ISIS in the Caribbean

Full Measure, October 14, 2018:

President Trump frequently says the US and its allies, have turned the tide in the battle against ISIS… especially, in the Middle East. But there’s another concern, much closer to home. In the last few weeks, the U-S government announced sanctions against two men for providing support to ISIS… both, were from a small Caribbean island near America’s shores. And to the surprise of many, it’s become a hotbed of support and recruitment, for the terror group.

From the battlefields of Syria to Iraq, in the fog of war, it can be difficult for American forces to know exactly who they’re up against–since foreign fighters supporting ISIS, have come from all over the world. Here, on this tiny Caribbean island, a not so small secret. In relation to its size, Trinidad and Tobago has sent more foreign fighters overseas, than any other western country. We went to this tourist destination just off the coast of Venezuela, to find out why.

Scott: Are there those who have gone, that you’re aware of as foreign fighters?

Abdullah: There are those who have gone and joined the battle of course. All right. Those individuals, I know some of them.

Umar Abdullah is a self-proclaimed Muslim leader in Trinidad…Accused of once helping to radicalize young men.

Scott: Do you believe it’s okay for them to go overseas and take up arms against American interests?

Abdullah: If, in the case where America is fighting our Muslim brothers and sisters in different countries, and individuals decide to leave and go there to fight against the American soldiers, that’s their call, right?

Scott: A lot of people hearing that, especially back in the United States, would find that a detestable comment. They wouldn’t be okay with any of what you just said.

Abdullah: So does the American people, the American government wish that when they go into a country and invade a country and starts fighting the people there, the people should just lay down and kneel before them and surrender? That’s what they expect what’s gonna happen? That’s not gonna happen. Let us be real. People are going to fight back.

And doing so, in alarming numbers. According to multiple reports, 135 Trinidadians have made their way to the Middle East. They’ve been documented taking up arms against Americans… and even dying in the fight. One of the first, was Shane Crawford. The 28 year old joined ISIS in Syria. Where the terror group used him in propaganda videos because of his English and his origin, even featuring his Trinidadian home in their online recruiting magazine. Imam Morland Lynch says he knows half a dozen men like Shane, who have since joined ISIS overseas.

Morland Lynch: He was quiet, but you never know when a man quiet what they’re planning, or what they’re thinking, or who’s giving them their school of thought, who’s teaching them or who’s training them.

Lynch preaches a different message. One of peace. He is critical of ISIS and its followers on the island. One of them, he says, retaliated, shooting and killing his 22 year old son Ackmal. That was three years ago. The problem, he says, has only grown.

Scott: Some people have reported, 135 Trinidadians have left and gone overseas as foreign fighters, do you think that number is high, low, accurate?

Lynch: I feel more than that.

Scott: You feel it’s more than 135?

Lynch: Yeah, I feel more than that.

Scott: Because the attorney general and the government seems to think it’s a relatively low number. Lynch: No, it’s huge. I don’t know where you’re getting your statistics from, it’s huge.

Al-rawi: That of course is on a population bed of 1.4 million citizens, but sometimes statistics don’t really let you know the phenomenon. You can say 100% of a teacup, or you can say 100% of the ocean.

While Trinidad’s attorney general, Faris Al-rawi, downplays the numbers, he doesn’t trivialize the threat, and under his watch, the government has passed stricter new anti-terrorism laws and frozen the assets of 356 individuals and entities.

Al-rawi: I can tell you that we have put it on steroids. We really ramped up the production. I think we’re headed in the right direction. Terrorism mutates, you must be always nimble and always prepared. We will not stick our heads into the sand and pretend that the phenomenon is one that can avoid us simply because we’re a beautiful people and wonderful Caribbean island.

The danger, isn’t just abroad. This February, Trinidad’s law enforcement, with U.S. Support, thwarted a plot to attack the island’s biggest annual festival, it’s carnival. The American embassy, was also a target. Police and security specialist Paul Nahous has long been monitoring the spread and actions of ISIS sympathizers here. He claims, they’re gearing up.

Nahous: What I observe in Trinidad is that the gangs now are starting look less like gangs and more like terrorists cells or insurgent cells because these type of weapons they have, the amount of ammunition they have stockpiled. They’ve been finding grenades all around. They’ve been finding AK-47 rounds, AR-15 is the new pistol now. All gangs have a stockpile of automatic weapons. So, the street violence now is beginning to resemble insurgency.

Scott: Does the government have a grip on what’s happening here?

Nahous: No, not at all. The government doesn’t have a grip and the police services don’t have a grip.

Just how severe the problem is and how prevalent recruitment may be differs depending on who you ask. But one consensus found among people we talked to, is that more U.S. Involvement is welcome. Earlier this year, the U.S. Military’s southern command, which helps oversee threats in the Caribbean, held a joint exercise with Trinidad’s forces to prepare for terror incidents.

Al-rawi: Can we happily say that we accept more? We’re always willing to accept more from our international friends Scott: Though solutions here seem outnumbered by the challenges. Despite the island’s lucrative oil reserves, wealth isn’t well spread. Unemployment is high, street crime too. And the tiny Muslim population, just about 5 percent, feels shut out. One gang even named itself Unruly ISIS. Online sermons from terror groups thousands of miles away, still prove persuasive here.

Abdullah: I’m fearful when that time comes, the government who is already showing indications that they’re unable to address the issue of crime, petty crime, they’ll be unable to address this issue.” Scott: Talk to me about that anti-American sentiment.

Nahous: There are those who don’t sympathize with terrorist cells, but at the same time have an anti-American sentiment and anti-Israeli sentiment and because we see what’s going on in the world, we see certain injustices done by first world nations.

Scott: And that’s what’s driving some of this recruitment?

Nahous: Yup, I think so. And I think it’s two sides of the same coin. They have that sentiment and anti-western sentiment, and then they have a lack of real knowledge in terms of the Middle East, in terms of what goes on there, in terms of culture there. So, what they know is what they read, what they see on tv. So they use that to formulate their opinions and I find in this nation that people are very hardened by their opinions.

Scott: An opinion both posing a threat to U.S. Soldiers overseas… and formulating, not far, from American shores.

President Trump’s new ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago, Joseph Mondello, is due to take up his post next week. At his confirmation hearing in the summer, he said radicalization and ISIS recruitment of Trinidadians is the most important issue he’ll face.

Communist Antifa Places Severed Pig Heads At Campaign Offices In Texas Calling For A Violent Revolution

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton,  NoisyRoom

Communist Antifa is beloved on the left and defended by both Democrats and the media. That’s because they share the same goals of revolution, chaos and a violent coup. Hell, they’re all communists.

This past week, at least five separate GOP offices were vandalized and attacked by these goons. Now, Antifa has stepped up their game by placing severed pig heads at multiple polling locations and campaign offices in the Austin, TX area. But you won’t hear about this. Instead, you will hear the left whine incessantly because Republicans have correctly labeled the left as having an angry mob mentality. They simply love mobs like Antifa, Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party USA, and all their minions bent on terrorizing those who do not share their violent Marxist views.

Red Guards of Austin just recently posted a blog post to their more than 8,000 Facebook followers where they commemorated Mao Zedong’s brutal communist revolution that resulted in millions of people being slaughtered. Meanwhile, and Right Wing News were purged from Facebook with other conservatives because of what Facebook and Media Matters have deemed as ‘wrong-think’. If only we had hearted a butcher like Mao, we could have stayed on Facebook. No great loss.

Picture from Red Guards Austin Facebook Page

In Red Guard’s post, they called for a boycott of the “bourgeois elections” and advocated for organized revolutionary violence – subtle they are not anymore. They even had the stones to call for the formation of a “Red Army” that will destroy the existing state and replace it with a new authoritarian communist state:

Mainly this means uniting under Maoism, establishing self-defense units which are in time converted into a mighty Red Army, encouraging the self-administration of the community under the protection of this army, forming a new state posed to make war on the old.

They went on to call for armed violence which is their schtick: “Boycott the Bourgeois Elections! Elections, no! Revolution, yes! The ruling class will rule no more! Revolution, Peoples War!”


While the Red Guard and Antifa were pushing their public proclamation for an election boycott, they decided to take an unoriginal swipe at both Senator Ted Cruz, who they labeled as a “Homophobic Imperialist Pig” and his Democrat opponent, Beto O’Rourke, who they called a “Zionist Imperialist Pig.” Guess they have more than enough hate to spread around to both parties these days.

From Far Left Watch:

Last Thursday, the Los Angeles Red Guard cell tweeted (archive) out images of the severed pig heads that were “placed at polling places and campaign offices” by their comrades in Austin, TX. The images suggest that the severed heads were placed at both Senator Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke’s campaign offices.

This armed extremist group that for months has been openly advocating for “revolutionary violence” is now putting the severed heads of pigs at polling places and campaign offices. Contrary to what many media outlets and personalities would have you believe, the left absolutely presents a legitimate threat of political violence.

Glad to see Far Left Watch is reporting on this. So is Gateway Pundit. I haven’t seen it anywhere else. But then again, considering no one seemed very upset that over 800 pages were purged from Facebook last week primarily because we reported facts and were conservatives, I’m not surprised.

Most of us violated no standards at all. My sin was being an editor for Right Wing News and writing an article that defended Kavanaugh and shredded Dr. Ford. It was full of sourced facts that were true. For that, I was non-personed a la Alex Jones. And the ones giving Facebook their marching orders on that was Media Matters.

Antifa is beating people, intimidating others and wreaking havoc in the streets. Now, they hang pig heads as a warning to politicians. They are very close to taking the violence all the way here and should be stopped. Unfortunately, they are cuddling with the Democrats even while protesting them along with the Republicans. It’s a small step from the threat of violence to the reality of it.



The Communist Origins of the Antifa Extremist Group


Also see Discover the Networks Antifa profile on their newly revised and updated website:

A Communist & Anarchist Movement That Explicitly Endorses Violence

Antifa is a revolutionary Marxist/anarchist militia movement that seeks to bring down the United States by means of violence and intimidation. As a September 2017 report in The Atlantic notes, Antifa is responsible for “a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s.”

The name “Antifa” (pronounced on’-tee-fah) is a shortened form of the term “antifacist,” and its adherents are commonly seen waving the red-and-black flag of anarcho-communism. The website, which serves as a newsblog for Antifa, says that “in the U.S., most [anti-fascist] activists are anarchist, although a few are Maoist or anti-state Marxists” ― while “in other countries, the movement is predominately Marxist.” The U.S.-based anarchists of Antifa typically denounce not only the capitalist economic system, but the institution of government itself. And they explicitly advocate and encourage the use of violence to undermine and destroy both.

The organizer of notes that leftists in “the anarchist movement” are “excited” about “looking for alternatives outside of party structures.” The New York Times concurs that Antifa’s foot soldiers typically “express disdain for mainstream liberal politics, seeing it as inadequately muscular, and tend to fight the right through what they call ‘direct actions’ rather than relying on government authorities.” In other words, traditional political processes are too mild to accomplish anything of consequence; violence is the only real answer.

Kyrsten Sinema Promoted a Terrorist Lawyer

Kyrsten Sinema at the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s Manufacturer of the Year summit in Phoenix, Ariz. (Gage Skidmore)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 15, 2018:

Don’t buy the Arizona Senate candidate’s excuses.

Last week it emerged that, in 2003, Democratic Senate hopeful Kyrsten Sinema had promoted campus appearances by Lynne Stewart, a radical lawyer, while Stewart was being prosecuted for providing material support to terrorism. Having been called out on this, Sinema has distorted basic facts of the case.

Sinema represents Arizona’s 9th district in the House and is locked in a tight race against Martha McSally, who represents the state’s 2nd district, for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jeff Flake.

As it happens, Ms. Stewart, who died in 2017, was my main adversary in the 1995 terrorism prosecution of her client, Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the “Blind Sheikh.” Abdel Rahman (who also died in 2017, just a few weeks before Stewart) was the jihadist whom Stewart was convicted of abetting; she helped him communicate with his murderous Egyptian terrorist organization from the American prison where he was serving a life sentence.

I am thus in a position to counter Representative Sinema’s misrepresentations about her advocacy on Stewart’s behalf.

A leading light of the notoriously jihadist-friendly lawyer left, Sinema now portrays herself as a moderate progressive. To the contrary, her political activism began when she co-founded a “social justice” organization, Local to Global Justice, while studying law at Arizona State University. In that connection, Sinema urged people in what Fox News describes as a “now-closed Yahoo group” to attend two 2003 events at which Stewart was the featured speaker.

At that time, Stewart was under federal indictment for providing material support to terrorism. Essentially, she and two co-defendants, longtime Abdel Rahman aides Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Mohammed Yousry, were accused of facilitating the Blind Sheikh’s communications with the Islamic Group (Gama’at al Islamia), the Egyptian terrorist organization the Blind Sheikh had helped found in the early 1980s (when it participated in the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat).

By the time Stewart and her co-defendants committed the crimes alleged in the indictment, the Blind Sheikh had been convicted (in the case I prosecuted) of (a) orchestrating a terrorist war against the United States that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a subsequent (unsuccessful) plot to bomb New York City landmarks; (b) soliciting attacks on U.S. military installations; and (c) conspiring to murder — and soliciting the murder of — Egypt’s then-president, Hosni Mubarak. Sentenced to life imprisonment, the Blind Sheikh thereafter issued the fatwa (i.e., the Islamic-law edict) that al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden credited with authorizing the 9/11 attacks. Regarding the United States, Abdel Rahman had urged

Muslims everywhere to dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, . . . shoot down their planes, [and] kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them.

I’ve previously recounted the lengths to which the Islamic Group (Gama’at) went in attempting to extort the United States government to release the Blind Sheikh:

In 1997, Gama’at threatened to “target . . . all of those Americans who participated in subjecting [Abdel Rahman’s] life to danger” — “every American official, starting with the American president [down] to the despicable jailer.” The organization promised to do “everything in its power” to obtain his release.

Six months later, Gama’at jihadists set upon 58 foreign tourists and several police officers at an archeological site in Luxor, Egypt, brutally shooting and slicing them to death. The terrorists left behind leaflets — including in the mutilated torso of one victim — demanding that the Blind Sheikh be freed.

Gama’at subsequently issued a statement warning that its forcible struggle against the Egyptian regime would proceed unless Mubarak met its three demands: the implementation of sharia, the cessation of diplomatic relations with Israel, and “the return of our Sheikh and emir to his land.”

In March 2000, terrorists associated with the Abu Sayyaf group kidnapped some tourists in the Philippines and threatened to behead them if Abdel Rahman and two other convicted terrorists were not freed. Authorities later recovered two decapitated bodies (four other hostages were never accounted for).

On September 21, 2000, only three weeks before al-Qaeda’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole [killing 17 members of the U.S. Navy], al-Jazeera televised a “Convention to Support the Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman.” Front and center were Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (then bin Laden’s deputy, now his successor as emir of al-Qaeda). They warned that unless Sheikh Abdel Rahman was freed, jihadist attacks against the United States would be stepped up. At the same event, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, an al-Qaeda operative who is one of the Blind Sheikh’s sons, exhorted the crowd to “avenge your Sheikh” and “go to the spilling of blood.”

These are the jihadists whom Stewart helped the Blind Sheikh consult with and direct by unlawfully transmitting messages, in contravention of enhanced confinement measures the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had put in place to prevent communications between the convicted terrorist leader and his subordinates.

After she was indicted in 2002, Stewart was lauded by many radical left-wing groups that opposed our nation’s forcible response to the 9/11 attacks. Sinema’s Local to Global Justice was among these groups. This comes as no surprise — Power Line’s Scott Johnson collects a number of Sinema’s noxious quotations from that time, including her defense of people who “went to go fight in the Taliban army” in Afghanistan. (The Taliban was the host government that gave safe haven to al-Qaeda and made the 9/11 attacks possible. The Taliban has been fighting U.S. forces for 17 years.)

Fox News recounts that, in promoting Stewart, Sinema maintained that the lawyer was “emphatically not guilty.” According to Sinema, Stewart was charged only because of surveillance powers enabled by the “hastily enacted PATRIOT Act.” Sinema insisted that Stewart was merely “doing her job for the past 27 years as an outspoken criminal defense lawyer.”

These claims are frivolous, notwithstanding their straight-faced restatement by Sinema’s Senate campaign.

In reality, Stewart was emphatically guilty of materially supporting terrorism — so much so that, after she was convicted, a federal appeals court ordered that she be resentenced because the trial court had imposed an appallingly light 23-month term. Moreover, the crimes of which Stewart was convicted — false statements, fraud against the United States, and material support to terrorism — had nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. Indeed, most of the conduct leading to Stewart’s indictment predated the PATRIOT Act. The surveillance of Stewart’s meetings in prison with the Blind Shiekh was pursuant to BOP rules, which Stewart willfully flouted after expressly promising to abide by them.

Furthermore, at the relevant time, Stewart was no longer representing Abdel Rahman in the capacity of a criminal-defense lawyer. By then, the Blind Sheikh’s convictions had been upheld by the appellate courts. He was no longer an “accused,” and she was no longer defending him on charges. Patently, Stewart involved herself in visits and communications with the Blind Sheikh because, under BOP rules, it was easier for a lawyer, rather than Abdel Rahman’s non-lawyer aides, to get access to him while he was incarcerated under the enhanced confinement conditions imposed on convicted terrorists.

Contrary to the revisionist history she now attempts to peddle, Kyrsten Sinema was not a mere champion of due process. Plain and simple, Sinema was a public apologist for Lynne Stewart, who had brazenly abetted a notorious anti-American terrorist and his infamous jihadist organization. This stance was completely consistent with Sinema’s unabashed radicalism at the time. There is no question that Representative Sinema had a First Amendment right to express her views . . . just as Arizona voters in the ongoing Senate campaign have every right and reason to weigh both her advocacy on Stewart’s behalf and her disingenuous defense of it.

On Civility: Democrats Seek To Normalize Insanity

Daily Headlines, by James Simpson, October 12, 2018:

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Ever since the Kavanaugh hearings Democrats have scrambled to characterize their vicious, underhanded tactics as “just politics.” And as usual, the pundits are punting. Everyone from CNN to Fox News decries the “lack of civility” in current political discourse, as though this were a bipartisan problem that both sides shared equal blame for. Democrats even blame President Trump for being crude, one radio talker even called him “cruel.” Thus, their anger and insane behavior is “justified.”

None of this Democrat narrative is true. In fact it is the opposite. Democrats and the extreme Left (but I repeat myself), are simply doing what they always do when called out: doubling down on their behavior and trying to pass it off as legitimate.

Somehow, “crude” and “cruel” never applied to Bill Clinton’s rape, sexual abuse and likely pedophilia. And while accusations against Kavanaugh, debunked by Blasey-Ford’s own “witnesses,” justifies angry mobs “tearing this sh*t down,” we get crickets from Democrats regarding much more credible sexual abuse allegations from two former girlfriends of DNC Deputy Chairman and current Minnesota Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison. This included a 2005 911 call, and most recently, allegations stemming from a 2016 incident. No confusion about when these events happened.

According to the luminaries of the Left there is now a new Word-That-Cannot-Be-Spoken — the “M” word. On CNN a few days ago, moderator Brooke Baldwin interrupted Daily Beast columnist Matt Lewis when he characterized the protesters who chased Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) out of a restaurant as “a mob.”

Baldwin: “Oh, you’re not going to use the ‘mob’ word here!”

Lewis: “It’s totally a mob.”

Baldwin: “Matt, Matt — a mob… Stop. Stop. A mob is what we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia, two Augusts ago.”

Lewis: “What about the people who were at the Supreme Court banging on the walls? What do you call that, civil protest?”

Mary Katherine Ham: “And if they were tea partiers we would call this a mob. C’mon. Let’s be serious.”

But Baldwin had set down the marker. The “M” word, like the “C”word, (for communist, which frankly is what most Democrats have become), is now verboten in polite DC company.

And Democrats are taking every opportunity to draw parallels between the kind of Tea Party protests we saw in 2010 with what the left is doing now.

But there is no comparison. Leftwing protests are routinely obscenity laden, disrespectful, pompous, entitled, threatening, often unsanctioned and violent. Furthermore, they are usually highly-organized astroturf protests with paid protesters financed by extreme Left groups, unions and Democrat mega-donors like George Soros.

Tea Party and other similar groups never engage in the kind of ugly, obscene behavior that is a signature of almost all leftwing protests, and have never engaged in unprovoked violence. Their protests are orderly and meticulously follow the law – obtaining permits, staying within their allotted areas, and very diligently cleaning up after themselves.

Even the Charlottesville protests, where  Democrats falsely characterized Richard Spencer’s group as demonstrative of mainline conservatives rather than the fringe group it is, became violent only when leftwing protestors showed up without a permit, violated the boundaries of the parade route sanctioned by the city, and were unopposed by police when they attacked Spencer’s group. This is no defense of Spencer, but without the leftists, the protest would have gone on without incident. President Trump was vilified for simply observing that both sides engaged in violence.

But it was the Left who provoked it.

The eight years of the Obama administration should be characterized as one long “opposite day,” where everything he said was the opposite of the truth, and almost everything he did opposed what he promised. His “most transparent administration in history” exceeded even Clinton’s promised “most transparent administration in history” in its duplicity, secrecy and obstruction.

Obama set his Justice Department and the IRS against the American people in a full-throated effort to silence us, while ramming his extremist agenda down our collective throats. The Obama administration carried out what has been characterized as a war on police, immigration-enforcement efforts, and electoral integrity. When he refused to turn over records on the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, responsible for at least one Border Patrol agent’s death and hundreds of Mexican deaths, Attorney General Eric Holder was the first ever declared in contempt of Congress. Lois Lerner’s IRS transcended all history in its abuse of law-abiding citizens.

The Obama administration was 1984 on steroids.

Vicious, over-the-top defamation, lawfare and violence are central tactics in the Left’s political bag of tricks, and have been for decades. The first time we saw Kavanaugh’s “search and destroy” tactic employed in confirmation hearings was with Justice Robert Bork, probably one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated to the Supreme Court. That was followed by the equally repulsive treatment of Justice Clarence Thomas.

You must also remember that this was, according to Democrats, a supposed age of “civility,” when, with the exception of a very few years, Democrats held a vice grip on both houses of Congress for over 60 years. At that time, GOP members of Congress were ignored, overlooked and disrespected by Democrats, while the GOP responded with “civility.” This is the kind of “civility” Hillary Clinton recently referred to when she said, “if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Now we have to contend with daily assaults from the absolutely unglued Left; from top to bottom. Google executive Ken Norton tweeted, “Abolish the Senate.”

The Senate and Electoral College are both institutions of racism according to the latest leftist mantra. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress tweets, “The Constitution of the United States has failed.

The New York Times wonders aloud if Donald Trump is “a threat to democracy.” It is actually the Left that is a threat. Our nation is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. As the founders knew, democracy ultimately leads to mob rule. But the Left isn’t really talking about democracy, they are talking about socialism. Either way, they are the threat!

Democrats have a different word for “mob rule” too. They call it “direct democracy,” and hold up Egypt’s so-called “Arab Spring” as a perfect example of direct democracy in action. But the “Arab Spring” did not result in a democratically elected government. Egypt is a nation of 92 million people, of which a small proportion took part in the protests.

And what kind of “democratic protest” was it? Why don’t you ask CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was stripped, repeatedly raped, beaten and nearly scalped by dozens of “democratic protesters.” Crickets from the Left about that unsavory aspect of mob rule, excuse me, direct democracy. Instead, Lara Logan is marginalized for having the temerity to get herself gang raped by these budding “democrats.”

Today we live in an alternative universe, like something out of the Twilight Zone or its cheaper knockoff, The Outer Limits. Do you remember? The announcer says:

“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission… We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical… sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear…”

Civility can only reign when Democrats hold the levers of power. Getting just rewards for the losers they are guarantees nothing but constant “resistance” in the form of insane incivility. During the Kavanaugh hearings, Senator Lindsay Graham shouted directly at the Democrat senators “Boy, y’all want power. I hope you never get it.”

Truer words were never spoken. In their lust for power, Democrats have shown they will stoop to anything to have their way. President Trump recently said that if Democrats take power they will turn our nation into Venezuela.

It is beginning to look like that is actually what they want, Venezuelan Red Shirts and all.

Also see:


The Communist Party USA explained plans on May 23 to subvert the Democratic Party, alongside socialist and communist organizations including Democratic Socialists of America, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, LeftRoots, and others. In some U.S. states, communist party members are barred from becoming elected officials, yet through this latest effort, democrats may unwittingly vote communists into office.

10 Key Questions About The Khashoggi Affair To Answer Before Buying The Press Narrative

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

The discipline shown in the messaging campaign against Saudia Arabia suggests Turkis President Recep Erdogan is managing the Khashoggi file directly.

The Federalist, by Lee Smith, October 5,  2018:

On October 2, Saudi national and U.S. green-card holder Jamal Khashoggi reportedly walked into the Saudi consulate to resolve issues related to his marital status. Through anonymous leaks to the press, Turkish sources claim he did not leave the diplomatic facility alive. More anonymous sources claim he was tortured and murdered, allegations repeated in the U.S. press without evidence.

It is possible that the circumstances around Khashoggi’s disappearance will soon come to light. However, it’s equally likely that the passage of time will only further obscure events. To cast some light on the issue, I thought it was worthwhile asking what seem to me the central questions.

1. Is There Evidence Khashoggi Was Murdered?

Turkish sources say there is. The U.S. press has reported that unnamed Turkish officials have told them—or unnamed second-hand Turkish sources had told them—they have evidence, audio and video, that a team of Saudi officials detained, tortured, and killed Khashoggi.

However, no reporters, neither Western nor Turkish, have seen that evidence. If it exists, the Turks have not made it public. In one of the few leaks from the U.S. government, an intelligence official told CNN there is no hard evidence as to whether Khashoggi is dead or alive.

2. Why Has Turkey Asked Saudi Arabia to Join Its Khashoggi Investigative Team?

According to press reports, the government in Ankara has asked Riyadh to help investigate what happened to Khashoggi. The Turkish foreign minister recently complained that the “[Saudis] aren’t cooperating in full extent to uncover the circumstances of Khashoggi’s disappearance. We would like to see a genuine cooperation from them.”

This makes no sense. If Saudi Arabia is suspected of abducting or killing Khashoggi, its involvement in the investigation would compromise the probe, even giving a potential suspect opportunity to tamper with evidence. Further, if there is audio and video evidence that a Saudi team killed Khashoggi, as Turkish and U.S. media report, there is no need for an investigation—the case has already been solved.

The Turks’ two irreconcilable diplomatic tracks—official channels offering Saudi a role in the investigation while unnamed sources accuse it of murder—suggest that Ankara is negotiating with Riyadh. It’s unclear what the terms are.

3. Are Internal Turkish Issues a Factor in the Khashoggi Affair?

Because the Turkish figures and officials leaking to the press are anonymous, it’s not clear if, or to what extent, they represent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Could the sources be hostile to Erdogan?

Two years ago, his opponents attempted to overthrow him, leaving hundreds of Turks dead. Erdogan responded by rounding up followers of the former ally he blames for the coup, Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric who has lived in Pennsylvania for nearly two decades. Gulen, like Khashoggi, has a green card, reportedly facilitated by CIA officials.

Presumably, Erdogan has mostly rid his police force of the Gulenists who once dominated it. However, some sources identifying as police are challenging pieces of evidence that the Ankara government is using to illustrate Saudi guilt.

The discipline shown in the messaging campaign—accuse Riyadh through leaks and reveal nothing in public—suggests Erdogan is managing the Khashoggi file directly. However, his overall management of the crisis may make him vulnerable, again, to domestic rivals.

4. What Does the Khashoggi Affair Have to Do with the Gulf Cooperation Council Cold War?

Since spring 2017, the Gulf Cooperation Council has been split, with senior partner Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) pitted against another U.S. ally, Qatar. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi accused Doha of supporting terrorism and getting too close to Iran, and imposed an embargo on their junior partner.

Turkey sided with Qatar, where it has a military base. Erdogan has sought to heal relations with Riyadh but still has problems with the UAE as well as Abu Dhabi’s sprawling client, Egypt.

Qatari media outlets are leading the information campaign, publishing the most garish rumors, like the prospect that Khashoggi was cut into pieces. It’s not known what role Doha may be playing behind the scenes, but it’s clear that Erdogan sees the Khashoggi affair as an opportunity to advance Turkish interests against Qatar’s rivals.

Thus the Khashoggi affair is another battleground in the GCC Cold War.

5. Is the Release of Pastor Brunson Related to the Khashoggi Affair?

Turkish press sources say no. Trump said there was no deal to get back Andrew Brunson. However, the timing of the pastor’s release seems to say otherwise.

There were rumors in July of a deal to free Brunson. The United States helped win the release of a Turkish terror suspect held by Israel, but instead of releasing Brunson, Ankara put him under house arrest. The Trump administration sanctioned Turkish officials, and warned that an already damaged Turkish economy was vulnerable to more sanctions.

After July’s events, Brunson’s lawyer filed a motion, and it was expected the pastor would be released from house arrest, although his passport would not yet be returned. Then Friday, Turkey sentenced and released him with time served.

The fact that Ankara is bargaining with Riyadh suggests that the Turks were looking to improve their position by giving the Trump administration something it wanted. Thus the release of Brunson is almost certainly related to the Khashoggi affair.

6. Did U.S. Intelligence Know the Saudis Were Planning an Operation Targeting Khashoggi?

According to press reports, U.S. intercepts captured Saudi communications about an operation to detain Khashoggi. A CNN story indicates that the United States likely found the information in reviewing its intercepts after Khashoggi went missing. Was U.S. intelligence asleep at the wheel while an ally was planning an operation conducted on the soil of a NATO member that was likely to have regional, and even international consequences?

Should Riyadh have notified its U.S. ally that it was planning an operation against a U.S. person? Saudi intelligence officials have historically enjoyed a close relationship with their U.S. counterparts, especially since 9/11, which raises an important question: Did the Saudis in fact tell the United States they were planning an operation targeting Khashoggi? Did anyone else know the Saudis were going after him?

7. How Did a Man with Extensive Ties to Intelligence Services as Well as Extremist Groups Get a Green Card?

Khashoggi writes a column for the Washington Post and worked at a number of Saudi media organizations, print and broadcast. Broadly speaking, he is a journalist, as the U.S. press is describing him—with the caveat that most Arab journalists primarily serve the political masters who pay and protect them, and often represent the interests of intelligence services.

Khashoggi was an adviser to former Saudi intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal when he was ambassador to London, then Washington. Khashoggi reportedly joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970s and continues to advocate for political Islam. He called the late Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden a friend and mourned his death. It appears that Khasshogi may have been something like Riyadh’s back channel to al-Qaeda, at least prior to 9/11.

So how did a former Saudi official with ties to intelligence services, connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and a long history with a terrorist responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths on U.S. soil obtain permanent resident status?

Khashoggi must have important American patrons, because even though he reportedly moved to the United States in 2017, he already had a green card. According to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “Friends helped Khashoggi obtain a visa that allowed him to stay in the United States as a permanent resident.” So who vouched for him and why?

It might be useful to put these questions to former CIA director John Brennan. He was station chief in Riyadh from 1996-1999, when Khashoggi’s patron Turki al-Faisal was head of Saudi’s general intelligence directorate.

8. How Much of U.S. Press Coverage and Expert Opinion Is Shaped by the Pro-Iran ‘Echo Chamber’?

To market the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal, the Obama administration built an echo chamber out of government officials, policy experts, and a supine press corps. But Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was not only or even primarily an arms control deal. Rather, the JCPOA was purposed to realign U.S. interests in the Middle East, with Iran as the favored partner and traditional American allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia, downgraded.

Obama-era officials rightly saw the Trump administration as a threat to undo Obama’s policies. Trump not only got out of the Iran deal but also underscored the centrality of America’s traditional alliances. He made his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia and moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Khashoggi reportedly joined the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970s and continues to advocate for political Islam.

Soon after Khashoggi fell out of public view, former Obama aides and other echo chamber associates went into action. To punish Saudi, they named specific policies. In particular, they argued that the administration should withdraw support for Riyadh’s war against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

It’s hardly coincidental that Khashoggi himself had made similar points in a September Washington Post column: “Saudi Arabia’s crown prince must restore dignity to his country — by ending Yemen’s cruel war.” In the article, Khashoggi questioned the crown prince’s legitimacy as ruler of Saudi Arabia and custodian of Islam’s two holiest shrines.

The inability, Khashoggi wrote, “of Saudi authorities in preventing Houthi missiles from being fired in the first place serves as an embarrassing reminder that the kingdom’s leadership is unable to restrain their Iranian-backed opponent.” Khashoggi’s criticism of other policies implemented by Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS)—like trying to rein in Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri—also synchronized with echo chamber talking points.

It should come as no surprise that the Obama echo chamber used the Khashoggi affair as an opportunity to sound its anti-Saudi talking points. As a Saudi voice critical of MBS, Khashoggi’s work at the Post was integrated into the echo chamber’s anti-Saudi and pro-Iran messaging campaign. How much is U.S. reporting and opinion regarding the Khashoggi affair shaped by the pro-Iran echo chamber? Nearly all of it.

9. Why Are Some DC Public Relations Firms Now Worried about Representing the Saudis?

Washington DC lobbyists and public relations firms, who represent some of the world’s worst, now appear to believe that the Saudis are beyond the pale. Is it because some of their other clients—like African despots, Central Asian oligarchs, and Latin American drug lords—don’t like the odor? No, it’s again a function of the GCC Cold War—and domestic American politics.

Both sides, Saudi Arabia/UAE and Qatar, have spent lavishly in their efforts to win the exclusive love of the American government. Many inside the Beltway have profited handsomely from the GCC conflict. Others, however, paid a price for putting themselves in the middle of warring tribes. For instance, the UAE-allied former finance chairman of the Republican National Committee chairman Elliott Broidy was targeted by the Qataris, who hacked his wife’s emails and leaked them to the New York Times.

Having acquired over the last several years the customs and manners of Arab media outlets, it’s only fitting the U..S press has taken sides against certain Arab regimes, just as it has taken sides against the current White House. Since Trump looks with favor on Saudi and the UAE, the media considers them enemies, too.

That’s why Congress’s hometown paper, the Washington Post, is warning the Saudis’ friends, allies, and employees to abandon Riyadh lest they forfeit their respectability. In other words, as long as publicists and lobbyists work for the Saudis, they can hardly expect the Post to give their other clients a fair hearing. It’s blackmail.

10. Why Are Conservative Policy Analysts and Journalists Advising Trump to Go Hard on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman?

The dynamic public relations blitz waged on behalf of the 30-something heir to the throne appears to have backfired. It raised expectations way too high.

After winning praise from columnists like Thomas Friedman and Washington policy experts impressed by his favorable views toward political reform, Israel, women’s empowerment, and privatizing the economy, MBS stock has tumbled precipitously the last two weeks. Many of his former fans are barking the loudest because after they gave him the seal of approval, MBS embarrassed them in front of their peers.

A meltdown in the Persian Gulf may affect global stability in ways that no one can fathom—including the experts, analysts, and pundits who now counsel punishing MBS.

Prominent GOP policy experts and neoconservative journalists were lured into the anti-MBS campaign led by former Obama hands and “resistance” media. Now, they, too, demand that the Trump administration should punish the crown prince.

They propose, however, no back-up plan should the shaming campaign by Saudi’s American patron weaken MBS’ position, or even remove him from the line of succession. After all, plenty of members of his family have it out for him after he locked down and penalized hundreds of princes last year as part of an anti-corruption campaign.

Most of the foreign policy establishment’s MBS advocates misunderstood his appeal from the start. They liked him because he appeared to be a liberal, and he encouraged that conviction, casting trifles in their path—movie theatres, music concerts, women behind the wheel, etc.

No, what’s most attractive about MBS is that he is young. His youth is important not because it signals a tech-savvy reformer with liberal impulses who will come to turn the kingdom into a democracy. He sees that Saudi Arabia is in a vulnerable position. Oil is not a long-term solution. Nor are there easy fixes found in the freedom agenda slogans chanted by those who now want to hobble him. His youth matters because, with luck, it will afford him time to figure out how to temper, maybe even solve, some of the country’s most daunting issues.

If he doesn’t, Saudi Arabia is in big trouble and so is everyone else. A meltdown in the Persian Gulf may affect global stability in ways that no one can fathom—including the experts, analysts, and pundits who now counsel punishing MBS, even though they, like virtually everyone else, have no idea what is at the bottom of the Khashoggi affair.

Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
Also see:

Is Cultural Marxism America’s New Mainline Ideology?

Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, October 12, 2018:

Authored by Anthony Mueller via The Mises Institute,

Another name for the neo-Marxism of increasing popularity in the United States  is cultural Marxism.

This theory says that the driving force behind the socialist revolution is not the proletariat – but the intellectuals. While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers’ movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media. This “cultural Marxism” goes back to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and theFrankfurt School. The theorists of Marxism recognized that the proletariat would not play the expected historical role as a “revolutionary subject.” Therefore, for the revolution to happen, the movement must depend on the cultural leaders to destroy the existing, mainly Christian, culture and morality and then drive the disoriented masses to Communism as their new creed. The goal of this movement is to establish a world government in which the Marxist intellectuals have the final say. In this sense, the cultural Marxists are the continuation of what started with the Russian revolution.

Lenin and the Soviets

Led by Lenin, the perpetrators of the revolution regarded their victory in Russia only as the first step to the world revolution. The Russian Revolution was neither Russian nor proletarian. In 1917, the industrial workers in Russia represented only a small part of the workforce, which mainly consisted of peasantry. The Russian Revolution was not the result of a labor movement but of a group of professional revolutionaries . A closer look at the composition of the Bolshevist party and of the first governments of the Soviet state and its repressive apparatus reveals the true character of the Soviet revolution as a project that did not aim at freeing the Russian people from the Tsarist yoke but was to serve as the launchpad for the world revolution.

The experience of World War I and its aftermath showed that the Marxist concept of the “proletariat” as a revolutionary force was an illusion. At the example of the Soviet Union, one could also see that socialism could not function without a dictatorship. These considerations brought the leading Marxist thinkers to the conclusion that a different strategy would be required to establish socialism. Communist authors spread the insight that the socialist dictatorship must come in disguise. Before socialism can succeed, the existing culture must change. Control of the culture must precede political control.

Cultural Control Rises in Tandem with Political Control

Helping the neo-Marxists was the fact many of their efforts in taking control of culture happened parallel to the encroachment of the state on individual liberties. Over the past decades, at the same time when so-called political correctness has been on the rise, the American government obtained a vast arsenal of repressive instruments. Few Americans seem to know that the U.S. is still under emergency law that has been in force since George W. Bush used the executive privilege to declare a state of national emergency in 2001. In the same year, 9/11 opened also the path to push through the Patriot Act . From a score of around 95 points, the Freedom House “Aggregate Index of Freedom” of the United States has fallen to 86 points in 2018.

Moral Corruption

The way toward the rule of the cultural Marxists is the moral corruption of the people. To accomplish this, the mass media and public education must not enlighten but confuse and mislead. The media and the educational establishment work to put one part of the society against the other part. While group identities get more specific, the catalog of victimization and history of oppression becomes more detailed. To turn into a recognized victim of suppression is the way to gain social status and to obtain the right to special assistance, of respect and social inclusion.

The demand for social justice creates an endless stream of expenditures deemed essential — for health, education, old age, and for all those people who are “needy,” “persecuted” and “oppressed,” be it real or imaginary. The flood of never-ending spending in these areas corrupts the state finances and produces fiscal crises. This helps the Neo-Marxists accuse “capitalism” of all evils when, in fact, it is the regulatory state that provokes the systemic failures and when it is the excess of public debt that causes the financial fragility.

Politics, the media, and the judiciary never pause at waging the new endless wars: the war on drugs or against high blood pressure or the campaigns that assert the endless struggle against fat and obesity. The list of the enemies grows every day whether racism, xenophobia, and anti-Islamism. The epitome of this movement is political correctness, the war against having one’s own opinion. While the public tolerates disgusting expositions of behavior, particularly under the cult of the arts, the list of prohibited words and opinions grows daily. Public opinion must not go beyond the few accepted positions. Yet while the public debate impoverishes, the diversity of radical opinion flourishes in the hidden.

The cultural Marxists drive society morally into an identity crisis by the means of the false standards of a hypocritical ethics. The aim is no longer the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” because this project has failed, but the “dictatorship of political correctness” whose supreme authority lies in the hands of the cultural Marxists. As a new class of priests, the guardians of the new orthodoxy rule the institutions whose power they try to extend over all parts of the society. The moral destruction of the individual is a necessary step to accomplish the final victory.

Opium of the Intellectuals

The believers of neo-Marxism are mainly intellectuals. Workers, after all, are a part of the economic reality of the production process and know that the socialist promises are rubbish. Nowhere was socialism established as the result of a labor movement. The workers have never been the perpetrators of socialism but always its victim. The leaders of the revolution have been intellectual party politicians and military men. It was up to the writers and artists to conceal the brutality of the socialist regimes through articles and books and by films, music, and paintings, and to give socialism a scientific-intellectual, aesthetic and moral appearance. In the socialist propaganda, the new system appears to be both fair and productive.

The cultural Marxists believe that someday they will be the sole holders of power and be able to dictate to the masses how to live and what to think. Yet the neo-Marxist intellectuals are in for a surprise. When socialism should come indeed, the “dictatorship of the intellectuals” will be anything but benign — and not much different from what happened after the Soviets took power. The intellectuals will be among the victims. This was, after all, the way as it had happened in the French Revolution, which was the first attempt of a revolution by intellectuals.  Many of the victims of the guillotine were prominent intellectuals who had earlier supported the revolution — Robespierre among them.

In his play about “Danton’s Death,” the dramatist Georg Büchner famously had a person say: “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its own children.” Yet more appropriately one should say that the revolution eats its spiritual fathers. The very same intellectuals who nowadays promote cultural Marxism will be the first in line if their project of conquest should succeed.


Contrary to what Marx believed, history is not pre-determined. The march through the institutions has gone far but there is not yet been a full take-over. There is still time to change course. To counteract the movement, one must note the inherent weakness of cultural Marxism. To the extent that the neo-Marxists altered classical Marxism and eliminated its basic tenets (deepening proletarianization, historical determinism, total collapse of capitalism), the movement has become even more utopian than previously socialism ever was.

As the successors of the New Left, the “democratic socialists” of the present time propagate a hodgepodge of contradictory positions. Because of the character of this movement as a promoter of group conflict, neo-Marxism is ineffectual to serve as an instrument of gaining coherent political power as it were necessary for a dictatorship. Yet this does not mean that the neo-Marxist movement has no impact. On the contrary: because of its inherent contradictions, the ideology of cultural Marxism is the main source of the profound confusion that has grabbed almost every segment of the modern Western societies and which is about to swell into even more dangerous proportions.

Spygate: The True Story of Collusion

(Getty Images/Illustration by The Epoch Times)

The Epoch Times, by Jeff Carlson, Oct 12, 2018:

See enlargeable Infographic of all the players

Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate—the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign—remains surprisingly simple:

1. CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.

2. The FBI became the handler of Brennan’s intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.

3. The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of nondisclosure.

4. The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.

5. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.

6. Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.

7. The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.

Let’s start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.

Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump’s campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established political system.



Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation’s history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread intelligence community leaks as facts.

But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern extending back decades?

The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider—a reaction that has come to be known as Spygate.

Read the rest of this incredibly detailed account of how it all happened.