No, the Electoral College Is Not a ‘National Security Threat’

( It amaze how little the American people about the supreme law of the land our CONSTITUTION! They don't even know why the Electoral College exist!  If don't know why the Electoral College exist so that no one state can  dominate the elections because their population is greater than all the other states population   )  

Principles for  a FREE SOCIETY

Following Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat and Donald Trump’s ascension to the Walll hite House, numerous progressives came out of the woodwork to call for the end of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote.

While most of the arguments against our over two-century-old system revolve around it not being purely democratic and being weighted toward smaller states, a recent commentary in Politico has stretched that attack to an absurd limit.

Matthew Olsen, a member of the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama, and Benjamin Haas, a West Point graduate and current student at Stanford University, argued that the Electoral College is antiquated and even dangerous because hostile foreign powers can micro-target populations in certain states to tip the election.

Further, the writers argue that the Founders couldn’t possibly have imagined how new technology, like Facebook, could perpetuate false ideas and that foreign powers would disseminate lies.

This leads them to suggest moving to a national popular vote, which they suggest is somehow a safer way to elect presidents.

Their arguments demonstrate both an amazing amount of hubris in assuming they, our nouveau elite, know better than the Founders, and stunning ignorance in thinking the creators of the Constitution had no experience with “fake news.”

There is a lot to untangle from what seems to be a rather absurd and roundabout excuse for Clinton’s defeat, but it’s worth debunking.

Why We Have an Electoral College

The Electoral College was not just a quirky idea the Framers cobbled together without serious consideration for how it would be used by future generations.

The office of the presidency and the method by which our leaders would be selected are perhaps the most explicit aspects of the Constitution, and they were the products of ferocious debate.

The Founders wanted to create a system by which the country’s only true national leader could be chosen by a process that would contain vital elements of both federalism—or state power—and democracy.

Also, given their vast experience of dealing with foreign powers that wanted to see America fail, and local manipulators who wanted to tip elections, the Framers of the Constitution created a carefully calibrated process that would help create a stable, legitimate system to serve a free people.

The product was a brilliant process, born of design and compromise, that has created over two centuries of stable and virtually uncontested elections.

This accomplishment often goes unacknowledged. But as governments rose and fell through the centuries, ours has steamed along. We have, in part, the Electoral College to thank for this political miracle.

Foreign Intrigues

As the Politico writers noted, Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68.

Hamilton believed the indirect method of “electors” choosing a president after the states had voted in their separate capacities would protect America from foreign intrigues that would seek to enable “Manchurian” candidates to become president.

The Politico writers dismiss this reasoning, saying:

Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state—Russia—was able to manipulate America’s election process with stunning effectiveness.

Actually, they could.

The late 18th and early 19th centuries were rife with foreign powers meddling in American elections. It was in some ways much easier for the superpowers of Europe to use propaganda in fighting proxy wars to tip the scales of our elections one way or another.

For example, Citizen Edmond Genet, a French diplomat to the United States, tried to tip the American population toward supporting his country in its wars against Great Britain in the 1790s.

He and other French radicals engaged in a massive campaign to turn Americans against President George Washington’s administration to get a pro-French candidate elected. This more or less failed, and Washington served two terms without serious challenge.

The fact is, there is simply no way of entirely avoiding outside influence and the flow of information in a free country.

It is something America has perpetually dealt with, and mostly overcome.

Fake News, Nothing New

The argument that “fake news” is simply a modern phenomenon that the Founders couldn’t have anticipated is absurd.

That fraudulent stories and ideas could be rapidly perpetuated and could change people’s minds was widely understood and acknowledged by the men who created our form of government.

At the Constitutional Convention, curmudgeonly Founder Elbridge Gerry said the following of fake news and democracy:

The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massachusetts it had been fully confirmed by experience, that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions, by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.

Campaigns then and thereafter were filled with false reports, unsubstantiated rumors, absurd accusations, and a whole lot of lies.

What was the Founders’ solution to this problem? Create a system that fostered a culture of free speech and debate while mitigating the impact of pure democracy.

The answer is not a national popular vote or government censors determining what is real news and what is fake. It’s in supporting the First Amendment and the wisely crafted electoral system that the Founders gifted us with.

Ultimately, fake news, micro-targeting, and “voter suppression” can hardly be blamed for Clinton’s electoral defeat when she couldn’t be bothered to campaign in one of the states that ultimately swung the election.

And simply having the larger, national pool of voters can’t prevent foreign governments from trying to sway votes and tip elections.

The fact that Trump turned solid blue states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania red is a sign that the Electoral College works the way it was intended. It vindicates the idea that regional interests are diverse and that a national candidate should appeal to small and mid-size states, not just the most populous ones.

While the Politico writers bemoan foreign influence in American elections—a worthy concern—pointing to the Electoral College as the problem is barking up the wrong tree.

And if they are so worried about what they called vote “hacking,” perhaps they should support the voter fraud commission that could help weed out illegal votes and ensure election integrity in the states instead of laying waste to our time-tested electoral process.

Regardless, the Electoral College is not a danger to the United States. It is instead a critical element of preserving our national sovereignty and the federalism that strengthens it. (For more from the author of “No, the Electoral College Is Not a ‘National Security Threat'” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/no-electoral-college-not-national-security-threat/

BREAKING: Top Obama Official Who Unmasked Over 250 Americans Right Before Election Was Just EXPOSED..

So it turns out that everything Devin Nunes told us about Obama unmasking Americans during the elections was 100% true. Now, thanks to a new report, we finally know WHICH of Obama’s top people was doing the unmasking.

According to the report from FOX, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power used unmasking more than 260 times during 2016 right up until Trump’s inauguration in January.

The two sources, who chose to remain anonymous, both said that Power was ordering an unmasking almost every single working day of 2016.

Samantha Power is expected to make an appearance on Capitol Hill next month to answer Congressional questions about her role in the unmasking of Trump officials during an election.

Of course, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes had already revealed his discovery of hundreds of unmaskings of Americans in 2016 to DNI Director Dan Coates, but he did not yet have a name. Now, we do.

This revelation comes out right after one about a wiretap on Paul Manafort during his one week as a Trump campaign official as well as the Awan family cutting a deal with the government. One cannot help but wonder if they are all connected or if the timing really is purely coincidence.

Of course, the next question we need to be answered is, “What roles did Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Barack Obama play in this?”

They are all FAR from innocent and if they were spying on a different party’s political campaign and using ANY of that info to their advantage, even now, someone NEEDS to go to jail.

The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday

Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible — and that person is not in the FBI.

For a private citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.

“The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,” a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.

The unmasking of Americans whose communications apparently were caught up in surveillance under the Obama administration is a key part of an investigation being led by Nunes, who has come under fire from Democrats for focusing on that aspect.

Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.

This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.

Obama’s Top ‘Spy’ Drops Bombshell About Trump

By Bob Unruh. It was only a few months ago that James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, issued a flat denial when asked if he knew of a FISA court order to wiretap the Trump campaign in 2016.

Now he’s abruptly changing his story, admitting that Trump could have been recorded on wiretaps.

Clapper said in an interview with CNN Wednesday night it’s possible that Trump was recorded as part of the government’s surveillance of Paul Manafort, who served briefly as Trump’s campaign manager.

Clapper continued to claim Wednesday that he wasn’t aware of a FISA warrant against Manafort.

But when asked by Don Lemon if it was “possible the president was picked up in a conversation with Paul Manafort,” Clapper said, “It’s certainly conceivable.” (Read more from “Obama’s Top ‘Spy’ Drops Bombshell About Trump” HERE) ble.” (Read more from “Obama’s Top ‘Spy’ Drops Bombshell About Trump” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Vindicated? Manafort Wiretapping Report Lends Credence to Claim

By Fox News. A new report that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was wiretapped under secret court order could bolster President Trump’s explosive March claim about surveillance under the previous administration, after months of media mockery.

The CNN report said the surveillance of Manafort continued into early 2017, covering the period before and after the November presidential election. This reportedly covered a stretch when Manafort was known to talk to Trump, though it’s unclear whether Trump’s discussions were ever picked up.

Also unclear is where the wiretapping occurred. Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, as well as a home in Alexandria, Va.

But the report has forced the media to give a second look at Trump’s widely derided claims this past March that former President Barack Obama had his “wires tapped” at Trump Tower. The hashtag “TrumpVindicated” was taking off on Twitter Tuesday morning. (Read more from “Trump Vindicated? Manafort Wiretapping Report Lends Credence to Claim” HERE) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/19/trump-vindicated-manafort-wiretapping-report-lends

Mayor of Lampedusa says his island is ‘collapsing’ because of Muslim migrant violence and crime

Muslim Immigration

Martello is right, and it’s only going to get worse, because everyone who calls attention to the devastation these migrants are causing is excoriated as a racist-islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot, as Martello himself will soon discover.

“Mayor of Lampedusa says the Italian island is ‘collapsing’ because of violence and crime committed by large numbers of migrants,” by Iain Burns, Mailonline, September 19, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):

The mayor of Lampedusa has that warned his Italian island is ‘collapsing’ after ‘threats, harassments and thefts’ caused by migrants from North Africa.

The tiny island in the Mediterranean has for years been a reception centre for hundreds of thousands of migrants heading into Europe.

It became world famous for its ‘welcome culture’ as the several thousand locals helped Africans who landed on the island’s shore after making the voyage from Libya and Tunisia.

But new mayor Salvatore Martello, who was re-elected in June, has said that Lampedusa ‘has to change’ its welcoming ways, according to Ansa news agency.

In an open letter, Martello said: ‘Threats, harassments, thefts, Lampedusa is about to collapse.’

He said police are ‘powerless’ and demanded the closure of the island’s ‘useless’ migrant centre.

The mayor also said that – ‘unfortunately’ – ‘asking migrants to respect the same rules that apply to Lampedusans and other Italian citizens, according to some people, means being “racist”.’

He also attacked migrants who had made the voyage from Africa, explaining: ‘The bars are full of Tunisians who are drunk and harass women.

‘I receive tens of messages from frightened tourists, hoteliers, traders and restaurateurs who suffer daily.’

He said there are ‘180 Tunisians in the center’ who are easily ‘circumventing’ security rules.

Giusi Nicolini – who was given the UNESCO peace prize for her ‘humanity’ in helping migrants – said: ‘This is an attempt to restore the climate of fear that existed on Lampedusa before my election’.

Lampedusa, he added, had been ‘abandoned’.

Martello’s predecessor, however, accused him of promoting panic and dismissed his worries as minor episodes….

‘Like a Slave:’ Three Muslim Women, at Least One of Them Bloodied, Called Police on Imran Awan

Multiple women in relationships with Imran Awan, the indicted former IT aide for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have recently called Virginia law enforcement and alleged being abused by him, police reports obtained under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act show.

Officers found one of the women bloodied and she told them she “just wanted to leave,” while the second said she felt like a “slave,” according to Fairfax County Police reports obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group. A third woman claimed she was being kept “in captivity.”

The third woman is Awan’s stepmother, Samina Gilani, who said in court documents that Awan invoked his authority as a congressional employee to intimidate immigrant women, in part by telling them he had the power to have people kidnapped.

All but two of the nearly two dozen Democratic women Awan worked for in the House declined to comment on the police reports. (Read more from “‘Like a Slave:’ Three Muslim Women, at Least One of Them Bloodied, Called Police on Imran Awan” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/like-slave-three-muslim-women-least-one-bloodied-called-police

Smoking Gun Evidence of Polling Fraud Against Trump

September 21, 2017/by James Simpson

The credibility of mainstream political polls took a serious hit following the 2016 election. Most predicted an easy victory for Hillary Clinton. The entire political class believed she was a shoo-in, and that the election would be a mere formality. But the polls and the pundits were wrong, glaringly so.

It appears they are wrong again, because they persist in making the same mistakes they have been making for years.

Most pollsters and pundits report that President Trump’s approval ratings are in the tank — consistently in the mid- to upper-30 percent range. His disapproval rates average a whopping 57 percent, according to the polls cited below.

The following table reveals why.

In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts. The Economist poll was the worst. Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats – which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans, as shown in the %D/R column. On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats. Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled.

This occurs because of the way these polls are constructed. Most use a methodology that queries a random sample of adults. That sounds “fair” and one would expect it to produce roughly equivalent numbers of Republicans and Democrats, but it does not.

All of these polls were taken in August except Gallup, which does not make public the political party composition of its polling samples. Gallup’s May poll — a three-day moving average — was listed instead because Gallup provided political party breakdown. Its latest poll, however, puts Trump’s approval/disapproval rate at 38 percent/56 percent, which isn’t much different from the May poll cited.

Gallup was contacted twice to provide demographic information for its latest poll, but refused to do so. One must question why one of the most widely quoted polling organizations does not allow people to easily discover the political party breakdown of poll respondents.

According to pollster John McLaughlin of McLaughlin Associates, using random samples of adults without further stratification tends to include more young people and females — both groups more likely to be Democrats. Because it is random, it may even include non-citizens. Using this survey methodology, Independents are more likely to poll like Democrats. By using the random sample method, pollsters know they will get a disproportionate number of Democrats and/or people who respond like Democrats, but since few people delve into the weeds to examine polling demographics, the polls are taken to be legitimate.

This is also the least expensive way to poll, providing another reason why so many polls skew the results to the left — independent of any deliberate bias.

Quoted in an article by the Daily Caller, Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica, an independent polling organization, said:

I do know inherently there is a Democratic bias in the polls. And most [pollsters] will deny it… Typically, the mainstream media and the major polling companies will never admit their bias to you. This is like an alcoholic not admitting to using alcohol. They are in denial.

Quoted in the same article, independent pollster John Zogby said, “I am a liberal Democrat, but I always felt that other polls over-sampled Democrats and under-sampled Republicans.”

A few polls query registered voters, which may eliminate non-citizens and improve the results somewhat. The Politico poll, for example, queries registered voters. It shows only a 4 percentage point spread between Republicans and Democrats and provides one of the highest Trump approval ratings of all polls listed in the table.

But this is not always a reliable measure, either. For example, the Economist poll claims to query “registered voters,” however, voter registration is not verified by directly questioning poll respondents. It is calculated using Census Bureau estimates of the overall registered voter population. So the veracity of the “registered voters” figure is questionable in this poll. Only 24 percent of respondents were Republicans, while 38 percent were Democrats.

Using registered voters is not the best measure, either, because many registered voters never actually vote. McLaughlin says that polling likely voters, while more expensive and time consuming, produces more accurate and representative poll numbers. Voter turnout in the last four elections averaged 32 percent Republican and 34 percent Democrat.

McLaughlin told me that any poll that departs significantly from those averages will bias the results.

As McLaughlin explains:

For example, in our recently completed national poll, Republicans approve the job the President is doing 90% to 8% disapprove. In contrast among Democrats only 17% approve of the President while 80% disapprove. So for each point you take away from a poll’s Republican affiliation, you’re taking a point away from the President’s job approval. Conversely, when you add five points more Democrats, you’re adding four points to the President’s disapproval. It’s that simple.

McLaughlin Associates uses likely voters, as does Rasmussen. Using this method, Trump’s approval ratings are significantly better, currently averaging 46 percent, while the disapproval rate is lower. Similarly, the breakdown of Republicans versus Democrats reflects how people would likely vote if an election were held today, as opposed to a random sample or even a sample of registered voters.

The left-wing bias embedded in most national polls also skews poll responses on virtually all partisan issues, giving an inaccurate reading of public sentiment on everything from taxes to school choice, from immigration to national defense.

McLaughlin says:

Not only does it affect [Trump’s] job rating and favorable rating, it also affects the policies and issues these polls purport to measure. Maybe this is why so many Republicans, Independents and Trump voters seem to disregard media polls. It appears the media is once again sacrificing its credibility for its liberal, anti-Trump bias.

The McLaughlin poll had many other results that should get Congress, and congressional leadership in particular, to sit up and take notice:

Only 21 percent believe congressional leadership is helping “drain the swamp.” Forty-nine percent said that congressional leadership supports the swamp.

Sixty-three percent believe House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be replaced.

Only 15 percent said they would support the reelection of Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell.
A majority of those who support Ryan and McConnell are Democrats.

More people (21 percent) support Antifa street thugs than Ryan and McConnell.

Forty-six percent are more likely to vote for their member of Congress if they support Trump’s immigrant vetting policies; 38 percent are more likely to vote for them if they don’t.

Fifty-two percent are more likely to vote for their member of Congress if the lawmaker supports Trump’s ban on transgenders in the military: 28 percent are less likely to vote for their member if the lawmaker supports transgenders in the military.

Fifty-six percent of voters favor repealing and replacing Obamacare; 39 percent oppose.

Fifty percent are less likely to vote for their member of Congress if the lawmaker refuses to repeal Obamacare mandates and taxes, while 36 percent are more likely to vote for their lawmaker.

Fifty-three percent of voters favor less government; only 32 percent want more.Congress recently held a hearing on curtailing free speech. The McLaughlin poll reveals that:

Eighty-five percent believe freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Only 9 percent believe it should be restricted when offensive.

Despite the fallout from Charlottesville, Virginia, 85 percent believe the Constitution supports the rights of everyone to freedom of speech, no matter how offensive. Only 8 percent believe it should be restricted.

Sixty-three percent oppose Antifa efforts to silence people they disagree with.

Forty-three percent oppose Internet companies using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate list.” This blacklist names many mainstream conservative groups the SPLC disagrees with politically.

Only 32 percent supported using the SPLC’s list.

This poll suggests that many more voters support conservative ideas and policies than mainstream media polls claim. Congress should take a very close look at this poll, because it is a much better indication of those policies and candidates a majority is likely to support. (For more from the author of “Mainstream Political Polls Commit Fraud” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/mainstream-political-polls-commit-fraud/

MYANMAR: Testimony from a young Buddhist monk, a Buddhist boy and his mother speak of the horrors inflicted on the Buddhist community by the Rohingya Muslims

Bengali Rohingya Muslims threaten Buddhists: “You Buddhists are infidels and if you don’t convert to Islam, we will kill you.” The young boy was nearly burned to death and Buddhist homes in the area are routinely set on fire…even today.

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=onK9GAnWXUg

Why Buddhists are driving out Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar:

SPEAK OUT against designated terrorist group CAIR’s efforts to create a false narrative about the systematic eviction of Rohingya Muslims by Buddhists from Myanmar

When will the media start telling you the truth about why the Rohingya Muslims are being ethnically cleansed from Myanmar (Burma) by the Buddhists?

MYANMAR Buddhists are accused of laying landmines on the Myanmar-Bangladesh border in order to keep the fleeing Muslims from coming back to Myanmar

OH, BOO HOO…Ignore all the media’s one-sided news about why the Rohingya Muslims are being forced to leave Myanmar

why-australia-and-thailand-refuse-to-take-in-any-rohingya-muslim-illegal-aliens-from-myanmar-burma

great-news-buddhists-are-succeeding-in-driving-muslims-out-of-myanmar-burma

myanmar-burma-buddhist-james-bond-is-single-handedly-fighting-his-countrys-biggest-enemy-muslims

myanmar-in-honor-of-the-oic-organization-of-islamic-cooperation-leaders-visit-muslims-rape-and-murder-more-very-young-buddhist-girls

RAPES-ATTACKS-AND-MURDERS-OF-BUDDHISTS-MUSLIMS-CREATE-THE-DISLIKE-OF-MUSLIMS

Share this news

Pennsylvania: DOJ & CAIR Force Mosque on Residential Bensalem Neighborhood Not Zoned for Houses of Worship

Source: Mosque To Be Built In Bensalem As Township Settles Lawsuit – Bensalem, PA Patch

BENSALEM, PA — The Justice Department and Bensalem Township have reached an agreement to resolve allegations that the township violated the law when it denied zoning approval for a mosque two years ago. As part of the agreement, the Bensalem Masjid will be permitted to build the mosque on Hulmeville Road.

The Bensalem Masjid sought to build a mosque on three adjoining parcels of land, but the application was denied by the Zoning Hearing Board after several public hearings in 2014.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the township in July 2016.

The complaint alleged that the Bensalem Township’s denial of a variance imposed a “substantial burden on the Bensalem Masjid’s religious exercise, treated the Bensalem Masjid less favorably than the township treated nonreligious assemblies and discriminated against the Bensalem Masjid on the basis of religion,” according to the Justice Department.

The lawsuit also alleged that the township placed “unreasonable limitations” on religious assemblies generally through its land use regulations.

The Township has also agreed to review and amend its zoning ordinance to comply with the requirements of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Additionally, the Township has agreed that it will advise its officials and employees about the requirements of RLUIPA, among other remedial measures.

A separate agreement resolving a similar lawsuit brought by the Bensalem Masjid against Bensalem Township has also been reached, according to information from the Justice Department.

More:  Jeff Sessions’ DOJ Just Secured An Islamic Group’s Right To Build A Mosque

At public hearings, zoning board members expressed concerns about parking and traffic, as well as the size of the proposed mosque, which is located in a residential area. DOJ argued these concerns were frivolous, especially in light of the fact that the board previously issued such variances to other religious groups and commercial interests.

Some 200 families belong to the congregation, called Bensalem Masjid, which currently rents space at a local fire hall. Members of the masjid say the space is insufficient to their liturgical and spiritual needs.

The town has granted another Muslim congregation, Faith Unity, a permit to build a mosque in the township.

Another successful zoning jihad battle won by terror-linked CAIR and their Muslim counterparts in the DOJ that will force a large mosque located in a residential area that was not zoned for house-of-worship.

PS: Before it becomes a mosque issue, it’s an immigration issue.

Please Share & Help Wake America Up

New York: Muslim arrested with weapons cache headed to Islamic compound is out on bail

Source: Gun bust defendant released on bond while awaiting trial in November

The Johnson City man facing 16 charges in a massive weapons bust was granted release on bond Tuesday, as he awaits a Nov. 13 trial in Broome County Court.

Ramadan Abdullah, 64, has pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging more than a dozen felonies connected to his arrest in June, which police described as being one of the area’s largest gun takedowns in recent memory.

Judge Kevin Dooley granted Abdullah’s release from jail on bond Tuesday, after defense lawyer Matthew Ryan presented the court with two Binghamton properties that would be put up for collateral.

Bail is used to ensure defendants will appear for trial and all pretrial hearings for which they must be present.

If Abdullah fails to appear in future court dates, the state could collect at least $50,000 through forfeiture of the two properties, which were put up for bond by a friend of the defendant.

Before granting the release, Dooley initially stated one of the properties by itself was not sufficient collateral, but he agreed to the bail bond when the second property was put forward.

The judge also warned Abdullah that pretrial and trial proceedings could be held in his absence if he fails to show up in court, even though he has a constitutional right to be present at his trial.

“I’m not giving up any of my constitutional rights,” Abdullah said in court Tuesday.

Pretrial hearings in the case will be held Oct. 6.

The grand jury indicted Abdullah on six felony counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, nine felony counts of third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and one misdemeanor count of petit larceny. If convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

Prosecutors say Abdullah was initially taken into custody May 31, after a shoplifting complaint at the Gander Mountain store in Johnson City. Nobody saw him steal anything, but police found him with suspected stolen ammunition.

On June 2, police found numerous illegal firearms and  about 10,000 rounds of ammunition ranging from .38-caliber to armor-piercing incendiary rounds as well during searches of storage units and other properties connected to Abdullah.

None of the firearms were registered to Abdullah, according to New York State Police Maj. James Barnes, and that alone made it illegal for him to possess them.

More details and a full listing of the weapons seized and Abdullah’s links to the Islamic compound in this previous Creeping Sharia post: New York: Muslim arrested with large weapons cache destined for terror-linked Islamic compound

A source inside MOA [Muslims of America ] says the weapons were intended for the group’s “Islamberg” headquarters in Hancock, NY.

Ramadan bin Abdullah is not to be confused with Ramadan Abdur Abdullah – also from Binghamton NY, Convicted of 1st Degree Murder of a Sheriff’s Deputy.

Minnesota authorities claim that motive of St. Cloud mall jihadi remains unclear

September 19, 2017 4:31 pm By Robert Spencer 26 Comments

Dahir Adan’s motive is abundantly clear from this article itself, yet law enforcement officials still apparently think that why Adan stabbed 10 shoppers at St. Cloud’s Crossroads Center remains a big mystery.

Well, let’s see.

1. He “plunged kitchen knives into 10 shoppers at St. Cloud’s Crossroads Center mall, after reportedly asking some if they were Muslim.’

2. The Islamic State hailed him as a “soldier of the Islamic State.” This, of course, may be jihadi opportunism, and reflect only on the Islamic State and not on Adan at all, but even if this comes from the Islamic State and not from Adan, it demonstrates that the Islamic State saw his attack as a plausible enough jihad to be worth claiming, while non-Muslim Minnesota officials are still scratching their heads.

3. He screamed “Allahu akbar” as he was stabbing his victims.

Nonetheless, “authorities still say they may never know what sparked Adan’s decision to bring two Farberware kitchen knives to the mall that night.”

Of course they may never know, because they don’t admit that there is an Islamic jihad in the first place.

Meanwhile, “Natalie Ringsmuth, who directs #UniteCloud, a nonprofit that has worked to ease cultural tensions,” laments that “the stabbing is still referenced by anti-Muslim activists.” Once again we see that for Leftists, Muslims are always the victims, no matter what the facts of the case may be.

“One year later, motive of St. Cloud mall attacker remains unclear,” by Stephen Montemayor, Star Tribune, September 17, 2017:

Two months before he plunged kitchen knives into 10 shoppers at St. Cloud’s Crossroads Center mall, after reportedly asking some if they were Muslim, Dahir Adan shared a radically different message on Twitter.

“Don’t ever say that ISIS represents Islam,” read part of a post @D_Adan retweeted on July 4, 2016.

That same terrorist group would deem the 20-year-old Adan a “soldier of the Islamic State” hours after he was gunned down by an off-duty police officer inside the mall on Sept. 17, 2016. The FBI, for its part, quickly labeled the case a “potential act of terrorism.”

But one year after Adan’s rampage, newly unsealed court filings detailing the FBI’s early response underline the difficulty that persists in trying to unwrap the young man’s motivation and determine whether he had any guidance from virtual terror planners abroad.

Days after sending more than 20 agents to St. Cloud to interview scores of witnesses, the FBI obtained search warrants for Adan’s social media accounts, the Toyota Camry he was driving when he struck a bicyclist on his way to the mall and four digital devices, according to court filings. But authorities still say they may never know what sparked Adan’s decision to bring two Farberware kitchen knives to the mall that night.

FBI special agent in charge Richard Thornton told reporters last year that the bright young college student may have been radicalized “almost overnight,” growing withdrawn and scolding relatives for not being more devout….

Authorities have not found contacts between Adan and operatives of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, instead pointing to witness statements that Adan shouted “Allahu akbar,” an Arabic phrase meaning “God is great,” and that he first asked some victims if they were Muslim before stabbing them….

An official ISIS magazine, Rumiyah, further lionized Adan as “our brother Dahir Adan” in its October 2016 publication, listing only the St. Cloud attack among its U.S. “operations” in an annual roundup of the group’s affiliated attacks worldwide. The publication described the stabbing victims as “kuffar,” or disbelievers, and published an image of paramedics tending to a victim outside the mall.

The same issue published an article recommending using knives in attacks because of their wide availability. But, perhaps in response to Adan’s attack, the group “explicitly advised” against kitchen knives “as their basic structure is not designed to handle the kind of vigorous application used for assassinations and slaughter.”

The group also wrote that it was “essential to leave some kind of evidence or insignia identifying the motive and allegiance” to ISIS — either a note pinned to a body or a recorded “final testament if the operation will be of a nature where the expected outcome is one’s shahadah,” or death….

A family friend who declined to be identified for this story said that one year later, he still “didn’t have a clue” as to what happened to Adan….

The opacity of Adan’s case has been difficult for St. Cloud, said Natalie Ringsmuth, who directs #UniteCloud, a nonprofit that has worked to ease cultural tensions. Ringsmuth said the stabbing is still referenced by anti-Muslim activists visiting the city, as recently as last week. Meanwhile, she said not knowing whether Adan was indeed radicalized has curbed the opportunity to discuss preventing a similar episode….