Ex-CIA Station Chief Warns About “United in Hate”

This new edition of The Glazov Gang features Brad Johnson, a retired CIA Station Chief.

Brad came on the show to issue A Warning About “United in Hate, where he unveils the dire threat of the Left’s ensuing romance with tyranny and terror.

And make sure to watch Brad expose The “Lone-Wolf” Myth, where he gives the inside story of how the Left is sabotaging our struggle with Jihad:

***

Brad Johnson 3 Canada & the OIC, the end of the international system – Vlad Tepes interview. If you are not following Vlad Tepes, you should be.

Vlad Tepes Interviews Former CIA Station Chief, Brad Johnson

Interview One on jihad and politics:

Interview Two on the Jihadist playbook,  “The Manchester Manual”Carlos the Jackal’s “Revolutionary Islam” and much more:

***

Geller: Islam Is ‘The Real Problem,’ And Liberals Are Taking Advantage Of The Bloodshed

pamela-geller-cartoonDaily Caller, by John Griffing, June 22, 2016:

AUSTIN, Texas – In the aftermath of the tragedy in Orlando, Pamela Geller — an outspoken critic of Islam — says that liberal Democrats are using Islamic violence against their fellow citizens to achieve total political control.

“Islam is indeed the real problem,” Geller insists, and she says Donald Trump is “the first presidential nominee since John Quincy Adams even to come close to speaking honestly about this threat.”

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend sums it up well,” Geller told The Daily Caller. “They [Islam, liberals] both hate America and Israel. They both hate Western civilization. So they make common cause,” Geller continued.

Geller believes the consequences of such an unholy alliance to be “no less ominous than the death of free societies on earth,” and likens the actions of the vocal liberals capitalizing on the terror attack in Orlando to opening Pandora’s box.

“All infidels,” will suffer, Geller said, “The Islamic imperative is to subjugate all infidels under the hegemony of Islamic law — those on the left as well as those on the right.”

The left shares many of the same goals as Islam, said Geller. “They [the left] hate freedom, and everything that goes with it. The left and Islam both share a totalitarian, violent and supremacist imperative.”

Former DHS official Phil Haney claimed recently that President Obama is “deliberately dismantling America’s defenses,” and charged Obama and other defense officials with dereliction of duty.

Said Haney: “It’s an abrogation of the basic responsibility of any elected official…to protect Americans from threats both foreign and domestic.”

“And as long as we stand by and allow the administration to misinform us and disinform us, then we’re going to see the same results we’ve seen so far over and over again.”

Previously, Haney claimed that he was ordered by the Obama administration to “scrub records of Muslims with terror ties.”

As Haney claimed back in February 2016, “I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System.”

In spite of Geller’s belief that many on the political left are attempting to use radical Islam to catalyze “change,” she applauds those who recognize the dangers of Islam to traditional liberal value — ideas like equal protection, free speech, and separation of church and state.

Geller praised famous liberal comedian and talk show host Bill Maher for his intellectual honesty and courage in standing up to Islam.

Referencing Maher’s remarks on Jerry Seinfeld’s Comedians in Cars, where he said, “The left is so tolerant, they’re tolerating intolerance,” Geller approved, saying, “Maher is absolutely right in this.”

“Islam is the most intolerant, supremacist, violent, misogynistic and anti-Semitic ideology on the face of the earth – now being brought to the US under the guise of ‘tolerance’,” Geller said.

Unlike many of her colleagues in the conservative movement, Geller does not believe that “radical Islam” or “radicalization” are the central problem – she believes it is the religion of Islam itself, which she points out, commands death for nonbelievers and death for homosexuals.

Orlando is Islam “in its truest form,” said Geller. “Muhammad said that gays must be killed. Muhammad is the supreme example whom all Muslims must obey. So killing gays is indeed the faith itself.”

Geller seeks to differentiate between other faiths and Islam, debunking the notion that “all faiths are the same,” and morally equivalent. She said that becoming less tolerant, more violent and more deceptive “are taught in the Qur’an, so they are the essence of what it means to be a ‘better Muslim.’”

The mainstream media, Geller insisted, are “lying” on a “massive scale.”

“The political and media elites are lying to us constantly about Islam. It is no wonder that so many Americans are ignorant and complacent about the jihad threat,” said Geller.

“But because Islam is indeed the real problem, Trump is so popular. He is the first presidential nominee — or presumptive nominee at this point — since John Quincy Adams even to come close to speaking honestly about this threat.”

On the mainstream media’s insistence that Islam is a religion of “peace,” Geller has some stern words. “Here’s the thing: the enemedia has to admonish us constantly about how Islam is a religion of peace because it so obviously isn’t,” exclaimed Geller.

“They keep having to club us over the head with this so that we ignore what we see in the daily headlines — Orlando is just the latest example. They’re banking on no one actually reading the Qur’an and Hadith, because if they did, the lies would be exposed.”

Geller also believes the events in Orlando have awakened a sleeping giant in the gay community.

“Certainly, it has created a rift in the gay community. A good rift: the gays aren’t all marching in lockstep with the leftist agenda. Look at the recent statements of Milo Yiannopoulos and other gays who have come out against the jihad and the Muslim migrant invasion.”

Unrighteous Among the Nations

Screen Shot 2014-07-06 at 12.24.42 PMWSJ, by SOHRAB AHMARI:

The abduction in June of three Israeli teenagers by West Bank Islamists placed the world’s top two human-rights organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in an awkward spot. Both groups are committed partisans of the anti-Israel cause, yet the kidnapping of minors called for some form of condemnation.

Amnesty on June 17 released a statement running to 19 paragraphs. Of these, only four could reasonably be construed as expressions of concern for the fate of the three teenagers, whose bodies Israeli authorities eventually discovered buried in shallow graves. The rest of the statement was devoted to castigating Israel for a litany abuses and to discouraging the Jewish state from defending itself.

HRW’s response was more coldblooded. “Attending school at illegal settlement doesn’t legitimize apparent kidnapping of #Israel teens,” Kenneth Roth, HRW’s executive director, tweeted on June 14. “They should be freed.”

Both organizations, in other words, treated the abduction as an inconvenient fact that required a minimal level of moral throat-clearing before they could resume the routine business of attacking Israel. Sixty-six years after its founding, this was the sum total of compassion the Jewish state could elicit from the leading lights of the human-rights movement.

Why did so many progressives abandon Israel and Zionism? That’s the question Joshua Muravchik sets out to answer in “Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel.” Part polemic, part intellectual history, this thoughtful and timely study explores Zionism’s shifting position in the progressive imagination, “from a redemptive refuge from two thousand years of persecution to the very embodiment of white supremacy,” as Mr. Muravchik puts it.

The author, a fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, recalls how during its first two decades of existence the Jewish state attracted sympathy from broad swaths of the Western left. That support reached its apogee during the Six Day War, when some 3,700 academics signed a letter in the New York TimesNYT -1.13% calling on the U.S. to militarily intervene in the conflict—on Israel’s side. At the height of the war, the cause of Israel’s survival united Hannah Arendt, Lionel Trilling, Ralph Ellison, Martin Luther King, Pablo Picasso and Jean-Paul Sartre, among other progressive luminaries.

Yet 1967 would also prove to be a turning point. Around the same time, the Palestinians launched a war of ideas against Israel’s legitimacy that persists to this day. Having redefined themselves as a nation separate from the Arabs, the Palestinians thenceforth articulated their struggle as one for national self-determination against a colonial power.

This strategic reframing of the Palestinian cause coincided with momentous transformations then taking place within the international left. Having exhausted its energies, the old Marxist ideal, based on class struggle and collectivism, gave way in the late 1960s and early ’70s to a “paradigm in which the central drama of our time is the conflict of the ‘West against the rest,'” Mr. Muravchik writes.

The Arab cause, once seen as reactionary and rejectionist, was hitched to this new paradigm in no small part thanks to the efforts of Edward Said, according to the author. Well-versed in the obscurantist lexicon of postmodern academe, the late Palestinian-American literary theorist persuaded a generation of Middle East scholars that “every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was . . . a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric,” as Said wrote. Said’s own people, the Palestinians, became the emblematic victims of all this racism.

Reinforcing the dialectic of mutual alienation between the left and Israel was the Jewish state’s movement, starting with Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s government, away from its founding socialist ethos. For many leftists, a Jewish state that no longer stood for collectivism wasn’t worth defending. In Israel, the disappointment of the socialist camp led to the creation of a domestic anti-Zionist culture that, as Mr. Muravchik writes, lent “an indigenous imprimatur to the most jaundiced interpretations of the country’s actions and motives.”

Mr. Muravchik provides a nuanced and illuminating guide to the ideological developments that have led many on the left to detest Israel. Yet those developments, without more, don’t fully account for why many progressives turned against the Middle East’s only liberal democracy while embracing Islamist terror groups as “social movements that are progressive,” as the feminist theorist Judith Butler described Hamas and Hezbollah in 2006.

The other main factor was a pathological self-hatred.

Mr. Ahmari is a Journal editorial page writer based in London.

*************

Listen to Joshua Muravchik and Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio in a special two part program to discuss his new book, “Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel.”

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER PROVIDES COVER FOR JIHAD APOLOGISTS

images (27)by LEE STRANAHAN:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a lead role in the institutional left’s attempt to unilaterally intellectually disarm America on the issue of Islamic terrorism. In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s worth looking at how the group has attempted to silence critics of Islamic extremism, often by poisoning the well to discredit any examination of the possible dangers posed by Islamists.

The SPLC was started over forty years ago as a legitimate civil rights organization to combat the violent racist actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, but has become part of the vast web of organizations–many funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute–that work together to smear conservative voices in order to advance a leftist agenda.

One way to think of the institutional left is as a body where different organs perform different functions but all function together to form a whole; your stomach signals your brain that it wants food, so your feet walk you to the fridge, your hand opens the door, and so on. With the institutional left, many different groups work in concert to promote the wider agenda of radicals, such as diminishing America’s security.

The role that the Southern Poverty Law Center plays is to be an “objective” source to brand conservative entities as “hate groups” for the purpose of stopping debate and discussion on important issues. The well-heeled SPLC–with financial reserves of over$200 million–does this through their Hate Watch blog and a quarterly magazine but, more ominously, by also reporting their findings directly to the FBI.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has explicitly targeted people like Atlas Shrugs blogger Pam Geller, author Robert Spencer, 60s radical-turned-conservative David Horowitz, and the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney. By lumping these authors and speakers in with violent groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or Ku Klux Klan and then reporting them to law enforcement as “hate groups,” the SLPC is trying to create a chilling effect on investigation into what we’ve learned time and again are legitimate dangers.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s impact is magnified because other institutional left groups pick up on the SPLC’s reports and regurgitate them; these circular references are then used to give the reports legitimacy.

Read more at Breitbart

My Thoughts On Boston

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

By David Horowitz:

Watching the news about the Boston bombing and the Muslim fanatics who perpetrated the deed, I cannot help reflect on all the nasty attacks that liberals and progressives and Muslim activists have conducted against conservatives who have attempted to warn Americans that their enemies are religious fanatics driven by an apocalyptic hatred of us because we are Jews, Christians, atheists, democrats – in a word, infidels.

It has been said by Nancy Pelosi, George Soros and other Democrats that George Bush created the terrorists by attempting to enforce a UN Security council resolution and take down one of the monsters of the 20th Century in Iraq.  It has been said by the late Susan Sontag and other progressive intellectuals that the heinous attacks of 9/11 were the result of American policies. The Center for American Progress and university administrators have relentlessly defamed as Islamphobes and bigots those of us who have had the temerity to talk about the Islamic roots of Islamic terror. If only we ignored the Islamic beliefs behind the terrorism and made nice to all Muslims indiscriminately, the terrorists wouldn’t hate us.

Boston has exposed this as the Big Lie and fatuous delusion that it has always been. The Boston killers were treated better in America than all but an elite among Americans born here who love their country. They were given scholarships, they were admitted to the most exclusive prep schools, they lived in a Cambridge environment where critics of Islamic terror were regarded as Islamophobes and they as a minority deserving special consideration and concern. And yet they hated us. They hated America and ordinary Americans like the victims of their mayhem, and enlisted in the army of our mortal enemies. They hated us because they were fanatical believers in the idea that Mohammed had desired them to kill infidels and purify the earth for Allah. This is the face of our enemy and the sooner the delusional liberals among us wake up to this fact, the safer all of us will be.

See also:

 

Loving the Enemy

UNited in HateBy Janice Fiamengo 

Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?

Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.

The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.

When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)

After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.

Read more at American Thinker