NY Times Op-Ed: Muslim Brotherhood Not Terrorists

muslim_brotherhood_in_americaTruth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, Feb. 22, 2017:

The New York Times Wednesday posted an op-ed by Gehad El-Haddad called, “I Am a Member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Not a Terrorist.” Well, that’s comforting. We were under the distinct impression that the Muslim Brotherhood does in fact have a history of terrorism and is the Ur-mother of all Islamic fundamentalist terror groups today. Good thing the Times corrected us.

It’s unclear how a man who claims in the opening sentence that he wrote it “from the darkness of solitary confinement in Egypt’s most notorious prison, where I have been held for more than three years” got an op-ed published in the Times, but let’s just move on to the blatant lies contained in the piece itself.

“We are not terrorists,” El-Haddad, the official spokesman for the MB begins. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s philosophy is inspired by an understanding of Islam that emphasizes the values of social justice, equality and the rule of law.” Well, at least he didn’t say that his understanding of Islam emphasizes “peace”; we’ll give him points for that.

He went on describe the Brotherhood as “a morally conservative, socially aware grass-roots movement that has dedicated its resources to public service for the past nine decades. Our idea is very simple: We believe that… the test of faith is the good you want to do in the lives of others, and that people working together is the only way to develop a nation, meet the aspirations of its youth and engage the world constructively.”

He left out the part about destroying western civilization from within and paving the way for a worldwide caliphate, but I suppose he had to keep the op-ed brief, considering he was writing it in dark solitary confinement in Egypt’s most notorious prison.

“We believe that our faith is inherently pluralistic and comprehensive,” writes El-Haddad, “and that no one has a divine mandate or the right to impose a single vision on society.” To paraphrase Mary McCarthy’s famous dig at Lillian Hellman, every word of that sentence is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

He goes on to claim that despite all the misunderstandings about the MB, it remains “committed to our ideals of community development, social justice and nonviolence.” As for all the terror groups that the MB has reportedly spawned, he asserts, “This is wildly misleading.” I’m just going to leave that right there.

Make no mistake about it: the Muslim Brotherhood is both a terrorist group and the most subversive Islamic force in the world today. For the Times to give supportive space to an MB apologist without any context or rebuttal is an outrageous but unsurprising act of anti-Americanism propagandizing, if not actual treason. Both the Brotherhood and The New York Times are, in their own ways, enemies of the American people.

For much, much more about the Muslim Brotherhood, which hopefully President Trump will declare a terrorist group despite this New York Times puff piece, check out its profile here at the Freedom Center’s Discover the Networks resource page.

Media’s Flynn-Russia Narrative Quickly Collapsing as FBI Reportedly Clears Former National Security Adviser

flynn-russia-media-narrative-collapses-sized-770x415xc

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, FEBRUARY 15, 2017:

The media narrative that recently ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was involved in nefarious — nay, sinister and possibly treasonous!!! — dealings in his December call with the Russian ambassador is quickly collapsing, as CNN reports that the FBI will not be pursuing any criminal investigation involving Flynn’s phone call….

You must read the rest of Poole’s excellent debunking of the MSM’s shameful smear campaign.

First ‘Fake News,’ Now ‘Fake Narrative’: New York Times Misrepresents Center’s Views on Islam, Muslims

2666891294

Center for Security Policy, February 2, 2017:

Press Release

(Washington, DC): A front-page, above-the-fold article in The New York Times today used an attack on President Trump and his Senior Counsel Stephen Bannon to ignore a distinction long made by the Center for Security Policy between Sharia-supremacists – notably, the Muslim Brotherhood – and Muslims who do not adhere to that totalitarian political-military-legal doctrine.

In two different places, the Times describes Center President Frank Gaffney as characterizing “Muslims” and “Islam” when, in fact, he was clearly characterizing and warning against the Muslim Brotherhood. Obscuring this distinction plays to the papers efforts to depict the Trump administration and other, like-minded individuals and groups as anti-Muslim “Islamophobes” and “haters.”

Mr. Gaffney observed:

The New York Times did a public disservice with its latest bid to discredit and undermine President Trump as he seeks to protect the American people by halting the further importing of jihadists. Mr. Trump and his senior subordinates are clearly sensitive to the distinction between Muslims who, in the President’s words “share our values” and seek to help live and build the American dream on the one hand and, on the other, those who believe it is Allah’s will to destroy countries like ours. So am I.
It is reprehensible and contrary to the national interest – and potentially to our national security – that those like the Times and the Southern Poverty Law Center persist in encouraging the former to believe otherwise.

The context of the portion of Mr. Gaffney’s interview with New York Times mischaracterized by reporter Matthew Rosenberg is below.

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF FRANK GAFFNEY INTERVIEW WITH MATT ROSENBERG OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
December 8, 2016
FRANK GAFFNEY:

So we took a fresh look at Sharia. [Gaffney presented Rosenberg with an abridged version of Sharia: The Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, Report of Team B II] And if you’re interested, I’ll give you the larger version of it. But it was a distinguished group of, as I recall, nineteen folks.

And the conclusion that we came to was that contrary to the orthodoxy of the time – which was that of the Bush years, which has become more true under Obama – that the doctrine or the ideology or the program that we’re confronting has nothing to do with Islam.

It actually has everything to do with what the authorities of Islam say is the faith, namely, Sharia. Having said that, we very directly acknowledge in the book, and I do in every opportunity that we have, that there are lots of Muslims who don’t practice their faith in accordance with Sharia. But they’re not the problem, by and large. At least not yet.

The ones who do are unmistakably [the problem]. And that manifests itself in what Sharia compels them to do. Again, I may be repeating some of the stuff we talked about the other day, but just in the interest of completeness, it’s their God-directed duty to impose it on everybody else, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Sharia, that is. And the way to do that is through jihad, which is not about personal struggle or about being a better Muslim or any of the other things we’re often told. Again, some Muslims may feel that way, but that’s not what Sharia is really requiring of them.

By the way, when I talk about Sharia, and I don’t know if you have seen it, my colleague may have it next door, what we’ve used as kind of our reference text is Reliance of the Traveller. Which is a book that I think was first written about thirteen hundred years ago. It has been translated into English –

MATT ROSENBERG:

What was the title again?

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Reliance of the Traveller. It has been described as authoritative in terms of its rendering of Sharia by al-Azhar and House of Saud and Jordanian royals and so on. And when you look at the jihad as it is described there, it is clearly about holy war.

And the holy war is, as a practical matter, pursued by those who believe this is God’s will in different ways. The preferred way, the most efficient way, is terrifying violence. And where you’re strong enough to do that and where you can succeed at it, you go for it. Some say you should do it whether you can succeed at it or not, just because that’s the right way and, you know, you’ve got your Islamic States and your Talibans and your – the folks you’ve been hanging with [on foreign assigments] – Al-Qaeda and so on, lovely people.

But as important, I think, are the other kinds of jihad that are also perfectly legitimate and in fact the responsibility of Muslims to engage in, especially where they’re not strong enough to use violence. And that runs the gamut from the hijra – migration, colonization, whatever you want to call it. [To] zakat, at least a portion of which is supposed to go to jihad [and] the people who engage in it, their families. [To] what the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”

And this [Gaffney pointing to a print of the Explanatory Memorandum: The General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America] is the single most important book as far as I’m concerned on the subject because it is a secret plan that the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership here in America wrote in 1991 as a report back to the mother-ship in Egypt. Never meant for our eyes, but it lays out both what their mission is, which is described as “destroying Western Civilization from within by their hands – meaning ours –  and the hands of the believers so that God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

And then it proceeds to say in the way of a report as to how they’re coming, some twenty-five years after they began, with this stealthy, subversive kind of jihad. By which they essentially, like termites, hollow out, you know, the structure of civil society and other institutions, government institutions included, for the purpose of creating conditions under which the jihad will succeed, perhaps through a violent phase or perhaps otherwise.

Gorka on Trump Travel Ban: ‘Facts Are Optional for the Liberal Media’

Fox News Insider, January 30, 2017:

National security expert Dr. Sebastian Gorka said mainstream media criticism of President Trump’s executive order barring immigration from several Middle Eastern nations is a product of their personal ideologies.

“They’re just the chattering classes,” Gorka said, “It’s all about ideology and not national security.”

Gorka said many in the media have refused to acknowledge that, despite calling the order a “Muslim ban”, key countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are not listed.

He called left-wing pundits in the media the “Ben Rhodes echo-box”, a reference to former President Obama’s advisor who once told the New York Times he created an ideological “echo chamber” in the press to the president’s benefit.

“This is where facts are optional for the liberal media, Sean,” Gorka said.

Over the past 16 years, several dozen people have been convicted of terrorist acts who were immigrants or in the country on refugee status, Gorka said.

FAKE NEWS: MEDIA LIES ABOUT STATE DEPT OFFICIALS “FLEEING” TRUMP

dan-rather-document-investigation

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, January 26, 2016:

There are a bunch of media pieces like this. I picked this one because its headline and opening push a narrative that is completely discredited by its closing paragraphs. The narrative is that State Department officials are “fleeing” Trump. The reality is that political appointees were asked to resign.

Here we go.

There’s an ‘ongoing mass exodus’ at the State Department of people who don’t want to work for Trump

Senior officials are fleeing the State Department in the first days of President Donald Trump’s administration, according to The Washington Post.

Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s undersecretary for management, and three of his top officials resigned abruptly recently, The Post reported. All are career diplomats who have served under presidents from both parties.

Two other senior leaders in the State Department left earlier this month. Post columnist Josh Rogin characterized it as an “ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.”

David Wade, who was the State Department’s chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry, told The Post that it’s “the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember.”

…cut to the ending

State Department spokesman Mark Toner responded to the Post story with a statement characterizing resignations during a transition in administration as normal.

“As is standard with every transition, the outgoing administration, in coordination with the incoming one, requested all politically appointed officers submit letters of resignation,” he said in the stateme

“While this appears to be a large turnover in a short period of time, a change of administration always brings personnel changes, and there is nothing unusual about rotations or retirements in the Foreign Service,” the statement said. “Indeed, both are essential to the development of a steady stream of experienced leaders ready to assume critical roles at State.”

Here’s Matt Lee trying his best to educate the media:

Don’t worry. FactCheck will still rate it as Mostly True. Snopes will make assorted noises that sound like they mean something. Because our media is all Fake News, all the time.

Remember all that stuff we said at the beginning. It’s a bunch of fake news.

Instead of a “mass exodus” of desperate State refugees fleeing Trump, a handful of political appointees were told to resign. Patrick Kennedy, one of the more prominent of the bunch, had lobbied to keep his job.

Also see:

Media Covers Fake Mike Flynn Story, Ignores Bombshell on Secret Obama/Iran Meetings

(AP Photo/Craig Ruttle, File)

(AP Photo/Craig Ruttle, File)

PJ Media, by David Steinberg, January 25, 2017:

If mainstream media truly wishes to repair its image with the general public, these outlets must recognize they do not merely suffer from a “bubble” reinforced by overwhelmingly liberal staffing, or from supposedly insufficient outreach to working class communities.

The mainstream’s issues are apparent in their content choices, suggesting an intractable problem. Following decades of allowing the Democratic Party to select the day’s narrative, they possess no measure of professional competence for objectively judging the importance of information.

The media’s remarkably different responses to the following two stories offer a definitive example:

1. Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s national security adviser, made a series of phone calls and texts to Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak on December 29, 2016. On that day, then-President Barack Obama had revealed that he was issuing sanctions against Russia for its supposed hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

2. Per the Washington Free Beacon: “Two high-level Iranian government backers, including a former Islamic Republic official and another accused of lobbying on Tehran’s behalf, were hosted at the Obama White House for more than 30 meetings with top officials at key junctures in the former administration’s contested diplomacy with Iran …

“Sources familiar with the nature of the meetings told the Washington Free Beacon that both Parsi and Mousavian helped the White House craft its pro-Iran messaging and talking points that helped lead to the nuclear agreement with Iran. These efforts were part of a larger pro-Iran deal ‘echo chamber’ led by senior Obama administration officials who were tasked with misleading Congress about the nature of the deal …”

Just about every mainstream outlet has covered the Michael Flynn story with multiple articles: Newsweek, CNN, Daily Beast, CBS News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and others — a thorough search returns dozens of high-profile sources that published highly trafficked pieces.

Several pundits demanded answers, pointing to the calls as further evidence of Donald Trump having aligned himself with Vladimir Putin’s dictatorial regime, and having allowed Putin to direct elements of his campaign and his coming presidency. Later, these same outlets announced that an “FBI investigation” into Flynn’s calls and texts had commenced.

But this week, we learn the hysteria about Flynn and the FBI appears to have been unwarranted. The outlets which had previously inflated the story have since backed down.

As you read their follow-up stories below, note the cause of their initial hysteria: you know of the Mike Flynn story simply due to journalistic ineptitude — specifically, the journalists’ ignorance of diplomatic practices — combined with their predetermined acceptance of the Trump/Russia narrative.

Yesterday, per NBC News:

FBI Finds Nothing Amiss in Flynn-Russia Eavesdrop: Official

The FBI eavesdropped on telephone calls between President Donald Trump’s national security adviser and the Russian ambassador but found nothing improper, a U.S. intelligence official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said late Monday that there was never a formal “investigation” of the calls in December between retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador in Washington.

According to the source, who was confirming a Washington Post report earlier Monday, intelligence officials merely listened inas part of routine eavesdropping on Kislyak.

The former official, who requested anonymity to speak about sensitive information, said it was not uncommon for diplomats or other U.S. officials to garner such attention to if they are recorded talking to foreign counterparts. Rarely anything comes of this, however, because U.S. officials have wide latitude in how they communicate as part of their jobs.

And this is how the Washington Post article referenced above described the calls:

The FBI’s counterintelligence agents listen to calls all the time that do not pertain to any open investigation, current and former law enforcement officials said. Often, said one former official, “they’re just monitoring the other [foreign official] side of the call.”

Both Flynn, a former head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, and Kislyak, a seasoned diplomat, are probably aware that Kislyak’s phone calls and texts are being monitored, current and former officials said. That would make it highly unlikely, the individuals said, that the men would allow their calls to be conduits of illegal coordination.

Has the damage been done, however? When you hear “Mike Flynn,” do you immediately consider him through the lens of this story?

Objectively, you should not, and further, you should not trust anything you have heard regarding Mike Flynn that traces to those outlets. They have shown both incompetence on the subject and vulnerability to a cynical Democratic Party narrative intended to damage Donald Trump’s presidency.

Re-watch the Clinton-Trump debates: Clinton pulls focus towards Russia to minimize coverage of the scandalous content of John Podesta’s emails. Further, following Trump’s victory, President Obama announced the aforementioned sanctions against Russia, knowing such sanctions brought no tangible punishment to Putin — then-President Elect Trump could rescind them within a month’s time. Obama’s motivations bear no rational explanation beyond continuing the narrative of Trump as an illegitimate president and pawn of Vladimir Putin.

Obama was successful — these outlets proved to have been primed to run with later information, such as the Mike Flynn story, to further the Trump/Russia narrative.

Now, return to yesterday’s exclusive story from Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon:

Seyed Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat and head of its national security council, was hosted at the White House at least three times, while Trita Parsi, a pro-Iran advocate long accused of hiding his ties to the Iranian government, met with Obama administration officials some 33 times, according to recently updated visitor logs.

The implications of this story, considering Obama adviser Ben Rhodes later opened up about the extent of the Obama administration’s duplicity with the public on the Iranian nuclear deal, are objectively relevant to anything else an America voter may read or believe regarding our national security. The Obama administration was surreptitiously welcoming counsel from two enemies of the state while crafting a treaty supposedly intended to prevent that enemy — a genocidal regime with a messianic bent — from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Here’s how that Ben Rhodes article described how Obama misled America (link is to David Reaboi of The Federalist):

In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. ‘ We created an echo chamber,’ [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. ‘ They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.’

Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once. Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums … “But then there are sort of these force multipliers,” he said, adding, “We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them—”

“I can name them,” I said, ticking off a few names of prominent Washington reporters and columnists who often tweet in sync with White House messaging.

Price laughed. ‘I’ll say, “Hey, look, some people are spinning this narrative that this is a sign of American weakness,”’ he continued, “but—”

“In fact it’s a sign of strength!” I said, chuckling.

These same “often-clueless” reporters the Obama administration was “ventriloquizing” were just utilized as gleeful political pawns yet again. Mike Flynn’s brief calls and texts with the Russian ambassador should have immediately been dismissed as common diplomatic activity; they weren’t, in service of a cynical political end sought by not just the Democratic Party, but by the media outlets themselves.

However, the Obama White House meetings with Mousavian and Parsi — dozens of meetings — can not rationally be attributed as common diplomatic contact. Even after Ben Rhodes spilled his secrets — and not due to the weight of guilt, but due to pride in his work — we still do not know the extent of the Obama administration’s deceitful behavior during the passage of a bill that holds ramifications for global stability.

To summarize, the information uncovered by Adam Kredo is real news.

The Flynn story has been exposed as nothing notable beyond its potential as a political club; it was fake news.

As of this moment, not a single mainstream outlet has picked up the Adam Kredo story.

PJ Media and other “new media” outlets have, though.

As the mainstream continues to humiliate itself in an attempt to maintain a monopoly on information exiting Washington, D.C., the general public — and certainly, the voters — has developed an awareness that the mainstream’s status as gatekeeper has always been artificial. It certainly never had anything to do with competence.

Fake news and MSM deception example 247698-b9E AP News

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Vlad Tepes blog, January 5, 2017 by Eeyore

According to this site, there are four kinds of lies.

Falsification, exaggeration, omission, equivocation.

Today, AP News provided us with a magnificent example of lie by omission.

First, for those that missed it, you may want to look at a story Nash Montana posted last night here at Vlad. Our title for it was:

Four Chicago Thugs Arrested for Kidnapping Torturing White Special Needs Kid

It is incomplete. But not deceptive. Incomplete because all the perps were black and it was clearly a race hate crime against white people as much as any crime can be a “hate crime.” The title could have said, “In hate crime” at the end and been more complete. But it was not deceptive as all the facts including the video are included in the post.

Now lets look at AP News tweet on the same story:

And now their coverage:

safariscreensnapz002

Once again, the MSM shows it is operating on a narrative at the expense of truth, likely to create an outcome, as opposed to informing the public as to real world events.

Is this a product of Obama’s office of the CVE?

Very possibly. Or is it a function of Bill Whittle’s observation that the Frankfurt School narrative is just how people think now and not a deep conspiracy?

Not in this case. This, and thousands of other examples of MSM deception are too well crafted to be a product of how a person thinks. This was a most deliberate attempt to sanitize salient facts out of the reporting of the event to create a predetermined impression in the reader.

As people get more and more aware of this kind of highly Marxist approach to information management, agencies that actually give demonstrably true information and analysis which has predictive value, like Gates of Vienna for example, are being labeled as “fake news” and software and legal measures are being created to make sure the public no longer has easy access to it.

This of course is the guaranteed path of Marxism or any system that seeks to supplant what is true, with what is conforming to an ideology. At some point, you have to use increasing levels of force to keep people talking and thinking in a conformist, non-diverse manner in accordance with the official doctrine. It starts with labeling non-compliant analysis and reporting as fake, and then applies software filters like Facebook and Twitter and Youtube do to varying degrees and with varying means. (Youtube no longer allows non-leftist independent journalists or analysis to monetize their videos) and inevitably will criminalize non compliance beginning with selectively enforced “hate-crimes” laws and reeducation camps and sooner or later boils down to just killing us.

Because it always does.

Just ask ‘Uncle Joe’.

[UPDATE: HEAVY.COM has this additional information about the event, the people, and the charges. The event was worse than reported by pretty much anyone]

For an understanding of the CVE, please see the following videos:

HAYWARD: Time’s ‘Top 10 Risks to the World in 2017’ Starts with America, Excludes Terrorism

AP

AP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, January 4, 2017:

Ian Bremmer of Time magazine declared a “geopolitical recession” due to the election of Donald Trump, and put forth his list of “Top 10 Risks to the World in 2017” with this howler of an opening paragraph:

The triumph of an “America first” foreign policy marks a fundamental break with decades of U.S. exceptionalism and a consensus view in Washington that U.S. international leadership, however flawed and uneven, is indispensable for international stability.

I hate to be the one to break it to him, but “U.S. exceptionalism” and “U.S. international leadership” were traded for a bag of multicultural magic beans by outgoing President Barack Obama, long before anyone thought Trump might run for President.

The Libya disaster, the Syria disaster, the Iran disaster, the ISIS disaster… on and on it goes, in every case reducing America’s international credibility, with such remorseless consistency because Obama intended to sunset American leadership, regardless of the huge cost to Americans and people overseas.

Remember “leading from behind?” Never mind Obama’s hidden agendas and deep-seated, faculty-lounge antipathy to American power, his stated purpose was to make the U.S. less exceptional, to concede its moral stature, and transfer leadership responsibilities to other nations.

As for “international stability,” how is that looking after unlovely but basically pro-American dictatorships were swapped out for Mad Max-style Muslim militias in the “Arab Spring”?

Libya was transformed into a warlords-vs.-terrorists cage match, Europe is bucking under a tidal wave of contemptuous “refugees,” the Syrian bloodbath transformed Russia and Iran into the new Middle Eastern power axis, China began militarizing the South China Sea, and Russia snatched Crimea and tormented Ukraine?

It would be facile to say there’s nowhere to go but up, but President-elect Trump has a fairly low bar to clear when it comes to handling American prestige and global stability better than his predecessor.

The notion that an “America first” stance will automatically make the world less stable is wrongheaded. Nations that look out for their own predictable interests are more predictable than the eight-year globalist dorm-room bull session held by Obama and his friends  Ask the Syrian resistance or the Israelis about that.

Number One on Bremmer’s Top 10 list of threats facing the world is an “Unpredictable America”:

The world’s sole superpower was once the international trump card, imposing order to force compromise and head off conflict. Now it’s a wildcard, because instead of creating policies designed to bolster global stability, President Trump will use U.S. power overwhelmingly to advance U.S. interests, with little concern for the broader impact. Trump is no isolationist. He’s a unilateralist. Expect a more hawkish–and a much less predictable–U.S. foreign policy. Allies, especially in Europe and Asia, will hedge. Rivals like China and even Russia will test. U.S.-led institutions will lose more of their international clout.

For good measure, Number Two on the list of global security risks is… America again, because Bremmer worries about China “overreacting” to Trump’s provocations. He worries that 2017 will be a “dangerous year for China, and all who depend on it for growth and stability.”

Not only is the assertion that more “unilateral” foreign policy is less predictable dubious, but “hawkish” doesn’t seem like the right word for Trump’s foreign policy outlook, just as “dovish” would be an absurd adjective for President Barack “Drone Strike” Obama’s legacy of wars burning around the world.

The Libyan intervention was “unilateralist” with respect to Obama’s disregard for Congress, but impeccably “multilateral” in the way foreign leaders and Hillary Clinton badgered Obama into starting the war, and predictably disastrous.

Obama’s “red line” in Syria was supposed to be the multilateral consensus of the international community – in one of his more scurrilous attempts to escape responsibility for his words, he claimed “The World” had drawn the red line against chemical weapons, not him. Gas-spewing dictator Bashar Assad correctly deduced that a red line drawn by “everyone” would be enforced by no one. The ban against using WMD was supposed to be the most predictable, universal principle on Earth, but it proved extremely unpredictable in practice, judging from the surprised expressions on the faces of the gas victims.

America tops the Time hit parade of global threats… but ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the rest of the terrorist carnival of horrors are not on the list at all. The word “Islamist” is nowhere mentioned, in any of its permutations. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an Islamist, makes it in at Number Eight because his “tightening grip” on power will “exacerbate the country’s economic problems and his worsening relations with Europe and his neighbors,” but his ideology goes unmentioned. The great danger for the Middle East listed in the article is disruptive technological change.

Entry Number Three on the list is a potential “power vacuum in Europe,” which mentions the French elections, Brexit, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s precarious position, but does not mention why all those European voters are so upset. The risk to global stability and national security that should be ranked high on this list is migration: that is, mass immigration contrary to the best interests of citizens in the host countries.

The arrogance of denouncing the Trump administration and America as the top “risks to the world in 2017” without even mentioning terrorism, just a few days after the latest mass-murder atrocity, is breathtaking.

People from 14 different countries were murdered at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul by a soldier of ISIS. How’s that for a microcosm of “global risk?”

Also see:

Muslim Refugee Brings Jihad Terror to Ohio State

ht-ohio-attack-suspect-lantern-jc-161128_12x5_1600

And the Left uses it to call for…gun control.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, November 29, 2016:

Ohio State University student Abdul Razak Ali Artan on Monday morning set off a fire alarm on campus, the drove his car into the crowd of students evacuating the building. Then he jumped out of his car and began stabbing people with a butcher knife. In a departure from the usual denial and obfuscation, Columbus Police Chief Kim Jacobs was refreshingly honest, saying: “I think we have to consider that it is” a terror attack. Leftists took advantage of the occasion to call for gun control, which might have been a cogent argument were it not for one inconvenient detail: Artan didn’t have a gun. But above all, Artan was a “refugee”: the attack vindicates President-elect Trump on Muslim immigration.

Artan was no poster boy for gun control, but he may have been one for the Islamic State, which issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Intriguingly, before his jihad attack, Artan demonstrated that he knew well how to play the victim card. He appeared in Ohio State University’s The Lantern, in a feature entitled “Humans of Ohio State.” In it, he spoke about being “scared” about performing his Islamic prayers in public:

I just transferred from Columbus State. We had prayer rooms, like actual rooms where we could go to pray because we Muslims have to pray five times a day. There’s Fajr, which is early in the morning, at dawn. Then Zuhr during the daytime, then Asr in the evening, like right about now. And then Maghrib, which is like right at sunset and then Isha at night. I wanted to pray Asr. I mean, I’m new here. This is my first day. This place is huge, and I don’t even know where to pray. I wanted to pray in the open, but I was kind of scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them, it’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.

Abdul Razak Artan, “third-year in logistic management,” is dead now, so The Lantern can’t go back to him and ask him if he understands better now why people might be nervous about Muslims praying, and why it isn’t just the fault of “the media.”

In a Facebook post, Artan played the victim again, but sounded a more ominous note. He referenced jihad mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki and declared: “I am sick and tired of seeing my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters being killed and tortured EVERYWHERE. … I can’t take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries … [if] you want us Muslims to stop carrying lone wolf attacks.”

Meanwhile, Artan’s attack shows the wisdom of President-elect Trump’s call for a temporary moratorium on immigration from countries that are hotbeds of jihad terror activity. KARE11.com reported that “Artan was a Somali refugee and Ohio State student who left his homeland with his family in 2007. They lived in Pakistan before coming to the U.S., where Artan became a permanent resident in 2014.” Somalia and Pakistan: two epicenters of the global jihad. If Trump’s proposal becomes American law, Abdul Artan would never have entered the United States, and Monday’s jihad attack at Ohio State University would never have happened.

There is abundant evidence that admitting Muslim refugees is a jihad risk. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.

So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe, and now the U.S. as well? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September 2015, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”

All nine of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. And now the same murderous impulse has come to Ohio State University, courtesy of another “refugee.” How many more such jihad attacks must there be before the wisdom of a moratorium on immigration from jihad hotspots is universally recognized?

***

****

***

Also see:

Gaffney: The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, November 22, 2016:

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. He is President of the Center for Security Policy.

Former New York Times Reporter Declares Thou Shalt Not Criticize Obama’s Iran Deal

3337073081Center for Security Policy, by Fred  Fleitz, October 26, 2016:

In an October 23 Washington Post book review, former New York Times reporter Elaine Sciolino is sharply critical of a new book on Iran by Wall Street Journal writer Jay Solomon, The Iran Wars, because he criticizes the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) instead of devoting his book to praising the deal as a magnificent achievement as all good reporters are expected to do. Sciolino accuses Solomon of having a “dark perspective” on the nuclear deal and claims “those who hope to sabotage the nuclear agreement under a new administration will find this book useful.”

Sciolino’s attack on Solomon’s book is strange because The Iran Wars is about much more than the nuclear deal and contains strong (and mostly unfair) criticism of the George W. Bush administration’s approach to Iran and the Iraq War. On the Iran deal, while Solomon is tough and factual, he often pulls his punches and leaves out some of the strongest criticisms.

For some reason Sciolino ignored Solomon’s dubious claims that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to weaken Iran and that Bush officials missed an historic opportunity for U.S.–Iran cooperation after the 9/11 attacks. She also omits Solomon’s credible account of how Iran and Syria exploited the aftermath of the Iraq War. As a card-carrying member of the foreign-policy establishment, one would think that Sciolino would jump to praise Solomon for making these points.

Instead, Sciolino devotes her entire article to attacking Solomon and his book. Her strongest criticism is that Solomon didn’t interview enough people, especially Iranians.

Sciolino sniffs that Solomon apparently only made one visit to Iran and that his book has a “paucity of official Iranian voices.” This is a ridiculous argument given how dangerous it is for American citizens to travel to Iran and the 2015 arrest of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian who was held in an Iranian prison for 18 months before he was freed in January 2016.

Sciolino argues “other foreign voices might have enriched [Solomon’s] narrative” because the nuclear talks were such a long and complex international endeavor. In this vein she faults Solomon for reporting that Secretary Kerry’s negotiating team belittled the French for “insubordination during the nuclear talks” instead of explaining what she claims was France’s role in building the foundation for the nuclear deal through the 2003 France-Germany-U.K. EU-3 initiative.

It’s amusing that Sciolino mentioned France and the EU-3 talks since Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s current president and chief Iranian nuclear negotiator in 2003, has admitted that Iran used these failed talks to buy time to expand its nuclear program and to conceal information about this program from the IAEA.

I have no doubt Sciolino complained about Solomon’s supposed lack of interviews to maintain the fiction that the JCPOA is legitimately a multilateral agreement when it is in fact, as Solomon details, a U.S.-Iran deal negotiated almost exclusively by American and Iranian negotiators. Other nations signed on as window dressing.

Sciolino also seems to prefer a book composed of quotes by apologists for the JCPOA rather than one that gives the facts about how the agreement was negotiated, what’s actually in the deal and its troubling and dangerous aftermath.  Sciolino probably believes that if Solomon had been spun more by U.S. and international diplomats, he would have written a book that hewed to the White House’s misleading narrative about the JCPOA instead of reporting on how the Obama administration repeatedly gave in to Iranian demands to get this very weak agreement.

As someone who also has written a recent book on the Iran nuclear deal, Obamabomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Fraud (now in its second edition), I had different problems with Solomon’s book.

First, I thought Solomon gave administration accounts too much credibility in light of widespread criticism (which he does not mention) of Obama officials repeatedly misleading and lying to Congress and the American people about the nuclear negotiations and the final deal.

Sciolino should have been pleased that Solomon does not mention New York Times reporter David Samuels’ May 5, 2016 profile of National Security Council advisor Ben Rhodes in which he reported that Rhodes oversaw a White House “echo chamber” to manipulate the news media by generating false narratives to promote the Iran deal which it distributed to know-nothing reporters.  Instead, Solomon innocuously refers to the echo chamber as the White House “anti-war room” which Solomon says Obama officials used mobilize a campaign to defend the JCPOA.

Solomon also does not cite any of the strong congressional critics of the JCPOA. He depicts congressional opposition as Republican when it was in fact bipartisan and included the top Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It was Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, for example, who made what may be the damning criticism of the nuclear deal when he said “If Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it.”  Unfortunately, this quote does not appear in Iran Wars.

However, I give Solomon credit for reporting that the White House tried to typecast all opponents of the JCPOA as warmongers and that Jewish leaders worried that the White House’s campaign defending the JCPOA “was taking on a not-so-subtle anti-Semitic tone with its references to moneyed lobbyists and their ties to Prime Minister Netanyahu.”

Sciolino should have been heartened that the words “secret side deals” appear nowhere in Solomon’s book. He makes no mention of how Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Congressman Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) accidently learned from IAEA officials about secret side deals to the JCPOA allowing Iran to inspect itself for evidence of past nuclear weapons-related work.  He also omits how the secret side deal issue intensified opposition to the JCPOA because the Obama administration refused to turn over secret side deal documents to Congress for a congressional review as required by law.

Solomon does make a brief reference to Associated Press reporter George Jahn writing about a leaked IAEA document on Iranian “self-inspections” and how Obama administration supporters tried to discredit this story by accusing Jahn of being an Israeli agent and the document being a forgery.

Solomon also disclosed how the Obama administration punished other journalists who wrote articles critical of the nuclear talks. Solomon says he was kicked off Secretary Kerry’s airplane for violating a “zone of silence” rule which barred journalists on Kerry’s plane from asking uncomfortable questions about U.S.–France differences in the nuclear talks. He said that New York Times reporter David Sangar was subjected to a coordinated White House–State Department Twitter assault after Sangar reported Iran might not have the technical capabilities to dispose of its nuclear stockpile as required by the JCPOA.

Solomon emailed me that his book had a July 2016 data cutoff which is why other secret JCPOA side deals that were withheld from Congress (several of which Solomon was the first to report on for the Wall Street Journal) are not mentioned in Iran Wars. These include the planeloads of $1.7 billion in cash flown to Iran in January 2016 as an apparent ransom payment to win the release of U.S. prisoners; exemptions granted to Iran on failing to meet several requirements of the nuclear deal so it would receive $150 billion in sanctions relief last January; and the lifting of UN sanctions on two Iranian banks that have financed Iran’s ballistic missile program.

While Solomon does not go as far as I would prefer in discussing the JCPOA’s enormous flaws and how it has worsened international security, he makes many important points. He notes that it will be difficult to verify this agreement since the Obama administration agreed to drop a longtime demand by the IAEA and the West that Iran answer questions about its past nuclear weapons-related work.  Solomon says the so-called snap-back provision which is supposed to re-impose sanctions in the event of Iranian cheating is unlikely to ever be used.  Solomon correctly portrays the decision to separate Iran’s missile program from the nuclear deal as a huge and dangerous U.S. concession.  Solomon also describes the significance of other huge concessions made by the Obama administration and how Arab states were “stunned” by the terms of the agreement.

Concerning the aftermath of the JCPOA, Solomon gets it half right. Sciolino should be pleased that Solomon agrees with her when he said Iran appears to be complying with the agreement and that the administration’s claim that it will take Iran a year to construct a nuclear bomb appears to be accurate.

There is strong evidence to the contrary, although not all of it was available before Solomon’s July 2016 data cutoff date. I explained much of this evidence in a July 14, 2016 NRO article, including how Iran has placed military facilities off-limits to IAEA inspectors, and is permitted to continue to enrich uranium and develop advanced centrifuges under the deal. I also discussed reports by German intelligence and the Institute for Science and International Security of Iranian cheating on the JCPOA. I therefore believe a strong case can be made that the JCPOA has failed to meet its goal of resolving international concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program since the agreement leaves too many avenues for Iran to cheat, has very weak verification and there are already multiple, credible reports of Iranian cheating.

On the other hand, I agree with Solomon that Iran’s behavior has become much more belligerent and destabilizing since the JCPOA was announced, including arresting American citizens, stepped up missile tests and increased support to Syria’s Assad regime and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.  This behavior has worsened since Solomon’s book went to print due to an increase in naval incidents in the Persian Gulf between American and Iranian vessels and Houthi rebels firing anti-ship missiles at American and UAE ships.  Solomon was exactly right when he wrote, “There are also real risks that a much bigger and broader war is brewing in the region, and that the United States will inevitably be drawn in.”

In response to these criticisms of the nuclear deal’s aftermath, Sciolino accuses Solomon of “stressing the negative. Instead, she ignores reality by praising the deal for improving U.S.-Iran relations and making the Middle East and the world more secure by keeping Iran from producing a nuclear bomb over the term of the agreement.

It’s interesting that Sciolino won’t settle for Solomon concluding the JCPOA is working and his depiction of Obama administration Iran policy as generally positive but bumbling.  In Sciolino’s mind, this is a great agreement that no one should question.  This means she wants Solomon to be like other mainstream reporters and limit his writing to promoting this line and not confuse the American people with the facts about how this agreement came about, what was really agreed to and the agreement’s actual prospects.

Solomon’s book isn’t perfect but it is still an important contribution to mostly one-sided accounts of the JCPOA which roundly praising it as a legacy achievement for President Obama that avoided a war with Iran.  Since problems with the nuclear agreement are likely to continue to grow due to increased Iranian cheating and belligerent behavior – especially in the Persian Gulf — expect to see more articles by foreign policy Brahmin like Sciolino to enforce the Obama administration’s false narrative about the JCPOA against books like Jay Solomon’s that discuss inconvenient facts about the Iran nuclear agreement that the administration and its supporters do not want the American people to know.

Newt Gingrich Challenges Megyn Kelly on Anti-Trump Bias in Epic Showdown…Megyn Won’t Call Bill Clinton a ‘Sexual Predator’

gingrich-and-kelly-fox-640x480

Breitbart, by Patick Howley, October 25, 2016:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich engaged Megyn Kelly in an epic showdown over her anti-Donald Trump “bias” on Kelly’s Fox News show Tuesday night.

Gingrich accused Kelly of being “fascinated with sex” after Kelly used the term “sexual predator” to describe Trump. Gingrich challenged Kelly to call Bill Clinton a sexual predator, but Kelly refused to do so, staunchly defending the Clinton ticket and even saying that the polls show people don’t care as much about Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions as they do about Trump’s alleged incidents.

At the end of the segment, Kelly accused Gingrich of “anger issues.”

Here are the fireworks:

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you using language that is inflammatory that’s not true!

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker…You have no idea whether it’s true or not.

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That’s right. And I’m not taking a position on it, unlike–

NEWT: Oh yes you are. When you used the words, you took a position. And I think it is very unfair of you to do that, Megyn.

MEGYN: Incorrect.

NEWT: I think that is exactly the bias that people are upset by.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

NEWT: No, may I just suggest to you–

MEGYN: No! Let me make my point and then I will give you the floor. What I said is, IF Trump is a sexual predator then that’s a big story. And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That’s what we saw. Then we saw ten women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, ‘That was untrue. He did it to me! He did it to me!’ We saw reporters, people who had worked with him, people from Apprentice, and so on and so forth. He denies it all. Which is his right. We don’t know what the truth is. My point to you is, as a media story, we don’t get to say that the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Sure. Okay, so it’s worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a speech in Brazil…saying her dream is an open border where 600 million people could come to America. That’s not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering.

NEWT: You want to go back through the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated with sex and you don’t care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me, really?

NEWT: That’s what I get out of watching you tonight.

MEGYN: Well, you know what, Speaker, I’m not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we’re getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like to know–

NEWT: Ok, and therefore we’re going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing, because after all you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah, listen, it’s not about me, it’s about the women and men of America. And the poll numbers show us that the women of America in particular are very concerned about these allegations and in large part believe that they ARE a real issue. Don’t dismiss the women summarily!

NEWT: Do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We on the Kelly File have covered that story as well, sir.

NEWT: No I want to actually hear you use the words. Bill Clinton, sexual predator. I dare you. Bill Clinton, sexual predator.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we’ve covered–

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar.

MEGYN: Excuse me. Excuse me.

NEWT: $850,000 penalty?

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We on the Kelly File have covered the Clinton matter, as well. We’ve hosted Kathleen Willey, we’ve covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he’s not on the ticket, and the polls also show that the American people are less interested–

NEWT: He’ll be in the East Wing.

MEGYN: In the deeds of Hillary Clinton’s husband than in the deeds of the person who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump. We’re going to have to leave it at that. And you can take your anger issues and spend some time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

NEWT: And you, too.

Virginia: Hamas-linked CAIR enraged that sheriff’s office hosting seminar on jihad threat

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 25, 2016:

This vicious little hit piece is a textbook example of how the bought-and-paid-for establishment propaganda media defames freedom fighters and mainstreams allies and enablers of jihad terrorists. Much more below.

nihad-awad-corey-saylor

“CIA Director A ‘Secret Muslim’? Anti-Islam Conspiracy-Theorist Group Set To Speak At Virginia Law Enforcement Event,” by Jason Le Miere, International Business Times, October 25, 2016:

The Muslim community has reacted with anger after the sheriff’s office of Greene County, Virginia, announced plans to host a seminar on the alleged threat posed by Muslims. The event, scheduled for Nov. 5, will also feature a representative of a group led by former FBI agent and conspiracy theorist John Guandolo who has claimed that CIA Director John Brennan is a “secret Muslim” who has acted as an agent for the Saudi Arabian government.

IBT “journalist” Jason La Miere presents Guandolo’s charge that Brennan is a Muslim as if it were self-evidently false, the raving of a “conspiracy theorist.” On what basis? Has Brennan ever denied being a Muslim? No. Does Guandolo have any basis for saying so? He says it was widely known when he was in the FBI that Brennan had converted while serving in Saudi Arabia. Is that inherently implausible? No. Is it widely known that there is a top intelligence official in the Obama Administration’s CIA who has converted to Islam? Yes. It was reported in none other than the Washington Post in 2012. Why couldn’t it be Brennan? The movie Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama bin Laden, for which the moviemakers gained access to classified material (the Obama administration was criticized for making it available to them) featured a top counter-terror official who strongly resembled Brennan and was shown performing Muslim prayers. Were the filmmakers hinting at something they knew? Did La Miere speak to Brennan? If he did, he doesn’t mention it in the article. What is much more likely is that La Miere didn’t speak to Brennan, and has no idea whether or not he is a Muslim, but since Brennan hasn’t said anything one way or the other about the charge, he uses it to portray Guandolo as a “conspiracy theorist.” (You can see the video of my interview with Guandolo, in which he discusses this charge, here.)

Greene County Sheriff Steven Smith posted on Facebook this past weekend that his office would be sponsoring a seminar for residents titled “Understanding the Threat, a very interesting and informative class on the Muslim religion.”

Following a backlash, Smith has since apologized for the wording of the original post and changed the title of the seminar to “Understanding the Jihadi Threat.”

“It’s not to say all Muslims are bad,” Smith told local station CBS19. “We’re not saying that at all and when the post first came out, I apologize for the way it was worded, it didn’t have Jihad in there, it does now. People that know me here in Greene County know I’m not like that. It’s just an educational tool.”

On Tuesday, Smith held an impromptu poll on his Facebook page asking the residents of Greene County to decide whether the event should still go ahead. Just a few minutes latest he wrote, “The seminar is on.”…

But the proposed presence of Guandolo’s group, as well as Suzanne Shattuck, a local activist who has called for the deportation of all Muslims who are “Sharia-adherent,” has drawn condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

In a letter to Smith, CAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Taylor [sic!] called for the sheriff’s office to drop the seminar.

The hapless lackey La Miere can’t even get the names of his masters right. It’s Saylor, not Taylor. No need to thank me, Corey.

“Everyone, even anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigots, have the First Amendment right to spew their hatred and conspiracy theories, but that bigotry should not have the implicit endorsement of a law enforcement agency,” the letter read. “Let these individuals pay for their own private speaking venue and be ignored, as they deserve.”

“The sponsorship of this event by the sheriff’s office sends the message to members of the local Muslim community that they may not be protected against the growing number of hate incidents targeting Muslims nationwide due to rising Islamophobia.”

The objective of this hateful and hysterical rhetoric is to stigmatize and demonize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to promote a spurious association between such a discussion and supposed “hate incidents targeting Muslims,” although no connection has ever been established. The obvious goal is to make it impossible to examine the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists, which would allow them to advance unhindered and unopposed.

The United States, which is home to 3.3 million Muslims, has in recent months seen anti-Muslim hate crimes rise to their highest levels since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

La Miere’s link goes to a New York Times story; here is Hugh Fitzgerald’s surgical evisceration of that story.

Guandolo, who has also stated that Muslims “do not have a First Amendment right to do anything,” resigned from the FBI in 2008 ahead of an investigation for misconduct. Since then, he has toured the country speaking to citizens and at anti-terrorism training seminars given to law enforcement agencies.

Last week he also spoke at a high school in northern Minnesota. When CAIR similarly protested his appearance, Guandolo alleged the organization has ties to Palestinian militant group Hamas.

“Guandolo alleged” — as if he made it up. In reality, the FBI and the Justice Department have affirmed CAIR’s ties to Hamas. But La Miere either doesn’t know that or doesn’t care. He has, of course, no business calling himself a “journalist” or working for something that claims to be a news outlet. But these days, he is just another cog in the Soros-funded hard-Left propaganda machine.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Hillary Clinton’s Disclosure of Nuclear Response Times During Debate Was ‘Unconscionable’

hc-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 21, 2016:

On Friday’s Breitbart News Daily, Breitbart News National Security editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, author of the best-selling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, talked about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s clash over Russia at the third presidential debate.

“As I’ve said repeatedly, if there is anybody who’s been in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, it is Hillary Clinton. Everybody needs to have out there, the millennials that they know, their nephews, their nieces, just watch Clinton Cash on YouTube,” Gorka said. “The fact that 20 percent of our uranium was sold to Kremlin front companies, in a deal that was signed off by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, means if there’s anybody who can be bought by the Kremlin, it’s Hillary Clinton.”

“That happened when her husband was receiving $120 million speaking fee from the same companies that bought the uranium,” Gorka noted.

“I have to give great credit to your callers,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “Your show is really about the callers. They see through this. They understand that there’s the mainstream media spin, and most often, it is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. If Trump were some kind of puppet for Moscow, wouldn’t this man have casinos in Kaliningrad? Wouldn’t he have giant Trump Towers in Moscow? He doesn’t. That tells you everything you need to know. Reality is completely the reverse of what anybody else inside the mainstream media would have you believe.”

One of those callers joined the conversation at that point to observe that audiences for mainstream media outlets like CNN were given a very different perspective on the debate than people who watched it without such a media filter.

“I think that the real story will be that there is, perhaps, a majority of people out there who simply have had enough,” said Gorka. “Look at the viewing figures for stations like CNN. I think it tells you everything. Look at the figures for Breitbart, the viewers and clicks. I think that’s the hidden story of this election – that the mainstream media believes they still dominate, but I think in two weeks’ time, two-and-a-half weeks’ time, there’s going to be potentially a very big surprise for those people who think they still speak for America and can control what America sees, whether it’s the debates, whether it’s any kind of reporting on any issue, whether it’s the border, or the economy.”

“Just the polls themselves – look at the poll figures, and then look at the Trump rallies,” he suggested. “Again, spin versus reality. Look at the fact that Hillary seems to be leading everywhere, if you listen to the polls, and then just watch the turnout for her campaign events. I think that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka was pleased that national security has been such an important theme in the 2016 presidential debates, pausing to issue a disclaimer that he has provided national security advice to Donald Trump in the past, “long before anybody took him seriously.”

“I’m not part of his campaign, but I’ve spoken to this man on more than one occasion about the big issues, such as ISIS, North Korea, Russia, and Iran,” he clarified.

With that disclosure made, Gorka faulted Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and theiradvisers for clumsy handling of major foreign policy issues, agreeing with Donald Trump’s criticism that Clinton and Obama constantly telegraph their moves to the enemy.

“It’s not just Hillary. It’s her coterie. It is the liberal elite. The Obama administration has done exactly the same,” he noted. “Every major deployment in Iraq, every major operation, has been announced in advance, which is anathema to just the most basic principles of warfare. And it’s fascinating. This isn’t a new thing. Her husband did exactlythe same thing, during the Balkan wars. Your callers may not recall, but he actually announced before our engagement in the Balkans, he said, ‘I refuse, and I will never put boots on the ground in Yugoslavia.’ Doesn’t that sound familiar? Haven’t you heard somebody else say that, in this current presidential campaign?”

“Telegraphing in advance what you’re going to do is dynamite for the opposition, for your enemy, because then they will prepare to exploit that against you,” Gorka explained. “Look, even after the WikiLeaks became more and more uncomfortable for Hillary, what did we have the vice president do on national television? Announce that, well, they’ve decided Russia is behind all of this, and we’re going to launch a cyber-attack against them, at a time of our choosing. If you read that in a Tom Clancy novel, you’d say, ‘Has Tom lost it?’ Nobody does this.”

“Mr. Trump’s point that he understands we are at war – I can assure your listeners, he knows we are at war, and he wants to win this war, but he’s not going to tell the enemy what we’re going to do. It’s a very, very, valid point,” he said.

Marlow brought up an overlooked moment from the third debate, when Clinton inadvertently revealed some sensitive information about U.S. response times to nuclear attack. Gorka said he wanted to address this issue “in a certain way, if you’ll permit me, as somebody who actually cares for the security of the Republic and who lives in the national security arena.”

From that perspective, he declined to comment on “the veracity, or lack thereof, of what she said.”

“Just one thing has to be drawn, one conclusion has to be drawn: the whole platform of the Hillary campaign, that Mr. Trump is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief, he’s not stable, he can’t be trusted – all of that applies to her, and solely to her,” Gorka said. “Anybody who puts Top Secret/SCI super-classified information on a private homebrew server, and then talks about our nuclear reaction times on live television, in front of tens of millions of people – that woman should not be allowed – I know this is a line Mr. Trump has borrowed from me, but I have to use it – that individual should not be allowed to run for local dog catcher, let alone the most powerful person in the world. It is unconscionablewhat she did on national television, and the fact the liberal media is giving her heat on that tells you everything you need to know.”

Gorka turned to the chaos currently engulfing two key cities in the Middle East, Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Aleppo.

“What we have is this group of – a very heterogenous military force has deployed to Mosul. Again, this was announced weeks in advance by the current administration. We have the Sunni elements of the standing Iraqi army. We have elements of the Kurdish Peshmerga. And, on top of that – this is perhaps the most problematic – we have so-called ‘mobilization forces,’ which are made up Shia former militias, working together, hopefully, to take Mosul with our brave men, and some of our women, as well, as advisers providing training, providing intelligence, and also bombing capabilities for those forces,” Gorka explained.

“The idea is to recapture the second-biggest city in Iraq, which isn’t just important for the size of the city, but because this is the location where, in June 2014, the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared formally the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the new empire of Islam,” he noted. “So Mosul is very, very important. The problem with this operation is the very mixed nature of who’s fighting. They have very, very different interests in terms of the future of Iraq.”

“And the biggest problem of all: you can launch an attack to capture a city – but what happens if you capture it?” he asked. “Are you going to stay there? Are the local Sunnis going to allow Shia or Kurds to stay in the region? And what happens when the fighters come back? It’s like squeezing a balloon. You can push the fighters out, but sooner or later, if you haven’t killed all of them, they will be back.”

As for Aleppo, Gorka called it a “tragedy,” saying that “the last five years in Syria are truly a humanitarian disaster.”

“Here again, we have reality, and we have spin,” he said. “The idea that somehow, we’re going to have a cooperative Russia assist us in stopping the killing and bring stability to that nation is a fantasy. The whole Obama administration’s policy is based on an article of faith that is, again, just phantasmagorical – the idea that Assad must go.”

“Whatever the desperate situation in Aleppo, Assad is not going anywhere,” Gorka noted regretfully. “As long as that man enjoys the support not only of Russia, but Iran and even China, this is a head of state that isn’t going anywhere – unless, of course, America wishes to go to war with Russia, China, and Iran, which is not advisable right now.”

“So we have to stabilize the region. We have to realize that only a political resolution is realistic. And unfortunately, the current powers-that-be in Washington simply do not understand that,” he said.

Dr. Gorka’s parting thought was to “reinforce that November the 8th is primarily about one issue, as far as I’m concerned, and I think most Americans agree with me: it’s about which person do you think is going to keep you and your family safe.”

“So when you’re going to the polling booth, and please bring as many people with you as you can, remember it’s a choice between Hillary – Servergate, Benghazi, nuclear launch times – and a man who believes we are at war with the jihadists and wishes to win. It really is quite that simple, Alex,” he said.

LISTEN:

***

Top 5 Clinton scandals you’re missing due to media bias

***

***

Warning: rough language:

Also see:

ABC’s Designated Survivor Portrays Police as Violent Islamophobic Killers

1000x563-q90_a3552818a0bcac4e2a74c13539ef5f00By Debbie Schlussel, Sept. 28, 2016:

Tonight’s episode of ABC’s “Designated Survivor” portrays police as violent attackers and killers of Muslims after a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol. This false portrayal is despite the fact that neither police nor other Americans have attacked Muslims during 15 years of massive Muslim terrorist attacks and mass murders of Americans.

Last week, I watched the premiere of the highly-hyped new show, starring Kiefer Sutherland as a lowly cabinet secretary who becomes President when the President, the rest of his cabinet, and the entire Congress are killed in a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol during the State of the Union address. While the show got off to a great start, it became clear that Sutherland, as President Kirkman, is a weak, standard-issue liberal. And the generals are second-guessed as “war-mongers” who want to attack Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Last week, I predicted on Twitter that there is NO WAY that the terrorists who attacked the Capitol will turn out to be Muslims, as Hollywood continues its endless pretzel-like contortions away from reality. (After all, Muslims would NEVER EVER attack America or the U.S. Capitol, right? See 9/11 and Flight 93 for fact-checking.)

Follow Me on Twitter . . .

Now, longtime Wall Street Journal editorial board member and TV critic Dorothy Rabinowitz notes this regarding tonight’s episode:

The problem comes in the second episode, along with a suddenly increased capacity to resist everything about “Designated Survivor.” Here we come up against the show’s message, or more precisely its gross political tendentiousness: its vision of a vicious American nation, in the aftermath of the attack, hunting down its Muslim citizens; its pictures of police racing around Dearborn, Mich., dragging Muslims out of their homes, beating a teenager to death, all at the behest of the Michigan governor.

Not surprisingly, President Kirkman stands firmly against this brown-shirt brutality, a product of fevered writerly imaginations particularly loathsome to behold given the facts of history—in particular the actual terror attacks of 9/11, after which, through all their fear and rage, Americans comported themselves with the utmost dignity.

What’s even more laughable and devoid of any resemblance to reality is that the episode shows the “Michigan Republican Governor” instructing citizens to attack Muslims in Dearbornistan. Reality check: Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder is rabidly pro-Muslim, a butt-snorkeler of openly declared jihadists, refuses to specifically condemn Hezbollah (which murdered several hundred Americans) and HAMAS, and has opened an office to spend tax money to bring more Muslim “refugees” to that State (while at the same time publicly pretending he wants better vetting). He claims they will save Michigan’s economy and we “need” more of them here. (WE. DO. NOT.) On top of that, Michigan’s next likely Republican Governor, Attorney General Bill Schuette (a RINO cross-dressing as a conservative) held a huge fundraiser with Dearbornistan’s Hezbollah Muslims and won’t answer questions about it. This is the reality. ABC shows you the bullcrap.

(And as I’ve noted on this site, this isn’t the only ABC show currently on the schedule that bends over backward to portray Americans as rabid anti-Muslim bigots and terrorists as anything but Muslim. See “Quantico.”)

While I do not advocate wholesale, unprovoked violence against Muslims, they have no problem–as indicated by poll after poll–supporting wholesale, unprovoked violence against us. Terrorist attacks–and we’ve had many–are a different story. Those should have provoked something in Americans–particularly law enforcement, but never have because we are asleep, politically correct, and see ourselves as “humane” to the point of elevating and groveling to those who’d destroy us. And that’s why the Muslim attacks on us on our own soil have escalated in speed, especially in the last year or so. (That’s not to mention that our soldiers in the Middle East hand out candy and build roads for those who blow them up. And you pay for that.)

During World War II, German-Americans were loyal and quiet because they knew what would happen to them if they were not. There were very few Americans of German descent who openly supported or were involved in the pro-Nazi German-American Bund. They feared the consequences.

In contrast, today’s Muslims in America do not fear anything. In fact, they are laughing at us all the way to the next terrorist attack and the courthouse with their ACLU lawyers. Americans didn’t attack Muslim en masse after 9/11. Not after the Shoe Bomber. Not after the failed attempt on Times Square. Not after the Fort Hood Massacre or the San Bernardino Massacre or the Orlando Massacre. Not after Ahmad Khan Rahami’s bombs in New York and New Jersey and his Muslim co-religionist Dahir Adan’s stabbings in a Minnesota Mall. Not after Arcan Cetin’s murders of five in Washington State at Macy’s. (The only uprisings we see in America are those by the Black Lives Matter terrorists who loot, destroy, and murder cops, but the anti-Muslim attackers on tonight’s “Designated Survivor” are exclusively White, I’m told.) And American law enforcement never rounded up Muslims, even after the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike the portrayal in tonight’s propaganda episode of “Designated Survivor,” the attacks keep coming, but Americans haven’t risen up against Muslims. And federal agents and local police have done little (other than to bend over for Muslims).

Unlike what ABC’s propaganda prime time schedule tells you, we are actually a castrated, impotent country without the will to survive or do anything but just sit there and hold dumb, pointless candlelight vigils and war ribbons when the attacks happen.

Thank you, Mohammed. May I have another?

***

One last thing on this: as noted in my Tweet above, Kal Penn, a real-life Obama aide and mega-mucho-Islamopanderer co-stars on this. There is no way he would ever again be on a show where Muslims are the terrorists (he was briefly on “24” with Sutherland, but even there, the Muslims ultimately were terrorists for some White guys pulling their strings).