… who is in our state or something like that?
“4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies”
… who is in our state or something like that?
“4-Star Admiral Slams Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated All Of Our National Security Agencies”
Speaking of State Department BS and the Obama administration in general, time to revisit an older article. Not much changed so it is only more important with State issues.
Naturally, I cannot suspend my disbelief of this Federal Autocracy. But when departments ally with other departments and bureaucracy in a cohesive effort, it only gets worse. Here we have such a stellar case. It is nothing new that it involves education, databases, and the ever prying eye of the Leviathan we call the Federal Government.
Speaking of databases, there’s one out there that’s more than a little disturbing. It’s but one more devious plan created by none other than Barack Hussein Obama to store personal information on our children. No wonder Maxine Waters spouted off that Obama’s database knew everything about everybody – this is one of the few times that Maxine was telling the truth.
Obama actually planned this scandal back in 2009 – why Republicans and Democrats didn’t even raise an eyebrow is a total mystery. Obama helped himself to several billion dollars of our stimulus money and threw it into a pot for Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, placing him in charge of mining our children’s personal information for Obama’s database.
Federal law put in place restrictions back in 1979 when the Department of Education was launched. The law specifically stated that it was illegal for the White House to have a Federal Education database.
As usual, the law does not apply to Obama. Obama and Duncan promised an ungodly amount of money to the States suffering from a horrific recession if they would make a deal and trust Washington to take over the education system of our children.
There’s one more minor stipulation that Obama is requesting. He wants each State to create a database containing personal information on our kids and forward that information to none other than the Secretary of Education. Obama and old Arne have prepared the template for these databases containing hundreds of personal data requirements from religion to parent’s income.
Read more at Western Journalism
Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood is now partnering up with our Department of Education and the State Department to create an online program (Qatar) that will connect our United States schools with classrooms abroad. As usual, they leave out some pertinent details.
Remember the days when people used to want to speak truth to power when it was critically important, when it appeared the power or powerful had lost their way? That must seem so 70’ish. The good old days when libs used to talk about believing in that.
Well, now Liberals are quiet as mice. Do they not realize this stuff is happening? Do they not care? I think there is a lot of the latter. Just connecting obvious dots is too much effort for some people. Maybe they would rather not know? That is a real possibility.
Even more sinister, maybe libs realize and approve of what is going on knowing it means more power for the government and less privacy and freedom for us – or more control?
Obama and his cohorts are great at talking about or blaming unintended consequences, but what about the all too intentional ones? Just like the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious or Servergate. Surely these things are missteps, blunders, coincidences, or unintended results of an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy. My disbelief wins, again.
by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on February 4, 2015 | Allen B West
As you may recall, we reported last week about a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood leaders meeting at the U.S. State Department to discuss their ongoing efforts to oppose the current government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt. Well, of course they oppose him – he had the nerve to call them a “terrorist organization.” Silly al-Sisi!
After all, just because two days after that meeting the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement calling for jihad and two days after THAT conducted a major terror attack in the Sinai region killing at least 25 doesn’t make them a terrorist organization. Of course not.
And that jihad statement? Fuhgeddaboudit:
“It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent in our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.”
Then State went on to lie about the circumstances of the meeting by pointing a finger at University funding. Nope, that wasn’t the case. So it makes you wonder how much they have to lie about something they don’t believe is a problem?
As the Free Beacon writes, “The State Department admitted on Monday that it misled reporters about a recent delegation of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and allies who were hosted for a meeting with officials at Foggy Bottom.”
This just reminds me of the story Alice in Wonderland or someone falling through the looking glass. To paraphrase former Secretary Hillary, their story “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.” Of course they cannot be honest with us, it’s the first rule of their convoluted agenda. But if we try to expect from them what they are clearly not going to provide, then who is the real dupe?
When Ralph Peters talks, people ought to listen. Or as the old Soviet defectors used to say, get the bananas out of their ears. He framed the coming Iran as years in the making.
By Ralph Peters — February 1, 2015 | NY Post
The sight of vast graves opening and the undead clawing out should unnerve us all. But we haven’t even noticed. As more blood flows than any horror film offers, it’s brought the hope of eternal life to bygone empires we all thought dead and buried — and good riddance.
Blinded by the flash of headline events, we fail to see the strategic arcs of our era: the agonized collapse of Europe’s empires — climaxing in the Soviet Union’s demise — and now, amid the chaos and fanaticism, the belief on the part of once-mighty powers that they can rebuild fallen empires.
History is vengeful toward the ignorant. And we’re historically illiterate.
A Turkish attempt to establish a neo-Ottoman Empire failed (none of their neighbors wanted the Turks back), but three other imperia have gotten at least one foot out of the grave: the Persian Empire, the Arab Caliphate and the Russian Empire.
Not one means us well.
More at NY Post
I guess the jingle of “The Iranians are coming” doesn’t have a good ring to it. We are sure headed in the direction of Tehran, ‘as Tehran goes…’ Our illustrious jive-masters in Washington think no one will notice. The old adage is: change, if done correctly, can hardly be noticed. Well, many of us notice but what is anyone doing about it?
Bibi gives a speech mentioning the hijacked territory under Iranian control but the indoctrinated masses said his “political speech” struck a sour chord. While Iran punctuates every sentence with theocratic politics all the time. What do we do? Make concessions. It seems some of that Persian pride has infiltrated and infected Washington. Is it terminal?
As Peters said, “History is vengeful toward the ignorant. And we’re historically illiterate.”
You had to know there were more questions about Hillary Clinton’s emails coming.
Katie Pavlich | Mar 05, 2015 | Townhall
After ignoring a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in August 2014, government watchdog Judicial Watch has issued a lawsuit against the State Department for all emails between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her top aide Huma Abedin and wife of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi, Nagla Mahmoud, from January 2009 to January 2013. It was discovered earlier this week that both Clinton and Abedine used personal email accounts to conduct government business, potentially violating federal records laws.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit specifically seeks the following:
A. Any and all records of communication between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nagla Mahmoud, wife of ousted Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi, from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013; and
B. Any and all records of communication between former State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Nagla Mahmoud from January 21, 2009 to January 31, 2013.
“Now we know why the State Department didn’t want to respond to our specific request for Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s communications,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The State Department violated FOIA law rather than admit that it couldn’t and wouldn’t search the secret accounts that the agency has known about for years. This lawsuit shows how the latest Obama administration cover-up isn’t just about domestic politics but has significant foreign policy implications.”
Surprise, welcome to Casablanca. The servers were in her home. Now she releases a statement that she wants the public to see her emails. It all sounds so Clintonesque.
And the search goes on, and on and on and on….
From Al Jazeera America:
The administration of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi must focus on economic development — not just regional security — in response to the recent beheading of 21 Egyptian Christian migrant workers in Libya, Egyptian economists and rights activists said Monday.
Tell us how adressing economic issues stops the caliphate-hungry Islamists from attacking and killing Christians and Jews? Of course they say that both need to be addressed: the terrorists and economic problems in Egypt. Well, duh, but to blame it mainly on economic plight is to miss the point. And last I checked, you need security to spawn the economic growth. Again, terrorists directly oppose that.
Here is a timeline history of ISIS atrocities.
The administration gave a watered down statement on the executions in Libya: (they call them Egyptian citizens)
Statement by the Press Secretary on the Murder of Egyptian Citizens
The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity. This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL.
This heinous act once again underscores the urgent need for a political resolution to the conflict in Libya, the continuation of which only benefits terrorist groups, including ISIL. We call on all Libyans to strongly reject this and all acts of terrorism and to unite in the face of this shared and growing threat. We continue to strongly support the efforts of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon to facilitate formation of a national unity government and help foster a political solution in Libya.
But they did not call them Christians. Couldn’t do that. To deny who they are, Coptic Christians, is to deny the motive for killing them. It’s very dishonest. Now at least they are admitting they are ISIS-affiliated terrorists. (progress for Libya I guess)
So what we have is the administration, and willing others, going out of their way not to address the direct source of the problem, radical Islamism. They won’t even call it what it is. But at the same time they can blame it on economic woes. “Yea, that’s the ticket!”
Unconstrained by faith? Let’s deny the central organizational and recruitment impetus is Islamic radicalism. But it is constrained under that central purpose, and loyal to it. In fact, it is constrained entirely under that auspice — except for opposition by military force.
By the time they get around to calling it Islamic terrorism it will be too late.(which is just great to the Islamic radicals)
And once again they call for a political solution to the problem. We just know you can sit down and discuss things rationally with irrational people hell bent on destruction. But to deny who and what Islamic terrorists are is to deny the causal source of the problem.
Not to even remind them that Obama and his enablers were a direct, willing contributor in the political problem in Libya. And they’ve have been lying about the effects ever since. Yet they’ll turn right around and blame Bush for Iraq’s turmoil. Plus all their support for Mo-Bros adding more accelerant to the fire.
The only conclusion is we have an Islamist-sympathizing administration. It’s hard to defeat an enemy by being sympathetic to it, regardless what atrocities they are committing.
There is one ultimate comparison which applies well: Obama to ISIS, the Islamic State.
It really fits. The Islamic state are terrorists at heart, engulfed in an ideology that has no options. I wrote about it in “the struggle we must understand”. Obama is a radical ideologue at heart, whatever else anyone thinks he is. It is only a matter of understanding and knowing that. It’s a fool’s mission to try believing otherwise. He’ll prove you wrong; as ISIS will prove you wrong if you term them anything but evil and radical.
But that is not where it stops. The motive of operation for the terrorists is to provoke and attack anything not aligned with it, or anything that threatens it. That is the nature of the beast. That’s why preemption is the only strategy that can work against it.
With Obama he is all about challenging every other form of power. He believes in radicalism that attacks any of its enemies, by Alinsky tactics. It is pure radicalism. The ends justify any means. Ideology rules. He’s shown contempt for our Constitution and he shows contempt for America. He sees us as the problem and he and his cohorts as the answer. Perception is reality to them. They only need to project whatever they choose. (Islamists are creative at that too)
This is why we now have another problem. Our taking the Senate matters not to Obama. He’s as comfortable without it as with it. His radical means are no match for the process. He does not live under the same rules as everyone else. Therefore, it didn’t matter to him whether Republicans controlled congress. It didn’t matter before and doesn’t now.
In fact, we’ve seen how effective Harry and Nancy were in the minority already. He was looking to defy Congress before while he controlled half of it. Don’t you think he will defy it more having lost control? If he acted like a radical before, he has even more reason to act like a radical now. I think we get that. (whether legislators grasp that or not is a question)
With radical Islamists, they don’t care what percentage they are. Actually, the nature of radicalism is to be effective as one or a small group. They don’t have to win elections either, though they do know how to play the game of democracy. (Egypt) The other part is recruitment is not based on ethics or morality, it is just the opposite with radicalism and ideology. So they have no problem with recruitment, it sounds exciting to some.
Just as the message of progressives is a radical ideology, it sounds attractive to some people. It’s a perfect fit and lends itself to identity groups and academia.(group think)
With both types of radicals, percentage or majority do not matter, they are adept at acting in a small minority by design. (Weather Underground) They base their activism on constantly testing and pushing any boundaries. They use an incremental approach that is constantly probing. They apply tactics to subvert the process, challenge or disrupt it.
All that said, now we can see the problems inherent with Obama occupying one of three branches. Also other radicals within the system, think Lois Lerner, can be effective. They share ideology and don’t require orders or communications. Like terrorist cells, they act on their own or in concert. For Islamists, it is all about ideology. Radical is as radical does.
Clinton may have been a master politician, but Obama is a master of radicalism.
RightRing | Bullright
Raymond Ibrahim | PJ Media
Popular and widely read Egyptian newspaper Al Wafd published the above picture today portraying U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama as Satan himself. The unflattering picture has been making the rounds on Facebook in the Middle East and, according to Al Wafd, is representative of the hatred growing numbers of people in the region have for the American president, thanks to his staunch and unwavering support for Islamists and jihadiis — whether in Nigeria, Libya, Egypt, or Syria — even as they terrorize, murder, rape, and burn down Christian churches, that is, even as they engage in diabolical activities.
So they got Obama’s number, literally. There’s even the 666 in there and they say he has Muslim Brotherhood ties. I wonder how many papers that sold in the Arab world? No response yet from the “clean and articulate” Nobel Peace Prize winner.
I was glad to see more about the Cruz story because the news about it had no context. It was just “Ted Cruz booed by Christians”. They didn’t even mention the name of the organization he was speaking to. It’s amazing that, even with Christians, it makes a difference what part or group he was talking to. I heard rumors only some were booers, and that some might have been Leftist plants there to go after Cruz intentionally. Neither would surprise me.
By T. Becket Adams | September 11, 2014 | Washington Examiner
The people who booed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at an event Wednesday evening are “useful idiots,” according to the executive director of Christians United for Israel, the nation’s largest pro-Israel organization.
At an event hosted by In Defense of Christians, a group dedicated to the protection of Christian communities in the Middle East, the Texas senator abruptly ended his speech when a small but vocal group of attendees booed him after he praised Israel.
On Thursday, Christians United for Israel’s David Brog told the Washington Examiner that the hecklers distract from the real crisis of religious persecution in the Middle East.
Hecklers distracted the focus or was that the intended focus?
Would they ever boo or go after a liberal speaker in a similar manner? Would they, say, shut down a pro-abortion speaker? I have seen Christians be respectful to a fault.
Clinton donor and Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury, who pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009, reportedly provided funding for the IDC summit.
Chagoury, says the Free Beacon, also has backed Lebanese politician Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s main Christian ally in the country, according to United States diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks.
Well, golly gee! Sympathetic to Hebollah ? Is this an audience you want to influence? So maybe Cruz needs to have his staff better screen who he speaks to, now that he is in the big leagues. So he better watch his back. Now we have the case where the Left seems to be merely using and projecting the Christian label. It looks more like a cauldron of activism.
RightRing | Bullright
Center for Security Policy | September 5, 2014|
Mohamed Elibiary, an Islamist with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and a record of influence operations in the service of its agenda, has announced his departure after five years on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. We can only hope that – at a moment when the danger posed by shariah-adherent Muslims is becoming more palpable by the day – the Department decided to stop legitimating an advisor who has publicly championed that it was, “ inevitable that ‘Caliphate’ return”, contended that the United States is “an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.”
Elibiary had always been brazen in his support for Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, including featuring the Muslim Brotherhood “R4Bia” symbol on his twitter page, and publicly lauding Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.
In 2011, Elibiary was also suspected of utilizing his security clearance in order to access confidential documents from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and seeking to “shop” the files to journalists in order to label then Presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry an “Islamophobe.” In May 2014, during testimony before Congress, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted to Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), that this was “problematic.”
Whatever the cause of Elibiary’s departure from a senior advisory capacity in the Obama administration, it must be welcomed because – as documented in the Center for Security Policy’s online, video-based course entitled The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com) – he played a prominent role in blinding the U.S. government to the threat posed by the Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad.”
Certainly welcome news, but it is only about time. The recent inevitable caliphate statements may have finally pushed it over the top. Whatever the exact reasons, that he was such an advocate of Islamists should have caused his ouster long ago. I am interested to see where he resurfaces.
Here is an ’09 interview where he told CNN that “institutions like Mosques or Islamic schools are not really conduits of radicalization.” And then Elibiary accuses “R-wingers” of misinterpreting his words. He went on to compare the radical appeal to that of the civil rights movement .
‘America has moved toward its Muslim enemies’
by Garth Kant | WND
August 28, 2014
WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that puts the president’s motives into question.
A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.
Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.
She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.
Why the switch?
Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”
And why would Obama want to do that?
As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.
She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”
Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?
Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.
There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.
The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.
While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.
Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.
Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.
She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.
Much more at: WND
All these problems with Islamists and terrorism throughout the world, namely the Mid East, are bad enough but we also have Muslim Islamistist sympathizers in high places. And they appear to be having influence over everything we do. Take this revealing quote from Elibiary, top adviser in DHS.
From the Clarion Project
Elibiary inferred that he wants the U.S. to support a future caliphate, framing it as a Muslim version of the European Union.
By Ryan Mauro
Wed, June 25, 2014
On June 13, Elibiary tweeted that the creation of a caliphate is “inevitable,” and America’s choice is whether to support it or not. He inferred that he wants the U.S. to support a future caliphate, framing it as a Muslim version of the European Union. The tweet is below:
Online supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a terrorist group that fights to reestablish the caliphate with Baghdad as its capital, distributed and praised Elibiary’s tweet.
In a follow-up tweet, he claimed that both political parties are “heading in that direction” of supporting a modern caliphate. As evidence, he pointed to the Bush Administration’s appointment of an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Obama Administration’s engagement of the Muslim Brotherhood.
In another tweet on June 21, Elibiary compared “drive by media slander of Islamism” to the segregation-era when African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens. In other words, the critics of the Islamist ideology are bigots. The tweet is below:
The governance of a potential caliphate would be based on sharia. Mosque and state would be combined. Elibiary is aware of this, but says the U.S. should not oppose sharia governance.
“We should remember that them [Islamists] ruling their countries with sharia law doesn’t mean them coming to our country and using our planes to destroy our buildings,” he told me in an extensive interview last year.
The reestablishment of the caliphate presents a direct threat to the West. A future caliph, or leader of a caliphate, would have widely recognized authority—or even an obligation—to declare and wage jihad.
More Clarion Project
By Anne Gearan August 25 | Washington Post
The United Arab Emirates and Egypt have carried out a series of airstrikes in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, U.S. officials said Monday, marking an escalation in the chaotic war among Libya’s rival militias that has driven American and other diplomats from the country.
The Obama administration did not know ahead of time about the highly unusual military intervention, although the United States was aware that action by Arab states might come as the crisis in Libya worsened, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The airstrikes appear tied to fear over the growing muscle of Islamist militias. The region’s monarchies and secular dictatorships are increasingly alarmed about Islamist gains from Libya to Syria and Iraq.
At least someone took some taken. Could this be the reason for the turnabout tough-talk statements from the administration, via Dempsey and Hagel? Who knows but it validates the seriousness, while the Oval Occupant waxes his putter. Well, I wonder how long it will take Obama to hear about it from media?
What a difference a year makes, or not. Last year around August 15th we were watching churches across Egypt being burned. We saw the persecution not only from terrorist groups but from the whole Muslim Brotherhood network.
Flash forward a year. Almost the entire Christian population was ousted in Iraq, killed in genocidal persecution, or uprooted and driven from their homes and communities. Much the same in Syria. So yea, a year later and it has gotten worse for Christians. In two days alone, last year, over fifty Christian locations were attacked or burned supposedly under the banner of democracy.
Ah yes, remember that canard about the Arab Spring wanting to usher in Democracy? As the smoke cleared, literally, what was clear was that they were bringing in the Muslim Brotherhood, not for the purpose of Democracy. Yet it was the administration, along with Clapper and Brennan, who were cheerleaders for the movement. Then, they mocked those who saw it otherwise — as the rise of another authoritarian regime.
Remember that “Democracy”? They could have done without our support and cheerleading. Social networks were abuzz about the significance. They wanted it to be so. But at the same time they could not support a real uprising in Iran where it mattered.
But what it actually would prove is something else more dire and truthful. The dictators like Mubarak and Assad were correct all along when warning that their regime was all that stood between them and the radicals and terrorism. Take your pick from a basket of evils. That their power was all that stood in the way of ruthless Islam, in all its tentacles, and terrorism. We refused to accept that from Egypt to Libya.
What it really proved?
That the people there can’t handle it, or are not willing to strive for it. And probably didn’t even want it. The dictocrats were right, and it was not merely a ruse to keep them in power. They understood it. Of course they had their self-serving motives too, but the reality was clear and they had a point. They knew better than us.
The Arab, Islamic world is not ready for that and cannot handle it. No sooner was power overthrown, than a new Islamic evil stepped in to fill the void. (almost as if planned) We had been told for years what would replace their dictatorships. But we went into starry-eyed denial at those possibilities. We didn’t understand. Then we underestimated the organizational abilities of the Islamic network.
Iraq was under a dictatorship for years. They did not know or remember anything else. Liberals saw no problem with that structure. They criticized the very idea of throwing out Saddam. Better the evil you know. They were not willing to even give it a chance. They still to this day rail against it.
However, they saw the Arab spring just the opposite as something we should support unconditionally. They demonized those dictators, postulating they deserved to be ousted on their keisters. They had said “so what?” about Sadaam. This even with the Libyan adventure fresh in the rear view mirror. Despite all the signs, we believed just like Obama’s campaign slogan. And not only was it not meant to be, but it was meant to be something else entirely.
We were warned. It was the insurance policy of ruthless dictators that removing them would set about terrible things. They were right. After all, in the rosy-eyed Democratists’ eyes, the Arab Spring was the cure – not the disease. Now we see the truth, as inconvenient as it is. Mid East Arabs are not ready for prime-time Democracy. Maybe it is an acquired taste , and maybe it is something you have to work for rather than something that just happens in the absence of centralized power. Lesson learned. But not all of us do accept the truth in the lesson. Ideologues will not be moved.
Sure, Egypt has shaken off the bug and gone into remission. But nothing can undo the events of the last year. What a lesson it should have been for the western world. And the Arab Spring equaled Christian catastrophe. You cannot impose democracy, then hope for the best. It must come from within, from ideas to concept. Some will say it was working just fine, even in Egypt, even as the churches burned. I just know there is a metaphor somewhere between the events and those burning churches — when churches burn it can’t be good.
Then again, we could have learned much the same lesson with Yasser Arafat. It has gotten even worse since. It is the terrorism state. The only issue is how much credibility and influence the world bestows on it — and it on the world.
RightRing | Bullright ———See updates below
My name is Jon Voight and I am more than angry, I am heartsick that people like Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem could incite anti-Semitism all over the world and are oblivious to the damage they have caused.
They are obviously ignorant of the whole story of Israel’s birth, when in 1948 the Jewish people were offered by the UN a portion of the land originally set aside for them in 1921, and the Arab Palestinians were offered the other half. The Arabs rejected the offer, and the Jews accepted, only to be attacked by five surrounding Arab countries committed to driving them into the sea. But the Israelis won. The Arabs tried it again in 1967, and again in 1973, launching a sneak attack on the holiest Jewish holiday. Each time the Jews prevailed but not without great loss of life. And when Israel was not fighting a major war, it was defending itself against terrorist campaigns.
And yet Israel has always labored for a peaceful relation with its Arab neighbors. It voluntarily returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in return for peace, and gave the Palestinians all of Gaza as a peace gesture. What was the response? The Palestinians elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, and they immediately began firing thousands of rockets into Israel.
After years of trying to make peace, the wars they had to fight, being attacked by their enemies, and still being attacked, and finally after years of running into bomb shelters and having hundreds of civilians killed by suicide bombers, civilians being killed in their sleep, stabbed to pieces, finding enough is enough and finally retaliating, instead of my peers sticking up for the only democratic country in that region, they go and take out poison letters against them.
You have forgotten how this war started. Did Hamas not kidnap and kill three young teenagers for the sake of killing, and celebrated after the killing? What a travesty of justice.
I am asking all my peers who signed that poison letter against Israel to examine their motives. Can you take back the fire of anti-Semitism that is raging all over the world now?
You have been able to become famous and have all your monetary gains because you are in a democratic country: America. Do you think you would have been able to accomplish this in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, et cetera? You had a great responsibility to use your celebrity for good. Instead, you have defamed the only democratic country of goodwill in the Middle East: Israel.
You should hang your heads in shame. You should all come forth with deep regrets for what you did, and ask forgiveness from the suffering people in Israel.
(no offense to any towns named Circleville.) A little venting, and then some.
Circleville is a place that used to be just called USA, but much has happened to change that. Now its a place where upside down is rightside up, down is up, in is out, and most arguments are shrouded in specious reasoning and circular logic. It’s no longer important to even appear reasonable or rational. Actually, it is vogue to be unreasonable.
Whatever you find fault with, they tell you there is nothing you can do about it and your grievance is the real problem, so don’t worry about it. Your complaints are irrelevant.
But the only way you really know it is Circleville and not the USA is when you dissent from their status quo, or what is happening. To buck the trend is to be outcast. They use all this circular logic to tell you how you are wrong. It doesn’t actually prove anything, it is just supposed to shut you up. Slowly, you will either get used to it or just shut up.
One way or another you will be worn down to agree that up is down and down is up, and even like it — that is the goal. In the meantime, it all seems rather backward and does not make sense. They are confident that one day you will agree or at least stop making waves.
This consensus that runs things is driven by the desires of the “correct” populace who are always looking to evolve a little more. There is no limit to this evolution. (call it forced evolution) However, there is a severe restriction against not changing. Failure to change is now taboo — which will bring all the names down on you such as knuckle-dragger. You are considered the problem, not those bent on changing everything.
The heroes are those like Bill Ayers and traitors, or those deserters in the military they want to build monuments to. Real, traditional heroes are discarded as non-conformists and considered part of the problem. So their hero status is revoked, if it was ever justifiable.
To win is to lose. To lose is definitely winning, such as losing the US which they consider gain. But when you ask, they say “sure America is exceptional”… but so is Guatemala, Honduras, and Cuba, N Korea, Russia, etc. All things are equal, you know, except when they say they aren’t.
The same principles followed Obama into the Oval Office. The scandal-plagued administration rewards those who screw up and, in some cases, deliberately violate the law.(what is the law anyway?) They are celebrated. We have members of Congress with checkered pasts, who not only retain their careers but ascend to higher positions. Alcee Hastings, impeached as a federal judge, is in Congress. The one man who beat Barack Obama in Illinois, Bobby Rush, a black panther, is a beloved political leader.
A cop killer is elevated to MLK status, and turned into an example for school children. The death penalty is considered inhumane, while no compassion is left for real victims. Terrorists of the sixties are given tenured professorships at Universities. They write the curriculum for school children. A tax cheat is put in charge of the IRS. A man who could not pass the security clearance is made president. His attorney general oversees gunrunning in Mexico. And when he is held in contempt, part of Congress stages a walkout crying racism. The president declares Congress irrelevant in his SOTU speech as half of Congress cheer and give him a standing ovation.
Bill Ayers is turned into a teacher, on elementary curriculum no less, and a professor. How many of the 60’s radicals and terrorists just found their way into our government or system? You would think it is planned. Is it just coincidence they landed up there? John Kerry is a double-talking, lying, war protestor and now Secretary of State. Eric Holder sought the pardon on Marc Rich is made Attorney General.(well-qualified) But they aren’t just there, they are hailed as great public servants. Bill Clinton is considered the greatest politician, possibly president — infamous for his conduct. The left will turn criminals into heroes. They turn cop killers into icons, heroes, and teachers. Someone that may not qualify to run for president is hailed as exactly the right choice, unquestioned.
But others without checkered pasts are turned into villains. Koch brothers are the epitome of evil. Mitt Romney is depicted as just a greedy rich guy.(picture Mr. Scrooge with a dog on his car) Now being pro-abortion is to support the dignity of life. And so on.
Terrorism is committed by a worldwide ideology of hatred of America and its history, and the response is to put members of those factions into positions of power in the government. Release some of the worst from prisons because we have no room. Bring in people from the worst criminal countries and give them full government subsidies.Call our enemies in the world our friends and attack our allies for doing the right thing. Try to take money from our allies to give to terrorists and our enemies. Call it the sensible approach.
So it continues with the Constitutional power to impeach Obama. Sure, it might be the correct thing to do but we cannot do what is right or correct anymore, in Circleville. Instead, we must see that he is “not be impeached” — read protect him from impeachment — because it would cause even more harm to the country. It would be bad politically, and the President’s party would gain. It would not be confirmed by the Senate and make a mockery out of the process, thereby the Constitution itself. So now we must make sure it is not pursued. Impeachment is just a fundraising tool to Obama. War to Hamas is a fundraising campaign. Justice is redefined through a Liberal wormhole of social justice. Opaque is clear and clear is opaque.
This is a strange, backwards, upside down place now. Right is wrong, and wrong has become right — not just considered “right” but now considered the moral high-ground. No longer is doing the right thing right, with all the associated costs, but is reprehensible – objectionable.
You see it does not end and these are only some examples. It keeps changing and going so there are constantly new ones. Campaigning on transparency, in effect, means lying and hiding the truth. Debate now means stifling it. Campaign law means campaign corruption. It’s all around. But choose not to accept it? You have no choice, that’s the idea.
Enjoy you’re visit or else.
RightRing | Bullright
Documents show San Francisco State University spent $7,000 to send professors on terror tour
BY: Adam Kredo | Washington Free Beacon
May 30, 2014 12:44 pm
San Francisco State University (SFSU) spent more than $7,000 to send two of its professors to the Middle East for a series of meetings with two convicted terrorists, according to funding documents obtained from a California Public Records Act.
SFSU professors Rabab Abdulhadi and Joanne Barker were awarded the money by the university for a trip to Jordan and the West Bank where they met with two notorious terrorists tied to Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), both of which are designated as terrorist groups by the U.S. State Department.
Abdulhadi, an ethnic studies professors, is already a controversial figure at SFSU, having organized anti-Israel events and served as the faculty adviser to an SFSU student who was booted from the school for posting a picture of himself holding a knife with a caption that read, “I want to stab an Israeli soldier.”
The revelation that California taxpayers footed the bill for the trip has sparked accusation that Abdulhadi obtained the funding on false pretenses and led a delegation of Jewish group to demand that SFSU launch an investigation into what they dubbed an “egregious misuse of university and taxpayer funds.”
During the January trip Abdulhadi and Barker met with terrorist Leila Khaled, a convicted hijacker and member of the PFLP, which has launched dozens of terrorist attacks and is responsible for the deaths of more than 20 U.S. citizens.
They also met with Sheikh Raed Salah, who has been convicted of funding Hamas and served prison time for inciting violence.
Jewish advocacy groups, including the AMCHA Initiative and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others, have expressed outrage over the meeting and demanded that SFSU promptly launch an investigation to examine if Abdulhadi improperly spent taxpayer funds provided by the school.
“Evidence demonstrates that Abdulhadi always intended to use the university-funded trip to build relationships with anti-Israel political activists to promote anti-Semitic academic, cultural, and economic boycotts of Israel and the meetings were set before Abdulhadi requested university approval,” the Jewish groups wrote in a recent letter to SFSU administrators, all of whom are documented to have signed off on the trip.
“We believe that there was some fraud going on in order to get the money, approval, insurance, she essentially defrauded the state and the taxpayers of California,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the AMCHA Initiative’s co-founder, told the Washington Free Beacon.
Abdulhadi initially stated in funding proposals that the purpose of her trip was to attend an academic conference at the American University in Lebanon. However, Abdulhadi was dropped from the conference just weeks before she was scheduled to arrive.
“On at least four official university documents signed by several SFSU and CSU administrators, including SFSU President Wong and CSU [California State University] Chancellor White, Abdulhadi concealed the fact that the true purpose of her trip was political activism, as well as the fact that she had planned to meet with individuals affiliated with organizations on the U.S. State Department’s list of Designated Terrorist Organizations,” the Jewish groups stated in their letter.
The groups argue that there is clear evidence Abdulhadi “always intended to use the university-funded trip to build relationships with anti-Israel political activists to promote anti-Semitic academic, cultural and economic boycotts of Israel and the meetings were set before Abdulhadi requested university approval.”
Abdulhadi has long been at the center of anti-Israel activities on SFSU’s campus.
The professor organized a March event in which she “glorified and condoned terrorism to SFSU students,” according to AMCHA.
Boycotts against Israel also were celebrated at the event, which was reported to have left Jewish attendees in “tears,” according to video and eyewitness accounts.
An earlier anti-Israel event organized by Abdulhadi last year urged students who attended to make signs that read, “My heroes have always killed colonizers.”
Abdulhadi also sparked controversy earlier this year for serving as the academic adviser to student Mohammad Hammad, who was ejected from SFSU after groups such as AMCHA highlighted internet postings in which the student wished violence on Jews and threatened to kill Israeli soldiers.
Hammad, who was eventually investigated by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force, was initially invited by Abdulhadi to attend the controversial trip and participate in the meetings with terrorists.
Hammad, in a Tumblr posting, stated that Abdulhadi had asked him to “join her and a delegation that she is taking to Palestine on a 10-Day trip … during which we will be visiting with prominent figures associated with the Palestinian Resistance Movement.”
“I WILL GET TO MEET [terrorist] LEILA KHALED,” Hammad wrote at the time.
SFSU officials, including President Wong and Chancellor White, did not respond to Free Beacon requests for comment about the controversy.
Abdulhadi also did not respond to an email request seeking comment.
SFSU spokeswoman Ellen Griffin told the Free Beacon on Friday that university professors are encouraged to communicate with whomever they like.
“Universities respect and encourage academic freedom and do not censor their scholars or condone censorship by others,” Griffin said in a statement. “Faculty can and do communicate with others relevant to their research, communicating by various methods that can involve travel.”
The potentially improper use of funds will be investigated, Griffin said.
“Any allegations that a member of the university community misused state funds will be investigated,” she stated.
AMCHA’s Rossman-Benjamin said that Abdulhadi’s anti-Israel activism on campus is part of a larger effort by university professors across the nation to boycott Israel and take aim at Jews.
University “faculty [are] simply abusing academic freedom and using their classrooms and conference walls to promote their own animus to the Jewish state and Jews,” she said.
Temple University recently came under similar fire for refusing to condemn a professor who questioned the deaths of 6 million Jewish in the Holocaust and engaged in anti-Semitic discourse on a secret listserv.
Other professors on the secret listserv operated by members of the Modern Language Association—which is currently engaged in efforts to boycott Israel—were similarly caught engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric, the Free Beacon reported.
Welcome to academia activism 101 in 2014.
April 10, 2014
We’re only 10 days into April, but 2014 already is shaping up to be a banner year for those who consider any criticism of Islam, radical or otherwise, to be something unfit for public consideration.
The decision by Brandeis University to withdraw its plans to bestow an honorary degree on Ayaan Hirsi Ali came after one day of protests from groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Students Association. Both groups have documented roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks global Islamic dominance, a reality neither is willing to acknowledge.
Hirsi Ali, born and raised into a Muslim family, renounced her faith and chronicled her reasons why in two best-selling books. She has been targeted for death by radical Islamists, including in a note pinned onto the body of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh after he was shot and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street.
The two collaborated on a short film, “Submission,” which was critical of the way women are treated in Islam. Hirsi Ali has made many statements critical of the religion, and her foundation works to protect women from physical abuse like honor violence, genital mutilation and forced marriage.
Such a life, such a dedication to improving women’s lives, is deserving of an honor like the one Brandeis planned. But the school reneged, issuing a statement which said it could not fulfill its promise due to “certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”
The move comes on the heels of ABC Family’s decision to scrub a new series about a teenage girl forced to live with extended family in Saudi Arabia. CAIR led the charge against “Alice in Arabia,” saying it “may engage in stereotyping that can lead to things like bullying of Muslim students.”
Never mind that something quite similar to the show’s premise actually happened. And never mind the show creator Brooke Eikmeier’s belief that “Alice in Arabia” could be “a step in the right direction for all cultures and all women, sparking greater tolerance, understanding and empathy.” CAIR squawked and ABC yielded.
And just last week, screenings of the documentary “Honor Diaries” were scrubbed at two University of Michigan campuses and at the University of Illinois-Chicago after CAIR and other Islamist groups protested.
“With this act of censorship,” wrote practicing Muslim physician Qanta Ahmed, a participant in the film, “the movie has become a metaphor for its message. Just like the women and girls it portrays, the movie has been silenced and its progenitors shamed.”
Criticism from Islamists has focused on the film’s producer and financers, not on its content. One Islamist critic, Linda Sarsour, honored as a White House “Champion of Change” in 2011, inadvertently made a point that shows the vacuous nature of the argument. If the finances were relevant, a Twitter poster suggested, perhaps the sources of CAIR operations warranted attention.
“CAIR,” Sarsour responded, “is not making domestic violence documentaries saving women.”
No one else is either. The one party who took up this legitimate issue has been pilloried for doing so.
In none of these cases has CAIR or other Islamist critics expressed willingness to debate the issue.
Instead, Brandeis is joined by a television network and two state universities in cutting off opportunities to challenge views on all sides of the issues involved. Isn’t that the kind of intellectual pursuit universities are supposed to foster and embrace?
Muslim reformist Irshad Manji thought so, too, commenting on Twitter that, “At too many universities, ‘respect me’ has come to mean ‘don’t challenge me.’“
So the Islamists are on a roll. […./more details]
So much hypocrisy it should make anyone sick, except Brandeis, but just like the Left they don’t care. (Cair doesn’t care) So one group can claim it speaks for Islam and all, and it is not challenged within. Then it steps up to become the speech police for the country.
When they start condemning their Mo-Bro brothers, they might have a microbe of credibility. That will happen on the first day of never. But people that haven’t progressed in centuries don’t show much promise. They make a strong case against evolution. But its just as hard to believe academia would empower them as the speech police. And progressives and the Left fall right in line with it.
They can honor Harry Belafonte, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite with degrees… but they have to draw the line at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s over the top. Someone really should have tipped them off who she was before they invited her. Hope they don’t replicate that mistake.
They also honored Thurgood Marshall. One wonders what he would think of their erratic decision to reverse their invite? Perhaps one of their illustrious recipients will be prompted to return his/her degree in protest. I doubt it but if it happened to be a certain notable ‘progressive’ who was slighted, it would be a different story.
Now that is something everyone should be able to get behind: standing up for centuries old attitudes of inequality and discrimination of women. I’m glad that many of our youth are taking up that banner. There is hope for change after all. They should be more careful about such mistakes in the future. (pardon sarcasm)
The Egyptian media is reporting that Dr. Sadek Raouf Ebeid has filed a complaint with the U.S. Congress accusing Barack Obama of using U.S. tax dollars to fund Terrorism in Egypt.
February 27, 2014 — Western Journalism
Editor’s note: This video was originally posted, edited, and subtitled by shoebat.com.
The charges brought against Malik Obama by Dr. Sadek Raouf Ebeid and his attorney in Egypt have now been brought to the attention of tens of millions of Arabs.
Above is a short clip from a 10 O’clock news broadcast by El-Qahera wal Nas (Egypt and its people).
As it turns out, Dr. Ebeid is now based in Tempe, Arizona, right in our back yard. He has been demanding for some time now that Congress investigate Obama and his brother Malik over their heavily documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to fund terrorism in Egypt.
To get more details about Dr. Ebeid’s concerns, read his personal letter to House Speaker John Boehner.
H/T to Pepp
by John Rossomando
October 11, 2013
Elibiary personally attacked Michael Meunier, president of Egypt’s al-Haya Party, two days earlier after Meunier spoke with The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) about Elibiary’s earlier offensive tweets against the Copts.
“Sad2c #Coptic @MichaelMeunier aid #Islamophobes anti US Muslim community agenda ….,” Elibiary wrote.
Elibiary initially defended sporting the R4BIA on his Twitter profile, saying “#R4BIA=#Freedom4ALL.” But he relented to pressure Friday and removed it. “While I did remove #R4BIA twibbon as I updated my profile, my view & support of its human rights & pro democracy values continue. #AntiCoup,” Elibiary wrote.
See video “Strategy: Language Manipulation”
As if R4BIA were a moniker and symbol for human rights.
What if an official was using a KKK on their account?