Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense: A General Mattis Christmas Story

A couple of months ago, when I told General Krulak the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, now the chair of the Naval Academy Board of Visitors, that we were having General Mattis speak this evening, he said, “Let me tell you a Jim Mattis story.” General Krulak said, when he was Commandant of the Marine Corps, every year, starting about a week before Christmas, he and his wife would bake hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Christmas cookies. They would package them in small bundles

Then on Christmas day, he would load his vehicle. At about 4:00 a.m., General Krulak would drive himself to every Marine guard post in the Washington-Annapolis-Baltimore area and deliver a small package of Christmas cookies to whatever Marines were pulling guard duty that day. He said that one year, he had gone down to Quantico as one of his stops to deliver Christmas cookies to the Marines on guard duty. He went to the command center and gave a package to the lance corporal who was on duty.

He asked, “Who’s the officer of the day?” The lance corporal said, “Sir, it’s Brigadier General Mattis.”

And General Krulak said, “No, no, no. I know who General Mattis is. I mean, who’s the officer of the day today, Christmas day?”

The lance corporal, feeling a little anxious, said, “Sir, it is Brigadier General Mattis.”

General Krulak said that, about that time, he spotted in the back room a cot, or a daybed. He said, “No, Lance Corporal. Who slept in that bed last night?”

The lance corporal said, “Sir, it was Brigadier General Mattis.”

About that time, General Krulak said that General Mattis came in, in a duty uniform with a sword, and General Krulak said, “Jim, what are you doing here on Christmas day? Why do you have duty?”

General Mattis told him that the young officer who was scheduled to have duty on Christmas day had a family, and General Mattis decided it was better for the young officer to spend Christmas Day with his family, and so he chose to have duty on Christmas Day.

General Krulak said, “That’s the kind of officer that Jim Mattis is.”

RELATED ARTICLE: I Served With James Mattis. Here’s What I Learned From Him

EDITORS NOTE: The story above was told by Dr. Albert C. Pierce, the Director of the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics at The United States Naval Academy. He was introducing General James Mattis, who gave a lecture on Ethical Challenges in Contemporary Conflict in the spring of 2006. This was taken from the transcript of that lecture.

Obama’s Regulatory Rush to the Finish Line

Key Takeaways

When I played football in high school, as the game neared its end–no matter if we were winning or losing–my coach always said, “Finish strong.” He didn’t want his players to leave anything on the field. He insisted we play with the same intensity in the fourth quarter as we did in the first.

As he ends his term, President Barack Obama is coaching the agencies under his watch with the same sense of urgency. And like my old football coach, he’s getting the same response, Politico reports:

Regulations on commodities speculation, air pollution from the oil industry, doctors’ Medicare drug payments and high-skilled immigrant workers are among the rules moving through the pipeline as Obama’s administration grasps at one last chance to cement his legacy.

[ … ]

As many as 98 final regulations under review at the White House as of Nov. 15 could be implemented before Trump takes office. Seventeen regulations awaiting final approval are considered “economically significant,” with an estimated economic impact of at least $100 million a year.

One agency who is taking this direction to heart is EPA. After the election, Administrator Gina McCarthy used an athletic analogy of her own in a pep talk email to her staff:

As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re running — not walking — through the finish line of President Obama’s presidency. Thank you for taking that run with me. I’m looking forward to all the progress that still lies ahead.

By “progress” she means more regulatory red tape.

The regulatory rush is at full speed. The Interior Department finalized a rule to reduce methane emissions during oil and natural gas production on federal lands, even though methane emissions in the energy sector have fallen as natural gas production has risen. Energy groups immediately filed suit to stop it.

tweet-chamber

The Interior Department also released an offshore energy development plan that blocked portions of the Arctic from exploration.

Financial regulators are also doing their best to write as many rules before the next administration takes office, Reuters reports:

Some rules are meant to flesh out the Dodd Frank Act of 2010 designed to prevent the next global financial crisis. Trump campaigned on a pledge to scrap the law but now he says only some provisions must go to lighten the regulatory burden.

The Federal Reserve is working on rules to govern matters such as executive pay, market stability and what investments Wall Street may hold.

Last month, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White said her agency would “in the near term” finish a rule on one thorny issue: how mutual funds manage derivatives.

The SEC and bank regulators have also for years struggled to finalize a rule that would tie more banker pay to the long-term health of their firms rather than short-term performance of Wall Street firms.

It’s all hands on deck throughout the regulatory apparatus, Reuters adds, “Some sixteen copy editors [at the Federal Register] are due to forego leave and be on hand in the coming weeks to process final rules expected from dozens of agencies, said an official familiar with the operation, but not authorized to speak to the media.”

To put the Obama administration’s regulatory barrage into some context, according to the American Action Forum, through the final November of his administration “President George W. Bush had issued 462 major rules. By contrast, President Obama has issued 636, or 37 percent more than his predecessor.”

 chamber-regs-chart

Congress does have some say in this rules rush. The Congressional Review Act gives Congress and the president an opportunity to block regulations up to 60 days after they were written. However, the law can only be used on one regulation at a time.

To give Congress more flexibility, a few weeks back, the House passed the Midnight Rules Relief Act, supported by the U.S. Chamber. This bill would package multiple regulations together under the CRA. According to the Chamber’s letter to House members, this would reduce “the risk that a poorly-written rule escapes CRA review because there is not enough time for separate debate and votes on each rule.”

One thing is for sure, the “strong finish” by President Obama’s regulators could keep the next Congress and administration very busy.

More Articles On Regulatory Reform

A Republic Is Not Mob Rule

There has been renewed talk, mostly from the left, about the problem with our Electoral College as it pertains to electing a President.

The leftist are upset that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote (although that is not actually the case due to known voter fraud) yet lost to Donald Trump in the Electoral College count.

They scream that it’s not fair.  That the Electoral College is out dated, old fashioned and has no place in a modern Democracy.

Well that is the problem right there.  We are not a pure Democracy.  We are a Representative Republic.  And that means our representatives have to be elected via the entire population in which that representative represents.

Let me simplify.

In local elections, it’s easy to elect via popular vote.  Local elections are small compared to the whole of the nation.  So it makes sense that the popular vote prevails in small amounts. 

But since we are a UNION, not an actual and technical COUNTRY, you cannot simply elect the Union’s Representative via a simple popular vote. 

Example: let’s say you have 7 people, 3 women and 4 men.  Let’s assume that there is a referendum in front of these seven people.  The referendum is about sex.  Let’s say that the referendum is that men can have sex with any woman they want at any time and the women have to happily capitulate.

By a simple vote, it might go down as 4 men say yes and 3 women say no.  Mob rule, the women lose.  But now let’s say that the men represent a portion of the population and the women represent another portion of the population.

Let’s say that in order for this referendum to pass, they need 10 points or delegates.  Those delegates are distributed by population numbers.  The men have 4 points and the women have 6 points in total. 

Now let them vote.  The men all vote for the referendum and thus garner 4 points.  The women decide they don’t like it and vote against.  They represent a larger percentage of the population in total even though they are in the minority in voting numbers.  They vote no.  They have 6 points. 

The women have defeated the referendum even though there were fewer of them.  This means the mob of men cannot run rough shod over the women.

This is how the Electoral College works.  But instead of men and women, we are talking states.  So in other words, large states cannot run rough shod over small states simply because the large states have a larger population. 

The Electoral College is there to make things fairer.  To make all states more equal on a national level.  So if you believe in FAIR elections then there is nothing more fair than to try and treat all states in the Union as equal as possible.

And that, boys and girls, is why the Electoral College system is not outdated.  But a brilliant way to make the Union more fair for everyone. 

DHS falsely training its agents that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’

It is becoming clear that the Trump administration will look at the threat of radical Islam much differently than the Obama administration.

One of the first slogans to go is the false notion that Islam is a “religion of peace.”

The Islamic supremacy organization CAIR is upset that Katharine Gorka has been selected to be part of the DHS “landing team” that will meet with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials to manage the transition.

Gorka is the president of the Council on Global Security and president of the Threat Knowledge Group.

In 2014, Gorka wrote, “Presidents Bush and Obama both publicly declared Islam to be a religion of peace,” it “struck a sour chord for many,” and that “American and Western leaders have preemptively shut down any debate within Islam by declaring that Islam is the religion of peace.”

enhancedAdditionally, President-elect Donald Trump named K.T. McFarland as his pick for deputy national security adviser, joining retired Gen. Michael Flynn on Trump’s White House national security team. Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland is an American former government official and national security analyst.

McFarland has called for the use of enhanced interrogation to prevent a catastrophic attacks against the United States and its allies.

In the below video Brian Kilmeade interviews Dr. James Mitchell author of the new book “Enhanced Interrogation.”

At the end of the interview one of the terrorists being interrogated asked Dr. Mitchell to use waterboarding on his fellow Muslim brothers.

Clearly there’s a new sheriff in town and a serious dialogue about Islam and the followers of Mohammed will take place. Words like radical Islam, jihad and the holy war being conducted by Muslims against America and its allies will now be front and center and top of mind with agencies such as DHS, FBI and CIA.

The shackles are coming off.

The DHS, FBI and CIA will go from an Obama civil liberty model to Trump administration law enforcement and national security model to defeat America’s enemies, one of the most pressing being radical Islam.

Let the debate begin within the ummah (the Muslim community), in America and globally about Islam in general and radical Islam in detail.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Getting Inside the Head of the Ohio Attacker

Young, Radicalized Man From North Carolina Planned Mass Casualty Attack

German Intel Agent Arrested for Planning ISIS Terror Attack

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

RELATED VIDEO: KiDS: Inside the Terror Factory — Make this film a reality. Expose the incitement of children and youth to extremism, hatred and violence.

Republican Victory! Nancy Pelosi Re-Elected House Minority Leader

Narcotics Anonymous “Basic Text,” released in November 1981, states, “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”

Democrats appear to be addicted to Nancy Pelosi.

A full 70% of the House Democrats voted to keep Pelosi as their leader. This is being hailed as a victory for the Republican Party.

No single figure, other than discredited former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has created more negative press for Democrats than Nancy Pelosi.

Here are a few things that Nancy Pelosi has said:

  • ObamaCare’s Implementation Is “Fabulous”
  • “I don’t think [Obama’s] Ever Done Anything For Political Reasons”
  • [President Obama] “has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution.”
  • “It Is Almost A False Argument To Say We Have A Spending Problem.”
  • “ObamaCare Will Lower Everyone’s Rates”
  • “I Don’t Remember Saying ObamaCare Would Lower Everyone’s Premiums”
  • There is no more [spending] cuts to make.
  • “We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”
  • “ObamaCare Is Lowering Costs And The Deficit”
  • “I don’t think [Obama’s] Ever Done Anything For Political Reasons”
  • “I do think that none of us should be negotiating on the debt limit. It should just be lifted”

Nancy Pelosi actually compared ObamaCare with Independence Day.

Republicans understand how out of touch Pelosi and Democrats are with what is really important to Americans. Her re-election as minority leader proves it.

Why Mainstream Media Loves NBA Legend Marv Albert and Hates Bill Cosby

Last week, I was watching some NBA games on TNT and one of the game’s announcers was famed broadcaster Marv Albert. He is considered by many to be one of the top announcers in all of sports history. He was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1997, the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association Hall of Fame in 2014, and the Sports Broadcasting Hall of Fame in 2015. Some refer to him as “The Voice of Basketball.”

He is the same broadcaster that was accused of forcible sodomy and pled guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault and battery in 1997. Albert was given a 12-month suspended sentence.

NBC subsequently fired Albert only to bring him back on the air after less than two years. For a more detailed summary of the Albert issue, click on this link.

Now juxtapose Albert’s situation with the case of legendary civil rights activist, TV star, comedian extraordinaire, and incomparable philanthropist, Bill Cosby. Several women have come forward to accuse Cosby of drugging and raping them, but these accusers have provided no evidence to backup their allegations. Yet, Cosby is treated as a convicted felon not only in the court of public opinion, but also by most of his business partners, like NBC.

It seems now that women have declared a war on men, especially feminists like media chasing attorney, Gloria Allred. She is behind the women who implicated Albert and accused Cosby. She was also behind similar attempts to destroy former presidential candidate Herman Cain, golfer Tiger Woods and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to name a few.

Allred seems to have this insatiable obsession with bringing down Black celebrities, with Cosby being the most notable one, but that will be the focus of a future column.

Albert’s then employer, NBC, stood by him simply because he pled not guilty when the charges were announced back in 1997. According to NBC, “This past May, when charges against Marv Albert became public, Mr. Albert asserted his innocence and assured NBC senior management that there was no basis whatsoever to the charges. Today, given Marv Albert’s plea of guilty to assault and battery, NBC terminated its relationship with Mr. Albert.”

Now, this is the same NBC that cancelled Cosby’s new show that was supposed to air in 2014, right when these women all came forward with baseless charges. Cosby publically stated that there was no substance to these charges; unlike in the Albert case, NBC refused to stand by Cosby and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I will leave it to my readers to make their own conclusions, as to why there seems to be a double standard between how Albert was treated vis-à-vis Bill Cosby. Both are males, Albert is 75 years of age and Cosby is 79 years of age, one is White and one is Black, and one of them cost NBC money and the other one generated money for the media company.

Albert cost NBC money, because he was a paid employee, but Cosby made NBC money because he was a partner with them. So, they stood by the employee, who cost them money and rejected the partner who made them money. Can someone explain that to me?

So, it’s been about two years since NBC cancelled Cosby’s show. The same amount of time that Albert was made to sit on the sidelines after pleading guilty to a crime against a woman, even though others came forward and accused him of similar crimes. So, can we now expect NBC to reengage with Cosby about the timeline for bringing his new show on the air? Mind you that Cosby has never been convicted of anything.

I am sure that NBC stands for “Nothing But Consistency.” I am sure that NBC’s seeming double standard has nothing to do with race, especially when one actually admitted to wrongdoing and the other has consistently denied wrongdoing.

What’s even more amazing is that the very year Albert was charged with a sex crime (1997), he was inducted into the basketball hall of fame and has subsequently received similar types of awards since. A few months ago, Albert received a new contract from TNT, his current employer.

Again, juxtapose that with the treatment of Cosby. Without being convicted of anything, NBC cancelled his new show before it aired on TV, Spellman University returned Cosby’s $ 20 million gift, and several schools rescinded honorary degrees given to him.

Am I the only one who is noticing this double standard? One person was convicted in a court of law of a sex crime, but pleaded down to a lesser charge and was rewarded with new contracts, lifetime achievement awards, and given the good housekeeping seal of approval by corporate America.

The other person has been convicted of nothing and his whole life’s work and reputation has been stripped from him. In my best Fat Albert voice, “Hey, hey, hey, I got something to say.”

How can a man who has done so much good for so many people for so long not be treated better than a convicted woman abuser? This is truly America in Black and White and there is nothing funny about it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

In Defense of Trump Foreign Policy Adviser, Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares is American of Lebanese origins, a noted scholar and author with a clear vision of the dynamics of the Middle East. He is also a friend of Israel of longstanding. Earlier today we posted on an emerging jihad in the Sudan that Dr. Phares had spoken of in his capacity as a Middle East Advisor to President-elect Trump. In 2012, he was a foreign policy advisor to Republican candidate former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, currently under consideration by the Trump transition team as a possible nominee for Secretary of State in the new Administration. Dr. Phares by my own acquaintance is a Lebanese patriot and opponent of Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah involvement that has plagued the unique political structure of the confessional politics of his homeland.

Following the Trump victory in early November, the long knives were out from Iranian and leftist sources in both the US and Israel publishing defamations of Dr. Phares’ character that were patently false. The object was to smear his reputation and discredit him from holding a significant advisory role in the Trump transition and Administration focused on the Middle East.  The leftist Mother Jones published a hit piece by Andrew Serwer, a supporter of the Iran nuclear pact that was quickly piled on by provocateurs in social media.

Perhaps  one of the most vitriolic of the later was a piece published by Ben Lynnfield in The Jerusalem Post on November 16, 2016,  “Who is Walid Phares, Trump’s Mideast Adviser”.  It was a farrago of untruths.

On November 20, 2016, Sarah Stern of EMET-Endowment for Middle East Truth in Washington, DC published a rebuttal of the Mother’s Jones allegations, “Villyfying Walid Phares, “in which she called Phares, “a living national treasure” for his scholarship and astute observations and advices on how we should make sense of the troubling Middle East in the thrall of barbaric Islamist doctrine.   A doctrine aimed at the destruction of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim minorities in the region.

It was left to Israeli Col. Yair Ravid to author a devastating rebuttal to the leftist attackers on Dr. Phares endeavoring to impugn his character.  The Jerusalem Post published it on November 28, 2016 appropriately titled, “In Praise of Professor Phares.” Ravid is in a unique position to author this rebuttal. He was a long serving Israeli intelligence officer who held the Beirut operational post for Mossad and knew intimately the confessional political system, dynamics of Lebanon and the facts on the ground during the long Israeli withdrawal culminating in the seeming pell mell leave-taking in May 2000. Some of that is described in a book published in May 2016, Window to the Backyard: The History of Israel-Lebanon Relations – Facts & Illusions.

Here are some of the facts that Ravid marshals to destroy the lies of the leftist enemies of Dr. Phares.

Accusation by Serwer of Mother Jones: Phares was an “ideologue of Lebanese militiamen during the civil war in the 1980s.”

Ravid:  One of the quoted persons, Toni Nisei, has himself slammed the far-left media for lying about him: “Regrettably Mother Jones selected three sentences from an almost four-hour… conversation with Serwer about the Lebanese resistance against Syrian occupation. Serwer maliciously distorted the form and core of what was discussed in a cheap and repulsive attempt to attack Professor Walid Phares and create an absurd and ludicrous connection between Professor Phares’ academic, political and intellectual roles [as a] contribution to educate the high cadres of the Lebanese Christian resistance [is] deplorable and unacceptable.”

Accusation: “Phares advocated that Lebanon’s Christians work toward creating a separate, independent Christian enclave.”

Ravid:  This of a man who has published books since 1979 while he was at law school, and hundreds of articles, all focusing on a federal solution to the crisis in Lebanon.

Accusation:  Lynnfield quoted far-left Mother Jones stating “that he was a close adviser of Samir Geagea, a Lebanese- Christian warlord.”

Ravid:   Tunic Hindi, a Lebanese politician today, has already crippled this charge in an interview where he wondered why Phares’ critics insist on this falsehood since Hindi himself was the adviser to Geagea, not Phares.

Accusation:  The Post piece goes on to claim that in the 1990s, Phares tried “to lobby the Israeli government to carve out a state for Christians in the security zone Israel maintained in southern Lebanon, despite the fact that Israel had been burned badly when it allied with Lebanese Christians in 1982, that most of zone’s inhabitants were Shi’ite Muslims and that Israel already had its hands full dealing with an insurgency by Hezbollah.”

Ravid:  This is utterly false. At the time Phares, along with his NGO colleagues, lodged a demand at the United Nations Security Council in New York to issue a resolution to establish international protection for a “free zone” in south Lebanon, to replace the Israeli military. The plan was that Christians, Muslims and Druze together would control their own destinies under a federal system. They wanted to see local police stations and municipalities act as a functioning local government until Syria had withdrawn and Hezbollah had been disarmed.

Accusation:  Former Mossad director Efraim Halevy opines on Phares’ mischaracterized position: “To think in 1997 of creating a Christian enclave in the South, an area of preponderant Shi’ite presence, is esoteric bordering on the ridiculous.” Yossi Alpher, former director of the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies (now the Institute for National Security Studies), wrote: “Even in Israeli terms, he represents an attempt to subvert our good intentions and exploit us militarily so that we spill our blood for the Maronites. This ended very badly and he is a reminder of this.”

Ravid: None of that was found in Phares’ arguments at the time. Precisely the opposite: the Lebanese-American scholar argued that Israeli forces should withdraw but surrender the area not to Hezbollah and Assad, but to local municipalities’ forces protected by the UN. In fact his plans then are the same as what is being discussed today for areas in Iraq and Syria.

Accusation:  Alpher continues: “His association with the Lebanese Forces is very problematic… He was a prominent ideologue indoctrinating people who went out and murdered people and he has never accounted for that.”

Ravid:  Alpher’s ignorance is abysmal. Walid Phares was never a combatant and never headed a Lebanese Forces military command. He wrote books and articles and offered lectures. Sadly, Hezbollah propaganda has now been able to manipulate Israeli expertise.

Accusation:  anti-Israel Abed Ayoub, the national legal and policy director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, libeling Phares: “If you look at his history, he was a warmonger and he shouldn’t be near the White House. He was part of a militia that committed war crimes and, if anything, he should be tried for war crimes.”

Ayoub partially quotes Phares as saying, “The only military strategic option remaining to the Jewish state in the medium and long term, if it is to maintain its balance of power with the northern threat, is obviously the nuclear deterrent. But Lebanese and Israelis alike know all too well the consequences of a blast anywhere in Lebanon….”

Ravid:  These were parts of conversations that anyone in the field of defense and military studies has had, but to use a discussion about Iran’s military advance in the region, select half a sentence and paint Phares as developing a nuclear doctrine is not just silly, but low. No one knows the Arab world and Lebanon better than Phares. When he and others were part of conversations about establishing a so-called mini-entity alongside Israel, like the Kurds actually did in northern Iraq and in Syria, they wanted to express their belief at the time that minorities in the region could count on each other.

Ravid concludes his rebuttal observing:

What concerns me in The Jerusalem Post piece is historical veracity. We cannot as Israelis rewrite the history of our northern neighbor to please the terrorist network that dominates it at this point in time. Phares is a public figure in the US with most of his adult life dedicated to public service. His work during his 20s in his ancestral homeland is to be praised, not condemned, and above all described accurately. For demonizing is a prelude to ostracizing and we in this country know exactly what that means. It is unfortunate that a segment of our own academic and media elite has fallen for the games of Iranian and Islamist propagandists.

What we know and what we saw are very different from the vapid and erroneous writing of critics and the comments they quoted. When it comes to history let’s be serious and not reproduce chimeric tales concocted by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood in order to meddle in US politics.

Middle East Issues Facing the Trump Administration

The Trump Administration faces compelling issues in the roiling Middle East upon inauguration on January 21, 2017.  Many of these involve allies in the region like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf emirates. They are compounded by Putin’s actions in Syria, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict. In addition there is the Houthi rebellion in Yemen and the war against the Islamic State mired in campaigns to reconquer Mosul in Iraq and the administrative capital of Raqaa in Syria. Then there is Turkey’s Islamist President Erdogan’s role in both the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and reconciliation with Putin’s Russia making its role in NATO problematic.

The conundrum about the Kurdish aspirations for autonomy in a federalized Syria and possible independence in Iraq are also problematic. The Kurds have provided the “best boots on the ground” in the war against ISIS. Syria’s Bashar Assad, now on the verge of conquering Aleppo with Russian air support, has rejected that possibility, even as Putin has met with Kurdish delegations. Putin’s aim is to perfect Russia’s economic interests in the eastern Mediterranean.

There is also the over arching matter of what to do about the Iran nuclear pact under the JCPOA. Its behavior since adoption of the nuclear pact is tantamount to imposing regional hegemony from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea and ultimately the Mediterranean endeavoring to create a long sought “Shi’ite Crescent.”

Israel is increasingly concerned about threats to its northern border from Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy. Then there is the threat from ISIS affiliates the Israel Defense Force is fighting on the Golan frontier. A new form of Palestinian terror has arisen. A “fire Intifada” was set ablaze by Palestinian terrorists from the disputed territories that ravaged communities in central Israel, in Haifa and near Jerusalem. The arson perpetrated by these terrorists destroyed Israeli communities forcing temporary evacuation of tens of thousands of its citizens

During the 2016 electoral campaign, President-elect Trump threatened to ‘tear up’ the nuclear pact with Iran, which some consider useful to monitor Tehran’s violations and behavior. His Israel advisors issued a statement that indicated his support for moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, authorized under a law passed by Congress in 1995, but waived periodically by the Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations. Moreover, the Trump campaign issued a statement suggesting that it did not consider Israeli settlement building, in areas permitted under the Oslo Accords, as a barrier to a possible peace settlement. The reality is that a two state solution no longer looks viable. Moreover, Palestinians are internally focused on protesting the corrupt rule by PA Chairman Abbas serving in the 12th year of a four year elected term.

Against this background we held a discussion on these Middle East policy issues with Shoshana Bryen. Bryen is senior director of the Washington, DC, Jewish Policy Center and managing editor of its quarterly journal, InFocus. He incisive views on Middle East and US policies in the region have previously been published in articles in the New English Review. She has also been interviewed on the periodic Middle East Round Table discussion on WEBY1330AM, Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio, as well as the former Lisa Benson Radio Show Programs aired on Salem media outlet in Phoenix, KKNT960The Patriot.

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Shoshana welcome back for this timely discussion.

Shoshana Bryen:  Thank you for inviting me.

Gordon:  How would you prioritize the foreign policy initiatives for the Trump Administrative to address in the first 100 Days of the Administration?

shoshana%20bryen2

Shoshana Bryen

Shoshana Bryen:  There is a temptation to make a list of “priorities” by simply citing a series of problems and assuming they can be resolved. If they could have been, they would have been. It would be useful instead to consider priorities for American behavior – political, economic and military. First, there are four questions to be asked:

  • What should the United States do to ensure that allies feel secure and adversaries don’t?
  • How can the U.S. encourage countries that are neither allies nor adversaries to cooperate on issues of importance?
  • How can the U.S. encourage countries to want to be “more like us” (politically and economically free with more transparent government) and “less like them” (totalitarian, communist, jihadist, and less transparent)?
  • What if they choose to be “more like them”? What are the limits of American encouragement or coercive capabilities?

The administration must reassure our allies, many of whom really aren’t sure where they stand: Israel, of course, but also Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Japan, and the smaller of the European and post-communist states. Bulgaria and Moldova had elections last month – that no one paid attention to – and the pro-Russian candidate won in both cases. This is an indication that vulnerable countries are seeking accommodation with Russia rather than trusting us. Bulgaria had a great record on Israel and was helpful in terms of intelligence on Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Estonia and Lithuania are worried. The administration has to give them reassurance.

Second would be to enunciate some foreign policy goals, including, perhaps an “outcome based strategy.” The U.S. should decide what it wants to achieve in various parts of the world and then decide – with the help of military and diplomatic professionals – how to achieve its goals. This is the difference between “doing something” and having something done. Then you open the door to messaging strategy – a much overlooked, but very important, part of American diplomacy abroad.

Gordon:  Given the evidence of Iran’s violation of the JCPOA signed by the Obama Administration, how might a Trump Administration replace and/or modify its provisions?

Bryen:  The JCPOA is not a treaty and not even an Executive Agreement. There is no signature to revoke on either side. Rather than “modifying” it, the Administration should put it in perspective. The fact is that the current set of violations by Iran is fairly small – and the violations are likely to remain fairly small. That is because Iran’s short-term goals have to do with regional hegemony, not nuclear weapons. After 8-10 years, Iran can legitimately become a nuclear breakout state – and 8-10 years is a very short period of time.

In the meantime, without comment from the Obama administration, Iran is occupying whole swaths of Iraq and fielding a sizable foreign army inside Syria. They are harassing American ships in the Persian Gulf – hoping to get us to leave the area. They are supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen.  If you look at a map, Iran controls the Persian Gulf to the east of Saudi Arabia, and Yemen at the heel of the boot of Saudi Arabia on the Red Sea.  To the West of Saudi Arabia – only a few miles from Djibouti on the African coast – Iran is close to controlling both access routes for Saudi (and other) oil from the region to the oceans. Most recently, Iran announced it would be accompanying ships sailing through the Bab el Mandeb Strait at the bottom of the Red Sea. This should make Israel – and anyone who remembers the 1967 Six Day War – nervous.

One way to make the point that the U.S. should want to make is to begin holding up the evidence of Iran’s violations. For each violation, there should be a cost. It could be in trade, banking, visas, or whatever, but there should be some cost to Iran – beginning with being called on the violations. Iran claims it will withdraw from the JCPOA if we don’t do what it wants, but that’s fine. Let Iran withdraw.

Gordon:  How might a Trump Administration complete the U.S. led coalition campaign to defeat ISIS?

Bryen:  This is both a military and a diplomatic problem. It is clear that the U.S. has been short on the “public diplomacy” end. It should be stressing what made/makes America what it has been and should be: individual freedom within constitutional Bill of Rights order. That includes rights to property and to profit from one’s creativity and work. It should reflect limited government of checks-and-balances, rule of law, not men. It should campaign against special privileges for any special interest; opportunity for all resulting in (at least relative) prosperity for most.

It should not be confused with “democracy promotion” – a failed concept. The U.S. should promote and advance specific human rights and freedoms for citizens without trying to determine the nature of the political system of any country mostly because it doesn’t work.

Messaging would involve reconstitution of Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty types of broadcasting – particularly engaging countries in which free information is limited. The successes of the Cold War period and the early days of assistance to Poland’s Solidarity Movement should be replicated, not discarded, and updated with newer social media. Where direct assistance is not possible, the U.S. can use media, including social media, to inform citizens of those countries that: a) they are not forgotten (taking a page from the Ronald Reagan/George Shultz playbook on Soviet Jewry), and b) ensure that they have accurate information about what is happening in the world they are not permitted to access by their governments.

Gordon:  Russia has staked out its interests in the Middle East with its intervention in Syria.  How might a Trump Administration adjust our foreign policy interests in the region?

Bryen:  The U.S. holds two contradictory positions vis a vis Syria. On the one hand, we seem to agree that Assad is the legitimate ruler of Syria. We have said he should leave under some agreed-upon plan, but we have not said he has forfeited his position. On the other hand, we arm, train and fund the opposition that wants to kill him.

This is where “outcome based” planning becomes important. The U.S. needs to decide what outcome we seek in Syria and then whether and how we can get the Russians on the same page. It was possible early on, but may be more difficult now.

It isn’t only Syria, by the way. We are involved in a shooting war in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya – and we’re not at war with any of them.

What are we doing and to what end?

Gordon:  Russian Premier Medvedev met with Israeli PM Netanyahu following the US presidential elections to discuss trade, red lines with Iran, the conflict in Syria and possible renewal of Palestinian Israeli peace negotiations.  What support for Israel’s positions might a Trump Administration provide?

Bryen:  President-elect Trump appears aware that there is no hope of a negotiated “two state solution” right now or in the foreseeable future. That is fine, but most of the time, when people say that, they want to continue U.S. aid to the Palestinians. They want Israel to stop building houses even in the “settlement blocs” that the US has agreed will remain Israeli. They also want Israel to refrain from retaliatory action when there is terrorism inside Israel.  Moreover, they and don’t seem to care that the Palestinians are ratcheting up the pressure on Israel’s legitimacy and are violating the terms of Oslo Accord by confronting Israel in multilateral institutions such as the UN.

The U.S. should be prepared to reduce or terminate aid to the Palestinian Authority if it continues to violate its Oslo commitments. It should agree that Israel can build inside settlement blocks – though not outside. And the incoming administration should press the Palestinians for civil society and democratic reforms that will benefit the Palestinian people and perhaps sow some seeds of moderation. Palestinian Authority ruler Abu Mazen’s biggest problem right now is that Palestinians are demonstrating against him and his rule. The U.S. should be clear that time doesn’t stand still.  If the Palestinians are unable to build the governing institutions they need, the economy they need and the political maturity to come to terms with Israel as a legitimate and permanent country in the region, we can’t prevent others from moving ahead with their national interests.

Gordon:  Russia is heavily involved with Iran in bolstering the Assad Regime in Syria. Yet, it recently floated the possibility of recognizing Kurdish aspirations for regional autonomy in the context of a federalization option to end the six-year civil war in Syria. What are your views on that possibility?

Bryen:  Russia has run into some glitches in its Syria policy and may be looking for a way out. The dispatch of a naval flotilla including the Russian aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov to the Syrian front and the fact that it lost a MiG fighter was not what Putin had in mind. He was trying to stay hands-off.

It was Russia’s intention simply to support Bashar Assad as he put down the uprising.  Its objective was to reinforce its bases in Tartus and Latakia – making the Russians important in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, it did not work that way. Assad is more war criminal than partner. The rebels didn’t surrender.  In fact, the first is the cause of the second.  Assad’s cruelty is the single strongest driving force in ISIS and rebel recruitment. Sunnis trying to escape Assad or find a way to take revenge on the Syrian army have made the war longer and bloodier than it otherwise might have been.

As to the Russian position, the war continues and Assad’s supporters have been taking casualties; Iran and Hezbollah as well as Russia itself. Putin is very sensitive to Russian casualties abroad. He is aware that it was casualties that caused an uprising in Russia during the Afghan war and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Casualties in Ukraine were tolerated at home because Ukraine is seen as part of Russia, so it was like fighting for the homeland. Casualties in Syria are not the same.

Putin invited the Kurds to Moscow to take part in a meeting leading some to think he was going to go in that direction. However, Assad put his foot down and said there would be no Kurdish autonomy. Putin made an agreement with the Turks for Turkish help instead, partly by promising that there would be no Syrian Kurdish autonomy. It is not a very principled position, but Putin does not have much choice at the moment. It’s not a quagmire yet, but the sand is very soft and squishy.

Gordon:  Shoshana, thank you for this insightful discussion.

Bryen:  It was my pleasure.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Also see Jerry Gordon’s collection of interviews, The West Speaks.

American Islamist Group Preps for Jihad Against Trump

Multiple confidential sources in the powerful jihadi group say they have been told to arm them-selves in anticipation of raids by a Trump Admin.

Multiple confidential sources inside of a powerful jihadist group within the United States have informed the Christian Action Network and the Clarion Project that members have been told to arm themselves in anticipation of raids by the Trump Administration.

The Pakistan-based spiritual leader of Muslims of America (MOA), Sheikh Gilani, told top MOA officials (known as “khalifas”) to order all unarmed members to obtain firearms, licenses and hunting permits in order to resist raids on the group’s approximately 22 compounds that they expect to happen under the Trump Administration. Additional “security” was also called up and assault rifles have been mentioned as desirable.

The group now expects the FBI “to reopen its cases against them as a homegrown terrorist organization,” one of the confidential sources told Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network and Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project.

The sources independently stated that members across the country were told of instructions from Sheikh Gilani to “be prepared to fight.” The message reportedly relayed to members was to “hear and obey,” using language identical to the oath of allegiance members sign when they join the group. He predicted, “You will be tested.”

The members believe that President-elect Trump is part of a satanic-Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam, and that he is fulfilling apocalyptic End Times prophecies. Any action taken against MOA is seen as part of a war on Islam, a situation that permits violent jihad.

The preparations for armed confrontation are described as “self-defense measures,” but one source cautioned that the group could decide to take “offensive” action if it believes armed conflict is imminent.

MOA, previously known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, refers to its compounds as “Islamic villages,” with its headquarters in New York known as “Islamberg.” Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro obtained footage of women getting guerilla training at the site, which was filmed in or around 2002. The group has a history of terrorist and criminal activity.

MOA members have a long history of terrorism, extremism and criminal activity including weapons trafficking. A 2007 FBI report obtained by Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project states:

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the US Government.”

It warned that MOA “possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns within the U.S. and overseas.”

Orders were also issued for members released on parole to stay off the compounds and to minimize associations with other MOA members that live on the lands. Many members are on parole for crimes like distributing drugs, running illegal guns, fraud and counterfeiting.

Because parole officers can enter homes or come onto properties without a search warrant, MOA officials are concerned that the presence of a parolee on their land could be used for intelligence-gathering and to find a pretext for a raid.

Multiple independent sources emphasized that MOA membership is not confined to the camps and reported a peculiar scattering of members into areas of the U.S. that previously had no MOA presence.

The sources warned that some MOA members have been in violent drug gangs, sometimes in a covert capacity where the gangs are not informed of their MOA ties. They express concern that non-MOA criminals could be utilized so as to minimize traces to the group.

A public statement by Sheikh Gilani published on November 14 appears peaceful, but these sources say that the wording has frightening implications that outsiders would fail to detect.

“I foretold the disastrous results should this man be elected as the American President. He has come as a test and trial for the faithful adherents of the holy books. There is no reason to cry, weep or despair over this current difficulty,” it reads.

Gilani is referring to his prophecies that a “tyrant” would take control of the White House during the End Times, shortly before an apocalyptic battle happens that ushers in final victory for Islam (as he interprets it).

MOA believes that this “Doomsday” will happen under the reign of Gilani’s successor, known as the 7th Sultan. Gilani is understood by members to be on the cusp of death. Sources reported last monththat Gilani has transferred his title of “imam of MOA” to his son in the U.S., Sultan Ahmed Gilani, who may be separate from the prophetic 7th Sultan.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1”.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1” within the group for his top ranking as an original founder, is said to be a key supervisor of these preparations for armed conflict.

The sources urged Mawyer and Mauro to be on alert, as MOA members believe they are responsible for the forthcoming crackdown. Law enforcement has been informed of the danger and should consider MOA the immediate suspect if any harm is done to them.

The Christian Action Network and Clarion Project challenge Sheikh Gilani to prove his alleged commitment to non-violence by publishing an unequivocal forbiddance of any violent action against Mawyer and Mauro by any MOA supporter under any circumstances.

ABOUT MARTIN MAWYER

Martin Mawyer is the founded the Christian Action Network (CAN). Mawyer has directed three documentary films and has appeared on top television and radio programs in the U.S. His four books include:  Silent Shame: The Shocking Story of Child Sexual Abuse in America; Pathways to Success: First Steps for Becoming a Christian in Action; Defending the American Family and Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamic Terrorist Training Camps Inside America.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young, Radicalized Man From NC Planned Mass Casualty Attack

Four Simple Reasons Not to Trust Iran

Ohio State Stabbing: Playing Into ISIS’ Hands

What If Your Holiday Parade Was a Terror Target?

What do nine bloody attacks in 18 months have in common?

Just now I posted some of the news generated by the Ohio State Somali slasher attack two days ago. But, I still have three other news reports that are connected with the Islam-inspired attack that I want to say more about.

This is the first…..

Don’t miss Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily where he tells us there is a connection between nine violent attacks carried out on American soil in the last 18 months.

Law enforcement, from the local level on up to the FBI, said they did not know what could have motivated the young Muslim student to act in such a premeditated, violent way against his fellow students on a chilly Tuesday morning in Columbus.

Artan, an 18-year-old freshman at OSU, had immigrated from his native Somalia through Pakistan, arriving in Columbus at the invitation of the U.S. government, which considered him a “refugee.”

But the media failed to connect any of the dots with a host of similar attacks on U.S. soil, let alone the even larger number of strikingly similar attacks in Europe committed by migrants from Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Go to World Net Daily where Hohmann connects the dots and see the list of nine violent attacks in the U.S.!  What do they have in common?

An aside: Every time one of the Islam-inspired killers goes on a rampage (showing Islam’s violent propensities), I wonder if the Islamists who are working day and night to take us over through immigration, through the Hijra (detailed in Hohmann’s new book), are furious at the punk with no patience.

RELATED ARTICLES:

News roundup: More Somali Slasher news

Security Expert: Ohio State Attack Further Evidence Jihadis Worldwide Mimic Palestinian Terror Tactics

How many white refugees did we take from South Africa last month?

Laugh of the day: see what Soros is spending money on to help refugees

EDITORS NOTE: Mr. Hohmann’s new book will be available in January 2017. Please click here to order an advanced copy of Stealth Invasion.

State Department Nominee Must Tame The Bureaucratic Beast

The way the media is discussing the choice facing President-Elect Trump over his State Department nominee, you would think it’s a choice about stocking-stuffers. Should I give Mitt the slide whistle, the chocolate truffle, or the lump of coal?

The answer is: none of the above. And as Kellyann Conway noted on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Trump loyalists are wondering why Mitt Romney thinks he deserves to hang his stocking on our mantle to begin with.

Secretary of State is one of three key national security positions, but even more than the National Security advisor or the Secretary of Defense, this is the person who becomes America’s face and voice to seven billion people around the planet. This is the person who will personify American values, who will hold high the flag of freedom.

And most important of all, this is the person who will ensure that President Trump’s agenda actually gets carried out by an unruly, often recalcitrant bureaucracy at the Department of State, filled with partisan Democrats who have burrowed their way into career track jobs to avoid getting automatically axed come the inauguration.

Mitt Romney may be willing to recant his harsh attacks on Donald Trump’s character during the campaign, and Mr. Trump may be willing to forgive him. But the real issue – and it applies to any potential nominee – is this: can he or she ascend to the seventh floor and tame the bureaucracy?

After President Bush was elected to a second term in November 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell called a town meeting of his employees. “We live in a democracy,” he said. “As Americans, we have to respect the results of elections.” Bush had received the most votes of any president in U.S. history. Everyone in this building was constitutionally obligated to serve him, he said.

As I recounted in my 2008 book, Shadow Warriors, one of Powell’s subordinates returned to her office suite, shut the door, and held a mini town meeting of her own. After indignantly recounting Powell’s remarks to her assembled staff, she commented: “Well, Senator Kerry receive the second highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in history. If just one state had gone differently, Sen. Kerry would be President Kerry today.”

The employees of her regional bureau owed no allegiance to the president of the United States, especially not to policies they knew were wrong, she told them. If it was legal, and it would slow down the Bush juggernaut, they should do it.

I fully expect the next Secretary of State will face the same type of open insubordination from political hold-overs, many of whom weathered eight years of George W. Bush. They will use every ruse to undermine President Trump’s policies, especially where those policies conflict with their elitist, globalist agenda – which will be just about everywhere.

Want to slash the $1 billion funding to promote “climate change” initiatives? All of a sudden, that money will get buried in another budget line. Want to stop spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote an LGBT lifestyle overseas? The next secretary will get blank stares when he or she gives such an order to the bureaucrats.

And these are relatively small matters. What about moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, a policy Congress has made law and Donald Trump promoted during the campaign? I guarantee you, the shadow warriors at State will find legal excuses where none exist, and magnify the objections of regional partners who never set foot in Israel anyway.

The State Department has many talented, career professionals, who understand that their job is to promote the policies of the United States of America as defined by the President and his Secretary of State. But it also has many secret and not-so-secret partisans, who believe their duty is to act as so many Edward Snowden’s inside the belly of the beast, leaking to the media and to President Trump’s political enemies.

The next Secretary of State cannot close his eyes to this fact. He must tame the bureaucracy and, like the Swedes, not fear to send those he cannot fire to the “elephant’s churchyard” in the basement.

That’s what happened to Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission under Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, after Hicks had the temerity to testify before Congress that his superiors back in Washington had denied scores of requests for additional security in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The media will scream, and Senator Chuck Schumer will join them, calling the Secretary a vicious partisan, vindictive, or – heavens! – unfair. We need a Secretary of State who will not flinch at the slings and arrows of the president’s political adversaries, who can sweep them away with skill, good humor, and firm resolve.

Do you see Mitt Romney doing that?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the DailyCaller.com.

Pope warns Trump: Do not back away from UN climate pact

Pope Francis has issued a climate change challenge directly to President Elect Trump. The Pope, in thinly veiled speech, urged Trump not to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Paris agreement reached in 2015. The UN treaty has been said by critics to be “history’s most expensive treaty’,” with a “cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually.”

Pope Francis warned of the “crisis of climate change.”  “The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else,” Francis said, in what Reuters described as “a message that looked to be squarely aimed at” Trump.

Trump pledged to pull the U.S. out of the UN Paris climate agreement and defund and withdraw from the UN climate process. See: Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Speaking to a group of scientists, including physicist Stephen Hawking, the pope said in his speech that scientists should “work free of political, economic or ideological interests, to develop a cultural model which can face the crisis of climatic change and its social consequences”. The Pope has previously urged Catholics to pray for a UN climate agreement. See: Pope urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement 

(Pope Francis greets Stephen Hawking (R), theoretical physicist and cosmologist, during a meeting with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican, November 28, 2016. Osservatore Romano/Handout via Reuters)

Pope Francis also called for “an ecological conversion capable of supporting and promoting sustainable development.” In 2015, the Pope issued an encyclical on climate and the environment titled “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home.”

In a 2015 Climate Depot Special Report revealed the Pope’s inner climate circle were. See: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

The report noted: “The Vatican relied on advisers who are the most extreme elements in the global warming debate.  These climate advisers are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe…The Vatican advisers can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment.”

Climate Depot also released the 2015 report: The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming – & See: Pope is a ‘climate lobbyist’ – Listen: Morano: ‘Pope is serving as chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming & UN’

Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.”

Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.”

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has also noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Note: “In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!”

Francis has faced considerable criticism for his climate activism from both inside the Vatican and out.

See: No Consensus inside the Vatican: Skeptical Vatican Cardinal takes a swing at Pope’s climate encyclical: The Catholic Church has ‘no particular expertise in science’ – The Vatican’s financial chief, Cardinal George Pell,

Flashback: Fox’s Andrew Napolitano: Pope Francis is ‘somewhere between a communist with a lowercase ‘c’ and a Marxist with an uppercase ‘M’

Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs was blunt in his criticism of the Pope’s climate claims. “The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming,” Briggs declared.

“The Pope declared it would by ‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.” It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™. So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part,” Briggs wrote in 2015.

Related Links: 

Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

Flashback: The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming

Pope is a ‘climate lobbyist’ – Listen Now: Morano: ‘Pope is serving as chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming & UN’

Listen Now – Full 10 minute interview: Morano on the Pope on SRN News radio (9-23-15): ‘This is all about ideology and central planning and the Pope is now serving as the chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming and the UN. And this is a very ill-conceived role for any pope to play. It’s hard to say the pope is being used, because he is willingly allowing himself to be used by the media and by the UN as a climate lobbyist.’

Pope turns lobbyist?! Urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement – Pope Francis: ‘We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano comment: “No matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical attempts to be, this passage where the Pope urges Catholics to ‘ask God for a positive outcome’ to the current UN global warming treaty process, will overpower every other message. The Pope is clearly endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and essentially declaring he is on a mission from God to support a UN climate treaty. He even conjures up the comical concept of climate ‘tipping points’.” See: Flashback: Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming ‘Tipping Points’ — Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium

Bloomberg Pope poll shows climate lowest of all issues: Only 33% of Americans agree with Pope’s warmism –

Bloomberg Poll: America Loves Pope Francis, But Not His Stance on Climate Change – Bloomberg Poll reveals 56% of U.S. Catholics believe the Pope’s ‘climate change’ push is a ‘bad direction’ for the church. Only 33% think it amounts to a ‘good direction.’

Study: Papal letter, Laudato Si’ fails to inspire Catholics on ‘climate change’ – “While Pope Francis’ environmental call may have increased some individuals’ concerns about climate change, it backfired with conservative Catholics and non-Catholics, who not only resisted the message but defended their pre-existing beliefs by devaluing the pope’s credibility on climate change,” says Nan Li, lead author of the study.

pope-francis-laudato-si

Podesta Emails: ‘Pope Is the Real Deal’ on Climate
THE POPE’S BOSS?! Wikileaks reveals Pope and Soros Forged An Unholy Alliance On ‘Global  – ‘In 2015, the Soros operatives, embedded in the Vatican, directed Pope Francis’ Environmental Agenda, by delivering for Soros and the UN, an Apostolic Exhortation on Climate Change, and a prized papal endorsement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Pope’s apostolic blessing on the Paris Climate Treaty. Soros won the environmental trifecta sealed and delivered by Pope Francis.’

SOROS

Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate Partners With Vatican to Promote UN Climate Agenda

Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate Partners With Vatican to Promote UN Climate Agenda – On March 13, 2013, Soros and his UN operatives understood that the climate instantly warmed and opportunities abounded with the new leftist Argentine pontiff. George Soros could not have imagined a more perfect partner on the world stage, one he has been searching for his entire career: a major religious leader pontificating as the moral authority for the environmental, borderless countries, mass migration, and pro-Islamic movements.

Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: ‘The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming’ – The Pope declared it would by “‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.” It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™. So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part.

Leonardo DiCaprio Meets With Pope Francis On ‘Need for Immediate Action on Climate Change’

Bjorn Lomborg: On climate change, Pope Francis isn’t listening to the world’s poor – Lomborg: ‘Those who claim to speak for the poor and say that climate change is the world’s top priority are simply wrong. The world has clearly said it is the least important of the 16 priorities the UN focuses on. And when those campaigners suggest the poor don’t know what’s best for them because carbon cuts will stop global warming from making all other problems worse, they’re wrong again. The poor are typically much better helped directly rather than via climate aid.’

No Consensus inside the Vatican: Skeptical Vatican Cardinal takes a swing at Pope’s climate encyclical: The Catholic Church has ‘no particular expertise in science’ – The Vatican’s financial chief, Cardinal George Pell, has taken the unusual step of criticizing Pope Francis’ groundbreaking environmental encyclical, arguing the Catholic Church has “no particular expertise in science.” Nearly 18 months after Pell was brought to the Vatican by Pope Francis and given a mandate to reform the city-state’s banking affairs, the Australian cardinal gave an interview to the Financial Times, whacking his boss’ landmark document.  “It’s got many, many interesting elements. There are parts of it which are beautiful,” he said. “But the church has no particular expertise in science … the church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters. We believe in the autonomy of science,” Pell told the Financial Times.

Cardinal George Pell on global warming: If it’s science, where’s the evidence?

Kudos! A religious leader who gets it! Flashback 2006: Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’

Claim: Pope Francis Part of Amicus Brief Filed in Support of Teen’s Landmark Climate Change Lawsuit

Watch: Video of climate activists at Papal rally in DC reveals they don’t believe in God – ‘I’m more involved with the nature religions’ – ‘The best part, most of those in attendance didn’t even believe in God! And they certainly were not convinced by the Pope’s position on climate to think more critically about other matters faith and Catholic teaching, such as issues like abortion. If the Pope and the Vatican think that by taking a step closer to the left on climate change they would make people more open to serious matters of faith and morality, they are flat out wrong.’

UK Sun newspaper: Pope Francis committing ‘Holy Wrong’ – ‘He has no business banging on about climate change’ – ‘Stick to religion, Your Holiness’

Alabama’s climatologist Dr. John Christy: I would give the Pope some homework on global warming – Regs ‘will actually do nothing to change what the climate is going to do’

‘We have never lived in better times’: Aussie Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer: Heaven and Hell, the Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty – This book criticises the Encyclical and shows that we have never lived in better times, that cheap fossil fuel energy has and is continuing to bring hundreds of millions of people from peasant poverty to the middle class and that the alleged dangerous global warming is a myth.

‘Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty.’

Pope Francis, Vatican Officials and Climate Skeptics Have a Common Enemy in United Nations Global Warming Agenda

Robert Redford: The Pope is right about climate change – Redford: ‘Flooding, drought, wildfires, and hurricanes – all you have to do is open your eyes to see the damage being done, and it’s going to get worse. We can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse for inaction. The jury is no longer out – climate change is real. It is not just a threat for the future, but happening here and now. And as Pope Francis so eloquently points out, climate change is a moral imperative that transcends politics.’

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit – Full Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down Skeptics

Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – Clexit ‘will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’ – ‘So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’

George Soros, Karl Popper, and Podsnap by Hugh Fitzgerald

George Soros has just pledged $15 million to fight “hate crimes.” Who could object to this? Well, I could, and you could, if by “hate crimes” Soros means truthful statements about what Islamic texts — Qur’an and Hadith and Sira – contain. But those texts and teachings of Islam do represent a menace to all non-Muslims, and it would be folly not to recognize this. And I could object, and you could, if Soros means to exclude as “hate crimes” (or “hate speech” precedent to “hate crimes”) a Muslim quoting those exact same texts because, in his view, if made by a Believer, they cannot possibly be “hate speech.” For if they were, that would mean that the texts of Islam itself would have to be called into question, and that – according to the Defenders of the Faith such as George Soros – can simply never be. A Muslim reports, for example, that the Qur’an says that Muslims are the “best of peoples”(3:110) and non-Muslims the “most vile of creatures.”(98:6) This is both accurate and, for George Soros, not a “hate crime.” But when some non-Muslim reports that Muslims say that the Qur’an says that “Muslims are the best of peoples” and “non-Muslims the most vile of creatures,” George Soros and the Muslim groups he funds regard those statements as whipping up hatred against Muslims; that is, they constitute a “hate crime.” For Soros, what the Muslim quotes in such a case says hardly matters; Soros long ago made up his mind that these passages don’t matter or don’t exist or are being taken out of context or surely have to be interpreted differently, and in any case, who cares about such remarks except for those Islamophobes always trying to sow distrust and hate.

Soros has, through his Open Society Foundation, shown a deep interest in defending Muslims and in deflecting attention from Islam’s texts. His foundation has consistently given grants to organizations, such as the Muslim Advocates, that seek to water down anti-terrorist measures, and to constrain the effectiveness of domestic intelligence in monitoring likely terrorists, and has been responsible for forcing the NYPD to end some of its most effective programs, including its monitoring of mosques. After the Dec. 2, 2015 attack in San Bernardino, for example, the Open Society’s Muslim grantees did not express horror at the attack by a Muslim couple on their Infidel fellow workers, but rather, according to a hacked document, immediately “mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment.” The policy agenda of the Open Society Foundation is to insist that the main source of “hate crimes” in the United States is a never clearly-defined “Islamophobia,” which vague term is used to describe and consign to the outer darkness all criticism of Islam, to suggest that Islam itself is always and everywhere beyond criticism, which – given the observable behavior of Muslims in the United States and all over the world – becomes more ludicrous every day. Can anyone with a straight face still maintain that all those who are made anxious, angry, fearful about Islam, because of what has happened in Paris and Nice, in Brussels and Amsterdam, in London and Madrid, in Moscow and Beslan, in Beijing and Bali, in New York and Washington and Boston, at Fort Hood and in Chattanooga and San Bernardino (you can fill up notebooks with the list of nearly 30,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists, following the texts of Islam, that have been committed since 9/11/2001) are merely hate-filled Islamophobes?

Soros has not listened to, much less heeded, the testimony of that growing number of ex-Muslims who actually grew up within Islam, and in the West found both the intellectual freedom and physical security (though that security is relative; most must live under constant guard for fear of their former coreligionists), to find their way out of Islam and have chosen to sacrifice their safety in order to alert the non-Muslim world about the teachings and texts of Islam. These ex-Muslims are particularly worrisome because they are thoroughly versed in what Islam teaches, cannot be bullied into backing down by claims they “don’t know what they are talking about,” and offer from the inside an authentic view of Islam and of Muslims, which may be unflattering, but also happens to be true. If Soros were truly interested in “reforming” Islam – assuming that such a difficult and doubtful undertaking might improve matters – then surely one would want to publicize and to promote Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ibn Warraq, Magdi Allam and others like them. Soros has never been interested sin these witnesses; for him there are only victimized Muslims and Islamophobes. Yet these ex-Muslims are as valuable now as, decades ago, were defectors from the K.G.B. who alerted the West to the full menace of Soviet Communism.

When Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, writes that on September 11, 2001 she was horrified by the news of the attack on the World Trade Center, but not at all surprised, because she knew from her own Muslim upbringing of the intense hatred of Infidels to be found in Islam, does Hirsi Ali’s remark constitute “hate speech”? When Wafa Sultan or Nonie Darwish or Magdi Allam describe in similar terms the passages of murderous hatred toward non-Muslims to be found in the Qur’an and Hadith, and that they were constantly subjected to when they grew up in Muslim environments in Syria and Egypt, shouldn’t George Soros want to support them in their commitment to warning the West? Soros has taken his stand: he will do nothing to encourage the truthful study of Islamic texts, and will instead do everything he can to avoid having the American public be made aware of, for example, this telling — if oft-repeated — list of Qur’anic passages pertaining to Infidels:

Qur’an 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
Qur’an 3:21 “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends”
Qur’an 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
Qur’an 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran”
Qur’an 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels”
Qur’an 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them”
Qur’an 9:5 “When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them”
Quran 9:123 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood”
Qur’an 22:19 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies”
Qur’an 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them”

Soros does not want to acknowledge such passages. I suspect at this point nothing could induce him to read the Qur’an and Hadith. He doesn’t want to know for certain what he suspects he might find. He wants, rather, to live in a comfortable cocoon of high-minded ignorance, where he is flattered sycophantically by the recipients of his largesse, and can remain happily convinced that for some reason he can’t quite fathom, all over the world, Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, atheists and agnostics, are engaged in an effort to persecute defenseless Muslims in an orgy of Islamophobia. For Soros, there is only one way to bring about the heavenly kingdom, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, which is for non-Muslims to recognize, and reject, the “climate of fear” they have created for Muslims, a fear for which there is no discernible reason. Never mind the Muslim clerics who speak openly about deliberately leaching on Infidel societies, with Muslims helping themselves to a proleptic Jizyah both from the receipt of every possible welfare-state benefit they can get, and by property crimes, also seen as a kind of Jizyah, against Infidels. Never mind the skyrocketing statistics on Muslims committing sex crimes on non-Muslims (women, men, children of both sexes). Never mind those Muslims who speak openly of how they are using demography as a weapon of Jihad – outbreeding while battening on their helpless hosts, so that with each year their percentage of the population inexorably rises.

Here is Hirsi Ali in a 2007 interview in the London Standard:

Just like Nazism started with Hitler‘s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to deathhomosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killedSharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism.” In this interview, she said, “Violence is inherent in Islam – it’s a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.

Islam – not “Islamism” –is a cult that you can be born into, or join, but once in you can’t get out; the punishment for apostasy is death. It is both a fanatic and a fighting faith, where Infidels are likened to animals, women and homosexuals can be beaten or killed, and those who leave the faith killed for defecting from the Army of Islam. Could George Soros allow himself to recognize the simian similarities between Islam and the Nazism from which he just barely escaped? Does George Soros think that apostates are not killed, that women are not beaten (or killed) for sex outside marriage, that homosexuals are not killed simply for being homosexuals? Does he think the murderous depiction of Infidels, and especially of Jews (for being the firmest in their opposition to Muhammad) is simply made up?

And why does Soros promote campaigns that spread false Islamophobia on social media? There is so much of this already going around, these anti-Muslim “hate crimes” designed to elicit sympathy for Muslims that turn out to be hoaxes, that Soros need hardly bother. The latest example is the story about one Abdul Aziz Usmani, a 7-year-old whose father claimed he was repeatedly beaten up by fellow students on a school bus in Cary, North Carolina, though neither the bus driver nor any of the other students noticed anything awry, and furthermore, the boy bore no signs of any injury, nor reported any attack, until his father did. Liza Luten, a spokesman for the school, told BuzzFeed news: “[The principal] interviewed seven students sitting near this child, and none of the students, nor the bus driver, witnessed any type of altercation or incident.” When [the family] originally shared the information, they didn’t share any information about religion or race, and just that their child was bullied.

The police investigated, and concluded that it was a charge without merit, one more pretend-hate crime. Robert Spencer has also noted the case in New Jersey of a Muslim who was convicted of a murder that he had tried to depict as an “Islamophobic” attack, and another in California of a man convicted of killing his wife, an attack he tried to blame on “Islamophobia.” And then there was the woman who said she was called a terrorist and her cheek slashed in Manhattan, who later admitted she made up the story. If you click on each word here — CAIR and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated — you will have ten more examples of claimed anti-Muslim “hate-crimes” that turned out to be hoaxes. And tomorrow, or next week, there will be still more to add to the list.

Does George Soros allow himself to know anything about this long catalogue of “hate crimes” where there was no crime, or where the crime in question was indeed committed, but by Muslims? A moment’s thought would tell him that if he really cared about the reputation of Muslims, he would want to do whatever he could to put a stop to these false reportings. For when they are finally revealed (as so many of them have been), they only earn Muslims still more suspicion and contempt. But Soros will have none of that. He prefers simply to ignore the whole lengthening list of fabricated hate crimes, and instead, dwells in a phantasmagoric world where Muslims live in constant fear of attack. Nor is there convincing evidence of such fear. Instead of cowering, Muslims appear quite aggressive throughout the Western world in pushing their own agendas: demands for prayer rooms in schools and workplaces, insistence upon wearing hijabs that violate longstanding dress codes, prayer times that interrupt the work day schedule, rewriting of history in school textbooks — wherever they sense Infidel weakness, demands are made.

George Soros seems strangely unaffected by the rise of antisemitism in Europe. Though he escaped from the Nazis by the skin of his teeth, he appears unwilling to recognize the source of the new wave of antisemitism in Europe – the burgeoning population of Muslims. One wonders if he is aware of the description of the Jews in the Qur’an as the “descendants of apes and pigs,” the people who were most firm in their opposition to Muhammad, and who even were responsible — see the Sira — for poisoning Muhammad. Here is the conclusion to a 700-page treatise, Jews in the Qur’an and the Traditions, by Grand Sheik Tantawi, Sunni Islam’s leading cleric, and the head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo:

[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah, corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness … only a minority of the Jews keep their word. … [A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims, the bad ones do not.

Descriptions of Jews by prominent Muslim clerics are quoted by Robert Spencer in an omnium-gatherum article on the persistence of antisemitism in Islam:

The grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims today, has called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.” Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam—which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.

The steady rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe has been attributed, by European authorities, to Muslims who have taken to heart what the Qur’an and Hadith have to say about Jews. Why should we not believe that as the Muslim population grows in the United States, there will not be the same rise in hate crimes by Muslims against Jews here, too? Or should we believe, as some fondly do, that there is something unique about “American” Muslims – uniquely tolerant, as opposed to Muslims elsewhere in the world, even though all Muslims read the same Qur’an, the same Hadith, the same Sira? Doesn’t the less aggressive behavior, so far, of American Muslims reflect only the fact of lesser numbers, of their constituting 1% rather than 3% or 5% or 10% of the population?

It is too bad that George Soros, with his willingness to deploy millions to work his will, remains adamantine in his refusal to look at the evidence of Muslim “hate speech” that then gives rise to “hate crimes.” It is too bad that he has decided that it is Muslims who need to be protected from a potential wave of violence from “Islamophobes,” though there has been no such wave, not in North America, and not anywhere in the Western world. It is too bad that George Soros does not recognize that the charge of “Islamophobia” is a Muslim invention, designed to silence all criticism of Islam, and misleadingly characterizing as “irrational hatred” the criticism of Islam that is solidly based on a familiarity with the contents of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.

George Soros fancies himself more than merely a supremely enlightened Maecenas. He thinks of himself as a philosopher, keeper of the flame of the late Karl Popper who, like Soros, was of Jewish descent and, like Soros, escaped the Nazis in time. Popper’s most influential work for Soros was his “The Open Society and Its Enemies.” But whatever Soros learned from that work of political philosophy, he seems not to have taken to heart the single most celebrated remark of Popper, made in 1945, after the final defeat of the Nazis: “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Soros may have learned, or thinks he learned, a great deal from Karl Popper,but he did not learn this. And because he is more than tolerant of the most intolerant and fanatical force now bestriding the earth, he has made himself one of the enemies of the “open society” that Popper championed.

But there is one personage whom Soros, in his willful blindness about Islam, does resemble. That is Dickens’ Mr. Podsnap:

…Mr Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness–not to add a grand convenience–in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr Podsnap’s satisfaction. ‘I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!’ Mr Podsnap had even acquired a peculiar flourish of his right arm in often clearing the world of its most difficult problems, by sweeping them behind him (and consequently sheer away) with those words and a flushed face. For they affronted him.

“I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it” – that is George Soros, on Islam. He fancies himself a disciple of Karl Popper. But when it comes to “clearing the world of its most difficult problems,” he turns out to be, though he would be outraged at the suggestion, merely, and maddeningly, an avatar of Mr. Podsnap.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jihad at Ohio State University: Man who attacked with knife and car “tentatively identified” as Somali Muslim

Muslim cleric: Happiness over Israeli fires “is in keeping with the Sharia”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Jihad At Ohio State, A Multiculturalism Perk

Jihad broke out on the Ohio State Campus Monday morning when an 18 year old Somali refugee, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, decided to mow down as many students as possible by running a car over a curb into a group of helpless pedestrians.

If that wasn’t bad enough, he emerged from the car with a butcher knife slashing up to nine people before being shot dead by a heroic police officer. Wonder if Black Lives Matter will have a problem with this shooting, since the suspect was a person of color?

Fortunately the only death was that of the perpetrator, Artan, the third year logistics management student, who left Somalia in 2007 with his family. According to an NBC report, “ he lived in Pakistan and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident of the United States,”

Those injured were taken to local hospitals, eight were treated for non-life threatening injuries, and one was in critical condition following the horrendous attack.

All the predictable signs of main stream media reporting that normally accompany an obvious jihadi attack were evident from the get go. For example: the suspect was not named, the motive for the attack was unclear, and the investigators will look into it to see if it might possibly be a terrorist attack.

It is interesting that an article from PJ media just came out before Thanksgiving predicting this kind of attack with a vehicle and a knife. The article references an Islamic State Magazine called Rumiyah that gives explicit instructions for lone jihadists. The article states,

“Vehicles are like knives, as they are extremely easy to acquire. But unlike knives, which if found in one’s possession can be a cause for suspicion, vehicles arouse absolutely no doubts due to their widespread use throughout the world,”

In addition,

“It adds that cars are one of the ‘safest and easiest’ weapons as well as ‘most successful in harvesting large numbers of the kuffar [disbelievers].’”

I wonder if the FBI will even be knowledgeable about this magazine? Chances are not very likely as agents were certainly blinded to important intelligence gathered by Phil Haney about links to Mateen after the Orlando jihadi attack in which 50 people were killed.

But we can all rest assured that our DHS Secretary Johnson will be right on top of it as he leads his FBI agents to take part in this investigation. He will most likely try to find any other reason besides one linked with Islam as the motive for today’s vehicular attack. The signs already scream Islamic terrrorism.

The Latern, a local on campus newspaper just happened to interview Artan back in August. He was upset that there were no prayer rooms for Muslims at Ohio State. He said,

“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was kind of scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable.”

You can bet that if Obama says anything at all, it will totally skirt the fact of the jihadist’s refugee status. No, he’ll focus on social media that isn’t being controlled when it comes to what is printed about Islam or say something about how there better not be any backlash on the Muslim community.

Counsel for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) will certainly come out for a presser to push the victim-hood of Muslims in this country and will blame the poor Somali for going “crazy” after being so afraid of Donald Trump and his hideous policies that will certainly harm the Muslim population.

We’ve all been here numerous times. We know the left and Islamic playbook.

And once again we, the sane Americans, will look on yet another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil as a result of having multiculturalism stuffed down our throats, having to stomach immigration policies that continue to force a non-Western people into the hearts of our communities. Many of the Islamic immigrants do not share our love of freedom but want to force their ideology on us no matter what the cost to Americans’ life or limb.

From the sound of Artan’s admission, he wasn’t comfortable here. So was this the best country for him and his family to be brought to? Or would another Muslim country have suited him better?

Mike Gonzales, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, states this in a recent article about saving our national identity,

“multiculturalism poses a clear and present danger in the age of international terrorism because it makes life easier for radical recruiters. We all need to be part of something bigger than ourselves, especially young men. If we no longer imbue our people with patriotic fellow feeling, someone else will come along with another message.”

And that is what is happening over and over again. These young men infused with the Islamic ideology are wanting to prove themselves as something of worth. They see our country as an enemy and they hate us. They are simply taught this if brought up in an Islamic country, and we aren’t teaching about our great and amazing heritage of freedom in the school system

Sadly, it didn’t take long for the young Artan to prove to Americans that they should have had suspicion when looking at him. He has played out in reality what the media may have been saying about him, possibly that just as Hunington’s Clash of Civilization’s states,

“Relations between groups from different civilizations however will be almost never close, usually cool, and often hostile.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

The Motive of the Muslim Terrorist in Ohio has been Confirmed

During my career as a U.S. Federal Agent and as an Islamic counter-terrorism professional for three decades plus, I want to clarify for all how the motive for a crime is determined. As we all know the reason a person acted in a certain manner, which concluded in a crime, is the motive. Our media, politicians, and our law enforcement seem to struggle for extended periods of time over what the motive was for a Muslim who committed an act of Islamic terrorism. Whenever a Muslim (pure advocate of Shariah law) does anything, and I stress anything, his/her motive is for the advancement of Islam worldwide and under Sharia law.

In the case of the Muslim Islamic terrorist who committed an act of terrorism today at the Ohio State University, he carried out the act of injuring people for the advancement of Islam. Allegedly he was not satisfied with the lack of Islamic prayer rooms at OSU. Law enforcement and others are misleading patriots by suggesting this is the reason he tried to kill people. Islam and shariah law demand their followers to fight any form of perceived oppression because Prophet Mohammed (a false prophet) advocated for Islam to one day rule the world. In order to achieve this goal Muslims are taught to fight, humiliate, cause stress, and misery to non believers of Islam at all places and at all times. By doing this Islam is advanced one step further toward a worldwide caliphate.

America and the world will continue to see more attacks at our schools, because Islamic terrorists opine the hearts of the American people and all innocent people are their children. They feel if they (Muslims) destroy the hearts of innocent people, they will destroy their will to live and will bow to the order of Islam.

Wake up innocent patriots worldwide. Islam and pure Muslims who advocate Islam and Shariah law are your enemies.

You can no more tame a rattle-head snake than you can a Muslim who has accepted Islam and the love of a false prophet (Mohammed) who hates Christians and Jews, and who has flooded our world with violence and wars since his unfortunate birth over 1400 years ago.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dr. Sebastian Gorka: OSU Attacker a Disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki, Who Is More Dangerous Today Than Bin Laden

RELATED VIDEO: Ohio State Terror Attacker a Somali Refugee