Survey of American Muslims: Sharia and Violence Are ‘Acceptable’

We are constantly told that only a tiny minority of Muslims hold extremist views and that Muslims make wonderful citizens. But a recent survey refutes all of this optimistic propaganda.

The survey tell us that significant numbers of Muslims in America do not want to be ruled by our Constitution but want Sharia law. Nearly a third of the Muslims said that violence to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws are acceptable. Nearly 10% of American Muslims say that Islamic State is real Islam.

Why do we want to admit more Muslims who oppose our laws and customs? How can Muslims be true citizens of America?

A recent survey shows thousands of American Muslims support shariah and jihad.

EDITORS NOTE: The survey discussed by Dr. Warner reveals the level at which American Muslims are “Fitnaphobic.” The results show, “[S]ignificant minorities embrace supremacist [Fitnaphobic] notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.” To read the survey click here.

The rejection of the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” is based upon the Quranic requirement that shariah be preeminent. Anyone resisting the imposition of shariah law [Fitna] must be stopped, by any and all means available.

Fitnaphobes cannot, by definition, be loyal to their host country’s laws, in this case the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America. They may pretend to adhere to the host countries laws until such time as they are numerous enough to impose shariah and thereby end the Fitna.

Putting a Fitnaphobe in any position of authority, public or private, can pose a national security threat to the host nation.

To learn more visit

How Team Obama helps The Organization of Islamic Cooperation wage Jihad on Freedom of Expression

Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West.  What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda.  The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”.  In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including:  jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.

Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda.  As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.

Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack.  Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”

The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.

The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.

In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts.  As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that:

Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.  Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on

EDITORS NOTE: For further information on the threats shariah poses to our foundational liberal democratic values, see more titles from the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series. Readers may purchase The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech in Kindle or paperback format on Amazon. Click here for a free PDF of the newly released monograph.

Don’t Listen to Edward Snowden’s Supporters – His Leaks Have Been a Gift to Terrorists by Robin Simcox

So this is the house that Edward Snowden built. The introduction of the Freedom Act last week has now reined in the NSA’s powers, particularly regarding the collection of telephony metadata. As part of this, phone records are now in the hands of private companies, rather than the state. This puts the US in the same situation as the UK and, in reality, senior figures in the US intelligence community are relaxed about this, providing the NSA can access them in a speedy manner.

These reforms that have taken place under the Freedom Act are directly attributable to Snowden’s theft of classified documents two years ago and subsequent distribution to journalists. To find out just how high the cost of this has been, I spoke to a range of senior officials in both the US and UK to try and get an idea of the national security impact of Snowden’s disclosures.

Quantifying the damage that has been done is not always easy. If a terror suspect dropped off the radar post-June 2013, it could not always be proved it was because of what he had learned from Snowden; perhaps the timing was a coincidence. Regardless, there are trends emerging.

Firstly, a series of ongoing intelligence operations had to be abandoned. They had been predicated on the pre-June 2013 assumption that they could take place without fear of discovery or attribution. Snowden removed that element of doubt, so the operations were scrapped.

Secondly, there is the knowledge that state adversaries have gone to town on the methodologies that the Snowden files revealed. There is significant fear that China and Russia, for example, have taken stock of Western intelligence agencies’ own cyber strategies and are now going to deploy them back against the US and its allies.

When it comes to stopping terrorist attacks, groups that seek to harm the West also now have an advanced understanding about our capacity to stop them. A video released in January onto a jihadist online platform explained just some of what mujahideen fighters had taken from Snowden: “All mobile phone providers use the same software, your device continuously is in contact with the nearest tower,” it says. “Your different coordinates are tracked and stored. All your calls, messages and internet history are stored in this same place […] With his phone, tablet or laptop the enemy can listen/record all conversations and meetings.”

The video also provided advice on how to avoid detection, listing software packages that protect against surveillance and where to acquire them from.

Snowden’s disclosures have led to changes in the way that terrorists communicate. One senior US intelligence official told me that, post-Snowden, this was the “most significant change” that had taken place and others have corroborated that this shift has occurred. Speaking in November 2013, then-Chair of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mike Rogers, said that Snowden’s disclosures had allowed three different al-Qaeda affiliates to change the way they communicate.

One of the drivers behind this are Snowden’s disclosures regarding Section 702, which governs the interception of communications of foreign nationals based outside the US, in order to acquire foreign intelligence relating to national security, foreign affairs and national defence. Snowden allowed terrorists to wise up to the fact that even if you are sitting in Yemen and emailing Somalia, your communications will still often pass through the US. He also allowed them to figure out which companies were complying with the US government in giving access to this data. Terrorist groups quickly switched communication service providers or dropped off the electronic radar altogether.

Snowden’s actions have also led to terrorist groups developing new encryption technology. Experts at GCHQ talk of how cracking the communications of a high value national security target can take three times as long as it once did. That can mean the difference between life and death. Yet it’s not just terrorists who Snowden has strengthened. In Britain, GCHQ’s ability to monitor crime gangs – including those involved in people trafficking and drugs – has been reduced by a quarter.

To Snowden’s supporters, such things are usually irrelevant. But for everybody else, what should concern us is that the damage we know Snowden caused so far could actually just be scratching the surface. As Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, said earlier this year, “Snowden threw a massive rock in the pool and the ripples haven’t stopped yet.”

These ripples occur at a time the threat to the West from a variety of state and non-state actors grows. While we may be getting an idea of the damage Snowden caused in the past, there is still ample reason to fear what more he could cause in the future.




Robin Simcox is the national security fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a foreign policy think tank in London.

RELATED ARTICLE: Poverty Isn’t the Root Cause of Jihadist Terrorism. Here’s What Is.

There is No ‘Done’ in Politics

Recently I was hosting a show on a Washington D.C. talk radio station and a frustrated voter called and told me he was “done.” The caller went through an impromptu list of terrible policy decisions by the Obama Administration in the economic, healthcare, regulatory, and spending realm – in addition to social issues and law enforcement arenas.  He culminated his rant by expressing his desire to throw in the towel. The man’s fear and apprehension was unmistakable, but his response deeply troubled me.

The man’s comments didn’t trouble me because I thought his analysis was incorrect or misguided, it troubled me because he was correct. The Left is winning, and winning big. They have engaged in a century-long war on our culture, our values, our liberty, and our constitutional system of government, and have managed to win nearly every major skirmish. They have not only won these battles, they have successfully implemented a de facto (possibly de jure system after the recent Supreme Court session) penalty system of social isolation and shaming, reminiscent of the Scarlet Letter, to be put into place by immediately branding a hateful label upon the head of anyone with an opposing view.

Conservative victories are few and far between. Even when we win, the spoils evanescence quickly and the liberty train continues to move farther and farther away from the station. The far Left has no appetite for facts and data, only for division and obfuscation. Without anger, division politics, and fear, the far Left has nothing. They are immune to logic as if they’ve been vaccinated against common sense, but they continue to plug away at our economic and political liberty. Whether it’s Greece’s bankruptcy, Venezuela’s breadlines, Cuba’s political prisoners, Puerto Rico’s zeroed-out bank account, or any of the many other examples of the misery caused by their policies, they continue to follow their comrades off the cliff like lemmings.

Yes, that’s all bad news, and you may be wondering why I’m challenging the caller who was willing to toss in the towel. I do so because this isn’t a reality TV show or material for a future cautionary tale– it’s a fight against the never-ending human pursuit of power at the expense of others. I’m not sure what the “I’m done with this fight” caller was expecting. Saying we are losing the fight is far different from saying we have “lost” the fight, and it assumes that we won something in the past. There will never be any conclusion to this fight.  It’s not a marathon or a sprint. It’s a race that has no finish line. It’s an eternal boxing match, not a temporary golf game. If you walk off the golf course and say “I’m done,” no one really cares. The owner of the golf course gets his money and the players behind you get to play through faster. In a boxing match, when you say “I’m done,” the other guy is still kicking your ass and you’d better care or you’ll be dead.

There’s no “done,” there’s never a “done.” The fight is what matters, it’s all that matters. We have to stop whining about electoral and legislative losses and start thinking about resisting. We will be measured by our sacrifices and our ability to peacefully, and responsibly, resist. Never, ever give up this fight. If you are the last one to turn off the light of liberty in your town, city, state, or country, then know you’ve sacrificed and paid the admission price for a future generation’s better tomorrow, when it all collapses.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. Featured image of President Ronald Reagan is courtesy by Jim Cole | AP Photo.

Libertarian Dennis Hof Running For Harry Reid’s Open U.S. Senate Seat

CARSON CITY, Nev. /PRNewswire/ — Dennis Hof–legal brothel mogul, HBO-TV star, best-selling author, successful business entrepreneur and Nevadan, has announced he has joined the Libertarian Party and has organized an exploratory committee to run for U.S. Senate.

Dennis Hof (Hof) announced today he has washed his hands of the two major political parties, switching his affiliation to Libertarian ( and forming an official Exploratory Committee to consider a run for Harry Reid’s U.S. senate seat in 2016. Hof’s move to run for the long Democrat-held position comes on the heels of state lawmakers passing the largest tax increase in Nevada history, pushing business-owner Hof to finally say he’s “Fed up and not going to take it anymore!”

“I’ve voted for Democrats and Republicans all my life, and all it’s gotten me, and all Nevadans, is more taxes and regulations and less freedoms, I’m disgusted with them both. As of today I have changed my party affiliation to the Libertarian Party and I am supporting the Libertarian Party of Nevada and encourage other people to do the same,” said Hof, the owner of the world famous Moonlite Bunny Ranch ( and six other licensed Nevada brothels. “And if I really want to change things in this state, and this country, I have to have some skin in the game—and running for U.S. Senator may just be the best way to do it.”

The Hof For Senate 2016 Exploratory Committee is being headed up by Libertarian Party of Nevada ChairmanBrett H. Pojunis (Pojunis), who along with other Libertarian Party officials met with Hof at the party’s recent Libertarian Political Expo ( held in Las Vegas. Pojunis and Hof came away from the confab deciding to join forces to take on both the state and federal political establishments.

Dennis Hof epitomizes what being a libertarian is all-about. He’s been living as a libertarian all his life—and the Libertarian Party of Nevada is proud to now welcome him into our party as an ‘official’ Libertarian,” said Pojunis. “Exploring the possibility of having Dennis as the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada is both exciting and unprecedented. If Dennis decides to run, the entire nation will be watching our senate race, and they will all see the clear differences between the Libertarian Party, and the Democrat and Republican duopoly.”

The Hof For Senate 2016 Exploratory Committee will consist of a wide range of high-profile representatives from the worlds of entertainment, politics and media—with those already mentioned as possibilities including such luminaries as Tucker Carlson, Vince Neil, John Stossel, Rita Cosby, Ron Jeremy, Howard Stern, Judith Regan, Larry Flynt and Johnny Buss. Hof said that his group of advisors would be strictly “blue ribbon,” and he would be giving their analysis “serious consideration” in determining whether he should throw his hat into the 2016 Senate race ring.

Dennis Hof is available for interviews by contacting or 775-720-9090

About The Libertarian Party of Nevada:

The Libertarian Party is third-largest and the fastest growing political party in the America. To learn more about the LPNevada, visit Please follow LPNevada and Like our Facebook page

The Greek “OXI” (NO) vote is all over the news. But, what’s next? by LaRouchePAC

Revive the Glass-Steagall Act — It’s time for our own United States to take the next historic steps to free the world of austerity.

If you don’t know what the Glass-Steagall act is, please take a moment and review the background of the law, and what it did.

Lyndon LaRouche’s call to action, below,  is our historic responsibility not only to other nations of the world, but to ourselves, so that we might give a future to the next generations.

LaRouche: To Save the Trans-Atlantic Region, Implement FDR’s Glass Steagall Act Now

July 6, (EIRNS) — Lyndon LaRouche today responded to Sunday’s landslide rejection by Greek voters of the Troika’s genocidal austerity program, by clearly spelling out how the United States can play a decisive role in solving the otherwise irreversible collapse of the entire British-run trans-Atlantic financial system. LaRouche called for the United States to immediately adopt a return to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s original Glass Steagall policy.

The United States, LaRouche declared, should set the example for Europe, by immediately reinstating FDR’s Glass Steagall.

“The U.S. should solve the problem of the European mess, starting with the mess in Britain, by a Glass Steagall reorganization, clearing out the oversized and useless debt. Cancel all the debt with no intrinsic value, by going back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s successful model.  Only by such a debt cancellation can there be any prospect of a longterm recovery, in real physical economic terms.”

In his weekly live broadcast dialogue with LPAC’s Policy Committee, on July 6, LaRouche elaborated on his call for immediate Glass-Steagall:

“What has happened, as a result of the Greek operations during yesterday and today, has created a situation in which… Europe, most nations in Europe, and also the United States, are implicitly bankrupt. This is number one.

“Now what I mean on number one, on the bankruptcy, is that Wall Street in particular, and everything that coordinates with Wall Street, is now actually worthless.  That will be shown in due course, that we hope we can get this thing under control. What this means, we have to go to a Glass-Steagall action.  The only way we can do this, is a Glass-Steagall action.  That means, in the trans-Atlantic region, I’m talking about right now the trans-Atlantic region:  The situation is that the United States in particular is in a collapse.  That is, Wall Street and the things which are associated with Wall Street, are now actually worthless, which means a great amount of what is called money, among the business community, especially the financial business community, is worthless, and it is going to be very difficult for Wall Street and President Obama, both, to try to cover things over in this matter.

“Now the other side of this situation is, that it is perfectly possible for us in the United States itself, and with cooperation with certain circles in Europe and elsewhere, we’re quite capable of solving the problem.  And the solution is obviously, Glass-Steagall, Franklin Roosevelt’s own Glass-Steagall.  That is essentially the key thing.

“And the only way that the United States and the people of the United States could possibly escape from a general breakdown of the financial system of the United States, is to go back to Glass-Steagall.  That would mean we would simply cancel most of everything that’s called Wall Street, or anything like it; just cancel it.  It’s rubbish.  It has no intrinsic value.

“And therefore we have to go back to Franklin Roosevelt’s policies in order to save the United States economy.  Now, it’s going to be a tough row to hoe, because we have very poor skills available in the U.S. population.  The productive power of labor, in the United States’ population, has collapsed to a great degree…

“We see that, when people say, ‘well, some people are poor, they’re not worth keeping.’ Well, that’s not the problem, that’s not the truth of the matter. What they’re trying to do is kill off people, as in the case of California.  What’s happening in California, is actually an intentional determination, to kill off as many people in California and adjoining areas as possible. That’s what the policy is; that’s plain talk, no beating around the Bush.  And the Governor of California is one of the leaders, who is leading toward a campaign for mass-slaughter of people in California and adjoining areas.  That’s the reality!

“However, if we go to Glass-Steagall, Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall, with means which I’m fully aware of as feasible, we can prevent that.  But the key thing now that’s driving it, is the fact that the European economy is going into a spin, downward, and this includes the British system itself, and it means other areas.”


What’s Wrong With the Latest Greek Bailout Deal

3 Tough Questions the Eurozone Will Face Over Greek Financial Crisis

Majority of Greek Voters Rejected Reasonable Offer to Let Them Stay in Eurozone. What’s Next.

Good Luck Finding a Place to Hide as Global Markets Crumble

Greece: How Did It Get Into This Mess?

RELATED VIDEO: Farage: Isn’t the EU quite as bad as the USSR, Mr Tusk?

One America News Network Releases National Presidential Polling Results

SAN DIEGO /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network, “OAN”, a credible source for 24/7 national and international news, released today its most recent 2016 Republican and Democratic Presidential Polling Results.   The results show that GOP Presidential candidate Jeb Bush leads the Republicans with 22 percent, a 7 percent margin over Donald Trump, and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads with 55 percent, a 41 percent lead over Joe Biden’s 14 percent, with Bernie Sanders closely trailing Biden at 13 percent.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 GOP Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

The recently conducted One America News national polling also shows a heavily divided country when it comes to the job approval performance of President Obama.   Eighty-nine percent of Republican voters disapprove of the President’s performance whereas 74 percent of Democrats approve of the President’s performance.

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Assuming you had to vote today, which 2016 Democrat Candidate would you vote for? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? (PRNewsFoto/One America News Network)

According to Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network, “It’s still very early in the campaign process and there’s strong support for a number of candidates on both sides.   We clearly have a divided country that is very engaged in the upcoming election.  One America News Network, utilizing Gravis Marketing, will perform and release national polling results for both parties as we get closer to the first GOP debate.”

The national polling, which took place on July 1st and 2nd, was performed exclusively for One America News by third party research firm Gravis Marketing.  Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 519 Democratic voters and 473 registered Republican voters across the United States using interactive voice response, IVR, technology.  Republican voters polled were able to choose from 15 GOP candidates while Democratic registered voters were able to choose from 5 Democratic potential candidates. Undecided was not an available option, thus results sum to 100 percent and may show higher percentages than polls allowing for “undecided” vote counts.  The margin of error is 4.3% for the Democratic polling and 4.5% for the Republican polling results.  For full national presidential polling results, visit

One America News Network has been providing extensive coverage of the 2016 Presidential campaign, including numerous exclusive one-on-one interviews with the leading candidates.

About One America News Network (“OAN”)

One America News Network offers 21 hours of live news coverage plus two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and On Point with Tomi Lahren.  While other emerging and established cable news networks offer multiple hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage every weekday.   Third party viewership data for Q2 2015 from Rentrak, namely accumulated viewer hours, shows that OAN surpasses other news channels such as Al Jazeera America, Fusion, Fox Business News, and Bloomberg TV as measured on AT&T U-verse TV, across 65 markets.

Since its debut on July 4, 2013, One America News Network has grown its distribution to over 12 million households with carriage by AT&T U-Verse TV (ch 208/1208 in HD), Verizon FiOS TV (ch 116/616 in HD), GCI Cable, Frontier Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, Consolidated Communications, Duncan Cable, GVTC and numerous additional video providers.  One America News Network operates production studios and news bureaus in California and Washington, DC.   For more information on One America News Network, please

Pentagon: Kurds “Reliable and Effective” Partners in War Against Islamic State

Monday, July 6, 2015 was a red letter day in Washington with Pentagon officials acknowledging the critical role of Kurdish YPG and Peshmerga forces successfully fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. President Obama appeared at the Pentagon to give an update on the campaign to “degrade and destroy the Islamic state”.  It wasn’t a great score card since his declaration made on national television on September 10, 2014. He suggested that winning the war was going to a “generational conflict’.  “This will not be quick. This is a long-term campaign. (ISIS) is opportunistic and it is nimble,” Obama said. As usual he reiterated that the ISIS campaign was “not a war against Islam”.  This despite that ISIS  practices pure Salafist Islam that has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from across the Muslim ummah. The President still hasn’t addressed a coherent strategy except to commit minimal numbers of  U.S. trainers to develop combat cadres in both Iraq and Syria and conduct air assaults against ISIS targets. During his remarks he pointed to more than 5,000 air strikes in Iraq, Syria and North Africa equivalent to just three days of  air operations during the Gulf Wars.

According to CNN, President Obama suggested that the ‘coalition’ was going after “the heart” of the Islamic State. He exhorted Congress to confirm the replacement head of the Treasury Department, Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Adam Szubin.  He suggested that U.S. Trained forces had some successes on the ground in both Iraq and Syria backed up by air support, without naming them.   They are the Kurdish YPG (Popular Resistance Forces) in Syria and the Peshmerga in Iraq.  In our July New English Review (NER) Article, “Empowering Kurdistan”, those front line Kurdish forces have been the only forces capable of rolling back ISIS forces.  Obama and his national security staff had met with President Barzani  and aides of the Kurdish Regional Government in early May 2015 during the latter’s meetings in Washington seeking quality weapons and support  in the war against ISIS. We noted in our NER article that both KRG and Syrian Kurdish leaders had met separately with Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) in the House and Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ).  That resulted in amendments to the National Defense Appropriate Act authorizing military assistance for Kurdish fighting units in both Syria and Iraq.

Watch this C-Span video of President Obama’s Pentagon Conference on the ISIS War, July 6, 2015:

Secretary Ashton Carter and French Defese Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian Pentaon, July 6, 2019 Source Carolyn Kaster AP

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, The Pentagon, July 6, 2015. Source: Carolyn Kaster/AP.

A few hours before President Obama and military leaders briefings on the War against ISIS, there was another Pentagon meeting with a more positive message. This one featured  Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter and French Defense Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian to specifically discuss military aid for the Kurds.  McClatchey had a definitive report on that more substantive meeting recognizing the Kurds as “reliable and effective allies” in the war against ISIS, “Kurdish militia proving to be reliable partner against Islamic State in Syria.”   The McClatchey report noted:

In comments Monday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter acknowledged that Kurdish fighters from the YPG militia are identifying bombing targets for U.S.-led airstrikes. He referred to the militia as “capable,” hailed its “effective action,” and said because of the Kurds’ actions, U.S. forces had been able to “support them tactically.”

It was the first public description by a senior Obama administration official detailing the cooperation that has been unfolding for months between the United States and the militia, which has drawn the ire of key NATO ally Turkey.

The militia’s success is one of the reasons the United States is intensifying its bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria, Carter said.

“That’s what we were doing over the weekend north of Raqqa, which is conducting airstrikes that limit ISIL’s freedom of movement and ability to counter those capable Kurdish forces,” Carter said, referring to the Islamic State by a common acronym.

Carter’s singling out of the YPG, or the People’s Protection Units, comes after months in which U.S. officials have said they were putting off a more concerted campaign in Syria in favor of pressing against the Islamic State in Iraq because the U.S. lacked a capable ground partner in Syria. As long ago as October, then Pentagon spokesman John Kirby was blunt about why U.S. activities there were lagging: “We don’t have a willing, capable, effective partner on the ground inside Syria. It’s just a fact.”

Secretary Carter went on to commend the YPG, ironically an offshoot of the Turkish Kurdish resistance PKK, still listed as a terrorist organization. The YPG successes have unnerved Islamist Turkish President Erdogan that he has suggested invading Syria to establish a 100 x 30 mile buffer zone to forestall further Kurdish advances to the west of Kobani on the Turkish frontier at Suruc.  Turkish military leaders are less supportive of that incursion.  Moreover, Erdogan’s agenda may have been effectively eclipsed despite an agreement to form a working coalition with the Turkish National Party, HNP. The latter was one of three minority parties, including the Kemalist CHP and the upstart Kurdish HDP that won a plurality of seats in the Ankara Parliamentary elections of June 7, 2015.

Carter went to site the YPG contributions in Syria:

Backed by U.S. air power, he said, YPG forces have advanced in the past weeks to within 18 miles of Raqqa, the main stronghold of the Islamic State in Syria.

“That’s the manner in which effective and lasting defeat of ISIL will occur, when there are effective local forces on the ground that we can support and enable so that they can take territory, hold territory and make sure that good governance comes in behind it,” Carter said.

How far the YPG will push its offensive is uncertain. Raqqa is not traditionally a Kurdish area, and Kurdish forces, which are said to number an estimated 16,000 troops, are not expected to try to take the city alone.

But the YPG offers a much more robust anti-Islamic State force inside Syria than does the training program the United States has undertaken: so far, only about 190 so-called moderate rebels have been enlisted in the program, which is intended to train 5,000 anti-Islamic State fighters a year.

The United States last month also expanded its airstrikes to northern Aleppo, another key northern Syria city about 100 miles west of Raqqa, putting the Islamic State on notice that a new drive to remove them from what is called the Marea front could be in the offing.


Carter made it clear that U.S. and allied warplanes are increasingly depending on the Kurdish forces as part of the Pentagon’s broader campaign to defeat the Islamic State.

“We are doing more in Syria from the air,” Carter said. “I think you saw some of that in recent days. And the opportunity to do that effectively is provided in the case of the last few days by the effective action on the ground of Kurdish forces, which gives us the opportunity to support them tactically.”

What has not been addressed publicly is the delivery of quality military weapons and training of YPG and Peshmerga forces who have fought with Soviet era weaponry against U.Sl arms and equipment obtained by ISIS from fleeing Iraqi national forces routed from Mosul in June 2014 and Ramadi in late May 2015. That may soon be coming given the presence of French Defense Minister Le Drian.  You may recall Secretary Carter upon learning of the fall of Ramadi accused Iraqi national forces of having” no will to fight”.  The Kurds exemplify military valor and have a proven record.

Secretary Carter should move expeditiously to release weapons and equipment from the US War Reserve Stock pre-positioned in Israel to the YPG, KURDNAS forces in Syria and Peshmerga in Iraq. Moreover, Gen. James Allen who heads the U.S.-led coalition force should ramp up aerial sorties beyond the paltry 40 sorties used to provide close air support to the YPG this past weekend. President Obama, unfortunately, has yet to recognize the pure Salafist form of Islam that is embodied in the barbaric violence perpetrated by ISIS on women, children, ancient religious minorities and Syrian and Iraqi military prisoners. Yes, Mr. President this is a war against Salafist Islam that the secular Muslim Kurds recognize must be destroyed.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of a female Kurdish fighter known as ‘Rehana’ (Image from Twitter user / @PawanDurani).

Obama: “Ideologies are not defeated with guns”

1. Yes, they are. Cf. National Socialism.

2. The United States is not trying to defeat the Islamic State, or the global jihad in general, with “a more attractive and more compelling vision.” Instead, we supervised the installations of constitutions that enshrined Sharia as the highest law of the land in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Imposing Sharia is the goal of all jihad groups, including the Islamic State. The United States has never stood in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else, for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, equality of rights for women, etc. — all of which are denied in Sharia. In other words, we didn’t counter their ideas with a more attractive and compelling vision. We didn’t counter them at all, and still aren’t doing so, because to do so would be considered “Islamophobic.”

And how is he going to counter their ideology when he won’t even acknowledge what it is?

3. “Our efforts to counter violent extremism must not target any one community because of their faith or background.” If he is referring to attacks on innocent Muslims, of course, no innocent Muslims should suffer any harm or injustice. He seems to be saying more than that. The idea that it is wrong to fight Islamic jihad by paying attention to Muslim communities more than Baptist or Jewish or Hindu or Amish communities is absurd. Islamic jihad is committed by Muslims. Obama won’t even call it Islamic jihad or admit that it is a specifically Muslim phenomenon, and insofar as he diverts any resources to tracking “right-wing extremism” on the basis of bogus studies, he makes us all less safe.

“Obama’s War Speech: ‘Ideologies Are Not Defeated With Guns,’” by Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, July 6, 2015:

At the Pentagon, President Obama delivered an update on his war against Islamic State terrorism, saying that the operation would take time to defeat the terrorist organization.

“This will not be quick, this is a long-term campaign,” he asserted, describing ISIS as “nimble” and infiltrated with civilians across the Middle East.

Obama did not announce any major shifts in his strategy, but reminded reporters that the fight was “not simply a military effort.”

“Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas, a more attractive and more compelling vision,” he said.

Obama warned Americans of the increasing threat of individual acts of terror by lone wolf terrorists, but warned against targeting the region of Islam.

“Our efforts to counter violent extremism must not target any one community because of their faith or background – including patriotic Muslim Americans who are keeping our country safe,” he said.

But he admitted that ISIL was targeting Muslims.

“We also have to acknowledge that ISIL has been particularly effective at reaching out to and recruiting vulnerable people around the world including here in the United States and they are targeting Muslim communities around the world,” he said.

When asked by reporters if he was considering the use of American ground troops to defeat ISIS, he insisted that it was not under consideration.

“If we try to do everything ourselves all across the Middle East, all across North Africa, we’ll be playing ‘Whack-a-mole’ and there will be a whole lot of unintended consequences that ultimately will make us less secure,” he said.


Syria: Obama-backed rebels persecute Christians, force them from their homes

UK: Man carries Islamic State flag by Big Ben & Houses of Parliament, police refuse to arrest him

Bernie Sanders U.S. Presidential Democratic Hopeful is Rapidly Gaining Popularity

I just read on The Hill an article entitled, “Team Clinton ‘Worried’ about Bernie Sanders Campaign.” Sanders is quickly becoming serious competition for Clinton in the Democratic nomination:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is “worried” about Bernie Sanders, whom a top Clinton aide described as a “serious force” in the 2016 battle.

“We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don’t think that will diminish,” Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri said Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“It’s to be expected that Sanders would do well in a Democratic primary, and he’s going to do well in Iowa in the Democratic caucus.”

Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, has emerged as Clinton’s main foil in the Democratic primary.

While he’s still more than 40 percentage points behind Clinton in virtually all national polls, he’s greatly improved his stock in the early primary states. 

A new Quinnipiac University poll released last week found he doubled his share of Democratic supporters in Iowa in just seven weeks. Some polls in New Hampshire show Sanders less than 10 points behind Clinton.

Indeed, in the last several hours, Huffington Post columnist H.A. Goodman posted a piece entitled, “‘Bernie Sanders Can Become President’ Has Replaced ‘I Like Him, But He Can’t Win’”:

How many time have you heard the phrase, “I like Bernie Sanders, but he can’t win,” uttered by people who identify themselves as progressives? The facts, however, illustrate that “Bernie Sanders can win” and nobody in politics foreshadowed the Vermont Senator’s latest surge in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He recently raised $15 million in just two months, and his campaign reports that “Nearly 87 percent of the total amount raised during the quarter came from the donors who contributed $250 or less.” While Clinton’s team isn’t worried, they should be, primarily because Hillary Clinton already lost a presidential race (spending $229.4 million in the losing effort) and finished behind both Obama and John Edwards in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

While Clinton is expected to amass $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders has cut the former Secretary of State’s lead in New Hampshire from 38 percentage points down to just 8.

Goodman continues by noting that Sanders “snagged a key ally” in New Hampshire: Democratic activist Dudley Dudley. Why the rise in Sanders’ popularity? Well, a key reason seems to rest in the fact that the public can get a clear answer from him– on some issues. As Goodman notes:

…Sanders didn’t need billions of dollars to earn the trust of voters in New Hampshire, or cut Hillary’s lead to only 8 points. Since he voted against the Iraq War and has spent a lifetime championing progressive issues while others waivered (Hillary was against gay marriage until 2013, voted for the Iraq War, pushed for the TPP on 45 separate occasions, and supported Keystone XL), Bernie Sanders doesn’t need to prove he’s a progressive. Voters know what they’re getting with Vermont’s Senator. In contrast, Hillary Clinton rarely offers a direct answer on why she failed to champion certain causes when they weren’t popular.

Clinton might avoid the direct answer, but when it comes to hot-button education issues, such as Common Core, Sanders has not spoken publicly. (More to come on Sanders and education.)

Still, Sanders appears to have what money cannot fabricate– grassroots support:

What polls can’t measure, however, is the numbers Sanders is drawing in overflowing crowds. A Washington Post article titled Sanders draws more than 2,500 to Iowa stop — tops for this presidential cycle so far, explains how an energized base of voters is making what was once improbable a very real possibility. …

Money can’t buy enthusiasm or “eye popping crowds,” and while Clinton has the financial backing (she’s been referred to by POLITICO as Wall Street Republicans Dark secret), Bernie has the hearts and minds of Democrats. The Washington Post writes that he’s gaining larger crowds than anyone in the 2016 presidential race, so while Clinton has the top Democratic strategists on her team, Bernie Sanders owns the grass roots support among voters. …

While Sanders “drew both traditional Democrats and conservatives” in Iowa, it would be unthinkable to see conservatives in any state supporting Hillary Clinton. The ability of Sanders to address issues that both right and left find important (even Ted Cruz is talking about wealth inequality) is one of the many advantages Sanders has over any Democratic rival. This advantage could also catapult him to victory over any GOP challenger. …

Bernie Sanders is drawing record crowds and surging in the polls because his value system is worth infinitely more than his opponent’s ability to generate billions of dollars.

As concerns his views on education, an April 2015 Forbes article notes that Sanders wants to “end the practice of the government making billions in profits from student loans taken out by low and moderate income families.” Also, according to Forbes, Sanders posted the following on Facebook regarding teacher pay:

The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing. Something is very wrong when, last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned more than the combined income of 425,000 public school teachers. We have got to get our priorities right.

Sanders is a member of the Senate Ed committee that produced the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, which will go before the Senate on July 7, 2015. (I have written extensively on the Senate ESEA draft and approved amendments.) Yet is seems that Sanders views this revision of what was originally the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and commonly called by the name of its last revision, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), as a piece of legislation that needs to go. As noted in the June 2015 US News and World Report:

Sanders is the only candidate so far to focus on problems with No Child Left Behind in his remarks to the unions, according to excerpts provided by the NEA and AFT.

Sanders, who serves on the Senate education committee, said there are few others as opposed as he is to the sweeping education law – which Congress is attempting to update – and to “this absurd effort to force teachers to spend half of their lives teaching kids how to take tests.”

“If I have anything to say in the coming months, we would end [No Child Left Behind],” Sanders told Eskelsen Garcia.

However, Sanders has yet to publicly take a position on issues of Common Core, teacher tenure/evaluation, and school choice. The Senate ESEA draft defers to states on teacher evaluation issues and prohibits the US Secretary of Education from exercising decision making power over state standards and assessments, prohibiting the federal promotion of Common Core by name. But the Senate ESEA draft also preserves annual testing and is incredibly generous to establishing and expanding America’s under-regulated and over-scandaled charter schools.

INSANITY: Why a Arizona Newspaper Wants To LOWER the Border Fence

A mainstream Arizona newspaper is decrying the small section of the Arizona-Mexico border that has a 14-foot-high primary fence because it is too high for illegal immigrants to safely cross.

As Reported by Breitbart:

The article, “Border Fence Jumpers Breaking Bones,” includes the claim that sections of the border with a 14-foot-high fence are “as tall as a two or three-story house” and tells the stories of several women who broke bones and were treated extensively to healthcare and surgeries at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

The writer never mentions any lives directly lost as a result of there not being a border fence in most sections, such as when Mexican nationals crossed into the U.S. and murdered father and husband Robert Rosas, a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Full Story Continues Here:

SHOCK: Arizona Paper Decries Border Fence as Too High for Mexicans to Safely Jump


They’re Just Committing the Crimes Americans Won’t Commit

How Unusual Is the Francisco Sanchez Case? The Facts About Illegal Immigrants and Crimes

Man Arrested in Connection With San Francisco Killing Had Been Deported Previously FIVE Times

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Allen West Republic. Featured image is courtesy of Breitbart.

My Journey to the Republican Party

Over the weekend a reporter from a major media outlet called.  He has been wanting to do an extended profile on me for well over a year, but I have continued to delay the reporter.  What I finally decided to do was to speak to him off the record in great detail with the understanding that I would let him know when I was ready to go on the record so he could run his story on me.

This reporter had, to my amazement, already begun to talk with many elected congressional Democrats that I am friends with and several people I know who work for President Obama.  These people all read my columns and told the reporter that “they wished more Black Republicans would speak out on issues like Raynard.”

Some Republicans think I am too blunt and too critical of my party.  So I have decided to use this column to give my readers some insight into how I have evolved into the type of Republican I have become.

I was born and raised in St. Louis, MO.  If you are Black in St. Louis, you are automatically a Democrat.  There is no discussion, no vote, no choice.  I attended Soldan High School and was president of my senior class; thus I knew many of our elected officials—all of whom were Democrats.

So off to Oral Roberts University (ORU) I go to attend college.  ORU was and still is one of the best religious schools in the U.S.  Every semester we had to sign an honor code.  Basically the code said they we would live a values based life on and off campus and if we violated the code we could and would be expelled from school.

We also had to attend mandatory chapel services on Wednesday and Fridays from 11:00 am to noon.  They took attendance and if you had three unexcused absences, you were automatically suspended from school.

Upon my graduation with my degree in accounting, I returned to St. Louis.

It was upon my return home that I first realized that the Republican Party was more compatible with my beliefs than the Democratic Party.  So my pastor, Sammie Jones of Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church, told me he wanted to introduce me to some Black Republicans.  You need to know that Jones was and still is a big Democrat back home.

The first person he introduced me to was Bill White, one of the most influential Republicans in the state.  He also owned and operated several Black radio stations across the country.  White also played professional baseball for the Kansas City Monarch of the Negro League.

As fate would have it, White said he had a project he wanted me to get involved in.  He had a friend who was about to file to run for mayor of St. Louis on the Republican ticket.  His name was Curtis C. Crawford, another Black Republican.

White arranged for me to go by and meet with Crawford and he said that he would open doors for me all across the country within the party and he did.  When he found out I had a degree in accounting, he asked me to be treasurer for his campaign, making me the youngest person in the city’s history to this day to hold such a position.

Crawford was an attorney by training who had received several appointments by President Nixon.  He served as regional director for the Small Business Administration (SBA) before Nixon appointed him to be a commissioner on the U.S. Parole Board, the first Black on the board since its creation some forty years earlier.

Though we lost the election, my visibility within the party skyrocketed as a result.  This led to me meeting and establishing relationships with the likes of John Ashcroft, Roy Blunt, Wendell Bailey, etc.  I had known our then senator, Jack Danforth since high school.

Out of nowhere I get a call from the Bush family asking me if I would consider chairing then vice president George H.W. Bush’s campaign in St. Louis for president.  Of course I said yes and the rest is history.

Over the years, I spent many thousands of hours at the feet of people like Bill White, Curtis Crawford, Art Fletcher, Sam Cornelius, Jim House, LeGree Daniels, Jewel Lafontant, Bill Coleman, etc. They were Black Republicans but were Civil Rights icons simultaneously.

Unfortunately, most Black Republicans of today have no institutional memory of who these people were and have no curiosity to find out.   Their stories are well chronicled in the nation’s two hundred Black newspapers; but far too many Black Republicans see little or no value in Black newspapers.  Black newspapers are the history books of Black Republicans, if these Black Republicans would simply take advantage of what’s right before their eyes.

So, I criticize my party because this is what these legends taught me to do.  I chastise today’s Black Republicans because I “willingly” carry the burden of years of conversations at the feet of Black icons who didn’t have to make a choice between their Blackness and being a Republican.  They said yes to both and made America and the Republican Party better for it.

The Demise of America

It has been several months since I have written any counterterrorism articles. During this period I have been to several mosques and conducted individual research studies. I cannot stress enough that America is in serious trouble.

All across our beautiful country we are surrounded by the enemy which is Islam. Where is Islam practiced by the most faithful of Muslims? In mosques. There are over 2300 strategically placed mosques covering all areas of America.

Unlike many counterterrorism experts, I see the Islamic ideology as a whole as the number one enemy of America. There are no moderate Muslims. One is either a practicing Muslim in it’s entirety and follows Sharia law 100 percent, or the person who calls himself or herself a moderate Muslim who doesn’t believe in all aspects of Sharia law, is an apostate and enemy of Islam. Islam does not allow a person to be a half practicing Muslim,

Based on my years of research inside mosques across America, it is a certainty America will continue to be attacked from within. The only way America can be destroyed is by people and organizations within America who follow the Islamic ideology. There are approximately 2 million practicing Muslims in America. There are approximately 3 million who call themselves moderates. Although these people are not considered Muslim in accordance with Islam, they will make a 180 degree turn when Islam is the dominant factor in America. In other words most people who associate with Islam are cowards when it is just themselves. They become powerful giants when they have a large number of other followers with them. This is similar to gangs in America. Cowards when alone, but almighty when they are with a crowd of their own kind.

So far by my above estimates there are 5 million potential mujahadeen fighters inside our country. These people do not adhere by choice to the U.S. Constitution, they adhere to their own constitution which is Sharia law. The U.S. Constitution and Sharia law are in no form compatible. A person cannot follow Sharia law and have allegiance to America. There are many Muslims who say they are American Muslims, but in reality they are non Americans. A non American who does not believe in and follow the U.S. Constitution are potential enemies of our country.

Not only are there 1 million registered Muslims in America, there are millions of Americans who will stand up for Islam before they will America. Every liberal in America is a likely supporter of Islam. Liberals are cowards by nature and like their coward Muslims. They become strong when they are surrounded by like minded people. Liberals like Muslims will align themselves with the group that is currently most powerful. We have seen this in Iraq. The Muslim people loved Americans when we were the powerful army in their country. Now that our troops have been removed they show their support to ISIS and Al Qaeda. Muslims and liberals will always follow the most powerful group in power.

Although there are millions and millions of potential mujahadeen living and working in America, and their liberal supporters, these people rely on powerful leaders. Their leader in America is President Obama and his liberal puppy followers. Americans should not take this statement lightly. Obama has shown over the past few years that he is more aligned to Sharia law than he is the U.S. Constitution. He would rather work with Iranian and other Muslim countries than he would the leaders of Israel.  Obama majored in U.S. Constitutional law, why?  History has shown for thousands of years that in order to defeat an enemy one must know the enemy as well as they know themselves. Obama understands the working structure of our country and knows how to destroy this beautiful country and it’s people.

I spent the most part of my life working within our government. It was my responsibility as a U.S. Federal Agent working counterterrorism to identify the enemies of America. My analysis was always accepted and applauded by government officials at the highest levels. My predictions about upcoming events pertaining to the security of America occurred many times. Below is my analysis and predictions for America in the next five years.

  1. President Obama will become even more powerful within the next year. He will continue to support our Islamic enemies. He will continue to degrade the power and importance of Israel.
  2. Martial law will occur before Obama leaves office, if he leaves office.
  3. The rights of free speech and the ownership of firearms will become ancient rights of our ancestors and no longer current Americans.
  4. America will begin to suffer major attacks on a daily basis by our Muslim enemies and their supporters.

I do not like wars or revolutions because children are the ones who suffer the most. This being said I predict a civil war/revolution in our country. True and Pure Americans will revolt and fight the enemies destroying our country from within. The American civil war within the 1860’s will be looked at like a minor skirmish compared to the upcoming civil war our country will be involved in.

Who will win the war within America? Sadly it is my prediction the enemies of Islam and their supporters will defeat True and Pure Americans because they will have the support of powerful politicians like Obama who hate America, Americans, and the American way of life our forefathers fought and died for.  True Americans can only win if our military leaders come forward and refuse to follow the orders of Obama.  A few will do this, but not enough.

Are Israeli Standards Too High?

This week the UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon mooted the idea of bombing Islamic State (IS) targets inside Syria as well as Iraq. The suggestion came after the massacre of 30 British tourists on a beach in Tunisia. The British government is said to be waiting for final confirmation that there was a link between the terrorist in Tunisia and IS. Should that be proved, they appear willing to take action.

But modern warfare is increasingly a matter not just of those who take part but of the widest possible constituency. Military experts often talk of the worrying ‘long screwdriver’ approach to military force today, where a General, a minister or sometimes even a Prime Minister is required to approve and sign off every conceivable target. Anyone who can stand back from the detail can consider how much operational effectiveness suffers from this kind of passing of the buck upwards.

It also means that any mistakes are able to go right to the top of government. This – and many related subjects – were centres of the discussion which HJS initiated in Westminster several times this week. In separate events with journalists, Parliamentarians and the British public this week we played host to two of America’s top military experts. Major General Michael Jones and Professor Geoffrey Corn recently took part in a survey of Israeli responses during last year’s Gaza war. The in-depth study brought out many fascinating and important details about a widely misunderstood conflict.

But among the most important aspects of their presentation was confirmation of what we have often said in this place – that the high standard which the Israeli military and the air force in particular exercise has begun to concern Israel’s allies.

As the General and Professor showed, it seems highly unlikely that Britain, the USA or any other ally is going to take the time to text people to warn them of a strike nearby, or send leaflets to warn of a strike in advance or to use a non-lethal munition on the roof of a house as a final warning to exit the building. All of these Israeli tactics significantly minimize civilian suffering during conflict. But they also considerably, necessarily hamper operational effectiveness. Will any other country, in any other conflict, take this sort of care? It seems unlikely.

As Britain considers airstrikes inside Syria, we will have an advantage that the Israelis do not enjoy. Whenever Israel carries out an operation in the Gaza, the entirety of the world’s media not only focuses on the action but focuses on it from inside the war-zone, often deliberately or accidentally working as the propaganda tools of the Hamas government. Because of the way in which IS operates it is highly unlikely that any remotely impartial outside force will be present to observe where the British missiles hit or what collateral damage they cause. Decent people may rue this fact or they may quietly be thankful for it. But it is a curious fact that the one thing none of them will be able to publicly admit is that their aim will be to behave as well as the Israelis.



You wouldn’t know it given the glorious sunshine that most of the continent is basking in, but Europe faces an epic crisis this weekend in the form of the Greek referendum on economic reform. With the polls too close to call, it is anyone’s guess which way the Greek people will choose to jump. Their choice has not been made any easier by the way this crucial debate has fallen foul of both local and pan-EU politics.

Firstly to the Greeks themselves. For all the well-documented disasters of their economy and taxation system, there would have been a perfectly obvious way for the Greeks to have had both a lifting of the extremities of austerity as well as an EU bailout. Fellow Euro members are desperate to keep Greece inside the Euro for political purposes – the Euro being a political rather than economic construct as on the latter terms several members would have now been ejected. Greece, in its turn, has made huge strides in achieving a primary surplus on its balance of payments. It should not have been beyond the wit of wisdom of man to have come up with a face saving proposal that would allow for some symbolic measures to please the Greek electorate while also continuing the work of paring back the deficit.

But while the Eurocrats seemed keen to tango, Alexis Tsipras of Greece’s extreme left-wing Syriza government did not. Tsipras not only made a mockery of the negotiation process with his hasty referendum gambit, but also doomed the possibility of that compromise emerging by taking the decision out of the arena in which it could have been constructed.

Moreover, the indecipherable way in which the referendum question has been structured and the controversial way ‘No’ has been placed above ‘Yes’ in the ballot has been designed to lead the Greeks into a cul de sac from which there is no escape. For Tsipras’ claim that Greece can reject what is now on offer and still stay in the Euro is an extraordinary one to make. And should it prove that voting ‘No’ leads to Greece’s exit, then all of the attendant economic misfortunes that will follow – and which will make Greece’s current crisis seem tame in comparison – will be on his head.

Of course, Eurozone countries deserve their share of the blame too. If Greece was an irresponsible borrower originally, then they were irresponsible lenders. The high-handed way Eurocrats conduct negotiations seems calculated to enrage rather than calm spirits. And the recriminations that have followed the referendum announcement may well lead to a nationalist backlash from Greeks should the worst happen and Greece leave the Euro in disgrace. Let us not forget that the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party is a major force already in Greek politics.

Of course, sanity may yet prevail and the Greeks could vote ‘Yes’. It won’t be the best deal Greece could have got, but through the actions of their Prime Minister, it is the only sensible one they are left with. If so, then the resignation he has promised as a consequence of such a vote would be a fitting political epitaph for someone who has gambled so recklessly with his country’s future.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

They’re Just Committing the Crimes Americans Won’t Commit


Francisco Sanchez murderer of Kathryn Steinle from San Francisco, an illegal alien who was deported 5 times.

With the San Francisco woman murdered by one of Barack Obama’s “new Americans,” we should ask: how much innocent blood will be spilled on the altar of the Left’s “fundamental transformation” of America? While callow and cowardly corporations are severing ties with Donald Trump because he dared speak a truth in an age of lies, the reality of far too many of the illegals invading our country is this:

They’re just committing the crimes Americans won’t commit.

Some will say, of course, that Americans sometimes do such evil as well. But it’s also true that Americans do sometimes take the menial jobs so often performed by illegals, yet we nonetheless hear the statement, “They’re just doing the jobs Americans won’t do.” So since we’re indulging rhetoric and generalizations here, turnaround is fair play.

Will people ever rise up and make that sickening agenda-facilitating suppression of truth known as political correctness exactly what it should be: a recognized vile heresy, to be stamped out with extreme prejudice? I recently heard someone take exception to the term “illegals,” making that now stale point that “no one is illegal” (cue the tiny violin). This person argued that bank robbers break the law as well, but we don’t brand them “illegals.” Point taken. We call bank robbers “criminals.”

And if the Left wants to apply the same descriptive to illegal aliens, it works for me.

(Or would “undocumented criminals” be preferable?)

It would be wholly accurate, too. Generally lost in our self-flagellating, suicidal pander-fest is that every illegal migrant is a criminal by definition. This is why the lying Left — ever engaging in language manipulation — dislikes the word “illegal”: accurate terminology relates the truth of a matter. This is intolerable when your agenda is completely contrary to Truth.

An even better adjective for illegals, however, is “invaders.” And Francisco Sanchez, the vile murderer of the San Francisco woman, Kathryn Steinle, certainly fits the bill. He repeatedly invaded our country for the purposes of destruction, dealing drugs and being convicted of felonies seven times until he finally took a life. Yet he is not the only one culpable in his malevolent act.

What do you call government officials who not only abdicate their responsibility to halt an invasion, but actually aid and abet it? Quislings? Traitors? Leftists? But I repeat myself.

These terms are not too strong. I previously reported on Obama’s plan to “seed” communities around America with foreigners who would, as the scheme goes, “navigate” and not assimilate as they “push citizens into the shadows” (that is, those they don’t push into graves). Again, what do you call such people?

It isn’t just Obama, of course. These traitors have many names, such as Jerry Brown, Jeb Bush, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Luis Gutierrez and Mark Zuckerberg. But, hey, who can blame them, right? They’re just pushing the policies Americans won’t push.

Unfortunately and as has been said before, treason today is now the norm. If you don’t drink deeply of the cup of multiculturalism, internationalism, Western demographic genocide and cultural suicide, you’re a “nativist” or, worse still, a “racist,” the latter of which has just come to mean “anything bad” to young skulls full of mush whose now putrefying gray matter endured endless sanitary spin cycles in the propaganda mills masquerading as universities. The inmates not only run the asylum, they’re numerous enough to classify the normal as abnormal. You’re a boy who’s sure he’s a girl? You’re white but identify as black? You think an invader is the equivalent of a citizen? Those people who’d cramp your style with that pesky Objective Reality are the problem. Off to re-education camps with them.

Another fancy is that Mexico isn’t a dangerous enemy. If you’re an illegal alien in Mexico, the best thing that can happen to you  is that you merely get deported; also possible is that the police will beat you Pelosi-senseless or even kill you (it’s said that you can buy your way of a fatal hit-and-run in Mexico for $450; the rule of law isn’t exactly big there). And no ACLU will come running and sue the government on your behalf. None of this stops that dysfunctional cartel-ridden nation from issuing its people actual instructions on how to better invade the U.S. and game our system. Nor does it stop them from lecturing us on the humane treatment of undocumented criminals. This is why a real president would tell the Mexican regime that if it didn’t stop weaponizing its population against us, we’d demonstrate that borders can be transgressed both ways and make Black Jack Pershing look like a missionary.

Instead, people are more worried about the Confederate flag flying in America than the Mexican flag flying here. As for Obama and his ilk, they welcome invaders because, upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote for leftists. And our leftists truly would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

But who is really to blame? Our Hell-raisers are only in power because far too many of us are just voting for the politicians Americans wouldn’t vote for.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to


GOP Lawmakers Push Obama Administration to Get Tough on Sanctuary Cities After San Francisco Killing

How San Francisco Aided and Abetted the Murder of Kate Steinle

Ben Carson: Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Are ‘Ridiculous’

Two Previously Deported Illegal Aliens Allegedly Murdered Two Women in Two States.. In 24 Hours

Illegal Alien Suspect in California Shooting Allegedly Used a Federal Agent’s Gun

How Unusual Is the Francisco Sanchez Case? The Facts About Illegal Immigrants and Crimes

Man Arrested in Connection With San Francisco Killing Had Been Deported Previously FIVE Times