, two women from the group headed over to Massachusetts Avenue, the location of the Saudi financed and controlled Washington Islamic Center. They nailed a signed copy of the Muslim reform declaration to its door. That was modeled on the 95 Theses that Martin Luther nailed to the door of the All Saints Church on October 31, 1517 that purportedly sparked the Protestant reformation. However, within seconds a caretaker came out and tore it off the Center’s door.
The daunting problem that the Muslim reformers face is that normative Islam believes that there is no need for reform since any distortion of the uncreated words of Allah, would be deemed idolatrous. However, given the declarations by Egyptian President El-Sisi in a meeting with leading Sunni clerics at Al Azhar University in Cairo on New Year’s 2015, at least one Muslim country leader believes that Islam is in dire need of reform. He says that is required to combat the apocalyptic pure Islamic terrorism espoused by the self-declared Caliphate of the Islamic State.
One of the women who participated in the Washington Islamic Center event was former Wall Street Journalist and author of Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam, Asra Nomani. Normani was a colleague of the late Dan Pearl in Pakistan. She saw him off in October 2002, never to return, kidnapped and slaughtered by 9/11 Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). She was also involved in the 2011 investigations that led to KSM being identified as Pearl’s killer. Nomani is U.S. born, the daughter of Indian Muslims from Mumbai who settled in Huntington, West Virginia. She is a graduate of both the University of West Virginia and American University.
Asra Q. Nomani
Nomani is in league with other Muslim and former Muslim women like Raheel Raza, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and other like minded reformers who believe the effort to reform should be started. Nonetheless, she is doubtlessly viewed as an apostate, heterodox in the standards of normative Sunni Islam. Having said that she is a fearless defender of personal freedoms for Muslim women reflected in her proposed Muslim women bill of rights. Further she recognizes the problems that both she and the others at the Reform Summit see as persisting in Political Islam. Sharia that follows of way of Allah demanding devotion to Jihad against unbelievers.
This morning Nomani was paired off against Dalia Mogahed, a former Gallup pollster on Islam ,now director of research for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Mogahed is what the Obama White House considers as an exemplary American Muslim woman, resplendent in her Hijab.
Back in July 2010, we wrote about Mogahed’s appointment by President Obama to the White House Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She is coauthor of the book and film Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. She worked Dr. John L. Esposito, a Georgetown University colleague at the Prince Alaweed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. At the Jasser contended in a report by The Investigative Project that Ms. Mogahed’s outreach to radical Muslim groups did not help.
Dalia Mogahed
The damage is immeasurable to Muslims seeking non-radical alternatives. They are going to say, why bother? The government has chosen sides in the conflict.
Note this exchange among Rich Lowry of the National Review, Dalia Mogahed and Asra Nomani from today’s NBC Meet the Presstranscript:
RICH LOWRY:
Well, it seems to me that this debate, whether Islam is a religion of peace or not, really, it’s irrelevant for outsiders. It’s for Muslims to decide whether it’s a religion of peace or not. And if enough of them do, then you cut off the oxygen to the radicals. But at the moment, the extremists have significant financial popular and theological backing in the Middle East. And that is an enduring phenomenon. And it’s one that is going to require a long, ideological war to win.
DALIA MOGAHED:
I’m sorry, I’m going to have to disagree with you. They simply do not have ideological, theological, or popular support. And this is a criminal organization that is funding their criminality with things like drug trade and selling oil. They do not have the ideological support that you’re describing at all. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. They’ve had a number of voices from across the spectrum say that what they’re doing is completely un-Islamic. They have no support popularly, in terms of the general public. So–
RICH LOWRY:
But yet they’re still there.
DALIA MOGAHED:
But so are many other terrorist organizations. And their primary victims are Muslims. I think that’s very important.
ASRA NOMANI:
And to that point, I think what speaks loudest and what speaks to your point is the blood that’s spilling from Australia, to now California. I mean, how much blood has to be spilled until we recognize inside of a Muslim community that we do have an ideological problem? And that we do have support? I mean, there are–
DALIA MOGAHED:
I think the blood is spilling in Syria and it’s mostly Muslims–
ASRA NOMANI:
Excuse me. There are hundreds and hundreds of followers of Islamic State around Europe and the U.S. The Saudis are showing this. And all you have to do is look at the conversation inside of our mosques and inside of our communities. And you will hear it. And I hear it. And I have to say that I saw it in 2002, went to Islamabad, Pakistan, and met women who were supporting this ideology. I call them the Taliban Ladies Auxiliary back then. This young woman in California would’ve been a star member of it.
Watch the Meet the Press segment with Asra Nomani dueling Dalia Mogahed:
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Islamic_Center_of_Washington_-_2551_Massachusetts_Avenue_NW1.jpg409637Jerry Gordonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJerry Gordon2015-12-07 04:56:082015-12-07 04:59:48Declaration of Muslim Reform nailed to door of Islamic Center in Washington, D.C.
On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia. Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promotetolerance, to ensurepublic safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)…”
She went on to say, “Since becoming Attorney General last February, I have heard from Arab Americans and Muslims who say they feel uneasy about their relationship with the United States government. Some feel that they have not been afforded the full rights of citizenship. Others are worried about the safety of their families, communities, and places of worship. And, too often, Muslims and Arab Americans have told me that they feel as though they are treated by their fellow citizens, by their government, and especially by those of us in law enforcement as though it were ‘us versus them.’ That is unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with what America is all about.”
So if a few Muslims are worried about the safety of their families, their communities, and their places of worship, what is that compared to the fear and dread that radical Islamists have spread among the hundreds of millions of peace-loving people of Europe and North America? And if Muslims and Arab-Americans feel as if they are the victims of an “us versus them” political and social environment, just who do they think created that atmosphere? It is not Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims who have rejected Muslims, it s Muslims who have come to our country and have refused to assimilate into our culture. Not only have they not assimilated into our culture, they have let it be known that it is their intention to obliterate our culture and our form of government from the face of the Earth.
Lynch went on to say, “Muslims and Arab Americans have helped to build and strengthen our nation. They have served as police officers, teachers, civic leaders and soldiers – strengthening their local communities and safeguarding their country. And the cooperation of Muslim and Arab-American communities has been absolutely essential in identifying, and preventing, terrorist threats. We must never lose sight of this. And, as we work to create a brighter and more prosperous future, we must not fail to heed the lessons of our past.”
No one but an Obama administration toady could ever stand up in public and say with a straight face that Muslims and Arab-Americans have helped to “build and strengthen” our nation, have played a vital role in “identifying and preventing terrorist threats,” and have worked to “build a brighter and more prosperous future” for all Americans.
When asked to comment on the Obama administration’s attitude toward anti-Muslim rhetoric in the days since the Paris attacks, she said, “My message to the Muslim community is that we
stand with you in this. Where we do see anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions turning into violence, we do take action… We have charged 225 defendants with hate crimes over the last six years… most of those in the last three years. Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over forty-five prosecutions…”
She went on to say, “I think it’s important, however, that as we again talk about the importance of free speech, we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they’re not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.
Looking directly into the camera, she said, “My greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all the American people, is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence… When it comes to combating these heinous crimes, our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry – no matter the object or nature of your hate – we will bring you to justice.
Lynch challenged her Muslim audience, saying, “Often, you learn of incidents before law enforcement and I encourage you to report these incidents to the Justice Department. I assure you: each and every report of a potential hate crime is taken seriously and, as our record of recent activity makes clear, we will investigate and prosecute violations of federal law whenever we can. Last year, two Tennessee men were sentenced to more than 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to spray painting swastikas and the words ‘white power’ on a mosque – and then starting a fire that destroyed the mosque. And last month, an Illinois man was sentenced to one year in prison after he pleaded guilty to sending a threatening e-mail to a mosque.”
Either the attorney general has failed to notice that, in recent years, nearly every act of violence stemming from hateful rhetoric has originated in the Muslim community, or she was delivering a stern message to the Muslim community that, unless they behave themselves, they would find themselves praying to Allah five times a day from behind prison walls. However, being Barack Obama’s principal legal henchman, it’s pretty obvious to all concerned, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that her thinly-veiled threats were directed toward non-Muslims.
Reaction to the attorney general’s threat was swift and predictable. Radio talk show host Joe Walsh, a former congressman from Illinois’ 8th Congressional District (suburban Chicago) produced the below YouTube video describing exactly how he feels about Muslims and challenging the attorney general to have him arrested.
In his video, he said, “You come out today and you say you’re going to prosecute Americans who use anti-Muslim speech. That doesn’t happen in this country. I can say what I want about Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I think Islam has a real “fricking” problem, alright? There’s a cancer in Islam. And if they’re not gonna’ learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.
“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that? Then throw me in jail. Here… I’ll give you a perfect opportunity. I think Islam is evil. I think Islam’s got a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want ‘em here. So, what?… you’re worried about a backlash against Muslims?”
“Fourteen Americans were killed three days ago and you come up the next day and say you’re greatest fear is anti-Muslim backlash. Well, you know what? I hope there is a backlash. There should be a backlash. I’m going to encourage a backlash. And you know what, Loretta Lynch? If that bothers you, prosecute me. Throw me in jail.”
In a written follow-up, Walsh argued that “most Muslims around the world are (either) terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law.” He went on to say, “Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”
Directing his final words to Loretta Lynch, he said, “Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that edges toward violence? Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”
As sharply divided as liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are on these issues, one wonders how those liberals and Democrats who support the Obama administration’s policies on Muslim immigration would react when posed with a problem that brings the question of life-or-death a bit closer to home.
Since the San Bernardino attack, conservatives have attempted to put the Muslim immigration question into a context that even liberals can understand. For example, on June 13, 2014, CNN reported that more than 4,000 pounds of rib-eye and other fresh beef, produced by the Fruitland American Meat Company in Jackson, Missouri, were subject to recall because of a fear that the meats could contain mad cow disease. The meat in question was distributed by the Whole Foods distribution center in Connecticut, which services all of New England, one restaurant in New York, and one restaurant in Kansas City, Missouri.
With the understanding that northeastern liberals and Democrats appear quite willing to go along with Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Muslims each year because of the belief that only five out of every 100 (5%) of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, how much of the suspect meat would New Englanders purchase if they were assured that no more than 5% of the meat was contaminated with mad cow disease? If, as an inducement, Whole Foods reduced the price of prime filet mignon and rib-eye steaks to 50ȼ per pound, would New Englanders and New Yorkers be willing to take a chance?
For the Obama base, the low information voters of America, conservatives have restated the question in terms that even they might understand. They were asked, “If you were presented with a bowl of 100 M&Ms and told that five of the 100 pieces were toxic (poisonous), how many pieces of candy would you eat?” Even they, accustomed as they are to accepting “freebies,” would have sense enough to decline.
When Loretta Lynch was before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation in April 2015, most conservatives held high hopes that she would be a welcome change from her lawless predecessor, Eric Holder. However, all hope were dashed when Lynch refused to assure senators that, under her leadership, even the president of the United States would be required to obey the law and to uphold the U.S. Constitution. What a disappointment she has been. She must go.
And as for me, I’m with Joe Walsh. If I can’t criticize radical Islamists, then come get me.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lorettalynch-e1449390825746.jpg322640Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-12-06 03:35:152015-12-06 06:18:18Loretta Lynch Must Go
The Los Angeles Times produced a report on the Pakistani Al Huda Islamist women’s seminaries and Ms. Malik’s attendance at the one in Multan, 
On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10