Fire Hydrant of Freedom

Trump Calls for More High-Skill Immigration

By Michael Barone
September 07, 2016

Would he go hard or go soft? That was the mainstream media template for judging Donald Trump's speech on immigration in Phoenix last Wednesday. The verdict: hard. "How Trump got from Point A to Point A on immigration," was the headline in the Washington Post's recap.

Similarly, the often-insightful Talking Points Memo blogger Josh Marshall characterized Trump's discourse as "hate speech." "Precisely what solution Trump is calling for is almost beside the point."

That's precisely wrong. Marshall found the Phoenix crowd's raucous shouts distasteful, and so did I. But a search through Trump's prepared text and his occasional digressions fails to disclose anything that can be fairly characterized as "hate speech."

Instead it discloses some serious critiques and proposals for recasting our immigration laws, which almost everyone agrees need changing.

Start near the end, with the 10th of Trump's 10 points. He notes that we've admitted 59 million immigrants since the last major revision of immigration law in 1965, and that "many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country." No asides about criminals or rapists.

Then he proposes a major policy change: "to select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient ... to choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency."

That's not racism or hate speech, and it's not out of line with American tradition.

Emma Lazarus' oft-quoted poem commends America for welcoming "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" and "the wretched refuse of your teeming shore." But during the great wave of immigration from eastern and southern Europe from 1892 to 1914, the Ellis Island inspectors, in line with national policy, excluded those deemed incapable of supporting themselves as well as those with communicable diseases.

And the United States deported immigrants judged to be terrorists. American immigration policy even then wasn't completely open door.

Trump seems to be calling, in non-provocative language, for changing immigration law to give priority to high-skill immigrants, as do the immigration laws of Canada and Australia. That's not racist: Those countries admit plenty of non-whites. But they do require proficiency in English (or French in Canada).

Both have higher foreign-born percentages of population than the United States, and both have students who score higher on PISA international achievement tests than U.S. students do. No wonder a diplomat from one of those countries told me, half in jest, "Please do not adopt our immigration system."

Every serious expert concedes that the 1965 immigration act resulted in an unexpected huge flow of low-skill immigrants, especially but not only from Mexico. Most serious scholars agree that has tended to reduce, at least a little, wages for low-skill Americans. Do we really need another inrush of unskilled workers in the next few decades?

Near the beginning of his speech, Trump said, "The media and my opponent discuss one thing, and only this one thing: the needs of people living here illegally." That's an exaggeration, but not by much: mainstream media judges Trump hard or soft depending on what he says about illegals. "The central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants -- or however many there may be," he went on. "The only one core issue" is "the well-being of the American people."

To some, this sounds like bigotry, prejudice against foreigners, a preference for a mostly (but far from totally) white populace over a vastly larger (and mostly non-white) humanity. They instinctively prefer Hillary Clinton's version of open borders, allowing anyone who gets here and isn't criminally convicted to stay.

Trump's answer came earlier in the day, in Mexico City, as he shook hands and spoke cordially with President Enrique Pena Nieto. I like and admire him, Trump said; he loves his country and I love mine. Nieto's invitation, much criticized in Mexico, was prompted by his need to get along with whoever is elected U.S. president. That need likewise prompted his cautious remarks about Trump in a joint news conference with Barack Obama earlier this summer.

Trump's threats of trade retaliation and suggestion he might not honor NATO obligations provide rationales for voting against him as irresponsibly reckless. His immigration proposals don't.

His proposals for visa tracking and E-Verify validation of job applicants -- similar to Marco Rubio's -- would marginally reduce the illegal population, as would his deportation of some illegals.

More important, though ignored by mainstream media, is that his policies would produce more high-skill immigrants and Hillary Clinton's plan would produce more low-skill immigrants. Which is better for America?

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Michael Barone is senior political analyst for  the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.

I don't "assume" the markets are propped up by Fed stimulus, that is a verifiable fact.

As already linked in the article above, stock buybacks are indeed propping up equities prices artificially. Companies are seeking to counteract poor fundamentals:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/28/companies-that-do-buybacks-do-worst-over-time-.html

The Fed's overnight loans and near zero interest rates feed the coffers of various banks and international businesses. This has allowed them to institute constant debt fueled stock buybacks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-buybacks-analysis-idUSKCN0RN0D320150923

The Fed cut rates because it was the only way to prop up the dying markets. In fact, every time stocks began to retrace the initial crash of 2008-2009, the Fed introduced more QE, boosting markets again. THIS WAS OPENLY ADMITTED by Dallas Fed head Richard Fisher. Here is the quote:

"What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.

It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Whimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow.

I’m not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly." [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December.]

Fisher went on to hint at the impending danger:

I was warning my colleagues, “Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10-20% correction at some point…. Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.”

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000474362

Alan Greenspan also openly admitted that the Fed's main concern was propping up equities:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-18/greenspan-admits-feds-plan-was-always-pushing-stocks-higher

Of course, it does not surprise me that a "mainstream economist" would be completely oblivious to this information. They live in another world separate from reality.

As far as the so called "recovery" is concerned, all fundamental data has indicated since last DECEMBER that the global economy is not only in consistent decline, but that decline is now accelerating. This did not stop the Fed from raising rates the first time. I am not sure why mainstream economists think that data makes any difference to the Fed today.

No one asked the fed to raise rates in the first place, yet they did. And now, they are going to raise again. Today's job numbers gave no indication whatsoever that the Fed will back off from another hike. That is all mainstream news gossip and nothing more.

I have been consistently right over the years about Federal Reserve activity. I am right again this time. When they raise again this year, I hope you are willing to accept that perhaps the mainstream knows very little about how the economy and the central banks operate

Central Banks Ready to Launch Their "Brave New World"

Brandon Smith - www.alt-market.com - August 31, 2016

The latest Federal Reserve meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, is over and so far it would seem that the general investment world is not too happy about Janet Yellen’s statements as well as those of other Fed officials.  In fact, many people are looking for some simple clarity as to what the central bank is actually planning.

Most importantly, investors want to know why the Fed is suddenly so adamant about continued interest rate hikes in 2016.  Only a couple months ago, almost everyone (including alternative economic analysts) was arguing that the Fed would “never dare” to raise rates again so soon, and that there was no chance of a rate hike so close to the presidential elections.

Instead, investors have been greeted with surging rate-hike odds as Fed officials openly hint of another boost, probably in September.

As I have been saying for years, if you think the Fed’s motivation is to protect or prolong the U.S. economy, then you will never understand why they do the things that they do.  Only when people are willing to accept the reality that the Fed’s job is to undermine the U.S. economy can they grasp central bank behavior.

Here is the issue that scares mainstream markets — many day traders are greedy, but not necessarily dumb.  They KNOW full well that the only pillar holding up stocks at record highs has been central bank intervention.  A vital part of this intervention has been the use of near-zero interest rates.  That is to say, cheap and free overnight loans through the Fed have allowed banks and other corporations to remain “solvent,” and these loans have been the fuel companies have used for corporate buybacks of stocks.

Corporate buybacks have been a primary driver in the bull market rally that supposedly saved the world from the ongoing deflationary destruction of capital.  In 2015, buybacks reached historic levels and garnered one of the largest equities reversals in history.   While these buybacks do little or nothing to heal the economy on Main Street, they certainly do wonders for equities portfolios.  By buying up their own shares, corporations boost the value of remaining shares through a brand of legal trickery.  And, in the process, these corporations also boost the overall perceived value of global stock markets.

As Edward Swanson, author of a study from Texas A&M, noted on stock buybacks used to offset poor fundamentals:

“We can’t say for sure what would have happened without the repurchase, but it really looks like the stock would have kept going down because of the decline in fundamentals… these repurchases seem to hold up the stock price.”

Yes, to us he seems to be stating the obvious, but for the average American, a green stock market means a recovering economy.  There is no deeper question of why the markets are rallying, and this lack of understanding is dangerous for our country.

Even marginal hikes in borrowing costs will kill the party and, while people not involved in finance and stocks are oblivious, day traders know exactly what is going on.  This is the reason for the underlying panic felt by the investment world at any hint of a rate hike by the Fed.

As we saw with the limited audit of TARP, the Fed was pumping tens of trillions in overnight loans into distressed banks and companies, even foreign companies overseas.  I suggest that if a FULL audit of the Fed were ever conducted, we would find tens of trillions more in overnight loans since 2008.

Imagine for a moment if those loans never stopped.  Imagine that such loans have been an ongoing mainstay of our financial system and stock markets in general.  Now, ask yourself, what would happen if the companies reliant on these free loans suddenly had to pay interest on them?

Think about it; what would the interest cost be on a mere .5% to 1% of $16 trillion in overnight loans through TARP?  What would the cumulative cost be on all the loans banks and companies need to survive every quarter?   In the end, corporations would either drown in billions of dollars in exponential debt or they would have to stop accessing loans from the Fed.  Once the loans stop, the stock buybacks stop.  Once the buybacks stop, stock markets crumble.

Without free cash from the Fed, the bubble in stock markets will finally and thoroughly implode, crashing down to meet all other fundamentals.

Why would the central bank pull the plug on life support to stock markets?  There are multiple reasons, but a top reason is that this is the Federal Reserve’s modus operandi.  They consistently seem to raise rates into recessionary conditions that they also tend to create.  In essence, the Fed likes to acclimate and addict markets to low interest percentages, and then increase those percentages to agitate and elicit a chaotic reaction.

In my article Brexit Aftermath - Here’s What Will Happen Next, I stated:

“Really, the only safe measure the Fed can take from now on is to do nothing.  I highly doubt that they will do nothing.  In fact, even in the face of the Brexit I still believe the Fed will raise rates a second time before the end of the year.  Why?  This is what the Fed has always done as recession takes hold.  Historically, the Fed raises rates at the worst possible times.  As with the Brexit, I am going to have to take the contrary position to most analysts on this.”

What analysts out there need to understand, whether they are independent or mainstream, is that a great shift in central bank policy and attitude is coming. Christine Lagarde at the IMF calls it the “economic reset,” some Fed officials, like Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart, state that central banks are entering a “brave new world.” These are highly loaded phrases that represent a drastic overhaul of the global financial system; an overhaul that is quite deliberate and inevitably destructive for certain nations and economies, including the U.S.

If we examine the policy pursuits and recently stated goals of central banks around the world, and those statements made after the Brexit referendum, we find that a process of complete global centralization is underway. This includes a push for all central banks to “coordinate policy” under a single directive.

Alternative analysts already know that all central banks are ALREADY covertly coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements.  So, when central bankers call for policy coordination in the mainstream press, what they really mean is, they want the existing coordination that is covert to become publicly accepted and celebrated.  They want that which is illegal to become legal.  That which is morally reprehensible to become morally relative.

Central bankers also want their position of authority over the global economy to become a public priority.  Ten years ago, when I asked average people what they knew about the Federal Reserve, most of them responded with confusion.  They had never heard of the institution, let alone what its function was.  Today, almost everyone knows about the Fed, but there is also an assumption attached that central banks, whether they are successful or not, are supposed to maintain economic stability.  Keep in mind that global stocks barely vibrate today until a central bank somewhere publishes a policy statement.  This is not how investment is supposed to function.  The jawboning of central banks should be mostly meaningless.

The brave new world of central banking is a plan to expand on this corrupt correlation.  That is to say, the general public and the mainstream should be questioning whether central banks should exist at all.  Instead, people are arguing over what policies are better for central banks to adapt.  The existence of central banks is considered an absolute.  The masses are only given the option to debate what faces and what hats central banks should wear.  If we get anything out of this deal, we only get to choose the form of our destructor.

I should point out also the growing trend in the mainstream media of criticism against the Fed.  This is a relatively new thing.  For the past several years the more effectively critical the alternative media became against the Fed, the louder MSM talking heads would cheerlead for the establishment.  With central bankers becoming more open about their global shift into something "different", a new program of stabbing at the Fed has been initiated.  This is not a coincidence.

As I have argued in various articles, the Fed itself may be just as sacrificial to the elites as the U.S. economy.  In the process of global centralization, the Fed would eventually have to take a back seat to the IMF, World Bank and the BIS.  It is not surprising to me in the slightest that the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media is changing gears and attacking the institution they once desperately defended.  Priorities are evolving.

I believe that with the advent of a second rate hike in 2016, many conditions will change.  The Dow and some emerging markets will no longer enjoy unmitigated support, and they will begin to fall going into the elections.  As I have mentioned many times in past articles, Donald Trump is the most likely candidate to take up residence in the White House.  Conservatives will be lulled into a temporary euphoria, happy just to have defeated she-demon Hillary Clinton, only to discover that an overall global implosion has entered a new stage.  This implosion will of course be blamed on those same conservative movements.

In the meantime, central banks around the world are going to start openly coordinating while the IMF will take up a “leadership role” in managing international policy.  Central banks will also be branching out and taking on new powers.  As suggested at Jackson Hole, many central bankers are arguing for “new tools” to fight future fiscal downturns, and no, this does not mean negative interest rates.  Instead, watch for central banks to change the definition of inflation on a whim, or adjust the relative value of currencies through agreements with other countries instead of allowing free markets to determine values, and watch for complete overhauls in how economic instability is calculated.

What we are heading for is a world in which many nations will suffer from reductions in living standards and where some first world nations will be reduced to third world conditions.  In order to normalize increased global poverty, you have to stop calling it poverty and start calling it a “brave new world.”  You have to convince the populace that the economic degradation is not a problem that can be solved — rather, it is a problem we must all adapt to and accept.

Be very wary when elites and international financiers mention “global reset,” or a “brave new world,” or a “new world order.”  What they are talking about is not a program that is in your best interest.  What they are talking about is the deliberate creation of chaos; a slow burning calamity that can be exploited to derive the benefits of even more centralization and even more power.

They will call it random.  They will call it coincidence or fate or even blame it all on their ideological opponents.  In the end, they will eventually call it a natural progression of events; a social and financial evolution.  They will call it inevitable.  None of this will be true.  There is nothing natural about a totalitarian framework — it is a machine that is carefully crafted piece by piece, maintained by the hands of a select few tyrants and fed with the labor, sacrifice and fear of the innocent.

The only solution is to expunge the parasites from our fiscal body.  These institutions and the people behind them should not exist.  Most if not all of our sociopolitical distress today could be cured if a “brave new world” meant wiping the slate clean and dispelling financial elites and central bankers into a bottomless pit.

Donald Trump took any hope of beating the Crooked Hillary machine out onto 5th Ave. and shot it in the head.

Hillary is the next president. Plan accordingly.

Your prediction of Hillary's win is highly premature - and I believe influenced by the crooked media's phony polls and wishful thinking (on the media's part) that Trump will go down to defeat.  Don't be so sure.

Fed Officials Suggest Rate Hike On The Way In September

Friday, 26 August 2016   Brandon Smith

As predicted here at Alt-Market, despite all other indications of a receding economy the Fed is pushing for yet another rate hike in 2016.  This is a CLASSIC move for the Federal Reserve.  They almost ALWAYS hike rates into a recession/depression, and this usually accelerates the downturn.  Keep in mind the timing of these announcements; only two months before the U.S. presidential elections.  I believe the goal here by the elites is to initiate a soft downturn going into the elections which will boost Donald Trump's campaign.  I believe that they plan to place Trump into office and then allow the system to crash completely.  The point?  To place conservatives at the helm and then blame them for an economic collapse that was already engineered to happen by international financiers...

 

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said Friday that the case for an interest rate hike “has strengthened in recent months” in light of recent strong job growth, but she gave no signal that Fed policymakers will make a move at a meeting next month.

At the Fed’s annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Yellen said the Fed’s policymaking committee “continues to anticipate that gradual increases in the federal funds rate will be appropriate over time” to meet the Fed’s goals for inflation and employment.

The Dow Jones industrial average rose after Yellen’s remarks, but logged a small decline at midday as the market digested the news that met its expectations. Meanwhile, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said on CNBC that next Friday's report on August job gains could factor into the Fed's decision at its September 20-21 meeting, a remark that appeared to keep a rate increase on the table. The 10-year Treasury yield was up .03 percentage points in early afternoon trading at 1.6%.

The Fed raised its benchmark interest rate in December for the first time in nine years but has stood pat since then, leaving it at a historically low 0.4%.

Trump and the American Dream 

By CAROLINE B. GLICK - The Jerusalem Post
 08/25/2016   
 
 
According to most polls taken since last month’s party conventions, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton enjoys an insurmountable lead over Republican nominee Donald Trump. Consequently, a number of commentators on both sides of the partisan divide have declared the race over. Clinton, they say, has won.

 There are several problems with this conclusion.

 First of all, the “official campaign,” won’t begin until September 26, when Clinton and Trump face off in their first presidential debate. Clinton is not a stellar debater and Trump, a seasoned entertainer, excels in these formats.

 Second, recent polls indicate that Trump is closing the gap. Whereas until this past week Clinton enjoyed a 6-8 point lead in the polls, in two polls taken this week, her lead had contracted to a mere 1-3 points.

 Third, it is quite possible that Clinton’s problems have only begun. Her peak popularity may be behind her. Since her nomination, barely a day has passed without another stunning exposé of apparently corrupt behavior on the part of Clinton and her closest advisers. This week’s AP report that half of Clinton’s non-official visitors during her tenure as secretary of state were donors to the Clinton Foundation was merely the latest blow.

 The continuous drip of corruption stories will have a corrosive effect on Clinton’s support levels. If the revelations to come are as damaging as many have claimed, their impact on Clinton’s candidacy may be fatal.

 In light of Clinton’s weaknesses, Trump’s main hurdle to winning the election may very well lie with the NeverTrump movement. That movement encompasses much of the Republican establishment – that is, the political class of centrist elected officials, opinion-shapers, former officials and ideologues. Its members have vowed not to vote for Trump even if it means that Clinton wins the White House. The fact that so many prominent Republican voices continue to oppose Trump even after he has been nominated hurts his ability to build support among swing voters.

 As far as the NeverTrumpsters are concerned, Trump carried out a hostile takeover of their party.

 The man who discussed his private parts on national television and brutally and personally attacked his opponents may have won more primary votes than any Republican candidate in the past. But he also won the enmity of more members of the party establishment than any other Republican presidential hopeful.

 In an interview with CNN in late May,  Wall Street Journal columnist (and former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief) Bret Stephens spoke for many in the NeverTrump camp when he said that he wants Trump to be “the biggest loser in presidential history.”

Stephens explained, “It’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents, this kind of ethnic quote ‘conservatism’ or populism, be so decisively rebuked that the Republican Party and Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape or form.”

In June Stephens told radio host Hugh Hewitt that a Trump presidency would be more devastating for the US than a Clinton presidency. Stephens argued that whereas a Clinton presidency would be “a survivable event” he was unsure that the US could survive a Trump presidency.

 He explained, “The United States survives so long as at least one of its major parties is politically and intellectually healthy. I don’t think the Republican Party... as the vehicle for modern American conservative ideas, survives with Donald Trump.”

This week, The Washington Times published a list of 50 senior Republicans who not only will not support Trump, but have switched sides and are publicly supporting Clinton.

 The problem with Stephens’s view, which again, is widely shared by the intellectual and political establishment of the party, is that it ignores the cause of Trump’s primaries victory.

 On the eve of his 2008 electoral victory, Barack Obama pledged to “fundamentally transform,” America.

 He kept his word.

 And it is this fundamental transformation and the Republican leadership’s failure to stop it that transformed a loud-mouthed, brash billionaire into the Republican nominee. It was this transformation, and the Republican establishment’s failure to block it, that made it impossible for moderates like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush to win the Republican primaries in 2016.

 Not only has the country been transformed, the Republican electorate has been transformed.

 Today America is steeped in crisis. Foreign audiences concentrate on the crisis of American power overseas. Today, due to Obama’s decision to prefer his failed attempt at rapprochement with Iran over longtime US allies in the region, the Americans have lost their strategic superiority in the Middle East and are on the way to losing whatever residual influence they still maintain over regional affairs.

 Turkey’s ground invasion of Syria on Wednesday is a clear sign of the disintegration of America’s regional position. While the invasion was ostensibly launched against ISIS, the plain fact is that its main target is the Kurds. That is, NATO member Turkey invaded Syria to take out the US’s primary ally in its campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

 And the US is providing air cover to the Turkish invaders while abandoning the Kurds.

 Every advance the US has made in its campaign against ISIS has been achieved on the backs of the Kurds. And yet, Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting in Ankara the day of the Turkish invasion, openly threatened the Kurds. Biden said the US will abandon them if they refuse to conform with Turkey’s demand that they withdraw to the eastern side of the Euphrates River.

 Biden’s move merely reinforced the growing impression that the US is only dangerous to its allies. The Iranians, for instance responded to the Turkish move by harassing the US Navy destroyer USS Nitze as it traversed the Strait of Hormuz. Rather than sink the Iranian vessels that threatened it, the Nitze responded by shooting off a couple of flares. The State Department then whined about the assault, calling Iran’s act of war “unprofessional.”

And the worst part about the US’s strategic crackup is that it is but one of the crises endangering America today.

 Economically, the US has been steeped in stagnation for eight years. Largely as a result of overregulation, entrepreneurship is producing almost no new jobs. The housing crisis has not ended. People who purchased homes before 2008 remain stuck with underwater mortgages, doomed to remain in towns with no jobs because they can’t afford to sell their homes.

 Obamacare has made healthcare unaffordable for people who have insurance. Co-payments have risen so steeply that for many insured Americans, medical care is now viewed as a luxury item.

 In Rust Belt states, tens of millions of blue collar workers find themselves living in ruined towns. In the past two decades company after company closed its factories, shipped its operations out of the US or went bankrupt in the face of foreign competitors. And their former workers, people who believed in the American Dream, and actually achieved it, now have no dreams and no hope of ever getting back what they lost, much less of seeing their children do better than they did.

 The economic crisis has caused deeper crises.First and foremost the US is now in the midst of a crisis of faith. A Pew poll released this week showed that between 2007 and 2014, church attendance declined from 39 to 36 percent over the seven-year period. A significant number of nonobservant Americans no longer believe in God.

 Those numbers themselves are highly inflated. A multiyear study of church attendance data gathered from the majority of churches in the US by sociologists C. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Long Marler and published in 2005 showed that fewer than half of those who claim to go to church regularly actually do so. Hadaway and Marler assessed that a mere 17.7 percent of Americans go to church on a regular basis. The rest just tell pollsters that they attend because they are embarrassed that they don’t attend.

 In other words, what the Pew survey shows is not a reduction in religious worship but a shift in values. Today fewer Americans view church attendance as normatively superior to nonattendance.

 Loss of faith may well be directly correlated with a diminished view of the value of life. In Appalachia and the Midwest, the economic crisis and the spiritual crisis have also engendered a drug epidemic unprecedented in rural America. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125 Americans die every day from drug overdoses. That is more than the number of Americans who die in car accidents. The most significant rise in drug addiction rates has occurred in rural America. New Hampshire is the heroin capital of the US.

 Just last weekend, 10 people died of heroin overdoses in one rural county in Ohio. The heroin in question was laced with a tranquilizer generally used on elephants.

 This is the American transformation that Obama has brought about. And the suffering and misery it has engendered are the reason that Trump is now the Republican presidential nominee.

 Trump is no Billy Sunday. He is not a champion of free trade or social conservativism. He isn’t a neoconservative interventionist. Trump is the bar brawler who says things no one else will say. And the people who lack faith in the country’s ability to help them, who have lost hope that things that used to work can work again, adore him for it.

 This brings us to the issue of the lessons that will be learned by Republican voters if Trump loses as the NeverTrumpsters hope and expect.

 If Trump loses, his voters will not realize that they were mistaken to believe in him and support him in defiance of their party’s intellectual class. They will blame the NeverTrumpsters for the election results and boot them out of the party altogether. If the Republican Party even exists in 2020 and 2024, its candidates will make Trump look like a moderate.

 If Trump wins, on the other hand, while it is true that the NeverTrumpsters will not maintain their unquestioned control over Republican policies, they will likely get a seat at the table and retain some influence.

 More important, if Trump wins, the US will have a chance of changing back to the country it was before Obama fundamentally transformed it.

 Clinton, who like Obama and the NeverTrumpsters scoffs at Trump’s dark descriptions of American life today, has pledged to double down on Obama’s foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, she even pledged to destroy what’s left of the coal industry.

 So if Clinton is elected, what Republicans think about illegal immigration and free trade and foreign policy will be irrelevant. America’s fundamental transformation will become irreversible.

 In that event, America as a whole – not Trump, and not even the NeverTrumpsters – will be the greatest loser of November’s election.

www.CarolineGlick.com 

American journalism is collapsing before our eyes

By Michael Goodwin August 21, 2016 - The New York Post.


Donald Trump may or may not fix his campaign, and Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president. But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it.

The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand-in-hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations.

The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America.

The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent.

Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang, suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison.

By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion.

Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones.

I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil-rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong.

My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.”

That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism.

Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages.

A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.”

Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.”

Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ Web site. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage.

It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate.

It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of its own. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy.

It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust.

The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness.

Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate.

Brilliant! Trump Brings Breitbart CEO On Board as Campaign Chief

ByPamela Geller on August 17, 2016

I know Steve Bannon. It’s an inspired choice.

Andrew Breitbart is cheering from heaven.

Brilliant. Steve Bannon is a warrior. He has  long understood that this is a war in the information battle-space (something the right has failed to grasp, despite the left’s smear machine against those with whom they disagree.) The media is out to destroy Donald Trump. Trump needs a champion, a “Patton,” a Bannon.

This is fantastic news. Heads are exploding on the left.



    “NY Times: Donald Trump, in Shake-Up, Hires Breitbart Executive Stephen K. Bannon for Top Campaign Post,”

    Maggie Haberman and Ashley Parker write in the New York Times:

        LAS VEGAS — Donald J. Trump has shaken up his presidential campaign for the second time in two months, hiring a top executive from the conservative website Breitbart News and promoting a senior adviser in an effort to right his faltering campaign.

            Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, will become the Republican campaign’s chief executive, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser and pollster for Mr. Trump and his running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, will become the campaign manager.

            Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, will retain his title. But the staffing change, hammered out on Sunday and set to be formally announced Wednesday morning, was seen by some as a demotion for Mr. Manafort.

            […]

            “We met as the ‘core four’ today,” Ms. Conway added, referring to herself, Mr. Bannon, Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates.

            People briefed on the move said that it reflected Mr. Trump’s realization that his campaign was at a crisis point. But it indicates that the candidate — who has chafed at making the types of changes his current aides have asked for, even though he had acknowledged they would need to occur — has decided to embrace his aggressive style for the duration of the race.

            Both Ms. Conway and Mr. Bannon, whose news organization has been very favorable to Mr. Trump since he entered the primaries, are close with Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the father-and-daughter conservative donors who have become allies of the candidate and are funding a “super PAC” that is working against Hillary Clinton.

            […]

            Mr. Bannon has no experience with political campaigns, but he represents the type of bare-knuckled fighter that the candidate had in Corey Lewandowski, his combative former campaign manager, who was fired on June 20.

            Mr. Bannon has been a supporter of Mr. Trump’s pugilistic instincts, which the candidate has made clear in interviews he is uncertain about suppressing. He is also deeply mistrustful of the political establishment, and his website has often been critical of Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/08/briiliant-trump-brings-breitbart-ceo-on-board-as-campaign-chief.html/#sthash.L11wQqsl.dpuf

Donald Trump Just Overtook The Democrats On Gay Rights


by MILO 15 Aug 2016 - Breitbart.com

The madman has actually done it. God-Emperor Daddy — known to the rest of you as Republican presidential candidate Donald J Trump — has just outflanked Hillary Clinton on the Left and announced what can only be described as an ultra-progressive immigration policy.
I don’t mean progressive as it has come to be used, of course — nannying, language-policing, Muslim-pandering. I mean it’s a policy that could actually make things better for minorities.

Trump’s plan is to introduce a screening process for prospective immigrants to the U.S., testing their ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism. It’s a brilliant plan. I’m especially inclined to say it’s brilliant because it may have been partly inspired by me.

The test will apply to all immigrants, yet its obvious target is Muslims, who, as we know, get a bit bomby in the presence of gays, a bit rapey in the presence of women who wear skirts shorter than their ankles and generally a bit hostile and violent around anyone who doesn’t have their bum in the air five times a day.

The media won’t portray this policy as progressive, of course — they’ll portray it as stupid, bigoted, and reactionary. The Washington Post, little more than a Hillary mouthpiece this election cycle, has already started, branding the proposal “crazy” and “outlandish.” But it isn’t. Actually, it’s about the most pro-gay policy I’ve ever heard from a presidential hopeful.

Trump has also promised to deport hate-preachers in the U.S. His specific wording (“send them home”) again suggests that he’s targeting Islam. Go Daddy!


It’s odd that leftists are already starting up the outrage machine. After all, isn’t this what progressivism is supposed to be about? All around the world, Muslims are oppressing women, murdering gays, and exterminating non-Muslims. Progressives claim to want to protect the rights of gays, women and minorities, yet are silent on the greatest threat to them in the world today.

Somehow, I doubt they would be outraged if Trump threatened to deport the Westboro Baptist Church. This, despite the fact that the Westboro Baptists haven’t killed anyone, whereas a Muslim, Omar Mateen, carried out the greatest act of homophobic violence in U.S. history.

The Left, of course, think Orlando was a tragic incident of workplace violence, enabled by toxic masculinity and a lack of gun control.

I’m comfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, as long as they don’t want to kill us, maim us or throw us off rooftops. (Permission for lesser violence is available upon application.) For leftists, the reverse appears to be true — they’re uncomfortable with people who are uncomfortable with gays, unless they want to kill us and maim us and throw us off rooftops.

Thus, decline to bake a cake for some lesbians and you are a heinous bigot. Murder 50 fags and injure 50 more and you’re a tragic victim, probably reacting to islamophobia, whose dad will be invited to stand behind Hillary Clinton at a rally.

There’s no diplomatic way to put it. In this historic announcement, Donald Trump has dramatically overtaken the chronically Muslim-friendly Democratic Party on gay rights. I predict conservatives across the west will soon follow suit. The right is quickly realising that, thanks to the silence on Islam, it is they and not the left who are destined to safeguard women, gays, and minorities from the barbarians of the East.

As the body counts — and rape counts — in Europe rack up, gays — and others on Islam’s kill-list — will realize that in a world of Muslim migration, conservative immigration policies are actually the most progressive. Meanwhile, the claims of self-proclaimed leftists to champion the rights of women and minorities will ring increasingly hollow.

Voters are starting to take notice of all this.

Throughout this election cycle, Trump has been attacked as a bigot and a reactionary on immigration. With this new plan, though, he has proven beyond doubt that he’s the only person running for President who can stick up for chicks and queers.

Face facts, guys. It is the political Left that wants to flood America with violent homophobes and misogynists, not Trump. No-one with a clear-eyed view of Muslim culture can believe otherwise.

Perhaps this is what the #NeverTrump guys meant when they said Trump was a closet liberal.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. Hear him every Friday on The Milo Yiannopoulos Show. Write to Milo at milo@breitbart.com.

2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency

Wednesday, 10 August 2016 02:19 Brandon Smith

Political and economic events tend to swing like a pendulum, or move like the tides.  What you think you know today, according to the mainstream mood, can swiftly change tomorrow.  Sometimes this is mere random coincidence, but often it is engineered by the powers that be.  When discerning coming trends, the only assumption I recommend people operate on is that the globalists will play the long game; the short game is only relevant as far as it serves the long game.

What is the long game?  The globalists have openly admitted their goal in numerous mainstream publications, but my favorite example is the January 1988 issue of the Rothschild run magazine The Economist.  The issue pronounces boldly that investors should “get ready for a global currency” by 2018.  I examine this issue in detail in my article The Economic End Game Explained.

The Economist article mentions the sacrifice of “some” economic sovereignty of nation states, the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the rise of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket currency mechanism as a “bridge” to a single global currency.  None of these changes can be accomplished without certain parts of the world suffering severe financial instability first.  Not only is this a mathematical inevitability, such crisis is also a useful tool for elitists to mold the public’s collective psychology.

So, let’s make this crystal clear — the long game is the total and OPEN centralization of economic and geopolitical power into the hands of a select few financial elites.  Not the pulling of strings behind the curtain.  Not shadow governance.  OPEN governance of the world by the elites, accepted or even demanded by the people.

There are a lot of assumptions floating around economic conditions and election developments right now that do not take into account this long game.  The first being that globalists “are losing their grip on the situation.”

I would have to disagree.  In terms of political leaders (East and West) and surface economic indicators, the elites have more control than ever.

The argument of the “bumbling globalists” became rather popular the days after the initial success of the Brexit referendum.  This was of course based on the assumption that the Brexit is damaging to the globalists rather than helpful to them.  I outline why the Brexit is a perfect scapegoat for a fiscal downturn engineered by the elites in my article Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out, Or Something Else?, published before the Brexit vote took place.

Since the referendum, central banks and politicians around the world have begun calling for a single monetary and fiscal policy initiative meant to “head off any ill effects of the Brexit.”  That is to say, the open calls for one economic authority to rule them all have now begun.

The numerous warnings by the financial elites of a coming crisis event have most people in the mainstream and even many alternative analysts scratching their heads.  For those that hyper-focus on stock markets, all seems to be well.  Of course, these people only have an attention span that lasts until the next market ticker opens for the day.  They aren’t looking at the bigger picture.

To be fair, though, the mainstream media is really laying on the fake-out propaganda thick.

July and August have produced considerably strange behaviors from stocks so far, with a record number of days positive, followed by a near-record number of days negative.  I would consider this a form of volatility that should not be overlooked.  The media have so far shrugged off these developments and only noted that stock valuations are still high despite the Brexit “surprise.”  Their assertion has been that the Brexit “had no effect;” completely ignoring the fact that such events can have long term consequences rather than immediate consequences.

Oil prices have plunged back towards lows last seen at the beginning of the year, something I stated would eventually occur after the predictable failure of the OPEC meeting in Doha.  Low global demand continues and production has not slowed in any meaningful way.

There has been a steady correlation the past year between oil and stocks.  The current decoupling is unlikely to last very long and stocks should track down to oil by September as speculators give up trying to hold crude offshore in a useless effort to drive prices higher.  The mainstream has said little to nothing about this decoupling or its eventual consequences.

The past two months of employment numbers have been an epic farce, with the media playing up the supposed number of jobs added while mentioning nothing about the nearly 95 million working age Americans removed from the rolls and no longer counted as unemployed.  That’s almost one third of the U.S. population, and around half of all working age Americans that have no job.

The Bureau of Labor’s claim when cornered by this statistic and the fraudulent nature of their primary employment percentages?  “Those people don’t want to work, therefore they should not be counted…”

The better than expected jobs reports have so far allowed markets to levitate.  I would assert, however, that stocks are merely treading water at the deceptively calm center of a hurricane.

The reality is, they cannot hide an economic collapse forever.  Negative financial effects are going to touch ground somewhere, and the data is going to sneak through.  Case in point; U.S. productivity is now at 37 year lows despite government statistics claiming fully recovered employment.  You would think that in such a happy labor environment portrayed by the BLS productivity would grow.  This is not the case.  Perhaps a total unemployed population of over 100 million people may be contributing to the implosion of U.S. productivity...?

Outside of the U.S., European banks are on the verge of a breakdown, and central bank stimulus measures and rate cuts are adding minimal extra boost to markets.  They aren't currently falling much, but they aren't rallying much either.  In essence, equities are becoming stagnant due to artificial support from central banks and there is little incentive for investors to participate any longer.

In light of the latest manipulations of economic data and the jawboning of stocks since March, some alternative analysts have pronounced that the central banks plan to prop up markets “indefinitely,” or at least until Hillary Clinton can win the election.

This is an unfortunate assumption by the alternative crowd…

I remember before the Brexit vote a vast majority of independent economists and liberty analysts argued that the elites would “never allow” the U.K. referendum to pass — that they had the power to rig the vote however they pleased.  If this is the case (and I agree it is the case), then clearly the elites WANTED the Brexit to pass.

It would serve alternative analysts well to recall specifically the rigged polling numbers in the weeks leading up to the Brexit which showed a definite win for the “Stay” crowd.  Interesting how that all turned out, isn’t it?

I am consistently reminded of the Brexit surprise when I look today at the polling numbers on the U.S. election.  The erratic and inconsistent polling shows Trump climbing, then suddenly sinking days later, then climbing again without any clear catalysts.  Many polls contradict each other, just as the polls did before the Brexit, and, the same kind of circus atmosphere is present, if not more prevalent.

It may be possible, if not certain, that this is all a game.  The Brexit outcome was predetermined, which is how elites like George Soros scored successful investment bets on the referendum passing, and the reason why the Bank for International Settlements gathered central bankers from around the world as the vote was taking place.

I believe that the U.S. presidential election has also been predetermined; with a Trump win.  Some people might be confused by this concept.

Trump’s campaign has been consistently compared to the Brexit campaign by globalists in the media, as well as by mainstream pundits.  They call it a "dangerous" trend of rising populists.

The propaganda surrounding the Brexit asserts that the referendum will eventually lead to global economic crisis; and already, central banks and politicians are attempting to tie the Brexit to anything that might go wrong fiscally in the near future.

The propaganda surrounding Trump is the same; that Trump is unfit to lead America and that his economic policies will end in global financial ruin.

One constant connects the Brexit referendum and Trump — both are supported by conservative movements with anti-globalist leanings.

I submit that there is in fact a wider economic crisis on the way, and that the elites plan to use the Brexit and Trump as scapegoats for this crisis.

I have stated this before, but I think the idea needs repeating:  The globalists need the economy to turn unstable in order to create a rationale for a centralized economic authority and a single global currency system.  This is why they have consistently called for a “coordinated global central banking policy” after the Brexit.  This is why they continue to warn of a fiscal crisis even though stock markets remain at all-time highs.

If Hillary Clinton, a well known globalist puppet deep in the bedrock of the establishment, wins the election only to have the economy tank, then the globalists will get the blame.

If Trump is either allowed in office, or is placed in office, and the economy tanks, CONSERVATIVES, the primary enemy of the globalists, will get the blame for the resulting crisis.

To reiterate, the globalists have created the conditions by which an economic crisis can be triggered at the time of their choosing (within certain limits).  They are then either supporting the success of seemingly conservative based movements and candidates, or simply refusing to interfere with them.  This is being done so that the globalists can then blame the crash they created on conservative movements.

This allows them to demonize not just conservatives, but the conservative philosophy in general; labeling it a poisonous ideal akin to fascism.  Their solution?  Erase all elements of conservatism and sovereignty from society for the sake of the “greater good” of the collective.

This is part of the long game.

As I noted after the U.K. referendum, I believe the Brexit to be part of a “one-two-punch combination,” and that the second punch has not arrived yet.  My view appears to be supported by the number of financial elites warning investors to pull out of markets today before it is too late.  Obviously, they know something the rest of the financial mainstream does not.

This sets up the elites as “prophets” rather than criminals, as economic perception turns negative and the public begins looking for answers.

In the meantime, I believe a softer downturn will begin before the election takes place, most likely starting in September.  This will give a boost to the Trump campaign, or at least, that is what the polls will likely say.  I would also watch for some banking officials and media pundits to blame this downturn on Trump’s rise in the polling data.  The narrative will be that just the threat of a Trump presidency is “putting the markets on edge.”

Many claim the Federal Reserve will not raise rates in 2016 with the election threatened by a Trump candidacy.  I believe the Fed will in fact raise rates, as they always do going into major recessions.  If they do not raise rates before the election, they will most certainly raise rates in December if Trump is in the White House.

I realize that many will argue that Trump will “never be allowed to win,” just look at how the media demonizes him.  But this is what people argued before the Brexit, and they were wrong.  I suggest that this demonization campaign is much like the doom and gloom used by globalists before the UK referendum — it is not meant to stop the event.  It is not meant to prevent Trump from getting into office, it is meant to make Trump and conservatives a scapegoat for an impending crisis once he is IN office.

While I certainly am not advocating Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, I have to point out that a Trump presidency serves the globalist long game better than a Clinton presidency.

First, the elites need an international financial crisis to encourage the public to support a single central bank policy and authority.  They can blame such a crisis on Trump and the Brexit and divert attention away from themselves.

Second, the elites need to remove the philosophy of conservatism as an obstacle to global collectivism and the destruction of national sovereignty.  Again, conservatives will be blamed as participants and co-conspirators in the fiscal crisis, and painted as so devilish that no future generation would want to be a associated with conservative thought.

Third, the elites need to kill the dollar’s world reserve status.  And yes, even this could be blamed on Trump as Saudi Arabia moves away from the dollar as the petro-currency and multiple nations begin to protest Trump’s “isolationism” by dumping the dollar.  In October, China (with the approval of the IMF) begins spreading SDR-based liquidity around the world, launching the next phase of the end of the dollar as world reserve right before the U.S. election climax.

Fourth, the elites need internal conflict within the U.S. and/or martial law in order to justify international intervention.  A Trump presidency will most likely be met with accelerated violence from social justice activists and general riots from the entitlement class.  I believe Trump will use martial law measures, though he probably will not label this "martial law".  There may even come a day when globalist “leaders” will assert that Trump cannot be allowed access to a nuclear arsenal, and that he must be stopped.

If Trump turns out to be anti-constitution, and the liberty movement acts to stand against him — we will be accused of working for the social justice miscreants, or we will ironically be accused as agents of the globalists.  If we fight against a globalist intervention or the social justice mobs, we will be accused as fascists by the international community.  Truly, with Trump as president, many doors open for the elites.

That said, this does not mean the elites will be ultimately successful in their endeavors.  There are always unknowns to any grand scheme.  As Mike Tyson famously said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”  I believe the elites will be surprised by some sizable punches in the mouth.  Until then, though, their current strategy appears to be running on schedule.

Pamela Geller–Undercover FBI Agent Told Garland Jihadist: ‘Tear Up Texas’


by PAMELA GELLER 8 Aug 2016


The Daily Beast recently reported that “days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

The Beast’s Katie Zavadski also revealed that the undercover agent was at our free speech event in Garland, where Simpson and Nadir Soofi attempted a jihad massacre.

Zavadski and others in the left-wing media have pounced on the incitement, entrapment angle — which is absurd. These jihadis were plotting jihad at the Super Bowl and planning to travel to Syria to join ISIS, and we’re supposed to believe they were entrapped? What could anyone say to you or me that would make you a mass murderer? Nothing.

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with, because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility, it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of the freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

In the wake of Garland, the media attacks on us were the overwhelming and overarching story. But outside of that, one of the stories that bubbled to the surface was that the FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

Now we find they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to alerting Garland police about Simpson’s jihad plans three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack, one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

I’ve been trying to get my mind around this thing. What was Obama trying to do? Teach Americans a lesson? Enforce the edict that he enunciated in the wake of the Benghazi jihad slaughter, that “the future must not belong to those to slander the prophet of Islam”?

If people had died at our Garland event, the murders would have had a blood-chilling effect on the freedom of speech in America. That, in my view, appears to have been what the Obama administration wanted — and certainly that’s what the enemedia wanted in the wake of our event, as it gleefully and relentlessly blamed us for violating Sharia blasphemy laws and getting shot at.

If you look at the Obama administration’s track record in regard to jihad in America, it’s abysmal and ghastly. Look at San Bernardino, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Orlando… Garland is one of the few stories where Americans came out on top.

And now it comes out that in Garland, we have to ask whether the United States government aided and abetted the would-be murderers. It’s astonishing.

Did the Obama FBI want us dead? We need answers: we need an explanation of the FBI’s behavior that accounts for everything we know and demonstrates that this is not the case – if there is one.

This is shocking, and it should frighten every American, all across the political spectrum.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

This is apparently only available on the Fox site - be sure to adjust the volume using the gear icon at the lower-right of the screen.  It is her opening statement from last night's show:

www.foxnews.com/shows/justice-jeanine.html

Mainstream media covers up Munich killer’s ‘Allahu Akbar’ jihad, tries to link him to mass shooters like Breivik

By PAMELA GELLER on July 23, 2016

The heinous attack by the Munich jihadi who specifically targeted children is being scrubbed and whitewashed by the enemedia. Ali Sonboly was an Iranian German who took direction from al Qaeda and ISIS manuals to target and slaughter children for maximum effect. It is reported that Ali was “obsessed with mass shootings.” Sonboly was studying mass shootings in order to achieve a maximum kill rate. One of the mass shootings Ali reviewed was Breivik. Hellzapoppin in news rooms everywhere.

The enemedia is hang on to the very thinnest reed or no reed at all to avoid the motive behind this worldwide war – Islam.

Because of this tangential and minor point, the media has jumped all over the Breivik aspect. How corrupt and absurd. There is nothing that points to Ali being “inspired.” His inspiration is Islam. His method of jihad was mass shooting, so of course he would review past shootings. From this the enemedia announces, “Munich shooting: Teenage killer Ali Sonboly ‘inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik.'”

And who can believe the German police? They scrubbed the thousands of sexual attacks on New Year’s Eve in order to protect Islam. They even deleted the CCTV tapes. Merkel’s sharia is strictly enforced.

In the hundreds of jihad attacks, the devout Muslim murderers cite Quran chapter and verse and scream Allahu Akbar while they behead, gouge out eyes, sexually mutilate, etc. But the media will never make the connection to Islam. Close to 30,000 jihad attacks since 9/11, and not once did the media connect it to jihad and Islam. But because Ali Sonboly had some of Breivik’s writings in his extensive collection of mass shootings among his possessions, the media has found its target —  Breivik. Breivik quoted Obama and JFK, will the media blame them too?

The enemedia is at war with us. They are vile deceivers. The BBC doesn’t see fit to inform its readers about how Sonboly screamed “Allahu akbar.”  Beware — they stand with jihad.

Mainstream media covers up Munich killer’s jihad, tries to link him to Breivik

July 23, 2016, By Robert Spencer:

This is what we know: this is a time of sorting. The political and media elites are threatened to a degree they have not been in decades or longer. Brexit and the success of Donald Trump have challenged their hegemony and threatened to end it altogether. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that they won’t strike back, and try to protect that hegemony by any and every possible means. That means, if Hillary Clinton is elected, the likely end of the First Amendment and the enactment of laws criminalizing “hate speech,” by which will be meant opposition to jihad terror.

And in the meantime, we should not be surprised to see desperate rear-guard attempts, however ludicrous, to fool people and divert them from the obvious, particularly in regard to jihad terror attacks. The elites, besotted with the multiculturalist idea, enthralled with internationalism, and intent on socialist leveling, are importing Muslims into Western countries in staggering numbers. Yet every jihad massacre awakens more non-Muslims in the West to the suicidal folly of this program. And so the public must be fooled into thinking that none of the jihad attacks are actually jihad attacks. The Orlando jihadi, you see, he was gay and exacting revenge for a bad relationship, or for getting AIDS. The Nice jihadi, you see, he was a bad driver. This one had psychological problems. That one was bullied by his non-Muslim coworkers. That one over there, he got kicked out of a study group. And on and on. Every jihad attack was not jihad, if you believe the mainstream media: yes, it just happened to involve a Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” as he opened fire, but you see, the reality is that he had a troubled childhood, doncha know?

Oh, and the Munich jihadi did indeed scream “Allahu akbar”:



“Munich shooting: 9 victims, gunman dead, police say,” by Catherine E. Shoichet, Ralph Ellis and Jason Hanna, CNN, July 23, 2016:

Lauretta said she heard the gunman say, “Allahu Akbar,” or “God is great” in Arabic.

“I know this because I’m Muslim. I hear this and I only cry,” she said.

“Did Munich killer Ali Sonboly lure children to their deaths on Facebook? Police probe fake ad for free food at massacre McDonald’s where Iranian, 18, killed first of his nine victims before turning gun on himself,” by Anthony Joseph, Patrick Lion and Alan Hall, Mailonline, July 23, 2016:

But just a week after another teenager attacker launched an ISIS-inspired axe attack on a German train, witnesses in McDonald’s described hearing yesterday’s attacker shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, or ‘God is Great’, a cry used by Islamist terrorists during previous attacks. And ISIS supporters took to social media in the hours after yesterday’s atrocity to celebrate the killings.

“What we know about Ali David Sonboly after he was named as Munich shopping centre massacre gunman,” by Sam Adams, Mirror, July 23, 2016:

In footage he was seen bursting from a McDonald’s restaurant toilet before opening fire on children. He reportedly screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ before shooting them at close range.

Not long before he hijacked a jetliner and flew it into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, Mohamed Atta wrote this to himself: “When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

So in the face of this, the mainstream media narrative is that Munich jihad murderer Ali Sonboly was inspired not by Islam and jihad, but by…Anders Breivik:


Look at the Telegraph’s headline: “Live: Munich shooting: Teenage killer Ali Sonboly ‘inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik’ and ‘used Facebook offer of free McDonald’s food to lure victims,’” by Harriet Alexander, Barney Henderson, Chiara Palazzo, Luke Heighton, James Rothwell, Zia Weise, Camilla Turner, and Justin Huggler, Telegraph, July 23, 2016.

Now, with that headline in mind, read the salient portion of the Telegraph’s story:

Dr Peter Langman, the author of Why Kids Kill, the book which was found among Ali Sonboly’s possessions told The Telegraph he was “distressed” at the thought the book was being used in the wrong way.

He said: “It’s disturbing, I don’t know why he had the book. It could be he was better trying to understand himself because he needed mental health treatment and he was trying to get help. Or it could be he was looking for a role model. A lot of young shooters look for an Anders Breivik, or someone similar, as a role model. And since the attack was on the anniversary of the Norway attack, it suggests he was imitating Breivik….

According to German newspaper Bild.de, classmates said he had even used an image of Breivik as his profile picture on the social media network WhatsApp.

Does any of that establish what the Telegraph headline announces, that Sonboly was inspired by Breivik? No. In fact, it was Langman, not Sonboly, who linked Sonboly to Breivik. Authorities found the book Why Kids Kill among Sonboly’s possessions. It could have been there for any number of reasons, but in any case Langman uses it to link Sonboly to Breivik. Authorities did not find any “right-wing” or “anti-immigrant” literature among Sonboly’s possessions, or you can be sure they would have said so. The Telegraph also tells us that his classmates said that Sonboly had a picture of Breivik on his WhatsApp page, but provides no screenshot or anything else that would make this claim anything more than hearsay.

And even if Sonboly had admired Breivik, that in itself doesn’t establish that Sonboly was the “right-wing extremist terrorist” for which the mainstream media has been pining for so long. He may have admired his technique, not his ideology. We should remember in this connection that Sonboly’s parents were immigrants from Iran. Is it really likely that he harbored nativist “anti-immigrant” sentiment?

Needless to say, the Telegraph doesn’t bother to inform its readers that Sonboly screamed “Allahu akbar” as he opened fire. And the BBC is even worse:

“Munich gunman ‘obsessed with mass shootings,’” BBC, July 23, 2016:

The 18-year-old gunman who killed nine people in Munich was obsessed with mass shootings but had no known links to the Islamic State group, German police say.

Written material on such attacks was found in his room. Munich’s police chief spoke of links to the massacre by Norway’s Anders Behring Breivik.

Note the artfully deceptive writing. If anything actually linking Sonboly to Breivik had been found in Sonboly’s room, the BBC and other media sources would have said so plainly. The juxtaposition of these two sentences gives the impression that something linking him to Breivik was found in Sonboly’s room, but in fact all we have there is an assertion by Munich’s police chief that the shooting was linked to Breivik. Given the failure to produce any evidence to support this, and German authorities’ record of covering up crimes by Muslims, this link is extremely questionable.

The gunman, who had dual German-Iranian nationality, later killed himself.

His name has not been officially released but he is being named locally as David Sonboly….

The BBC doesn’t think it is important to tell you that the killer’s name was actually Ali David Sonboly. Why did they drop the “Ali”? Maybe so as not to give aid to those dreaded “right-wing extremists” by giving people the impression that there might be something to be concerned about in Islamic jihad?

The BBC added:

Munich police chief Hubertus Andrae said there was an “obvious” link between the new attack and Friday’s fifth anniversary of Breivik’s attacks in Norway, when he murdered 77 people….

But here again, Andrae doesn’t explain why Sonboly’s link to Breivik is “obvious.” He simply asserts it, with all the weight of his office, and that’s that.

Also needless to say, the BBC doesn’t see fit to inform its readers about how Sonboly screamed “Allahu akbar.” You don’t need to know that. It doesn’t fit what the political and media elites want you to believe; therefore it didn’t happen. Go back to sleep. When the knife slices through your throat, your death will be quick and almost painless, I promise.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/mainstream-media-covers-up-munich-killers-allahu-akbar-jihad-tries-to-link-him-to-mass-shooters-like-breivik.html/#sthash.2WlSVh6i.dpuf

The phrase, by the way - contrary to most media statements - translates NOT as "God is great,"  but as "Allah is GREATER" (than all other 'false' gods).
This is an important distinction.  Regardless - as Daniel Greenfield points out - even when a person is screaming this as he slaughters innocent people, he is simply "troubled."

France ‘SUPPRESSED NEWS OF GRUESOME TORTURE’ at Bataclan JIHAD Massacre: gouged out eyes, castrated victims, shoved testicles in their mouths, some disemboweled, Women stabbed in genitals

ByPAMELA GELLER on July 15, 2016


Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Again we ask, why are Western elites protecting the savage barbarians who are committing unspeakable acts of violence and torture in the cause of Allah?

Why scrub the evil from the evildoers? When is it going to stop? When are rational, civilized, freedom-loving peoples going to break the chains of the leftist/Islamic axis of evil?

People are woefully disarmed in the information battle-space, thanks to the left’s choke hold on media, academia, and culture. When Jesse Hughes, leader of the band Eagles of Death Metal, who was playing at the Bataclan the night of the monstrous jihad attack in Paris, spoke out about what he saw, he was demonized, marginalized and had gigs canceled. That is the world of those of us who speak up against jihad terror and sharia.


“EXCLUSIVE: France ‘Suppressed News of Gruesome Torture’ at Bataclan Massacre,” By Louise Mensch | Heatstreet, 10:50 am, July 15, 2016

HEAT STREET EXCLUSIVE – A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not released to the media, that the killers in the Bataclan tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

But prosecutors claimed these reports of torture were “a rumor” on the grounds that sharp knives were not found at the scene. They also claimed that maybe shrapnel had caused the injuries.

Q. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry….can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan: beheadings, evisceration, eyes gouged out …?

Investigator: After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside  to vomit. He told us what he had seen.

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

Further on the investigator described how this was kept from relatives:

A. Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disembowelled . There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

Elsewhere the investigator says women were sexually tortured, stabbed in the genitals, and their eyes were plucked out. People were decapitated.

The committee chief pressed the investigator on whether victims were decapitated or mutilated. He stated that the authorities had given out conflicting information that said victims were merely shot or blown up. The President of the Committee replied with this damning statement about one victim’s father discovering the gruesome truth in the morgue:

Mr. President Georges Fenech Indeed, the Committee is troubled by this information which has appeared nowhere [in the media]. Thus, the father of one of the victims sent me a copy of a letter he sent to the investigating judge, which I quote in summary: “On the causes of the death of my son A., at the forensic institute in Paris, I was told, and what a shock it was for me at that moment, they had cut off his testicles, had put them in his mouth, and he was disemboweled. When I saw him behind glass, lying on a table, a white shroud covering it up to the neck, a psychologist was with me. He said: This is “the only presentable part, your son’s left profile.” I found that he had no right eye. I made the remark; I was informed that they had punctured his eye and  sliced down the right side of his face, where there was a very large hematoma that we could all see. ”

This particular witness could corroborate the statements that we heard from one of the BAC officials, that one of his investigators vomited immediately on leaving the Bataclan after finding a decapitation and evisceration. Are you aware of such facts?

The prosecutor replied lamely that no sharp knife had been found at the scene that could have been used for torture. Perhaps shrapnel had caused the mutilation, he said. The head of the committee asked if an explosion would have placed testicles in a victim’s mouth:

Prosecutor: I specify, for the sake of clarity: some of the bodies found at the Bataclan were extremely mutilated by the explosions and weapons, to the point that it was sometimes difficult to reconstruct the dismembered bodies. In other words, injuries described this father may also have been caused by automatic weapons, by explosions or projections of nails and bolts that have resulted.

Q. Would those have put a man’s balls in in his own mouth?

Prosecutor: I do not have that information.

The news follows reports that German police sat on the huge number of sexual assaults committed by Islamist migrants in Cologne, which a secret report estimated at thousands, not hundreds. Heat Street will continue to report.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/bataclan-torture-gruesome.html/#sthash.bb7Bo9nM.dpuf

Robert Spencer in Epic Times: Theresa May Prime Minister: A Disaster for Brit­ain

July 12, 2016  By Robert Spencer

Over at Epic Times, I discuss the worst Prime Minister Great Britain could possibly have: its next one.

    OPINION – The worst outcome of Britain’s unexpected vote to leave the European Union was the resignation of David Cameron as Prime Minister – not because he was a great leader (he wasn’t), but because his successor is Theresa May, who promises to surpass even her feckless predecessor and become the weakest, most appeasement-minded Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain.

    As I was banned by Theresa May from entering Britain for the crime of correctly noting that Islam has doctrines involving violence against unbelievers, I know firsthand her anxiousness to please forces that do not regard free speech and open debate as positives for society. But there is more. As head of the UK Home Office, May announced a review of Britain’s Sharia courts – then appointed Muslims to oversee it, drawing protests from human rights activists concerned that her review board would be too biased to note the courts’ violations of women’s rights.
    Theresa May Has A History Of Oppression

    May also disregarded warnings about security risks and scrapped an aerial surveillance program that had been designed to stop migrants from sneaking into Britain. With May heading the Home Office, the British government helped illegal immigrants quash convictions for fraud and other crimes, so that they could stay in the country.

    May has claimed counterfactually that the Islamic State’s “actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran.” She asserted, in the teeth of abundant evidence (including a statement from ISIS saying that jihad attacks would continue in France “as long as they boast about their war against Islam”), that the November 2015 jihad massacre in Paris had “nothing to do with Islam.” This willful ignorance hamstrings intelligence and law enforcement officials’ ability to fight the jihadis: one cannot defeat an enemy while refusing to name or understand it.

    But May is on the case. With the jihad threat higher than ever, May vowed to fight all forms of extremism, from “Islamist” to “neo-Nazi.” Does Britain have a big neo-Nazi problem? Did neo-Nazis set off bombs on a London bus and behead a British soldier in the street? Are goosesteppers strutting around in Trafalgar Square? No. By “neo-Nazis,” May means those people who dare to speak out against the immigration and national security policies she has pursued that have brought Britain to the brink of catastrophe.

    As Prime Minister, she may get the chance to push Britain off the edge.

BLACK LIVES MATTER TERRORISTS MURDER DALLAS COPS

Is the race war Barack Obama wanted breaking out in Dallas and across America?

July 8, 2016  Matthew Vadum 

The ambush-style mass shooting of cops in Dallas, Texas, last night makes it clear that it is time for the dangerous, anti-American insurgency called Black Lives Matter to be designated a terrorist organization for fomenting a war against the nation’s law enforcement officers.

As FrontPage went to press early Friday morning, five Dallas area police officers were dead, systematically slaughtered by snipers.

That makes it the deadliest attack on U.S. law enforcement since Sept. 11, 2001.

The officers were killed during a demonstration in downtown Dallas against police brutality that leftists say is directed at black Americans as a matter of government policy. Similar marches and rallies took place in other cities, including New York, Oakland, Calif., and Denver, Colo. One suspect has been killed and three others remain in custody. Police have not yet released their identities.

Of course, murdering police officers has long been encouraged by activists with the Black Lives Matter cult, with the support of the activist Left. A year ago Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who openly advocates the mass murder of whites, called for “10,000 fearless men” to “rise up and kill those who kill us.” Like many radicals, Farrakhan mischaracterizes Black Lives Matter as a rising civil rights movement.

President Barack Obama, who a decade ago promoted inter-racial warfare in Kenya, has long tried to provoke civil unrest here in the U.S. with his hateful anti-cop rhetoric and his relentless demonization of opponents. His goal is fundamental transformation of the United States. A Red diaper baby who identifies violence-espousing communist Frantz Fanon as an intellectual influence, he has also steadfastly refused to condemn the explicitly racist, violent Black Lives Matter movement. In fact Obama has lavished attention on the movement’s leaders and invited them to the White House over and over again.

Members of the Democratic National Committee expressly endorsed Black Lives Matter, throwing their lot in with black racists and radical Black Power militants. The DNC officially embraced a statement that slams the U.S. for allegedly systemic police violence against black people. A resolution passed by hundreds of delegates at the DNC meeting in Minneapolis last year accuses the nation’s police of "extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children."

The Left persists in these lies because, well, that’s what these people do.

According to one analysis, of all the people shot and killed in the U.S. by police so far in 2016, only 24 percent, or 122, were black. Black people are only about 13 percent of the population but they commit around half of all violent crimes. So far this year 47 percent of people shot and killed by police, or 235 individuals, were white.

Only 3 percent, or 13 people shot and killed by police year to date were black and unarmed. The percentage for whites is exactly the same. In other words, police are shooting and killing unarmed blacks and whites at the same rate, Paul Joseph Watson observes.

“There’s no racial disparity,” he says. “Do we have a problem with police brutality in America? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it almost exclusively targeted towards black people as Black Lives Matter claims? No, but the polarizing way in which Black Lives Matter made it all about race has divided the nation and made half of the country completely disinterested.”

Watson addresses “black people,” telling them that “Black Lives Matter is hurting you. It’s doing incredible harm. Martin Luther King achieved justice and civil rights by championing equality and building bridges with white America.”

Black Lives Matter, on the other hand, demands racial segregation, keeps whites out of its meetings, and urges the killing of police, he adds.

Returning to the situation in Dallas, as of 11:45 p.m. Central time, 11 officers from the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system had reportedly been shot. DPD chief David Brown told reporters that two snipers opened fire from elevated positions in downtown Dallas. Dallas mayor Mike Rawlings (D) said the shooting began at 8:58 p.m. local time. Brown added that suspects may have also planted a bomb downtown.

Four of the murdered police officers worked for the DPD. The other deceased officer worked for DART.

The killing spree followed days of media-hyped adverse publicity for police forces in Louisiana and Minnesota.

In its intensifying assaults on American law enforcement the Left seized upon a police-involved death earlier in the week of a notoriously violent criminal in Louisiana who had reportedly menaced an innocent by-stander with a gun.

Recidivist felon Alton Sterling, a black offender well known to local law enforcement, was shot to death by police early Tuesday morning in Baton Rouge following a physical struggle with police in which Sterling may have reached for a weapon. Both officers “believe they were completely justified in using deadly force,” according to the local district attorney.

Although even with graphic video footage of the shooting it’s not entirely clear what happened as the two cops and Sterling struggled, the Left is moving full speed ahead portraying the deceased career criminal as a martyr slaughtered by the evil system that rules a hopelessly racist America.

The Left reveres thugs. It jumped on the bandwagon promoting the lie that Michael Brown of Ferguson, Mo., and Trayvon Martin of Sanford, Fla., were innocent angels unjustly cut down by white executioners. The truth, as we now know, is that both young black men were killed in self-defense by the white men they intended to harm.

It is telling that the Left is paying far less attention to a much more sympathetic figure killed by police this week in Falcon Heights, a suburb of St. Paul, Minn., because the story of his death doesn’t fit its predetermined anti-American narrative quite as well. It’s not merely about racial conflict potentially: it is also about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Philando Castile, 32, a black man with no felony convictions who worked in a school cafeteria, was shot by police during a traffic stop. According to Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, who live-streamed video on Facebook of the stricken man in his final moments, Castile was trying to retrieve his wallet after informing an apparently Caucasian attending officer that he was in possession of a concealed weapon and a permit allowing him to carry it. Perhaps Castile made a move the officer considered threatening. Or maybe the cop was nervous and trigger-happy.

“He let the officer know that he had a firearm, and he was reaching for his wallet and the officer just shot him in his arm,” Reynolds said. In the video as the bloodied driver lay dying the policeman could be heard using expletives and screaming, “I told him not to reach for it.”

Reynolds replied, “You told him to get his ID, sir – his driver’s license.”

Because the Castile case appears to involve gun rights and perhaps other issues possibly unrelated to race, it is harder for left-wing activist groups to fundraise off of. This would explain why the Left is giving the case far less play than the marquee Sterling shooting. And to the extent that progressives have taken up Castile’s cause they are treating it solely as a racial incident. Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) said he was “appalled” by the shooting and that it would not have happened if Castile had been white.

But with Alton Sterling, it is as if his supporters hired teams of publicists to get the desired message out to the masses.

Ignoring Sterling’s two decades of criminal activity, Black Lives Matter quickly went to work inflaming racial antagonism while the man’s body was still warm. The movement characterized the incident as an extrajudicial execution by racist cops. It was aided in this public relations offensive by biased saturation coverage of the Sterling saga by the media.

The movement’s most important cheerleader, President Obama, gleefully stuck a shiv in police, crowing that recent fatal shootings of black suspects by police “are not isolated incidents.”

“They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.”

Predictably MoveOn and Color of Change –which was founded by self-described “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones and MoveOn alumnus James Rucker— didn’t bother waiting for the facts to be known before using the incident to raise money. On Wednesday MoveOn sent out a mass email to members demanding that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch hold the police officers involved accountable.

In the email Color of Change executive director Rashad Robinson paints Sterling as an upstanding citizen, describing him as “a 37-year-old Black father of five,” capitalizing the B in black as racists do. The police officers involved “have no respect for Black lives and must be held accountable,” he added.


 
Celebrities weighed in with vapid and condescending observations.

Singer Beyoncé posted what a groveling USA Today called a “powerful letter” about police brutality. “We’re going to stand up as a community and fight against anyone who believes that murder or any violent action by those who are sworn to protect us should consistently go unpunished,” she wrote, presuming that Americans don’t care about murders committed by police.

Chris Long, who makes his living being hit in the head, chose to insert himself into the story. The defensive end for the New England Patriots was happy to convene a lynch mob on Twitter. He tweeted “If you think we need to ‘wait for the facts’ on the Alton Sterling execution after seeing the video, you are an accessory to evil.”

What is clear is that if the Left is serious about moving its race war forward, it is hanging its future on a pretty slim reed by hyping the Sterling killing.

This is not to suggest that Sterling, who had been living in a homeless shelter, deserved to die. Maybe in the end we’ll find out the cops who dealt with him were overzealous, reckless, malicious, or racist, or all of these things. Perhaps this was a suicide by cop. Time will tell.

Let’s go over what we know.

The Advocate in Baton Rouge reports that on July 5,

“Around 12:35 a.m., Baton Rouge police responded to the Triple S Food Mart at 2112 N. Foster Drive after an anonymous caller indicated that a man in a red shirt who was selling CDs outside the store pointed a gun at someone, telling them to leave the property, Baton Rouge Police Department spokesman Cpl. L’Jean McKneely said.”

Apparently authentic cellphone videos from the scene soon went viral. They showed two police officers scrapping with Sterling beside a car in a parking lot. “Get on the ground! Get on the ground!” an officer is heard yelling in the early seconds of one clip. The sound of what may be a stun gun can be heard.

“He’s got a gun! Gun,” one cop says. “If you fucking move, I swear to God,” says an officer. It is unclear what Sterling, who reportedly had a gun on his person at the time, is doing with his arms at this point because the officers are on top of him. In audio that is garbled, one of the officers can be heard saying what seems to be “he’s going for the Taser!” Shots ring out at various points in the confrontation and Sterling is mortally wounded.

Some local sources were quoted in the media saying Sterling was a kind, peace-loving, respected member of the community. If that’s true, that doesn’t speak well of his community.

Sterling was a bad actor with a temper who had gotten physical with police before. The incorrigible reprobate’s rap sheet is long. (Heavy obtained 46 pages of court documents from his criminal file.)

Sterling was convicted of aggravated battery, criminal damage to property, unauthorized entry, and domestic abuse battery, among other offenses.

An affidavit of probable cause states Sterling was involved in 2009 in a wrestling match with a police officer. A cop tried to pat down the man and he resisted arrest. The two men ended up on rolling around on the ground and a “black semi auto gun fell from his waistband.” Another affidavit states a cop pulled Sterling over for speeding. He didn’t have proof of insurance and police allowed him to retrieve his belongings from his vehicle. He crossed the street, laid himself on the pavement in a prone position, yelled at the cops and told them to “go ahead and beat him down regardless of the outcome.” Other such affidavits accuse Sterling of home invasion, burglary, threatening with a gun, stealing pet goldfish, and possession of ecstasy and marijuana.

Sterling was also a registered sex offender, Heavy reports. At the age of 20 he impregnated a 14-year-old girl. In September 2000 he was convicted of “carnal knowledge of a juvenile” in Louisiana and released from prison in October 2004. In August 2015 a warrant was issued for Sterling’s arrest after he failed to update his sex offender registration.

In 2011 he was convicted of “knowingly and intentionally possessing a firearm while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance” and sentenced to five years imprisonment. A drug trafficking-related charge was thrown out apparently as part of a plea bargain.

Meanwhile, the Democrat machine in the Pelican State is doing everything it can to turn Baton Rouge into the new Ferguson, complete with race riots and wanton lawlessness.

Kip Holden (D), mayor-president of East Baton Rouge Parish, said Wednesday he was touched to receive a supportive phone call from the buffoonish Baltimore mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), who helped to exacerbate race riots in her city after the death of black career criminal Freddie Gray in police custody, because “they’ve been through the same thing.”

How reassuring.

The Left’s goal is to polarize and enrage and foment even more racial tension and violence to distract from presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s endless political problems, as well as to energize the party's base so they vote in droves in November. They may even blame unrest in Baton Rouge on congressional Republicans who refuse to fight back. Blaming Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen’s murderous rampage at a gay club in Orlando on Republicans and law-abiding gun owners worked, so why not.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) invited his friends in the Obama administration to turn this local investigation into a three-ring media circus. The U.S. Department of Justice announced it would open a civil rights investigation after Edwards demanded it. “I have very serious concerns,” he said. “The video is disturbing, to say the least.”

Getting the feds involved means the Obama administration is sure to deploy government-paid community organizers from DoJ’s Community Relations Service to rub raw the sores of discontent.

After Trayvon Martin’s death in early 2012, local police declined to press charges against the eventually acquitted George Zimmerman for a month and a half because they believed the criminal case against him was ridiculously weak. CRS burned through taxpayer cash organizing marches at which participants inflamed racial tensions and –voila!— Zimmerman was prosecuted in what would become a historic abuse of process.

Almost immediately after Michael Brown died in August 2014, CRS operatives arrived on the ground in Ferguson to interview and indoctrinate local members of the community. As Ryan Lovelace reported at NRO paraphrasing Mayor James Knowles III, “DOJ officials talked about underlying racism that people may not perceive, and the issue of white privilege.”

East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar Moore (D) seems not to understand that having the Obama-controlled Justice Department take over the Sterling investigation is a monumentally bad idea. Explaining why the local government refuses to investigate its own police, Moore said feebly at a press conference, “absolutely, we did not want another Ferguson. Baton Rouge is not Ferguson; we have a completely different history,” Moore said.

Good luck with that, counselor.

And just wait until the authority-hating terrorists of Black Lives Matter turn on you.

Obama whistleblower: Terror-linked Muslim groups helping set policy, costing lives

JULY 6, 2016 4:32 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Malfeasance on a grand scale. I detailed in my 2013 book Arab Winter Comes to America how the Fort Hood and Boston Marathon jihad massacres could have been prevented, were it not for politically correct willful ignorance at the highest levels. And now Philip Haney is revealing that the situation is even worse than was previously known.



“Obama Whistleblower: Terror-Linked Muslim Groups Helping Set Policy, Costing Lives,” by Philip B. Haney, Breitbart, July 6, 2016:

Last week I testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts at a hearing entitled, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

I am a recently retired Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agent. I was named a Founding Member of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at its inception on March 01, 2003. During my 12 years serving inside DHS under two administrations, I witnessed a series of events which ultimately prompted me to become a whistleblower, releasing critical documents to Members of Congress as I felt necessary to comply with my oath to the Constitution.

First, in January of 2008, I received what is now known as the “Words Matter Memo,” which was circulated internally by the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) division of DHS. The full title of the document was “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims,” and it read in part:

 [T]he experts counseled caution in using terms such as, “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist,” and “holy warrior” as grandiose descriptions.

Collapsing all terrorist organizations into a single enemy feeds the narrative that al-Qaeda represents Muslims worldwide.

We should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitimate adherents of Islam. Therefore, when using the word [Islamic], it may be strategic to emphasize that many so-called “Islamic” terrorist groups twist and exploit the tenets of Islam to justify violence and to serve their own selfish political aims.

Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term (putting aside polemics on its true nature), it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have, and damages relations with Muslims around the globe.

I submitted a seven-point response listing serious substantive concerns about this memo, but received no response.

On November 24, 2008, a decision came down in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, the largest terror financing case in American history. During that trial, the federal government had established that a number of organizations were appropriately named as unindicted co-conspirators along with HLF, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

Specifically, the judge ruled that federal prosecutors had “produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF… and with Hamas.” In addition, the judge ruled that that these organizations had direct links to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest and largest Islamic fundamentalist organizations in the world, founded in 1928 in Egypt to reestablish the Caliphate, whose motto includes “Jihad is our way, and death in the service of Allah is the loftiest of our wishes.”

I made note of the decision, and explored links between these groups and potential extremist and terrorist activity. But on October 15, 2009, I was ordered by DHS to ‘modify’ linking information in about 820 subject records in the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, or “TECS records” to remove ‘unauthorized references to terrorism.’ I was further ordered not to input any more Memoranda of Information Received, or MOIRs, to create no more TECS records, and to do no further research on the topics I was exploring.

On November 5, 2009, at Ft. Hood, Texas, Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people, including one who was pregnant, and wounded 32 others, while calling out “Allahu akbar!” meaning “God is great” in Arabic.

Hassan was a U.S. Army major who had exchanged emails with leading al Qaeda figure Anwar Awlaki – which the FBI had seen and decided not to take action – in which he asked whether those attacking fellow U.S. soldiers were martyrs. He had also given a presentation to Army doctors discussing Islam and suicide bombers during which he argued Muslims should be allowed to leave the armed forces as conscientious objectors to avoid “adverse events.” The Pentagon refused for five years to grant victims Purple Hearts, designating the attack “workplace violence.”

On January 27-28, 2010 an ‘Inaugural Meeting’ occurred between American Muslim leaders and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, hosted by DHS CRCL. The Inaugural Meeting created controversy because it included a number of Islamic fundamentalist individuals and organizations.

For instance, the meeting included at least one organization that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 HLF Trial and established to have associations with the now-shuttered HLF and with Hamas, namely ISNA. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), the group’s representative who attended the meeting, Ingrid Mattson, has “an established pattern of minimizing the nature of extremist forms of Islam and rationalizing the actions of Islamist terrorist movements.” Another invited group, the Muslim American Society (MAS), was actually formed as the United States chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1993.

Likewise, in the Spring of 2010, the Administration convened the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group under the authority of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), again raising questions because of those named to it.

They included Omar Alomari, who once wrote that jihad was “the benign pursuit of personal betterment. It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation,” asserting further that “”Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West”; Mohamed Elibiary, who has asserted that it was “inevitable that [the] ‘Caliphate’ returns” and ultimately was let go from the HSAC amid charges he misused classified documents; and Dahlia Mogahed, who has decried “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” and holds that “Islamic terrorism’ is really a contradiction in terms” to mainstream Muslims “because terrorism is not Islamic by definition.”

So by the Spring of 2010, we had come to the point that a CBP Officer was literally removing information connecting the dots on individuals with ties to known terror-linked groups from TECS, while the Administration was bringing the same individuals into positions of influence, to help create and implement our counter-terror policy, in the context of actual terror attacks taking place.

On August 30, 2011, the DHS Chief Council approved a project I initiated looking into Islamic fundamentalist group Tablighi Jamaat (TJ). On November 15, 2011, I began a temporary duty assignment at the National Targeting Center (NTC). A short time later, I was assigned to the Advanced Targeting Team, where I worked exclusively on the TJ Project, which was quickly upgraded to a global-level case.

On March 15, 2012, seven lawyers and three senior executive service (SES) administrators met with management personnel at the NTC to express concern for our focus on TJ, because it is not a designated terrorist group, and therefore the project might be “discriminating” against its members because they are Muslim. On June-July, 2012, the TJ Initiative was ‘taken in another direction,’ (i.e. shut down). The Administration took this action despite the fact that [1] in nine months, we had conducted 1,200 law enforcement actions, [2] I was formally commended for finding 300 individuals with possible connections to terrorism, and [3] 25% of the individuals in Guantanamo Bay had known links to Tablighi Jamaat.

On August 22, 2012, The Institute of Islamic Education (IIE) case that today links both the Darul Uloom Al-Islamiya mosque attended by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino shooters, and the Fort Pierce mosque attended by Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, was entered into TECS. But once again, on September 21, 2012, all 67 records in the IIE case were completely deleted (not just ‘modified’) from TECS.

On September 21, 2014, I was relieved of my service weapon, all access to TECS and other programs was suspended, my Secret Clearance was revoked, and I was sequestered for the last 11 months of my career with no assigned duties.

On December 2, 2015, the San Bernardino shootings occurred, and I immediately linked the mosque in San Bernardino to the IIE case (with the 67 deleted records), and to the Tablighi Jamaat case (which was shut down).

On June 09, 2016, the Homeland Security Advisory Council Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee issued an Interim Report and Recommendations. The report recommended in part using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like “jihad,” “sharia,” “takfir” or “umma.”

On June 12, 2016, the shootings in Orlando occurred, and I linked Omar Mateen’s mosque in Fort Pierce, FL to the IIE & TJ case. And on June 19, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that her Department of Justice would release redacted 9-11 call transcripts for Mr. Mateen.

The threat of Islamic terrorism does not just come from a network of armed organizations such as Hamas and ISIS, who are operating ‘over there’ in the Middle East. In fact, branches of the same global network have been established here in America, and they are operating in plain sight, at least to those of us who have been charged with the duty of protecting our country from threats, both foreign and domestic….

Greenfield: Our Eternal War for Independence

We are a nation of rebels.

7.4.2016 - Daniel Greenfield 

How will you celebrate the Fourth of July?

With fireworks and parades, hamburgers and hot dogs, sweating bands playing Sousa marches and parades down Main Street? Will you remember the men who fell in the first war and all the following wars that were fought to preserve our political and personal independence from foreign and domestic tyrannies? Will you consider what you might have done in the days when revolution was in the air?

Those are all good things. They remind us to celebrate and what it is we are celebrating.

I sat on the warm grass beneath the shade of a spreading fig tree listening to a band run through a repertoire of everything from Yankee Doodle Dandy to Over There. An elderly disabled veteran with a flag listened intently to the orchestra and a small child clambered awkwardly up a tree as his father worriedly urged him to climb down. It could have been a scene from any century. The Fourth is timeless.

It is timeless because it is still going on. The War of Independence went on underneath that fig tree, it continues on in your town, your city and in your community on this day and on every day.

Independence Day is a commemoration, but it is not a mere commemoration. The struggle is not over.

America became America out of a hatred of powerful central government. The War of Independence was not a battle between two countries. America’s Founding Fathers started out as Englishmen who wanted to preserve their rights from a distant and out of touch government.

The War of Independence was a civil war between those who wanted a strong central government and those who wanted to govern themselves. The fundamental breach between these two worldviews led to the creation of an independent nation dedicated to the preservation of independence. This independence was not mere political independence. It was personal independence.

America as a separate nation did not yet exist. Even the Constitution that embodies its purpose was a decade, a war, a failed experiment in government and many bitter debates away.

Nations come and go. Political unions are created and dissolved. There are nations today named Egypt and Greece that have little in common with the historical entities that once bore those names. The Declaration to which those remarkable men pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor was not for a flag, which then still bore the Union Jack, or for the invention of yet another administrative body, but for the rights of peoples, nations and individuals to be free to exercise their personal and political rights.

The war for these things was fought, but it has not ended. It began then, but it continues today.

It is not a war against King George III. It is the ongoing struggle between the people and those who would govern them that is at the heart of our independence.

There are two visions of how men are meant to live today, just as there were in 1776. Revolutions and wars may occasionally clarify these visions, but they do not permanently resolve them. New governments are quick to adopt old tyrannies. Freedom is a popular rallying cry for rebels. But few rebels wish to be rebelled against. That is what made America unique. That is what still does.

We were not meant to be a society of sinecures for public servants. We did not come into being to be ruled by bureaucrats. Our birth of freedom was not meant to give way to the repression of a vast incomprehensible body of regulations administered by an elite political class in Washington D.C.

Americans are rebels. And if we are not rebels, then we are not Americans.
We are not a nation founded by men and women who followed the rules. It is not our capacity for obedience that makes us true Americans, but our capacity for disobedience.

The Declaration of Independence was a document of rebellion by a band of rebels. “Damned rebels” as the big government monarchists saw them. The men who signed it pledged their lives because they expected to be executed for treason. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were acts of rebellion against the entire order across what was then seen as the civilized world.

American greatness came about because we were willing to break the rules. It was only when we began following the rules, when as a nation we made the maintenance of the international order into our notion of the greatest good and when as individuals we accepted the endless expansion of government as a national ideal that we ceased to be great. 

When we think of great Americans, from Thomas Jefferson to the Wright Brothers, from Andrew Jackson to Daniel Boone, from Theodore Roosevelt to today’s true patriots, we think of “damned rebels” who broke the rules, who did what should have been impossible and thumbed their noses at the establishments of the day. American greatness is embodied in individual initiative. That is why the Declaration of Independence places at the center of its striving, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It was for these individualistic ends of freedom that government had to be derived from the consent of the governed, that a war was fought that changed the world and it is these ends that we must celebrate.

Rebellion does not always mean muskets and cannon. Long before the War of Independence, we had become a nation of rebels who explored the wild realms of forests and streams, who forged cities out of savage lands, who argued philosophy and sought a higher purpose for their strivings, who refused to bow to their betters out of an accident of birth. And at our best, we are still rebels today.

When we dissent from the system, we rebel. When we refuse to conform, when we think differently, when we choose to live our own lives instead of living according to the dictates of our political rulers and pop culture arbiters, then we are celebrating the spirit of freedom that animates the Fourth.

When we defy the government, when we speak out against Obama and the rest of our privileged ruling class, when we demand the right to govern ourselves, when we fight to hold government accountable, when we question what we are told and the need to be told anything at all, then we are keeping that old spirit of rebellion alive. We are still fighting for our independence from government every day and every year that we choose to live as free people. That is the glorious burden of freedom.

Freedom is not handed to us. It is not secured for us by politicians. Like the Founding Fathers, we are made free by our fight for freedom. Preserving their legacy cannot be meaningfully recreated through any means other than the committed struggle for the same ideals.

This Fourth of July, celebrate by continuing to be a rebel, question and challenge the left’s worship of government. And don’t stop on the Fifth or in July. Or in any year or any decade or any century.

We here at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and at Front Page Magazine don’t.

Our family of writers, activists and commentators, and that includes you, inspired by David’s courageous spirit continue to question authority, challenge government and fight for the independence of the individual against the tyrannies of the radical left and Islamic theocracy, every day, week and month of the year.

And we welcome you to our revolution.

HILLARY’S 'SERIOUS LACK OF COMPETENCE' COST LIVES AT BENGHAZI

But she is only the tip of the iceberg.

June 29, 2016  Robert Spencer

Former CIA officer D. W. Wilber noted in The Hill Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions leading up to the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya as a whole were “lunacy on a grand scale”: “Additional security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to the United States.” Hillary’s “trust in the various militia factions to set aside their longstanding differences and establish a governing body in the war torn country illustrates another amateur mistake.” But it wasn’t. It was a professional mistake.

In reality, Hillary’s actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.

This is the kind of disastrous miscalculation preached by establishment foreign policy wonks including the likes of the puerile and silly Will McCants (and the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution in general), Max Abrahms (and the Council on Foreign Relations in general), and a host of others that the State Department and other foreign policy entities hire by the pound.

The foreign policy establishment is a bipartisan creation, and both parties refuse to challenge its hegemony. The Republicans, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings showed Tuesday, continue instead to let Hillary and Obama off the hook, and don’t even come close to challenging the entrenched foreign policy bureaucracy. Breitbart News noted that the final report from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)’s committee refused “to blame President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as refus[ed] to say directly if Clinton lied to the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.”

The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible.”

Bozell detailed the many failures of Gowdy’s inquiry: “The causes, events and circumstances regarding the attacks on the American personnel and facilities at Benghazi are still a mystery to the American people. Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer. Why did this administration deliberately lie about the video? No answer. Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the multiple failures of the military? Should the Secretary of State be held responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department decisions? Not according to this report. They wouldn’t even state that Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by committee members, prove she had! But they did blame a ‘rusty bureaucratic process.’”

That “rusty bureaucratic process” is a product of the foreign policy establishment that led us into this mess. Hillary Clinton is just their most prominent exponent — which does not in the least exonerate her. It’s just to say that not only does Hillary Clinton’s influence over the U.S. government in whatever capacity need to be decisively rejected; the whole foreign policy establishment needs to be swept out, cherished and unquestioned assumptions rejected, and the edifice remade by people who are more realistic and unafraid to base policy on unpleasant realities rather than upon politically correct wishful thinking.

Even worse, right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of those slain there recounted that Secretary of State Clinton spoke to him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.” And she did. The filmmaker, who went by several different names, had a record full of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on the Internet – which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious video to YouTube.

For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the U.S. for Obama’s war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the technicality of the probation violation (while thousands of more serious probation violators walked the streets), but for insulting Muhammad. His arrest was a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. He was nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.

That, too, was a reflection of the foreign policy establishment’s determination to compel Americans to stop doing anything and everything that any Muslim might construe as offensive to Islam. Reflecting the establishment policy also were Hillary’s fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” In response to that, Donald Trump recently opined that Hillary was “in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”

Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?

Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.

The foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”

How Brexit Will Change America and the World

Britain is free of global government. America can be next.

June 24, 2016
Daniel Greenfield


​Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Yesterday the British people stood up for their freedom. Today the world is a different place.

Celebrities and politicians swarmed television studios to plead with voters to stay in the EU. Anyone who wanted to leave was a fascist. Economists warned of total collapse if Britain left the European Union. Alarmist broadcasts threatened that every family would lose thousands of pounds a year if Brexit won.

Even Obama came out to warn Brits of the economic consequences of leaving behind the EU.

Every propaganda gimmick was rolled out. Brexit was dismissed, mocked and ridiculed. It was for lunatics and madmen. Anyone who voted to leave the benevolent bosom of the European Union was an ignorant xenophobe who had no place in the modern world. And that turned out to be most of Britain.

While Londonistan, that post-British city of high financial stakes and low Muslim mobs, voted by a landslide to remain, a decisive majority of the English voted to wave goodbye to the EU. 67% of Tower Hamlets, the Islamic stronghold, voted to stay in the EU. But to no avail. The will of the people prevailed.

And the people did not want migrant rape mobs in their streets and Muslim massacres in their pubs. They were tired of Afghani migrants living in posh homes with their four wives while they worked hard and sick of seeing their daughters passed around by “Asian” cabbies from Pakistan in ways utterly indistinguishable from the ISIS slave trade while the police looked the other way so as not to appear racist. And, most of all, they were sick of the entire Eurocratic establishment that let it all happen.

British voters chose freedom. They decided to reclaim their destiny and their nation from the likes of Count Herman Von Rompuy, the former President of the European Council, selected at an “informal” meeting who has opposed direct elections for his job and insisted that, “the word of the future is union.”

When Nigel Farage of UKIP told Count Von Rompuy that “I can speak on behalf of the majority of British people in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better,” he was fined for it by the Bureau of the European Parliament after refusing to apologize. But now it’s Farage and the Independence Party who have had the last laugh.

The majority of British people didn’t want Count Von Rompuy and his million-dollar pension, or Donald Tusk, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and the rest of the monkeys squatting on Britain’s back.

Count Von Rompuy has lost his British provinces. And the British people have their nation back.

The word of the future isn’t “union.” It’s “freedom.” A process has begun that will not end in Britain. It will spread around the world liberating nations from multinational institutions.

During Obama’s first year in office, Count Von Rompuy grandly declared that “2009 is also the first year of global governance.” Like many such predictions, it proved to be dangerously wrong. And now it may just well be that 2016 will be the first year of the decline and fall of global governance.

An anti-establishment wind is blowing through the creaky house of global government. The peoples of the free world have seen how the choking mass of multilateral institutions failed them economically and politically. Global government is an expensive and totalitarian proposition that silences free speech and funnels rapists from Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan to the streets of European cities and American towns. It’s a boon for professional consultants, certain financial insiders and politicians who can hop around unelected offices and retire with vast unearned pensions while their constituents are told to work another decade. But global government is misery and malaise for everyone else.

The campaign to stay in the EU relied on fear and alarmism, on claims of bigotry and disdain for the working class voters who fought and won the right to decide their own destiny. But the campaign for independence asked Britons to believe in their own potential when unchained from the Eurocratic bureaucracy. And now Brexit will become a model for liberation campaigns across Europe.

And it will not end there.

Brexit showed that it is possible for a great nation to defy its leaders and its establishment thinkers to throw off its multinational chains. And while the European Union is one of the biggest prisons forged by global government, it is far from the only one. America and Britain are sleeping giants covered in the cold iron links of multinational organizations that limit their strength and their potential.

It is time to break those chains.

Americans who want to cut their ties with the United Nations have found Brexit inspiring. Leaving the UK was once also seen as a ridiculous idea at the margins that could never be taken seriously. Serious politicians refused to listen to it. Serious thinkers refused to discuss it. And then it gathered speed.

There is growing opposition even among Democrats to treaties like the TPP. Trump has challenged NAFTA. Americans across the political spectrum are suspicious of economic treaties and organizations. Support for Brexit came from Labour areas in the UK. Support for Trump’s challenge to multinational treaties and alliances could very well come from unexpected places, like Bernie Sanders backers.

Brexit has shown us the weakness of the multinational establishment. Its vast bureaucratic power rests on using the media to suppress political dissent. When the media’s special pleading fails to stop the democratic process, it is more helpless than any dictator when the outraged mob pours into his palace.

What was true of Britain, is also true of America. Our elites are just as impotent. The power they have illegally seized is defended zealously by a media palace guard that spends every minute of every day lecturing, hectoring and messaging Americans. But when no one listens to the media, then the men and women who run our lives, who feed off us like a colony of parasitic insects, are helpless.

Their power is purely persuasive. When we stop listening, then we are free.

That is the lesson of Brexit. It is the future.

The future is not a vast behemoth of global government that swallows up nations and individuals, that reduces democratic elections to a joke and eliminates freedom of speech, but the individual. The elites have gambled everything on big government, big media and big data. But all of those lost to Brexit.

They lost to Brexit in the UK. They can lose in the US too. And they will lose.

The power of the establishment is illusory. Like the naked emperor, it depends on no one challenging it. The harder it is challenged, the harder it will fall. Brexit was an impossible dream. Then it was reality.

Our impossible dreams, the policies that conservatives are told by the establishment are not even worth talking about, can be just as real as Brexit.

If we are willing to fight for them. 

Liar, Liar Pantsuit On Fire

And with Donald Trump's renewed focus, is the comeuppance of economically illiterate "Crooked Hillary" at hand?

June 23, 2016
Matthew Vadum


Hillary Clinton's bizarre claim that billionaire businessman Donald Trump will cause a recession if elected to the presidency was overshadowed yesterday as Trump took deadly aim at the pathological liar's horrifying public service track record.

For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.

"As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face," Clinton said in a speech to the faithful in Raleigh, N.C. "He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash."

Around the same time, Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, laid into "Crooked Hillary" with a vigor and focus that Americans haven't seen for a while. Trump's speech, in which he accurately described Clinton as a "world-class liar," was very well received and is making left-wing pundits nervous -- for good reason.

Unlike Trump's address, Clinton's speech was a carefully constructed alternate reality held together by a tissue of leftist lies. Clinton's oration was an economically illiterate catalog of hoary Marxist cliches, or as Dr. Bob Shillman quipped, "liar, liar, pantsuit on fire."

Clinton offered a vague outline of her disastrous socialistic economic agenda, largely a continuation of President Obama's anti-growth policies and tainted as it is by a focus on so-called social justice objectives at the expense of economic growth and individual rights.

She spoke nonsensically of "growth that’s strong, fair, and lasting ... that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country." To keep her union thugs happy, Clinton vowed to "say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," and no to the "assault on the right to organize and bargain collectively."

Ignoring the fact that she served front and center in a radically left-wing administration that over the last nearly seven and a half years has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Clinton promised "to make this economy work for everybody ... building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington."

Leftists like Hillary enjoy anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and abstract concepts because they can't win policy arguments on the merits. They prefer fabricating monsters they can slay.

Guns and gas-guzzling SUVs "kill" people, they routinely claim as if machines were sentient, volitional beings. To them the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times. And like their cousins the Keynesians, they treat the economy like a circus animal that can be manipulated and taught tricks, instead of as the product of billions of individual decisions made every day by producers and consumers.

Clinton dredged up one of the Left's favorite and most insidious talking points, declaring "it is way past time for us to guarantee equal pay for women."

The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work.

Critiquing President Obama's claim that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013 that the 77-cent figure "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."

"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's," she wrote. "In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."

The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.

"Excessive inequalities such as we have today reduces economic growth," Clinton said, pretending she likes the market economy. "Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits," she said, paying homage to candidate Obama's mantra that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"There are great ideas out there," Clinton said. "And we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top." The "Wall Street corporations and the super rich," also known as her most ardent supporters, must be made to "pay their fair share of taxes."

She promised to "make college debt-free for all" and to "rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employers and few ship profits and jobs overseas."

Clinton defended the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She belittled Trump for highlighting the corruption endemic to the enterprise that is primarily devoted to enriching the Clinton family.

Trump is trying "to distract us" by "attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world," she said with a straight face. "It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things."

The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore dismantled what he called Clinton's "Twilight Zone" grab bag of proposals. A related speech Hillary gave the previous day "was vacant of ANY ideas at all about how to help the economy. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty. "

Moore mocked her claim that here "in America we pay our bills," a reference to what he called "Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in historically low interest rates." The Obama administration in which Clinton served has generated some $8 trillion of new debt, which is hardly "paying the bills."

"It's passing them on to the next generation," Moore wrote.

Clinton's claim that Trump doesn't understand the new economy and job creation, is "a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of... politics."

Moore continued:

    "The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another uncomfortable problem. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spent $830 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high."

Clinton "is selling the American voters sand in the desert: four more years of stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the U.S. is on the wrong, not the right track."

Trump fired back at Hillary yesterday, hitting her hard enough that Clinton worshippers are getting anxious.

Slate's Michelle Goldberg lamented that the tide may be turning against the Benghazi bungler Trump paints as a corrupt, money-grubbing, political hack. Crestfallen, the diehard leftist called Trump's Wednesday speech on Clinton's record dishonest and demagogic but "terrifyingly effective" and "probably the most unnervingly effective" speech the man has ever given.

"In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide," speaking "for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist." Instead, he took aim at "Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment."

“Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” Trump said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and declared her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”

Goldberg treated Trump's address as brilliant performance art in which he "interwove truth and falsehood into a plausible-seeming picture meant to reinforce listeners' underlying beliefs."

Pretending her readers were complete idiots ignorant of Hillary's history, Goldberg wheeled out Washington establishment yes man David Gergen to denounce what he called Trump's "slanderous speech." On CNN an animated Gergen made a fool of himself by castigating Trump for relying on the exhaustively documented allegations of graft and corruption in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.

Regurgitating the self-serving nonsense peddled by leftist slander shop Media Matters for America, the "conservative misinformation" monitor that Hillary herself takes credit for founding, Gergen said that the "book has been basically discredited."

Not so. In fact, the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS News have all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.

Gergen added, "I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody."

Why Gergen has attained such prominence at this level in the Washington punditocracy is unclear.

What is clear is that he seems to know nothing about the Clinton family and has been asleep throughout Barack Obama's Saul Alinsky-inspired presidency.

Cops, media hide Idaho girl’s sex assault by Muslim migrants

JUNE 21, 2016 4:12 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

The authorities are in frenzied denial mode about this story. And as is increasingly the norm these days, they’re lying. Journalist Leo Hohmann has found the facts to cut through the Idaho authorities’ politically correct denial and mainstream media obfuscation:


“Cops, media hide Idaho girl’s sex assault by Muslim migrants,” by Leo Hohmann, WND, June 21, 2016:

A 5-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by two boys at an apartment complex in Twin Falls, Idaho — while a third boy filmed the attack — and some local residents are charging the police and city officials with covering up the fact that the boys are from Muslim immigrant families from Sudan and Iraq.

Although not yet confirmed, the alleged perpetrators, ages 14, 10 and 7, appear to be from refugee families.

In a new twist to the story, the Twin Falls City Council met Monday night and was given an earful by residents who warned last year that exactly this type of criminal behavior was being invited into their community through refugee resettlement.

“Islam has declared global jihad on us,” Vicky Davis of Twin Falls told the council. “And Obama, this administration, is bringing them in as fast as he possibly can.”

“They’re on your head, your head, your head, yours, yours,” she said as she pointed at each member of the council.

Twin Falls is one of more than a dozen “pockets of resistance” across the U.S. where residents are protesting the arrival of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and other Muslim nations.

A protest rally took place in the city last fall and residents have been seeking more transparency from the College of Southern Idaho, which is resettling refugees in the area.

The alleged sexual assault occurred on June 2 at Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls. The low-income complex houses at least two immigrant families from Sudan and Iraq.

WND talked to residents of Fawnbrook who sent photographs of women in burqas on the grounds at different times of day.


This photo was taken outside the juvenile detention center in Idaho showing family of two of the Sudanese boys who allegedly stripped and sexually assaulted a 5-year-old girl while an older boy filmed them.

Earlier reports that multiple “Syrian” refugees had gang-raped the girl “at knife-point” were inaccurate, however.

“There was no gang rape, there was no Syrian involvement, there were no Syrian refugees involved, there was no knife used, there was no inactivity by the police,” Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs told the Spokesman Review, a local newspaper. “I’m looking at the Drudge Report headline: ‘Syrian Refugees Rape Little Girl at Knifepoint in Idaho’ – all false.”

But an attack did occur and it was perpetrated by Muslim migrants.

Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who lives at the complex, told WND she was an eye witness to the incident and gave her account to police the day after it happened.

“This happened three weeks ago around 3:30. I was sitting on my porch patio and I looked over and saw this boy taking pictures with a camera,” Payne told WND. “He was from Africa or somewhere overseas, standing outside the laundry room taking pictures of kids in the laundry room.”

She said she immediately walked over to the laundry room and opened the door.

“I found them in there. I knew there was something going on because the boy (with the phone camera) was acting funny, he was taking pictures but he was telling the two younger boys what to do,” she said.

She said the boy filming the assault is 14 and the two who were inside the laundry room with the girl are ages 7 and 10, all of whom she described as having “dark cloudy skin and curly hair.”

When she flung open the door she found a disturbing scene.

“The door was cracked enough for him to see the pictures he was taking. I opened that door and I almost fainted when I saw what was going on and here I’m a nurse,” Payne said. “What a pitiful thing for a poor little girl to go through.”

The “little tiny white girl, 5 years old,” was standing there with her clothes off. The two younger boys were also naked.

“The police came and then the next day detectives came and talked to me alone,” Payne said.

“All I know is what I told them. The worst thing was the way they peed all over her clothes and on her too, and I thought that was one of the meanest things I’ve ever saw done,” she added. “And we know those kids must know a lot more than the kids in America of that age. I’ve never seen any of them do anything like that to little girls, and we have a lot of children around here.”

“The little girl had no clothes on. The boys took them off. The littlest boy said ‘we didn’t do it, he told us to,’ pointing to the older boy. They’re just kids that have a mother and they moved here from overseas. The women don’t even talk any English, some of them do, but others don’t. They wear long dresses and long black things on their heads.

‘She was scared to death’

There was no knife involved, Payne said.

“I saw two boys and one little girl scared to death,” she continued. “I told them boys you better get your clothes on. She was scared to death, crying ‘Grandma Jo, Grandma Jo, help me.’ I’m not her grandmother but that’s what all the kids around here call me.”…

NPR whitewashes Mateen’s jihadist motive, calling his pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State a publicity stunt

June 20, 2016 2:25 pm By Christine Williams

In the name of political correctness, the leftist ideologues are at it again, abetting jihadists by publicly denying their destructive ambitions for the West. This time, it’s NPR stating that Mateen “evoked ISIS as a ‘cover story’ to gain more publicity.”

This make-it-up-as-you-go approach has no limits in the propaganda war against truth. It’s a privilege to be living in a free democracy where such folly can be openly exposed as the risk to public safety that it is.

It wasn’t enough for broadcaster Scott Simon that Mateen pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, or that Mateen cased Disney and the Pulse in the company of his wife; it wasn’t even enough that “Disney notified FBI the couple may have been casing Disney in April”; and that on the day of the Pulse massacre, Mateen posted on the internet: “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance.” For Simon, this was all part of an elaborate publicity stunt.

In addition, although the FBI released transcripts of 911 calls that Mateen made during his massacre and they were redacted with content relating to Islam removed, according to Robert Spencer “even what has been released shows that Orlando jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen was acting avowedly in the name of Islam and in accord with its teachings.”

2016-06-20-cbs-tm-911redactions
“NPR: Mateen Only Evoked ISIS as a ‘Cover Story’ to Gain ‘More Publicity’…for Shooting 100!”, by Tim Graham, NewsBusters, June 20, 2016:

    On NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday, the play-down-Islam game was in full swing. The headline online was “Orlando Shooter Update: Few Warning Signs Point To Radicalization.”

    NPR anchor Scott Simon said unnamed federal officials [translation: Obama appointees?] were “struck by the fact that the shooter, Omar Mateen, doesn’t seem to have exhibited any of the warning signs often associated with radicalization. They’re exploring whether Mateen invoked ISIS’s name not because he follows that group, but perhaps in hopes of getting more publicity for his attacks.”….

Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off U.S. List
And Hillary Clinton adjutant Huma Abedin has ties to both of them.

June 20, 2016

Matthew Vadum


​The Saudi Arabian government apparently had so much clout with previous U.S. administrations that they refused to designate as terrorist organizations two terror-funding Islamofascist groups linked to Huma Abedin, now the vice-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Abedin is joined at the hip to Hillary. She is to Mrs. Clinton what Valerie Jarrett is to President Obama.

That two deadly terrorist groups avoided proper scrutiny for years is a chilling reminder of how close Mrs. Clinton's political network is to the brutal Muslim Brotherhood, possibly the Left's favorite Islamist operation. It also underlines the extent to which Islamist enemies of the United States have infiltrated the American political establishment. And it takes on added importance now that polls show the pathologically dishonest Alinskyite radical who wrote the communitarian manifesto It Takes A Village has a significant lead over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Sifting through archived media reports, Breitbart’s Lee Stranahan discovered it was known in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks that the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and its parent entity the Muslim World League (MWL), both of which are directly funded by Saudi authorities, were financial backers of al-Qaeda.

“The Saudis have probably done more to penetrate Al Qaeda than any other foreign intelligence service, but Al Qaeda in turn has penetrated the Saudi regime,” Newsweek reported the month after 9/11.

Although the IIRO, whose website calls the group the International Islamic Relief Organization of Saudi Arabia (IIROSA), and MWL “have been used by bin Laden to finance his operations,” they were “left off the list of groups sanctioned by the United States last week, U.S. officials hinted … in order to avoid embarrassing the Saudi government.”

The League acknowledges on its website that it is “engaged in propagating the religion of Islam” and “elucidating its principles and tenets.” It also engages in strategic lying, known in the Islamic world as taqiyya. The League “is well known for rejecting all acts of violence and promoting dialogue with the people of other cultures,” its website claims, adding that it does “not intend to undermine, dominate or practice hegemony over anyone else.”

It claims on the site that it has “external centers,” “external offices,” and “Islamic centers” in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Congo, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, United Kingdom, and other countries.

IIRO describes itself as “a charity organization emanating from the Muslim World League.”

Its annual report from 2011/2012 indicates that “thousands of mosques have been built with an average of one mosque a day” and that it has “1,222 staff” worldwide. Under its "Holy Qur'an and Da'wa Program" it has "8,044 male and female students memorizing Qur’an and learning Islamic studies in 306 centres and Qur'an circles." IIRO has "304 Qur'an teachers and supervisors" in "these centres in 29 countries around the world” and sponsors "338 Islamic preachers” in those 29 countries.

Clinton protégé and campaign vice-chairman Huma Abedin, her parents, and her siblings all have intimate ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim World League has reportedly taken in more than $1.3 billion since 1962 from the Saudi government to promote Wahhabism. The League, warns Andrew C. McCarthy, is the Brotherhood’s “principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.”

Abedin, who is married to disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), has never publicly explained her disturbing connections to the people who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 or why, despite those ties, she ought to be trusted with state secrets. And when courageous politicians like former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have tried to sound the alarm about who Abedin really is, they have been relentlessly mocked by the media and politicians from both parties. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) famously suffered from an acute outbreak of faux chivalry on the Senate floor when congressional colleagues dared to ask legitimate questions about Abedin’s loyalty to this country.

Few recall that when Bill Clinton was president in 1996, the CIA believed the International Islamic Relief Organization helped to underwrite six terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan. Harper’s reported in 2004 that the former head of IIRO’s office in the Philippines, who happened to be Obama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, “had been linked to plots to ‘target the pope and U.S. airlines.’”

The year 1996 was also eventful for Abedin. That year the young Michigan-born woman returned to the U.S. after years of living with her jihadist parents and soaking up the militant Islamic culture of Saudi Arabia. She promptly began working for then-first lady Hillary as an intern in the White House. At the same time Abedin was a member of the executive board of the George Washington University chapter of the Muslims Students Association, which was created by the MWL in the 1960s. In 1996 Abedin also began working as assistant editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, an Islamist publication of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA).

The Institute was founded in 1979 by the entrepreneurial Islamist Abdullah Omar Naseef who at the time was vice president of the prestigious King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia. Naseef, who became MWL secretary-general in 1983, hired the late Dr. Zyed Abedin, Huma’s father, as managing editor of the Journal, and the Abedins relocated to the repressive Saudi kingdom. Huma’s mother is the publication’s editor-in-chief and her brother and sister also work there as editors.

The Harper’s article from 12 years ago added that the U.S. intelligence community believed MWL employees took part in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. Even though both MWL and IIRO funded al-Qaeda, Newsweek reported in October 2001, the Bush administration “left the two organizations off the list of designated terrorist groups in order to spare the Saudi government from embarrassment.” It’s not clear why the Clinton administration suppressed the truth about the two organizations.

Stranahan is optimistic that despite the frantic lies of the Left, the facts about Hillary and Huma will receive proper attention in the current election cycle.

“Defenders of Clinton and Abedin have attempted to spin concerns about Abedin’s disturbing connections as a crazed right-wing conspiracy theory, but the facts are coming out, and with America focused on the presidential race and terrorism, it is just a matter of time before the truth comes out.”

Meanwhile, even as the nation grieves for the 49 innocent Americans gunned down June 12 by Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen at a gay club in Orlando, Fla., members of the media seem blissfully unaware that for five years Hillary Clinton had a real live jihad-loving terrorist on the payroll at her family foundation.

Gehad el-Haddad, an Islamic terrorist leader who jumped straight from his job at the terrorist-friendly international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation to a post with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, received a life sentence back home last year for seditious Islamist activities.

The professional propagandist may have learned about forcing Sharia law on Egyptians while he was "city director," a senior communications post, at the Clintons' charity from August 2007 to August 2012. (Note: Gehad is the Egyptian version of the Arabic word jihad.) Haddad was the lead English-language spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood and a frequent apologist for the since-ousted President Mohamed Morsi’s violent crackdowns on civil liberties. He put his spin doctoring skills to use downplaying Brotherhood supporters' attacks on women and children.

Hillary Clinton, of course, headed the U.S. Department of State during the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 that ousted longtime U.S. ally and anti-Islamist Hosni Mubarak and cleared the way for Morsi, an Obama ally.

It beggars belief that Clinton didn’t know about Haddad’s employment with the Brotherhood. A mere month after Haddad quit his Clinton Foundation job for full-time employment with the Brotherhood in 2012, Morsi received an invitation to deliver a major address at the Clinton Global Initiative, a high-profile project of the foundation.

These things are all just incredible coincidences, Clinton’s defenders will insist.