The Human Tragedy of the Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs by Joshua Winston

/in , , , , , , /by

Everywhere Muslims settle, rape and grooming gangs spring up. Whether it be a town, city, village or a new land, rape is what many Muslim men become known for in the West. Every race and culture produce rapists, but none so flagrant and voluminous as Muslims (Pakistanis in particular). There is a new documentary released just now called “Why dad killed mum, my family’s secret.” Tasnim Lowe, the daughter of a young girl who was impregnated at a young age by a Muslim man and then killed along with her family in a fire that he deliberately started, is now seeking answers as to why her mother (Lucy Lowe) was killed. She is asking what red flags should have been set off by an adult man impregnating a 14-year-old girl at that time (roughly two decades ago). She is also asking what more her mother’s family could have done to prevent the deaths of her mother, aunt and grandmother at the hands of this violent Muslim man. After all, her mother started dating the 24-year-old man when she was only 13. Why was no one objecting to that? Why weren’t police and children’s services not going after a man who had raped a child in the eyes of the law?

In March, 2018, 18-year-old Tasnim (on Mother’s Day) saw her own dead mother’s face on the front page of a daily newspaper, coupled with an article stating that she had been the victim of a Muslim grooming gang. Her mother’s face is young in the picture, innocent and happy. Hard to believe that she should be involved with a grown man and having sexual relations, harder still to believe that such a young girl could be viewed as being sexually desirable by any man. Even harder to comprehend an adult wanting to terrorise her or manipulate her mind with a view towards raping and controlling her before finally murdering her. The sight of her mother’s face in relation to such a claim was a shock to Tasnim, and the reason was because another Muslim grooming gang in the area were acting in the exact same way as the Muslim man who killed her mother did. They were raping girls and threatening to burn down their victims’ houses with their family inside if they alerted the police or their parents to the fact that they were being raped and trafficked. An investigative journalist had been working for three years on a story that centered around the grooming of white girls at the hands of hundreds of Muslim men. The terrified girls were showing the journalist pictures of Lucy Lowe. Her death was being used as a warning to the girls of what would happen to them if they told anyone about what the Muslim men were currently doing to them.

The grooming, rape, beating, and trafficking of young white girls in the UK coupled with death threats is a pattern that Muslims follow the length of the country from Glasgow to Bristol. If something is a pattern, then it’s not random. Scientists (depending on the project), physicists, and astronomers look for patterns in order to prove their theories and to predict the behaviour of any particular organism, or equation, or planetary body. The rapes committed by Muslim men is a pattern unlike anything the West has ever seen, and the carnage provides the data that lays the blame at the feet of Muslim men. The obsession with virginal underage white girls drives them to commit atrocities that should have been resigned to the Medieval period, or confined in and contained to the barbaric lands of their birth.

The grooming and rapes committed by Muslim men consist of the same story that is sadly all too familiar at this point, and all too soul-numbing to recount: “a horrendous grooming ring that had been going on for decades, with girls raped, beaten, sold and some even killed…Survivors explained how the abuse worked; the groomers were nice to them at first – buying them takeaways or presents – before taking them to…be raped, or to people’s houses and passed around to friends…McKelvie kept hearing about one street where there was a row of seven or eight houses, “where there was pretty much a rapist in every house”. She also heard how underage girls were taken to rooms above takeaways to be assaulted and raped with the perpetrators selling them and making thousands of pounds.”

Tasnim’s Muslim father was called the “house blaze killer” and “the country’s worst ever murderer.” No mention was made that he is a Muslim, and no thought was given as to why he was behaving in that manner. Failings and neglect and incompetence by every safeguarding agency in the UK, from police right through to social workers, has allowed Muslim men to continue raping and grooming non-Muslim girls with impunity. And yet the number of Muslim rapists and groomers continues to swell in the UK, in spite of there being a spotlight now shining on them after a revolt from a very vocal public. Every week and month reveals a new Muslim grooming gang and the exact same horrors inflicted on a new bunch of girls who are already in or who are about to enter their teens. All of the Muslim gang members come from Muslim communities that Muslims have built. All of them are friends and neighbours, and a shockingly high number of them are related, with a granddad participating in the rape of a child tied to a bed at one point with his sons and grandsons. But do allow Muslims and imams and the media to tell you that the rapists’ families and their communities and their mosques had no idea what was going on. Lie down to the untruths that they spin if your brain can’t deal with the horrors. The shocking thing to me is that I find myself weary in the retelling of these tales. How many more times will I or anyone else have to type out the exact same stories with the only thing to have changed in the ensuing years being that of the next victims of Muslim rape gangs? The men’s religion and names won’t have changed. They’ll still be Muslims, and most of them will be called Muhammad (or a variant spelling), with the occasional Ali being thrown into the mix.

Of course it doesn’t help that police and media tend to forever be on the side of the Muslim rapists here in the UK. All of these agencies are prepared to lay sacrifices on the altar of multiculturalism. We think we live in a modern society, but these rapes and killings hearken back to the Aztecs and the blood sacrifices they offered to their Gods. Today the Gods that we offer up our sacrifices to are those Muslim men whose satanic impulses must be met and sated regardless the cost. In all these millennia, we haven’t really travelled that far after all. We still tolerate a bloodlust, and those who swear oaths to protect us are high priests who assist with the procuring and killings. With the Muslim male gangs in our society, the devil truly does walk among us.

COLUMN BY

 JOSHUA WINSTON

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scotland: A Further Slap in the Face for Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs

U of Florida prof: “Islamic State tries to boost its legitimacy by hijacking a historic institution,” the caliphate

France is target of more Islamic jihad attacks than any other EU state, French Leftists denounce “Islamophobia”

Germany: Muslim migrants harass and strike women at bachelorette party

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The film ‘JoJo’ Rabbit’ and the Brainwashing of Children Today

/in , , , , /by

“For that reason we must insist that all organs of education which may be useful for the instruction and training of the people have to fulfill their duty towards the community. Such organs or organizations are: Education of the Youth, Young Peoples Organization, Hitler Youth, Labor Front, Party and Army–all these are institutions for the education and higher training of our people.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937.

“The book press and the newspaper press, lectures and art, the theatre and the cinema, they are all organs of popular education.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937.

Today in America children are being brainwashed to “fulfill their duty towards the community [collective]” from kindergarten to the 12th grade. From the Community College to the Colleges and Universities education has become an “organ” of the state. If you don’t believe me then just ask any student what they know about Fascism, Socialism, Communism, or Marxism. Then ask them what they know about America and her role in stopping each of these ideologies.

To understand how a brainwashed 10-year old boy can create his own fantasy world go see the satirical film JoJo Rabbit by Fox – Searchlight. Watch the trailer:

JoJo Rabbit is about the life of a 10-year old boy named JoJo who lives in a small town in Nazi Germany during WWII. The little boys and girls in the film are brainwashed to believe that they must do what the state wants them to do. For the little girls their purpose is to bear children for the Motherland. For the boys it is to die for Der Fuehrer.

The film begins with JoJo and his fellow Hitler Youth attending a training camp where they learn how to think, fight and be faithful to the Fuehrer. This leads, in the end, to these children being used as Nazi soldiers to fight and die as the onslaught of the American and Russian forces entering their town, a stark symbol of the collapse of Nazi Germany.

JoJo Rabbit shows the dark side of socialism, its ultimate brutality and bloody end.

JoJo and his mother, who apparently is part of the underground, walk past people who have been hanged in the town square as a warning to others. There are tense moments like when the Gestapo enters JoJo’s home in search of enemies of the Nazi state. There is a tragic moment when JoJo is walking through the town square and finds his mother hanged by the Nazis.

JoJo has been indoctrinated to believe that all Jews are evil. He even has a notebook with graphic drawings showing his contempt for all Jews.

Then the film throws JoJo a curve ball. JoJo accidentally learns that his mother has been sheltering a Jewish girl, who is hiding from the Gestapo, in a secret room in their home.

This reminded me of people today who are persecuted because of their beliefs. The Jews continue to be persecuted, as are Christians.

Certain ideas and beliefs are forbidden by the intelligentsia.

Today the the intelligentsia promote: homosexuality, are the followers of Mohammed, promote the myth that blacks are still in slavery, and are most likely Communists, Socialists, or Democratic Socialists. The Democrat Party has become the new Fascists. These protected classes have infiltrated our school system to further their agendas. For example: if you are white you are labeled a racist, if you are straight you are homophobic, and if you support the U.S. Constitution you are an imperialist. Get the picture?

In a January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag Adolf Hitler stated,

It is nonsensical to think that obedience and discipline are necessary only for soldiers, but have little useful meaning in the rest of the peoples’ lives. On the contrary, the disciplined and obediently popular community is capable of mobilizing forces that facilitate an easier assertion of the peoples’ existence and thus serve the successful representation of the interests of all. However, such a community is primarily not created by the compulsion of violence, but only by the compelling power of an idea and thus by the efforts of a continuous education.

Conclusion

Our children are being indoctrinated to be obedient and submissive to the state. Our children have become, via a continuous indoctrination process, the new socialists who hate America because they haven’t been taught about America. America has always been great. Understanding America’s greatness requires understanding American history.

Today America is filled with “disciplined and obedient” children of the state.

Obedience to the state is the primary lesson being taught in our schools, colleges and universities. Safe spaces, microaggressions, and any thought not considered proper (the First Amendment be dammed) trigger immediate and devastating responses from students, faculty and administrators in our schools.

Our children are being taught what to think, not how to think.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Leftist Activism Is A Requirement Of New Elementary School Curriculum

Media Bias Is Corporate Bias

/in , , , , /by

Liberal activists often claim that the media has a “corporate” bias. In their belief system, the fact that corporate-owned media outlets often report favorably about the wildly successful free market system, slowing the growth of government spending, and keeping taxes low are “corporate” biases instead of common sense.

In fact, the media’s real corporate bias is in taking slanted positions which are more activist than journalist. For example, the Media Research Center recently discovered that ABC, CBS, and NBC used language and angles in favor of the House liberals’ impeachment probe 96% of the time that they were evaluating the ongoing political circus.

That’s right. The alleged stalwarts of the “fourth estate” have decided that neutrality is so last century. Liberal condemnation of “big money” in politics goes silent when corporate leaders have their hands in the media pot at outlets like The New York Times. The Times raises billions more annually than conservative candidates across the country between 2015 and 2018, in part thanks to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim’s bail-out of the outlet in 2009.

We bet that the Times had no problem with “big money” or “foreign money” then. The company ended up using its money to support left-wing race-baiting.

Whether we call it “big money” or “corporate bias,” the facts are the same. Liberal outlets say they want corporations to have limited power even as they use their money and influence to sway voters throughout the country.

From guns to abortion to religious liberty and marriage, corporate-owned media has a bias the size of Texas. Liberals slam Fox News, but it’s the only major outlet providing the other side of the coin. In the meantime, House liberals continue to play politics as your rights are whittled away.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Company Contrast – Victoria’s Secret

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance, 11/15/19

Lies, Lies and More Lies: Trump and His Critics

The Fake News Media Celebrates the Fall of the Berlin Wall—But Also Celebrates Stalinist Cuba

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Origins of the Thought Police—and Why They Scare Us

/in , , , , , /by

In a sense, “1984” is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith’s varicose ulcer, apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something), which always seems to be “throbbing.” Gross.

None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it’s not the worst thing in 1984. To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn’t keep Big Brother out of your head.

Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren’t that interested in controlling behavior or speech. They do, of course, but it’s only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.

“When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will,” O’Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith near the end of the book.

We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

Big Brother’s tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved thoughts. We see how this works when Winston’s neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.

“It was my little daughter,” Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?”

We don’t know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.

What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of Oceania—the fictional land of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa—who use surveillance and informants to monitor the thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.

Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don’t want to kill nonconformists so much as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture. (Funny sidebar: the name Room 101 apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)

Orwell didn’t create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.

Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when everything seemed to be going well for his side.

The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing … It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle, he wrote in Homage to Catalonia. [E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle … every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.

That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him. Factions and leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon Trotsky, were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and “uncontrollables” were disappeared.

Orwell never forgot the purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist opponents also used propaganda and lies.) Stalin’s NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police—the NKVD showed less patience with its victims—but they certainly helped inspire Orwell’s secret police.

The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell’s ideas on truth. During his time in Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943.

…I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

In short, Orwell’s brush with totalitarianism left him worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, “This kind of thing is frightening to me.”

Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe,” Rudyard Kipling once observed.

The struggle to remain true to one’s self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about “the smelly little orthodoxies” that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a “power of facing unpleasant facts”—something of a rarity in humans—even though it often hurt him in British society.

In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell’s book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. Modern history shows he was onto something.

When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what’s frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn’t just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around.

Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it’s still happening today. The New York Times recently ran a report featuring one Peng Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of “student information officers” China uses to root out professors who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found in 1984, East Germany, and China; but the rise of “cancel culture” shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly or not) remains strong.

The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984, but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.

That’s a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say “2+2=5” just to escape punishment. That’s exactly what Winston Smith does at the end of 1984, after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.

“Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad,” Orwell wrote. “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn’t mean you have to be.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and Fox News.

RELATED ARTICLE: 10 Terrifying Facts about the East German Secret Police

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far

/in , , , , , , , /by

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., hasn’t yet produced most of his witnesses in the public impeachment hearings regarding President Donald Trump. But if the State Department’s George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor are representative of the testimony Democrats are relying on, future historians may label this episode “The Big Impeachment Blowout.”

The House impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. But as I listened to the hearsay and speculation that Kent and Taylor were offering Wednesday at the opening public hearing on impeachment, I couldn’t help thinking of REO Speedwagon’s song “Take It on the Run.”

One line of the song says: “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you been messin’ around.”

Both Kent and Taylor admitted they never talked to Trump and only heard thirdhand what supposedly occurred in the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Democrats seem to have dropped the quid pro quo claim, since there was no evidence of it in the rough transcript the White House released of the call. The claim does not seem to be playing with the American public.

Taylor admitted in the hearing that Zelenskyy had no idea that U.S. aid was being delayed, and Zelenskyy himself has said there was no quid pro quo.

Democrats have now switched to using the terms “bribery” and “extortion,” no doubt because those terms sound more sinister, despite the fact that they’ve produced no evidence—so far—that would come even close to showing a violation of the federal laws defining bribery and extortion.

Both witnesses expressed their opinions disagreeing with the way Trump has conducted diplomatic relations with Ukraine and the handling of U.S. aid to the country.

But the president is not a postman for Congress or the State Department. His job is to faithfully execute the law. As the chief diplomat of the United States, he defines our foreign policy, not George Kent or William Taylor.

Our country doesn’t give money or aid to other countries for no reason. We give it with specific conditions attached.

The president has a duty to make sure that our money is going to countries that will use it as we intend and not divert it into profiteering and personal corruption. State Department bureaucrats have never been good at ensuring that countries prevent such corruption.

The priority of our diplomats is to maintain their access to government officials in the countries in which they are stationed. This too often overrides their duty to guard against corruption. The president has the final responsibility for ensuring U.S. aid is not improperly diverted in other nations.

It was widely known that Ukraine had, and still has, a corruption problem. It would have been irresponsible for Trump not to look into corruption and demand changes before our money went there.

Even Kent admitted in his testimony that Burisma, the Ukrainian company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member, was part of the “pervasive and longstanding corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, we will not hear any facts about that because Schiff has refused to allow the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, which would enable the younger Biden’s possible self-dealing in Ukraine to be investigated.

If everything Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden did was ethical and above board when it came to Ukraine, why wouldn’t Democrats want Hunter Biden to testify?

And why has Schiff’s committee blocked the Republicans from being able to call the so-called whistleblower who started this whole show trial that Democrats call an impeachment inquiry? What are they afraid will come out about this government employee that might damage his credibility and the claims he is making?

Apparently, Schiff doesn’t want any testimony that would support the legitimacy of the president’s corruption concerns about Ukraine or would somehow detract from the impeachment narrative Democrats are trying to weave into the minds of the American public.

We certainly won’t have an objective, bipartisan inquiry into all of the relevant aspects of what happened here—and why it happened. Schiff even interrupted Republican questioning to tell witnesses they should not answer questions based on “facts not in evidence,” a bizarre statement given the nature of a congressional hearing and how it is normally conducted.

Schiff used to be an assistant U.S. attorney—a federal prosecutor. Like all people in that position, he had to follow the U.S. Attorneys’ Justice Manual.

Before taking a case to a grand jury, much less to trial, Schiff had to convince his boss, in writing, that he had evidence establishing a case. He couldn’t just wing it and submit a case, however weak, based entirely on hearsay, to the grand jury on the off-chance it would indict.

Yet that is exactly what Schiff is doing here—throwing witnesses into closed and now open hearings hoping that he can stir the political pot into an impeachment boil.

It would undermine our system of government for a duly elected president to be removed through impeachment for partisan reasons.

Impeachment should only be used when there has been serious, substantial misconduct of such a nature that we can’t wait for the next election. As far as is publicly known at this time, that standard has not been met regarding Trump.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Adam Schiff, Founding Father: The chief impeacher tries to redefine ‘bribery’ under the law.

Here Are the Backgrounds of 4 Lawyers for Impeachment Witnesses

Everything You Need to Know About What’s Happening in Impeachment Process

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: “It’s Their Fear.” Hong Kong Protesters Persevere.

/in , , , , , /by

“It’s their fear.” That’s what’s motivating the young protesters of Hong Kong to continue demonstrating after months of mounting threats from the Chinese government, according to Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). As Hawley told me on Washington Watch this week, “Beijing promised the people of Hong Kong when they took back over the city that they would protect the basic liberties of the Hong Kong residents — their right to worship, their right to speak, their right to assemble, free press. And now they’re trying to take those things away.”

Hong Kong protesters have continually appealed to the United States for help in the face of Chinese oppression. They often wave American flags or carry Captain America shields, hoping that the land of the free will be sympathetic to their own demands for freedom and democracy. As the demonstrations continue and the police violently crackdown, protesters are becoming more desperate and more afraid of Beijing’s encroachment into Hong Kong.

One request of the protesters is that the U.S. Congress pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. This legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of State to determine whether Hong Kong remains sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to justify its unique treatment under U.S. law. Thus, incentivizing China to maintain Hong Kong’s unique “one country, two systems” arrangement under which Hong Kong has thrived. Sen. Hawley says this bill will give the U.S. government new foreign policy tools to use with China. “It also gives our government the power to reassess our trade status with Hong Kong if Beijing decides to try and do something truly foolish, like overrun the city.”

Hawley has been an ardent supporter of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, because he knows just how real the threat of losing their freedoms is to the people there. “The people of Hong Kong realize that if Beijing succeeds, they’ll never get their rights back. And so they’re standing up.”

While Hong Kong residents make their stand, Hawley had some advice for how U.S. leaders should deal with China. “Beijing only understands pressure… They’re a bully. So, they only understand if you stand up to them. You can’t you can’t be passive.” Indeed, facing off with the world’s most powerful authoritarian country requires courage. Such courage is shown by tireless protesters in Hong Kong and the U.S. politicians willing to spend political capital to send a powerful message to Beijing.

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Bible Versus Secular Elites

As Kanye Takes The Stage, Let’s Encourage His Growth In Faith

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Inside Mosques: Arlington, Texas and Tampa, Florida

/in , , , , , /by

INSIDE MOSQUES

INVESTIGATING AND EVALUATING THREAT LEVELS

INTRODUCTION:

Dave Gaubatz is a former U.S. Federal Agent with Top Secret/SCI clearance, expert in counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism on national security issues, highly trained in Islamic ideology and tactics, Arab linguist, author of Muslim Mafia, has investigated over 300 mosques/Islamic Centers in the USA and 150 outside USA, and after leaving his position in the government continued this work as a Civilian Agent. Using firsthand investigation, he then evaluates Risk/Threat Levels based on multiple factors including Materials on Premises and What They Advocate, Ties to Muslim Terrorists, and Sharia Adherence. Mr. Gaubatz estimates that 80% of mosques in America recruit and train in jihad (violent & civilization). Finally, he makes Recommendations to protect America, our citizens, our children. He asks about each mosque: Would ISIS be proud?

NOTE: Several Reports/Affidavits will be published. When you read one from earlier dates, note that Dave Gaubatz issued Risk/Danger warnings ahead, but in some cases, violence occurred later from a member of one of those reported mosques (ex: Trolley Square, Salt Lake City, Utah shooting; child abuse Nashville, TN). When you read a report that came after an attack (Ex: Report 2017, Boston Marathon Bombing by the Tsarnaev brothers in 2013), note that violence had already occurred, Mr. Gaubatz reported continued Risk/Danger years later from the same mosques terrorists had attended.  Reading professionally investigated and evaluated Reports/Affidavits from various years is important so the American public is aware of new or continuing Risk/Danger and can demand protection from all levels of government officials and law enforcement that they are sworn to provide.

Significant Incident Report #3 (SIR)

Location: Arlington, TX (TX17) and Tampa Florida

Date of Significant Incident: 28 Dec 2007 — 17 Jan 2008

Synopsis: During the above period Field Researcher (FR) met with four Imams from TX#17. FR spent several days with the Imams to include some in Arlington, TX, Austin, TX, and Tampa, FL. In addition FR had numerous telephone conversations with the Imams. FR also had the opportunity to meet with many worshippers and Imams from the areas they traveled to.

FR opines based on the below information and his continuous interaction with the Imams that he considers them to be dangerous. Since they are leading Islamic scholars and many worshippers follow the advice they are given, it is likely the worshippers will follow the violent Wahhabi ideology of the Imams.

Listed below are some of the significant events during this time period:

  • There are four Imams at TX#17. Jordan and Palestine.
  • “Osama” Imam from Jordan, informed FR he should not accept any gifts from Shia, Christian, or Jewish people because it is haram.
  • Osama said it is normally haram (illegal) to commit suicide bombings like it is being done in Iraq, but the /Iraqi situation is a gray area. The Iraqi people are being killed, and it is justified to explode yourself, because you are defending yourself.
  • Imam Mohammad Shakib and Shaykh Hassan are the primary fundraisers for TX17.
  • Imam Shakib subsequently introduced an administrative assistant at TX17. The man had a long beard and is from Jordan (according to both the imam and the man)
  • The Jordanian (Imam in Texas) told FR he is originally from Jordan and he had a very close relationship with Tarik Aziz (close friend of Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister from 1979 — 2003). The Jordanian further informed FR that Tarik Aziz (before 2003) would often travel to Jordan from Iraq. When Aziz would come to Jordan he would always visit him at his home. FR opines it is likely the Jordanian had other ties to senior Baath Party members.
  • FR advised the Imams collected money from many worshippers in Arlington, TX, Austin, TX, and Tampa, FL. Most of the time the money was provided in cash. The worshippers would not provide checks, but subsequently Shaykh Mohammad would tell them he knows “Ghassan” and has his contact information.
  • FR was invited to the homes of the Imams, travel to Austin, TX, and for a 3 day visit in Tampa, FL. The purpose of the trip was for fundraising for the mosque, but FR opines based on his discussions with the Imams that money was being used for other purposes. The Imams themselves would argue amongst themselves.
  • A Florida Imam (Ibriham Aboamer, from Egypt) was observed by FR as having a book, “Down to the United States.” He also had a collection of Siraj Wahhaj CDs. When the Imam saw FR looking at the book, he hid it in his desk drawer.
  • A man “named” Ghassan who is from Jordan or Palestine, was mentioned by the Imams. They advised he is either wanted or been questioned by the FBI for terrorism related charges. The Imams were evasive about Ghassan. They did state Ghassan had traveled from mosque to mosque in various states hiding from authorities. He had been an Imam in Chicago, IL.

Director Gaubatz comments: Concur with reporting to law enforcement. The individuals mentioned above are highly likely to be involved in supporting terrorist organizations and it is probable they are linked to additional “sleeper cell” activity.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah: Imam loses appeal to be removed from terrorism watchlist

Federal judge rules that Alabama Muslima who joined the Islamic State is not a citizen and can’t come back

RELATED VIDEO: Taqiyya in Dearborn Heights

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How To Make The National Security Council Great Again

/in , , , , /by

Very few political problems can actually be solved by Washington’s favorite solution: throwing more money at it. Here’s one that can: the much-in-the-news turmoil on the National Security Council (NSC) staff.

But first, you may ask: what’s the problem? If you interpret the recent spate of anti-Trump leaks and congressional testimony from NSC staffers as “heroic military officers and civil servants standing up to a dastardly illegitimate president,” then clearly you think the current system is fine. But if you think elections should have consequences, that presidents should be entitled to hire people who agree with them, and shouldn’t have to face constant leaking, criticism and disloyalty from their own team, then the problem is obvious.

ery few political problems can actually be solved by Washington’s favorite solution: throwing more money at it. Here’s one that can: the much-in-the-news turmoil on the National Security Council (NSC) staff.

But first, you may ask: what’s the problem? If you interpret the recent spate of anti-Trump leaks and congressional testimony from NSC staffers as “heroic military officers and civil servants standing up to a dastardly illegitimate president,” then clearly you think the current system is fine. But if you think elections should have consequences, that presidents should be entitled to hire people who agree with them, and shouldn’t have to face constant leaking, criticism and disloyalty from their own team, then the problem is obvious.

It should be obvious, then, that to fulfill both these roles the NSC staff needs to be well-aligned with the president’s views. Yet if one thing is clear from the impeachment brouhaha, it’s that a great many former and current staffers on the Trump NSC do not agree with his views. Nearly all of the recent leaks and public statements from disgruntled staffers don’t, in fact, allege that the president broke the law or abused his power but rather complain that he’s pursing “wrongheaded” policy. In particular, the opening statement of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former NSC “country director” for Ukraine, made clear that his real beef with President Donald Trump was that the president might set a policy “inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.” (RELATED: Trump Teases Evidence That Alexander Vindman Is A ‘Never Trumper’)

Well, but who’s supposed to set policy? The president, or the “interagency” — which is just a fancy term for bureaucrats? Presidents are elected; bureaucrats aren’t. The entire purpose of elections is to confer a grant of latitude, within constitutional parameters, to make policy according to the convictions of the elected and their voters. Especially in a government as big as the United States’, that’s difficult for any president to do without a cadre of staff committed to those convictions.

Why doesn’t Trump have such a staff? Simple: because he doesn’t have the money to hire them.

The “business model” of the NSC is to rely on “detailees” — that is, career officials at other agencies who are loaned, or “detailed,” to the organization, typically for a year or two. There are three core reasons why detailees make up more than 80% of the NSC staff, which in recent years has fluctuated between 200 and 400 “professionals” (i.e., not counting administrative assistants and such).

First, it is thought that having a wide range of backgrounds and experiences — diplomatic, military, intelligence, etc. — on the staff will broaden the NSC’s institutional knowledge and versatility. Detailees “understand the system” and “know how to get things done.” They also have extensive contacts within the bureaucracy which they can “leverage” to help smooth the operations of government. And by being exposed to the inner core of American policy-making, they further develop their own skills and bring valuable experience back to their “home agencies.”

Second, by law anyone who works at the NSC must have a very high security clearance, no exceptions. Clearing people from scratch can take months and cost thousands. Detailees, on the other hand, are for the most part already cleared to the appropriate level. Most of them can walk in the door and start working the day they’re selected.

Third and most important, the NSC’s budget is tiny — by Washington standards, microscopic. The money available for “direct hires” is small, and most of it goes to permanent administrative staff that doesn’t turn over with a new administration. That leaves very little for hiring “professional” staff — typically the national security adviser himself, his deputy, and a handful of others. That’s it.

It should not shock anyone to hear that the vast majority of career national security officials favor the government line. They after all are the government. This means that in practice they’re mostly liberal Democrats, for liberal Democrats are the party of government and thus government attracts liberal Democrats. Not entirely, of course. There’s also a smallish cadre of centrist Democrats, Republicans and independents rounding out the federal menagerie. But one type you won’t find are serious critics — in either or neither party — of Beltway groupthink. Anti-establishment presidents — anti-establishment Republicans especially — are therefore inherently at a disadvantage under the current system.

That in mind, let’s reconsider the reasons for the reliance on detailees. The first is not bad as far as it goes. But do the benefits of institutional knowledge and career development so outweigh a president’s prerogative to hire people he wants, who agree with his agenda, that the overwhelming majority of the NSC staff should always be from permanent Washington?

Legally, everyone in the executive branch works for the president. But the NSC is the president’s personal national security staff, the people who work most directly for him in the chain of command, who are physically closest to him, who provide him information and material daily, and who are most responsible for seeing that his directives are carried out throughout the vast national security bureaucracy.

A balance could surely be struck. The government being large, there will always be at least a few people within it who are aligned with any president’s convictions. But when the number of detailees the NSC is obligated to hire is well into the hundreds, finding a sufficient number to staff an anti-establishment president is difficult and probably impossible.

The solution is simple: give the NSC more money: say, one or two hundred million dollars (its current budget is not even $15 million). That sounds like a lot to ordinary folk but it’s couch-cushion change in a federal budget that now tops four trillion. The notion that “we can’t afford this” is transparently phony. Money could easily be found to enable the NSC to hire most of its professional staff directly. Detailing could then be practiced strategically, to bring in people who actually believe in and want to further the president’s agenda.

More money could also solve the security clearance issue. Background investigations are conducted by other agencies — typically the FBI — who have to clear personnel for a wide range of positions across the government and whose first priority is more than likely not NSC personnel. Clearances are expensive and time-consuming because investigators have to do fieldwork and their caseloads and backlogs are enormous. Others have proposed reforming the process and reducing the number of positions that need high-level clearances. I’m all for that, but it won’t solve the NSC’s problem — at least not soon. But budgeting for investigators who work directly for the NSC and whose sole task is to clear NSC officials would.

Another simple, and cost-free, reform would be to allow the NSC to “adjudicate” and “hold” — that is, maintain on its own books — the clearances of all its direct hires. Forgive me for getting into the weeds, but this detail is important. To work at the NSC, one must be cleared to TS/SCI, or “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.” Under current practice, only the CIA can hold the SCI portion of that clearance for NSC direct hires. What this means is that Langley can disallow a president’s choice for the NSC by denying the SCI portion of his clearance — “Top Secret” alone doesn’t cut it. Theoretically this power is not supposed to be abused for political reasons, but there’s no guarantee it never is. True, a president can overrule a refusal, but that rarely happens, in part because presidents and their staffs know that if they take on the “Intelligence Community,” its well-connected operatives will retaliate with a leak war no White House can win.

But there’s no reason why NSC clearances must be held anywhere but the NSC. In fact, that’s precisely where they were held until very recently, when the Obama administration sent them to the CIA — presumably to give that agency a veto over future NSC staff. That’s an administrative matter that can easily be reversed by order of the president.

Some will no doubt object that these proposals, if enacted, would give the president too much latitude to appoint “unqualified” people. But let’s unpack what that means. If the concern is that people with suspect pasts will be given security clearances they shouldn’t have, remember that the investigators doing the background checks will still be career civil servants — and we’re all supposed to trust career civil servants, right? As government officials, they’re still likely to have typical government biases. But at least their first loyalty will not be to specific agencies with institutional interests in blocking critics, dissidents and Washington outsiders from serving a disruptive president.

Others will voice concern — disingenuously — that without government officials, the NSC will lack sufficient expertise to deal with the world’s complexities. But the proposal is not to deny the NSC recourse to sitting officials; the president could still detail over as many as he wants. It’s to end the practical requirement that he rely almost solely on career staff. More important, it’s arrogant and untrue to suggest that no one outside government has subject-matter expertise or good ideas. There are in fact many foreign policy experts — in academia, think tanks, and the private sector, among other places — who could do these jobs as well or better than career civil servants the president doesn’t know (and who likely voted against him). Indeed, by looking outside the government, the president is more likely to find staff whose views align with his own — a factor which is at least as reliable a predictor of how good they will be at their jobs than their credentials.

To object to a president hiring his own people is tantamount to saying that elections shouldn’t matter. It’s obvious that most of official Washington believes this, but at least until recently, they were reluctant to say it. There is of course an electoral remedy to the problem of a president hiring people you think he shouldn’t: run against him and beat him.

It’s hard not to conclude that the current system is designed to limit presidential — and therefore electoral — control of American foreign policy, to prevent change. But so long as we maintain our ostensibly democratic system, our democratically elected presidents should have the resources to hire people who actually want to help them carry out their Constitutional duties, according to the views that got them elected in the first place.

The core purpose of the NSC is to help the president govern, not thwart his agenda. Let’s make the NSC great again!

Michael Anton is Lecturer in Politics and Research Fellow at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington, D.C and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. He served on the NSC staff from 2001-2005 and 2017-2018.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

COLUMN BY

Michael Anton

Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Should Do More Than Cut Security Council — He Should Gut Bureaucrats At CIA, State, Pentagon.

Former CIA Acting Director Praises ‘Deep State’ For Role In Trump Impeachment Push

Reminder: Schiff Reportedly Hired Two Of Trump’s NSC Staffers

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Iranian Engineer in US Sent Tech Secrets Back to Iran: FBI

/in , , , , , /by

An Iranian visiting scholar at the University of Michigan is in FBI custody after being charged with stealing and sending tech secrets back to Iran.

Amin Hasanzadeh, the accused, is an electrical engineer and Iranian military veteran who worked at a company linked to the Iranian government’s Cruise Division of Air & Space Organization. Hasanzadeh is also a permanent resident of the U.S.

He is accused of sending the sensitive information to his brother who worked at a number of companies connected to Iran’s military programs, including one that “contributes to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.”

Hasanzadeh started working as a defense contractor in Florida in 2011 developing power electronics computer designs. He worked in a similar job in Maryland before landing a job in Michigan in January 2015.

The FBI says Hasanzadeh stole the information from the company in Michigan over the period of a year and a half and began sending sensitive information to his brother in Iran just six days into the job.

The information was covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) he had signed.

According to an FBI affidavit, “A senior company official advised that any unauthorized disclosure or theft of partner company documents and information protected under an NDA could be ‘catastrophic.’”

The information he stole and sent to his brother included information about the company’s products, including trade secrets, and a prototype for a part of one of the company’s “important products,” stated the FBI complaint.

“Iran certainly does have as a goal improving its military capabilities and uses espionage as a means at its disposal to acquire information and technology it would have a hard time developing indigenously,” said Eric Brewer, deputy director and fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, speaking to The Jerusalem Post.

Brewer said the theft is part of Iran’s strategy to steal trade secrets from the West to improve their military and defense systems.

Hasanzadeh is charged with interstate transportation of stolen property and fraud (for not disclosing he had been in the Iranian military).

Last week, two Iranians pleaded guilty to acting as illegal agents of the Iranian government in the U.S.

Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, 39, an Iranian with dual U.S. citizenship, and Majid Ghorbani, 60, were caught running surveillance on Jewish facilities and events in the U.S. in support of the Mujahdein-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian resistance group that advocates for the complete overthrow of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Islamist regime.

According to an FBI affidavit, the two Iranian agents were also preparing “target packages” – i.e., attacks — on individuals who posed threats to the Iranian regime on American soil.

RELATED STORIES:

Trump Bars Iranian Gov’t Officials & Relatives From US 

Iranian Agents in US Plead Guilty; Saudi Agents Arrested

LOL: Europe ‘Comes Out’ Against Iran for Attack on Saudis

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

‘Consider This A Warning’: ICE Agents Arrested Thousands Of Sexual Predators In 2019

/in , , , , , /by

  • Homeland Security Investigations agents made 3,771 criminal arrests relating to child exploitation in the 2019 fiscal year, marking an 18% increase from the previous fiscal year, officials said. 
  • Special agents with Homeland Security Investigations, which operates under the umbrella of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, increasingly cracked down on child sex exploitation, particularly child sex tourism.
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened the Angel Watch Center on Thursday, which is dedicated to alerting foreign governments of incoming U.S. sexual predators.

FAIRFAX, Virginia — Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed Thursday that it arrested well over 3,700 sexual predators in the past fiscal year, as the agency’s announcement coincided with its grand opening of a facility dedicated to monitoring convicted sexual predators traveling internationally.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the investigative unit of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), announced it initiated 4,224 child exploitation cases during the 2019 fiscal year, which began in October 2018 and concluded at the end of September. Those cases led to a total of 3,771 criminal arrests, and the identification or rescue of 1,066 victims.

The numbers reflected a significant uptick — 18% — from the previous fiscal year. It’s a result, HSI contended, of its commitment to ending crimes against children.

“HSI’s agents, in cooperation with our law enforcement partners, work tirelessly to find and bring to justice, individuals who commit these heinous crimes,” acting special agent in charge of HSI Seattle Eben Roberts said in a prepared statement. “Moreover, we are dedicated to rescuing from harm’s way our most precious population — our children — and those who seek to harm them should consider this a warning.”

ICE published a short list of individuals arrested by HSI agents in the Pacific Northwest area, who were later convicted of various child exploitation crimes, such as child pornography, and the sexual abuse and molestation of minors.

The news release coincided with the Thursday opening of HSI’s Angel Watch Center in Fairfax, Virginia — an addition to the agency’s Cyber Crimes Center. When convicted and registered child sex offenders are anticipated to travel to another country, it’s the job of the Angel Watch Center to notify the country’s government. The overall goal of the facility’s operation is the prevention of child sex tourism — the act of traveling internationally for the purpose of sexually exploiting minors.

Watch the Impeachment shoe of Marie Yovanovitch fall.

/in , , , , , /by

Following the failure of the two witnesses on Day One of the Schiff Impeachment Star Chamber to land a blow on the US President, the “star” performer on Day Two promises to be the Obama-appointed US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch was an enabler of the DNC’s attempts in Kiev to access Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on candidate Trump prior to the 2016 election. They ended up with zero dirt of Trump but moved to target anyone in Trump’s inner campaign circle.

Yovanovitch also protected George Soros’s meddling in the Ukraine via his faux “anti-corruption” NGO, Anti-Corruption Action Center.  A Soros representative told John Solomon that the anti-corruption group was a Trojan Horse in advance of Soros’s intention to invest a billion dollars in the Ukraine.

George Kent, the bow-tied witness on Day One of the Hearing, actually signed a letter to Yuriy Stolyarchuk, the Ukrainian Deputy Prosecutor General, dated April 4, 2016, in which he spoke about the financial assistance for joint US projects with the Prosecutor General’s office more than hinted for them to lay off their investigation into Soros’s NGO.

“The investigation into the actions of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced.”  Get the hint?

As John Solomon of The Hill exposed. Yovanovitch gave a speech on March 5, 2019, in which she called for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed, and the Ukrainian media went wild that a US official was interfering in their internal affairs. Under Secretary of State, David Hale, got peppered with questions whether her actions and statements violated international code of behavior under the Geneva Convention.

Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, was alerted to Yovanovitch’s anti-Trump statements by a senior Congress member. It was echoed by Republican lawmaker.

In mid-March, 2016, the new Ukraine Chief Prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, told John Solomon, that in his first meeting with Ambassador Yovanovitch, she gave him the names of several Ukrainians she did not want investigated and prosecuted!  This was a very strange request for a foreign ambassador to ask of a host country.

John Solomon received confirmation from a Ukrainian official who confirmed that,

“at least some of the names are those that US Embassy Kiev raised with the General Prosecutor because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”

In other words, the State Department was confirming that its own embassy under Yovanovitch had engaged in pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop certain cases and investigations, as the new prosecutor was admitting.

This ties in with the letter signed by George Kent, the Democrats prime witness, that demanded the Ukrainian prosecutor drop the case against Soros’s NGO.

The bow-tied Kent had also demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor drop investigations into Sergey Leschenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, and Artem Sytnyk, a senior law-enforcement official, who had assisted the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 US elections by divulging information about a former Trump campaign figure, Paul Manafort.

When pressed by the New York Times, Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko stood by his statement that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch did provide him with names of individuals and groups she did not want investigating.

One final point. The writer has been told that Marie Yovanovitch denied a US entry visa to prosecutor Lutsenko to visit with the US Department of Justice to provide them with documents and information on this issue. I am still waiting for verification and confirmation on this point. I hope it will be brought up during her Impeachment cross examination by Republican lawmakers.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Marxism weaponized homosexuality, artists, and a fresh look at Gramsci and the Long March

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Posted by 

This is the 4th clip of the Polish intellectual Ava Lon has done for us, as part of a series from this video. The man who made it, is well known in Poland for explaining the nature of leftism and Marxism. The First three clips can be found on our D Tube channel, as well as here.

Direct link

Third clip from the same video

Second clip from the same video

First clip from the same video

(Will add other clips as they are found. The original entire clip in Polish can be seen here below)

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Warren Calls Trans and Gender Nonconforming “Women” the ”Backbone of Our Democracy”

The Democrats’ Election Interference Projection

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with videos is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Sheriff David Clarke on What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!

/in , , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

Sheriff David Clarke is America’s Sheriff and he now serves as a Senior Advisor and Spokesman for America First Action, dedicated to supporting the Trump/Pence agenda. He recently retired as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County after nearly 40 years in law enforcement. The Sheriff’s latest book is: Cop Under Fire: Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America. We will talk with Sheriff Clarke about draining the swamp (with Drano) and how the resist movement is trying to protect the swamp. TOPIC…What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!!

Tom Del Beccaro is an acclaimed author, commentator and analyst and an opinion writer at Fox News, Fox Business & Epoch Times. Tom is also the former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Tom is author of two excellent books — The Divided Era and The New Conservative Paradigm and is publisher of PoliticalVanguard.com. He also has a new website — TomDel.com where all his work can be found. As a frequent talk radio and television commentator, he has appeared across the Country on TV and Radio Shows, heard by millions each year, including the Conservative Commandoes, Fox & Friends, Fox Business News, and the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. TOPIC…The freak show that is being called the impeachment inquiry!!

Is America Moving Toward the ‘Upper House’ of Islam?

/in , , , , , , /by

Former Muslim and Christian convert, Pastor Shahram Hadian, who was born in Iran and came to the United States as a youngster, regularly tours the country warning about jihad in America. In 2013, he founded his Truth in Love Christian Fellowship near Spokane, Washington, as a “free church,” meaning it rejected a religious tax exemption in order to spread his crucial, political message without restrictions.  That message is that our country has precipitously moved from the Dar al-Harb (lower house of Islam), or “world of war,” and is now dangerously close to the Dar al-Islam (upper house) or “world of submission.” He warns that Americans must preserve our way of life by eschewing political correctness and speaking out about this threat.

The threat arises from the obligation on every Muslim to bring all non-Muslim territory under Islamic rule.  Islamic believers declare war against a non-Muslim region which becomes enemy territory and part of the “lower house” of Islam, called the Dar al-Harb or “world of war.”  During this lower-house period, deception, taqiyya, is freely used. Islamic canonical law, shariah, a totalitarian doctrine with hudud punishments, such as stoning or amputation, is also sanitized or denied.  Muslims living in the region follow its secular laws, even though they ardently believe in the supremacy and eventual victory of shariah over all man-made laws.

Non-Muslims living under Dar al-Harb may be unaware of their plight as devout Muslims pursue their duty to declare jihad on all infidels and secure the entire world for Islam.  In the “lower house” phase, Islam is presented as a peaceful and tolerant faith.  The Koranic verses, suras, from Mohammed’s Meccan period, before he amassed power as a warlord, are emphasized as “true” Islamic beliefs.  The voiding and replacement of these verses by the later Medinan suras of violence and conquest is denied.  For example, an early sura 2:256 states, “there is no compulsion in religion,” but its replacement, sura 9:5, commands Muslims to fight unbelievers until they submit to Islam.

Muslims in the Dar al-Harb typically accentuate their victimization, calling attention to alleged “Islamophobia” and anti-Muslim bias.  Yet, attacks against Muslims are frequently revealed as self-perpetuated.  For example, Ahmed Mohamed, the Clock Boy, became an example of Islamophobia after the then-14-year-old brought to school a beeping device resembling a bomb with a timer and was questioned by police. The incident generated Twitter tweets, death threats against police and school officials, extensive media coverage and a White House visit by the student. Following multiple failed lawsuits against the school, the city and FOX news, the Mohamed family was ordered to pay court costs and subsequently moved to Qatar.

In a region under the “lower house” of Islam, resident Muslims typically declare shariah as unfit for democratic societies and applicable only to Muslim countries or communities.  They may, however, defend shariah used in a strictly Muslim context and cite religious freedom as in a stunning 2018 court verdict. In that instance, a Detroit federal judge dismissed charges against two Michigan doctors accused of genital mutilation of at least nine minor girls.  The doctors’ lawyers argued that laws against genital mutilation violate religious freedom after one doctor maintained she merely performed a religious custom.

Also, during the lower-house period, Muslims begin politically organizing, building a Muslim power base.  In 2014, the executive leadership of eight Muslim Brotherhood organizations announced formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  The USCMO, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is the first religion-based political party in U.S. history.  One of the founding members, Nihad Awad, is the executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.  His statement at the event was particularly alarming:  “This is the dream of every American Muslim, to unify the approach, agenda and vision of the Muslim community.”

U.S. political parties have never exclusively served one religious group. Yet, the USCMO endeavors to increase political participation of Muslim voters, support Muslim-friendly politicians and encourage more Muslims to run for office at all levels of government.  In 2020, an unprecedented 500 Muslims are expected to run in local, state and federal races.

During Dar al-Harb, Muslims also become involved in other critical sectors of society, including law enforcement, intelligence, national security, education, media and non-Muslim religious communities.  They push to purge counter-terrorism programs, thwarting attempts to apprehend Islamic terrorists.  They demand elimination of negative portrayals of Muslims in popular culture and ask for positive, abridged or even apocryphal versions of Islamic doctrine.  In 2011, the Obama administration expunged training materials deemed offensive by Islamist organizations.  In 2015, Obama instituted the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program which focused on “right-wing extremists” and white supremacists.

In education, publicly-funded programs and textbooks promoting Islam and denigrating other faiths appear and proliferate as part of curriculums that include Muslim prayers.  Alleged and often fictional Muslim participation in history, scientific discoveries or other fields of study is emphasized to establish a false sense of Muslim supremacy.  Despite the first amendment and its non-establishment clause and the 1969 decision to remove prayer from schools, the Supreme Court recently refused to rule on a public school curriculum that promotes Islam and allows Islamic prayer in school.

During Dar al-Harb, worldwide acts of terrorism are portrayed as “un-Islamic” activities and the perpetrators as those who have “misinterpreted” Islamic doctrine.  Further, jihadist attacks, a key requirement for Muslims, are used as opportunities to advance the “Islamophobia” or “Muslims qua victims” narrative, as in the aftermath of the 2015 San Bernardino attacks.  In that instance, jihadists Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook murdered 14 people and wounded 21 at a county holiday party.  But Muslim spokesmen expressed concern that the shooting might “embolden Trump supporters” and that Muslims would be punished for actions by bad actors not representative of bona fide Muslims.

During Dar al-Harb, interfaith activities, portrayed as attempts to reach out to other religious communities, are actually all one-way, with accommodations and compromises favoring Muslims. They serve as intelligence-gathering missions. They also seek to develop trust to soften non-Muslims for dawah efforts, the required “welcoming” to Islam, that precedes complete submission required by the “upper house” period.

When Pastor Hadian warns of our descent into the upper house, he is describing the obliteration of our constitutional republic and all the protections and freedoms it guarantees.  He is talking about the near future that will soon see the impact of significant increases in the Islamic population and their efforts to transform America.  Hadian sees the targeting of “right-wing extremists” and white supremacy as attempts to keep Americans in the dark about the Islamist Trojan horse. These tactics are effectively designed to make it more difficult to expose the truth about the Koranic-mandated war to overtake the non-Muslim world.

Indeed, according to Hadian, current practices validate his premise that the U.S. is transitioning to a period of shariah promotion, a definitive characteristic of the “upper house.”  Noteworthy are the shariah patrols with look-alike NYPD vehicles that regulate neighborhood behavior in Brooklyn, as well as an increasing number of spontaneous, New York City street closings for Islamic prayer that inconvenience non-Muslims.  An ear-piercing, five-times-daily call to prayer occurs in Hamtramck, Michigan.  Workplaces have seen increased demands for special accommodations exclusively for Muslims, like prayer breaks and prayer facilities, and halal products in school cafeterias and in the general food supply.  The political elite, especially Democrats, now accept radical anti-Semitic positions from two Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated members of the so-called “Squad” – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib – and are unwilling to censure them or investigate Omar’s alleged illegal activities.

Tellingly, a recent White House meeting with Vice President Mike Pence on our nation’s “safety and security” included Muslim Brotherhood members, including USCMO head, Ousamma Jammal. Muslim Brotherhood attendees presented Pence with the American Muslim Agenda, citing Muslim contributions to “Making America Great Again” and spoke of their aspirations for a Muslim female president in 2036.

All this points to undeniable progress toward the American Muslim community securing the  “upper house” in the United States and makes Pastor Hadian’s warning even more serious.  Once the Dar al-Islam is firmly in place, it will be too late to wage an effective defense to preserve our way of life.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Muslim Brotherhood’s Info Op Against Trump.

Everything you need to know about today’s partisan impeachment stunt

/in , , , , , /by

Nineteen minutes after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as America’s 45th President, The Washington Post published this headline on its website: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” For once, anyway, the media was telling it like it is.

Democrats in Congress have been selling their far-left base on impeachment since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race. After nearly 3 years of coming up empty—including $32 million of taxpayer money spent on the Russia collusion hoax—Democrat leaders knew they needed to do something to appease their party’s left fringe.

That’s why Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment “inquiry” in a hastily organized press conference—before the full House voted, and before any of the relevant evidence could even come to light. This time, Democrats knew they couldn’t risk letting the facts derail their momentum, as had happened with the Mueller Report flop.

Watch: The Swamp wanted a media circus, and they got it!

House Democrats are effectively shutting down Congress—yet again—over their impeachment sham. Nothing substantive can get done while the left remains fixated on undoing the 2016 election. They have repeatedly ignored opportunities to work with President Trump and take action on issues that will help the very people they represent.

The President continues to push forward on trade deals, healthcare, our booming economy, immigration, and other areas where Americans want real solutions. Democrat leaders, unable to control their far-left fringe, can only stage TV hearings. Meanwhile:

  • Speaker Pelosi still refuses to hold a vote on USMCA to replace NAFTA—despite growing pressure from manufacturers, labor unions, farmers, and workers.
  • Democrats have failed to come up with any areas where they’ll work with President Trump to lower medicine prices for our families and seniors.
  • House Democrats have failed to do anything to help rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure.
  • They continue to ignore loopholes in our immigration laws that drive the border crisis, fuel human smuggling, and hurt both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

Americans have every right to be angry. It’s remarkable to think about where our country could be if Democrats in Congress put country before party. Under President Trump, the U.S. economy has hit its lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Illegal immigration is finally starting to come under control after decades of neglect.

If House Democrats were as committed to helping Americans succeed under President Trump as they are to tearing him down, imagine where we could be now.

Instead, bring in the cameras. The one bright spot from today’s embarrassing spectacle is that American families finally got front-row seats to how Congress wastes its time—and spends millions of their taxpayer dollars—on partisan stunts. No wonder Americans don’t trust Washington. Who can blame them?

Don’t rely on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-hand accounts. Read the transcript yourself here.

Impeachment czar Adam Schiff has lied to Americans—over and over again.

Impeachment Hearings Stumble Out of the Blocks

Red Latex-Clad Drag Queen Attends Trump Impeachment Hearings