Fire Hydrant of Freedom

I wouldn't be at all surprised if REPUBLICAN operatives have given this moderator ammunition to take out Trump.  That's how much he is despised by the Republican establishment.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/muslim-preschool-girl-holds-knife-says-i-want-to-stab-a-jew

Yes, precisely - in the same manner that we knew Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter and got away with it, and the press didn't seem to care.  Hillary was fired by a life-long Democrat from the Watergate investigation committee for lying and trying to subvert rules.  He called her "explicitly dishonest."  That was when she was 27.

As Rush Limbaugh likes to say: "Scandals and illicit affairs are 'resume enhancements' for Democrats in the media's eyes."  Republicans are crucified for the same offenses.
No where is this more evident than in  Bob Woodward's disgusting appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, in which he maintained that notwithstanding the fact that Hillary lied, "there is no criminal activity here, and frankly, she got away with all this and Democrats don't care."  He said this with a wry smile, as if to say "So fuck you, Republican Party.  We have our double-standard, and we'll continue to enforce it.  It matters not a whit that Richard Nixon was forced from office for something that pales in comparison to the Clinton's scandals."

October 24, 2015 - World Net Daily

A major battle in a war over the future of Western civilization has been lost as millions of migrants from the Middle East who largely oppose Judeo-Christian values and have no intention of assimilating flood the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other nations, talk-radio host Michael Savage told his listeners Tuesday.

Savage said he received an email from someone he described as "far smarter than I am" and "farseeing."

"He said to me, 'It's over.'"

Paraphrasing the email, Savage said that what German Chancellor Angela Merkel is "doing to Germany, what the weakling is doing to England, what the socialist is doing to France, what Obama the psychopath is doing to America, will render this country non-existent in less than 50 years."

"And I said to him, 'Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong,'" Savage recalled to his audience.

"But the fact of the matter is, the world is changing in ways you could never have imagined."

Savage later affirmed to a caller that he hasn't given up, noting he presents in his upcoming book, "Government Zero: No Borders, No Language, No Culture," "40 actions to save America," including in the private sector and at the state and local government level.

"We haven't lost the war. The war has just begun," Savage said. "Because 30 million to 40 million Americans are finally awakened to what the psychopath has done to this country, and they want to stop him from doing more. They want to stop him before it's too late."


Savage criticized President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Merkel and other Western leaders with a provocative comparison he recognized could be misunderstood.

They are doing, he said, what Adolf Hitler did in reverse: Instead of invading other countries, they are letting foreigners invade their countries.

"Hitler was a psychopath," Savage said, who "invaded other countries to impose his nation's, let us say, his distorted values and race on other countries."

"What is Obama doing?" Savage asked. "He's invading his own country with people of other races and other cultures and other languages to wipe away the predominant language, the predominant culture of his own nation. He is equally mad.

"Barack Obama is as equally mad as Adolf Hitler in that regard," Savage emphasized.

"Write it down," Savage said, directing his words to establishment media. "Maybe it will make it to CNN: 'Talk-show host says Obama as crazy as Hitler, because he's invading his own country with foreigners.' But they'd better get the whole quote correct. And I don't know if they're capable of it."

Savage said Merkel "is invading Germany with foreigners."

"She's invading her own nation," he said.

Regarding the war for Western Civilization – which was built largely on English common law, Judeo-Christian morality "and the uniquely American principles of individualism and self-reliance" – Savage also referenced the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Some 50 years later, he asked, "Can anyone say that has worked out well?"


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/michael-savage-weve-lost-the-battle/#p8oTDpwCUiVOUMTp.99

The Republican Party leadership is too damn scared of "media backlash" if they attack any Democrat - Hillary and Obama included.  These kind of punch-backs will ONLY occur if a candidate willing to speak plainly gets the Rep. nomination - a.k.a. Trump or Cruz - maybe Carson.  They certainly won't get any backup from the party leadership.  They will have to go it alone and lead by example.  I believe that if the candidate does this - he/she will crush Hillary at the polls.

Hillary: I Didn't Blame Benghazi On The YouTube Video

Four pinocchios for the pantsuit.

October 23, 2015
Matthew Vadum


Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony yesterday before the congressional committee formed to investigate the deadly Benghazi debacle that she allowed to happen and then tried to cover up can be summed up in two words: she lied.

Boiled down: Despite mountains of email evidence to the contrary, Clinton denied that she previously blamed the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that took four American lives on an at-the-time unwatched anti-Islam YouTube video. She denied that left-wing slime merchant and Clinton groupie Sidney Blumenthal was her advisor. She even denied having a computer on her desk at the State Department. (The Washington Post has what appears to be a largely accurate complete transcript of the hearing.)

Hillary wants Americans to believe that her official government emails, sometimes containing top-secret classified information, that she sent around the globe through the insecure, hacker-friendly private email server created to facilitate anticipatory bribes for the would-be U.S. president funneled through the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, don't say what your lying eyes tell you they say.

Republicans made the case yesterday that foreign policy neophyte Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton crony with business interests in Libya, had easy access to Clinton while her own ambassador struggled heroically to reach her. The many requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for extra security measures fell upon deaf ears.

Hillary effectively blamed Stevens for getting himself killed, saying he was supposed to take care of his own security. “We were really counting on Chris to guide us and give us information on the ground,” Clinton said when questioned methodically by Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.).

Clinton denied Blumenthal was an advisor of hers even though he regularly barraged her with emails and their relationship goes back decades. "He was not advising me, and I have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that."

It's still a complete and utter mystery to Clinton why American facilities were targeted in Benghazi, Libya. Really. She said that.

"None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex," she told the Benghazi Select Committee on Thursday. "There were probably a number of different motivations." So it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.

None of this comes as a surprise to Clinton watchers.

New York Times columnist William Safire famously dubbed her "a congenital liar," and that very same left-wing newspaper now admits that “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s explanations about her use of a personal email account as secretary of state have evolved over time.” Evolved? That's one way of putting it.

With the acquiescence -- and at times, complicity -- of a perennially incurious media, Hillary's verbal jousting skills have saved her many times over her decades of political wheeling and dealing. Now that Clinton is campaigning to succeed President Obama, she was much more polished and composed this week than during her previous, now-infamous congressional testimony on the Benghazi saga. That was in 2013 she when she donned Coke bottle eyeglasses chosen perhaps to elicit sympathy related to her reportedly significant health problems.

Her attitude on that day two years ago could be distilled to one word: whatever.

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," she shouted. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

During the televised proceedings yesterday, Clinton, one of America’s most accomplished sociopaths, alternated largely between looking thoughtful or bored. Her pulse probably never got above 85, even at the height of the richly deserved tongue-lashing she received from Republican lawmakers. Like another famous sociopath whose surname she shares, Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.

She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.

Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton's apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn't actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters.

Clinton, who seems able to function just fine with what must be chronic cognitive dissonance, said minutes before Jordan's question:

I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.

Jordan fired back:

We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that's not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don't know what is. And that's certainly what -- and that's certainly how the American people saw it.

While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film," Clinton wrote Egypt's prime minister the night of the attack. "It was a planned attack, not a protest." But in public Clinton continued to blame the "offensive" video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip.

Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said "Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators."

So, in "Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions," he said. In "Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks." The congressman continued:

One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The ambassador didn't report a demonstration. He didn't report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the command center that night on the ground said no protest, no demonstration; two intelligence reports that day, no protest, no demonstration.

The Benghazi attack, Jordan said, began at 3:42 p.m. Eastern time and ended around 11:40 p.m. that evening. He continued:

At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the State Department. It says this, "Mission under attack, armed men, shots fired, explosions heard." No mention of video, no mention of a protest, no mention of a demonstration. But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the ambassador have reported it? Mr. Hicks's response, "Absolutely." For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable ... and if it had been reported, he would have been out the back door within minutes and there was a back gate.

"Everything," Jordan said, "points to a terrorist attack ... and yet five days later Susan Rice goes on five TV shows and she says this, 'Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video,' a statement we all know is false." Rice was "off the reservation," according to State Department experts in the agency's Near Eastern Affairs bureau.

"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary," he said. At 10:08 p.m. while the attack was still in progress, Clinton released a statement insinuating that a video inspired the assault. "Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," it read.

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) tried to drive home the point that interest in the Benghazi saga has long been a bipartisan affair in the U.S. Congress. “The House of Representatives, including some Democrats I hasten to add, asked this committee to write the final accounting of what happened in Benghazi.”

But previous congressional investigations, he added, were a joke.

Gowdy stressed that his committee is the “first committee” to go through more than 50,000 pages of documents, “to thoroughly and individually interview scores of other witnesses, many of them for the first time,” “to demand access to relevant documents from the CIA, the FBI, the Department Of Defense and even the White House,” and “to demand access to the emails to and from Ambassador Chris Stevens.”

He added, “How could an investigation possibly be considered serious without reviewing the emails of the person most knowledgeable about Libya?”

The committee was the “first” and “only” panel “to uncover the fact that Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal email on her own personal server for official business and kept the public record, including e-mails about Benghazi and Libya, in her own custody and control for almost two years after she left office.”

Gowdy impugned the motives of the Accountability Review Board that began studying the Benghazi debacle soon after it happened, noting that Clinton name-dropped the panel an astonishing 70 times in previous congressional testimony. That sham investigation was headed by former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, a useful idiot for Islam who is spending his twilight years crusading against the so-called Islamophobia that infects the ignorant bigots and rubes across the fruited plain who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion.

Noting that the members of the ARB were “hand-picked” by State Department leadership, Gowdy said:

The ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton. The ARB never reviewed her emails. And Secretary Clinton's top adviser was allowed to review and suggest changes to the ARB before the public ever saw it. There's no transcript of ARB interviews. So, it's impossible to know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. Because there's no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the ARB interviews with any particularity at all.

The ARB’s work is “not independent” and not an example of accountability, he said. It is “not a serious investigation.” And if “previous congressional investigations were really serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens' emails?” and “why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses, including agents on the ground who experienced the attacks firsthand?”

On the eve of the Thursday hearing, Democratic members of the Select Committee released a so-called full transcript from an official interview with Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and Chief of Staff to Clinton at the Department of State. Democrats claimed they acted at "to correct the public record after numerous out-of-context and misleading Republican leaks.” Democrats must have calculated that the testimony of a longtime Clinton crony would somehow have an exculpatory effect from which her presidential campaign would benefit.

But not all of the Democratic Party's press release writers -- outside the mainstream media, that is -- are gifted, antisocial, Alinskyite liars of Hillary's caliber. Clinton usually can at least keep the lies more or less straight in her head, and like her husband, treats parsing as bloodsport, while engaging in at times brutally effective misdirection and superficially plausible semantic contortions.

The press release accompanying the 307-page document boasts that it is a “full transcript of the Select Committee’s interview with former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills,” but is it really? It contradicts itself a few sentences later, describing the document as mere “excerpts of Ranking Member Cummings questioning Ms. Mills[.]” This wording suggests that only one lawmaker – a grandstanding, media-savvy, hyper-partisan Democrat on a Republican-controlled panel – questioned Mills at the hearing. It is very hard to believe not even one Republican wanted to take a shot at Mills.

But it is much easier to believe that Democratic congressional staffers aimed to score political points for releasing Mills's entire testimony when it reality they cherry-picked only the parts that put Clinton in the most favorable light.

The press release claims that the transcript provides “significant evidence that Secretary Clinton was deeply engaged during and after the attacks and took action to ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel, even as intelligence assessments of the attacks changed more than once during this period.”

“Republicans are spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan campaign to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) was quoted as saying.

No doubt he was referring to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Ca.) uber-gaffe earlier this month that ended his run to replace outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio). Many drew an inference from McCarthy’s comments that congressional Republicans were trying to torpedo Clinton’s presidential campaign at the expense of the truth. "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable," McCarthy told Sean Hannity. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."

In the end, conservative commentator Erick Erickson shrugged, calling the Benghazi hearing "a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection."

He continued: "Mrs. Clinton is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions." Although she has gotten flustered under questioning, such incidents will "make her a martyr to her own side ... Democratic voters are not going to reject Mrs. Clinton even if she were to admit that she had flown to Benghazi and joined Al Qaeda in the attack."

Given the Hillary mania that grips so much of the Democratic Party and some leftists' positively morbid craving to put a woman in the Oval Office at all costs, Erickson may have a bit of a point.

And if Republican congressional leadership continues with the same old lackadaisical, self-sabotaging approach in which the white flag is waved before the first shot has been fired, the Benghazi committee won't accomplish much apart from generating revenue for fundraising consultants on both sides of the aisle.

The disturbing likelihood that Hillary Clinton will get away with her crimes remains, regardless of how noble, inspiring, and determined to get at the truth Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy may be.

I might point out that Brian Wesbury tries to use the objections this author refutes to argue the U.S. government is not bankrupt. 
He is well-aware of these facts, and in my view is a liar working to deceive the public and serve his own interests.

Yes, The U.S. government Really Is Bankrupt - Here’s Proof...

Monday, 19 October 2015 05:54    Simon Black


I’ve long-stated that the government of the United States is completely insolvent.

And that is 100% true statement.

The government’s own numbers show that official liabilities, including debt held by the public and federal retirement benefits, total $20.7 trillion.

Yet the government’s assets, including the value of the entire federal highway system, the national parks, cash balances, etc. totals just over $3 trillion.

In total, their ‘net worth’ is NEGATIVE $17.7 TRILLION… a level that completely dwarfs the housing crisis.

If you include the government’s own estimates of the Social Security shortfall, this number declines to NEGATIVE $60 TRILLION.

And it gets worse every year.

Now, is this balance sheet an accurate reflection of reality? Do we really trust the bean counters to tell us what the United States of America is really worth?

Surely there must be significant intrinsic value to the United States military, for example.

Or the US government’s ability to collect taxes.

Or what about the value of all the natural resources underground?

These must all be HUGELY positive and would swing the government’s net worth back in the right direction.

Guess again.

The US military is certainly one of the best-trained and most effective forces in history.

But it’s difficult to place a substantial value on it when the government can no longer afford to use it.

And even when they do use it, the overall cost of doing so is negative.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the taxpayers $4 trillion. But where’s the financial benefit?

Aside from a few defense contractors profiting handsomely, the Chinese got most of the oil.

ISIS ended up with much of Iraq. And Iran made out like a bandit, with the US government taking out its most threatening neighbors free of charge.

Mission accomplished.

Bottom line, even the best asset in the world can end up being a big liability if it’s used improperly.

So what about the tax authority of the US government? If Uncle Sam can collect $3 trillion in tax revenue each year, surely that must count as a huge asset.

And it absolutely is. If you conduct a Present Value calculation of the future tax revenue of the US government discounted by the official 2% rate of inflation, the US government’s ability to tax its citizens is ‘worth’ $150 TRILLION.

But… if you’re going to count the government’s tax authority as an asset, you have to be intellectually honest and consider the expenses as liabilities.

Think about it: yes, the government brings in tax revenue every single year. But for nearly every year over the last seventy years, they’ve spent far more money to deliver on the promises they’ve made to their citizens.

Those promises are liabilities. And given the government’s spending history since the end of World War II, the liabilities far exceed the tax authority asset.

More importantly, though, isn’t it a little bit scary to consider that the government’s #1 asset is its ability to steal money from you?

Or that the only way the government can make its liabilities go away is by defaulting on the promises it has made to its citizens?

That’s their only way out: steal from you, and default on you.

Trump: Revoke Passports of those who leave to fight for ISIS, Look at closing some mosques:



by IAN HANCHETT20 Oct 20154,709
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated he would revoke passports from people who go overseas to fight for ISIS and “You’re going to have to certainly look at” closing mosques “if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear” on Tuesday’s “Varney & Co” on the Fox Business Network.

Trump [relevant remarks in first video] re-iterated his prior claim about George W. Bush and September 11th, he did say that former President Bill Clinton, along with Bush holds responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He added, “Now, was Clinton possibly, also guilty? Yeah, yeah sure. He should have maybe been more vigilant. And he actually said he knew about Osama bin Laden. I knew about Osama bin Laden, because I wrote about him in my book, I think 19 months before the World Trade Center came down.”

He was also asked [relevant remarks begin in the second video] “Now, in the UK, in Britain, they’ve obviously got a terror problem. They’ve got a lot of youngsters going over to fight for ISIS, about — just under 1,000 are going over there, and they’ve got a whole new series of proposals to deal with this, including withdrawal of passports from some of these people who’ve gone –.”

Trump responded, “Absolutely good, good.”

After host Stuart Varney continued, “And closing some mosques, would you do the same thing in America.” Trump answered, “I would do that. Absolutely. I think it’s great.”

When asked if you could close a mosque, Trump then stated, “Well, I don’t know. I mean, I haven’t heard about the closing of the mosque. It depends, if the mosque is, you know, loaded for bear, I don’t know. You’re going to have to certainly look at it. But I can tell you one thing ,if somebody goes over and they want to fight for ISIS, they wouldn’t be coming back.”

Trump responded to a question about Democratic proposals for paid family leave with, “Well, it’s something that’s being discussed. I think we have to keep our country very competitive, so, you have to be careful of it, but certainly there are a lot of people discussing it.” Regarding a $15 an hour minimum wage, he said, “We have to keep our similar answer. You have to keep our country competitive. One of the reasons companies are leaving is because salaries are too high.”

When asked if he would pledge to have no new taxes, Trump said he could, but wouldn’t on the show, and “could certainly think about doing that. Because my taxes, and under my plan, as you know, I’m reducing taxes, I think more than any other candidate, by far.” He continued that this was no new taxes is “where my mindset is.”

He also added that he wasn’t a “big fan” of the minimum wage proposal, and expressed disagreement with free universal pre-K. He further expressed support for repealing Dodd-Frank and building the Keystone XL Pipeline while stating he opposes breaking up big banks.

Precisely, GM.

Sooner or later, western civilization is going to be forced into acknowledging that Islam is not simply a religion - certainly NOT in the sense that our Founding Fathers intended when they conceived of the concept of "freedom of religion."  Islam is much MORE than a religion - it in fact could be said to be a totalitarian, repressive ideology of world domination with a "god" tacked-on explicitly for the purpose of using "freedom of religion" as subterfuge.  Islam is nothing more nor less than Naziism with a supreme being added to the ideology.  As such, it is antagonistic and antithetical to our western values.  It explicitly denies our foundational concept of human rights.

Such a belief system does not deserve, in fact - MUST NOT BE GIVEN - protected status as a "religion" if our civilization is to be preserved.

Panicked establishment gets ready for war against Trump

By BYRON YORK (@BYRONYORK) • 10/19/15 6:02 PM

This weekend was an inflection point in the Republican presidential race — a moment in which some significant part of the GOP establishment came out of denial and realized Donald Trump might well become their party's nominee.
"The Republican establishment, for the first time, is saying, off the record, this guy can win," noted Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Monday morning. "I've heard that from everybody. I don't hear anybody saying he can't win the nomination anymore."

That doesn't mean Republicans have made their peace with a Trump victory. On the contrary — some are preparing to do whatever it takes to bring him down. Which could lead to an extraordinary scenario in which GOP stalwarts go to war to destroy their own party's likely nominee

"Massive resistance," was the answer. "He's not a conservative."

Insiders have watched as Trump defied what many believed were immutable laws of the political universe. First they thought Trump wouldn't run. Then they thought voters wouldn't take a reality-TV star seriously. Then they thought gaffes would kill Trump as they had other candidates. None of that turned out as expected.

But there is one belief Trump has not yet tested, and that is the political insiders' unshakeable faith that negative ads work.

"I don't think Trump can withstand 10,000 points of smart negative in Iowa and New Hampshire," says one veteran Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. "It would force him to spend money. That's when this starts to get real for him." ("Points" refers to gross ratings points, a way of measuring TV ad buys; 10,000 points would be a really big buy, meaning the average viewer would see an anti-Trump ad many, many times.)

There is no central anti-Trump conspiracy. But one group that would like to play a leading role in taking him down is the Club for Growth. In September, the Club ran two ads against Trump in Iowa — 2,000 points — with one arguing that Trump is not a true conservative and the other hitting Trump for his support of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision on eminent domain.

McIntosh is looking for donors to fund an anti-Trump campaign that would hit hard in the month before voting begins. It might be a Club for Growth production, or it might be a combination of efforts. "There is no other group that has decided to do it," says McIntosh. "There are a large number of donors and political activists who want to do it."

The triggers for the anti-Trump onslaught would likely be: 1) if next month arrives with Trump still in the lead, and 2) if Trump begins airing his own ads. "Once that starts, you'll see a lot of people saying we've waited long enough," notes McIntosh.

While that is going on, officials at the Republican National Committee vow to stay out of things. Asked what role the RNC might play in any movement against Trump, strategist and spokesman Sean Spicer said, "None. None. Zero. It is up to Republican voters to decide who our nominee is, not the RNC." Indeed, other sources inside the RNC say chairman Reince Priebus has stressed to staff that they must stay out of candidate fights.

The anti-Trump campaign will face several challenges. The biggest is the voters who support Trump. Conservative groups like the Club believe they can convince those voters that Trump is not a true conservative. Perhaps they can. But what if a large number of his voters are not wed to conservative orthodoxy as defined by Washington-based organizations?

The other problem is Trump himself. If he decides to spend serious money on his campaign — and some GOP veterans still aren't convinced he will — he can launch a serious counterpunch to any anti-Trump campaign.

And then there is the fact that Trump is improving as a candidate. Just look at Sunday's interview on "Fox News Sunday" in which he was sharp, focused, and forceful. A talented candidate who does something over and over again will get better at it. Trump is better than he was just a month ago, which is not good news for his opponents.

Some anti-Trump Republicans still harbor hope Trump will begin to fade all by himself. Yes, Trump, who has been atop the RealClearPolitics average of national polls for three months straight, has outlasted the various flavor-of-the-months from the 2012 GOP race. But opponents point out that Rudy Giuliani led the poll average for an incredibly long time four years earlier — from February 2007 to January 2008 — before sinking when voting actually began. Their hope is the same will happen to Trump.

It could. But a closer look at the 2007-2008 polls shows that Giuliani was almost always trailing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. And of course, ignoring the early states killed his candidacy. Trump, on the other hand, is on top in those three states, plus Nevada — all the states that will vote first in February. His organization is growing. He is hiring smart operatives. The Giuliani analogy doesn't apply.

Which makes it more likely that the anti-Trump forces will ultimately have to take it on themselves to go on the attack. Their core belief is that Trump cannot withstand a long and withering bombardment of negative ads. But core beliefs have been cast aside repeatedly in this race. That might happen again.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/18/flashback-jeb-bush-admitted-leaky-immigration-led-911/

I think a Trump-Carson ticket would be excellent.  Witness the fact that multiple black pastors in Atlanta of all places - have come out strongly in support of Trump.  This simply doesn't normally happen.  Trump IS reaching into traditionally non-Republican groups and garnering support.  Carson I think, understands the Islamic threat and ideology better than Trump, and this is important.  Trump needs to educate himself on Islam and sharia law.  He appears to be ignorant of the fact that both are diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. dollar is going to lose its status as the world's reserve currency within 12 months.  A wise person is transferring his cash-based assets into physical gold and silver NOW.

HISPANICS WON'T VOTE GOP

Why pandering to Latinos is a losing proposition for Republicans.

October 15, 2015  Ann Coulter


At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders bragged about getting a "D-minus" from the National Rifle Association (which was also Lincoln Chafee's GPA in high school).

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton attacked Sanders for having voted against an insane bill that would have held gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable for the behavior of anyone who uses one of their guns in a crime.

I would be open to such a law -- but only after we pass a law holding psychiatrists liable for crimes committed by their patients; lawyers for crimes committed by their clients; and sanctuary cities for crimes committed by the illegal immigrants they released in violation of federal law.

Gun dealers are a lot more careful about whom they sell guns to than psychiatrists, lawyers and sanctuary cities are about the criminals they loose on the public.

In several recent mass shootings, the psycho was at least temporarily delayed when gun shops refused to sell him guns -- such as the Colorado gun range owner who put his whole staff on red alert in case James Holmes ever wandered in, simply on the basis of having heard Holmes' strange voicemail message.

As Sanders himself once said, holding gun sellers liable for the crimes of their customers would be like holding "a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." (As happened to Lincoln Chafee.)

To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, "It's time the entire country stood up against the NRA."

Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he'd "take another look" at the gun bill.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which "enemy" he was proudest of, O'Malley said: "The NRA." (Loud applause -- especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of Democrats own firearms -- or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg.

But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

Why don't Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats' strategy for themselves.

I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the "enemies" question: "La Raza."

Republicans don't need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group.

We just have to protect Americans first -- American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants . Most voters don't think it's an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals -- and has soared to the top of the polls.

The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won't look any different on election night. Voting machines don't register angry glints in people's eyes.

On the other hand, by driving up the white vote -- to say nothing of the black vote -- we will see a difference in the Republicans' box score on election night.

The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that -- and he still lost the Hispanic vote.

It's crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won't give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.

I haven't seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it's a lot more than 8.4 percent.

Democrats know not to fritter time on constituencies they can't win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger -- but still losing -- percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.

You've been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote.

Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It's honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.

ISRAELI PUTS PORK ON DEAD TERRORIST'S BODY, DENYING HIM HIS VIRGINS

If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. "

October 13, 2015  Daniel Greenfield



Muslims murder non-Muslims confident that if they die, they'll get access to "paradise" and 72 virgins to rape in the hereafter. Muslim clerics make even more extravagant promises, claiming that dead killers will receive all sorts of added benefits. Muslims who have killed (other Muslims) or committed adultery will still get an express ticket to paradise if they die while killing non-Muslims.

As long as he doesn't come into contact with a pig.

There's a long history of people fighting Muslim Jihadis by wrapping their Jihadis in pigskin or shooting them with lard bullets. US soldiers did it not all that long ago in the Philippines. While the belief that pork on a corpse can stop someone from going to heaven is nonsense... so is the underlying belief that killing non-Muslims atones for all sins. And if it deters Muslims, it's a plus. And if it doesn't, it still shows them that people aren't as helpless in the face of their racist violence as their governments often appear to be.

This latest video takes place in Israel where, after a series of bloody terrorist attacks, a dead terrorist had pork dumped on his face by a local.

Kiryat Arba resident has lit the internet on fire over the weekend, after footage surfaced of him placing what he says is a piece of pork on the body of a dead terrorist killed by Israel Police during an attack on Israeli civiilians Friday.

In the video, Magen David Adom (MDA) medics can be seen performing resuscitation on the terrorist. In the interim, the resident succeeds in getting close to the body and placing the piece of meat upon it, sarcastically telling the terrorist to "enjoy" it.

Even the acting mayor of Kiryat Arba, Yisrael Bramson, backed the radical act.

"I was there when it happened," he said. "I think this is a very basic and legitimate response."

"I do not condemn what happened," he added. "They do not need to get their bodies back, you have to throw them into the sea at best."

"The terrorist came to slaughter the Jews and we had to treat him like he meant to treat us."

Bramson added. "The day before I was in the area and saw the intestines of the Jewish boy in a tent of Hazon David, I prefer this to that."

This had been previously done a decade ago.

Residents at Gush Katif, in the Gaza Strip, were the first to claim to have defiled the body of a dead Palestinian with "pigskin and lard". Residents of Efrat, a Jewish settlement near Bethlehem, said they did the same to a Palestinian building worker who tried to blow up their supermarket on Friday, but was shot dead before most of the explosives detonated.

Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, defended the practice: "If burial in pigskin will deter suicide bombers, then it is incumbent on us to do this. We should do anything to save life."

Indeed. Here's a clip from a movie about the US fight against the Moro Jihadists in the Philippines and the effect of pigskin on morale.

MUSLIM MURDERS POLICE OFFICIAL, AUTHORITIES RUSH TO DEFEND…ISLAM

Just another day in the suicidal West.

October 6, 2015  Robert Spencer    


Last week a fifteen-year-old Muslim, Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad, went to a police station in New South Wales and shot dead a civilian police employee, Curtis Cheng. After the murder, the young murderer was, according to an eyewitness, “dancing joyously.” Outside the station, he waved his gun at police and screamed “Allahu akbar” at them before he was killed in the ensuing gunfight.

In the wake of this jihad murder, Australian officials have behaved in an utterly predictable manner – one that we have seen many, many times before in Western countries, and that we will doubtless see many more times as well: they rushed to profess ignorance of the killer’s motives and above all, to defend Islam.

None of these officials are Muslims. They have all just been thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that to look too closely at the motivating ideology behind murders like that of Curtis Cheng would be “hateful” and “bigoted.”

And so Pat Gooley from the New South Wales Police Association said: “We are used to being under threat. What’s really concerning police is there’s no rhyme or reason to these current terror threats.”

No rhyme or reason? Have you ever heard of jihad, Mr. Gooley? Evidently not.

Other police officials, meanwhile, made themselves busy ensuring that Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad’s jihad murder doesn’t lead anyone to think there is anything amiss with the Muslim community. The murder “was doubly shocking because it was perpetrated by a 15-year-old boy and it underlines the importance of families, communities, leaders being very aware of whether young people are becoming radicalised,” said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, complacently assuming that Muslim “families, communities, leaders” in Australia are against this “radicalization” — but where is the evidence of that?

Turnbull also said: “We must not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community with the actions of what is, in truth, a very, very small percentage of violent extremist individuals. The Muslim community are our absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of violent extremism.”

When has the Muslim community in Australia or elsewhere in the West genuinely acted like partners in combating this type of violent extremism? And we must indeed not vilify or blame the entire Muslim community, but can we not call upon them to institute honest, transparent and inspectable programs in mosques and Islamic schools that teach against this understanding of Islam that they ostensibly reject and oppose?

Meanwhile, opposition leader Bill Shorten said: “Our thoughts are also with the family of the alleged young perpetrator. Like all Australians, they will be struggling to comprehend how someone so young could be part of such a terrible crime.” How does he know his family wasn’t involved? Has he carried out an investigation? He assumes that the family taught young Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad the true, peaceful Islam, but that he was then “radicalized on the Internet” — but why was his family’s true, peaceful Islam not able to withstand the challenge from the twisted, hijacked Internet Islam?

New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said that he and others were trying to understand “how someone so young could commit such a hideous crime.” He might wish to look into Islam’s teachings about jihad, but he won’t. He also said: “We cannot let actions such as this divide us. We cannot let hate overtake us. We have to come together and I’m sure that’s what we’ll see from this city and state.”

Indeed, we must not let hate overtake us, as it overtook Curtis Cheng. But can we do that by refusing to examine the ideology that led to his murder? By “hate,” Baird means “honest investigation into the texts and teachings of Islam that incite attacks such as this one, and the prevalence of such teachings in the Muslim community.”

And that’s the problem: every time there is another jihad attack or foiled jihad plot in the free world, our leaders just circle the wagons, trot out their Religion-of-Peace cliches again, warn us against “Islamophobia,” and refuse to look into the genuine root causes of the problem.

It’s a sure-fire path to societal suicide.

ROGER STONE: ‘PETS KILLED, TIRES SLASHED, LATE NIGHT PHONE CALLS’ TO SILENCE BILL CLINTON’S SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS

by ROBERT WILDE  27 Sep 2015

Long time political operative and strategist Roger Stone appeared on Breitbart News Sunday, broadcast on SiriusXM patriot radio channel 125, with Breitbart’s senior investigative political reporter Matt Boyle.

Stone who cut his political teeth working for Richard Nixon’s infamous Committee to Re-elect the President, later campaigned for Ronald Reagan, and until recently worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, shared a few nuggets from his new book The Clintons’ War on Women, which he co-wrote with Robert Morrow.

Stone told Boyle that Hillary Clinton promoting herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy. The author reminded Breitbart News Sunday listeners that as recently as last week Hillary spoke about the rape issue and that raped victims should be believed.

“Unfortunately, this doesn’t match her own history,” Stone pointed out. “She has been an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.”

Stone stated that there were “many, many others who were not known publicly.” He charges that the main stream media is protective of the Clintons and supressed the other incidents to the public.

In The Clintons’ War on Women, Stone told Boyle that “We have laid out Hillary’s real record on women.”

Stone accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically and that Hillary came to his rescue and hired detectives, to gather information on the women. She then used the information to “run a terror campaign to intimidate Bill’s victims into silence.”

According to Stone, Hillary’s motivation is clear. She does not want  anything to get in the way of growing their power and wealth.

Stone added that the book includes not only the serial rapes committed by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s cover up, but the “horiffic things” that were done to his victims. “Pets Killed. Tires slashed. Windshields Smashed in and bullets left in the front seat of cars. Late night phone calls: We know where you’re children go to school,” all of these threats were part of the Clintons intimidation tactics.

“This is very sick stuff.  It is the psychological abuse of women and Hillary is responsible for it. Women voters need to know her real record,” the political firebrand asserted.

Ironically, Stone observes, that Hillary advocates for equal pay, but that “in no job where she was the boss did women make as much as the men.”

“Hillary is really not a friend to women,” he insists. “That is really what this book is about.”

The Worst Part Is Central Bankers Know Exactly What They Are Doing

Wednesday, 23 September 2015 Brandon Smith


The best position for a tyrant or tyrants to be in, at least while consolidating power, is tyranny by proxy. That is to say, the most dangerous tyrants are those the people do not recognize: the tyrants who hide behind scarecrows and puppets and faceless organizations. The worst position for the common citizen to be in is a false sense of security and understanding, operating on the assumption that tyrants do not exist or that potential tyrants are really just greedy fools acting independently from one another.

Sadly, there are a great many people today who hold naïve notions that our sociopolitical dynamic is driven by random chaos, greed and fear. I’m sorry to say that this is simply not so, and anyone who believes such nonsense is doomed to be victimized by the tides of history over and over again.

There is nothing random or coincidental about our political systems or economic structures. There are no isolated tyrants and high-level criminals functioning solely on greed and ignorance. And while there is certainly chaos, this chaos is invariably engineered, not accidental. These crisis events are created by people who often refer to themselves as “globalists” or “internationalists,” and their goals are rather obvious and sometimes openly admitted: at the top of their list is the complete centralization of government and economic power that is then ACCEPTED by the people as preferable. They hope to attain this goal primarily through the exploitation of puppet politicians around the world as well as the use of pervasive banking institutions as weapons of mass fiscal destruction.

Their strategic history is awash in wars and financial disasters, and not because they are incompetent. They are evil, not stupid.

By extension, perhaps the most dangerous lie circulating today is that central banks are chaotic operations run by intellectual idiots who have no clue what they are doing. This is nonsense. While the ideological cultism of elitism and globalism is ignorant and monstrous at its core, these people function rather successfully through highly organized collusion. Their principles are subhuman, but their strategies are invasive and intelligent.

That’s right; there is a conspiracy afoot, and this conspiracy requires created destruction as cover and concealment. Central banks and the private bankers who run them work together regardless of national affiliations to achieve certain objectives, and they all serve a greater agenda. If you would like to learn more about the details behind what motivates globalists, at least in the financial sense, read my article 'The Economic Endgame Explained.'

Many people, including insiders, have written extensively about central banks and their true intentions to centralize and rule the masses through manipulation, if not direct political domination. I think Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, presents the reality of our situation quite clearly in his book “Tragedy And Hope”:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

This "world system of financial control" that Quigley speaks of has not yet been achieved, but the globalists have been working tirelessly towards such a goal.  The plan for a single global currency system and a single global economic authority is outlined rather blatantly in an article published in the Rothschild owned 'The Economist' entitled 'Get Ready For A Global Currency By 2018'.  This article was written in 1988, and much of the process of globalization it describes is already well underway.  It is a plan that is at least decades in the making.  Again, it is foolhardy to assume central banks and international bankers are a bunch of clumsy Mr. Magoos unwittingly driving our economy off a cliff; they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Being the clever tyrants that they are, the members of the central banking cult hope you are too stupid or too biased to grasp the concept of conspiracy. They prefer that you see them as bumbling idiots, as children who found their father’s shotgun or who like to play with matches because in your assumptions and underestimations they find safety. If you cannot identify the agenda, you can do nothing to interfere with the agenda.

I have found that the false notion of central bank impotence is growing in popularity lately, certainly in light of the recent Fed decision to delay an interest rate hike in September. With that particular event in mind, let’s explore what is really going on and why the central banks are far more dangerous and deliberate than people are giving them credit for.

The argument that the Federal Reserve is now “between a rock and a hard place” keeps popping up in alternative media circles lately, but I find this depiction to be inaccurate. It presumes that the Federal Reserve "wants"  to save the U.S. economy or at least wants to maintain our status quo as the “golden goose.” This is not the case.  America is not the golden goose.  In truth, the Fed is exactly where it wants to be; and it is the American people who are trapped economically rather than the bankers.

Take, for instance, the original Fed push for the taper of quantitative easing; why did the Fed pursue this in the first place? QE and zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) are the two pillars holding up U.S. equities markets and U.S. bonds. No one in the mainstream was demanding that the Fed enact taper measures. And when the Fed more publicly introduced the potential for such measures in the fall of 2013, no one believed it would actually follow through. Why? Because removing a primary support pillar from under the “golden goose” seemed incomprehensible to them.

In September of that year, I argued that the Fed would indeed taper QE. And, in my article “Is The Fed Ready To Cut America’s Fiat Life Support?” I gave my reasons why. In short, I felt the Fed was preparing for the final collapse of our economic system and the taper acted as a kind of control valve, making a path for the next leg down without immediate destabilization. I also argued that all stimulus measures have a shelf life, and the shelf life for all QE and ZIRP is quickly coming to an end. They no longer serve a purpose except to marginally slow the collapse of certain sectors, so the Fed is systematically dismantling them.

I received numerous emails, some civil and some hostile, as to why I was crazy to think the Fed would ever end QE. I knew the taper would be instituted because I was willing to accept the real motivation of central banks, which is to undermine and destroy economies within a particular time frame, not secure economies or kick the can indefinitely. In light of this, the taper made sense. One great pillar is gone, and now only ZIRP remains.

After a couple of meetings and preplanned delays, the Fed did indeed follow through with the taper in December of that year. In response, energy markets essentially imploded and stocks became steadily more volatile over the course of 2014, leading to a near 10% drop in early fall followed by foreign QE efforts and false hints of QE4 by Fed officials as central banks slowed the crisis to an easier to manage pace while easing the investment world into the idea of reduced stimulus policies and reduced living standards; what some call the "new normal".

I have held that the Fed is likely following the same exact model with ZIRP, delaying through the fall only to remove the final pillar in December.

For now, the Fed is being portrayed as incompetent with markets behaving erratically as investors lose faith in their high priests. This is exactly what the bankers that control the Fed prefer. Better to be seen as incompetent than to be seen as deliberately insidious. And who knows, maybe a convenient disaster event in the meantime such as a terrorist attack or war (Syria) could be used to draw attention away from the bankers completely.

Strangely, Bloomberg seems to agree (at least in part) with my view that the taper model is being copied for use in the rate hike theater and that a hike is coming in December.

Meanwhile, some Federal Reserve officials once again insinuate that a hike will be implemented by the end of the year while others hint at the opposite.

Other mainstream sources are stating the contrary, with Pimco arguing that there will be no Fed rate hike until 2016.  Of course, Pimco made a similar claim back in 2013 against any chance of a QE taper.  They were wrong, or, they were deliberately misleading investors.

Goldman Sachs is also redrafting their predictions and indicating that a Fed rate hike will not come until mid-2016. With evidence indicating that Goldman Sachs holds considerable influence over Fed policy (such as exposed private meetings on policy between Fed officials and banking CEO's), one might argue that whatever they “predict” for the rate hike will ultimately happen. However, I would point out that if Goldman Sachs is indeed on the inside of Fed policy making, then they are often prone to lying about it or hiding it.

During the taper fiasco in 2013, Goldman Sachs first claimed that the Fed would taper in September. They lost billions of dollars on bad currency bets as the Fed delayed.

Then, Goldman Sachs argued that there would be no taper in December of that year; and they were proven to be wrong (or disingenuous) once again.

Today, with the interest rate fiasco, Goldman Sachs claimed a Fed rate hike would likely take place in September. They were wrong. Now, once again, they are claiming no rate hike until next year.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

How could an elitist-run bank with proven inside connections to the Federal Reserve be so wrong so often about Fed policy changes? Well, losing a billion dollars here and there is not a very big deal to Goldman Sachs. I believe they are far more interested in misleading investors and keeping the public off guard, and are willing to sacrifice some nominal profits in the process. Remember, these are the same guys who conned nations like Greece into buying toxic derivatives that Goldman was simultaneously betting against!

The relationship between international banks like Goldman Sachs and central banks like the Federal Reserve is best summed up in yet another Carroll Quigley quote from “Tragedy And Hope”:

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."

Goldman Sachs and other major banks act in concert with the Fed (or even dictate Fed actions) in conditioning public psychology as much as they manipulate finance. First and foremost, globalists require confusion. Confusion is power.  What better way to confuse and mislead the investment world than to place bad bets on Fed policy changes?

Heading into the end of 2015, we are only going to be faced with ever mounting mixed messages and confusion from the mainstream media, international banks and central banks. It is important to always remember, though, that this is by design. A common motto of the elite is “order out of chaos,” or “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Think critically about why the Fed has chosen to push forward with earth-shaking policy changes this year that no one asked for. What does it have to gain? And realize that if the real goal of the Fed is instability, then it has much to gain through its recent and seemingly insane actions.

 

Donald Amongst the Eggheads

They don’t like him for some strange reason.

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. – 9.23.15 - The American Spectator.

Hold on to your toupees, the conservative intellectuals are in a stew.

One candidate in the race for the Republican presidential nomination is not playing by the rules. He is rude and crude and having a very good time of it. Oh, and by the way, he is leading the field by a lot. He has 29 percent of the vote among Republicans, according to an NBC online survey the other day. His next closest opponent is Dr. Ben Carson with 14 percent and after that Carly Fiorina with 11 percent. Both, incidentally, are new to politics as is the target of the conservative intellectuals’ wrath, Donald Trump. Interestingly the intellectuals are markedly out of touch with the conservative rank and file.

Trump’s rambunctious presence in the race is responsible for a miracle. The conservative intellectuals have finally thrown in with the left intellectuals. Both disrelish Trump, and, if truth be known, they are not very happy with Carson or Fiorina, who with Trump account for over 50 percent of the Republican vote. A year ago these three would be sitting in the politicians’ audience.

Meanwhile Trump is flying around the country having a great time discomfiting the intellectuals and gathering abundant support from conservative voters, independents, and even from the left. How is this happening? Well, Trump speaks boldly. He has taken the measure of the political class and finds it wanting. And he has identified issues that most of the other candidates are too timid to tackle. He is an optimist. Like Ronald Reagan he sees America as a shining city on a hill, and it does not make him wince. My guess is that Trump likes movies starring John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. He is a regular American.

The think tank eggheads bring to politics neatly tailored plans to address such problems as income distribution or the immigration conundrum. Trump clarifies issues. To income distribution he brings plans for economic growth and jobs. To the immigration question he identifies the problem. It is illegal immigration, and the illegals leap to supply him with evidence by murdering and raping the citizenry. Trump’s solution is to build a wall and to return the illegals. As for those immigrants who arrived here legally, they can continue to prosper. There is evidence the legals approve.

Aside from identifying and clarifying issues, Trump spots as issues matters that the establishment politicians hardly notice, for instance, political correctness. Somehow he has perceived that political correctness rankles average Americans. It angers them when political correctness intrudes into school curricula, political discourse, and how government treats its citizens. When Trump speaks out against it, the ordinary American discovers that Trump is their kind of guy. He is also their kind of guy when he speaks out against tax loopholes and for fairness in the tax code. Trump has his finger on the pulse of average Americans. His touch for markets that has made him billions he applies to finding constituencies, and it appears he has been brilliant at finding constituencies or, as he says, “The Silent Majority.” He, and for that matter the other late arrivals to politics Carson and Fiorina, have caused anxiety in the establishments of both parties, to say nothing of the intellectuals.

How is it that Trump anticipates the issues better than the establishment politicians? Well, despite his fortune, Trump is a regular American. I think a lot of Americans recognize this. The best of America is like Trump, optimistic, self-confident, energetic, can-do, and they enjoy a good laugh. Trump has made running for political office fun again, much as Ronald Reagan made running for office fun again after the lugubrious Jimmy Carter. Reagan spoke of “Morning in America.” Trump has trademarked “Make America Great Again.”

How is Trump going to do when the voting begins? I can see him getting at a minimum 25 percent of the vote going into the convention, maybe more. It depends on his ability to develop an organization to get out the vote, his continued anticipation of issues, and his continued ability to address them boldly. If he succeeds, as I think he will, he will have a strong hand to play in the convention. I suspect his strongest opponent will be Jeb Bush, but Carson and Fiorina will also be candidates to reckon with. Then the players will sit down and cut a deal, but remember they will be dealing with the billionaire who wrote The Art of the Deal. I am looking forward to an exciting summer in 2016.

The Worst Part Is Central Bankers Know Exactly What They Are Doing

Wednesday, 23 September 2015    Brandon Smith


The best position for a tyrant or tyrants to be in, at least while consolidating power, is tyranny by proxy. That is to say, the most dangerous tyrants are those the people do not recognize: the tyrants who hide behind scarecrows and puppets and faceless organizations. The worst position for the common citizen to be in is a false sense of security and understanding, operating on the assumption that tyrants do not exist or that potential tyrants are really just greedy fools acting independently from one another.

Sadly, there are a great many people today who hold naïve notions that our sociopolitical dynamic is driven by random chaos, greed and fear. I’m sorry to say that this is simply not so, and anyone who believes such nonsense is doomed to be victimized by the tides of history over and over again.

There is nothing random or coincidental about our political systems or economic structures. There are no isolated tyrants and high-level criminals functioning solely on greed and ignorance. And while there is certainly chaos, this chaos is invariably engineered, not accidental. These crisis events are created by people who often refer to themselves as “globalists” or “internationalists,” and their goals are rather obvious and sometimes openly admitted: at the top of their list is the complete centralization of government and economic power that is then ACCEPTED by the people as preferable. They hope to attain this goal primarily through the exploitation of puppet politicians around the world as well as the use of pervasive banking institutions as weapons of mass fiscal destruction.

Their strategic history is awash in wars and financial disasters, and not because they are incompetent. They are evil, not stupid.

By extension, perhaps the most dangerous lie circulating today is that central banks are chaotic operations run by intellectual idiots who have no clue what they are doing. This is nonsense. While the ideological cultism of elitism and globalism is ignorant and monstrous at its core, these people function rather successfully through highly organized collusion. Their principles are subhuman, but their strategies are invasive and intelligent.

That’s right; there is a conspiracy afoot, and this conspiracy requires created destruction as cover and concealment. Central banks and the private bankers who run them work together regardless of national affiliations to achieve certain objectives, and they all serve a greater agenda. If you would like to learn more about the details behind what motivates globalists, at least in the financial sense, read my article 'The Economic Endgame Explained.'

Many people, including insiders, have written extensively about central banks and their true intentions to centralize and rule the masses through manipulation, if not direct political domination. I think Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, presents the reality of our situation quite clearly in his book “Tragedy And Hope”:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

This "world system of financial control" that Quigley speaks of has not yet been achieved, but the globalists have been working tirelessly towards such a goal.  The plan for a single global currency system and a single global economic authority is outlined rather blatantly in an article published in the Rothschild owned 'The Economist' entitled 'Get Ready For A Global Currency By 2018'.  This article was written in 1988, and much of the process of globalization it describes is already well underway.  It is a plan that is at least decades in the making.  Again, it is foolhardy to assume central banks and international bankers are a bunch of clumsy Mr. Magoos unwittingly driving our economy off a cliff; they know EXACTLY what they are doing.

Being the clever tyrants that they are, the members of the central banking cult hope you are too stupid or too biased to grasp the concept of conspiracy. They prefer that you see them as bumbling idiots, as children who found their father’s shotgun or who like to play with matches because in your assumptions and underestimations they find safety. If you cannot identify the agenda, you can do nothing to interfere with the agenda.

I have found that the false notion of central bank impotence is growing in popularity lately, certainly in light of the recent Fed decision to delay an interest rate hike in September. With that particular event in mind, let’s explore what is really going on and why the central banks are far more dangerous and deliberate than people are giving them credit for.

The argument that the Federal Reserve is now “between a rock and a hard place” keeps popping up in alternative media circles lately, but I find this depiction to be inaccurate. It presumes that the Federal Reserve "wants"  to save the U.S. economy or at least wants to maintain our status quo as the “golden goose.” This is not the case.  America is not the golden goose.  In truth, the Fed is exactly where it wants to be; and it is the American people who are trapped economically rather than the bankers.

Take, for instance, the original Fed push for the taper of quantitative easing; why did the Fed pursue this in the first place? QE and zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) are the two pillars holding up U.S. equities markets and U.S. bonds. No one in the mainstream was demanding that the Fed enact taper measures. And when the Fed more publicly introduced the potential for such measures in the fall of 2013, no one believed it would actually follow through. Why? Because removing a primary support pillar from under the “golden goose” seemed incomprehensible to them.

In September of that year, I argued that the Fed would indeed taper QE. And, in my article “Is The Fed Ready To cut America’s Fiat Life Support?” I gave my reasons why. In short, I felt the Fed was preparing for the final collapse of our economic system and the taper acted as a kind of control valve, making a path for the next leg down without immediate destabilization. I also argued that all stimulus measures have a shelf life, and the shelf life for all QE and ZIRP is quickly coming to an end. They no longer serve a purpose except to marginally slow the collapse of certain sectors, so the Fed is systematically dismantling them.

I received numerous emails, some civil and some hostile, as to why I was crazy to think the Fed would ever end QE. I knew the taper would be instituted because I was willing to accept the real motivation of central banks, which is to undermine and destroy economies within a particular time frame, not secure economies or kick the can indefinitely. In light of this, the taper made sense. One great pillar is gone, and now only ZIRP remains.

After a couple of meetings and preplanned delays, the Fed did indeed follow through with the taper in December of that year. In response, energy markets essentially imploded and stocks became steadily more volatile over the course of 2014, leading to a near 10% drop in early fall followed by foreign QE efforts and false hints of QE4 by Fed officials as central banks slowed the crisis to an easier to manage pace while easing the investment world into the idea of reduced stimulus policies and reduced living standards; what some call the "new normal".

I have held that the Fed is likely following the same exact model with ZIRP, delaying through the fall only to remove the final pillar in December.

For now, the Fed is being portrayed as incompetent with markets behaving erratically as investors lose faith in their high priests. This is exactly what the bankers that control the Fed prefer. Better to be seen as incompetent than to be seen as deliberately insidious. And who knows, maybe a convenient disaster event in the meantime such as a terrorist attack or war (Syria) could be used to draw attention away from the bankers completely.

Strangely, Bloomberg seems to agree (at least in part) with my view that the taper model is being copied for use in the rate hike theater and that a hike is coming in December.

Meanwhile, some Federal Reserve officials once again insinuate that a hike will be implemented by the end of the year while others hint at the opposite.

Other mainstream sources are stating the contrary, with Pimco arguing that there will be no Fed rate hike until 2016.  Of course, Pimco made a similar claim back in 2013 against any chance of a QE taper.  They were wrong, or, they were deliberately misleading investors.

Goldman Sachs is also redrafting their predictions and indicating that a Fed rate hike will not come until mid-2016. With evidence indicating that Goldman Sachs holds considerable influence over Fed policy (such as exposed private meetings on policy between Fed officials and banking CEO's), one might argue that whatever they “predict” for the rate hike will ultimately happen. However, I would point out that if Goldman Sachs is indeed on the inside of Fed policy making, then they are often prone to lying about it or hiding it.

During the taper fiasco in 2013, Goldman Sachs first claimed that the Fed would taper in September. They lost billions of dollars on bad currency bets as the Fed delayed.

Then, Goldman Sachs argued that there would be no taper in December of that year; and they were proven to be wrong (or disingenuous) once again.

Today, with the interest rate fiasco, Goldman Sachs claimed a Fed rate hike would likely take place in September. They were wrong. Now, once again, they are claiming no rate hike until next year.

Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

How could an elitist-run bank with proven inside connections to the Federal Reserve be so wrong so often about Fed policy changes? Well, losing a billion dollars here and there is not a very big deal to Goldman Sachs. I believe they are far more interested in misleading investors and keeping the public off guard, and are willing to sacrifice some nominal profits in the process. Remember, these are the same guys who conned nations like Greece into buying toxic derivatives that Goldman was simultaneously betting against!

The relationship between international banks like Goldman Sachs and central banks like the Federal Reserve is best summed up in yet another Carroll Quigley quote from “Tragedy And Hope”:

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."

Goldman Sachs and other major banks act in concert with the Fed (or even dictate Fed actions) in conditioning public psychology as much as they manipulate finance. First and foremost, globalists require confusion. Confusion is power.  What better way to confuse and mislead the investment world than to place bad bets on Fed policy changes?

Heading into the end of 2015, we are only going to be faced with ever mounting mixed messages and confusion from the mainstream media, international banks and central banks. It is important to always remember, though, that this is by design. A common motto of the elite is “order out of chaos,” or “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Think critically about why the Fed has chosen to push forward with earth-shaking policy changes this year that no one asked for. What does it have to gain? And realize that if the real goal of the Fed is instability, then it has much to gain through its recent and seemingly insane actions.

AHMED MOHAMED AND THE ‘ISLAMOPHOBIA’ CLOCK

by PAMELA GELLER  17 Sep 2015

A Muslim teen, fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed, bought a strange ticking device to his school, MacArthur High School. His device caused alarm and fear, and he was detained for having what his teacher perceived as a bomb. Police officers said the electronic components and wires inside his Vaultz pencil case (which is the size of a briefcase) looked like a “hoax bomb,” according to local news station WFAA.

When questioned about what the device was, Mohamed wouldn’t answer. Now terror-tied Islamic groups like the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), their media lapdogs, and even Barack Obama are waging jihad against the school and the local police.

When police questioned the boy, WFAA reports, they said he was “passive aggressive” and didn’t give them a “reasonable answer” as to why he had brought his contraption to the school. “We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn’t offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school,” said James McLellan of the Irving Police Department.

This whole thing smells like a setup. With ISIS in America, and young moderate Muslims fleeing to Syria to join the terror group, the response of MacArthur High School officials was rational and reasonable. At my website, PamelaGeller.com, I run news stories on a weekly basis of American Muslim teens who have been arrested for trying to join ISIS. Just this week, a Muslim teen from Philadelphia was arrested for an alleged plot to assassinate the Pope during his visit to the United States.

Every day we are warned of new terror threats, increased threat levels. But trying to protect school children is “Islamophobic.” And President Obama agrees, of course. Yes, he has weighed in; Barack Obama himself got into the act, tweeting to Ahmed: “Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.”

When I first heard about this story, I wrote at my website that it smelled fishy. Now, as more details have emerged, it positively stinks. The plot has considerably thickened. In what has become one of the most egregious of the faked hate narratives, the bomb hoax clockster turns out to come from a family that has a history of supremacist stunts.

The New York Daily News reported this Wednesday about Ahmed Mohamed’s father, Mohamed ElHassan Mohamed:

One of the earliest instances of the standout citizen making national news was in 2011, when he sensationally stood up to an anti-Islamic pastor and defended the Koran as its defense attorney. That mock trial at a Florida church ended with the book’s burning, to ElHassan’s claimed shock. In an interview with the Washington Post at the time, the devoted Muslim said he’d take on Rev. Terry Jones’ challenge because the holy book teaches that Muslims should engage in peaceful dialogue with Christians.

Also in 2011, ElHassan debated Robert Spencer on the questionf of “Does Islam Respect Human Rights?” Clearly, he was trying to score a victory against a famous “Islamophobe” and thus win a name for himself. ElHassan has been looking for publicity and chances to fight against “Islamophobia” for a considerable period. Now he has seized it, going so far as to claim his son was “tortured” by school and law enforcement officials.

He finally has the cause he has been seeking for so long. School officials were being prudent, protecting the children. Irving, Texas has had its share of jihad and sharia. Two Muslim sisters, Amina and Sarah Said, were honor murdered by their father, execution-style, in Irving several years ago. He is still at large. And Irving, Texas is only half an hour from Garland, Texas – the site of a jihad shooting on a free speech event last May. And the news is regularly riddled with stories of young Muslims, all lovely, sweet achievers, who suddenly — go jihad.

This story is pure agitprop most fatal. “If you see something, say something” is now racism. And for destroying this simple principle of self-protection, young Ahmed Mohamed is a media star. Not only has Barack Obama invited him to the White House, but NASA has also invited Ahmed to meet with them, as has Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. The whole thing has clearly been a setup, and its effect will be to make Americans less safe. If you ever see a Muslim with a suspicious object, remember the lesson of Ahmed Mohamed: to say something would be “racism.” That could end up being the epitaph of America and the free world.

Why Western Nations Should Only Accept Christian Refugees

Raymond Ibrahim - 09-18-2015
RaymondIbrahim.com


As refugees from the Middle East flood the West, a number of countries—including Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Australia—are defying political correctness by wanting to accept Christian refugees only.



While more “progressive” voices cry “racism,” the fact remains: there are several objective reasons why the West should give priority, if not exclusivity, to Christian refugees—and some of these are actually to the benefit of European host nations.

Consider:

Christians are true victims of persecution.  From a humanitarian point of view—and humanitarianism is the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees—Christians should receive top priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East—well before the Islamic State phenomenon came into being.  As Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop put it, “I think that Christian minorities are being persecuted in Syria and even if the conflict were over they would still be persecuted.”

Indeed.  While they are especially targeted by the Islamic State, before the new “caliphate” was established, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims—Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.)—and for the same reason: Christians are infidel number one.  See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians.

Conversely, Muslim refugees—as opposed to the many ISIS and other jihadi infiltrators posing as “refugees”—are not fleeing direct persecution, but chaos created by the violent and supremacist teachings of their own religion, Islam.  It’s not for nothing that Samuel Huntington famously pointed out that “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.”  This means that when Muslims enter Western nations, chaos, persecution, and mayhem follow.  Take a look at those West European cities—for example, Londonistan—that already have a large Muslim population for an idea.

Muslim persecution of Christians has been further enabled by Western policies, especially those of the Obama administration.  In other words, Western nations should accept Christian refugees on the basis that Western meddling in the Middle East is directly responsible for exacerbating the plight of Christian minorities.  After all, Christians did not flee from Bashar Assad’s Syria, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Muamar Gaddafi’s Libya.  Their systematic persecution began in earnest after the U.S. and others interfered in those nations in the name of “democracy.”  All they did is unleash the jihadi forces that the dictators had long kept suppressed. Now the Islamic State is deeply embedded in all three nations, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering countless Christian “infidels” and other minorities.

Vladimir Putin’s thoughts on the refugee crisis are plainly true:

This is a crisis which was absolutely expected….  We in Russia and your humble servant said several years ago that there would be massive problems if our so-called western partners conduct what I have always called the “wrong” foreign policy, especially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and north Africa, which they continue practically to this day.

The Russian leader correctly adds that “people are running away not from the regime of Bashar Assad, but from Islamic State, which seized large areas in Syria and Iraq, and are committing atrocities there. That is what they are escaping from.”

Thus if the West is responsible for unleashing the full-blown jihad on Christians, surely it is the latter that the West should prioritize, from a humanitarian point of view.

Unlike Muslims, or even Yazidis, Christians are easily assimilated in Western countries, due to the shared Christian heritage.  As Slovakia, which prefers Christian refugees, correctly points out, Muslims would not fit in, including because there are no mosques in the Slavic nation. Conversely, “Slovakia as a Christian country can really help Christians from Syria to find a new home in Slovakia,” said an interior minister.

This too is common sense.  The same Christian teachings that molded Europe over the centuries are the same ones that mold Middle Eastern Christians—whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.   As San Diego’s Father Noel said in the context of the Iraqi Christian refugees who managed to flee ISIS but are now rotting in a U.S. detention center, Mideast Christians “who come here [America] ‘want to be good citizens’ and many who came here a decade ago are now lawyers, teachers, or other productive members of society.”

Meanwhile, Muslims follow a completely different blueprint, the Koran—which condemns Christians by name, calls for constant war (jihad) against all non-Muslims, and advocates any number of distinctly anti-Western practices.   Hence it is no surprise that many Muslim asylum seekers are anti-Western at heart, if not members of jihadi organizations.

Mideast Christians bring trustworthy language and cultural skills that are beneficial to the West.  They understand the Middle Eastern—including Islamic—mindset and can help the West understand it.  Moreover, unlike Muslims, Christians have no “conflicting loyalty” issues: Islamic law forbids Muslims from aiding “infidels” against fellow Muslims (click here to see some of the treachery this leads to in the U.S. and here to see the treachery Christians have suffered from their longtime Muslim neighbors and “friends”).  Indeed, an entire book about how “double agent” Muslims have infiltrated every corner of the U.S. government exists.  No such threat exists among Mideast Christians.  They too render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Finally, it goes without saying that Mideast Christians have no sympathy for the very people and ideology that made their lives a living hell—the very people and ideology that are also hostile to everything in the West.  Thus a win-win: the West and Mideast Christians complement each other, if only in that they share the same foe.

—-

All the above reasons—from those that offer humanitarian relief to the true victims of persecution, to those that offer benefits to the West—are unassailable in their logic and wisdom.  Yet, because Western progressives prioritize politically correct ideals and fantasies over stark reality, there is little chance that they will be considered.

Quite the reverse: in America and Britain persecuted Christians are “at the bottom of the heap” of refugees to be granted asylum. Muslims receive top priority.  Since January 2015, the U.S. has granted asylum to approximately six Muslims for every Christian it takes in.

The reason for this is simple: for the progressive mindset—which dominates Western governments, media, and academia—taking in refugees has little to do with altruism and everything to do egoism: It matters little who is really being persecuted—as seen, the West is directly responsible for greatly exacerbating the sufferings of Christians.

No, what’s important is that we “feel good” about ourselves.  By taking in “foreign” Muslims, as opposed to “siding” with “familiar” Christians, progressives get to feel “enlightened,” “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “multicultural”—and that’s all that matters here.

Meanwhile, reality quietly marches on: The same Islamic mentality that slaughters “infidel” Christians in the Middle East is now welcomed into the West with open arms.


 

The reproduction of any material or information originating on this website
must include either a link to this website or cite the name of this website
(RaymondIbrahim.com) as the source of the material or information reproduced.
Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/16/palestinian-boy-wants-engineer-can-blow-jews/

Skobelev’s Principle

SEPTEMBER 15, 2015  BY MICHAEL DEVOLIN

“I hold it as a principle that the duration of peace is in direct proportion to the slaughter you inflict on the enemy.” –Gen. Mikhail Skobelev, 1881


General Mikhail Skobelev’s words above were in reference to his defeat of the walled citadel of Geok-Tepe and his army’s complete depredation of the Tekke Turkmen, “a fierce, slave-taking people…” of Central Asia. “The Emperor’s orders were explicit,” writes Karl Meyer and Shareen Brysac in their book Tournament of Shadows: “Under no circumstances was Skobelev to take a single step backwards, ‘for this would be for Europe and Asia a sign of our weakness, would inspire still greater boldness on the part of our adversaries’.”

The Russians have always been known to upstage the West in regards to dealing with enemies. There is the story of two KGB agents kidnapped by a gang of quite imprudent Islamic Liberation Organization (ILO) operatives in Beirut. The story goes that the ILO kidnappers, after hiding the hostages away, then sent a message to the Russian embassy in Beirut demanding the release of certain ILO members (if I remember correctly) at that time incarcerated by the Lebanese government of the day.

Unbeknownst to the impulsive terrorists was the fact that the KGB was aware not only of where the two Russian citizens were being held captive, but also of the identities of the kidnappers. As a response to their demands the Russians sent to the safe house a box with the head of the leader of that particular ILO unit inside and the warning that if the two KGB agents were not released in a matter of hours, the next box they received would contain the heads of the kidnapper’s mothers. Needless to say, the KGB agents were released posthaste and the ILO never again harmed or threatened Soviet citizens anywhere.

There are also recent accounts about the Russian Navy mercilessly dispatching Somali pirates on the high seas. As a result, Somali pirates steer clear of all vessels flying the Russian flag. The lesson is obvious: deal harshly with your enemies and they will avoid you like the plague. “An angry countenance turns away a back-biting tongue.”

My point here is about dispassionate Russian wisdom being so broadly and ultimately contrary to Western liberalism and the insane and constrictive notion that we have no choice but to lay down our weapons, suspend punitive sanctions, and propose peace initiatives to enemies whose religiously cultivated arrogance has continually induced their leaders to mock Western peace initiatives, no matter how compromising.

The contradistinction between the two extremes—the wisdom of the former and the foolishness of the latter—seems to go unnoticed these days. President Obama plays nice with the Republic of Iran; Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and vying to become the next Prime Minister of Canada promises that, if elected, he will call off Canada’s participation in air strikes against ISIS targets and restore diplomatic relations with Iran. Tom Mulcair, leader of the NDP Party of Canada, promises near the same.

There seems to be an extremely imprudent, oscillating duality infecting Western political leaders these days (with the notable exception of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper). I see traditional political parties—Liberal, NDP, and Conservative in Canada, Republican and Democrats in the United States—exhibiting harmful traits eerily similar to those that brought down the mighty Spartans long ago; a duality, as pointed out in Paul Cartledge’s historical work The Spartans, that “led inevitably to divided counsels—dynastic rivalries, succession anxieties, faction fighting.” Three paragraphs later Cartledge writes, “The adage of Lord Acton—absolute power corrupts absolutely—applied vigorously in this case.” And isn’t this so in the case of Western democracies?

We have the leaders of European democracies condoning the influx of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, many of whom leave a trail of trash and excrement (and damaged iPads) in their wake; many of whom have probably little or no interest in assimilating the traditions of their host countries; some of whom may likely turn out to be ISIS operatives. The so-called “opposition parties” applaud this gross imprudence from the other side of their respective parliament floors like a hired audience for a game show.

Compare these flabbergasted political sycophants with Putin and his answer to a question posed him by a Le Monde reporter about the war in Chechnya, “If you are a Christian, you are in danger. Even if you are an atheist, you are in danger, and if you decide to convert to Islam, this will not save you, either, because traditional Islam is inimical to the conditions and objectives set by the terrorists. If you are prepared to become a most radical Islamist and are prepared to circumcise yourself, I invite you to come to Moscow. I will recommend having the operation done in such a way that nothing will grow for you there anymore.”

When another reporter suggested that Putin negotiate with Chechen terrorist leaders following the Beslan massacre, he replied, “”Why don’t you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? You find it possible to set some limitations in your dealings with these bastards, so why should we talk to people who are child-killers? No one has a moral right to tell us to talk to childkillers.”

I am in no way espousing Russia’s expansionist behaviour of late. I am suggesting that the West begin dealing with our terrorist enemies in similar fashion as the Russians have been dealing with theirs. Justin Trudeau’s suggestion that the “refugee problem” would be mitigated by calling off airstrikes against ISIS is a prime example of a tendentious Leftist politician choosing the exact opposite course of action as that which mere reason would implore, regardless the injurious ingredients those choices (like allowing Syrian refugees into Canada without security restrictions) would obtrude upon what would become by then a victimized, albeit self-deceived, Canadian populace.

The “refugee problem” facing Western democracies in Europe and North America is a catastrophe that should be dealt with by Middle Eastern Islamic countries instead of Western democracies.

That these Muslim refugees are seeking safe haven in an infidel-ruled Western Europe instead of the oil-rich countries of their fellow religious says everything about the finer points of Islam and those nation-states where it has long ago gained preponderance. Where is the love? The one sure way—the stratagem invoked by mere reason—to obviate this refugee crisis emanating out of Syria and beyond is the total elimination, from the air and on the ground, of ISIS and their supporters.

The fact that ISIS has, by violently brutal conquest, been continually gaining new territory should be profiled by so-called “experts” not as a failure of Western military forces in halting their advance but rather a failure on the part of Middle Eastern Islamic states and their armed forces to deal with a danger that has, from the very beginning of this human tragedy, been far more approximate to their existence, both politically and religiously, than it has ever been to Western democracies.

So why are we fighting their war? And if we are forced to fight their war simply because they refuse to fight it themselves, let us be efficient and militarily laconic in disposing of this enemy.

Let us acquire a “duration of peace,” its anticipated longevity measured only by the level of destruction we inflict upon this enemy of all humanity. And afterward, after we dispose of ISIS, let us hold these Islamic nations to account for turning their backs on their fellow Muslims, on a humanitarian crisis that was always theirs, not ours; that was spawned out of the bowels of the religion of Islam and the imperialism it advocates and from nowhere else.

Let us point this out to them, just as they are so ever wont to point out our sins. Let us apply Skobelev’s principle to our enemies in the same way they apply Islamic jihad to us.

Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants

By PAMELA GELLER on September 14, 2015


Obama’s Trojan horse. In 2013, Obama imported 350,000 Muslim ‘migrants.’ Is it any wonder there has been a spike in jihadi attacks in the U.S. in recent years? And now he has called for increases in that enormous number even as ISIS has vowed to send jihadis in with the “migration’.

The Twin Cities already has a huge ISIS problem. Garland, Chattanooga, Key West, Phoenix ….. and it’s only going to get worse. Much worse.

Obama says he wants to assist Europe. Why? Do they take Mexicans and Central Americans they emigrate to the USA?



Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants,” Breitbart, September 14, 2015

A Breitbart News review of State Department and Homeland Security data reveals that the United States already admits more than a quarter of a million Muslim migrants each year. President Obama intends to add another 10,000 Syrian migrants on top of that.

In 2013 alone, 117,423 migrants from Muslim-majority countries were permanently resettled within the United States— having been given lawful permanent resident status. Additionally in 2013, the United States voluntarily admitted an extra 122,921 temporary migrants from Muslim countries as foreign students and foreign workers as well as 39,932 refugees and asylees from Muslim countries.

Thus, twelve years after the September 11th hijackers were invited into the country on temporary visas, the U.S. decided to admit 280,276 migrants from Muslim countries within a single fiscal year.

To put these numbers into perspective, this means that every year the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa; Lincoln, Nebraska; or Dayton, Ohio.

The rate of Muslim immigration has been increasing since September 11. Between 2001 and 2013, the United States permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim immigrants throughout the United States. Unlike illegal immigrants, legal immigrants granted lifetime resettlement privileges will be given automatic work permits, welfare access, and the ability to become voting citizens.

Experts believe these numbers will only continue to increase.

The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students since 9/11. Arabic is now the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of recent refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.

The large-scale importation of Muslim migrants from nations that do not share Western values has posed a series of assimilation difficulties for the United States. For instance, the importation of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries has now put half a million girls in the United States at risk of enduring a traditional anti-Western, anti-woman practice known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This means that there are more girls in the United States at risk of lifelong sexual disfigurement than there are in Uganda and Cameroon.

Moreover, the importation of Muslim immigrants through the nation’s refugee program has led to the development of pockets of radicalized communities throughout the United States— as evidenced in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Dearborn, Michigan.

A review of recent terror activity– provided by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee– confirms the terror threat posed by our federal immigration policy of issuing large numbers of visas to majority-Muslim countries:

A refugee voluntarily admitted from Uzbekistan and “living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs.”

A college student voluntarily admitted from Somalia, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Kazakhstan “with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Sudan, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage jihad on its behalf after having been recruited online.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Bangladesh, “who applied for and received U.S. citizenship,‎ tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States.”

An immigrant voluntarily admitted from Yemen, “who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was arrested for trying to join ISIS. He was also charged with attempting to illegally buy firearms to try to shoot American military personnel.”

Yet even as the United States struggles to properly screen and assimilate the large numbers brought in each year, many Republican presidential candidates say that number should be even greater. GOP presidential hopefuls John Kasich, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jeb Bush, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) have all expressed support for admitting more Syrian migrants.

“I would be open to that if it can be done in a way that allows us to ensure that among them are not people who are part of a terrorist organization who are using this crisis,” Rubio told Boston Herald Radio on September 8th. This proposal could result in the admittance of many refugees. “The vast and overwhelming majority of people who are seeking refuge are not terrorists, of course, but you always are concerned about that,” Rubio said.

By contrast, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has suggested that Muslim countries should be willing to take in some of the Muslim migrants.

“Look, from a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems.” Trump declared on the September 9 broadcast of Hannity. “We have so many problems that we have to solve… The Gulf states [are] tremendously wealthy. You have five groups of people, six groups, they’re not taking anybody. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, these are tremendously wealthy and powerful from the standpoint of money. They — they’re not taking anybody. Russia’s not taking. Nobody’s taking. [But we’re] supposed to take — we have to straighten out our own problems,” Trump said.

Some presidential hopefuls have objected to the premise of Trump’s America-first immigration proposal— arguing that greater levels of immigration would only serve to benefit America.

For instance, the I-Squared bill currently before Congress introduced by Marco Rubio— whose campaign has declared he will be in first place by February— would import even more immigrants — some Muslim — by lifting green card caps for foreign students and tripling the number of foreign workers admitted on visas. This bill is central to Rubio’s campaign platform of creating “A New American Economy.”

Several of Rubio’s business backers have already begun to implement this policy throughout the nation. In Rubio’s home state of Florida, for instance, the New American Economy is at work at corporations including Disney, which is replacing many of its current American workers with foreign low-salaried workers from developing nations. This “New American Economy” would have multiple benefits for America such as fewer English speakers, more diversity and lower wages that will allow corporations to increase their bottom lines.

Rubio’s effort to create a New American Century is supported by many prominent Republicans and Democrats who say we need to expand our refugee resettlement of Muslim migrants.

For instance, Glenn Beckand Lindsey Graham have both explicitly said that the United States needs to take in more more refugees because a poem written by Emma Lazarus now displayed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The poem, entitled “The New Colossus,” reads in part:

Give me your tired, your poor/ your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,/the wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

According to the Pew Research Center, there are nearly 5 billion people world-wide living on $10 or less a day. The globally poor and low-income population is fifteen times larger than the entire population of the United States.

The Statue of Liberty was not given to the United States with any association to immigration. Rather the statue was intended to be a symbol of “Liberty Enlightening the World,” which is why the only text originally included on the statue was the year 1776 written in Roman Numerals.

Yet even when Lazarus’ poem was later added to the statue in the early 1900s, it was understood that the poem was not meant to represent the nation’s federal immigration policy– a detail underscored by the fact that shortly after that poem was added, then-President Calvin Coolidge enacted a nearly five-decades-long immigration pause to allow the influx of European immigrants to better assimilate and allow middle class wages to rise.


Ironically, the Statue of Liberty– so often invoked by advocates for large-scale immigration– was a gift from the nation of France. Yet of the one million green cards handed out last year, very few were given to the Thomas Jefferson’s second favorite nation. About 9 out of 10 of green cards issued last year went to non-European foreign nationals from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

In 2013, we added more than ten times more immigrants on green cards from the Muslim countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt (48,507) than we did from the nation France (4,425).

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/federal-data-u-s-annually-admits-quarter-of-a-million-muslim-migrants.html/#sthash.4GCbLRiT.dpuf