Tag Archive for: attack

#ChicagoThugs, #PatheticInChicago, #ChicagoFailure

/in , , , , /by

Who can forget the clueless thugs protesting last May in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, holding up their brand new shiny placards––hmm, where did those pricey things come from?––and expressing rage at….what?

  • Not at the lack of esteem they believed white America owed to the black-lives-matter movement.
  • Not at the shooting a year earlier of Michael Brown (for which police officer Darren Wilson was exonerated by a Grand Jury) or the phony “hands-up/don’t shoot” mantra.
  • Not at the devastating fact that under Barack Obama the unemployment figures for African-Americans were––and remain––at record sky-high levels. According to Larry Elder at Townhall.com, “By every key economic measurement, blacks are worse off under Obama…in some cases, far worse off.”
  • Not at the tragic fact that black-on-black crime was––and remains––the single biggest killer in the black community (other than abortion).

Oh no. They were protesting because the anarchic, hate-America moneybags who bribed or rather enticed them to show up and act out didn’t pay them! Reportedly, some of the protesters “who looted, rioted, burned buildings and overturned police cars….were promised up to $5,000 per month to join the protests.”

That’s right, according to Newsmax.com, “Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), the successor group to the now-bankrupt St. Louis branch of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), stiffed the protesters.”

So much for the high-minded ideology that drove these unemployed know-nothings into the streets!

OLD BOTTLE, SAME WINE

This is exactly what we just witnessed in Chicago on Friday night, March 11th, as a bunch of protestors––both black and white––were convinced for a pittance or for a pile of dough to act like hyperactive children off their Ritalin in order to disrupt a massive rally, anticipated to be attended by over 25,000, for presidential-frontrunner Donald J. Trump. It was hilarious to see the protestors, when asked by reporters why they were there, robotically announce, “I’d rather not give my reasons.” Translation: I have no clue why I’m here, but I’m making a few bucks, so what the hey!

The venue was perfect, wasn’t it?––the home of the arch community organizer Barack Obama, who before his ignominious, race-baiting, hate-whitey, loathe-the-opposition tenure in the White House, specialized in fomenting the same kind of protests, almost all of them to bring down “the man.” The goal, of course, has always been to extort money from individuals or corporations perceived to be “racist,” to create or reinforce in the protestors the notion that they are perpetual victims, and to convince them to vote for Democrats who promise to address their grievances––but never do. The net result: The cities in America with the highest crime rates share one thing in common––each one has a Democrat mayor!

In Democrat-run Chicago, the rich, hate-America radicals behind the anti-Trump protest, including MoveOn.org ––as well as behind Occupy Wall St., Black Lives Matter, etc.––were trying to take down the ultimate man, the Big Kahuna, the billionaire the protestors all long to be like but instead can’t help envying.

Is this the very definition of stupid? Mr. Trump is offering America a way out of poverty, a return to a rich, vibrant, successful, flourishing America, but these mal-educated protesters––thank you Common Core and all the other dumb-America-down liberal education programs of the past 50 years––would rather stick to their self-defeating ways than to wake up and smell the coffee.

According to radio host and writer Douglas V. Gibbs, the “Chicago protests were not about Trump” but were rather “an attempt to silence opposition to liberal left politics.” If Cruz had been the frontrunner, Gibbs says, he would have been the target.

Gibbs explains that in the style of the career agitator, socialist Saul Alinsky, the protestors “want violence…they want riots…they think it is chic. These people remind us of the agitators [who] brought about the French Revolution, or the Bolsheviks who brought about the Russian Revolution…angry, violent, and trained to believe the same poppycock that has brought down a long list of republics in history––and failed every time.”

Gibbs compliments Trump’s refusal to “feed the beast” by cancelling the event, no doubt driving the unruly horde to gather in another venue to count the money they made for the night and to indulge in an event commensurate with their maturity level, such as group thumb-sucking.

To his everlasting shame, Senator Ted Cruz joined the hysterical ranks of the Republican- establishment has-beens in blaming Donald Trump for the mob’s sideshow. So much for Mr.-I-Stand-for-the- Constitution defending Mr. Trump’s freedom of speech!

THANK YOU, VINCENTE

Last June, at the outset of his campaign for President of the United States, Mr. Trump said that one of the first things he would do was build a wall to keep illegal aliens from violating our southern border and invading our homeland––and that Mexico would pay for it! On cue, his rival candidates expressed their outrage, although now they’ve all appropriated this strategy for themselves.

Just a few weeks ago, the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox, weighed in on that pronouncement. No way, he said, would Mexico pay “for that effing wall!”

When asked his reaction to Fox’s statement, Mr. Trump said “the wall just got 10 feet higher!”

In the same vein, a lot of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises have been met with anger, scorn, derision, vilification, and patronization, in fact most of the marginalizing tactics suggested by Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals. The theory is that when people are insulted, they feel diminished, they lose their strength, they fade into the woodwork, sort of what Mitt Romney has done, not after being insulted but after insulting the formidable Mr. Trump. What Alinsky followers today don’t realize is that truth both negates and conquers liberal lies.

When Mr. Trump cites the massacres by Muslims on 9/11 and in France and San Bernardino and all over the world and then says we have to temporarily keep Muslims from entering the country “until we understand what’s going on,” the average person understands and agrees.

Only the politically-correct media wusses appear not to get it. But they join in the Trump bashing because their bosses order them to do so. Why? Because those same bosses have massive business dealings in the Arab world and so forbid their underlings to say anything that could hurt a burgeoning bottom line. Follow the money!

When Mr. Trump says that “I think Islam hates us,” his interviewers are stunned that someone running for public office actually realizes that the mullahs in Iran and the terrorists from Hezbollah and Hamas and the president of the so-called “Palestinian” Authority have inscribed in their mission statements the vow to eliminate the Great Satan, America, and the Little Satan, Israel. But the average person ––left, right, Democrat, Republican, black, white, Hispanic, young, old, et al––gets it and agrees with it.

That is why with every protest to Mr. Trump’s candidacy, not only does the wall get 10 feet higher, but the votes increase by the millions!

#TriumphOhio, #TriumphFlorida, #Hope.

trump protest sheet

Trump protest Q&A sheet.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kasich co-chair on Trump: ‘You’ve got to take him out with a head shot’

ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases

Here’s how to define Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE:  During the Obamacare protests, the Democratic controlled Congress amended Federal law H. R. 347 to make it illegal to protest at Federal campaign events. ALL of these anti-Trump rallies, be they violent or not, are FELONIES under this law that the U.S. Congress passed.

You may read the full text of H.R. 347 here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text

Muslim migrants film themselves gang raping 12-year-old boy

/in , , , , , /by

In Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world, this kind of behavior is broadly tolerated. Women are so devalued, men look to other men and boys for sexual pleasure. Also, the Qur’an promises not just virgins to the blessed, but boys like “scattered pearls”:

“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18

“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20

Sweden-refugees welcome

“Young Boy Repeatedly Raped After He Was Billeted With Migrant Men,” by Oliver JJ Lane, Breitbart, February 20, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Two migrant men masquerading as teenagers are being prosecuted after raping a young child at a Swedish asylum centre, attacking him “ruthlessly” and even filming the assault.

The 12 year old boy was made to share a room with two others, who were said at the time to be 15 years old at the Alvesta asylum centre in Sweden. The child was subjected to at least one attempted rape, and a number of rapes by one of his room mates and another migrant at the centre, which the authorities became aware of in early January.

After police were called it become apparent the men had lied about their age — an increasingly common phenomenon in Europe as child migrants are given greater benefits than adults — and were in fact fully grown migrant males. Prosecuting the case, Emma Berge told the court a dental x-ray proved one of the men was 18 to 19 years old, and the other was certainly over the age of 18.

Investigations into the case have also revealed the raped child was not supposed to be in the home at all, as the building was only licenced to accept migrants in their later teens. Yet he was put into a private room with what they thought were older boys, and the police were not called over an earlier attempted rape.

The case is being treated as especially serious by the prosecutor as not only did the rapists film themselves attacking the boy, but they “exhibited particular ruthlessness and harshness”. As well as being prosecuted for the rapes, the men are suspected under child porn laws for making a recording.

Despite the video recording being held by the police, both men still deny they raped the child….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudi jihadi rehab program seeks less to give jihadis different view of Islam than to reinforce primacy of Saudi state

Southern Poverty Law Center expands its hit list of foes of jihad terror

CAIR organizes anti-Islamophobia march in Minneapolis

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by, Oliver JJ Lane | Breitbart News | h/t Glen Roberts @ Trop

Columbus, Ohio Muslim machete man still a mystery

/in , , , /by

It turns out that early reports about the African man who attacked diners in a restaurant belonging to an Israeli-born Christian may not be a Somali as first reported.  See our first report by clicking here.

So who is he?

Hany-Baransi-of-Israel-now-Ohio

Nazareth restaurant owner Hany Baransi.

Here, in a story about the restaurant re-opening, World Net Daily writer tells us that mystery still surrounds the machete man:

More than four days after the attack, little is known about Barry, a 30-year-old immigrant from Africa. Neither the FBI nor the Columbus police have released any information on his immigration status, when he came to the U.S. and from what country, under what circumstances he came, or whether he was a legal or illegal resident of this country.

According to reports, Barry led police on a five-mile chase before losing control of his car and careening off the road. He exited the vehicle with his machete and another knife, and allegedly lunged at the officers.

“He yelled, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and then he attacked them with the machete, and that’s when they shot him and killed him,” Baransi [the restaurant owner—ed] told Tower magazine.

Please read the whole article about how Baransi is not going to cower.

If you read Ann Coulter’s book, ‘Adios America,’ she tells us much about the code of secrecy (by police/FBI) surrounding crimes committed by immigrants.  So, it is not surprising that nothing is being released so far on his immigration status.

And, by the way, in my last eight year of following stories like this one, I have never seen any mention of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio showing one bit of concern for the colonization, by the UN/U.S. State Department, of Ohio.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Nebraska bill would place financial responsibility on refugee resettlement contractors

Pittsburgh: Jewish agency and Islamic Center working together to bring more Syrians to the city

Muslim Migrant Surge: GOP Worried about Thousands Obama is “Interviewing” in Jordan to Bring Here

Shariah (Islamic) Law: Four Rape Victims Stoned to Death for Adultery

Iran rules “decadent” Valentine’s Day celebrations a crime

German asylum centers: Muslim migrants tear up Bibles, assault Christians, sexually abuse women and children, beat up gays

Daesh Jr. Strikes a Jew in Marseille

/in , , , /by

Yusuf, the young Turkish-Kurd who tried to kill a Jew in Marseille recently, was a baby when the al Dura blood libel triggered the plague of genocidal Jew hatred that besets us to this day. Back then they were avenging the “cold-blooded murder of a Palestinian youth by Israeli soldiers.” Today, fifteen years later, Yusuf X. proudly explains he saw that Palestinians were stabbing Jews in Israel and decided to follow suit in Marseille.

The blade of his machete was not sharp enough to kill Benjamin Amsellem but the Jewish schoolteacher had no doubts that his assailant was trying to decapitate him. Amsellem fought back. Yusuf lost his grip on the machete, and ran. Two men followed in hot pursuit. The police seized the aspiring killer. The initial press release, most likely from the notorious Agence France Presse, reported that a Jewish teacher was “slightly wounded” in an attack by a psychologically unbalanced youth and, curious detail, protected himself with his “torah.” I suppose they meant a book of prayers or parashot?

More honest than the press releasers, Yusuf presented his credentials: he pledges allegiance to Daesh, was carrying a ceramic knife to kill policemen, has no regrets but is ashamed that he wasn’t able to kill the Jew.

Yusuf apparently doesn’t fit into the sociological box. As far as we know he was a good student with no outward signs of radicalization. His teachers and classmates are perplexed, his family is dumbstruck. Yusuf says they are apostates. When Yusuf was a baby and Jews were being assaulted all over France, then Interior Minister Daniel Vaillant saw no evil, just a problem of rowdiness that could be treated with the usual socialistic remedies. The motto was “don’t pour oil on the fire”: If we admit there is a wave of anti-Semitic violence propagated by Muslims (but we will call them “youths”) it will only make things worse.

In January 2016, Yusuf has grown up to be an aspiring Jew & cop-killer and jihad in its myriad forms has forced its way into the public mind. This time, the attack on a Jew because he is Jewish is covered from every available angle, dominating the news stream for a whole week. It is the subject of reports, debates, man on the street commentaries, flashbacks and projections, solemn statements by the authorities relayed by journalists that 15 years ago would have hidden it under the media rug. The three major dailies simultaneously ran articles on why Jews wear the kippa—a mix of misleading and informative but nothing nasty. There were some kippa friendly hashtags and high profile kippa wearers: The pro-Israel deputy, Claude Goasguen, wore a kippa to the National Assembly and a Muslim specialist on radical Islam, Mohamed Sifaoui, wore one on Facebook. But Goasguen said he’d make a gesture if a Muslim woman in hijab were attacked and Sifaoui said we must be exceedingly careful not to stigmatize Muslims. This brings us back to square one, as we will see below.

Local, national, and international media jumped on the suggestion by Zvi Ammar, president of the Marseille Consistoire, that Jewish men should perhaps refrain from wearing the telltale kippa until the situation improves. Might as well say until the “meschia” arrives! Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia and CRIF President Roger Cukierman, among others, said we should continue to wear the kippa with pride and courage. The yes-no dilemma got batted around as if it hadn’t been twisting our minds for fifteen years already. Wear the magen david or the chai openly, hide it, leave it at home; carry a plastic bag from a kosher delicatessen or bookstore, or camouflage it in a brown paper bag; read a book in Hebrew on the metro, read a book in French about the Mideast Conflict… Who can argue with any individual decision on these issues? When we’ve finished divesting ourselves of all this paraphernalia, how will we hide our Jewish eyes?

The novelty is the absence of pity for Yusuf’s callow youth and dull bladed machete. He is in preventive detention, charged with attempted murder aggravated by antisemitism and associated with terrorist intentions. This is a giant step forward. The judges were obviously not influenced by the “slightly wounded” twist.

In the wake of the November 13 jihad attacks, President Hollande promised a broad slate of measures including a constitutional revision that will, if enacted, reinforce powers of investigation and repression currently employed under the state of emergency. One controversial measure is the proposed denaturalization of dual nationals guilty of terrorism, including those born in France. Except for a tiny minority, no one is actually pleading in favor of these traitors. A majority would be in favor of extending the measure to any French citizen who takes arms against his nation, but international law forbids the creation of stateless persons.

The question is elsewhere: will the measure violate the founding principles of a nation where citizenship is determined by jus soli and not parental origin? Will it stigmatize dual nationals? Will it have any practical effect? Commentators on a serious political TV program, C Dans l’air, explained that the measure would be worthless: it would not dissuade terrorists, because they don’t give a damn for their French nationality, and would not disgrace them, because they would already be dead. While this reasoning hummed along, the banner announced that the young Turkish-Kurd had been charged and detained. Wouldn’t he benefit from the measure? If, of course, he has Turkish nationality. He has a long life ahead of him, with multiple options… locked up in a Turkish jail, hunted down as a Turkish Kurd, or living it up in the caliphate.

There is something indecent about raising the red flag against stigmatization of Muslims every time jihad strikes. If Islam is indeed the culprit, the fact is it couldn’t express itself without Muslims. What about the “90% moderate Muslims” concept? Nine times out of ten when a killer steps out of the mass, it turns out everyone thought he was a regular guy. Fellows like Yusuf with a machete for the Jew and a knife for the policeman can pop up anywhere any time. If you come across one that knows how to sharpen the blade, you’re dead. Last week a Tunisian living as an asylum seeker in Germany attacked a Parisian police station with a meat cleaver. Before that, a Muslim rammed his car into soldiers guarding a mosque in Valence. France is reeling from the November 13th massacre, Germany wakes up to mass sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve, Jews are stabbed in Israel, European tourists are murdered in Tunisia, in Istanbul, and everyone knows the next atrocity is around the corner. Muslims, under pressure of the inevitable backlash, will have to find a way to liberate themselves from the genocidal ideology that gives birth to monsters in their midst.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Nidra Poller’s latest book, The Black Flag of Jihad stalks la Républic, is now available on on Kindle and paperback here. If you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Nidra Poller, please click here. Nidra Poller also contributes to our community blog, The Iconoclast. To see all her blog posts, please click here and here.

Rand Paul ‘Baffled’ by Evangelicals’ Preference for ‘War-Mongering GOP Candidates’

/in , , , , /by

FAYETTEVILLE, NC /PRNewswire/ — In an exclusive interview with FTMDaily’s Jerry Robinson, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul discusses the recent Senate vote on his “Audit the Fed” bill, as well as the lack of support of his candidacy within the American evangelical community.

Sen. Paul explains that the message in the New Testament is one of peace and that Jesus never encouraged his followers to rebel against the government or to instigate war. Therefore, Sen. Paul’s message of peace through prosperity should resonate within evangelical groups during this presidential election cycle. But when asked why many evangelicals in America prefer militarism over peace, Sen. Paul is truly baffled.

Sen. Paul comments:

“I think it is really an irony, and I continue to be baffled by it, but it’s not always true. I do remind them [religious and evangelical groups] that the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes were ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Oh, let’s gather some rebels and overturn the government that’s collaborating with the Romans’. Really, his message was a much different one.”

Jerry Robinson, a Christian economist and host of Follow the Money radio, recognizes that Sen. Paul’s message of a humble foreign policy, sound money, and fiscal transparency within government is in step with the teachings of the New Testament. And although Sen. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill was narrowly defeated by Senate Democrats on Tuesday, he promises that the fight for an audit is not over.

Sen. Paul concedes that he has worked for five years to get the bill up for a vote in the Senate, but that despite Tuesday’s defeat, he will continue to push his agenda.

Ultimately, Sen. Paul explains that his desire is to not only see a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve’s massive and opaque balance sheet, but also to allow interest rates to be set by the marketplace rather than the Federal Reserve. He claims that had interest rates been allowed to rise prior to the housing bubble of 2008, investors would have heeded the market signal that they had over-built and the bubble could have been avoided altogether.

About FTMDaily

FTMDaily, or Follow the Money Daily, is an online media company delivering cutting-edge financial commentaries, unique economic strategies, and informed geopolitical analysis. FTMDaily.com was created in 2010 by Christian economist and best-selling author, Jerry Robinson. Since then, FTMDaily.com has grown exponentially with readers and subscribers from all around the world.

Our mission at Follow the Money Daily is simple. We exist to help people understand the global economic and geopolitical realities that face them. For our paid subscribers, we provide real-time, actionable investing ideas and income strategies, along with cutting-edge geopolitical analysis, designed to prepare them for the difficult challenges that lie ahead for America and the world.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why the Freedom Caucus Wants to Declare War on ISIS

Canadian PM Trudeau: We won’t bomb the Islamic State even if attacked

/in , , , /by

“Canadian PM: We won’t bomb ISIS even if attacked,” by Raphael Poch, Israel National News, January 5, 2016:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is keeping his post-election promises and planning to put an end to the participation of the Canadian Air Force in the allied bombings of ISIS. Instead, he is moving Canadian efforts towards training local forces and towards providing humanitarian aid in Syria and Iraq.

In an interview with Global News, Trudeau said that he sees no reason to change this new policy towards ISIS and the threat of Islamic terror, even if a terror attack similar to the one in Paris were carried out on Canadian soil.

Trudeau, who as Prime Minister receives daily briefings on matters of national security, said that “it is no surprise that there are angry extremists and terrorists out there who wish Canadians and Canada harm and countries like it around the world. The key on understanding that, is how we let that affect us.”

“Obviously one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government is to keep its citizens safe, and that is something that we are very focused on. But more than that, do we let ourselves be ruled by fear? Do we give in to the fear that there is a terrorist on every plane that may come to Canada? No, we cannot live that way and continue to be the hopeful country that we are. Quite frankly, fear doesn’t make us stronger; it makes us weaker. I feel that the job of being Prime Minister is to demonstrate that there are concerns, But we are working very hard on them, and people shouldn’t go through their lives afraid.”…

“We need to ensure that our intelligence community and our police services have the tools necessary to locate threats to Canadians. But anytime you are giving more resources to the intelligence agencies and the police, you need to bring in more oversight on those agencies to make sure that those powers are being properly used and not damaging our free society, and to make sure that they are doing everything they can to me Canadians safe.”

Trudeau said that “Canada is committed to having a military engagement in the fight against ISIL (ISIS) but in a helpful and substantive way. We have made the decision that we will pull out the CF-18’s and ending the bombings that Canada has been involved in, and we will be doing something else.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Justin Trudeau’s mosques visits

Toronto Imam: Muslims should hire only Muslims; do business only with Muslims

Vatican spokesman: Islam teaches “non-violence in the name of God”

London Mayor: Worried about Islamic jihad terror? Remember the Alhambra

VIDEO: Terrorist Attack in Dubai?

/in , , , /by

New Year’s revelers were sent running for their lives after a fire engulfed a five-star hotel just 500 yards from where Dubai’s spectacular fireworks display was due to begin.

The Address Downtown caught fire at about 9.30 p.m. Dubai time, with the flames appearing to reach from the ground floor up another 40-or-so stories of the 63 floor building.

Those who escaped described how people climbed over each other in their rush to escape the burning building.

One Briton was forced to carry his disabled mother on his back.

Read more.

U.S. Navy: Chattanooga Slaughter Inspired by Foreign Muslim Terrorists

/in , , , /by

Another setback for the Obama Ministry of Islamophilia, which recently was stunned by the Army ignoring the recommendations of its investigating officer and deciding that Bowe Bergdahl will face a general court martial for desertion and “misbehavior before the enemy”.

The deserter Bergdahl, you will recall, was declared by the Obama administration to have “served the United States with honor and distinction.” But there was something greater at play in the Bergdhal case, something great enough to inspire President Obama to hold a special ceremony in the Rose Garden. Mark Steyn asks some hard questions about one of the strangest, darkest episodes of the Obama presidency:

The deserter may get his just deserts, but what of the man who made the “deal” for him and then honored the deserter with a Rose Garden photo-op with his Taliban-supporting dad… The President of the United States embracing a Taliban sympathizer at the White House. There was no need to hold such an intimate photo-op. Yet Obama chose to do it. Why?

Given what the United States Government knew about Bergdahl at the time of that ceremony, ignorance of who he was is not a plausible explanation. So my question a year and a half ago remains unanswered: why did he do it? […]

There are three dishonorable men in that short photo-op: a deserter who broke his oath, a father who sympathizes publicly with the enemy …and a president lying before the nation, to make them complicit in that dishonor…

The Army at least has decided it will not be made complicit in that dishonor. If there were a real press in this country, someone would ask Obama how it is that he became the first president to host a Rose Garden celebration for a deserter.

Now the Navy also seems to be waking up after seven years of Obamasleep. This is an especially stunning reversal, as just a month ago, FBI Director James Comey had indicated details on the Chattanooga investigation might never be kept secret, stating,  “We don’t want to smear people.”

As Robert Spencer wrote on November 15, 2015:

Abdulazeez’s motivations aren’t really in doubt. He viewed material by jihad leader Anwar Awlaki online, and spoke about Islamic martyrdom. He wrote in his diary about “becoming a martyr.” He texted a hadith to a friend before he began his attack. Abulazeez’s motive is only unclear to the terminally blinkered and willfully ignorant.

And Comey does know more than he is telling: “Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret.” Fair enough, but then he adds this curious statement: “That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people.” How could he possibly smear anyone by releasing information about Abdulazeez’s motivations? Is there a jihadi mastermind behind this attack, still loose in Chattanooga? Or does Comey mean that he doesn’t want to talk about Abdulazeez’s motivations because to do so would smear Islam, i.e., cast it in a bad light?

Now the Navy is awarding five Purple Hearts, and the Chattanooga jihad murders are admitted to be, in Comey’s most recent statement, “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

Signs of hope? Perhaps, but dhimmitude is always just one jizya payment — or Rose Garden photo op — away.

“Navy Concludes Chattanooga Shooting Was Inspired by Foreign Terrorists,” Breitbart News, December 16, 2015:

Chattanooga Jihad Killer Muhammad Abdulazeez, with his devout, and now shocked, shocked!, family.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — After determining a shooting at a Chattanooga reserve center this summer was inspired by foreign terrorists, the Navy will award the Purple Heart to the four Marines and one sailor who were killed and the one Marine who was injured there.

U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced the decision Wednesday in a news release. He said the finding that the shooting was terrorist-inspired came after an extensive investigation by the FBI and Naval Criminal Investigation Service.

“This determination allows the Department of the Navy to move forward immediately with the award of the Purple Heart to the families of the five heroes who were victims of this terrorist attack, as well as to the surviving hero, Sgt. Cheeley,” Mabus’ statement reads.

The FBI earlier labeled shooter Muhammad Abdulazeez, a naturalized U.S. citizen, a homegrown violent extremist but declined to say what might have motivated him. His family said he had problems with drugs and depression that prevented him from holding on to a job. He was also in debt, and considering bankruptcy at 24.

But investigators also found writings from Abdulazeez that reference Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who encouraged and inspired attacks on the homeland and was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

Earlier Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey told reporters the July 16 attack was “inspired and motivated by foreign terrorist propaganda.”

That statement came after some had questioned why the Dec. 2 attack that killed 14 in San Bernardino, California, was quickly labeled terrorism but months passed without a determination in the Chattanooga attack.

Abdulazeez first fired shots from his car into a military recruiting center in a Chattanooga strip mall before driving about 7 miles to a Navy-Marine reserve center where he killed four Marines and a sailor and wounded a fifth Marine before Chattanooga police killed him.

Those killed were Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, and Marines Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, Sgt. Carson Holmquist, Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan and Lance Cpt. Squire “Skip” Wells. Sgt. DeMonte Cheeley was injured.

U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is from Chattanooga, praised the decision in a statement, saying those killed and wounded “exemplify the very best that America has to offer.”

“Our commander-in-chief has classified the heartbreaking events that took place that day as an act of terror, and I have been pressing the FBI to provide answers to both the families of the fallen and our community,” said the Tennessee Republican. “I appreciate the efforts of all involved as they work tirelessly to piece together this puzzle so we can better protect ourselves in the future.”

Smith’s grandmother, Linda Wallace, said in a telephone interview that she was frustrated it took months to determine the shooting was inspired by foreign terrorists. But she was pleased to hear of the award.

“He definitely deserved it,” she said. “He gave his life for those other guys.”

RELATED ARTICLE: SB jihadi’s mid-massacre message released: “We pledge allegiance to Khalifa”

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi

/in , , /by

Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the U.S. military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.

That’s what we have learned from an email exchange from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

Bash’s email seems to directly contradict testimony given by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2013. Defending the Obama administration’s lack of military response to the nearly six-hour-long attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Panetta claimed that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

This latest bombshell your Judicial Watch has released to the public has attracted considerable media attention. Here is how the Washington Examiner reported on these revelations:

While parts of the email were redacted, the message indicates the Pentagon was waiting for approval from the State Department to send the forces in. That help never arrived for the Americans under siege at the Benghazi compound. A spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi said investigators had received the unredacted version of the email, which was obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act and made public Tuesday, last year but had declined to make it public.

Now would be a good time to go back and review the Obama administration’s many prevarications on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. (A significant collection of our history-making work on the Benghazi scandal is available here.)

You may recall that the first assault occurred at the main compound at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. ET in Washington, DC). The second attack on a CIA annex 1.2 miles away began three hours later, at about 12 a.m. local time the following morning (6 p.m. ET), and ended at approximately 5:15 a.m. local time (11:15 a.m. ET) with a mortar attack that killed security officers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]

Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy

Jacob Sullivan was Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the time of the terrorist attack at Benghazi. Wendy Sherman was Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth-ranking official in the U.S. Department of State. Thomas Nides was the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack. According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “If we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Ultimately, Special Operations forces on their own initiative traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi to provide support during the attack. Other military assets were only used to recover the dead and wounded, and to evacuate U.S. personnel from Libya. In fact, other documents released in October by Judicial Watch show that only one U.S. plane was available to evacuate Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli and that raises questions about whether a delay of military support led to additional deaths in Benghazi.

As per usual, we only obtained this document after going to federal court. The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014 seeking:

  • Records related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA Annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

The Washington Examiner puts it very well:

The newly disclosed email chain casts doubt on previous testimony from high-level officials, several of whom suggested there was never any kind of military unit that could have been in a position to mount a rescue mission during the hours-long attack on Benghazi.

It came out later that day that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had been withholding from the public an unredacted version of the email released by Judicial Watch. Almost immediately upon Judicial Watch’s release of the devastating email, a spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi made a snide, sour-grapes announcement to The Daily Caller attempting to defend the Committee’s decision to keep the email secret for a year by implicitly criticizing Judicial Watch’s supposed “rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers.” Bad enough fighting the lawless secrecy of the Obama administration – so it is disappointing to have the unnecessary spitballs from presumed allies for transparency.

The Democrats on the Select Committee thought they helped their cause of defending the indefensible by releasing a complete version of the email. Hardly. The new details show that the military forces that weren’t deployed, specifically “a SOF [Special Operations Forces] element that was in Croatia (which can fly to Suda Bay, Crete), and a Marine FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] team out of Rota, Spain.” The FAST Team arrived well after the attack and the Special Operations Forces never left Croatia. In addition to providing confirming details that forces were ready to go, the Democrats expose the Obama administration’s dishonesty in withholding the information in the first place.

All this goes to underscore the value of Judicial Watch’s independent watchdog activities and our leadership in forcing truth and accountability over the Benghazi scandal.

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

Judicial Watch recognizes that local cities’ and states’ “sanctuary policies” for illegal alien criminals are deadly and unlawful – so much so that we’re willing to go to court to try to stop them.

You will be pleased to know that JW just filed a taxpayer lawsuit in San Francisco County, California Superior Court to end a March 2015 expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance that prohibits San Francisco Sheriff’s Department personnel from exchanging information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about the citizenship or immigration status of inmates in the Sheriff Department’s custody. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of San Francisco taxpayer Cynthia Cerletti (Cynthia Cerletti v. Ross Mirkarimi (No. CGC -15-54250)). We’re pleased to be working with Robert Patrick Sticht, a Los Angeles-based attorney, who is serving as lead counsel in the Cerletti litigation.

On March 13, 2015, current San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi put in place a new policy directive, entitled “Immigration & Customs Enforcement Procedures (ICE) Contact and Communications,” mandating that “absent a court issued warrant, a signed court order, or other legal requirement authorizing ICE access . . . SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or access to ICE representatives: Citizenship/immigration status of any inmate.”

Mirkarimi’s new policy directive, which goes even further than San Francisco’s infamous sanctuary ordinance, runs directly contrary to federal law, which states, “[A] Federal, State, or local government entity or officials may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from [ICE] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” (8 U.S.C. § 1373).

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department receives over $200 million in taxpayer support annually to fund its operations, a portion of which is being spent to carry out the new policy directive and train personnel on its requirements. As California grants its taxpayers the right to sue government officials to prevent expenditures of taxpayer funds on unlawful activities, Judicial Watch filed suit against Mirkarimi, in his official capacity, on behalf of Cerletti. The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department from expending any taxpayer funds on the policy directive and a judgment declaring the policy directive to be illegal.

Sheriff-Elect Vicki Hennessy, who defeated Mirkarimi in a November 3, 2015 election, has promised changes to Mirkarimi’s policy directive. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeks to ensure that Hennessy makes good on her promise when she takes office.

San Francisco’s sanctuary ordinance gained national attention on July 1, 2015, when Kathryn Steinle was gunned down at one the of city’s most popular tourist spots, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been released from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department despite a request from ICE that he be detained for possible deportation. The Sheriff’s Department not only ignored ICE’s detainer request, but also failed to notify ICE when it released Lopez-Sanchez on April 15, 2015, little more than a month after Mirkarimi issued the new policy directive.

Sheriff Mirkarimi’s expansion of San Francisco’s sanctuary policy is dangerous and violates federal law. It needs to end. Our new lawsuit should encourage Sheriff-Elect Hennessy to repeal Sheriff Mirkarimi’s policy directive in its entirety – thereby protecting public safety, and surely saving innocent lives.

As the result of earlier Judicial Watch litigation, the San Francisco Police Department was required in 2011 to comply with a California law requiring federal officials be notified whenever an alien is arrested on certain drug offenses. Our team is separately investigating whether the release of Steinle’s alleged killer violated this court order, so stand by for further developments.

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

The Clintons have a demonstrated record of selling their public office, often to foreign interests and governments who would harm our nation’s security. They did it with the Chinese during Bill Clinton’s administration and now they seem to have done it repeatedly during the Obama administration. That’s why we filed a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to gain access to documents involving a uranium deal approved by then-Secretary of State Clinton that is tied to major Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra and Russian-state issues. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:15-cv-01776)).

We filed the lawsuit after the Treasury Department of the “most transparent administration in history” ignored a FOIA request sent on May 29, 2015. Judicial Watch’s request seeks emails between key Treasury agencies and Hillary Clinton non-governmental email accounts:

Our investigative focus is on a controversial 2010 deal involving Uranium One, the Canadian company currently at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals and ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, which recently took a 51 percent controlling interest in Uranium One. The lawsuit seeks information about the approval of this deal and whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ignored the mandatory 75-day review approval process, approving the deal in just 52 days. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was a member of CFIUS.

Peter Scheweizer’s book Clinton Cash first raised questions about the Uranium One deal, which benefited many donors to the Clinton Foundation. One of these donors was Frank Giustra, who, among other dealings, helped set up a Clinton Foundation entity in Canada that had the effect of hiding donations from foreign governments and others from public disclosure, despite promises of disclosure by Hillary Clinton and the Foundation.

As the New York Times reported on April 23, the Clinton Foundation hid many of the beneficiaries of the deal approved by Mrs. Clinton and CFIUS:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The documents we are trying to force from Treasury should shed light on the apparent conflict of interest between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding the expedited approval process. Under United States law, uranium is a strategic asset; therefore, a committee of U.S. government officials must approve any such deal. The CFIUS board, which reviews all foreign acquisitions of American national security assets, consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury.

In 2010, Jose W. Fernandez represented the State Department on the CFIUS board, and the documents sought by Judicial Watch lawsuit could clarify whether Clinton failed to disclose to Fernandez that several executives at Uranium One made millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately before and after CFIUS reviewed and approved the ARMZ-Uranium One deal.

This latest conflict of interest is part of a wider investigation into the Clinton cash machine and the related corruption of the Obama administration.

Separate Judicial Watch FOIA litigation forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflicts-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others. The August 13, 2014, investigative report that first disclosed the Clinton financial dealings, “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions,” is available here.

The approval of the uranium deal seemingly resulted in millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation, gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production in the U.S., and made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers.

Hillary Clinton’s cash and secrecy on this Russian uranium deal looks corrupt and criminal. And now that his Treasury Department violated FOIA to cover-up yet another Clinton scandal, there is no daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on this scandal that placed our nation’s security at risk.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Military was Prepared to Immediately Protect U.S. Diplomats in Benghazi, Email Records Show

Judicial Watch Takes Deadly San Francisco Sanctuary Policy to Court

JW Sues for Details on Massive Hillary Clinton Russian Uranium Scandal

 

​Franklin ​D​. Obama addresses Congress after attack on Pearl Harbor

/in , /by
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 – a date which will live on in our memories with hashtags, awareness ribbons, and candlelight vigils – America was attacked. While we haven’t yet ruled out the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions for what might have been an act of workplace violence.The United States was at peace with Japan and, at the solicitation of its government, we were still in conversation about the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague were negotiating a performance of James Taylor’s You’ve Got a Friend with Secretary of State Kerry. While this may appear suspicious, we must not blame the entire Japanese Empire for the actions of a few.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was likely the result of a few disgruntled employees, maybe even the Emperor’s wife suffering from post-partum depression. Therefore, I urge patience and understanding.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu. No doubt these attacks were carried out by lone wolves who have hijacked the noble religion of Shinto which, we must remember, built the very fabric of our nation.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island. However, the fact remains that most Japanese are moderate and peaceful.

Japan has, in the minds of a few intolerant Asiaphobes, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves, they say. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of anyone who dares to engage in anti-Japanese rhetoric that edges toward violence.

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for the immediate reduction of our military forces, especially our navy. Like I’ve said since since the invasions of Poland and France, every time something like this happens, these sort of military actions just don’t happen in other countries. I think it’s time to reconsider the Kellogg-Briand Pact which made war illegal, and to rethink the Washington Naval Treaty. If we could take combat vessels off of the high seas, events like these wouldn’t happen. We could make the oceans safer for our children.

Always will we remember that this would never have happened if America hadn’t acted arrogantly during the Spanish-American War by seizing overseas territories. No matter how long it may take us to overcome our own bigotry, the American people will reflect and support common sense arms reductions.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only decommission all of our naval assets, but make sure we never again threaten other countries with a military that air raids villages and kills civilians.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are primarily responsible. In the meantime, I don’t want to hear any nonsense about “America leading” or “America winning”.

With confidence in our policy of tolerance – with the unbounded determination of our people – we will lead from behind – so help us, uh, I’ll come back to that.

Given that the provoked and understandable attack by Japan was caused by a despicable video on YouTube, I ask that the Congress declare that the future must not belong to those who insult the Emperor of Japan and the peace-loving religion of Shinto.

​And another take –

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Hillary knew Benghazi was ‘a planned attack—not a protest’

/in , , , /by

“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.” Yet when Susan Rice said that the attack was “a spontaneous reaction to a video,” and other Obama officials said the same thing, she never corrected them. And she gave the same impression herself when she said, “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted to the Internet,” although she tried to walk that back at yesterday’s hearings.

Remember also that right after the Benghazi jihad murders, Hillary said, “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested,” and did so, on a trumped-up parole violation — while probably thousands of parolees have committed worse and never gotten hauled back in. The filmmaker became America’s first Sharia political prisoner, in prison for violating Islamic blasphemy law.

“Hillary Clinton Knew All Along Benghazi Attack Had “Nothing To Do With The Film,” Documents Reveal,” by Anthony L. Fisher, Reason, October 22, 2015 (thanks to Adrian):

According to documents revealed as part of the ongoing Congressional hearings on Benghazi, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil in a phone call the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”

The film Clinton refers to is the 10 minute Youtube trailer for the ultra-low budget anti-Islam movie “Innocence of Muslims,” which she and other senior Obama administration officials, including President Obama himself, almost immediately began casting as a scapegoat for the attacks. Those attacks, however, were already understood by senior administration officials to be a planned and coordinated attack, and very much not what then-ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called a “a spontaneous reaction to a video.”

Clinton also reportedly emailed her daughter Chelsea, who used the pseudonym Diane Reynolds when communicating with her mother via her private email account, on the night of the attacks, telling her that the consulate had been attacked by an “Al Queda-like group.” (sic)

That same night, in her first statement following the attacks on 9/11/12, Clinton wrote:

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted to the Internet.”

When challenged about that characterization at today’s hearings by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Clinton refused to admit that the administration blamed the video for the attacks, saying:

And if you look at what I said, I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said, some have sought to justify the attack because of the video.

I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Not only did senior administration officials persist in framing the attack as a protest sparked by the video for days after, one of its first moves upon hearing that Ambassador Chris Stevens had been murdered was to contact Youtube and ask them “to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use.”

My colleague Matt Welch wrote up this helpful and infuriating roundup of the administration officials and distinguished members of the intelligentsia who advocated for everything from imprisonment for the filmmaker (who would be imprisoned for a parole violation committed when he uploaded the video) to calls for “free speech to yield to other values.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: UK telecommunications corporation hacked: “Jihad From Us Is Coming”

VIDEO: The Muslim Attack in Chattanooga – Why it happened, what to do now?

/in , , , /by

This is a talk that I gave recently in Chattanooga, TN. Chattanooga was the site of the most recent jihadi attack in the U.S.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where the Islamic State has directed or inspired jihad attacks worldwide

UK Muslims pelt soldier in uniform with eggs, excrement

Dead Islamic State hacker linked to Garland, TX jihad attack

/in , , , /by

This is the kind of person that the U.S. intelligentsia was applauding and abetting when it condemned us for standing up for the freedom of speech in Garland.

“U.S. confirms Islamic State computer expert killed in air strike,” Reuters, August 29, 2015:

The U.S. military confirmed on Friday that a British hacker who was one of the Islamic State movement’s top computer experts and active in encouraging people abroad to carry out “lone wolf” attacks was killed in Syria by a U.S. air strike.

Junaid Hussain of Birmingham, England, was killed on Aug. 24 by a U.S. military air strike on the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqah, said Air Force Colonel Pat Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

Hussain had been involved in “actively recruiting ISIL sympathizers in the west to carry out ‘lone wolf’ style attacks,” Ryder said, using an acronym for the militant group that has seized large parts of Syria and Iraq.

Hussain was responsible for releasing personal information of around 1,300 U.S. military and government employees in recent weeks, and “sought to encourage” attacks against them, U.S. officials said.

One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Hussain had also been linked to the release of the names, addresses and photos of 100 U.S. service members on an Islamic State website in March.

Another official said that Washington had evidence that Hussain was in contact with two men who were shot dead when they tried to attack a “Draw Mohammed” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas in early May.

Islamic State claimed in a radio message after the shooting that the two men were “brothers” connected to the group….

RELATED ARTICLE: Former UK defense chief: Cameron lacked “balls” to head off rise of Islamic State

Miami: Muslim gets 15 years for conspiring to support jihad mass murderers

/in , , , /by

Al-Shabaab was behind the Westgate Mall massacre in Nairobi several years ago. “Kenyan sentenced to 15 years in prison in US terror case,” by Curt Anderson, Associated Press, August 28, 2015 (thanks to Lookmann):

MIAMI (AP) — A Kenyan man described by U.S. prosecutors as a fundraiser and recruiter for terrorist groups in Africa and the Middle East was sentenced Friday to 15 years in federal prison.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro imposed the maximum possible sentence on 27-year-old Mohamed Said. He pleaded guilty in May to charges of conspiring to support to Africa’s violent al-Shabaab organization and al-Qaida affiliates in Syria and elsewhere.

Said’s attorney, Silvia Pinera-Vazquez, had sought a more lenient eight-year sentence because Said never plotted directly against the U.S. and was solely supporting what she described as foreign “insurgents.”

“There is simply no evidence of direct intent to harm the United States,” she said.

Oh, well, then it’s OK? Not quite:

But Ungaro said terrorist groups he supported have an avowed intent to attack the U.S. and its interests overseas.

“It’s not reasonable to say that his conduct did not touch the United States. It did,” Ungaro said.

Said and co-defendant Gufran Mohammed were arrested in 2013 in Saudi Arabia in a case that evolved from undercover FBI monitoring of Internet chat rooms frequented by Islamic extremists. Mohammed, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from India, is already serving a 15-year prison sentence after pleading guilty.

Said, from Mombasa, Kenya, had never been to the U.S. before his arrest. It was his use of the Internet and communications with undercover FBI operatives and Mohammed — who lived in the Los Angeles area — that enabled the U.S. to charge him with federal terrorism support crimes.

Of the two, Said played the more critical role because of his connections to the leadership of the terrorist groups and knowledge of their inner workings, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Ricardo Del Toro. The prosecutor noted that al-Shabaab’s most notorious attack was the 2013 assault on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that left 67 people dead.

“He was an insider in al-Shabaab,” Del Toro said. “The goal of these organizations is to murder civilians.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota: Jihad terror suspect gets driver’s license, wants to drive school buses

Muslim accused of running Islamic State network that wanted to “carry out massacres & create climate of mass panic” in Spain

A Strange Turn of History: The ‘Risk of a Nuclear Attack has gone up’ by Michael Devolin

/in , , , /by

“In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.” –President Barack Obama, 2009

While reading Philip Taubman’s book The Partnership, a story about “five Cold Warriors and their quest to ban the bomb,” I was amazed by how he mentions President Obama in glowing terms—as a politician concerned and speaking out about the dangers nuclear weapons pose to the world at large—but refers to Iran as a one of those countries whose “nuclear program” the same world should regard as suspect and a veritable kindle stick to what has always been a volatile and preponderantly Muslim Middle East. He quotes President Obama who, during a visit to Prague in 2009, remarked, “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

Surprisingly, in light of the “Iran deal” recently orchestrated by Obama’s shamelessly sycophantic John Kerry, Taubman tells that it was the view of William Perry (one of the Cold Warriors) way back when that, “the intersection of terrorism and the weapons programs in North Korea and Iran will push nuclear threats out of control. ‘If Iran and North Korea cannot be stopped from building nuclear arsenals,’ he said, ‘I believe that we will cross that tipping point, with consequences that will be dangerous beyond most people’s imagination.’ ” He recounts that in 2008, during a presidential debate, Obama said that “…the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” So, I am not so perplexed by Philip Taubman’s blind and salivating support of Barack Obama as I am by President Obama’s complete repudiation of his professed convictions then about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the absence of what should have been, to date, a corresponding foreign policy as regards Iran. His recent imbecility, or, as it has become known, “the Iran deal,” has not only evoked the choler of his Republican opponents but also that of some of his fellow Democrats, including Robert Menendez and Chuck Schumer.

What kind of leader wilfully enables a professed enemy of the USA to produce nuclear weapons? Certainly not a leader known for patriotic rhetoric, and certainly not a leader known for telling the truth. This is the same Barack Obama who, during his first term as President, condemned Iran unreservedly, as though there was never any doubt that Iran was a rogue nation and a danger to the security of the entire world, let alone the Middle East: “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” But now he’s given the green light to Iran to continue its “nuclear program,” as though Iran were a trusted friend and not a sworn enemy of the United States of America—as though the Republic of Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. “I’m not naïve,” said President Obama back in 2009. Oh, but yes you are, Mr. President.

In his book World War IV, Norman Podhoretz pointed out back in 2007 that many members of the “foreign-policy elites” were coming to the conclusion that making compromises with the Republic of Iran was not a viable option simply because of the fact that this regime, even then, showed nothing but contempt for Western diplomacy and goodwill. “You can’t piss through an Ironwood tree,” as they say up here in Canada, and you can’t expect an Islamist regime like Iran to give up its enthralling dream of hegemony over all other nations in the Middle East when that same dream can only be realized by means of nuclear weapons capability. And you can’t expect Iran’s religious madmen to give up their lust for killing Jews when they’ve proudly ingeminated their public support of terrorists bent on the annihilation of the State of Israel for so many years now that it’s become an Islamic custom. Think Al Quds Day. Podhoretz recounts that even his unflattering political opponents eventually had to acknowledge his astute ascertainment about the religious madmen of Iran: “As one who had long since rejected the faith in diplomacy and sanctions, and who had been excoriated for my heretical views by more than one member of the foreign-policy elites, I never thought I would live to see the day when these very elites would come to admit that the carrot-and-stick approach would not and could not succeed in preventing Iran from getting the bomb.”

Mr. Podhoretz goes on to tell that, even though his opponents acknowledged his wisdom and foresight regarding Iran, “the lesson they drew from this new revelation was, however, a different matter.” Instead of “drawing the logical conclusion—namely that military action had now become necessary,” they opted for the “complacent idea that we could live with an Iranian bomb.” Promoting military action against Iran, Podhoretz argued that “deterrence could not be relied upon with a regime ruled by Islamofascist revolutionaries who not only were ready to die for their beliefs but cared less about protecting their people than about the spread of their ideology and their power. If the mullahs got the bomb, I said, it is not them who would be deterred, but us.”

And this, alas, this reversal of roles, from having some measure of control over our destiny to placing our destiny into the hands of our sworn enemies—is the irremissible fate foisted on us (and our children) by President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry. I am very distressed by the fact that the present government of the greatest superpower in the world (USA) has now given legitimacy (cheap though it may be) to a vicious regime whose mullahs have had ties to what Neil Kressel referred to as “worldwide holy war network,” to such Islamist savages as Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Ramzi Yousef, and all because President Barack Obama obdurately insists that the West can “live with an Iranian bomb.”

This certainly is a strange turn of history, President Obama, but not because the “threat of global nuclear war has gone down,” nor because “the risk of nuclear attack has gone up,” but because you, in every grandiloquent speech you gave back in 2009, promised you would work toward creating a world free of the threat of nuclear war. Instead, because of your underhanded dealings with Iran, beyond the gaze of those who actually love and cherish the freedoms and security we enjoy here in the Western hemisphere, have made the world a much more dangerous place.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State ‘beheading, raping, and selling’ Christians, Obama does nothing

UK Islamic State supporters groomed their teen daughter to be jihadi bride