The Humanitarian Hoax of the Lone Wolf: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

For 55 years Americans have been expected to believe the “lone wolf” theory of murder.

From President Kennedy’s shocking assassination to the savagery of radical Islamic terror and now the horrifying mass murder of concertgoers in Las Vegas. In art and entertainment there is a term “suspension of disbelief” which is defined as the willingness to suspend one’s critical thinking faculties and believe the unbelievable. Suspension of disbelief is a participatory and voluntary experience of sacrificing logic for the sake of enjoyment.

Suspension of disbelief in the fifties happened when we went to the movies and allowed ourselves to believe that Clark Kent was Superman. Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Clark Kent, the mild-mannered reporter was fighting a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way.

Lee Harvey Oswald

Suspension of disbelief in 1963 was believing that President John F. Kennedy was killed by “lone wolf” Lee Harvey Oswald who shot a magic bullet that changed trajectories in mid-flight. Oswald was then conveniently murdered by terminally ill Jack Ruby. Skeptical Americans were very suspicious. After all, this was real life not the movies. The government doubled down on suspension of disbelief and the public was expected to believe the Warren Commission’s dubious conclusion that it was that “lone wolf” again shooting his magic bullet. The public was considered far too fragile to handle the truth. Suspension of disbelief applied to real life was rationalized as an altruistic act of kindness. Really?

On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by Islamic terrorists who hijacked passenger planes and flew them into the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon killing over 3,000 Americans. No one could seriously posit the lone wolf theory so instead Americans were expected to believe the lone group theory – Al-Qaeda was the first enemy group to be identified. As the Islamic terrorist movement expanded more groups were created and terrorist attacks that could not be linked to a specific group were dismissed as lone wolf attacks.

Over and over again experts in Islamic theology and men and women who had lived in Islamic countries told America that there are no lone wolves. Even the terrorists themselves announced that Islam is Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Islamic terrorism is inspired by the commandments in the Koran that unite jihadis in violence against all infidels. Islamic terrorism is one of several jihadi tactics being used to re-establish the Islamic caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide.

Osama bin Laden

Western left-wing liberal politicians and the colluding mainstream media continue to insist that Radical Islamic terror is not an existential threat. Instead they insist upon public suspension of disbelief and the belief in the lone wolf theory of murder. Why? Because it works!

Although it strains credulity – people WANT to believe the lone wolf theory because it calms their fears and makes them FEEL safe and secure. The problem is that feelings are not facts. We are not living in a Hollywood movie that ends in two hours. Suspension of disbelief is dangerous in real life. Islamic terrorism is a real fact of 21st century life and is an existential threat to the American way.

The murderous October 2 attack in Las Vegas is yet another call for suspension of disbelief. Here we go again. The American public is expected to believe the lone wolf theory of murder – that a flabby 64 year old without military training managed to smash two windows of the Mandalay Bay hotel and shoot concertgoers 1100 feet away for eleven minutes before conveniently killing himself. Eyewitness accounts of multiple shooters – immediately dismissed. Eyewitness accounts of shooters on lower floors – immediately dismissed. Gun experts assessments of the impossibility of this man being a lone wolf – immediately dismissed. Past military experts assessments of the impossibility of this man being a lone wolf – immediately dismissed. All hotel video evidence immediately confiscated by the F.B.I. and multiple YouTube videos challenging the lone wolf theory immediately removed as hate speech!

Massacre in Las Vegas.

Feeling safe is not the same as being safe. Whoever is demanding that the American public suspend their critical thinking faculties and believe the unbelievable is an enemy of the state. There are no lone wolves in real life. There are no magic bullets in real life. There is no Clark Kent in real life – but the never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way remains.

The assassination of JFK was not a Hollywood movie. Radical Islamic terrorism is not a Hollywood movie. The massacre in Las Vegas is not a Hollywood movie. If the American public chooses to willingly suspend its disbelief in the real life battle for truth, justice, and the American way we will have voluntarily surrendered ourselves to the real enemies of the state.

After 241 years American freedom will finally be lost because a willfully blind American public was seduced by the Humanitarian Hoax of the lone wolf advanced by leftist humanitarian hucksters promising safety to a public too frightened to live in reality. The Humanitarian Hoax will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

RELATED ARTICLE: FBI Warns Of More Violence From ‘Black Identity Extremist’ Groups

RELATED VIDEO: D’Souza shuts down argument for gun control.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity.

Catalonia Shows the Danger of Disarming Civilians

/in , , , , , , /by

October 1 showed the US why we need civilian guns.

Laura Williams

by  Laura Williams

Since the tragic murder of 59 peaceful concertgoers in Las Vegas Sunday, I’ve heard well-intentioned Americans from all political corners echoing heartbroken and tempting refrains:

Can’t we just ban guns?

Surely we can all get together on the rocket launchers.

Things like this would happen less often.

We have enough military.

While victims were still in surgery, some took to television and social media to criticize the “outdated” and “dangerous” Second Amendment to the Constitution. They have lived so long in a safe, stable society that they falsely believe armed citizens are a threat to life and liberty for everyone.

Those who claim to see no necessity or benefits of individual gun ownership need only look to the rolling hills of Catalonia, where a live social experiment is currently unfolding.

Unarmed Patriots

Just hours before an alleged lone gunman opened fire from the Mandalay Bay casino, the citizens of a small region surrounding Barcelona, Spain, cast a vote for their regional independence. Catalonia’s citizens have a unique language, culture, and history, and consider Spain a neighboring power, not their rightful rulers. So as America’s Continental Congress heroically did (and as Texans and Californians occasionally threaten to do) Catalonia wished to declare independence and secede.

Spain has enacted, it would seem, the kind of “common sense restrictions” American gun-control advocates crave.

Polling stations in Catalonia were attacked by heavily armed agents of the state with riot gear and pointed rifles. Spanish National Police fired rubber bullets and unleashed tear gas canisters on voters, broke down polling center doors, disrupted the vote, and destroyed enough ballots to throw results into serious doubt.Exceedingly few of those would-be patriots were armed.

In Spain, firearm ownership is not a protected individual right. Civilian firearms licenses are restricted to “cases of extreme necessity” if the government finds “genuine reason.” Background checks, medical exams, and license restrictions further restrict access. Licenses are granted individually by caliber and model, with automatic weapons strictly forbidden to civilians. Police can demand a citizen produce a firearm at any time for inspection or confiscation. Spain has enacted, it would seem, the kind of “common sense restrictions” American gun-control advocates crave.

But of course, that doesn’t mean that Spanish citizens don’t buy guns. In fact, Spanish taxpayers maintain an enormous arsenal of weapons, which are all in the hands [of] “professional armed police forces within the administration of the state, who are the persons in charge of providing security to the population.”

Those agents of the state weren’t “providing security to the population” of Catalonia on Sunday — they were pointing guns at would-be founding patriots who had challenged the rule of their oppressors.

“If somebody tries to declare the independence of part of the territory — something that cannot be done — we will have to do everything possible to apply the law,” Spain’s justice minister said in a public address.  While many polling places were closed or barricaded, 2.3 million voters (90% in favor of independence) were permitted to vote, he claimed, “because the security forces decided that it wasn’t worth using force because of the consequences that it could have.”

The consequences of a government using force to control those it is sworn to protect must be high. When citizens are armed, the consequences for tyranny rise and its likelihood falls.

Armed Tyrants

Americans have grown too trustful of the State, too ready to assume bureaucrats have only our best interests at heart. Even with a maniacal man-child in the Oval Office, many are seemingly eager to turn over individual liberty to those who promise to manage our lives for us. The United States was designed to be the smallest government in the history of the world, with no standing army, and little right to intrude in the private activities of its citizens. Instead, we have the most powerful and intrusive government in human history, with 800 permanent military bases in 70 countries, unfathomable firepower, and staggering surveillance capabilities. Unchecked abuses of power are routine and tolerated.

67 federal agencies, including the IRS and the FDA, have military weapons, according to the OpenTheBooks Oversight Report The Militarization of America. Among the most intrusive programs, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Authority, do not disclose their weaponry budget.

Don’t say “Americans shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns” when what you mean is “citizens should only be allowed to buy guns for their rulers.”

The number of armed government officials with arrest and firearm authority has doubled since 1996. The US now has more armed “civilian” federal officers (200,000+) than US Marines (182,000). The IRS spends millions of taxpayer dollars annually on pump-action shotguns, AR-15 rifles, riot gear, and Special Forces contractors to train thousands of “special agents” in targeting American citizens. Local police, sheriffs, and state troopers have also been armed to wage war against American citizens. Battlefield weapons are being given to state and local police, allegedly to combat drug trafficking and fight terrorist threats at local pumpkin festivals. Military SWAT-style raids are used to serve search warrants for low-level drug possession, not hostage situations. Relatives and neighbors of alleged criminals have had government guns held to their children’s heads. Violations of civil rights, including illegal searches and the seizure of money and property without evidence of any crime, are commonplace.

Law enforcement requests military equipment directly from the Pentagon’s war-fighting machine: tanks, machine guns, rocket launchers, tear gas, camouflage, shields, and gas masks.  Military equipment is often purchased with civil asset forfeiture slush funds to bypass legislative appropriations challenges.

The high percentage of civilian law enforcement who are military veterans (one in five, by some estimates) compounds the cultural risks of treating average Americans like enemy combatants.

Showdowns between civilians and heavily armed agents of the state in Ferguson, Baltimore, the Oregon Wildlife Refuge, and at various other political protests across the country should remind us that gun control advocates won’t be reducing the number of guns so much as shifting them all into either federal or criminal hands.

The senseless murder in Las Vegas is a frighteningly familiar tragedy. But don’t say “Americans shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns” when what you mean is “citizens should only be allowed to buy guns for their rulers.”

Laura Williams

Laura Williams

Dr. Laura Williams teaches communication strategy to undergraduates and executives. She is a passionate advocate for critical thinking, individual liberties, and the Oxford Comma.

RELATED ARTICLE: Steve Scalise: Being a Victim of a Shooting Fortified My Support For The Second Amendment

VIDEO: Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin on Gun Control and the Las Vegas Massacre

/in , , , , , /by

The Daily Signal posted the below video on its YouTube channel:

President Trump in his statement immediately after the Las Vegas massacre said:

Our unity cannot be shattered by evil. Our bonds cannot be broken by violence. And though we feel such great anger at the senseless murder of our fellow citizens, it is our love that defines us today — and always will, forever.

In times such as these, I know we are searching for some kind of meaning in the chaos, some kind of light in the darkness. The answers do not come easy. But we can take solace knowing that even the darkest space can be brightened by a single light, and even the most terrible despair can be illuminated by a single ray of hope.

It seems that some people focus on the weapons of choice rather than the person committing the act of violence. Evil exists in this toxic environment where individuals and groups call for the killing of those who do not agree with them. Some Muslims have called for a holy war (jihad) against President Trump and his supporters.

Focus on the good. Reject evil. As President Trump said, “Scripture teaches us, “The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.” We seek comfort in those words, for we know that God lives in the hearts of those who grieve. To the wounded who are now recovering in hospitals, we are praying for your full and speedy recovery, and pledge to you our support from this day forward.”

Embrace the light, reject the darkness.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ann Coulter: Media Find Las Vegas Shooter’s Motive: He’s White!

FBI Warns Of More Violence From ‘Black Identity Extremist’ Groups

ISIS labels those killed and wounded in Las Vegas ‘Crusaders’ — Why?

/in , , , /by

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) issued the following statement about the massacre in Las Vegas:

The ISIS statement on the massacre in Las Vegas refers to those wounded and injured as “crusaders.” ISIS goes on to call those attending the outdoor concert as members of “the crusader alliance” and the event as a “Crusader gathering.”

QUESTION: Why? ANSWER: It’s a big lie!

Thomas F. Madden, professor of Medieval History and Renaissance Studies as Saint Louis University, is a recognized expert on the Crusades. Professor Madden in his book “The Crusades Controversy: Setting the Record Straight” notes, “Prior to September 11, 2001, the world was a different place. Then, the Crusades were a faraway concept, an odd series of events in a distant and murky medieval past. Wars of religion seemed largely irrelevant to citizens of a modern secular civilization. That has changed.”

Professor Madden’s expertise in the Crusades brought him into the lime light and lead him to write how we got to this point in time. Professor Madden wrote that Osama Bin Laden, “never failed to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam, and the Americans themselves as crusaders…The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), for example, routinely refers to the United States, Israel, and European nations as ‘crusader states.’ Ironically this perspective is not an uncommon view in the Middle East.”

On October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada, nearly 600 innocent people paid the price in these ongoing “wars of religion” against the “crusader nations.”

Professor Madden notes that the Crusades were defensive acts to stop the spread of Islam. He writes, “Pope Urban II called the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war.” Why did they do it? For two reasons:

  1. The first was to redeem [free from oppression] the Christians of the East.
  2. The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ.

Professor Madden writes:

The word crusade is modern. Medieval crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims to the Holy Sepulcher.

[ … ]

The re-conquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was understood by Christians as an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God.

[ … ]

In Medieval Europe, Crusades to the East were universally seen as acts of tremendous good. And how could they not? A crusader was one who, at great expense and personal peril, sought to rescue the downtrodden, defend the defenseless, and restore to Christendom what had been violently taken away. A Crusade indulgence, then, was a formal recognition of the penitential component of these actions. Crusaders were sinners. They undertook the Crusade not only to defend their world, but to atone for their sins. By the nature of their profession, warriors put their souls at risk. The Crusade was a means for them to save their souls. And that was no small thing. I the medieval world, where death was always near at hand, the salvation of one’s soul meant everything. It was a matter of constant concern. [Emphasis added]

Of the eight Crusade expeditions that occurred between 1096 and 1291, only the First Crusade was a success.

“The last Christian outpost in the Holy Land fell in 1291. In subsequent centuries the dramatic growth of Muslim power, particularly under the Ottoman Empire, spelled only further defeats for the West. By the fourteenth century the Crusades were no longer wars to turn back Muslim conquests in faraway lands, but desperate and largely unsuccessful attempts to defend Europe itself against Muslim invasion. By the sixteenth century the Ottoman Turks had conquered all of the Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe, including areas today that are Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, and others. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent came within a hair’s breadth of conquering Vienna, which would have left all of Germany at his mercy. Vienna was saved by freak rain storms, not the Crusades,” notes Professor Madden.

For the Arab world the Crusades were of no consequence and long forgotten.

In Chapter Four Professor Madden writes, “The first Arabic history of the Crusades was not written until 1899…Traditionally, Muslims took very little interest in people or events outside the dar al-Islam [house of Islam]…The Crusades were, in any case, unsuccessful and thus irrelevant…In the grand sweep of Islamic history the Crusades simply did not matter.”

The big lie resurrected by former President Bill Clinton after 9/11.

Professor Madden reports:

[I]n a speech delivered at Georgetown University a few weeks after 9/11, former President Bill Clinton stated:

“Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. Indeed, in the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with three hundred Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple Mount, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East, and we are still paying for it.”

Clinton is correct that the story is still told, but it is neither accurate nor is it a long-held memory of a traumatic event. Indeed, the simple and startling fact is that the Crusades were virtually unknown in the Muslim world even a century ago. The term for the Crusades, harb al-salib, was only introduced into the Arab language in the mid-nineteenth century.

Ironically, “The ‘long memory’ of the Crusades in the Muslim world is, in fact, a constructed memory-one in which the memory is much younger than the event itself…[W]hen European colonial powers took control of the Middle East in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, they brought with them a concept of the Crusades and an understanding of their own actions within that medieval context. In books and colonial schools Europeans taught the Muslim world about the Crusades. They were vividly described as heroic enterprises whose aim, like that of the Europeans, was to bring civilization to the Middle East.”

So it was the colonial European West who taught Muslims about the Crusades. And they are still paying for it today.

RELATED ARTICLE: PBS Broadcasts Crusade Myths & Falsehoods

Iranian Nuclear Compliance Agreement is a Fantasy

/in , , /by

Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement is a fantasy on par with the fantasy that North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons and missile development voluntarily. Iran and North Korea are evil partners.

President Reagan once said “Trust but Verify”. President Trump is under pressure from advisers Rex Tillerson and General Mattis among others in his administration to re-certify that Iran is in compliance with Obama’s dreadful nuclear agreement with Iran.

Even though these advisers claim they support President Trump their public statements undermine his policies. They have stated publicly and to Congress that Iran is in compliance with the Nuclear Agreement even though they have no way of determining this is true because Iran refuses to allow inspection of so called military and secret sites where they are free to do anything they choose.

These advisers are lawyering the agreement in order to uphold it disregarding the fact that Iran refuses inspection of various sites in violation of the intent of the agreement. It is the intent that counts even if a lawyer can nitpick the agreement to find a way to uphold it. Obviously these men have not asked themselves what is Iran hiding?

Adequate and full inspections are at the heart of the intent of the agreement. President Trump should not be hood-winked into certifying compliance with an agreement which can’t be verified. Some of Trump’s advisers wish to kick the can down the road in the same way that Great Britain’s Neville Chamberlain and Hitler did in 1939 which led to World War II.

President Trump—If you can’t Verify you can’t Certify.

AIPAC has outlined in the Video below what must be done with respect to Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile program and its aggression in the region.

VIDEO: AIPAC Director of Policy and Government Affairs Brad Gordon outlines a five-part approach to counter the threat from Iran.

VIDEO: The Hillary Emails — Fact vs. Fiction

/in , , , , , /by

Below, is the latest edition of “Inside Judicial Watch,” with Attorney Michael Bekesha on Monday, October 2, 2017, where Michael discussed Hillary Clinton’s email scandal in the context of the former Secretary of State’s latest book, “What Happened.” You won’t find another page-by-page breakdown like this from any other organization besides Judicial Watch, who tirelessly fought in court to bring the Clinton email scandal to light.

Security guard wounded in first ISIS attack in U.S. sues FBI, charges cover-up

/in , , , , , /by

Good for Bruce Joiner. There are many, many unanswered questions about what happened at Garland, and about the FBI was doing there. 60 Minutes ran a feature last March about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland, Texas jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS did a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

What was the FBI’s game in telling them to “tear up Texas”? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending the freedom of speech into silence?

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, soldiers of ISIS.

“Victim of ‘Draw Muhammad’ ISIS-inspired terror attack sues FBI, accuses James Comey of cover-up,” by Todd Shepherd, Washington Examiner, October 2, 2017 (thanks to Marc):

The security guard wounded in a 2015 ISIS-inspired terrorist attack at the “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas, is suing the FBI, and argues the bureau is liable for his damages because an agent “solicited, encouraged, directed and aided members of ISIS in planning and carrying out the May 3 attack,” according to court documents filed Monday.

If the plaintiff, Bruce Joiner, doesn’t settle with the bureau, the case could shake loose hundreds of documents from both local and federal officials about what happened that day, and could answer the question of why an FBI agent was in a car directly behind the attackers and did nothing as the events unfolded.

In May of 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi drove from their home in Phoenix to the Curtis Culwell center in Garland where the “Draw Muhammad” contest was being held, in a car loaded with three rifles, three handguns, and about 1,500 rounds of ammunition.

The two never made it inside, as guards, including Joiner, stopped them outside at a perimeter checkpoint, at which time Simpson and Soofi opened fire. Because the event was heavily guarded, the two were quickly shot and killed and barely made past the checkpoint where they opened fire.

Joiner was the only victim that day. He took a bullet to the left leg, and ISIS would later claim credit for orchestrating the attack, making it the first ISIS-backed terror event on U.S. soil.

Joiner’s lawsuit is seeking just over $8 million in damages, and argues that the FBI essentially allowed the attack to happen.

“The FBI helped the terrorists obtain a weapon that was used in the attack by lifting a hold during a background check, incited the terrorist to attack the Garland event, and even sent an agent to accompany the terrorists as they carried out the attack,” the court filing said.

The filing also alleged that former FBI Director Jim Comey lied in a “post-attack cover-up” about the bureau’s knowledge of how the attack unfolded and what Comey and the bureau knew about what was likely to transpire.

“In the aftermath of the attack, former FBI Director James Comey lied to the American people by claiming that Simpson was a needle in a haystack’ that was ‘invisible to us,’” the filing alleged. “Even after it had come to light that an undercover FBI agent had been communicating extensively with the terrorists during the week prior to the event and had accompanied them as they carried out the attack, the FBI continued to assert that “[t]here was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest.”

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

Since the attack, a separate court case and a “60 Minutes” report in March revealed that an undercover FBI agent was in the car directly behind Simpson and Soofi when they opened fire, and was even taking pictures of the car about 30 seconds before the first shots were fired. That case even revealed that the agent had texted Simpson just weeks before with the message, “Tear up Texas.”

Shortly after the first shots were fired, the agent fled, and was briefly detained by Garland Police, as seen in a video still from WFAA TV in Dallas.

Because of a separate court case tangentially related to Simpson and Soofi, it’s known that the FBI had been monitoring Simpson for years, and that the FBI agent was undercover in the Phoenix ISIS cell had direct contact with them routinely in the months leading up to the attack.

Joiner’s attorney, Trenton Roberts told the Washington Examiner this year that he now believes the FBI might have been willing to let the attack unfold to even greater lengths.

“It seems like it had to have been one or the other,” Roberts told the Washington Examiner in April. “Just a complete botched operation where they [the FBI] don’t want the attack to actually take place, or, it’s something where they need the attack to take place in order for this guy [the agent] to advance in the world of ISIS.”

“And that’s really what I think. I think that they thought, ‘he’s undercover and in order to advance, he needed to get pictures or video of this attack,’ and then that would bolster his street cred within ISIS,” Roberts said….

RELATED ARTICLE: Paris: Five Muslims arrested for jihad bomb plot in apartment building in “chic” Paris neighborhood

Pentagon severs all ties with Southern Poverty Law Center — Stops using SPLC Hitlist

/in , , , , , /by

This is most welcome and long overdue. The SPLC’s training materials on “extremism” wouldn’t point the Defense Department toward jihad terrorists and Sharia supremacists, but toward foes of jihad terror and others that the SPLC classifies as “extremists” along with the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis. This hard-Left moneymaking and incitement machine’s latest dossier on “Islamophobes” says: “Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists — and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.”

The SPLC wishes to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.

The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes” whom can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about. It’s scandalous that the Pentagon ever took this seriously, and good that it has stopped.

“EXCLUSIVE: DOD Drops SPLC From Extremism Training Materials,” by Jonah Bennett, Daily Caller, October 2, 2017:

Richard Cohen, SPLC

The Pentagon has officially severed all ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) after previously relying on the group’s training materials on extremism.

Brian J. Field, assistant U.S. attorney from the Civil Division, stated that the Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity removed any and all references to the SPLC in training materials used by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), in an email obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation from the Department of Justice.

The DEOMI is a DOD school founded to fight segregation and inequality that teaches courses in racial, gender and religious equality, among other subject areas like equal opportunity and pluralism. The courses are available to DOD civilians and service members.

As part of a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Immigration Reform Law Institute, Field wrote in the email sent in late September:

Additionally, the DEOMI office informed me that, based on a previous FOIA request, DEOMI records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes were forwarded … That 133-page document did reference the SPLC; however, based upon guidance from the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, all references to the SPLC have been removed from any current training.

Interestingly, DEOMI still makes use of materials on “Hate Symbols” from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group similar to the SPLC. Students at DEOMI use the Hate Symbols reference on the ADL site to “learn more about gang colors or clothing; hate group tattoos and body markings associated with such gangs.”

As a matter of policy, the DOD does not have an official list of hate groups….

In February, The Daily Caller News Foundation published an exclusive piece indicating that the FBI, which formerly used the SPLC as a “hate crimes resource,” has also been distancing itself from the group….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Paris: Five Muslims arrested for jihad bomb plot in apartment building in “chic” Paris neighborhood

Edmonton: No terror charges for Muslim who stabbed police officer and ran down pedestrians

Canada: Somali refugee terrorist in custody

/in , , , , /by

“We know that Canada’s strength comes from our diversity!” – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Lost in the horrific news from Nevada, is this story from Canada where another Somali refugee (a known wolf!) uses a car and a knife to ‘thank’ the country that ‘welcomed’ him and gave him shelter.

(See Somali slasher story from Ohio, here)

I’ve reported previously that there are breakthroughs coming in the media—CNN actually used the word REFUGEE in a crawler this morning regarding this case.  I know you are probably thinking, so what is the big deal?  Ten years ago the word would be Somali “man” or Somali “immigrant” as the R-word was rarely, if ever, mentioned.

Police investigate the scene after a cube van driven by Abdulahi Hasan Sharif ran into pedestrians and later flipped over while being pursued by police, in Edmonton Alta, on Saturday September 30, 2017. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

From The Star:

Police and politicians urged Canadians to be vigilant, but called for calm and unity in the wake of a terrorist attack in Edmonton that injured five and led to the arrest of a 30-year-old suspect who had previously been investigated for espousing extremist views.

It is the second major terrorist attack in Canada this year, following January’s shooting at a mosque in Quebec City that killed six and injured 19.

CBC News identified the Edmonton suspect on Sunday as Abdulahi Hasan Sharif. Police and federal officials would only confirm that the man in custody is a 30-year-old refugee from Somalia and had been interviewed by the RCMP’s Integrated National Security Enforcement Team in 2015. But RCMP Assistant Commissioner Marlin Degrand said there had been insufficient evidence to charge him or issue a peace bond at the time and he was not considered a national security threat.

Justin Trudeau:

“We cannot — and will not — let violent extremism take root in our communities. We know that Canada’s strength comes from our diversity, and we will not be cowed by those who seek to divide us or promote fear,” he said.

See my complete Canada category by clicking here. If you don’t know, Canada has a huge Somali population.

RELATED ARTICLE: Edmonton Muslim migrant jihadi “checked thoroughly” in 2015 and deemed no threat

The Conditionality of Liberal Support for Israel

/in , , /by

The recent flap over egalitarian worship at the Western Wall highlighted a disconnect with traditional standards, and the promotion of nontraditional agendas that are more political than spiritual.  Despite hysterical claims that the Israeli government would ban mixed worship at the Kotel, there in fact is an egalitarian pavilion that was never in jeopardy of being shut down.  The controversy reached a crescendo with a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu from the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, decrying both the incident and the broader refusal to recognize non-Orthodox authority in Israel.  The controversy has generated an avalanche of commentary – much of it from the nontraditional movements to inflame passions that may be less about the availability of mixed prayer services at the Wall than about the Israeli public’s ambivalence regarding liberal Judaism.

There have also been liberal threats to cease supporting Israel over the issue, though many liberals have already abandoned the Jewish State for reasons that have more to do with secular politics than religion.

The Reform and Conservative movements have never flourished in Israel as in America, and the reason is not simply that the Orthodox have had a monopoly over the religious establishment since 1948.  Though Orthodox hegemony is certainly a fact, there has never been a demand for nontraditional alternatives by secular Israelis, for whom religious identity is not defined by movement affiliation or liberal politics.

Israelis seem to have little affinity for non-Orthodox ideologues who conflate Judaism with progressivism, or for the liberal compulsion to downplay radical Islam and validate supposedly moderate organizations that deny Jewish history and sovereignty.

The results of a 2013 Pew Research survey of American Jewish attitudes suggested that “attachment to Israel” by movement affiliation correlated most strongly with Orthodoxy, followed closely by Conservative and somewhat less by Reform.  The survey, however, did not define what “attachment to Israel” means in practical terms.  Perhaps a better attitudinal test would be to ask whether respondents support pro-Israel organizations, or instead favor groups that oppose Israel as a Jewish state or promote Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”).  Unfortunately, this measure would likely show waning commitment among many liberals, irrespective of how they self-report in response to opinion surveys.

This phenomenon is not limited the “hard left,” as Democratic Party apologists contend, but extends to mainstream liberals whose political agenda gives credence to the revisionist Palestinian myth and the fable that Israel is an occupying power.  There is also ambivalence among those who support Israel simply because they view her as progressive.

It is reasonable to ask whether liberals who support Israel do so out of historical conviction or because they project their own political sensibilities onto Israeli society.  If the former, their fealty would remain constant regardless of her shifting political landscape.   If the latter, however, their support would fluctuate with every fickle change in Israel’s political landscape and never be absolute.  Accordingly, those who support Israel because of her presumed liberalism are conditional proponents at best.

Given the increasing progressive disdain for Israel and tolerance for anti-Semitism, the issue facing Jewish liberals is how to perpetuate pro-Israel commitment while maintaining their political credentials. The task is difficult when their political platform uncritically champions the Palestinian cause, uses moral equivalence to justify radicalism and terror, and defends progressive hatred of Israel as political commentary.

The conundrum for pro-Israel liberals is that their cherished agenda denigrates Jewish national identity by endorsing revisionist claims that deny Jewish history. Unfortunately for them, progressive ideology brooks no dissent; and if their political belief system is all-or-nothing, support for Israel will likely fall by the wayside.

The unwillingness of liberals to acknowledge left-wing antipathy for Israel stems from the false assumption that Jewish values are synonymous with progressive ideals. However, this view ignores the disparity between traditional Judaism and many core progressive dogmas.

Although Jews as individuals are free to hold their own political beliefs, they cannot claim the imprimatur of tradition regarding issues that conflict with Jewish law.  Traditional views on marriage, sexual relationships, and family, for example, are quite conservative and thus inconsistent with liberal policies concerning these areas. Accordingly, though liberals often claim to be guided by Jewish values, their agenda diverges from normative tradition in many material respects.

The failure to acknowledge progressive hostility toward Israel also arises from the mistaken belief that Zionism is an inherently liberal ideology. This presumption, however, reflects fundamental ignorance regarding the movement’s history, and suggests that while most American Jews may know who Theodor Herzl was, probably very few have read “Der Judenstaat.”  If they had, they would know that Zionism is about self-determination first and foremost, not progressive economic theory or social policy, and its mission has always been national regeneration and Jewish continuity.

Though Herzl may have envisioned the modern state’s economic structure as the proverbial “third way” between capitalist and socialist ideals, his vision of statehood was rooted in Jewish history and national identity.  As he wrote in Der Judenstaat:

“I consider the Jewish question neither a social nor a religious one, even though it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question, and to solve it we must  first of all establish it as an international political problem to be discussed and settled by the civilized nations of the world in council.

We are a people — one people…”

And while Jewish socialists saw in Zionism an opportunity to advance the “great socialist experiment,” they could not refocus its essential purpose, which remained the physical and political salvation of the Jewish People in their ancient homeland.  Indeed, Herzl’s embrace of Jewish nationhood ran counter to the left-wing rejection of nationalism and religion as societal evils.

Consistent with their disparate religious, mystical and nationalistic antecedents, the early Zionist Congresses reflected a diversity of philosophical, ideological, economic and religious thought. The interests of various liberal factions were certainly represented, but so were those of religious Zionists, secular nationalists, industrial capitalists, and committed philanthropists.  Despite the perception that labor Zionists guided the movement, they represented but one faction; and while they may have attempted to infuse Zionism with their own sensibilities, they never altered the central goal of national regeneration in the Jewish homeland.

If one recognizes that Zionism was never inherently leftist – and that modern Israel was not founded on progressive social principles – it would be misguided to support her simply because of a perceived affinity with western liberal values.  Such support would necessarily wither if Israeli society and government were to grow more conservative, which to a large extent has already happened as the Israeli government has shifted to the right.

Those who support Israel based on her presumed progressivism seem to forget that the country remains a liberal democracy regardless of who controls the government. Indeed, Americans often confuse “liberal democracy” with liberal politics, though the terms are not synonymous. Whereas liberal democracy refers to representative government characterized by the rule of law and free elections, the liberal agenda reflects specific political ideology.  Like any other political philosophy in an electoral system, liberalism may compete – but is not guaranteed supremacy – at the ballot box.

The intent of liberal democracy is not to entrench one party’s agenda over another’s, but to guarantee voters the freedom to accept or reject competing ideologies, whether liberal or conservative.

This is the aspect of Israeli political society that liberal Americans should celebrate, not the elevation of a platform that exalts a Palestinian nation that never existed, belittles Israel’s Jewish character, and threatens her national security. The Israeli left – with western progressive complicity – was responsible for Oslo and the waves of terror it enabled. The rejection of Oslo’s facilitators by the Israeli public shows the triumph of liberal democracy over self-destructive political fantasy.

Unfortunately, many American liberals have conditioned their support for Israel on her acceptance or rejection of their political agenda, regardless of what Israelis want, what is most conducive to safety and continuity of the world’s only Jewish nation, and irrespective of the Orthodox establishment. But considering the high rates of intermarriage and assimilation among secular and nontraditional Jews in the US, it could be that their political and social values are simply out of step with most Israelis, who tend to be more Judaically literate and culturally centered.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Israelis resent outside attempts to mold their society, and chafe at the paternalism of western liberals who rationalize BDS, legitimize Islamists posing as moderate, and tolerate anti-Semitism within their ranks. Likewise, nobody should be shocked when Israelis refuse to embrace Jewish movements that have become identified with liberal politics.

RELATED VIDEO: Does Israel Discriminate Against Arabs?

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in Israel National News.

VIDEOS: Mass shooting at music festival on the Las Vegas strip

/in , , , , , , /by

“Right-wing extremists”? Or…?

“Mass shooting at music festival on the Las Vegas strip,” by Chris Perez, New York Post, October 2, 2017:

A gunman opened fire during a country music festival in Las Vegas on Sunday night — shooting multiple people with a high-powered assault rifle before fleeing the scene, according to reports.

At least 24 people were shot, including two fatally, according to Reuters.

Las Vegas police responded to the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino at around 10 p.m. after receiving calls about an active shooter targeting concertgoers at the Route 91 country music fest.

About an hour later police confirmed at least one suspect is down.

“This is an active investigation,” they added.

Cops were urging people to avoid the area as SWAT teams searched for the gunman.

Witnesses reported seeing a police officer down, but authorities couldn’t immediately confirm this.

University Medical Center spokeswoman Danita Cohen said the local hospital had taken in “several” people with gunshot wounds. She didn’t offer any more details.

One Las Vegas hospital reported treating at least 20 victims with gunshot wounds, according to KABC.

Professional poker player and Instagram star Dan Bilzerian, who was at the concert, said on his IG story that he saw the shooting unfold and witnessed a girl getting shot right in front of him.

“Holy f–k this girl just got shot in the f–king head,” Bilzerian said. “So f–king crazy…So I had to go grab a gun, I’m f–king heading back…Some kind of mass shooting…Guy had a heavy caliber weapon for sure…Saw a girl f–king get shot in the face right next to me, her brains f–king hanging out.”

Another witness, who spoke to News3LV, recalled how “bullets were flying everywhere” and concertgoers were running….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who is Stephen Paddock? Las Vegas shooting suspect named as 64-year-old man

Post-jihad attack, Edmonton cop warns against “backlashes against people of colour and Muslims”

The Humanitarian Hoax of Sanctuary Cities: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years by persuading America to accept his crippling politically correct sanctuary city policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed to destabilize and destroy civil society. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

The term “sanctuary city” originated in the 1980’s when San Francisco passed a city ordinance forbidding city police or city magistrates from assisting federal immigration officers in enforcing immigration policies that denied asylum to refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. The mission of the sanctuary city was to protect innocent refugees from deportation – although these immigrants were in the U.S. illegally they had not committed any other crimes.

Today sanctuary cities are actually sanctuary jurisdictions because they include cities counties and states. Over 300 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in America today actively hindering federal authorities from seizing illegal criminal aliens, rapists, murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers for deportation.

The shocking murder of 21 year old Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015 publicized the danger of sanctuary jurisdictions. The shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico with seven felony convictions had been deported five times and intentionally sought shelter in San Francisco. Yet officials in “sanctuary city” San Francisco refused to turn him over to federal authorities for deportation and instead released him into society enabling him to kill Kate Steinle.

The three young Muslim migrant boys who savagely raped and urinated in the mouth of an innocent five year old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho last year were protected as well. No jail, no deportation, in fact these monsters were shielded by the mainstream media and local city officials who tried to cover up the case and pretend that Twin Falls was a model for multiculturalism. Wendy Olson, Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho stunned the country by threatening to prosecute Idahoans who spoke out about the heinous crime in ways SHE considered “false or inflammatory.” Judge Thomas Borresen issued an equally stunning gag order that denied the right of anyone in the courtroom to speak about the sentencing even AFTER the case ended.

Twin Falls is one of two Muslim refugee relocation centers in Idaho. Rather than identifying themselves as a “sanctuary city” Twin Falls has chosen the equally disingenuous name of “welcoming city” and declared themselves to be a “neighborly community.” REALLY? Protecting rapists and censoring free speech is definitely not neighborly for the victims!

The word sanctuary implies safety from a threat – it does not mean shelter for immigrant criminal felons, rapists, murderers and terrorists who threaten the safety of law abiding citizens. Why would any law abiding citizen endorse the protection of these criminals whether they are illegal aliens or legal citizens? The answer lies in the active participation by the mainstream media in the humanitarian hoax of sanctuary cities. The media has deliberately romanticized sanctuary cities as humanitarian havens for the oppressed instead of honestly reporting them as despicable safety zones for criminal aliens. The colluding media has duped the trusting American public and exploited their compassion and good will.

The original mission of sanctuary cities has been perverted from the protection of innocent refugees into the protection of guilty criminal aliens at the expense of public safety. Sanctuary cities in America continue to flagrantly defy the law. Thirty years after San Francisco became the first sanctuary city California seeks to become the first sanctuary state.

The protection of illegal aliens from deportation incentivizes illegal entry into the U.S. which has enormous economic consequences as well. Illegal aliens overload our welfare system, cost American taxpayers a whopping $116 BILLION, and rob legal citizens of their jobs.

Obama gave sanctuary cities the freedom to ignore detention orders from ICE through his own Priority Enforcement Program which allowed local agencies to ignore ICE notifications of deportable aliens in their custody. Why? The Leftist Democrat Party under Obama supported sanctuary cities by ignoring the 1996 law 8 U.S.C. § 1373 that repealed sanctuary city policies? Why?

If you want to know the motive look at the result. Increasing the number of illegal aliens:

  • Secures more Democrat legal and illegal votes for the Leftist agenda through chain migration.
  • Creates social chaos by importing populations with hostile cultural norms.
  • Creates divisiveness by taking American jobs.
  • Alienates legal citizens who receive far fewer government benefits.
  • Eventually collapse the economy of sanctuary jurisdictions.

Finally, in July, 2016 Republican Representative John Culberson-TX, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Committee on Appropriations took action against the danger and sent a letter to the DOJ demanding federal law enforcement grants be denied to cities not in compliance with the 1996 law 8 U.S.C. § 1373 that repealed sanctuary city policies.

During the five years from 2011-2016 local and state governments had received over $3.4 BILLION in federal law enforcement grants. The Culberson choice was between receiving billions of dollars in federal law enforcement grant money or protecting dangerous illegal criminal aliens. Sanctuary jurisdictions could no longer do both.

Sanctuary jurisdictions doubled down and continue to defy the law.

No-go zones are geographic areas within a country that flagrantly disregard the laws of the country. No-go zones establish a two-tier system of justice within a country because they observe a different set of laws. All across Europe Islamists have established religious no-go zones that recognize Islamic sharia law exclusively. All across America Leftists have created lawless sanctuary jurisdiction that flagrantly defy federal law.

People will stand quietly and peacefully in long lines until one person jumps the line. It is a fascinating social dynamic that as long as members of a group abide by the same rules the consequence is harmony. It is the unfairness of the line-jumper that creates anger and social chaos. Social chaos is the goal of the Leftist/Islamist axis that supports the two-tier system of justice created by secular sanctuary jurisdictions and religious no-go zones.

The goal and the underlying motive of the globalist elite’s campaign to destroy America from within is the imposition of one-world government. Obama is the primary globalist huckster. American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government and President Donald Trump is America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama’s Leftist/Islamist resistance movement is exposed as their deliberate political tactic to destabilize and destroy America it leaves the globalist elite without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and social chaos.

If the globalists are successful the world will be returned to the dystopian existence of masters and slaves because a willfully blind American public was seduced by the Humanitarian Hoax of sanctuary cities. The Humanitarian Hoax will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

Sanctuary List

States

California
Connecticut
New Mexico
Colorado

Cities and Counties

California

Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Orange County
Orange County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County

Colorado

Arapahoe County
Aurora
Boulder County
Denver County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County
Weld County

Connecticut

East Haven
Hartford

District Of Columbia

Washington

Florida

Alachua County
Clay County
Hernando County

Georgia

Clayton County
DeKalb County

Iowa

Benton County
Cass County
Franklin County
Fremont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa City
Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County

Illinois

Chicago
Cook County

Kansas

Butler County
Harvey County
Sedgwick County
Shawnee County

Louisiana

New Orleans

Massachusetts

Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Lawrence
Northhampton
Somerville

Maryland

Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George’s County

Minnesota

Hennepin County

Nebraska

Hall County
Sarpy County

New Jersey

Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Union County

New Mexico

Benalillo
New Mexico County Jails
San Miguel

Nevada

Washoe County

New York

Franklin County
Ithaca
Nassau County
New York City
Omondaga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County

Oregon

Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane Countyn
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Marlon County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield
Tillamok County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County

Pennsylvania

Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Chester County
Clarion County
Delaware County
Eerie County
Franklin County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Lycoming County
Montgomery County
Montour County
Perry County
Philadelphia
Pike County
Westmoreland County

Rhode Island

Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Texas

Dallas County
Travis County

Virginia

Arlington County
Chesterfield County

Vermont

Monteplier
Winooski

Washington

Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
San Juan County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Wallowa County
Whatcom County
Yakima County

Wisconsin

Milwaukee

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity

Hillary’s Libya Legacy Could Affect You!

/in , , , , /by

UN short-circuiting the flow from Libya to Europe by sending migrants to the good ol’ welcoming USA?

Hillary, along with her gal pals Susan Rice and Samantha Power, are the leading culprits in the Obama Administration’s disastrous involvement in the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the creation of a failed state that has become a primary route for the migrant invasion of Europe.

Now we learn that the UN, partially in hopes of saving the present Italian government (Italians are pretty angry about the Libya to Italy express), is planning to open up a refugee holding facility in Tripoli where migrants will be detained until they can be moved to transit centers.

But, guess what! Most in the transit centers will go to Canada, Norway, and drum roll—the United States.

Hillary gloats about knocking off Gaddafi turning Libya into a completely unstable hell hole, and America gets more refugees!

From Reuters  (emphasis is mine):

ROME (Reuters) – The U.N. refugee agency is seeking to open a refugee transit center in Tripoli early next year to resettle or evacuate as many as 5,000 of the most vulnerable refugees out of Libya each year, a senior U.N. official said on Friday.

It is a small fraction of the total number of Libya’s migrant population, estimated at as many as 1 million, but would be a welcome outlet for the 43,000 refugees that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates are now trapped in Libya.

“We hope to have the (written) authorization soon,” Roberto Mignone, the UNHCR’s representative in Libya, told Reuters in Rome. The U.N.-backed Tripoli government has already approved the project verbally, he said.

[….]

Italy has become the main migrant route to Europe since an agreement between the EU and Turkey shut down smuggling through Greece last year, but arrivals have fallen sharply since July, when an armed group clamped down on departures.

With the backing of the European Union, Italy has financed, trained and equipped by the Tripoli-based coast guard. With a national election due early next year, Italy is also promising tens of millions of euros to Prime Minister Fayez al-Seraj and municipal governments to put a stop to smuggling.

[.…]

Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti has said he is depending on the U.N. refugee and migration agencies to improve conditions for refugees and migrants now trapped in Libya.

“We can’t be the only solution,” Mignone said, also because Libya remains very dangerous and international staff still have very limited access to the country.

[….]

While the UNHCR hopes to resettle many of them, it is a lengthy process. Many countries do not have a permanent diplomatic presence in Tripoli, further complicating matters.

So the agency will seek to evacuate most of them, Mignone said, to emergency transit centers in Romania, Slovakia or even Costa Rica, where they will have more time to apply for resettlement. The agency is currently working to open another emergency transit center in Niger, he said.

More at Reuters, here.

Here is one article I found telling us that ‘refugees’ in a transit center in Slovakia are destined for Canada, Norway and the US.  And, I had previously written a post on the Costa Rica transit center with our old friend HIAS being paid by the US State Department to work there.  I better start paying more attention to these transit centers!

So, if the scheme goes through, illegal aliens in Libya will be moved to a transit center and ultimately Anytown, USA instead of pushing on to Europe.

Yippee! They could be part of Donald’s FY18 45,000!

(Fiscal Year 18 begins tomorrow!)

See all my posts, going back years, on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Report: Middle East Refugees to Begin Arriving to U.S. from Australia

Pope announces immigration propaganda week for Catholics (October 7-13)

Trump White House press release seeks to justify 45,000 FY18 refugee cap

First 50 of Australia’s failed asylum seekers have arrived in US

Trump takes easy way out: says we will admit up to 45,000 refugees to begin arriving Sunday

Phony outrage from Senators on Trump refugee consultation with Congress

HIAS leads the pack: wants Congress to admit more refugees than Trump’s 45,000 ceiling

VIDEO: Conservative on ABC Panel talking Obamacare repeal, Norks and President Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

I appeared on an ABC Channel 7 panel on another failure of Obamacare repeal, Trump and Russia and the North Koreans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Four Reasons the NFL is Dead Wrong on Protests
Tax Dollars are Subsidizing NFL National Anthem Protests
NFL’s Actions During National Anthem are Despicable, Time to Tune Out
Why Americans Hate the Media
The Megaphone Left vs. Non-Megaphone America

EDITORS NOTE: This video originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Washington Post Falsely Suggests Trump Will Arm Foreign Tyrants With American Guns

/in , , , /by

Reports arose recently that the White House is planning to approve changes to rules governing the export of U.S. firearms and ammunition. Predictably, before the planned regulations were even released for public review and comment, the Washington Post swiftly activated its fake news division to breathlessly warn America of the horrible outcomes the changes “could” provoke. The basic thrust of the article was that President Trump would risk putting American firearms into the hands of terrorists and human rights abusers to favor the gun industry.

Not even close.

Only after 10 paragraphs of scare tactics and hyperventilating did the Post article admit that the plan the Trump administration seeks to finalize actually originated under the Obama administration. “President Barack Obama,” the article stated, “moved oversight of many weapons exports from State to Commerce — but not small arms.” The writer seemed to imply that small arms were somehow uniquely dangerous and so required extra special consideration. 

That’s laughable.

Small arms were actually among the first of the planned moves, which makes perfect sense. They are the least sophisticated, most readily-available of the systems involved in the long-standing reforms and ones with obvious and legitimate applications in the commercial sector. The writer was correct, however, when he notes that including them in the plan “became politically unpalatable” when Obama decided to make gun control a major agenda item during his second term. But to be clear, the hold-up has always been about anti-gun politics, not serious concerns about national security or firearms falling into the wrong hands. 

Only after 10 paragraphs of scare tactics and hyperventilating did the Post article admit that the plan the Trump administration seeks to finalize actually originated under the Obama administration. 

The types of materiel that have been transferred from the oversight of the State Department to that of the Commerce Department make this abundantly clear. These include highly-sophisticated and proprietary technologies that would be much more devastating than guns “in the wrong hands,” including categories encompassing spacecraft, toxicological agents, “nuclear weapons related articles,” and “directed energy weapons.”  It’s ridiculous on its face to suggest that the .22s, bolt-action rifles, .38 special revolvers, and AR-15s, whose export is still regulated by the State Department – and which can easily be produced anywhere in the world – are somehow of greater concern. The U.S. government clearly does not want any of these things to wind up in the wrong hands and just as clearly will maintain protocols to ensure that they don’t, no matter which agency controls their export.

And the Post also failed to mention that exports of many American-made shotguns and shotgun ammunition are already regulated by the Commerce Department, without any of the adverse outcomes the article suggests that regime would have.

So why is the Post and its anti-gun fellow travelers so dead set against including guns in the same regulatory reforms that have already safely benefitted American aerospace, biotechnological, and electronics companies, among others?

Simply put, leaving ordinary firearms and ammunition under the regulatory purview of the State Department subjects the mostly small businesses that produce or work on these items or their components to the same rules that apply to manufacturers of nuclear submarines. This means reams of red tape and expensive fees that don’t apply to other common consumer products that you can buy at many big box stores and strip malls. It’s also means that it’s more difficult for hunters or sportsmen who are traveling overseas with their guns to make lawful temporary “exports.”

We’ve long chronicled the problems inherent in the State Department’s regulations of firearms exports, including here, here, and here. Those aren’t glitches or unintended consequences to gun control advocates, however, but “features” they fear would be lost under the planned reforms. These “features” shut down law-abiding manufacturing and gunsmithing right here in the U.S. and even interfere with efforts to teach foreign nationals residing in the U.S. how to safely use and handle firearms. 

And because the regulatory reforms mentioned in the Post article also contemplate tougher oversight of the items left under the State Department’s jurisdiction, these problems are only likely to get worse.

Unlike the Washington Post, we will wait until the regulations are actually released before undertaking a detailed critique of their merits. But the planned reforms have always been about making American businesses, manufacturing, and technology more competitive, while ensuring the heavy-handed oversight of the State Department can focus where it’s most needed to protect U.S. and international peace. Second Amendment advocates should, as usual, take what the Washington Post says about the planned changes with a heavy dose of salt.