Not only do the politically correct and willfully ignorant such as Senator Brown do all they can to avoid acknowledging that there is any connection between jihad terrorism and Islam, but they also enforce that willful ignorance upon the rest of us: unless you confess with his lips and believe in your heart that the Islamic State is not Islamic, you will be subjected to a chorus of opprobrium, along with ostracism and ongoing vilification.
“Dem Senator Unsure If ‘Enemy Is Connected to Islam,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 11, 2015:
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) struggled to explain whether he believes there is a connection between Islam and terrorist forces aiming to launch strikes at the United States when questioned by another leading lawmaker Thursday evening on the Senate floor, according to video of the exchange.
Asked by Sen. Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) during an exchange on the Senate floor if he believes “there is any connection between our enemy and Islam,” Brown appeared confused and struggled to respond.
“I’m sorry, excuse me?” Brown said in response to Sasse’s question.
When asked again if he believes there is any connection between the radicals waging terrorist attack on the West and Islam, Brown said he is not sure.
“I guess, I don’t know, I’m not here to debate this,” he said. “I don’t know exactly what that means, ‘A connection between our enemy and Islam.’”
“I know that semantics matter and the criticism of our president in this body is kind of front of center” as a result of the recent terror attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., Brown continued….
The White House made clear this week it has a “strong belief” to not “treat the [Islamic State] terrorists as leaders of some religious movement.”
Sasse described this response as “lunacy.”
“This is lunacy,” he said. “First, while the White House is insisting that no one use the word ‘Islamic’ or note any connection between the war that we’re facing and some subset of Islam—even as the White House insists that no one use the word—their own preferred adjective—ISIL or ISIS—begins with an ‘I,’” Sasse said….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/SHERROD-BROWN-1-e1450007262560.jpg370640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-13 06:50:092015-12-13 06:50:09U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) not sure if ‘enemy is connected to Islam’
Just two years ago many Americans condemned the counter-jihad work of The United West and me, referring to us as “hateful Islamophobes” who provoke Islam, the “religion of peace.”
Today, many of those same Americans are thanking us from the bottom of their hearts for our continued, aggressive and confrontational work against Islamic jihad, a violent (and pre-violent) movement that is fundamentally based in the historic doctrinal teaching of Mohammad, the Quran and other theocratic documents.
One reason for this significant shift in the public understanding of our work has been the increased success of the Muslim Brotherhood’s cultural jihad in America and the kinetic success of Daesh (ISIS) on a global scale. Add to this the abject failure of President Obama and his pro-Islamic Administration and you get an incoherent understanding of the Islamic jihad threat resulting in a very dangerous terror index here in the Homeland.
Over against this unspeakable failure of President Obama is the clear, consistent voice and action of my team as we actually name the enemy, identify the enemy, expose the enemy and confront the enemy. As the blood-soaked weapons of Muslim terrorists are turned on innocent Americans and President Obama does his best imitation of a clueless “Baghdad Bob,” common-sense Americans experienced an epiphany finally understanding that there is a real live Muslim jihad that is based on the religious/political system of Islam and that The United West has been right all along!
It is important to note that my work is part of a larger movement including many of whom are also listed in this new book. We work with these folks on a regular basis and they are my friends and true heroes of Western Civilization.
Moreover, the accomplishments of the United West and me are directly related to the generous donations of our support team, in particular to one man and one woman whose support without which, we would not be in operation. To all of you, your names should be in the footnotes of this new book, The Counter-Jihad Movement, BUT, believe me, you really DO NOT want it there!
As America survives the final year of Obama’s disaster on Islamic terrorism, I ask you, based upon our PROVEN record, as now listed as effective operators on a world-wide level, to continue (and increase) your tax-deductible support of my work with my great team at The United West.
You have my word that we will continue to take the fight to Muslim jihadis and defeat the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration into American culture, but we cannot do it without your financial support.
Please make an end-of-the-year donation and donations throughout 2016, a very critical year of cultural battle!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/tom-trento-counter-jihad-leader.png350640Defend The Borderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDefend The Border2015-12-12 14:16:142015-12-12 14:16:14VINDICATED: From Hateful Islamophobe to Global Leader of the Counter-Jihad Movement!
ISIS does not want to be called Daesh. The group considers the acronym insulting and dismissive. An increasing number of its opponents do not want it to be called the “Islamic State.” They fear that this shorthand reifies the terrorist group’s claims to be a legitimate government.
The debate reminds us that names have power.
Avid readers of fairy tales have always known this. Calling Rumpelstiltskin by his real name banishes him and foils his baby-stealing plans. Speaking your name to a witch or wizard can give them power over you. Patrick Rothfuss’s wildly popular Kingkiller Chronicles contains a magic system where learning the name of an element — like the wind — gives a person magical control over it. And everyone knows what happens when you say Beetlejuice’s name three times.
Converts to new religions often take new names to honor the transformation. We mark significant passages in our lives — birth, marriage, death — with new names. Miss Smith becomes Mrs. Jones. Junior becomes Senior when Senior dies. There’s even an old Jewish tradition that says that, in times of serious illness, one should take a new name in order to fool the Angel of Death.
Whether we believe in magic or religion or not, we feel the power of names throughout our lives. Who didn’t go through a childhood phase of wanting a different name? I was wildly jealous of Catholic friends who got to choose confirmation names. A college friend declared that her first day in college was “time to get a nickname” and had us all brainstorm until she found one she liked. It stuck for the whole four years, and long after. Other college friends made legal name changes to more accurately reflect their cultures or their lives. As an adult, I declined to change my name when I got married because I wanted to hold onto myself. I thought for months about choosing my daughters’ names.
I’m a strong advocate of calling people what they like to be called. My kids try on nicknames like I try on jewelry — experimenting with their identities from day to day and solemnly explaining that from now on, they shall answer to nothing other than “Pumpernickel,” or that “Abby” is now verboten and “Abigail” is in favor. I happily acquiesce in all the changes as they figure out who they are. And I love the new nicknames they create for me. (The latest is “Bob,” because that’s what it sounds like when you say “Mom” with a head cold.)
I think, too, that it is important to use the names that transgendered individuals have chosen for themselves, and the pronouns that reflect their gender — even if it’s an awkward or hard-to-remember change for me. The same goes for other communities based on culture, race, religion, or other common identity. At a bare minimum, as we go through the world, we should have the liberty to say peacefully who we are. And it is a small thing for us to do, generally, to give the respect and the acknowledgement that comes with using someone’s requested name.
But ISIS, or Daesh, is another matter entirely.
It is too late to treat Daesh as Yoko Ono requested that John Lennon’s assassin be treated — by denying it the dignity of a name we deign to speak aloud. We have done nothing but name it and talk about it and publicize its actions. It is probably inappropriate for a family publication to suggest that we might take the Wonderella approach to express our contempt. But we certainly can use an accurate translation of the name they have chosen and turn it into a mildly insulting acronym.
Sarah Skwireis the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis. She is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/islamic-state-flag-soldiers-e1449936334254.png305640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-12-12 11:08:272015-12-12 11:08:27The Islamic State by Any Other Name by Sarah Skwire
The fight for global dominion by the greatest evil in history, the radical forces of Islam, has been going on for more than 1200 years. In 732 AD the Muslim Army, moving to occupy Paris, was defeated by Charles Martell at the Battle of Tours. Muslims retreated to their own part of the world for brief periods, but continued their efforts to expand their empire until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The years that followed were but a brief respite.
Islam’s conquest of the habitable portions of the Earth has been going on for 1,400 years. For most of that time the conflicts have been limited geographically to Europe and the Middle East. But now, for the first time, Islam is attempting to invade and conquer the United States by using our freedoms, our laws, and our tradition of openness against us.
Unfortunately, far too many Americans, focused as they are on the exigencies of their daily lives, are so insulated from reality that they appear not to notice. They appear totally unaware that the Muslim world is rapidly imposing what the Quran refers to as hijrah, or jihad by emigration. The mass migration of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East to Europe, the British Isles, and North America is exactly what Mohammed had in mind when he wrote:
“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah (Sura 4:100).”
With the creation of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, millions of refugees move westward into Europe, Scandinavia, and the British Isles, while hordes of black African Muslims sail north across the Mediterranean on anything that floats, attempting to invade Spain, France, and Italy. Many of those on board who are identified as non-Muslims are tossed into the sea and left to drown. Yes, these are the “peace-loving” refugees that Barack Obama, liberals and Democrats, and the Republican congressional leadership expect us to welcome with open arms. And while the mass migration of Muslims into Western Europe will likely destroy the age-old cultures of those countries in a few short years, it is clear that the United States is their ultimate target.
So who are these people? An April 17, 2015, article in The Counter Jihad Report, by Y.K. Cherson, provides some startling statistics on Islamic terrorism. Cherson tells us that, in 2011, Sunni Muslims accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third year in a row. Over 5,700 incidents were committed by Sunnis, accounting for nearly 56% of all attacks and about 70% of 12,533 fatalities. Cherson quotes a U.S. State Department report which tells us that, in 2013, a total of 9,707 terror attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 17,800 deaths and more than 32,500 casualties. Just three Muslim terror groups… the Taliban, ISIS, and Boko Haram… were responsible for 5,655 (31.8%) of the 17,800 deaths.
So what is it that motivates them to come to the United States? Why do they want to come here?
Since there is little chance that a large Muslim population will ever make a positive contribution to our culture or to our well-being, we are forced to ask why they would want to live in a land where they are not wanted or needed. They have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of assimilating into American culture; they want only to transplant their Muslim culture in the fertile soil of the U.S. Americans will never allow that to happen, so why do they insist on a confrontation that can only result in protracted violence and bloodshed?
In a speech titled the “First State of Homeland Security Address” at the National Defense University on December 7, 2015, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, had some sobering words for his audience. He reminded his audience that, as recently as his 2015 State of the Union Address, Barack Obama assured us that “the shadow of crisis has passed” in the war against radical Islam.
Nevertheless, McCaul reported that, in the past year, the FBI has undertaken investigations into more than 1,000 cases of home-grown terrorists, across all 50 states. As a result, the FBI has identified 19 ISIS-connected terror plots in the U.S., including plans to murder numbers of tourists on Florida beaches, plans to set off pipe bombs on Capitol Hill, plans to bomb New York City’s famous landmarks, and plans to live-stream a massive attack on an American college campus. Still, many Americans and most political leaders, of both parties, appear blithely unconcerned about the immediacy of the danger… apparently more concerned about being politically correct than they are about the life-or-death nature of the threat.
In previous columns I have attempted to draw attention to the inability of many Americans to intellectually process the clear and present danger posed by Muslim immigration. I have reminded readers of estimates that only 5% (one of every twenty) of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are radicalized. That statistic may give liberals and Democrats a degree of comfort, but the rest of us are clearly not comfortable with the idea of some 75 million suicide bombers and potential mass murderers running around amongst us with hate in their hearts for non-Muslims.
To put that number into perspective, we might recall that, at the height of WW II, the combined uniformed forces of Germany, Japan, and Italy numbered only 34.4 million… and, unlike their Muslim counterparts, they were all people who treasured life over death.
To make the threat of radical Islam a bit more understandable for all those gullible Americans who profess no fear of Muslim immigration, I’ve asked how they might react if we offered them a bowl containing 100 M&M candies, but with the admonition that five of the pieces were toxic (poisonous). How many pieces of candy would they eat?
The point is, Islam is the only religious movement on Earth that proposes to extend its control to every corner of the Earth by terror, murder, and oppression. And since the 95% of Muslims who are either “moderate” or “un-radicalized” appear unwilling to play an active role in keeping their radicalized brethren in check, we have no alternative but to prohibit them from residing within the civilized nations of the Earth. That is precisely why Donald Trump has suggested that the United States call at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration.
The reaction to his suggestion was swift and predictable. Liberals, Democrats, and members of the mainstream media were quick to denounce him, while members of his own party called upon him to withdraw from the Republican presidential primaries. The most powerful Republican in America, House Speaker Paul Ryan, took the unusual step of calling a press conference to denounce Trump, saying, “Normally, I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today. This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it is not what this country stands for.” So how will they react when the polls show that the people agree with Trump? What all those naysayers apparently fail to understand is that most Americans do not want Muslims living in their neighborhoods, nor do they want to increase our existing Muslim population.
One would think that members of Congress would have at least a minimal understanding of current immigration law. For example, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414, Section 212(a), provides no less than 31 conditions under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”
Included among these, Section 212(a)(19) bars entry to “any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” Can all of the “refugees” now seeking asylum in the U.S. provide indisputable evidence that all of the information they have provided is factual and verifiable? Section 212(a)(27) bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”
Section 212(a)(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens “who are anarchists, or who have at any time been members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” There are many more provisions of the Act under which Muslims could be barred from entering the United States. This is precisely what Donald Trump is suggesting and it is precisely this law that Jimmy Carter used in his Executive Order of April 7, 1980, in which he invalidated the visas of all Iranians in the country and prohibited the issuance of new visas to Iranians for the duration of the Iranian hostage crisis.
In its editorial of December 8, 2015, the New York Times sided with Trump, saying, “As the (Supreme Court) observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, ‘In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.’
“In the context of non-citizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either. Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of ‘any class of aliens’ on his finding that their entry would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States…’ ”
While many may wish to come to America, for good or for ill, we have no obligation… legal, moral, or economic… to take into our country, people whose values are totally foreign to our own. And while the politically correct, the mainstream media, and establishment Republicans may disagree with Trump’s suggestion, they will soon find that it is they who are on the outside, looking in.
The people are with Trump.
RELATED VIDEO: “First State of Homeland Security Address” at the National Defense University on December 7, 2015, Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX):
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-american-eagel-e1449912337233.jpg340640Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-12-12 04:27:002015-12-12 04:37:51Trump Has It Right
Dr. Welner, on Fox & Bill Bennett, Decries Lies About Mass Shootings and Crisis Incidents, Issues Multi-Pronged Homeland Proposal to Mitigate Risk.
New York – Reacting to the mass shooting incident at a staff holiday party in San Bernardino, the United States government and many media initially emphasized that a workplace mass shooting had taken place. The early national discourse directed itself to gun control advocacy. Once a terrorist motivation could no longer be denied, outlets began suggesting that the shootings were instigated by remarks that one of the deceased had made about Islam not being a peaceful religion, suggesting that he had provoked the killings. More recently, revelations of how United States immigration policy allowed one of the perpetrators into the country has touched off a highly-charged policy debate.Almost immediately after the perpetrators were identified, Dr. Michael Welner, forensic psychiatrist and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, recognized the event to bear the hallmarks of Islamist terrorism, given the role of a female perpetrator – a fact never associated with American mass shootings without direct personal conflict. Such American mass shootings customarily involve perpetrators aspiring to idealized destructive masculine identity.
Dr. Welner’s early appearance on “Fox and Friends”laid out the distinctions from workplace mass killing, and raised the importance of learning more of how a woman taking up destructive spectacle crime (which happens regularly overseas) related to how Muslim identity is expressed in America. Dr. Welner relied on his extensive experience in evaluating mass shooting incidents, workplace risk assessment, and risk assessment and other Jihadi psychology and criminology issues.
Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, in his nationally broadcast program“Morning in America,” praised Dr. Welner for focusing the discussion on the core cause and not allowing a false narrative to take hold in the press. Dr. Bennett then invited Dr. Welner onto “Morning in America” yesterday to discuss Dr. Welner’s proposals for mitigating Islamist risk in America. Dr. Welner asserted that it was necessary to dismiss a number of oft-repeated false assertions as deliberate manipulations by informed authorities seeking to avoid addressing violence risks and risk factors of potential perpetrators, specifically:
Islamist terror is not Islam
Adherents to Radical Islamist thinking are very few in number
America is responsible for creating intense Muslim hostility towards this country
We are not at war with Islam
Frank discussion of Islamist terrorism endangers American Muslims
Flipping the paradigm to focus on how American Muslims can actively defuse national anxieties of Americans who witness Islamist terrorism, rather than Americans’ alleviating anxieties of attacks on Muslims, which are altogether rare
Branding America and how it has helped Muslims around the world
Promoting Muslim attitudes reflecting loyalty to America first
Encouraging mosque, parental, and family responsibility to self-police communities in order to root out radical nihilists who recruit others and ensnare young people
Financially support Muslim institutions’ efforts to root out terrorism from within communities
Promote humor and the arts to promote the marginalizing, reform, and self-regulation of Islamist intolerance
Retake the campuses from rejectionist Islam, prevent access of radical leadership
Retake the prisons from intolerant imams who groom new and alienated adherents and feed angry violent wannabees into the community
Ban investment by governments and large donors promoting radical Islam from American media, campaigns, and academic institutions
End American backdoor funding and support of countries and entities that collaborate with Islamist terror
Expose and root out Islamist contributions to political candidates and to media entities
Full security screening of federal employees in sensitive positions who do not currently undergo security clearance
End exclusion of Jewish Arabic speakers by American intelligence services, who are available but not relied upon for gathering human intelligence
A more extensive explanation of these proposals can be found at billbennett.com
To listen to Dr. Welner’s interview with Bill Bennett, click here
Dr. Welner’s two interviews with Fox & Friends on San Bernardino, click here and here
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/islam-in-america-1.png375627The Forensic Panelhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Forensic Panel2015-12-11 16:43:352015-12-11 16:48:00Prescribing Solutions for Radical Islam in America
The Omnibus Budget Bill to be voted Friday, Dec 11, will provide $1.2 Billion for “nearly 700,000 green cards – or lifetime residency cards – to migrants from Muslim nations over the next five years (as we did over the last five years),” said Senator Sessions of AL, re Friday’s vote. Readers should email congressman.
The Muslim problem is about militancy as taught in the Koran. Christ said, “Blessed are the peace-makers.” The Bible covenant with Abraham provided the Middle East for his descendants. That includes Arabic Muslims from Ishmael. Islam’s push into Europe and America is foreseen in Daniel 8, but it ends badly for a militant Muslim ram.
First the Problem from a 2002 UN Report: “More books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand, suggesting at the very minimum an extraordinarily closed world.” Mark Steyn.
The PROBLEM is complex; leaders and media can’t seem to identify it. Maybe we could help them?
The Shoe Bomber. the Beltway Snipers, the Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim. The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim. The Underwear Bomber, the U.S.S. Cole Bombers, the 9-11 Hijackers and now the San Bernardino Terrorists–ALL OF THESE (and many edited from this list) WERE MUSLIMS!
More innocent people died on 9-11 than died in Pearl Harbor. We declared war then, but not now; not on Muslims, but we need to declare war on militancy as taught by numerous quotes in the Koran such as, “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123.
For hundreds of years, it has been no problem for Hindus to live with Buddhists, Jews or Christians.
Atheists have lived with Buddhists, Jews or Confucians, Christians have lived with Jews, Hindus and Shintos—these religions don’t have a problem being neighbors.
But Muslims have a problem living with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and worst of all, MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS IS A BIG PROBLEM!
MUSLIMS don’t want to live in Muslim countries of Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya or Sudan.
They want to be in Australia, England, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, India, Canada, USA—any country that is not Islamic; why is that if it’s a “religion of peace?
When trouble comes, who do they blame? Not their leader. Not themselves, they blame the country and want to change it to be like the countries they left!
Islam likes organizations: Islamic Jihad: an ISLAMIC terror organization, ISIS/ISIL an ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION; Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine Liberation Front. ALL of these and many more are ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATIONS.
Are we so stupid that we can’t figure out how to deal with the problem? At least President Obama and now Attorney General Lynch know it’s not the Muslims and to speak against them may soon be a CRIME! This isn’t “hate speech.” We shouldn’t hate anyone; Christ died for all. We should end our “Stupid problems” with Free Speech while we still have it.
Obama admitted being Muslim and he wants to flood US with Muslim “refugees” Now we come to the biblical solution:
God promised to give Abraham the land between Egypt and the Euphrates River for his descendants in the 15th chapter of Genesis. Five verses later, Abraham agrees with Sarah to have a son by Hagar. The Arab nations are descendants of Ishmael, and they should occupy the area in the covenant for Abraham’s “seed.”
Any other plan, like the pope’s encouragement for Germany to take a million refugees while the Vatican takes two families, [isn’t that interesting?] is against the provision that God made for Abraham’s descendants. When leaders become part of a stupid problem, we need to go back to basics. Dan88
The Bible shows the problem of Muslim militancy will soon be solved “at the time of the end.” A militant Muslim ram gets stomped by a GOAT [Global Organization Against Terror] that flies from the west in Daniel 8 (the book Christ recommended when asked about end-times.)
Leaders should consider the Bible solution, rather than “wait and see”–hoping for an answer in the election next November. Congress has proven they go along to get along with hidden forces and rewards while voting against the Constitution that made us great.
IF WE DON’T ACT, WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ON HIS ELECTION NIGHT: “CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA!”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ryan-budget-e1449658787962.jpg400640Dr. Richard Ruhling, MDhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Richard Ruhling, MD2015-12-09 06:00:282015-12-09 06:00:28A Biblical Solution to the Omnibus-Muslim Problem
SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire/ — A new survey of more than 1000 adults from the Saint Leo University Polling Institute puts terrorism as the second-leading issue America faces. Americans are also personally concerned about attending large public events and about the adequacy of security measures generally.
When asked “what do you think is the most important issue facing the country today?”
The response “jobs and the economy” continued to hold the top spot, but the response level declined to 25.8 percent, compared to 32.4 percent in October. Meanwhile, the generalized response “terrorism” shot up more than 10 percentage points to 16.9 percent from 5.6 percent in October 2015, putting the issue in second place. The third-place issue was “homeland security and anti-terror policy,” at 15.1 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in October.
When respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or were unsure about policies and opinions in the news, these findings emerged:
More than three-quarters, at 78.2 percent, strongly or somewhat agree that “It is likely ISIS terrorists are hiding among Syrian and other refugees in order to enter Europe and the United States.”
Two-thirds, at 66.9, percent agree strongly or somewhat with “a pause in accepting Syrian refugees intothe United States until additional FBI background checks and approvals are added to the current screening process.”
Half, at 51.1 percent, disagree strongly or somewhat that “the U.S. and Americans have an obligation to accept Syrian refugees.” The cumulative percent of those who agree with the notion of an obligation was 39 percent.
Just over half, at 52.5 percent, disagree somewhat or strongly that “I trust our federal government’s ability to accurately verify entering refugees are not terrorists.” Fewer than four in 10, or 36.4 percent, reported agreement with the trust statement.
Those who agree somewhat or strongly that they are “concerned about terrorism when attending large public events” were reported at 61.8 percent.
Nearly half—48.3 percent—somewhat or strongly agree that “Russia’s President (Vladimir) Putin is stronger on fighting terrorism than President Obama.
When respondents were asked which current presidential candidate—despite personal preference—”would likely mount the strongest and most effective effort against terrorists worldwide while protecting Americans at home” they said, in descending order:
Donald Trump, 24.1 percent
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 20.7 percent
U.S. Senator (VT) Bernie Sanders, 7.7 percent
U.S. Senator (TX) Ted Cruz, 5.5 percent
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, 4.7 percent
Dr. Ben Carson, 4.4 percent
The poll was conducted by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute and has a +/- 3.0 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level on a composite basis. The national online poll of more than 1,000 adults was conducted by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute between November 29 and December 3.
The “shelter in place” order has been lifted now, and D.C. police have “located the suspicious person.” Now no doubt there is a long line of Catholic priests lining up to engage in “dialogue” with the poor dear, hoping to explain to him how Islam, at its core, is a religion of peace that has been tragically misunderstood. They will fix this problem up tout suite.
“D.C. police locate a ‘suspicious person’ at Catholic University,” by Martin Weil, Washington Post, December 8, 2015:
Catholic University students were advised Tuesday night for the second time in less than 24 hours to shelter in place while authorities investigated a report of a possible armed person on campus.
Just before 9 p.m., the D.C. police said they had “located the suspicious person.” About an hour later, the university said it had lifted the shelter in place order. It also said that the person who prompted Tuesday night’s alert was not the same person who was sought during the alert that began early Tuesday.
The Tuesday night alert was sent about 8:30 p.m. and advised members of the university community to shelter in place while D.C. police and the university’s public safety department investigated a report of a possible armed man.
A similar alert was issued about 1 a.m. Tuesday. Authorities said that they searched but that no one was found.
The university said the earlier alert was initiated after a custodial worker reported being approached Monday night by a man with a weapon.
The man reportedly approached the worker at Pangborn Hall about 10:30 p.m. Monday, and asked directions to the administration building.
In a message posted Tuesday on the university’s Facebook site, the university’s president, John Garvey, offered an explanation of the overnight response. He said the person had “made claims that sounded to our custodian like terroristic threats.”
A description provided on a university social media site said the individual had a Middle Eastern appearance….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Catholic-University-e1449652808392.jpg370640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-09 04:20:452015-12-09 04:23:32Catholic University locked down after “Middle Eastern” man makes “terroristic threats”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/nihad-awad-cair-terrorist.jpg360640Defend The Borderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDefend The Border2015-12-08 09:16:262015-12-09 16:56:29VIDEO: Terrorist Supporter Nihad Awad attacks Trump’s call for banning Muslim Migration to U.S.
Islamic supremacist groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims.
“Suspect Charged in CAIR’s Anti-Muslim ‘Hate Crime’ Is Named … Mohamed,” by John Nolte, Breitbart, December 7, 2015:
The day after Thanksgiving, in the wake of a terrible shooting that left a Muslim cabdriver in Pittsburgh hospitalized, CAIR was screaming ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIME! Naturally, left-wing news outlets like the Washington Post and others gleefully accepted those marching orders. Five days later police had a suspect in the shooting. He’s pictured above. His name is Anthony Mohamed.
Investigators have taken a suspect into custody in the shooting of a cab driver who is Muslim in the city’s Hazelwood neighborhood in the early morning hours of Thanksgiving Day.
Pittsburgh Police announced the arrest at a press conference Wednesday afternoon. They identify the suspect as 26-year-old Anthony Mohamed of Hazelwood.
Five days earlier, and just after the ISIS attacks in Paris, this was the headline:
A Muslim civil rights group is asking the Justice Department to investigate the shooting of a Pittsburgh taxi driver.
The driver was shot Thanksgiving night in the Hazelwood section of Pittsburgh, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants the Justice Department to investigate the case as a hate crime.
According to reports, the 38-year-old driver picked up the man outside the Rivers Casino about 1 a.m. Thursday.
F.B.I. statistics prove that Jews are more than three times as likely as Muslims to be victims of religion-motivated hate crimes. Overall, those among the Faithful who are not Muslim are targeted for hate crimes almost 84% of the time, compared to 16% for Muslims. In a country of around 325 million, there were 183 hate crimes aimed at Muslims last year. Nearly a thousand were aimed at other religious groups….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/AnthonyMohamed-e1449570518668.jpg370640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2015-12-08 05:30:052015-12-08 05:30:43Suspect charged in ‘anti-Muslim hate crime’ is named Mohamed
In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.
One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.
Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.
“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”
Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”
Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”
Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.
We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”
In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.
It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”
This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”
Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”
The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider
Saudi Arabia’s determined spread of extremist Wahhabist Islamist ideology to the farthest corners of the world (spending an estimated $100 billion over the past 30 years to build mosques and supply them with radical preachers, and to endow universities with Middle Eastern study programs) as well as their involvement in 9/11;
Turkey, which likely serves as the Islamic State’s de facto tactical base.
The current administration’s engagement of extremists in the Islamic world has also been reflected through America’s support of the Muslim Brotherhoodin Egypt and at home.
However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.
All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.
The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”
In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/United-State-California-Shooting-Memorial-640-e1449563623837.gif339640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2015-12-08 03:36:372015-12-08 03:36:37San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/isis-in-america.jpg374627Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2015-12-07 16:53:012015-12-07 16:55:00VIDEO: Political Correctness — The Islamic State’s Weapon of Mass Destruction
U.S. President Barack Obama’s December 6 speech contained few surprises and, on many points, he said the right things.
He mentioned the “I” word, admitting there is a perversion of Islam out there that resulted in last week’s San Bernardino massacre.
The president repeated his refrain about aerial strikes against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), which he prefers to a boots-on-the-ground approach.
He gave us the very quotable quote: “If we are to succeed in defeating terrorism, we must enlist Muslim communities as our strongest allies in rooting out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization.”
But outside of that, and a plea for all in America to use non-inciting language, his televised White House speech focused on ISIS.
His speech lacked a clear policy on what to do about the Islamist extremists already operating in the United States – with or without the support of ISIS, al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization.
There seemed to be no linkage in his comments between the order for more bombing raids in the Middle East and the inspiration ISIS provides for terrorists on American soil – whether directly under ISIS’ aegis or acting alone.
This was where Obama missed the point in his speech:
“But over the last few years, the threat has evolved as terrorists have turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all-too common in our society. For the past seven years, I have confronted the evolution of this threat each morning. Your security is my greatest responsibility. And I know that, after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.”
The obvious follow up to this would have been to give at least some details of the numbers of arrests in the U.S., or the types of actions being taken by the FBI and other agencies, without going into sensitive operational details.
However, Obama’s logical follow up was not on home soil but rather:
“So, tonight, this is what I want you to know: The threat of terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Here’s how:” (this part of the speech was bolded in the statement to the media)
And then he discussed what Washington will and will not do in its war against ISIL in the Middle East.
Maybe the president is trying to avoid panic in the homeland, but he did not give the American public any reason to feel calmer by ignoring the very real, palpable threat in the United States.
And if his policy of destroying ISIS succeeds, will it mean no more terror attacks on U.S. soil? The answer to that I will leave for the reader to mull.
Suffice it to say, unless the president announces a clear intention to increase surveillance and other interventionist measures at home – and yes, it should come from the president himself – he will leave Americans scared and the terrorists feeling emboldened.
Watch President Obama’s speech:
David Harris is editor in chief of Clarion Project.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/US-terror-map-640.jpg320640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2015-12-07 16:36:492015-12-07 16:36:49Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link
Did you see that even theNew York Times wrote about the female Islamic terrorist and how there was no way to “vet” her or to “screen” her as she came to live among us. Any logical person can see that. There was no d*** data, no biographic and biometric information to tap! And, if asked about any terror connections in personal interviews she certainly did not tell the truth.
So, don’t you wonder why only TEN US Senators can see that and that 89 others are so willfully blind. See our poston Senator Paul’s failed attempt at a moratorium on issuing visas to those coming from jihad-producing countries.
And,here see Daniel Greenfield on the killers yesterday. If you read nothing else from Greenfield’s post, this is the line every one must grasp:
It’s a matter of simple math that as the population most likely to commit terrorist acts increases, so do the acts themselves.
I went back to our archives to see when I first heard anyone suggest a MORATORIUM on Muslim immigration and want to give a shout-out to former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goodewho saw the San Bernardino slaughter coming 9 years ago! Learn about how the politically correct harpies at theWashington Post treated him then. His position, in support of a moratorium on legal (Muslim) immigration to America cost him his seat. We told you more about him herein 2010.
Political correctness is dead! Everyone of you must start saying the ‘M’ word! MORATORIUM! Moratorium on Muslim migration to America, NOW!
Thank you Mr. Goode! Goode is a Trump supporter in Virginia today!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/moratorium.jpg381640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2015-12-06 04:03:262015-12-06 07:40:59Come on, you can do it! Say “MORATORIUM”
On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia. Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promotetolerance, to ensurepublic safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)…”
She went on to say, “Since becoming Attorney General last February, I have heard from Arab Americans and Muslims who say they feel uneasy about their relationship with the United States government. Some feel that they have not been afforded the full rights of citizenship. Others are worried about the safety of their families, communities, and places of worship. And, too often, Muslims and Arab Americans have told me that they feel as though they are treated by their fellow citizens, by their government, and especially by those of us in law enforcement as though it were ‘us versus them.’ That is unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with what America is all about.”
So if a few Muslims are worried about the safety of their families, their communities, and their places of worship, what is that compared to the fear and dread that radical Islamists have spread among the hundreds of millions of peace-loving people of Europe and North America? And if Muslims and Arab-Americans feel as if they are the victims of an “us versus them” political and social environment, just who do they think created that atmosphere? It is not Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims who have rejected Muslims, it s Muslims who have come to our country and have refused to assimilate into our culture. Not only have they not assimilated into our culture, they have let it be known that it is their intention to obliterate our culture and our form of government from the face of the Earth.
Lynch went on to say, “Muslims and Arab Americans have helped to build and strengthen our nation. They have served as police officers, teachers, civic leaders and soldiers – strengthening their local communities and safeguarding their country. And the cooperation of Muslim and Arab-American communities has been absolutely essential in identifying, and preventing, terrorist threats. We must never lose sight of this. And, as we work to create a brighter and more prosperous future, we must not fail to heed the lessons of our past.”
No one but an Obama administration toady could ever stand up in public and say with a straight face that Muslims and Arab-Americans have helped to “build and strengthen” our nation, have played a vital role in “identifying and preventing terrorist threats,” and have worked to “build a brighter and more prosperous future” for all Americans.
When asked to comment on the Obama administration’s attitude toward anti-Muslim rhetoric in the days since the Paris attacks, she said, “My message to the Muslim community is that we
stand with you in this. Where we do see anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions turning into violence, we do take action… We have charged 225 defendants with hate crimes over the last six years… most of those in the last three years. Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over forty-five prosecutions…”
She went on to say, “I think it’s important, however, that as we again talk about the importance of free speech, we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they’re not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.
Looking directly into the camera, she said, “My greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all the American people, is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence… When it comes to combating these heinous crimes, our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry – no matter the object or nature of your hate – we will bring you to justice.
Lynch challenged her Muslim audience, saying, “Often, you learn of incidents before law enforcement and I encourage you to report these incidents to the Justice Department. I assure you: each and every report of a potential hate crime is taken seriously and, as our record of recent activity makes clear, we will investigate and prosecute violations of federal law whenever we can. Last year, two Tennessee men were sentenced to more than 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to spray painting swastikas and the words ‘white power’ on a mosque – and then starting a fire that destroyed the mosque. And last month, an Illinois man was sentenced to one year in prison after he pleaded guilty to sending a threatening e-mail to a mosque.”
Either the attorney general has failed to notice that, in recent years, nearly every act of violence stemming from hateful rhetoric has originated in the Muslim community, or she was delivering a stern message to the Muslim community that, unless they behave themselves, they would find themselves praying to Allah five times a day from behind prison walls. However, being Barack Obama’s principal legal henchman, it’s pretty obvious to all concerned, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that her thinly-veiled threats were directed toward non-Muslims.
Reaction to the attorney general’s threat was swift and predictable. Radio talk show host Joe Walsh, a former congressman from Illinois’ 8th Congressional District (suburban Chicago) produced the below YouTube video describing exactly how he feels about Muslims and challenging the attorney general to have him arrested.
In his video, he said, “You come out today and you say you’re going to prosecute Americans who use anti-Muslim speech. That doesn’t happen in this country. I can say what I want about Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I think Islam has a real “fricking” problem, alright? There’s a cancer in Islam. And if they’re not gonna’ learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.
“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that? Then throw me in jail. Here… I’ll give you a perfect opportunity. I think Islam is evil. I think Islam’s got a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want ‘em here. So, what?… you’re worried about a backlash against Muslims?”
“Fourteen Americans were killed three days ago and you come up the next day and say you’re greatest fear is anti-Muslim backlash. Well, you know what? I hope there is a backlash. There should be a backlash. I’m going to encourage a backlash. And you know what, Loretta Lynch? If that bothers you, prosecute me. Throw me in jail.”
In a written follow-up, Walsh argued that “most Muslims around the world are (either) terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law.” He went on to say, “Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed. If ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”
Directing his final words to Loretta Lynch, he said, “Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that edges toward violence? Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”
As sharply divided as liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are on these issues, one wonders how those liberals and Democrats who support the Obama administration’s policies on Muslim immigration would react when posed with a problem that brings the question of life-or-death a bit closer to home.
Since the San Bernardino attack, conservatives have attempted to put the Muslim immigration question into a context that even liberals can understand. For example, on June 13, 2014, CNN reported that more than 4,000 pounds of rib-eye and other fresh beef, produced by the Fruitland American Meat Company in Jackson, Missouri, were subject to recall because of a fear that the meats could contain mad cow disease. The meat in question was distributed by the Whole Foods distribution center in Connecticut, which services all of New England, one restaurant in New York, and one restaurant in Kansas City, Missouri.
With the understanding that northeastern liberals and Democrats appear quite willing to go along with Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Muslims each year because of the belief that only five out of every 100 (5%) of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, how much of the suspect meat would New Englanders purchase if they were assured that no more than 5% of the meat was contaminated with mad cow disease? If, as an inducement, Whole Foods reduced the price of prime filet mignon and rib-eye steaks to 50ȼ per pound, would New Englanders and New Yorkers be willing to take a chance?
For the Obama base, the low information voters of America, conservatives have restated the question in terms that even they might understand. They were asked, “If you were presented with a bowl of 100 M&Ms and told that five of the 100 pieces were toxic (poisonous), how many pieces of candy would you eat?” Even they, accustomed as they are to accepting “freebies,” would have sense enough to decline.
When Loretta Lynch was before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation in April 2015, most conservatives held high hopes that she would be a welcome change from her lawless predecessor, Eric Holder. However, all hope were dashed when Lynch refused to assure senators that, under her leadership, even the president of the United States would be required to obey the law and to uphold the U.S. Constitution. What a disappointment she has been. She must go.
And as for me, I’m with Joe Walsh. If I can’t criticize radical Islamists, then come get me.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lorettalynch-e1449390825746.jpg322640Paul R. Hollrahhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPaul R. Hollrah2015-12-06 03:35:152015-12-06 06:18:18Loretta Lynch Must Go
New York – Reacting to the mass shooting incident at a staff holiday party in San Bernardino, the United States government and many media initially emphasized that a workplace mass shooting had taken place. The early national discourse directed itself to gun control advocacy. Once a terrorist motivation could no longer be denied, outlets began suggesting that the shootings were instigated by remarks that one of the deceased had made about Islam not being a peaceful religion, suggesting that he had provoked the killings. More recently, revelations of how United States immigration policy allowed one of the perpetrators into the country has touched off a highly-charged policy debate.Almost immediately after the perpetrators were identified, Dr. Michael Welner, forensic psychiatrist and Chairman of The Forensic Panel, recognized the event to bear the hallmarks of Islamist terrorism, given the role of a female perpetrator – a fact never associated with American mass shootings without direct personal conflict. Such American mass shootings customarily involve perpetrators aspiring to idealized destructive masculine identity.
Dr. Welner’s early appearance on “Fox and Friends” 
Where are you Virgil Goode?
On Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10