This posting is way overdue, but I have spent a lot of time trying to decide how to deal with the passing of Monkey in the Middle's creator, Katie Norcross, who also used the pen name of Findalis.
Katie passed away in May after a long battle with cancer. As readers have noted, postings slowed noticeably on this site and most of the latest of the posts were by contributing writers such as myself. Katie had reached a point where she simply could not continue.
Katie, who was a military veteran, was a tireless warrior in defending her country, fighting anti-Semitism and informing her readers about the dangers of Islamic extremism. She was also a frequent commenter on my own blog (Fousesquawk). She was gracious enough to allow me and others to post articles on her site. I considered her a partner in a mutual struggle.
I never met Katie personally but spoke to her occasionally on the phone. Last September, while I was visiting Chicago, we tried to arrange a get together, but her medical procedures got in the way.
Presently, I am trying to figure out what to do with Monkey in the Middle. I have consulted fellow contributors, many of whom are currently inactive due to their own health issues. Shall I keep it going in Katie's memory or give it a suitable closing? I feel-and the others echo those sentiments-that Katie would want us to keep it going. I am leaning in that direction though I have not made a final decision.
But the main thing is that Katie rest in peace in the arms of the Lord.
The below report is not only troubling, it is outrageous. With a clear and present danger of Islamic terrorism in our own country, our government is rushing pell-mell in an insane drive to bring more and more Muslim immigrants into this country. Never mind 9-11. Never mind the Boston Marathon massacre. Never mind the numerous FBI interceptions of would be jihadists. Never mind those who have left the US to join the Jihad with the clear intent to bring it back to our shores.
Our government continues to actively sponsor a flood of Muslim immigrants to this country.
It pains me to say this because I am married to an immigrant, and I generally support immigration-something that has benefited our country immeasurably.
But something has gone horribly wrong.
Combine this with the flood of illegal immigrants and this is tantamount to a country losing its sovereignty. It also places the lives of American citizens in grave danger.
Is there anybody in Washington with any common sense?
The dust has barely settled over Garland, Texas, and already the liberal media is going into overdrive to demonize not the two shooters who died trying to barge their way into the center where they would have killed possibly scores of people, but the organizers of the Draw Mohammad cartoon event. The number one target is Pam Geller. The below article by NPR is typical:
We should also note that the media is largely using the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source of attack. The SPLC has done some good work in the past in identifying truly hateful people and organizations. The problem is that they have a liberal bent and have singled out some people and organizations erroneously. I think Geller and her organization is one example.
First of all, there has to be a distinction made between criticizing Islam, sharia law, and the jihadists who seek to do us harm and Muslims as people. Thus, I think it is off the mark to charge the American Freedom Defense Initiative as being, "anti-Muslim".
Furthermore, instead of blaming the targets of the attack because their cartoon contest was offensive to Muslims, these critics should be saying, "It's only a cartoon". In other words, how does drawing cartoons justify deadly violence?
"Because it is blasphemous," say the critics.
Yes, it is, but so is showing an "art" exhibit with Christ on a crucifix dunked in a jar of urine or showing the Virgin Mary encased in elephant dung. Christians are highly insulted by that. Mormons are insulted by a play called, "The Book of Mormon" that insults the Mormon religion. Yet that is all called art, and we were reminded that it falls under freedom of expression. Christians and Mormons were told to get over it. And we did. Nobody got killed, and there were no riots. No museums or theaters were burned down.
But political correctness dictates that Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders and the other near-victims in Garland be criticized because they mocked the Prophet Mohammad. Yet it must be pointed out that this was a reaction to the fact that Islamic organizations had recently held a "Stand by Our Prophet Day" at the same site in Garland as a reaction to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
Maybe that was offensive too.
Let us be honest. Even the liberal left knows there is a fundamental difference between how Christians, Mormons and other religions react to being insulted or mocked and the way Muslims do *(not all Muslims, of course). We know that insulting Islam results in some Muslims becoming very violent-murderously violent. Does that mean that we must all become silent and not discuss what is happening around the world? Must we remain silent when Christians are the object of genocide in the Middle East? Must we remain silent as we witness the beheadings? Can we not freely discuss the problem and the causes, to say nothing about the threats we face? If we decide that cartoons are off-limits, what's next-pointing out that there are violent verses in the Koran?
Here is how I have handled the Mohammad cartoon question on this site: On the one hand, I have not shown Mohammad cartoons, nor have I reproduced Charlie Hebdo's cartoons. What I have done is show cartoons that have come out as a response to the Paris massacres. Below is an example.
That cartoon does not insult anybody but the violent jihadists, and I am perfectly comfortable with it. No apologies are warranted or forthcoming.
Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom of showing Mohammad cartoons. The right to do so in America is not negotiable. But there can be no tolerance for anyone thinking they can conduct murder and mayhem in this country over the issue. This is America. We have the First Amendment. Once we give that up, America is gone.
Whatever the facts of Freddie Gray's death, a few things are becoming clearer by the day. Baltimore's biggest problem is not the police. It is their political leadership.
First of all, it's hard to say black Baltimoreans have been the victims of a racist system when you have a black mayor, a black chief of police, black city council members and 40% black cops. Add to that our African-American president and both of his attorneys general, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
Baltimore is a tough, working-class city and not a place where you go walking around at night. Once you have visited the beautiful Inner Harbor, things get gritty fast. Tonight, I heard reports that there are some 35,000 abandoned buildings in the city. This city is in a sad state of affairs.
First of all, the city's mayor has failed in her responsibilities, both with her order to the police to stand down on the evening of April 27 and not even don their riot helmets. An added disgrace was her public statements about allowing the ones who wanted to destroy things to have their space, She then denied she said it even though it is clearly on videotape. Today, shielded by the ever-ready Al Sharpton, she glumly refused to answer questions from Fox's reporter Leland Vittert glaring at him as Sharpton and her entourage pushed Vittert back. Indeed, Baltimore's politicians-and Elijah Cummings have reacted angrily to the presence of reporters.
What we are seeing in Baltimore is a testament to the political failure of big city Democratic dominance. Look at other cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago and other places-dominated by the Democrat party for decades. They are failed cities, with the arguable exception of Chicago with its combination of glitter mixed with South Side gang murders off the charts, a problem Rahm Emanuel and his predecessors have been unable to stem. The same statement could be made about Los Angeles. You want to see how a beautiful city like San Francisco can deteriorate under the weight of the thousands of homeless people roaming the streets? Take a walk through downtown San Francisco. When did it become depressing to walk around the City by the Bay? (Of course, you can escape all that by going to Golden Gate Park, where you can stroll down Nancy Pelosi Drive.)
In addition, many of the above cities have had black mayors, black aldermen/ women, black city council members, and black police chiefs. Where has been the improvement in the lives of the inner city residents? The question I ask is why black voters never hold the Democratic party accountable whether they are white, black, Hispanic politicians or otherwise.
If the Baltimore police were guilty of malfeasance or negligence in the death of Mr Gray, let the facts come out. Letting people riot, burn and injure police officers is unacceptable. In addition, it is hoped that the public will take a second look at how Democrats are running these big cities
In recent days, Mitt Romney has spoken at Duke and David Horowitz at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This has resulted in an editorial by the Daily Tarheel, the campus paper at UNC. It maintains that campus speakers should be chosen "with discretion".
Really? So Mitt Romney should not speak at Duke because he is partisan. Would the Daily Tarheel object to President Obama or Hillary Clinton speaking at Duke or UNC? Have they objected to Democratic politicians speaking on campus in the past. I doubt it.
And they object to David Horowitz expressing his right of free speech at UNC? The truth hurts, doesn't it? Would the Daily Tarheel object to speakers from the "other side" speaking on campus?
I note that just in February, both schools hosted a Malcolm X event in which Professor Sohail Daulatzai, my "good friend" from UC Irvine, was a panelist. This is man who not only hates Israel, but also considers America to be a racist, imperialistic nation.
Here is a nice film clip of Tom Trento of The United West greeting CAIR's LA director, Hussam Ayloush during "Capitol Day"* in Washington DC. Tom asks Ayloush if there is a Muslim Brotherhood in the US and gets the typical lie for an answer.
I wonder if Ayloush recognized Trento from their previous encounter in May 2011 in Anaheim when we were protesting an award being given to Muzammil Siddiqi. That was when Tom told Ayloush that he represented a despicable organization (CAIR). Ayloush had to be "rescued" by his cohort, Shakeel Syed of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, who came and grabbed Ayloush by the arm and led him across the street. It was quite comical.
As to the question of whether there is a Muslim Brotherhood in America, the answer is yes though not in a formal sense. Their representatives are organizations like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA and the Muslim Students Association. That was brought out in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas where an "explanatory memorandum" was introduced into evidence, which had been seized by the FBI That was a 1991 Brotherhood letter addressed to several; of the above organizations (CAIR had not yet been founded) identifying them as the "North American brothers, whose task it was to destroy the American system from within. It was surely this document that Trento was offering to show Ayloush.
It is also the same document I handed to Brotherhood representative Ibrahim El Hudaiby when he came to UC Irvine in 2008 to speak in Professor Mark LeVine's class. Hudaiby told the students a number of lies including that the Brotherhood had no people in the US. He pronounced the document a forgery. (It was not.)
* Capitol Day: An annual event whereby CAIR and other Islamist activists flood the US and many state capitols with representatives lobbying for their causes.
Bizarre. That's the only word I can attach to this presentation given March 17 in Washington DC by Tufts University professor Thomas Abowd on the issue of Israel and Jerusalem. Andrew Harrod wrote the below article for Frontpage Magazine.
There's not a lot one can add to Harrod's piece, which leaves one with the impression that Abowd must have been smoking his socks prior to taking the microphone. I would like to add a couple of points though.
First of all, how many times is there word "Jerusalem" found in the Old and New Testaments? Hundreds, I would guess. How about the Koran?
Zero.
That is because, Dear Reader, Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish land of Israel three thousand years ago long before Islam was born.The Islamic claim to Jerusalem as their third holiest city is based on the belief that the prophet Mohammad flew there on a winged horse one night from where he ascended into the heavens to meet with prior prophets. Even then, it was referred to as "the farthest mosque"-even though there was no mosque there at the time. That's rock solid.
And when did the Arabs in the region begin referring to themselves as "Palestinians"? That would be in the 1960s.
Before closing, let me retract the above crack about Abowd smoking his socks. I just realized that March 17 was St Patrick's Day. That explains the boffo statements. In the future I would hope Abowd will celebrate St Paddies Day after he gives a speech.
Yesterday, the suicide bombings of Shi'ite mosques in Yemen resulted in the deaths of 137 people, for which ISIS proudly took credit. If you are wondering why (Sunni) ISIS would want to bomb mosques were Shia worship, it all goes back to the death of the Prophet Mohammad and a disagreement over who his rightful successor should have been. Of course, it had nothing to do with Islam (yesterdays' bombings).
It also brought to light President Obama's mentioning Yemen as one of his administration's "successes". As I write this, it has just been announced that we are pulling all remaining special military forces out of Yemen. That follows the evacuation of our embassy.
Daniel Greenfield has an article in Frontpage Magazine, where he highlights a letter from Amanda Susskind of the Anti-Defamation League to the New York Times. Susskind says the recent revelations of anti-Semitism at UCLA (which have been well chronicled here) do not represent the norm. Unusual and uncharacteristic were the words she used.
The problem as I see it is that the ADl is reluctant to confront anti-Semitism when it is coming from the left and/or coming from Islamic quarters. Such is the case at UCLA and other campuses. The ADL under Abe Foxman has a liberal bent. Foxman, as I have written before, spoke a few years back before a Jewish group in Newport Beach. I myself was not present, but in answer to a question from a friend of mine about anti-Semitism at UC Irvine, Foxman said that there was no problem; that the Jewish students and the administration had it under control. That was a blatant falsehood. Whether Foxman really believes that line or not I have no idea.
Ms Susskind's comments to the New York Times are hardly surprising, but they are quite unhelpful in the struggle to expose and fight anti-Semitism on college campuses.
You may have read portions of the stories on Muslim jihadi camps inside the United States. We blog, we read, we forget, so I'm blogging it again with new detail. In August 2013, I posted on 31 terrorist camps inside the U.S. The Clarion Project obtained FBI documents citing a specific "jihadist enclave" in Sweeny, Texas. My original report listed Houston, Texas as home to one Jamaat ul-Fuqra (JF) camp. Jamaat ul-Fuqra is reportedly a "mostly black," or "all African-American" group, with the exception of Sheikh Gilani. JF is also known as The Muslims of America, or Muslims of the Americas (both also known as MOA), and Soldiers of Allah (SOA). Sweeny, Texas is about 63 miles south, from parts of Houston, so I'm not certain that Sweeny ("Brazoria County on County Road 3") is the location near Houston.
I have also discovered that another member of the MOA compound in Sweeny is a police officer for the nearby city of Freeport; his name is Hussein Jones. Informed and well-placed sources have informed me that a few years ago, there was a shooting on the compound. County officers were called, as well as EMS. However, when they arrived, they faced hostile members of the compound who would not allow them inside.
A police officer who was at the scene said that as this confrontation was going on, a constable of the neighboring Fort Bend County came speeding up in his car and began angrily rebuking the police officers who were there. He also tried to prevent the officers and EMS technicians and paramedics from gaining access to the compound. This constable also turned out to be a member of the MOA compound. However, as a result of his behavior during this incident, he was fired from his position as constable, and county officials were ultimately able to get inside the compound, although Brazoria County police are still not allowed in.
My sources tell me also that the compound is made up of mobile buildings that the group regularly rearranges, always positioning them in a way so that if law enforcement had to storm the compound, they would be sitting ducks with a sure tactical disadvantage. Police officials say there are no laws to stop this group from what they are doing, and they cannot do anything until they break some kind of law.
Blogger Pam Geller focused on Islamberg, the headquarters, for a while, and what did they do? They went underground:
A recent visit confirmed the following (2009):
(1). Islamberg contains massive underground bunkers that are interconnected by a network of tunnels. A building contractor, who resides in Sherman, Pennsylvania – – approximately 15 miles from Islamberg, says that he helped to install the bunkers and that the paramilitary training that formerly took place at the firing range and the obstacle courses now takes place now takes place at these subterranean locations.
(2). The compound is no longer centralized. Many of the wannabe jihadis have moved to nearby locations, including a trailer park less than a mile away.
(3). The community is engaged in a public relations campaign designed to present Islamberg and other Jamaat ul-Fuqra compounds as peaceful settlements that pose no threat to national security. In keeping with this campaign, Islamberg now proclaims itself to be the “International Headquarters” of the newly created “United Muslim – Christian Forum.”Read the entire story here.
A 2007 FBI record states that MOA members have been involved in at least 10 murders, one disappearance, three firebombings, one attempted firebombing, two explosive bombings and one attempted bombing. It states:
“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government. Members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”
The document also says that, "The MOA is now an autonomous organization which possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S."
The State Department has not declared Jamaat ul-Fuqra a terrorist organization (although once-upon a time, it was so designated), so the FBI share lunch with them.
Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), Vice Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, says that the discovery of a terrorist enclave in Texas by the Clarion Project is “more than troubling—it’s appalling.” He criticized the “lackluster” response to the threat from Jamaat ul-Fuqra, also known as Muslims of the Americas.
His full statement to the Clarion Project is as follows: “This lackluster response to the threat of terrorist involvement is more than troubling—it’s appalling, but typical.
“When this administration refuses to go to a Boston mosque to investigate radicalized attendees there such as Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdurahman Alamoudi, or the Tsarnaevs, but instead go to those mosques as part of their ‘outreach program’ to be better friends, then this country is in major trouble.
“It is always the federal government’s job to provide for the common defense against those who want to destroy us and our way of life. But this administration seems to think if we figuratively embrace snakes, they won’t bite us. The threat of terrorism is very real and should be treated as such, especially by our law enforcement.” Source: CounterJihad February 2014
In the 1930s, Great Britain produced two figures who played a prominent role in the history of world events. Both were prime ministers, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. Chamberlain has gone down in history as a symbol for appeasement for his shameful role at Munich surrendering the Sudetenland (which belonged to Czechoslovakia) to Nazi Germany. Churchill was arguably the greatest leader of the 20th century.
Now we have a second Munich looming as Barack Obama and his secretary of state John Kerry are hell-bent on making a treaty with Iran that will lead to the fanatical, terrorist state eventually having a nuclear weapon. Thus, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington this week and delivered a memorable speech against this dangerous folly.
While Netanyahu takes on the role of Churchill, Obama and his followers are acting like petulant Chamberlains. Our feckless president, who can't hold a candle to Netanyahu, has stated that the latter's speech didn't add anything to the discussion. Meanwhile, State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki (who is about to move to the White House) added to her litany of nonsensical statements by accusing Netanyahu of twisting Kerry's words.
What did Kerry not say, Jen-"Peace in our time"?
And, of course, there is tired old Nancy Pelosi, who said that she nearly cried during the speech because it was so insulting to America's intelligence-or some such twaddle.
Sorry, Nancy, but somebody has to insult the intelligence of American leadership when it comes to Iran, terrorism and international affairs in general.
This week has once again outlined the sharp difference between Netanyahu and Obama. The former is a man who has fought for his country, lost a brother in the Entebbe rescue in Uganda, and is acting like a world leader in defending his country from a very real existential threat. Obama, meanwhile, is showing what he really is, a community organizer with a radical worldview tilted toward the Arab world, who could care less if Israel, a state he views as inconvenient, were wiped off the face of the map.
It is a curse that America has such a president at such a dangerous time.
A former U.S. soldier, who calls himself the "King of Nineveh," is interviewed in Iraq, "in a makeshift military headquarters." He says he wants to "keep the church bells of Iraq ringing:"
"Jesus tells us what you do unto the least of them, you do unto me," said the 28-year-old from Detroit, who served an extended tour in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 and asked for his surname not to be published to protect his family at home. "I couldn't sit back and watch what was happening, women being raped and sold wholesale."
So in December he travelled to northern Iraq, where he joined a growing band of foreigners leaving their lives in the West behind to fight with newly formed Christian militias. The leaders of those militias say they've been swamped with hundreds of requests from veterans and volunteers from around the world who want to join them....
Brett's group, Dwekh Nawsha, which means "self-sacrifice" in Aramaic, the ancient language spoken by Jesus, has only six Westerners among its 200 Iraqi Assyrian Christian fighters. But Emanuel Khoshaba Youkhana, the secretary general of the Assyrian Patriotic Party, which funds the group, says more than 900 other foreigners have been in touch to find out how to join. Read more at Stars & Stripes.
Note the word "Assyrian Patriotic Party" in the paragraph above.
Sean Hannity interviewed Jeb Bush on the CPAC 2015 stage on the issues of immigration and Common Core. The following transcript is Bush's comments on immigration.
Don't miss what he had to say about the "100,000" that invaded us from Central America last summer. We should have told them it wasn't safe to come here, and if we had explained it to them, they wouldn't have come, said Jeb. I suspect our government was complicit by encouraging someone, somewhere, to make that invasion happen. Are we really to believe that it was not a coordinated effort?
A couple of points:
1) Jeb Bush has praised the U.S. Senate's "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill, which DID NOT secure our borders. You'll remember in that bill, the pathway to citizenship was put on an accelerated path, and then-Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, was the sole authority on declaring our borders secure. To support Homeland Security's sole authority is to hand our nation over. Where was/is the push to bring our governors into determining border status?
The Senate bill also allowed, as Jeb referred to it, deep "petitioning," of those family members who could immigrate on the coattails of the illegal in America. In the interview with Hannity, he said only spouses and children should be allowed in, but the Senate bill he supports allows many other family members to cross, including felons. Under the Senate bill, an alien could have two drunk driving offenses. A thirdmighttrigger some response. Under the Gang of 8 Senate bill, an alien is allowed three fraudulent passports before a crime is committed.
Under the Senate bill, border patrol would be moved to the Department of Justice's Human Rights Division (same division that allowed the New Black Panther Party to skate on voter intimidation charges in Philadelphia, during the 2008 presidential elections). Where is that discussion?
Bush encouraged Senate Gang of 8 members, Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), to "stay the course."
3) Where is the discussion of why it is NOT a felony to cross illegally into the U.S., or to overstay a visa?
4) Where is the discussion on visa reform?
BEGIN PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT: Jeb Bush on immigration at CPAC 2015
HANNITY: When you were governor, you said:
"Yeah, they broke the law, it's not a felony, it's an act of love." You also said you support a path to citizenship. When you were governor, you supported drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and you supported in-state tuition prices for those children of illegal immigrants.
BUSH: In [my] book I talk about the need to enforce the borders. A great country needs to enforce borders for national security purposes, public health purposes, and the rule of law. First and foremost we have to do that. Secondly we need a narrow family petitioning so that it's the same as every other country, spouses and minor children, not this broad definition of spouse, minor children, adult siblings and adult parents, that crowds out what we need, which are economic driven immigrants. Those who come here to work, to invest in their dreams in this country, to create opportunities for all of us, and that's what we need to get to.
The plan also includes a path to legal status. I have not seen anybody, and I know there's disagreement here--some of these people are angry about this, and, look, I kinda feel your pain....The simple fact is we are not going to deport 11 million people, We should give them a path to legal status, where they work. They don't receive government benefits, where they don't break the law, where they learn English, and where they make a contribution to our society. That's what we need to be focused on.
HANNITY: I asked Senator Rubio of Florida this same question. We always hear about spending cuts and tax increases. We always get the tax increase. We never get the spending cut. The Congress has tried comprehensive immigration reform, and it has failed. We now have a crisis going on with Homeland Security and the President's executive orders. My question is, why not secure the borders first, once it's verified secure...?
BUSH: Let's do it. Let's do it, man.
HANNITY: Then talk about...
BUSH: So instead of having a political argument about this--the president did use authority he doesn't have. %he courts are going to overrule that. I've been consistent about that. Let's control the border. There's nothing wrong with that. That's what a great nation has to do. There's nothing that holds back the Republicans to put a comprehensive plan in place to do that.
The simple fact is, this nation needs to start growing at a far faster rate than we're growing today. We have to be young and dynamic and aspirational again for all the young people in this crowd to be able to get a job, a purpose and meaning. We need to change the subject to high-sustained economic growth.
HANNITY: Do you agree with conservatives that say Congress should not pass a Homeland Security funding bill that would fund the president's illegal and unconstitutional amnesty.
BUSH: The Congress ought to pass a bill that does not allow him to use that authority.
HANNITY: And they should stand their ground?
BUSH: Look, I don't know. I'm not an expert on the ways of Washington. It makes no sense to me that we're not funding control of our border, which is the whole argument. I'm missing something. The simple fact is the president has gone way beyond his constitutional powers to do this, and the Congress has every right to reinstate their responsibility for what law is about.
HANNITY:One-hundred thousand people came from Central America. We all watched over lastsummer. Should they be sent home? Yes or No?
BUSH: I thought they should have been sent home at the border, to be honest with you, because it would have created...here's the deal, the humanitarian thing to do would have been to consistently say, from the beginning, don't risk your lives crossing as young people. Don't pay the gangsters in Central America money from your family members in this country to come all the way across and just get into the country and be processed. Now, with our broken system, it may take three or four years to even begin to process them. Send a clear signal that this was a dangerous thing to do, and the wrong thing to do, and it would have stopped the flow. We did that, as it relates to, in Miami, Florida. That's exactly what Bush 41 did, as it related to Haitians, and it stopped the flow of people, and people didn't lose their lives trying to come to this country.
HANNITY: Right now at this point, the country at this moment in history, we have 50 million Americans nearly in poverty--nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps, the lowest labor participation rate since the 1970s. I want you to connect it to immigration. Shouldn't Americans have the opportunity for those jobs first? You say, go to the back to the line, but if they go to the back of the line, they still get to stay here and compete for those jobs?
BUSH: You either believe that the pie is static, that's the Left's point of view. Many on the Right don't agree with that, but with their policies, they imply it. Therefore, we're splitting up...someone's benefit is someone's else's detriment. I believe we ought to be focused on growing the economic pie, and growing it at a rate that looks more like the '80s in America. Growing it closer to four percent, not two percent. If we stay in this anemic economic rate, then your argument becomes valid, but if we grow at four percent, there's going to be opportunities for all. It's not a zero-sum game. That's not how Republicans and conservatives think. We don't think it's just all about the government divvying it up for us to get our crumbs. We believe we should pursue our dreams as we see fit, and the more people doing it with the capacity to achieve our success, the more economic growth will take place.
HANNITY: As governor, do you stand by the decision, driver's licenses for illegals?
BUSH: Didn't happen.
HANNITY: Didn't happen, but you tried. And the other decision about in-state tuition hikes for children?
BUSH: I do. I do. In fact, that was the--the in-state tuition was passed this year by one of the most conservative state legislatures, and a conservative governor signed it into law this last year.
So, no answer from Jeb on driver's licenses for illegals. When the opportunity arises, we must him give us that answer, and ask how he can support the passed Gang of 8 bill. See the entire video here.
The documents SEAL Team Six confiscated the night they killed Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad compound, were deep-sixed by the Obama administration. Not interested, al-Qaeda's decimated, the war's over.
The U.S. government captured more than one million documents during the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Top administration officials initially described it as “a treasure trove” of intelligence on al Qaeda and its affiliates. But more than three years later, the senior DIA official who ran the project, Colonel Derek Harvey, says the intelligence community has fully analyzed less than 10 percent of the collection. Top DIA officials were told directly to stop providing analyses based on the bin Laden documents. The administration had decided to end the war on terror, and no amount of new intelligence about threats from al Qaeda was going to change their minds. So they chose ignorance.
Colonel Derek Harvey retired from active duty in 2006. He served as a civilian advisor to General David Petraeus. St. Louis Today described Harvey as "regarded by many as the single most-informed American on military developments in Iraq." In 2008,Harvey warned President George W. Bush that a dangerous Sunni insurgency should be expected:
By several accounts, a startled Bush asked Harvey how he could know that the Sunnis were planning a “popular insurrection,” when dozens of more-senior officials had given assurances that no such thing would happen. Harvey, who speaks Arabic, responded that he had spent time with sheiks, tribal leaders and Sunni people listening to their anger and plans to retake power after what they saw as Saddam’s mismanagement of the war, while advisers painting a rosy picture hadn’t done that.
Harvey was passed over for promotion, which led to his retirement.
“Harvey is hands down the very best intelligence analyst that the United States government has on Iraq,” says former Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Jack Keane. “He has been right from late ’03 all the way … up to the present...
[Newt] Gingrich says both Gen. John Abizaid and Gen. George Casey, when they led U.S. forces in Iraq, told him that Harvey “was the most knowledgeable person on Iraq that we had.”
“He retired as a colonel … and yet he goes back again and again to Iraq to continue to determine plans for victory,” Gingrich said, calling Harvey’s efforts “simply stunning.”
In speaking of Derek Harvey, Major General (Ret) Barbara Fast said, “..the best strategic intelligence officer in the U.S. military.” She went on to say that he led “…the most effective “Red Cell” effort that has ever been conducted in a major theater of war.” Read more.
On September 9, 2014, Stephen Hayes wrote:
A couple things went wrong: For one, the Obama administration seems to have tailored the limited amount of documents it made public to reinforce a particular narrative crucial to its political interests — that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which came to be known as “core al-Qaeda,” had largely been defeated....
The second issue is some bureaucratic infighting: The CIA allegedly jealously held onto the documents, churning out hundreds of reports soon after the intelligence was captured but refusing to let other intelligence agencies have a look. The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency and intelligence analysts at the U.S. military’s Central Command (“CENTCOM”) were desperate to delve into the documents, but it took months to get access to the raw intelligence. Read more.
On Monday evening the Muslim Student Union of UC Irvine culminated its Islam Awareness Week with a speaking appearance by UCI Professor of Film and Media Sohail Daulatzai. His topic was the life of Malcolm X, who is Daulatzai's ultimate hero. It was an hour and a half of a sickening trashing of America by a man who came to this country as a boy from Pakistan. This was the second time I have listened to this man tear apart this country. It is not pleasant listening, but like the previous time in May 2013, I felt it was important to attend, videotape it, and report it. Of course, as always, the MSU tried to prevent me from filming. However, I politely asserted my rights and filmed it anyway.
Prior to the event, I contacted the campus police and advised them I was attending the event. Over the past year, I had been assured by the UCIPD that I had every right to videotape, that they had been in error last year when they prevented me from videotaping a speech per the request of the MSU, and that all student organizations had been advised of the videotaping policy at UCI.
Nevertheless, as Daulatzai was being introduced to the sparse crowd of about 35 MSU students, the young lady moderator announced that recording was not allowed and anyone attempting to record would be asked to leave. I promptly raised my hand and politely informed her that this was a public event and that the right to film was absolute and had been affirmed to me by the campus police with whom I had just(again) consulted. The event began and I commenced to record. If the video shows the back of a head of a student in front of me that's because the young man sat in front of me in an attempt to obstruct my view. He only partially succeeded. However, it is the audio-the words- that matter.
About 30-40 minutes later, a young MSU student approached me and politely asked me to cease recording. I once again explained my right to film and showed him a brochure with the UCI policy that allowed the public to videotape as long as it was in compliance with UCI policy 900.30, of which I also had a copy. The young man said that section 900.30 had a portion which allowed the sponsoring organization to ban videotaping. (If that is in there, I sure can't find it.) At any rate, I politely suggested that he consult with the UCIPD and that if a campus police officer instructed me not to film, I would cease. He agreed and left. No campus police officer ever came into the room. I continued to film assuming that the UCIPD had explained the policy to him. As stated, I have been advised by UCIPD that all student organizations have been advised of the UCI videotaping policy. Either the MSU didn't get the memo or they tried to get around it. On Tuesday, I contacted the UCIPD and related the events. They responded that they would reach out to the MSU.
It is hard to summarize what Daalatzai said over the course of 90 minutes (including q and a) because he rambles on all over the place. He also has a very noticeable verbal tic, in which he ends his sentences with "right?" In 90 minutes, he must have done it over 500 times. He is also a boring speaker in spite of the nasty things he says about this country.
At any rate, Daulatzai took his audience through the life of Malcolm X interspersed with three video clips of Malcolm's public utterances. Here are some notable things Daulatzai had to say: (I will be paraphrasing, but the video is there.)
He said that Martin Luther King was about to leave the civil rights movement when he was assassinated because he had given up on America. He had reportedly stated at some point that he was afraid they were "integrating into Hell". Daulatzai also seemed to imply a connection between King's coming out against the Viet Nam war and his assassination.
Daulatzai spoke of an understanding between civil rights leaders and the government during the Cold War in that they (civil rights leaders) would support the Cold War in exchange for civil rights reforms for American blacks.
He also claimed that Patrice Lamumba, the Congolese leader who was ousted from power and executed in 1961, was murdered and cut into pieces by the CIA. Did you know that?
"Yeh, I did."
Well, perhaps, but even Wikipedia has a more sober account.
Of course, there were the requisite references to Ferguson, Chapel Hill, Eric Garner et al. As to Chapel Hill, Daulatzai proclaimed the murders of three Muslim students as a hate crime. Did you know that?
"Yeh, I did."
He must have an inside source with the police investigating the case.
In reply to a question on how different (ethnic) parts of the Muslim community could come together, Daulatzai again rambled all over the place. He started talking about Iraq!! He talked about how our military killed ("by conservative estimates") 500,000 Iraqis. He quoted other estimates that said 1.2 to 1.3 million Iraqis were killed by our military. Of course he did not qualify that by saying anything about the number of Iraqi troops or later insurgents who were killed in battle, nor did he say anything about Iraqis killed by post-invasion insurgents. The impression left is that the US military killed 500,000-1.3 million Iraqis- period.
I wasn't going to ask any questions during the q and a, but toward the end, he invited comments, so I raised my hand twice. Of course, I was ignored. Here is what I would have said:
"I am old enough to remember Malcolm X and recall when he was assassinated. Malcolm was killed by the Nation of Islam on the orders of Elijah Mohammad because he (Malcolm) had left the NoI, had publicly criticized it and was exposing the corruption and sexual abuses of Elijah Mohammad. (Daulatzai had praised the NoI in his remarks but papered over the fact that they had killed Malcolm.) Furthermore, history has shown that those like King who followed the path of non-violence have been proven correct while those who preached violence have been proven to be wrong. Malcolm X, for his part, did nothing to advance integration in this country. Finally, to the young people in the audience- in spite of all our dark chapters and mistakes in our history, America is still the greatest and freest country in the world, and it does deserve your love and loyalty in spite of what the speaker has told you tonight."
I doubt that would have made much of an impact. As we prepared to leave, the young man who had been sitting in front of me told me I needed to get a life.
This man Daulatzai was probably not even born when Malcolm X died. He didn't live through the civil rights era in America. Yet he implied that the civil rights movement accomplished next to nothing and that the conditions for black Americans have not improved since those days. Not having lived in America through that era what frame of reference does he have other than what he has read in books or been told by others?
It is sad and alarming that our universities have professors like this (of film and media, no,less) who
are putting these ideas into the minds of our young people-especially young Muslim students. Daulatzai, for better or worse, has his right of free speech, and he is entitled to his opinion about America. That right also includes the rights of the public to attend public events and record what is spoken at those events. As a teacher, I do not videotape students or what they say. I only begin my recording when the event's speaker begins. The public has a right to know what is being said in public speaking events on public university campuses.
So here it is. It is long. It is boring. The visual quality is less than optimal.There are a couple of brief snippets missing (at the beginning and end) because the memory card was being changed. But I hope the reader will take the time to listen to it because it is that important to be aware of what our students are being taught in American universities.
Hat tip Gates of Vienna, Ritamalik, Andrew Bostom and Vlad Tepes
On the morning of the White House Summit on "Countering Violent Extremism" an invocation was read in Arabic by Sheikh Sa'ad Musse Roble. It was translated into English by another gentleman named Abdisalam Adam, a Minneapolis imam. However, the English translation left out a key part of the reading from Sura 5 verse 32 of the Koran.
Gates of Vienna has the report. Watch the video and see how the translator cuts out least half of the actual content.
Deputy State Department Spokeswoman Marie Harf has had a rough week. First she talked about jobs as a way to fight the ISIS ideology. Then, when she became the laughing stock of the nation (at least among those who pay attention), she doubled down and dug herself deeper by expounding on the "root causes of violent extremism" (poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of freedom etc).
Of course, Harf is merely a mouthpiece for her president and her boss, John Kerry. These are the silly platitudes that they are mouthing while steadfastly refusing to mention the term, "Islamic terror". They prefer "violent extremism. Thus, they hold a silly 3-day conference at the White House, moderated by Joe Biden and invite America's top Islamists to participate.
But back to Harf. If I may inform her as to the most direct root cause of-not violent extremism- but Islamic terrorism:
Ms. Harf, I invite you to read the Koran. I invite you to read the hadith, which are the recorded sayings of the Prophet Mohammad. I invite you to read the biography of Mohammad.
As to the Koran, one has to know how to read and interpret it. That is because the Koran is not recorded chronologically, rather from the longest suras (chapters) to the shortest. (Sura one is an exception. It is only seven verses long and is recited multiple times a day by Muslims during prayers.)
It is important to know which suras were from Mohammad's earlier Mecca period, in which he was merely preaching the new religion, and which were from his Medina period, in which he was leading armies of conquest, taking captives, executing prisoners, taking booty, and taking their women and children as slaves. It is in the Medina suras that the language becomes hateful and violent.
Muslim leaders in the West love to quote the earlier verses, which appear peaceful and tolerant. What they don't tell us is that over the centuries Muslim scholars have agreed that in case of contradiction, the latter verse in time will abrogate that written earlier. The final major sura in time (Sura 9) is arguably the most violent and thus would abrogate anything written earlier that is in disagreement.
Back to Sura one. It ends with a plea to Allah to guide one along the straight path, not the path of those who have incurred His wrath nor that of those who have gone astray. According to the Hadith, Mohammad was asked by one of his followers who that referred to. Mohammad answered that the former were Jews and the latter were Christians.
Of course, there are thousands of hadith and Islamic scholars, who to this day study them in a complex effort to determine which are factual and which are not ("Strong hadith vs weak hadith"). Much of it is concerned with the line of testimony from one person back to another all the way back to the mouth of the Prophet. The two most trustworthy sources of the hadith are considered Bukhari and Muslim, named after earlier scholars who compiled and studied them.
This brings us back to ISIS, its followers, the lone wolves in the West who carry out their wishes, not to mention Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Boko Haram and all the others. To say that they are non-Islamic is absurd. They are carrying out their deeds in the name of Islam and they have solid textual basis for their actions. The killing of Christians and Jews is commanded in the Koran if they will not convert or submit to dhimmi status and pay the jizya tax. . Behead people? That's how Mohammad and his armies killed their captives. Take women and girls into sexual slavery? That is precisely what Mohammad and his armies did with the wives and children of the opposing soldiers they killed. Look for the phrase in the Koran that refers to "those which your right hand possesses". That refers to captives and slaves. Child brides? That goes back to the example of Mohammad, who took Aisha as his bride at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9 and he was in his 50s. Of course, this was common practice in the 7th century and Mohammad was hardly unique in that regard. However, when you see it in practice today in some quarters of the Islamic world, it can be justified because it was done by Mohammad-the most perfect man, whom all Muslims should seek to emulate. Thus, should the world be so shocked when ISIS and Boko Harem take young girls captive and marry them off to their own fighters?
It is true that the Christian and Jewish texts have violent verses, yet they were left in the dust centuries ago and are not practiced today. It is also true that most Muslims in the world today do not engage in these practices or terrorism because they prefer to merely get on in their lives, raise their families, and live in peace with the rest of the 21st century global community. Yet, they are in a very weak position should they try to engage in a debate with the jihadists because they cannot win such a debate based on Islamic texts and the life of the Prophet. The fear factor is, of course, another deterrent. They risk being called apostates and killed. Apostasy is a capital offense under sharia law. What does that tell you?
I fully understand that no American president or secretary of state can publicly say what I have written above. That would set the entire Muslim world against us even though they know amongst themselves that it is all very true. Even George W Bush understood that. It is much better to enlist Islamic countries to help fight the war on terror-even take the lead on the ground since it is they who are most immediately threatened. Today, Egypt and Jordan understand that. At the same time, however, it serves no useful purpose to mislead the public as to the threat we face and to pretend that it can be defeated with a jobs program, or more education, or by installing democracy. The jihadists of today cut across all spectrum. Many are educated including the leader of ISIS, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies. Many are wealthy including none other than Usama bin Laden. There are thousands of ISIS fighters in Iraq, Syria and now Libya, who arrived from the West. At the same time, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world who are poor, uneducated and living under dictatorships. They don't resort to terrorism.
To fight and defeat this enemy requires honesty and strength something the West today sorely lacks. It has become a tired phrase, but it is nonetheless true. We can't defeat an enemy if we cannot identify it. And yes: The Islamic State is definitely Islamic.
Yesterday, it was reported that the terrorist-breeding Islamic Cultural Society of Boston was an invitee to the big White House summit on "Countering Violent Extremism", which is being hosted by Joe Biden.
"That's a big f-----' deal."
Today we learn that Salam al Marayati, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, is also participating.
In addition to what is written above, I can add that Marayati is one of the nation's leading dissemblers and propagandists. MPAC is nothing more than an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Marayati has consistently condemned every attempt by the FBI and local police to fight homegrown terror and identify terrorists in our midst.
In addition, Marayati is one of some 200 leading Muslim figures in the US who are recipients of the Freedom Pledge letter from Former Muslims United in 2009 and 2012, which asked them to sign a simple letter to the effect that Americans who have left Islam should not be harmed. To date, only two have signed and Marayati is not one of them. I personally asked him about this in December 201,2 and he told me he would not sign because there is no death penalty in Islam for apostasy-a blatant lie.
As things are shaping up, no doubt this conference will conclude with a joint statement that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, that terror in general has nothing to do with Islam, that there are many other non-Muslim terror groups out there that are a greater threat to our national security, and that Israel must stop building new settlements, stop their intransigence and end "the occupation and Palestinian suffering."
Have I left anything out?
Dear Reader. Not only has the camel gotten his nose under the tent, he is the tent.
