FALN: justice denied

These domestic terrorists remain unprosecuted for their acts. Bill and Hillary pardoned FALN terrorists and enabled them. Obama later pardoned one of the FALN stragglers.

Eric Holder did his part and now has presidential aspirations of his own.

Yet MSM remains as quiet as church mice about these terrorists. Always has. Drive a news story? Fuhgeddaboudit! Congress has done little to capture terrorist thugs in Cuba.

Where is justice? A lot of people are asking that same question these days.

Hillary never paid the price or was held accountable. No one was.

Terrorists Murdered My Father. They Have Not Seen Justice

By Joe Connor January 24, 2019 | National Review
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama gave some clemency; the chief bomb-maker escaped to Cuba.

Forty-four years ago today, terrorists shattered my family. Sadly, the war against these individuals and their benefactors continues to this day.

My father, 33-year-old Frank Connor, and three other innocent men were murdered, while scores were injured and maimed, on Jan. 24, 1975, when the Marxist Puerto Rican terrorist group Armed Forces for National Liberation (“FALN”) blew up New York’s historic Fraunces Tavern during a crowded lunchtime. The FALN appointed themselves my father’s judge, jury, and executioner, profiling, targeting, and savagely murdering so-called “reactionary corporate executives.” The Connor family had planned to celebrate my ninth and my brother’s 11th birthday that very night.

Fraunces Tavern was targeted by the FALN — who paid lip service to independence but in reality sought to impose a Cuban-style socialist regime in Puerto Rico — for its proximity to Wall Street and for its storied reputation as the birthplace of American liberty. Alexander Hamilton and the Sons of Liberty met there. General George Washington bade farewell to his officers at Fraunces after the Revolutionary War…./

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/faln-terrorist-bombing-new-york-city-1975/

When Americans call it the Department of Injustice that is what they are talking about.

Years in the making, new narrative deletes old

I need to jump into my way-back machine to make some observational connections.

I’ve been following this popular political narrative for years, decades now. What I have seen is stunning hypocritical ignorance on the left to accept reality.

Back before Islamic radicalism was really on the radar to most people, we had these philosophical and religious conversations bustling around, later on the web with the internet. They were fairly simple to follow. There were passions on both sides.

The secularists on the rise were out in force to seize control of public dialogue. Successful in many aspects, the idea was to purge any mention of religious expression. But of course that was a political discussion, I mean what else could it be? It was laced with vitriolic hatred for anything of religious nature. Any morals or values founded on Christian principles were deemed taboo, at least for practical applications. Enter religious freedom and the 1st amendment debate. Of course, those spewing hatred were atheists, humanists and secularists, or anti-religion zealots. Anyone else was just not with the times, or hip to reality, as they portrayed it. That is a powerful marginalization tactic embraced by the Left, to simply dismiss a whole segment of society. An especially large one.

Somewhere along the way, we also had the creation of the moral majority. (founded in ’79, dissolved in late 80’s w/ resurgence in early 2000’s) Remember Jerry Falwell who was the poster child for all things Christian meddling in politics, and a huge target of the secular Leftists who despised him. This was was a reaction to the times not the cause of them. Now I won’t say Christians were always the innocent victims, they’ve had their share of problems. We are reminded all the time, so leave that to critics who regularly make the case. I don’t need to.

Onward to dialogue

These conversations took shape around religious liberty. Christians were frustrated by the onslaught of what were some heavy-handed, viscous anti-religion zealots. Okay, so they said their beef was with organized religion of all stripes. They set out with fervor to descend on any sites or organizations spewing Christian rhetoric or themes. That would become easy with Google ordering their popularity. Any place serving up or discussing Christian perspectives inevitably got a visit from one or more of these villains.

Often their M/O was a sneaky way to gain credibility by, first, appearing to agree with some part of the discussion, but then taking issue with the direction it was going. They usually got more argumentative as it went to eventually full rage at the site, its people, and their “narrow-minded” views — according to them. Typically they would post stuff countering the Christian message, in calculated ways, then accuse the site of not honoring the first amendment if it was removed or they were banned. This was just a game and they would come back under another alias if they were ejected.

It was sort of a daily thing. The more popular the site was the more persistent they got. Their goal was to shut it down, or confuse it so people lost interest, or eventually drive the owners to throw up their hands. It only took a few of them to wreak havoc on a site. These trolls may have been easy to spot but that didn’t matter. Most people are very familiar with that formula, which is the point. It was too common but worth remembering now.

Many Christian authors or site owners made a habit of saying other opinions were welcomed. That was a huge invitation. Trolls would hang any rules around the site’s neck in a typical liberal process-style argument — just like radicals do. Why do I bother with all this background? It is to remember where we’ve been, sort of like Moses reminding Jews of the goal instead of focusing on the hardships.

As things do on the internet, it evolved from there. Many people thought it was too much trouble to have an open, public, Christian forum on the net. One by one, many larger ones disappeared or reinvented themselves.

Then there were blogs sponsored by the Town Hall website. It was a hub for conservatives to hang out, talk, network, and explore news and activism. Many Christians migrated to these blogs as they popped up weekly on their pages along with the current news and regular columnists. That lasted until they decided they didn’t want the hassles anymore or server space became a factor. Off the starry-eyed bloggers went to start their own blogs, experience in tow. But before that happened, the same sort of pattern formed of Liberals and antagonists invading TH pages with regularity. It was as if Liberals had no other place to go or anything else to do except troll Townhall pages and blogs in search of arguments, causing chaos — not to mention calling people names using every personal attack they could come up with.

Onward and upward

Many former participants or bloggers found their homes on new blogs in the blog domains. Conservatives and Christians sort of regrouped in new and different areas. Many focusing on just politics, and some only on Christian topics. Some combined topics with news and current causes. It became a hodgepodge network of activism and information that breathes life into an otherwise hum-drum internet catering to liberal news and savvy entrepreneurs.

There was now a counterweight of conservative opinion out there, widely spread, even before social media like Facebook and twitter took off. You can still find some larger sites that stick to Christian issues or forums. They don’t make quite the same “all are welcomed” claims because, face it, all are not welcome — nor should they be. Some just want to cause chaos. It’s an evolving world in technology and information.

Evolution in motion

Back in early 2000’s things did change with the attack on 9/11. But before that we had the attack on the Cole and earlier WTC bombing in the 90’s. So those conversations and awareness was already out there. Though 911 did change many things, including dialogue on the web. The anti-Christians, naysayer antagonists and Leftist zealots on the internet were flummoxed on strategy.

They still opposed the Christians in the usual manner. But adjustments were made in dialogue regarding the newfound fears of terrorism. Christians were taken more seriously and had some credibility. Christians may have had a point to their concerns after all?

Then came the reminder of the left’s religious obsession almost immediately after 9/11. There was an onslaught of talk and fear that this would cause a huge backlash and resentment against Muslims. Who would be the villains? (not the anti-reliegion zealots) But it didn’t have to be real. Just the possibility of it happening was enough to provoke all kinds of talk, suspicions, theories aimed at Christians. What did we do… did Christians cause the attack? Were we to blame?

The double standards came out front and center. Here was religious-based hatred driving terrorism via Islamists. It would seem the classic example Leftists had hunted for over the years. Finally, they had the connection of bigotry and hatred to religion. What did they do? So they preached tolerance. Their longstanding intolerance for Christianity suddenly morphed into tolerance for Islam — for anything but Christians. They were fascinated by Islam. We were told it was a peaceful religion. It was only a handful of people, obviously off the path, who committed violent jihad. The former Christian critics became self-anointed tolerance experts.

Do you think that would translate to say Christianity? Why should it in their minds? They had already made their case against old, ancient, superstitious beliefs. But a complete pass was granted to Muslims and Islam. Almost immediately, Islamic spokesmen came out telling us that it had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims or their peaceful religion. And they looked to cite any example of bigotry they could find as Islamophobia.

Suddenly it was us, the victims, who had a disease: Islamophobia was the diagnosis and watchword. The mission was complete. Christians went from being victims, and direct targets of hatred, to the culprits of anti-Islamic hate. It didn’t even take note that those fighting for religious freedom were the Christians. Now they were the chief villains.

RightRing | Bullright ©

Islamic State ups their ante

Report: Islamic State Claims ‘Radioactive Device’ Now in Europe

Freelance jihadist weapons maker makes claim on Twitter
BY: Adam Kredo | Free Beacon
December 8, 2014 4:35 pm

An alleged weapons maker for the Islamic State (IS) claimed that a “radioactive device” has been smuggled into an undisclosed location in Europe, according to an intelligence brief released Monday by the SITE Intelligence Group.

“A Radioactive Device has entered somewhere in Europe,” according Twitter user Muslim-Al-Britani, who claims to be a freelance jihadist weapons maker now working alongside IS (also known as ISIL or ISIS), according to tweets captured and disseminated by SITE.

BREAKING NEWS# WARNING A Radioactive Device has entered somewhere in Europe. pic.twitter.com/9GKHjz7ugs

— Muslim-Al-Britani (@TNTmuslim) December 6, 2014

The claim by Al-Britani comes just days after reports emerged that IS could have in its possession a dirty bomb, the elements of which were obtained via earlier IS raids on a university research facility in Mosul that contained uranium. Al-Britani is also responsible for the flurry of reports on the dirty bomb.

Al-Britani, who has disseminated on his Twitter feed “weapon instructions and manuals,” claimed on Nov. 23 that the “Islamic State does have a dirty bomb. We found some radioactive material from Mosul university,” according to the tweets reproduced by SITE. [more]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-islamic-state-claims-radioactive-device-now-in-europe/

At the G-20 Summit, Obama suggested using troops “would require rather extreme turn of events” (11/16/14):

“There are always circumstances, in which the United States might need to deploy ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

Gitmo-gate in full swing

Under Pressure, Hagel Promises to Act on Guantánamo Transfers


By CHARLIE SAVAGE and HELENE COOPER MAY 29, 2014 | NYT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is under pressure from within the Obama administration to step up his pace in approving the transfer of low-level Guantánamo Bay detainees, has told reporters that he would decide soon whether to accept a months-old offer to resettle six prisoners in Uruguay.

But Mr. Hagel, in his most expansive public comments about detainee transfers, acknowledged that he has been in no rush to sign off on them. He cited the burden and responsibility of being the one official who, under a legal obligation imposed by Congress, must personally determine that releasing a detainee makes sense.

“My name is going on that document. That’s a big responsibility,” Mr. Hagel said, adding: “What I’m doing is, I am taking my time. I owe that to the American people, to ensure that any decision I make is, in my mind, responsible.”

Mr. Hagel made his remarks in response to questions by a reporter accompanying him on a flight to Alaska late on Wednesday.

They came less than a week after Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sent a three-page memo to Mr. Hagel requiring him to “provide an update on progress on detainee transfers every two weeks until further notice,” according to an official who read passages of the memo to a reporter.

Mr. Obama has sought to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since taking office in 2009. Congress gave the secretary of defense the final say over approving transfers. He must determine that a transfer is in the national-security interest and that steps have been taken to “substantially mitigate” the risk that a detainee could pose a future threat to the United States or its allies.

Ms. Rice’s May 24 memo includes a record of Mr. Obama’s guidance on how much risk to accept when transferring detainees, including saying that it is “not a zero-risk standard,” and that the risk must be balanced against the harm to the United States caused by the continued operation of the facility.

The memo is said to define “substantially mitigate” as meaning that “steps have been or will be taken that would materially lessen the risk that detainee, post transfer, will engage or re-engage in any terrorist or other hostile activity that specifically threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests.”

There were no transfers of low-level detainees under Mr. Hagel’s predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, who ran the Pentagon from July 2011 to February 2013. But Mr. Hagel has approved 11 transfers of low-level detainees, plus another who served out a sentence. Just one of those — an Algerian repatriated in March — came this year. Several officials said that more than a dozen detainees are the subject of proposed deals, and that there are serious talks with specific countries about taking in several dozen more.

In an interview with NPR on Thursday, Mr. Obama reiterated his desire to close Guantánamo. “We cannot in good conscience maintain a system of indefinite detention in which individuals who have not been tried and convicted are held permanently in this legal limbo outside of this country,” he said. He made a similar comment in his speech at West Point the day before.

In one respect, Mr. Obama’s negative portrayal of indefinite detention clashed with a key aspect of the approach to closing Guantánamo that he has advocated: He wants to bring several dozen detainees — who are deemed too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release — to a prison inside the United States for continued detention without trial.

Mr. Obama also said he keeps “chipping away” at the problem. /…

More: New York Times

 

The “pressure” he’s under is from Obama, let’s be clear about that. And Susan Rice is right in there. All in an attempt to pander for votes. One might even wonder if the detainees vote or something?

So he’s been hard at work on this release program, demanding reports every 2 weeks, but on the VA he was completely AWOL and ignorant about the corruption or scandal. No wonder, all his attention is on securing the release of terrorists from Gitmo. It is no surprise all his staff are involved, too. ‘All hands on deck’. But the massive VA-gate, not so much.

Concern now is that Obama intends to empty Guatanamo in months. He’s right up to speed and briefed on that. The US is what’s under pressure.

Then, right on the heels of his West Point speech, up pops the trade of one questionable prisoner of the Taliban for 5 upper echelons of the Taliban. (not 3 or 4, but 5) You guessed it, sounds like a deal US couldn’t refuse.

And right on cue, out pops Susan “the video” Rice, talking points in hand, saying Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.” I wonder what the next deal will be, since we are out of our prisoners held by the enemy to negotiate.

Weasel Zippers

He didn’t tell Congress about the Bergdahl trade beforehand, because he knew some members opposed making a deal which had been on the table for years. As we noted, the regime had previously assured everyone that no deal would go through without Congress being informed beforehand. So that was obviously another lie. At what point does Congress take back their Constitutional obligation, which Obama is eviscerating, right and left?

Part of the deal on the table had also been giving the Taliban a million dollars. Did Obama give them the money too?

RightRing | Bullright