Fire Hydrant of Freedom

I've been noting this for the past couple of years, as strip malls shut down and remain vacant.  Major retailers are shutting down stores, and the media is not reporting this, as they try to prop up consumer sentiment and give people the impression that everything is actually improving under this disastrous Obama economy.  You ain't seen NOTHING yet.  See below:


Major Chain Stores Shutting Down As America Faces “Birth Pangs Of Retail Apocalypse”
Wednesday, 15 July 2015   Mac Slavo

Reduced consumer spending is heralding a looming economic downturn, if not collapse, with an unprecedented shutdown of major box stores, restaurants and grocers underway.

It doesn’t bode well for the millions of Americans who are already seriously struggling, and will only accelerate the death of the middle class.

Along with this massive shrinkage of the retail sectors will go thousands of jobs. Natural Newsreports:

There is chatter across the web about dozens of major retail chains that are expected to permanently shutter a large number of their store locations this year. Popular names like Abercrombie & Fitch, Barnes & Noble, Chico’s, Children’s Place, Coach, Fresh & Easy, Gymboree, JCPenney, Macy’s, Office Depot, Pier One, Pep Boys, and many others are named as soon-to-be casualties in what some news sources are now referring to as the coming “retail apocalypse.”

The Economic Collapse Blog pins 2015 as a significant “turning point” for the U.S. economy, ominously warning that at least 6,000 retail store locations are expected to close this year based on company announcements. Many American consumers are already witnessing the birth pangs of this retail apocalypse as brick-and-mortar department, specialty, and even food shops close their doors for good.

The list of store closures (see here) is truly massive, and in no way accounts for everything that’s coming.

But Americans are still buying one major retail category — technological gadgets like iPhones, wearables, smart devices and computers. As technology purchases soar, shopping malls that have long specialized in clothing and fashion retail are falling in on themselves.

Business Insider calls it a slow and painful death, noting the collapse not only of thousands of stores from dozens of chains, but even the fall of giants like Gap:

Gap once ruled the retail world. But today America’s largest apparel retailer is closing a quarter of its stores and laying off hundreds of workers after disappointing sales.

Gap’s closures are indicative of a larger trend in American retail.

According to National Real Estate Investor, more retailers are planning to close, but are holding on for the end of the holiday shopping season:

After a tsunami of store closing announcements during the first half of the year, experts forecast that the remainder of 2015 will be relatively quiet as retailers focus on getting through the holiday season. However, retailers will continue to shutter stores throughout the year as leases expire.

[…]
The most recent store closing data available reports that retailers and restaurateurs announced closings of more than 3,500 establishments totaling an estimated 19.9 million square feet, according to the U.S. Retail Real Estate Supply Conditions report from ICSC Research and PNC Real Estate Research. The planned 1,784 store closures announced after Radio Shack’s February Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing represented half of the total first-quarter tally.

And the tenants aren’t being replaced by new stores; the retail sector is just shrinking.Business Insider notes:

More than two dozen malls have shut down in the last four years and another 60 malls are on the brink of death, The New York Times reported, citing Green Street Advisors, a real-estate and real-estate investments trust analytics firm.

The elephant in the room in clearly online sales, with major sites like Amazon undercutting and dwarfing brick and mortar box stores.

And with online sales impacting on-the-ground retail, local jobs are destroyed as well. The future of retail will be more compacted, less physical and more out of reach for those with shrinking pocketbooks and dwindling means.

http://pamelageller.com/2015/07/first-photos-chattanooga-jihad-murderer-muhammad-youssef-abdulazeez-five-things-you-need-to-know.html/

I'm not arguing that abolishing slavery was a bad thing, and neither is Dr. Williams (who by the way, is black.)  What both of us are saying is that the rationale used by Lincoln was intellectually dishonest and simply not correct.  The individual members of a confederation have the inherent right to nullify the agreement if they feel they are being abused by the federation.  The issue of the morality of slavery is separate and distinct.

Today is a very dark day.  Mark your calendars, boys and girls.  Today Obama successfully pushed through a "deal" with Iran that will guarantee - actually expedite - its acquisition of nuclear weapons.  It follows that today marks the day on which it has been assured that both Israel and the U.S. will face nuclear attacks on their soil at the hands of the Iranians.  1938 - Chamberlain - death pact with Hitler.  Today we witness a similar act of insanity.  Prepare yourselves.

THE LURE OF FANTASY ISLAM

Just because you ignore the reality of Islam, doesn’t mean it will ignore you.

July 8, 2015  Dr. Stephen M. Kirby

Fantasy sports such as football and baseball have become increasingly popular on the internet.  For those not familiar with fantasy sports, the emphasis is on fantasy.  The simple explanation is that you pretend to be the owner of a team, join a pretend league which has other pretend teams, and then man your team with actual professional players from that particular sport.  In this fantasy world you can pick players from any team to be a member of your own team.

When it comes to Islam, there is a similar world that has been created.  In this world there are two teams involved, of differing sizes and membership, and interacting at different times and places.  The large team consists of a group of non-Muslims who know little if anything about Islam, generally wish with all of their hearts that it is a “Religion of Peace,” seem to prefer any presentation that will support that wish, and frown on anyone who expresses skepticism about that wish during the presentation, or afterwards.  The small team usually consists of one Muslim making a presentation that largely fulfills the wish of the large team.  The accuracy of the presentation is not questioned because the presenter has already established his credentials simply by being a Muslim.

In this world of Fantasy Islam, the presenter is able to create his own version of Islam, react with patronizing sympathy or condescending dismissiveness toward any non-Muslim who questions his version, and knows that the majority of his audience will support him in maintaining the comfort of this fantasy.

Since the make-up of the large team changes regularly and this team is the more passive of the two, let’s look at two of the individuals who have appeared on the small team:

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, MD

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser is the Muslim Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).  He is well-known as a proponent of reforming and modernizing Islam, and for years has been a guest on countless television and radio programs.  Unfortunately, for years Jasser has also played Fantasy Islam.

Mickelson in the Morning

We can go back to October 11, 2010 when Jasser was on a major Iowa radio station with host Jan Mickelson here.  During the interview, Jasser said he didn’t believe that Muhammad had really spoken what was in the hadith about killing a Jew hiding behind every stone (Time: 17:58).  Here is that hadith:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah's Messenger said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, 'O Muslim!  There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"

Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 2926

The collection of hadiths by Al-Bukhari has been considered by Muslim scholars to be the most authoritative collect of hadiths since the 9th Century.  Jasser simply has no doctrinal basis for dismissing Al-Bukhari.

Later in the same program, Jasser talked about the Verse of the Sword in the Koran (Time: 24:09 and 26:20).  He said that this verse only referred to a specific battle against a specific tribe and applied only to 623 AD; it no longer had any relevance today.  Here is that verse:

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.  But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salat (the prayers), and give Zakat (obligatory charity), then leave their way free.  Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Chapter 9, Verse 5

Where did he come up with 623 AD?  9:5 was among the verses from Chapter 9 that were revealed in early 631 AD.  And these verses were not related to a specific battle or to a specific tribe, but rather directed toward all non-Muslims (Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), pp. 617-619; The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, pp. 77-79; and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, pp. 370-376).

There is no basis in Islamic doctrine for Jasser’s assertion that 9:5 has no relevance today.  His assertion ignores the facts that Muslims believe the Koran consists of the eternal words of Allah, and Chapter 9 of the Koran was the last chapter to be “revealed” to Muhammad.  Consequently, the commands found in Chapter 9 are the final, eternal words of Allah on the matters addressed in that Chapter.

Abraham’s Tent

Over the years Jasser has continued playing Fantasy Islam.  He was interviewed on a segment of the Abraham’s Tent radio program, which was aired on September 29, 2014.  In this interview he made his standard assertion that 5:51 of the Koran, which commands Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians, had been intentionally misinterpreted (Time: 25:38).  Here is that verse:

O you who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliya' of each other.  And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely, he is one of them.  Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust).

Jasser claimed that Auliya’ really meant “legal representatives.”  He said this verse simply meant that when it came to picking such a representative, Muslims should pick someone who understands the legalisms in Islam, meaning a Muslim, and not somebody of another faith.  It had nothing to do with prohibiting Muslims from being friends with Jews and Christians.

Once again Jasser is flying in the face of Islamic doctrine.  As I pointed out in an earlier article, in 5:51 Allah commands Muslims not to be friends with Jews and Christians.  And, as I also pointed out in that article, this understanding is supported by five modern translations of the Koran; the messages of additional verses of the Koran; five authoritative Koran commentaries, written at different times between circa 900-1995 AD; and the teachings of Muhammad.

Jasser also expressed the basis for his Fantasy Islam: “Every Muslim has the right to interpret their faith.” (Time: 29:11).  This too flies in the face of Islamic doctrine, e.g.:

Muhammad bin Jarir reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Prophet said, 'Whoever explains the Qur'an with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the Fire.'

Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, pp. 32-33

In this interview Jasser suggested that 5:38 of the Koran, which commands amputation for theft, was “metaphorical” and “not literal” (Time 54:25).  Here is that verse:

And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off (from the wrist joint) their (right) hands as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allah.  And Allah is All-Powerful, All-Wise.

Not only is this verse not a metaphor, it is explicit in commanding the amputation of hands for theft.  In addition, Muhammad, who is the example of conduct for Muslims, ordered the hands of many thieves to be cut off; he even said he would cut off the hand of his favorite daughter if she committed theft (Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 4304).

A Battle for the Soul of Islam

In 2013 the paperback edition of Jasser’s widely acclaimed book A Battle for the Soul of Islam was published.  After reading only the eleventh chapter, “How the Qur’an is Misinterpreted,” I decided not to read the rest of the book.

Jasser’s version of Fantasy Islam is best epitomized in this eleventh chapter with the following statement he wrote on p. 252:

Nowhere in the Qur’an does God tell Muslims that they must repeat and thus emulate the Prophet Muhammad’s role and actions as a military or governmental leader.

This statement is immediately repudiated by 33:21 of the Koran:

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah much.

There are no limitations here on the circumstances in which Muhammad is to be considered a good example.  In fact, this verse was actually “revealed” as a result of Muhammad’s military leadership and the example he set for his Muslim warriors during the Battle of the Trench in 627 (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 7, p. 658; Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, p. 900; Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, p. 546; and Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 4, p. 374).

Since 33:21 is a verse that counters Jasser’s Fantasy Islam, he has apparently decided to deny it, which means he has apparently also decided to ignore this warning from his prophet Muhammad:

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever denies a Verse of the Qur'an, it is permissible to strike his neck (i.e. execute him)..."

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2539

Dr. Syed Mohiuddin

Dr. Syed Mohiuddin is President of the American Muslim Institute (AMI), the Muslim group involved in building a new mosque as part of the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska.  I recently attended a presentation he made at St. Pius X Catholic Church in Omaha.  The presentation was titled The True Nature of Islam.  Here is how Mohiuddin presented “the true nature” of Islam.

When asked about the treatment of women, Mohiuddin assured the audience that the Koran repeatedly stated that men and women were equal, without, however, mentioning any supporting verses.  In reality, the Koran says that it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man (2:282); a woman is to receive only half the inheritance of a man (4:12); a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man (2:221), while Muslim men can marry Jews and Christians (5:5) and have up to four wives (4:3).

Mohiuddin was wise not to mention things that Muhammad said about women, e.g.:

It is not wise for anyone of you to lash his wife like a slave, for he might sleep with her the same evening.

Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 4942

Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves.

The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, p. 113

Mohiuddin was asked why, if Islam says we are all brothers and sisters, do we see beheading of Christians on the beaches of Libya?  He replied that Islam,

if practiced appropriately and correctly, would never, never allow that… And the true Muslims in true Islamic countries would never allow that to happen.

In reality, there are two verses in the Koran (8:12 and 47:4) and numerous hadiths that allow Muslims to behead people, even captive non-combatants.

Mohiuddin said there were “major differences” in how the Koran was interpreted.  And he said there were instances when people added their own thoughts to provide an incorrect interpretation.  He gave an example from Al-Fatihah, the first chapter of the Koran, in which he said the translator had included in parenthesis the words “Jews” and “Christians” to explain “those who go astray” (1:7).  For some reason, much of the audience laughed when he said this.

In reality, Muhammad himself said that the Christians had gone astray (e.g. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 410, and Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, Vol. 1, p. 127), and it was also an accepted belief among later Muslim scholars that the Jews too had gone astray (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, p. 87).  But in Mohiuddin’s version of Islam, this was a bad translation.

I asked Mohiuddin to explain the Doctrine of Abrogation.  His first response was to confuse it with apostasy.  To prompt him a bit, I pointed out that abrogation meant that when there was a conflict between the meanings of two verses, the verse “revealed” later would supersede the earlier verse (meaning that the belligerent Medinan verses found in Chapter 9 supersede the peaceful Meccan verses elsewhere in the Koran).  I asked him to comment on this principle.  After some general, and not necessarily germane remarks, he concluded by saying that the message “was the first one which supersedes the other one.”

The Doctrine of Abrogation is fundamental to understanding the messages of the Koran.  How can one talk about the “true nature of Islam” without understanding the Doctrine of Abrogation?

When asked about 5:51, which prohibits Muslims from being friends with Jews and Christians, Mohiuddin said this verse only referred to a specific tribe of people during a specific time of war.  He said this verse had to be specific to a time and tribe because of the other verses in the Koran that “repeatedly emphasized the importance of” Jews and Christians.  He did not mention any supporting Koran verses.

So let’s consider some supporting Koran verses that emphasize Jews and Christians: Allah is angry with the Jews, and the Christians are misguided because they believe that Jesus is the son of God (1:7); Jews are among the worst enemies of Islam (5:82); Muslims are commanded to fight Jews and Christians until the Jews and Christians pay protection money with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (9:29); Allah curses the Jews and the Christians (9:30); and Jews and Christians are among the worst of creatures and “will abide in the fire of Hell” (98:6).

These verses show us that Jews and Christians are certainly important to Islam, but not in the positive way implied by Mohiuddin.

In hindsight, Mohiuddin’s presentation should have been titled Dr. Mohiuddin’s Personal Impressions of Islam, or more simply, Fantasy Islam.  After the presentation, the audience of 60-70 people walked out misinformed, but also feeling comforted about Islam; the latter which, from the apparent attitude of the hosts and much of the audience, appeared to be the main purpose of the event.

Conclusion

For many years non-Muslims in the West have been fed a steady diet of how Islam is a “Religion of Peace” and is similar, and even related to, Judaism and Christianity.  At the same time we have seen an increasing number of acts of violence done in the name of Islam.

For those willing to learn and investigate, the irrefutable conclusion is that most, if not all, of the violent acts committed by the jihadists are truly supported by Islamic doctrine, just as the jihadists themselves claim.  But this conclusion can create a cognitive dissonance between what we have heard about Islam and what we see actually being done in the name of Islam and supported by Islamic doctrine.  This dissonance can create stress.  The antidote to this stress for many is to turn to Fantasy Islam, where Islam is what any peaceful-sounding Muslim wants it to be, and the jihadists are the hijacking outliers.

But this is only a temporary resolution.  Just because you continue to ignore the reality of Islam, doesn’t mean that the reality of Islam will continue to ignore you.  The Christians in the Middle East and Africa are the canaries in the coal mine.

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of three books about Islam.  His latest book is Islam According to Muhammad, Not Your Neighbor.

MUHAMMAD CARTOON IN THE NEW YORK TIMES? OF COURSE NOT.

by PAMELA GELLER  1 Jul 2015 - breitbart.com

Last Monday, the New York Times ran a lavish full-color image of a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of condoms. If they thought twice about offending Roman Catholics’ religious sensibilities, they gave no public hint of doing so. And so my human rights organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), decided to test their commitment to free speech by submitting an ad featuring a cartoon of Muhammad – the winning cartoon from our free speech event in Garland, Texas, which the Times had refused to run in their coverage of the jihad terror attack on our event.

Predictably, it rejected our ad as well. AFDI submitted the ad, featuring Bosch Fawstin’s cartoon of Muhammad exclaiming, “You can’t draw me!” and the cartoonist answering, “That’s why I draw you,” with the caption “Support Free Speech,” to run on Sunday, July 5, at the staggering cost of over $40,000.

Our ad is not obscene or offensive in any objective sense. It is a statement about how free people are not going to submit to violent intimidation and allow bloodthirsty thugs to curtail our freedoms.

But for the Sharia-compliant New York Times, even that was too far over the line. The Times’ John Shaw wrote me: “I have checked with our advertising acceptability department and this ad does not comply with our acceptability standards because it is offensive on religious grounds. We thank you again, but we will not be able to accept the ad.”

Offensive on what religious grounds? Sharia. For years now, the New York Times has adhered to and enforced the strict code of Islamic law. Bowed and cowed, the Times will not violate the vicious and archaic blasphemy laws under the sharia: it will not criticize, mock or otherwise mock Islam, no matter how high the death toll or how gruesome the jihad.

Back in 2012, the New York Times ran a full-page ad calling for Christians to leave the Catholic Church. When AFDI submitted a mirror image of that same ad, making the exactly the same declaration concerning Islam, the ad was rejected out of hand. We used the same language as the anti-Catholic ad. The only difference was that ours was true and what we described about the mistreatment of women and non-Muslims under Islamic law was true. The anti-Catholic ad, by contrast, was written by fallacious feminazis. Nonetheless, in a craven capitulation to Sharia blasphemy laws, the Times rejected my ad.

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. Christie said that the Times would be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

During our conversation, I asked Christie, “If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Christie responded, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”

I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”

He said, “No, it’s not.” I said, “I can’t believe you’re bowing to this Islamic barbarity and thuggery. I can’t believe this is the narrative. You’re not accepting my ad. You’re rejecting my ad. You can’t even say it.”

Christie then sent me a follow-up letter, claiming that the Times was going to “delay publication in light of recent events in Afghanistan, including the Quran burning and the alleged killings of Afghani [sic] civilians by a member of the U.S. military. It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the region in danger.”

The publication “delay” is, of course, still going on.

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post rejected the ad as well. Video here and here.

It was most disingenuous for the New York Times to refuse to run our counter-jihad ad based on their concern for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Liars. The New York Times has done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. Was the Times concerned that they were putting our troops’ live in danger when they ran front page articles on Abu Ghraib every day for a month? Starting on May 1, 2004, the New York Times had a front page article on Abu Ghraib every day for 32 days.

Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaida in the mountains of Pakistan?

The New York Times exposed SWIFT (which put military and civilians at great risk of jihad). SWIFT was a legal secret program that gave the government access to a massive database of international financial transactions, using “broad subpoenas to collect the financial records from an international system.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said in 2006, “The president is concerned that, once again, the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is protecting the American people.”

Despite the obvious hypocrisy of the Times, the mainstream media fell into line. It took a couple of days to get their arms around how to frame the Times’ self-enforcing of Shariah, but the Huffington Post and the left lemmings soon began to follow the Times’ line, claiming that running my ad would endanger lives.

Really? What nerve. What is lower than using our brave men and women to cover for the Times’ cowardice and anti-freedom editorial policies? That is so … left.

And now, with their running the Pope condom “art” but refusing to run my free speech statement, their cowardice and hypocrisy are fully exposed.

Spouting all of the facts and statistics Ann did in her column cannot be done in a sound bite.  Trump is the master of this - and he's not backing off of it, either.  Good for him.  Rush Limbaugh asked an open question of his listeners today - Is Donald Trump hurting the Republican "brand" with his comments - as so much of the media is claiming?  The overwhelming consensus from his listeners was - "Hell, no!  If anything - Trump is revealing in stark contrast the wimps and cowards the present crop of Republican "leaders" are for refusing to go anywhere near his commentary - much less agree with any of it."  I couldn't agree more.

Rep. Nunes: America Faces Highest Terror Threat Level Ever

Posted By Michael Cutler On June 25, 2015

Usually the first challenge I face in writing my commentaries is to come up with a concise title that captures the most salient part of the issue I am writing about. Today I found this task easy, I simply borrowed the headline from CBS News’ Face the Nation article that quoted none other than Congressional Representative Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

That headline is concise and echoes the very same concerns I have had in reviewing all of the publicly available information on the issue of threats posed by international terrorists.

What is impossible to understand is how the administration, members of Congress, local and state politicians and journalists have been absolutely unwilling to “connect the impossible to ignore dots” that are flashing, not unlike the strobe lights on a police car or other emergency vehicle.

Here is the segment of the article that accompanied the headline and addressed the topic of the threat of terrorism in the United States today:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, said the nation faces “the highest threat level we have ever faced in this country” due to the flow of foreign fighters to and from Iraq and Syria and the radicalization of young people on the Internet.

U.S. officials have been warning for months about the threat posed by people from America or Western Europe who travel to the Middle East to fight with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS [2]) and then return to their home countries, where they may carry out attacks. Nunes said the U.S. is not aware of all the people who have made the trek or who have now come back, although FBI Director James Comey has said there are cases open in all 50 states.

Officials are increasingly looking for ways to combat radical jihadists’ effectiveness [3] in recruiting supporters through social media.

“They’re very good at communicating through separate avenues where it’s very difficult to track,” he said. “That’s why when you get a young person who is willing to get into these chat rooms, go on the Internet and get radicalized, it’s something we are not only unprepared [for], we are also not used to it in this country.”

He said that investigations often “do no good” in encrypted chat rooms where those communications take place, so Americans should be diligent about reporting suspicious activity to the proper authorities because “we are having a tough time tracking terrorist cells within the United States.”

The warnings are particularly pertinent with the July 4 holiday approaching. Nunes noted that there will be large gatherings in every city across America.

“It’s just tough to secure those types of areas if you have someone who wants to blow themselves up or open fire or other threats of that nature and we just don’t know or can track all of the bad guys that are out there today,” he said.

The famed playwright, George Bernard Shaw’s statement says it all:

“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”

If our leaders were to seek to learn history’s lessons they should read the appropriate history books.

The 9/11 Commission Report [4] and the “9/11 and Terrorist Travel [5] – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” are the most complete and authoritative “history books” concerning the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and even included evaluations of vulnerabilities that led to previous terror attacks — both those that succeeded and those that failed. These books were prepared by the government of the United States in response to the horrific terror attacks that left more than 3,000 innocent victims dead.

My May 22, 2015 commentary for the Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) website, “Bin Laden, The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration [6],” addressed the fact that when the U.S. Navy SEALS raided the bin Laden compound, among the documents found in his library were a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and a copy of an application for United States citizenship. It must be presumed that he had no intentions of filing for U.S. citizenship himself, but was contemplating embedding his terrorist operatives in the United States through the naturalization process.

Presumably bin Laden read that report — the obvious question that has no obvious answer, is “how many member of the administration, Congress, political leaders in states and cities around the United States and journalists who are quick to chime in with their proclamations about how to ‘fix’ the ‘broken’ immigration system have actually read those reports?”

The damage inflicted on the United States and indeed the world by those attacks, has been inestimable and it continues to reverberate in so many ways. These reports both addressed the issue of the ways in which the 9/11 terrorists were able to enter the United States and embed themselves in the United States. The latter of those two reports (the Staff Report) obviously focused the ways that the terrorists were able to travel around the world as they went about their deadly preparation and on flaws and vulnerabilities in the immigration system that failed to prevent the entry and subsequent embedding of not only the 19 hijackers, but other terrorists who were identified as operating in the United States in the decade leading up to the attacks of 9/11.

In point of fact, the investigation upon which these reports were based determined that the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world and cross international borders, especially the borders of the United States, were essential to the ability of the terrorists to carry out those deadly attacks.

The preface of the report begins with the following three paragraphs and makes it clear that this report sought information from as many credible sources as possible:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Congress gave the Commission the mandate to study, evaluate, and report on “immigration, nonimmigrant visas and border security” as these areas relate to the events of 9/11. This staff report represents 14 months of such research. It is based on thousands of pages of documents we reviewed from the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, approximately 25 briefings on various border security topics, and more than 200 interviews. We are grateful to all who assisted and supported us along the way.

The story begins with “A Factual Overview of the September 11 Border Story.” This introduction summarizes many of the key facts of the hijackers’ entry into the United States. In it, we endeavor to dispel the myth that their entry into the United States was “clean and legal.” It was not. Three hijackers carried passports with indicators of Islamic extremism linked to al Qaeda; two others carried passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner. It is likely that several more hijackers carried passports with similar fraudulent manipulation. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications. Once in the United States, two hijackers violated the terms of their visas. One overstayed his visa. And all but one obtained some form of state identification. We know that six of the hijackers used these state issued identifications to check in for their flights on September 11. Three of them were fraudulently obtained.

Page 46 and 47 of this report noted:

By analyzing information available at the time, we identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with these earlier attacks in the United States.

The World Trade Center Bombing, February 1993. Three terrorists who were involved with the first World Trade Center bombing reportedly traveled on Saudi passports containing an indicator of possible terrorist affiliation. Three of the 9/11 hijackers also had passports containing this same possible indicator of terrorist affiliation.5

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150 With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

“Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.”

Both reports made it abundantly clear that had our immigration system worked, the attacks could not have been carried out.

Engineers use the term “root cause” to describe a fundamental failure from which all else that went wrong happened. For example, if a car’s brakes fail and the car hits a tree, the fact that the airbags failed to deploy is important, but the point is that the crash would not have happened in the first place if the brakes had worked.

Similarly, the terror attacks that have been carried out in the United States all resulted by the “root cause” of failures of the immigration system to prevent the terrorists from entering the United States in the first place.

The next failure of the immigration system occurred when terrorists were able to embed themselves in the United States. In this regard two factors came into play.

1. Terrorists who violated their immigration status were not apprehended even when they interacted with local police, leaving them free to remain at large.

2. Terrorists were able to acquire many identity documents — some actually issued by state governments — in false names, concealing their identities and movements.

Today most politicians have accepted the deceptive language first implemented by Carter administration when the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) mandated that its employees refer to aliens illegally present in the United States as being “undocumented immigrants,” an obfuscating and purposefully innocuous sounding term.

This was obviously done to create the misimpression that these individuals were simply immigrants who needed a piece of paper. Therefore the only thing we needed to do was give them the bureaucratic equivalent of a “hall pass” to make things okay.

The truth could not be more different from this lie that was and continues to be foisted on Americans by our own government. Aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry should be referred to by the term that immigration enforcement personnel use, “EWI (Entry Without Inspection). This is the equivalent of trespassing or “breaking and entering.”

Such aliens are unscreened. We have no record of their entry and they may well be fugitives from justice in other countries, may have links to criminal or terrorist organizations.

The 9/11 Commission Report [4] addressed the importance of the immigration inspections process conducted at ports of entry noting:

Inspectors at the ports of entry were not asked to focus on terrorists. Inspectors told us they were not even aware that when they checked the names of incoming passengers against the automated watchlist, they were checking in part for terrorists. In general, border inspectors also did not have the information they needed to make fact-based determinations of admissibility.The INS initiated but failed to bring to completion two efforts that would have provided inspectors with information relevant to counterterrorism—a proposed system to track foreign student visa compliance and a program to establish a way of tracking travelers’ entry to and exit from the United States.

The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel [5] detailed numerous examples of instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud, including political asylum fraud, to enter and embed themselves in the United States.

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Here is an excerpt from that report that makes the above issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Meanwhile there are mayors of some cities and even governors of some states that have created “sanctuaries” for aliens who evaded the inspections process at ports of entry that represent both our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals and others whose presence in the United States poses a threat to national security and the safety and well-being of Americans — and even members of the ethnic immigrant communities of which they are a part, irrespective of what their native countries might be. These politicians are even providing driver’s licenses and municipal identification documents, ignoring the fact that criminals and terrorists use changes in identity the way that chameleons use changes in coloration to hide in plain sight, often among their intended victims.

How can our nation’s leaders be so blind or corrupt as to ignore what should be commonsense issues that were clearly identified in the 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report I have noted above?

On July 27, 2006 I testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the topic: Whether the Attempted Implementation of the Reid-Kennedy Immigration Bill Will Result in an Administrative and National Security Nightmare. [7]

At that hearing I noted [8] that advocates for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens should get the “MVP Award” from al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. That statement applies today more than ever before.

FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family

JUNE 22, 2015

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.

JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.

This is pure, unadulterated bullshit propaganda that these mosques put out, and gullible "news" outlets like the New York Times repeatedly swallow hook, line, and sinker.
This Boston mosque has very clear ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and has connections to several convicted terrorists, including the Boston Marathon bombers.  This is extensively documented at jihadwatch.org and pamelageller.com

The question we should be asking is WHY is the NYT, nor any other establishment media outlet , NOR THE FBI - investigating this mosque, and the many like it, where this doctrine of violent jihad is being preached?  WHY?  There is a very deliberate cover-up going on here, and the Obama Justice Department is deeply involved.

Australia PM: Only effective defense against terror persuading people God doesn’t demand death to infidel

JUNE 11, 2015 1:17 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Abbott is right: the only effective defense against jihad terror will be to confront its ideology. I have no idea if Abbott himself realizes what this will entail, but it is encouraging at the very least that he has enunciated this, which no other Western leader is willing to acknowledge. Obama, Cameron and the others all pretend that there is nothing wrong with the Islamic ideology at all — they won’t even admit that Allah commands death to the Infidel. Their willful ignorance and denial will only ensure more deaths of more Infidels.

“Tony Abbott opens summit on countering terrorist propaganda,” by Michael Safi, Guardian, June 10, 2015:

Tony Abbott has opened a regional summit on countering terrorist propaganda in Sydney, telling delegates Islamic State “is coming if it can for every person and every government with a simple message: submit or die”.

Representatives from governments and civil society groups from 25 countries are meeting for two days to share ideas for challenging the appeal of Isis and other jihadi groups at the countering violent extremism (CVE) summit. More than 15,000 foreign fighters are estimated to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join the conflict, including at least 100 Australians.

The prime minister said waves of immigration had helped Australia flourish, “yet the tentacles of the death cult have extended even here as we discovered to our cost during the Martin Place siege last December”.

The prime minister also referenced claims of an Isis plot in Melbourne last year, likely to be the alleged stabbing of two police officers by 18-year-old Numan Haider in September.

He said Isis had inflicted death “mostly on Muslims in the Middle East”, but added: “This is what the death cult has in store for everyone if it has its way.”

“Daesh is coming if it can for every person and every government with a simple message: submit or die,” he said. “You can’t negotiate with an entity like this, you can only fight it.”

Abbott again paid tribute to the Egyptian president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for his call that “Islam needed nothing less than a religious revolution to reverse centuries of false thinking”.

“In the end though, the only really effective defence against terrorism is persuading people that it’s pointless, persuading people that God does not demand death to the infidel,” he said. “Above all we need idealistic young people to understand that joining this death cult is an ugly, misguided and wrong-headed way to express their desire to sacrifice.”

The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, also addressed the summit, revealing that 115 passports had been cancelled, nine had been suspended and 14 refused to Australians currently in Iraq and Syria or suspected of wishing to join the conflict in the region.

She said “it defies all comprehension” that women made up around one-fifth of those flocking to join Isis, “given that it is women who are disproportionately affected by extremist groups”.

There were between 30 and 40 women “known to be either engaging in or supporting activity in Iraq, Syria or here in Australia”, she said.

Over the next two days the summit will hear from intelligence chiefs, academics, leaders of Muslim organisations and representatives from Google and Facebook. The sessions are closed, but one of the speakers, Michele Grossman from Victoria University, told Guardian Australia she would emphasise the need to support the families of young people at risk.

“Families can be a frontline of defence,” she said. “Those who are closest to us are often the very first to see early or subtle changes in attitude, in behaviour, in social networks, and this means we really need to see some new ways about how we can educate families on how to read and how to act on such early warning signs….

That is assuming that Muslim families are against all this. An unproven assumption at best.

First They Came for Pamela Geller, and I Did Not Speak Out

Posted By Robert Spencer On June 7, 2015 @ pjmedia.com

“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Pamela Geller [1] about the abortive jihad beheading plot against her, and she was right. The showdown is right upon them now, and mainstream media talking heads have no idea of the significance of what is happening.

“They targeted me for violating sharia blasphemy laws. They mean to kill everyone who doesn’t do their bidding and abide by them voluntarily,” Geller added.

“It’s just beginning,” she warned. “ISIS is here. Islamic terrorism is here.”

That is all true. The jihad plot against Pamela Geller was an attempt to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws upon someone who does not accept them. If it had succeeded, it would have shown Americans that no one who deviates from Sharia norms is safe. It would have been a staggering blow to the continuation of the U.S. as a free society.

Heedless of these manifest implications, however, the mainstream media hasn’t caught on. The execrable New York Daily News [1] couldn’t stop sneering at the heroic Pamela Geller — “conservative firebrand,” “Upper East Side right-winger” — even when she was a direct target of an Islamic State-inspired murder plot.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo, interviewing Geller [2], lectured her:

You can show the cartoon. People have the equal right to criticize your showing the cartoon as an overt provocation of a religion.

And he asked her:

Why not do what we often teach as a function of virtue — when we’re dealing with savagery — which is show that we are better than this? Not show that we can poke them in the eye in a way they don’t like it.

Geller rightly responded:

That’s not what you’re doing. You are submitting, and you are kowtowing. And they’re saying to you, if you draw a little cartoon; if you draw a stick figure and say it’s Mohammed, we’re going to come and kill you. And so you say, okay, we won’t — we won’t draw it. CNN won’t show it.

The Daily News and Chris Cuomo and the rest at CNN, along with their many colleagues among the comfortable media and political elites, are happy to throw her under the bus. They effectively say: “Free speech? Yes, of course, but not deliberate provocation.”

They don’t realize that whatever distaste they may have for Pamela Geller (and that distaste ultimately derives from the fact that she speaks truths they would rather ignore and deny), she stands for all of us now. Whether you’re as proud to stand with her as I am, or whether you wish she would go away, she is the figure today about whom one must decide: will I stand for freedom, or kowtow to violent intimidation? Will I submit to the tyranny of violence, or defend free society?

Remember Pastor Niemöller from World War II?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Well, here we are. Those days are upon us again, and as few, or fewer, people are paying attention to what is happening as were in those days.

First they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out, because they didn’t like “right-wingers.” Or because they wanted to keep appearing on CNN, or because they didn’t want to offend Islamic supremacists, or because they thought her ads were in poor taste, or because they wanted to keep getting invited to the best parties, or because their Leftist Alinskyite friends would have laughed at them.

So first they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out. What they do not realize, or do not care to acknowledge, is that the jihadists will not stop with Pamela Geller. They will not stop with those who had something to do with showing Muhammad cartoons. They will not stop. It is stand now, or surrender.

“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Geller. Yes, it is.

Cuomo - like so many in the media - just doesn't get it.  He is completely clueless.  Watch as Pamela articulates her position perfectly.  Cuomo simply doesn't want to hear it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WJVt3vYJy0

The male host questioning Robert shows the typical media skepticism about the seriousness of the threat, and a complete lack of interest in investigating what is being taught in 80% of the mosques in America:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_o-6VoVEsg#t=98

Crafty:

I wouldn't want to go up against you in a physical fight (God help me - I want you on MY side!)  BUT - I don't think I would swap places with you financially either - if these are the prognosticators you are listening to

Pamela is exactly correct - by refusing to publish or display these images of Mohammed, we are submitting to intimidation and ultimately - Sharia Law.  This is was the cowardly media - the vast majority of it - would have us do.  When did we lose a sense of moral clarity in this nation?  It appears to be in precious short supply.  See story below:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/05/us-news-and-world-report-on-washington-dc-transit-ban.html/

Note Robert's comments regarding Bill O'Reilly - fool that he is:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/81-of-respondents-to-al-jazeera-poll-support-the-islamic-state

Crafty:  PRECISELY.  This IS the reality.  Unless and until we face this reality as a nation - and that will take the leadership of a prominent Republican (possibly Ted Cruz?) this war is lost.  Period.  You can not defeat an enemy you refuse to accurately define.  Islam is a totalitarian ideology of world-domination.  It is antithetical to the founding principles of this nation and therefore, it follows - to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

Abolishing 501c3 organizations would be a baby-step in the right direction.  Islam should NOT enjoy the protected status of a "religion."  Does the Nazi Party or the KKK enjoy tax-exempt status?  But this is arguably a side issue.  Until it seeps into - or is burned into (possibly by a nuclear attack on one of our cities) the American consciousness that Islam is not a "religion" like any other, but in fact a repressive, totalitarian ideology bent on world conquest, we cannot possibly fight - let alone win - this war.  And make no mistake.  The war has begun.  They have declared it against us - whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.  Garland, TX was just the latest demonstration of this fact.

Sadly, I see America in the same state of denial as the nation was in prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  A huge majority of the American people were opposed to getting involved.  We saw much the same in Europe - in Great Britain - until Churchill came along.  We are on the path to a VERY ugly awakening.  I fear thousands, if not tens of thousands will die before we wake up as a nation and engage in this fight.  The enemy is HERE.  They have infiltrated the Department of Homeland Security, for God's sake.  Obama (along with Grover Norquist) has facilitated this.  What more needs to be said?

This will be the largest mosque in the Western Hemisphere.  Erdogan - Turkey's head of state - has ties to both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.  Obama is not only looking the other way - he is enabling this.  It is telling that Erdogan seems to be the only foreign leader with whom Obama has a close relationship.

The enemy is infiltrating and setting up base camps and training centers right here in our midst.  We ought to be EXTREMELY concerned - but with the exception of a handful of members of Congress - including Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann - the vast majority of our "leaders" seem to be asleep at the wheel.

This is not going to end well.  God help us.

The Problem with Jade Helm

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 22, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com

Jade Helm 15, a large-scale military operation conducted [2] by U.S. Army Special Operations Command and service members from the military’s four branches, scheduled to take place in several states [3] between July 15 and September 15, 2015, has elicited a firestorm of criticism. Many have gone so far as to claim the exercises are a prelude to the imposition [4] of martial law, especially in Texas, one of the states designated [5] as “hostile” territory. However, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) puts [6] the issue in the proper perspective, noting why it’s reasonable that Americans would be concerned about the operation.

Gohmert first reveals his office “has been inundated with calls” regarding the mission, and acknowledges that this “military practice has some concerned that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law.” “Certainly, I can understand these concerns,” he writes. “When leaders within the current administration believe that major threats to the country include those who support the Constitution, are military veterans, or even ‘cling to guns or religion,’ patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned.”

Gohmert is spot on. In February, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence assessment focused [7] on the threat posed by right-wing, sovereign citizen extremist groups. As reported by the Washington Times, some law enforcement officials believe the threat posed by these groups “is equal to, and occasionally greater than, the threat from Islamic extremist groups.”

It’s not the first time DHS has made such a delusional assessment. In 2009 the agency was worried about the possible recruitment of military veterans into such groups, eliciting blowback from rightly offended veterans. Adding to the absurdity (and hypocrisy as well) the February report was released while Obama was conducting [8] his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, during which the president took great pains to separate [9] such extremism from all things Islamic.

That would be the same president who demonstrated no similar reticence whatsoever with regard to Christianity. At the National Prayer Breakfast that same month, Obama was more than willing to remind [10] Americans “that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.” In over six years in office there hasn’t been a single occasion when Obama referred to any of the innumerable depredations committed by Muslim extremists as being perpetrated “in the name of Mohammed.”

Thus, when Gohmert addresses “the contempt and antipathy for the true patriots or even Christian saints persecuted for their Christian beliefs,” demonstrated by this administration, he correctly asserts “it is no surprise that those who have experienced or noticed such persecution are legitimately suspicious.”

The Congressman acknowledges the need for training and that part of it requires Special Forces to move unobserved among civilian populations absent their discovery, as well as the need to handle various threat scenarios. However, like many of his constituents, he is appalled by the idea that portions of the country have been deemed “hostile,” adding that designation has never been employed before. Citing his own experience in military science classes and active duty, Gohmert explained the military would “use fictitious names before we would do such a thing.” Moreover, he can’t help noticing “the hostile areas amazingly have a Republican majority and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution,” he states sarcastically.

He also believes such labeling raises suspicions among people regarding “whether their big brother government anticipates certain states may start another civil war or be overtaken by foreign radical Islamist elements which have been reported to be just across our border,” and that it “is an affront to the residents of that particular state considered as hostile, as if the government is trying to provoke a fight with them.”

Indeed, the Obama administration has demonstrated an undue level of antipathy towards the Lone Star State on a number of occasions. In 2011, the Department of Justice threatened [11] a complete suspension of air travel in and out of Texas if the state Senate approved HB 1937 [12]. That bill would have banned “intrusive touching of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation,” aimed at derailing the TSA’s intimate pat-downs absent the probable cause guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment [13]. The bill was ultimately shelved. In August of 2013, the administration sued [14] the state because it passed a voter ID law. The suit was in complete defiance of a Supreme Court decision the previous June striking down portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts that had required states to “preclear” any changes to their voting laws. And when the border surge of illegals crossing into Texas occurred last year, and then-Gov. Rick Perry sent Texas National Guard troops there to deal with the onslaught, Obama made it clear [15] he would not take unilateral action to stem the tide.

On April 27, the military sent Army Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a spokesman for Army Special Operations Command, to Bastrop, TX on April 27 in an effort to address [16] local concerns. He explained that Jade Helm 15 is a routine, but necessary endeavor, because modern warfare requires soldiers to maneuver through civilian populations rather than fight on a battlefield. He further insisted Texas provided the ideal terrain for such an exercise, and noted that soldiers will wear either uniforms or orange arm bands to show that they are part of it, and there will be no attempt to move through the population undetected.

Newly-elected Texas Governor Greg Abbott nonetheless expressed concerns. He has sent a letter [17] to Maj. Gen. Gerald Betty, commander of the Texas State Guard, directing the Guard to monitor Jade Helm 15. “During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed,” Abbott wrote. “By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communication between my office and commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.”

Gohmert has another idea that might assuage a number of concerns. “The map of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change, and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states,” he declared.

While some of the concern over Jade Helm might be misguided, none of it has occurred in a vacuum. It arises from more than six years of an administration that has demonstrated an overt willingness to squander the trust of millions of Americans in pursuit of its agenda—by any means necessary. Americans would much prefer to see the military training to defend the homeland against ISIS rather than engage in insulting exercises against the “hostile” heartland of liberty.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-18/san-francisco-fed-just-gave-green-light-june-rate-hike

This is an excellent, incisive piece, demonstrating admittedly, what we already know about The New York Times - fit only for a bird-cage liner:

‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times

Posted By Arnold Ahlert On May 8, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com

[1]When it comes to rank hypocrisy and leftist-inspired double-standards, there’s nothing quite like the New York Times. Despite the reality two Islamist gunmen would have undoubtedly killed as many participants attending Pamela Geller’s “Draw Mohammed” contest in Garland, TX,  as possible, the so-called paper of record chose to excoriate [2] those exercising their freedom of speech.

“There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies,” the Times editorial board condescendingly concedes. “There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.”

“But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom,” the board concludes.

For the pseudo-moralists who run the Times, such indignation is highly selective. In 1989, Arts Section contributor Michael Brenson was highly effusive when it came to defending [3] and praising artist Andres Serrano whose ostensible cutting-edge brilliance consisted of a photograph entitled “Piss Christ,” depicting a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. He described the photo as a “religious emblem enveloped in a dreamy golden haze.” Moreover, Brenson was upset the about ensuing uproar over the original showing of the photograph. That unveiling took place at a group show underwritten by government grants and caused the National Endowment for the Arts to change its policy to one restricting endowments for projects the agency considered obscene. “People may agree or disagree with him, or they may question his belief in photography, but how can anyone find in his work just obscenity and disrespect?” Brenson wondered. “It is hard to believe that anyone whose faith is searching and secure would not be grateful for what Mr. Serrano has done.” (Italics mine.)

In 1998 the paper criticized [4] the withdrawal of playwright Terrence McNally’s “Corpus Christi” from the Manhattan Theater Club, due to threats of violence. Corpus Christi was about [5] a gay Jesus, with a plot line that included the Christian Son of God performing a same-sex marriage, and Judas betraying him due to romantic jealousy. “What we are witnessing, once again, is the peculiar combat between freedoms that is repeatedly staged in America,” the paper stated. “The practitioners and beneficiaries of religious freedom attack the practitioners of artistic freedom–freedom of speech–without seeing that the freedoms they enjoy cannot be defended separately.”

One year later, Arts Section contributor Michael Kimmelman wondered [6] how artist Chris Ofili’s ”Holy Virgin Mary,’’ showing the mother of Christ replete with small cutouts of vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines, and a ball of dung representing one of her breasts, “could cause so much fuss.” “One of the casualties of political debates about art is always a complexity of interpretation, both sides needing to simplify the meaning of the work because contradictory connotations would undermine their arguments even though those contradictions make art art and not a political tract,” he explains. “People want a straight answer — is it good or bad? — which misses the point about how art functions, especially in a divisive context.”

In 2011 Theater Section reviewer Ben Brantley was especially delighted [7] by “The Book of Mormon,” a musical dedicated to the mockery of the Mormon religion. It contains a song entitled Hasa Diga Eebowai [8] sung by blighted Africans in a made up Ugandan language intended to translate into “F**k you, God, in the ass, mouth, and c**t!” Brantley addresses all the “doubters and deniers out there, the ones who say that heaven on Broadway does not exist, that it’s only some myth our ancestors dreamed up,” he gushes. “I am here to report that a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical has arrived at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, the kind our grandparents told us left them walking on air if not on water.”

In short, the New York Times is very much in favor, if not downright ecstatic about, overt Christian-bashing. But not just Christians. Last year the paper was equally determined to defend [9] the “principle of artistic freedom in a world rife with political pressures” regarding the Metropolitan Opera’s presentation of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” depicting the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists — terrorists who shot the wheelchair-bound Jewish American and tossed him overboard. The Times insisted Met general manager Peter Gelb “should not have yielded to its critics” even as Gelb  himself  canceled live broadcast of the opera due to what he perceived as rising tide of anti-Semitism. The Times remained resolute about the importance of freedom. “Viewers may have different reactions and responses to such an ambitious and painfully contemporary work, but the arts can only be harmed by retreating from controversy,” the  editorial board asserted.

Nonetheless, the same board contends that Geller’s exercise of a far more benign expression of freedom in comparison to any of the aforementioned examples is “inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.”

Sadly, the contemptible notion that Geller is engaged in what the Times and others define as hate speech resonates with a number of Americans. An Economist/YouGov Poll reveals [10] only a small plurality of Americans would be against a law criminalizing hate speech. Only 38 percent of Americans would oppose enacting such a law, while 36 percent would support it, with 26 percent of Americans undecided. When political affiliation enters the picture, the results are as follows: Independents, 53 percent opposed, 27 percent in favor and 20 percent are not sure. For Republicans its 49 percent opposed, 25 percent in favor and 26 percent unsure. Democrats are a different story. A 51 percent majority of Democrats favor criminalizing “hate” speech, while 21 percent oppose it, and 28 percent are unsure.

Perhaps the Times is playing to its core support group. Regardless, the editorial board remains oblivious to the reality they favor the very same “right” not to be offended that ostensibly animates not just Islamists, but supposedly all “offended” Muslims. The paper may differ with Islamists on how to respond to such offenses, choosing to excoriate Geller and company rather than kill them, but their insistence that some sort of anti-Constitutional line be drawn between “freedom” and “hate” is to share the same totalitarian ambitions that form the heart of Sharia Law.

And while that alignment may constitute an alliance of convenience, it is no accident. The Times would like nothing more than to crack down on America’s “bitter clingers.” Thus progressives will temporarily embrace Islamists in an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. That is why the Times and other equally feckless [11] mainstream media outlets  are now wondering aloud [12] where the nonexistent  “fine line” between free speech ends and hate speech begins. And it is occurring even as these leftist provocateurs devote far more time to undercutting the First Amendment than they do chronicling the wholesale extermination of Christians or the oppression of gays and women in the Islamic world.

How softly do they trod? “If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Mohammed, then why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” wonders [13] radio host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to aiding the agenda of the jihadists, there is no one the Left wouldn’t throw under the bus.

There IS NO RECOVERY HAPPENING, despite what the talking heads in the media - Wesbury being a rather egregious example - will tell you:

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-08/americans-not-labor-force-rise-record-93194000

Je Suis Pamela Geller

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 8, 2015

I was standing next to Pamela Geller just after our American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest ended last Sunday in Garland, Texas when one of our security team ran in and told us that there had been a shooting outside. As the audience was led to another area inside the building and the outside was swept for bombs and additional jihadis, Geller and I were hurried to a safe room. It was the last time since then that Pamela Geller has been safe.

The Islamic State quickly issued a communiqué that included this:

The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah [actually wilayah, administrative district] in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer [pig] Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.

On top of that, instead of rallying to her defense and to that of the freedom of speech, the mainstream media, both on the Left and on the Right, has spent the week excoriating Pamela Geller for daring to “provoke” the poor jihadis, as if the two Muslim gunmen who showed up at our event would have become fiercely patriotic stockbrokers if only we hadn’t shown those cartoons.

It is therefore clear that if, God forbid, anything does happen to Pamela Geller, the talking heads will look soulfully into the cameras and say, Of course we are shocked…Of course we condemn….but…wellllll…she had it coming…she should have submitted to Sharia blasphemy restrictions like the rest of us…

The reality is that if the gunmen were “provoked” by the Muhammad cartoons, they would have been “provoked” by something else. What had the Jews in the Hyper Cacher supermarket in January done to “provoke” the Muslims? They dared to be Jews. What had the people in the Lindt Chocolat Cafe in Australia done to “provoke” the Muslims? Dared to be non-Muslims.

People who say our cartoon contest deliberately tried to provoke a violent reaction are under the apparent delusion that if we abide by Muhammad Atta’s advice to the passengers on his doomed plane on September 11, 2001, all will be well. Atta told the passengers, “Stay quiet and you’ll be OK.”

They weren’t.

The jihadis are already “provoked.” As I show in my forthcoming book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS [2], they were already planning and preparing for massive jihad attacks in the United States long before our cartoon show was ever considered. No amount of submission on our part is going to change that. In fact, the more we submit to violent intimidation, the more violent intimidation we are going to get. Why should the jihadis abandon a winning formula?

The world rallied to proclaim “Je suis Charlie” after the massacre of Muhammad cartoonists in Paris in January. But when those jihadis targeted our Muhammad cartoon event last Sunday, few were saying “Je suis Pamela Geller.” What’s the difference? The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were reliably Leftist, while Geller is identified with the Right. And now it is clear: the Leftist intelligentsia would rather see the freedom of speech restricted, and Sharia censorship imposed, rather than stand with someone whose opinions they find unacceptable.

That really isn’t any surprise. The Left in America is increasingly authoritarian, intolerant, and opposed to the freedom of speech. Leftist thinkers speak only to each other, dismissing challenges from the Right with ad hominem attacks or ignoring them altogether. It would be easy for those who live in that echo chamber to think of the Garland jihadi gunmen, Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, as ideological kin: assassins rather than character assassins, but with the same goal in mind.

Those who understand, however, that the freedom of speech, and free society in general, cannot possibly survive the imposition of censorship to avoid offending a group that reacts with murderous violence to being offended, are indeed saying Je Suis Pamela Geller today. If the free world ever remembers that obeying someone who will kill you if you disobey only reinforces your slavery, it will owe her a debt of gratitude of awesome proportions.

Radical Imam tells Pamela to her face that she deserves death penalty for sponsoring event in Garland, TX.  This is what we are dealing with.  Pamela responds with aplomb and dignity as she speaks truth to this savage:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xuj-aJyaE