Obama Pops Up In Germany For G20 Acting Like The President, Trump Has THIS Reaction…

Jul 8, 2017 by William Smith

In the middle of President Donald Trump is doing a masterful job in Germany today meeting with world leaders and forging deals to make America great again, his predecessor went into total meltdown. Barack Obama can’t handle passing his coveted power over to a capable person who’s for America, so he decided to try to take over and do his hardest to derail Trump at the G-20 Summit with the disgusting thing he did behind his back when he showed up unexpectedly in Hamburg. Obama has been obsessed with relinquishing the power from Trump that he enjoyed as president for two terms too long. He’s so vindictive that he simply does things to screw with Donald Trump and make his job hard as we saw on our president’s first overseas trip and now again on his second one where Obama appears to have stepped up his juvenile game. It’s bad enough that the Obamas take endless vacations with an army of protection surrounding them at all times that’s paid for by the American people, but Barack has now added insult to that injury. Instead of keeping to himself on his ongoing Indonesian vacation and allowing the American people the opportunity to forget him, he just insulted the nation he formerly led for eight years by going on a destructive apology tour while Trump is standing up for the U.S. at the G-20 Summit, which the Obamas never did. If that wasn’t disgusting enough, what else he did behind Donald and Melania’s backs is a truly foul move. It’s no secret that Obama loves to protect the so-called “religion of peace” which aims to destroy Western life as we know it. He used part of his vacation to perpetuate his apology to Muslims for the way Americans see them, during a disgusting speech he gave in Jakarta about “religious tolerance.” Completely overlooking the fact that Jakarta’s Christian Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama was recently imprisoned by Islamic forces who accused him of blasphemy, Obama had the audacity to criticize the United States for our supposed “religious injustice” in the midst of actual injustice in the very place he was delivering his stinging remarks. Obama called on the world to confront “discrimination against people based on race or ethnicity or religion,” so long as it only protected followers of Islam, not Christianity. “If we don’t stand up for tolerance and moderation and respect for others, if we begin to doubt ourselves and all that we have accomplished, then much of the progress that we have made will not continue,” Obama said. “What we will see is more and more people arguing against democracy, we will see more and more people who are looking to restrict freedom of the press, and we’ll see more intolerance, more tribal divisions, more ethnic divisions, and religious divisions, and more violence.” While his words sound like he’s pushing something positive, his apology about America’s actions suggested the complete opposite. “The world is at a crossroads,” he said. According to the Hill, the former president spoke against pursuing national interests to the detriment of the international community. The implication that President Trump was doing exactly such a thing was made explicit when Obama criticized “the temporary absence of American leadership” on climate change while riffing on nationalism, Conservative Report reported. “We start seeing a rise in sectarian politics, we start seeing a rise in an aggressive kind of nationalism, we start seeing both in developed and developing countries an increased resentment about minority groups and the bad treatment of people who don’t look like us or practice the same faith as us,” Obama said. After these insulting remarks made about not just our president, but Jakarta’s Governor as well, Obama doubled down on his resentful reaction to Trump being president with what he did to him in Germany ahead of G-20. It was reported on Thursday that the first couple couldn’t find luxury accommodations in Hamburg and now it’s come out that this was likely the work of Obama to try to deter the president from a successful trip. Young Conservatives reports: “Donald Trump is in Hamburg, Germany for the G-20 summit and apparently he wasn’t able to get a hotel room at one of the top 5 star hotels.” “The media has been joking around about how dumb Trump is but, as usual, they are leaving out a key piece of information.” “The hotels were already booked on Election Day.” “Which means, it was up to Obama to make sure that the next president was set up.” While he will likely make is sound like a simple oversight, it was probably and intentional move since Barack Obama has proven to not be above these childish punishments to his replacement. It would have been the right things to do for the current administration to make sure everything was in place for their replacement, but details like that were not important to Obama when he found out Trump was taking office and not Hillary Clinton. “The White House is blaming the Obama administration for leaving President Donald Trump without a proper hotel during this week’s G20 summit,” Daily Mail reports. “Every top-shelf lodging was already booked by the time the Trump White House began making inquiries – but that, two White House officials say, is because their predecessors never booked rooms for an American delegation.” “The funny thing,” a second Trump White House official said Friday, “is that the U.S. delegation probably also wouldn’t have had hotel rooms if Hillary Clinton had become president. It was already too late by Election Day. Trump still defeated Obama’s best efforts and found “room at the inn” because he has more pull overseas than his predecessor. However, that didn’t stop the mainstream media from slandering Trump on this by saying he wasn’t prepared.

Dutch hide 10,000 refugees crimes

Muslim Immigration

As if hiding the crimes will change anything. As if pretending that reality is not real, it will change the terrible fate that awaits these countries that opened up their borders to mass Muslim immigration.

Instead of deporting these lawless savages, they hide their crimes. And it’s not just Holland — this is a pattern in countries across Europe. From the massive Muslim child sex trafficking gangs in the UK to the mass sex attacks across Germany and other European countries on New Year’s Eve, law enforcement agencies scrub, censor and sanction the rampant crime of Muslim immigrants.

The report Dutch Police tried to hide: almost 10.000 refugees suspected of (organised) crimes in 2015 and 2016 alone

Vincent van den Born, The Old Continent, June 30, 2017:

A Dutch police report that was supposed to remain hidden from the public now unveils that in 2015 and 2016 there are 104 cases of status-holders suspected of serious crimes, like armed robbery and sex offences. Furthermore, 183 are repeat offenders, while 9300 of them are suspected of committing a single offence.

What makes this worse, is that large groups of asylum seekers seem to be part of organised crime groups, that trek from country to country, stealing on order. One case in the files describes groups of ‘refugees’ leaving their accommodations at 03:00 every night, presumably for criminal activities. Police describe finding lists with orders for things to steal. Over the first nine months of 2016, police reported 663 cases of theft, and 302 cases of crimes against personal integrity, ranging from spitting in people’s faces and insults to sexual assault and rape from this particular group of asylum seekers alone. That is disregarding the 200 incidents every month that require police attention, without leading to charges being made.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) often decides not to prosecute, so the deportation process isn’t interfered with by a court-case. But with asylum seekers not getting deported, or only getting deported after a considerable period of time, this means that crimes go unpunished, while the criminal is allowed to stay.

Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf today published a bombshell article about the staggering number of crimes committed by so-called ‘status-holders’, asylum seekers seeking refugee status in the Netherlands (original reports here). The newspaper, which the police had previously attempted to bribe to silence the story, says it now has binders full of crime statistics on this specific group.

Reading the documents, journalists were astonished at what they read. Police officers freely tell how big the problem is – and what groups are mostly responsible.

After a tip-off, it took De Telegraaf months to get this information from the National Police Force. It took a court case to get the police to even acknowledge it had collected this information, and the existence of a special taskforce to deal with the situation.

Just on the national level between 2015 and 2016, disregarding information gathered by local police departments, there are 104 cases of status-holders suspected of serious crimes, like armed robbery and sex offences. Furthermore, 183 are repeat offenders, while 9300 of them are suspected of committing a single offence. These are all people that applied for refugee status in 2015 and 2016, 16% out of a total of 60.000 people.

It turns out, most of these ‘refugees’ are actually originating from so-called ‘safe countries’ and have no actual chance of being given refugee status. Yet, deporting them is difficult, if not technically impossible.

To make matters worse, even if the police are able to catch the criminals – which is not a given – the ‘refugee’ is still not guaranteed a sentence. The Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) often decides not to prosecute, so the deportation process isn’t interfered with by a court-case. But with asylum seekers not getting deported, or only getting deported after a considerable period of time, this means that crimes go unpunished, while the criminal is allowed to stay.

In a report from the end of 2016, the task force writes that

“The question is if not prosecuting the cases is desirable when the suspect cannot be deported immediately, and will thus freely stay in the Netherlands untill his deportation. “

What makes this worse, is that large groups of asylum seekers seem to be part of organised crime groups, that trek from country to country, stealing on order. One case in the files describes groups of ‘refugees’ leaving their accommodations at 03:00 every night, presumably for criminal activities. Police describe finding lists with orders for things to steal. The numbers point to the size of the problem. Over the first nine months of 2016, police reported 663 cases of theft, and 302 cases of crimes against personal integrity, ranging from spitting in people’s faces and insults, to sexual assault and rape from this particular group of asylum seekers alone. That is disregarding the 200 incidents every month that require police attention, without leading to charges being made.

The article, published early on 30 June, has already gotten the attention of Dutch politicians. MP Maarten Groothuizen (D66) reacted upset:

“If there are problems, we need to know that. I don’t see any reason to hide important records, because then we can’t deal with the problem. There is always a place for real refugees in the Netherlands, but we have to be tough on those that cause a racket. Criminals and those causing trouble should always be dealt with.“

By Jiri and Leni Friedman Valenta

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 500, June 17, 2017

“…if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.”
– Sun Tzu

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: “America will not lead from behind. America First does not mean America alone. It is a commitment to protecting and advancing our vital interests…” So wrote President Donald Trump’s NSA, General H.R. McMaster, with Gary Cohn, head of the National Economic Council, in the Wall Street Journal. What follows is a discussion of US leaders’ failed strategies in several wars, Trump’s team of generals, and the emerging Trump doctrine, which is here termed “strategic savvy”.

1964 Vietnam War; “Lies that Led to Vietnam”

Bullet-headed Lt. General H.R. McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, is not just a brave warrior. Like his mentor, General David Petraeus, he is a prominent military intellectual. Both men wrote their PhD dissertations on the lessons of Vietnam. In The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam, Petraeus concluded, “…significant emphasis should be given to counterinsurgency forces, equipment and doctrine.” McMasters’s thesis, Dereliction of Duty, addressed the roles of LBJ and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. His subtitle was “Lies that Led to Vietnam.”

On August 4, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was pushed through Congress authorizing military action against North Vietnam as “vital” to US national interests. It sought to punish Hanoi for an allegedly unprovoked attack by three torpedo boats on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin. In fact, it had not been unprovoked; the US had made repeated prior attacks on the North Vietnamese coast.

The major reason for the American war against North Vietnam, asserts McMaster, was the then-upcoming 1964 presidential election. To Johnson, the prime enemy that summer was not the North Vietnamese but his GOP opponent, Barry Goldwater, who had accused the president of being soft on communism. In response, LBJ and McNamara misrepresented the facts and the pretext for sending US ground forces to Vietnam, and deliberately concealed the costs of war. McNamara’s thinking was shaped by his “whiz kids,” DOD civilian nerds, who lacked combat experience and arrogantly believed quantitative statistical analysis could compensate for their deficits in geopolitics, history, and military strategy.

Boasting that he had won his election “bigger than anybody had won ever,” LBJ endorsed McNamara’s strategy of gradual pressure on Hanoi, seeking to wear it down by “attrition.” To McMaster, this was “not a strategy but a lack of it … reinforcing arrogance, weakness, lying in the pursuit of self-interest and above all dereliction of duty to the American people.”

2001 War of Necessity in Afghanistan

In this century, the one war the US won – at least in its initial stage – was Afghanistan. There, following the 9/11 attack on the US homeland, President George Bush defended America’s vital national interests. Nor was this a regular DoD operation by the US army. US forces consisted of CIA operators, Special Forces, and an anti-Taliban Afghan resistance, the Northern Alliance. The 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade was also involved, commanded by the current Defense Secretary, then Major General James Mattis, USMC. In addition, the US was given logistical help by Russian President Vladimir Putin, then Bush’s strategic partner. Within three months, the US had defeated its foe, liberated Kabul, and changed the regime.

2003 War of Choice in Iraq  

But afterwards, as Paula Broadwell observed, the initial brilliant success in Afghanistan “was squandered when the US marched headlong into Iraq in early 2003.” Instead of finishing the war of necessity in Afghanistan, Washington entered into a war of choice with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein – who had had nothing to do with 9/11.

Why? In the words of historian Jean Edward Smith, the president tried to sell the war on the basis of “the flimsy notion that he was removing a potential threat to the United States” because Saddam might have WMD. That threat proved to be nonexistent. In addition, as a born-again Christian, Bush believed he was divinely guided to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

On August 4, 2002, the 38th anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Senator Chuck Hagel, a distinguished Vietnam veteran, told Congress, “We didn’t ask any questions before we got into Vietnam … this is why it’s important to do so now.” Two senior members of Bush’s team did so: Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, who questioned the costs of war in Iraq; and Secretary of State General (ret.) Colin Powell, who prophesied ethnic divisions and insurgency. Both were subsequently marginalized by the Bush administration.

Like McNamara, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his two principal assistants, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, lacked the combat experience necessary to make sound military decisions. In the end, the one who did have it – Powell – was proven right. He and Bob Richer, then head of the CIA’s Middle East Division, also blamed Bush’s NSA, Condoleezza Rice, for the subsequent attempt at instant democratic nation-building. As Richer explained, “Rice’s vision that Iraq had to look like us overnight was catastrophic.” The president, he observed, “was a realist, but he listened to her and was swayed.”

US forces were sufficient to topple Saddam following a major invasion. But instead of liberating the Iraqis, the Americans became hated occupiers. This gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, during which the US fired the Iraqi military without setting up a stipend program for the soldiers and their families (thus compelling them to subsist on nothing for five long weeks). The US then fired all Baath Party members down to Level 4 without any agreed reconciliation process. This gave tens of thousands of influential Iraqis – often Western-educated – an incentive to oppose the new Iraq rather than support it.

In the ensuing struggle over leadership, a virtual civil war erupted between Sunnis and Shiites, with Kurds in the mix as well – not to mention al-Qaeda, which was rising in the Sunni community in Iraq. The unfinished war in Afghanistan and the unending, Vietnam-like quagmire in Iraq produced two growing insurgencies.

The Surge of Petraeus and his “Shipmate” Mattis

Before he became, in early February 2007, Commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus worked with Mattis to lead a prominent team of US Army and Marine experts on an Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Referred to as “King David’s Bible,” this manual became an outstanding social science study of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, as well as a guide to how to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis (and Afghans).

Those principles and techniques were applied by the forces under Petraeus in Iraq for over 19 months in 2007-08. The Surge, as the effort was known (due to the deployment of well over 25,000 additional American forces), ushered in a new strategy that was a 180-degree shift from the previous one, which had been assessed as failing in December 2006 by then-commander and ambassador Ryan Crocker.

The result was an 85% reduction in the level of violence and significant progress in a host of areas. President Bush deserves enormous credit for supporting the deployment of additional forces and for backing Petraeus and Crocker.

In late 2011, after some three years of further progress and additional reductions in violence, President Barack Obama decided to withdraw the remaining US combat forces and the last four-star US commander, leaving only a modest training mission.  He reportedly was concerned that there would not be an Iraqi parliament-approved Status of Forces Agreement. Iraqi PM Maliki subsequently pursued ruinous sectarian measures – orchestrating legal charges against the Sunni Arab Vice President and his security detail, and later targeting the Sunni Arab Finance Minister and a prominent Sunni Arab parliamentarian. He returned to Iraqi military and police units abusive Iraqi leaders whom General Petraeus had insisted be removed before US support would be provided, then had those forces put down peaceful Sunni demonstrations very violently. He stopped honoring agreements to provide various forms of assistance to tens of thousands of former Sunni insurgents who had reconciled with the government during the Surge.

Tragically, these actions undid much of what coalition and Iraqi forces had sacrificed to achieve, and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq began to rise again. Islamic State arose out of the ashes of the defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq.

2011: Obama‘s Leading from Behind in Libya

In 2011, to make matters even worse, Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, began to militate for yet another war, this time in Libya at the height of the “Arab Spring.” They did not heed Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s strenuous objections that it did not encompass “our vital national interests,” especially amidst two ongoing wars in the Middle East. Nor did Obama consider the war’s costs. Once again, the naysayer was ignored. Nine days later, Gates resigned.

Like LBJ and McNamara in Vietnam and Bush and Rice in Iraq, Obama and Clinton engaged in deceit about the real purpose of the war. Clinton argued that a NATO intervention was urgently needed to avert a massacre of Libyan civilians by Muammar Qaddafi’s troops. But her subsequently hacked e-mails substantiated that the real objective was regime change in the service of democratic nation-building.

After the rebels murdered Qaddafi, Libya, like Iraq earlier, became a paradise for tribal fighters and jihadists, and there ensued a significant flow of migrants to Europe. None of this chastened Clinton. She began to support secretly arming the Syrian rebels in a proxy war with both its dictator Assad and his patron, Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Obama’s Strategic Patience  

On June 11, 2011, Obama announced that he would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of December 2011 and the rest of the 30,000-member surge force by July 2012 (i.e., before the Democratic Party convention). Once again there arose a troublesome naysayer.

General David Petraeus objected to the premature withdrawal. Aware as he was of the actual situation on the ground, he was adamant that the projected timing of the draw-down would jeopardize the progress made in the previous year of the surge in Afghanistan. Obama was forced to compromise, but did not forget Petraeus.

Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff and one of the president’s loyalists, suspected that Petraeus was contemplating his own presidential run in 2016. It did not help that Petraeus emphatically told Emmanuel he wasn’t. Two days after the 2012 presidential election, Petraeus resigned his post as CIA director because of an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. (The mishandling of classified information did not surface until months later.) When historian Smith queried “whether the Obama administration had taken advantage of his affair to cut his head off,” Petraeus smiled, but did not reply.

Towards Strategic Savvy

If there is any solace for Washington’s numerous follies in the Middle East, it is Donald Trump’s selection of an outstanding national security team: Mattis, McMaster, and General John Kelly (Homeland Security). With Trump’s election, America saw the dawn of a new doctrine to replace “strategic patience,” leading from behind, and the absence of strategy. We call the new approach “strategic savvy,” meaning the judicious use of military force, diplomacy, and economic instruments. Petraeus describes it as a “comprehensive and sustainable commitment” in defense of American vital national interests. The president and his security team seek to overturn policies that have produced only failed states, Islamist-fed chaos, growing terrorist attacks in Europe, and catastrophic debt.

We have witnessed the first actions defining this emerging doctrine. On April 7, 2017, US navy destroyers carried out a missile strike on a Syrian airfield in retribution for Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his subjects. A tactical move, it bore profound strategic significance, since it used judicious force to accomplish what Obama had failed to do in 2013 despite his own declared red line. So did the dropping of the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB, or Massive Ordnance Air Blast), the largest conventional bomb in the US arsenal, on ISIS fighters in Afghanistan on April 14.

Facing what Mattis has called a “clear and present danger” from North Korea, Trump’s team did not put the problem off in the manner of the past three US administrations. He is meeting it head on with an unprecedented deployment of three carrier groups with massive naval and air power. This is intended to send a clear message on the need to stop a maniacal leader from accomplishing a nuclear weaponization and delivery system that could eventually reach American shores. President Trump has communicated this need to Chinese President Xi very clearly as well. The era of Obama’s “strategic patience” is finally over.

Future presidents should consider replicating Trump’s placement of national security responsibilities in the hands of individuals with combat experience. America’s future leaders should be men and women with such experience combined with intellectual prowess.

In the meantime, the saga continues. Americans are transfixed by Russo-gate, much as they were by Watergate. President Trump’s political opponents seek to undo the results of the 2016 election by painting him as Putin’s Manchurian candidate.

Trump should now do what Obama did not: pardon Petraeus, whom Gates called “one of the nation’s great battle captains.” As Senator Rand Paul observed, Petraeus showed his personal journals, which did contain classified material, to only one person, an Army reserve intelligence officer with a top secret clearance. Her book was thoroughly checked for classified information and any sensitive political items by the then head of West Point’s Social Sciences Department, Colonel Mike Meese. The negligent Hillary Clinton, still unpunished, revealed classified material to the multitudes through her unsecured server.

Petraeus sympathizes with the beleaguered Trump’s predicament, but only to a certain extent. Like the authors, he realizes that Trump, a novice at presidential politics, has made big mistakes and then repeated them, making things worse.

In his final address as a general, Petraeus quoted Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 Men in the Arena speech. The words are now surely applicable to both of them:

It is not the critic who counts … the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood … who errs and comes up short again and again … but who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotions, who spends himself for a triumph of high achievement and … if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

The authors are indebted to General David Petraeus for his comments and suggestions.

VIEW PDF

Dr. Jiri Valenta and his wife, Leni, are the principals of The Institute of Post Communist Studies and Terrorism (jvlv.net). They are authors of a forthcoming book on Russia and US interventions in the 21st century. A prominent author and speaker, Jiri served for decade as a professor and coordinator of Soviet and East European Studies at the US Naval Post-Graduate School and former consultant to senior members of Reagan administration.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 520, July 6, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The July 2015-February 2017 interviews with Vladimir Putin by US filmmaker Oliver Stone, now streaming on Showtime, provide surprising insights into the mind of the Russian leader. “We like President Trump,” Putin admits, recalling that during the election campaign Trump was open to a new relationship with Moscow. Further progress was stalled by Russo-gate. Trump should not buy Putin’s reasons for his Ukrainian and Syrian interventions, but would be wise to be open to renewing a limited partnership with Russia against Islamic terrorism and Pyongyang’s rogue regime. 

2016 Russo-gate and 2012 America-gate

President Trump must remind the Russian leader that his election intervention denials have been exposed as false, as US intelligence was able to record his June 2016 orders to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. However, he should also address Putin’s charges that twice – during the 2000 and particularly the 2012 Russian elections – Washington aggressively rallied the opposition and funded anti-Putin events. Putin also accuses US diplomats of supporting, controlling, and funding NGOs seeking to influence the outcome of elections. He thus implies that his interference in the 2016 US elections was payback of sorts.

“Dostoevsky character”

Henry Kissinger has described Putin as a “cold calculator of Russia’s national interest” and a “Dostoevsky character.” Indeed, much like Dostoevsky, the Russian president underwent a Kafkaesque metamorphosis from young, progressive revolutionary to conservative thinker and fierce defender of empire and orthodoxy. Stone makes clear, however, that he does not know what to make of Putin’s repeated references to God or his stance as defender of the Orthodox faith, which the Russian leader addresses when he takes him into his private chapel at his dacha.

In fact, Putin has genuinely embraced God, Russian orthodoxy, nationalism, and patriotism – but is humble about it. “I didn’t make the church popular … it was done by the Russian people,” he says. “The communist ideology ceased to exist and there was an ideological vacuum. The vacuum could be filled by nothing else but religion.”

Repudiation of chaotic Gorbachev-Yeltsin reforms

After the 1989 East German revolution, Putin, based in Dresden as a KGB lieutenant colonel, returned to his native city, St. Petersburg. At that time, Moscow maverick Boris Yeltsin and Putin’s former law professor, Anatoly Sobchak, were unleashing revolution from below in the form of free elections and economic reforms. Putin helped Sobchak become the city’s mayor and served as his deputy for foreign economic relations. He can thus raise a glass with Trump on the common ground of economics, investment, and trade. (It will have to be a non-alcoholic toast, as neither of them drinks.)

During the August 1991 coup, Putin joined Yeltsin and Sobchak in fighting the Communist putschists and resigned from the KGB. “I didn’t agree with the actions undertaken by the Communists in the attempted coup against Gorbachev,” he says. Moving to Moscow in 1996, he worked for Yeltsin in his legal department, finally becoming head of the FSB, the KGB’s successor. When Yeltsin became ill, he appointed Putin, known for his hard work and loyalty, as prime minister and then as acting president. “In four years I was acting president,” Putin recalls. It was “an incredible story.”

Eventually Putin concluded, however, that privatization and the transformation of Russia to capitalism under Yeltsin were too chaotic. Thus, he came to preside over state capitalism and a highly controlled market economic system. Trump should not be confused by Putin’s skillful selling of Russia as a genuine democracy. It is not.

“Russia should think about joining NATO”

An important issue covered in Stone’s interviews is how the new Cold War began. “In the 1990s,” Putin says, “we assumed the Cold War was over.” He recalls half-jokingly telling President Bill Clinton that “Russia should think about joining NATO.” Clinton responded, “Why not? I think it’s possible.” But when Clinton brought up the idea with his team, “They were bewildered and frightened.” Putin himself began to have misgivings. He ultimately concluded that “There are only two opinions in NATO: the American opinion and the wrong opinion.”

Nevertheless, Trump should explore closer cooperation between Moscow and NATO. Can the partnership with Russia that prevailed during the early George W. Bush years in Afghanistan be restored? And if so, how?

Against regime change

The above question must begin with an examination of American follies in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Like Trump, Putin did not agree with the US intervention in Iraq. “We had exact data there were no WMDs whatsoever in Iraq,” he says. “The most depressing thing is to change the regimes in that part of the world with the hope the next day there will be American-style democracy.”

Americans were happy when the Libyan dictator was killed in 2011, but, as in Iraq, the war in that country became a catastrophe. Before Qaddafi’s death, there were few terrorists in Libya – but they came in as US-armed rebels, some of whom were jihadists, gained control of the country. Something similar could have happened in Syria, but the 2015 Kremlin intervention saved Assad from Qaddafi’s fate.

Putin, McCain, and “Carthago delenda est”

John McCain will be shocked if he watches the Stone interviews. Putin reveals another side of his character when he professes to like the perennial hawk. “I like him because of his patriotism, and I can relate to his consistencies in his own fighting for the interests of his country.”

Putin cites the motto of Marcus Porcius Cato, the elder of ancient Rome: “Cartego delenda est [Carthage must be destroyed].” The wars between Rome and Carthage, he explains, were exploited by barbarians who took advantage of the feud and eventually succeeded in destroying Rome. The lesson? “If these cities had not fought one another and had agreed on fighting a common enemy … they would have both survived.”

By citing history in this way, Putin again makes the case for a new partnership with America. “We’ve been supporting the US fight for independence. We were allies in WWI and WWII,” he says. “Right now there are common threats we are both facing like international terrorism [the modern barbarians].”

Why Putin didn’t conclude a 2016 Syria agreement with Obama

The agreement on Syria with the Obama administration was that the two powers were supposed to perform strikes jointly there on designated terrorist targets. Putin blames the US for giving up on the agreement for political reasons. He also maintains that Moscow held discussions with the Obama administration on resolving the Syrian crisis, only to conclude in October 2016 that time had run out. The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs would talk instead to the incoming US administration.

The “art of the deal” on Ukraine

Trump should not take seriously Putin’s explanation that the intervention in Georgia happened simply because of the aggressiveness of Georgian leader Saakashvili . This is only part of the story. Nor should he buy Putin’s convoluted expositions on the conflicts in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, both of which began with Russian military intervention. Trump should lift western sanctions only if Putin volunteers to withdraw his forces from Ukraine and to recognize its territorial integrity and neutrality.

On Israel and the Jews

Putin is perhaps the first Russian leader in history who is not anti-Semitic. He knows that some 40% of Israel’s Jews or their ancestors hail from Russia. He compares the initiators of Russo-gate to anti-Semites who always blame the Jews for their own failures. He clearly does not support the Palestinians, recalling former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s words: “Mr. President, right now you are in a region where no one can ever be trusted on any matter.”

For Trump it is America First. For Putin, it is Russia First

The crescendo of the interviews comes when Stone argues that he himself is neither pro-American nor pro-Russian; he is pro-peace. Putin lectures the Hollywood leftist, “…You’re a man of peace. And I am pro-Russian … You are too anti-American, and I don’t want to be dragged into it.” Clearly this is a message for Trump that Putin understands his strategy of “America First.” Trump defends his country’s vital national interests, and so does Putin. Russia First! The art of the deal is to reconcile the interests the two powers have in common. This will not be easy.

The North Korean crisis makes partnership with Russia a necessity

Putin does not reveal the details of his phone conversations with Trump on North Korea, which launched its first ICBM on America’s Independence Day. This move will likely be met by a strong, perhaps military, response by the US. But no matter what response Trump chooses, he will need Beijing’s and Moscow’s strong cooperation on both North Korea and Syria.

Trump should use his skills at the art of deal-making to end the new Cold War with Putin. America and Russia need each other.

View PDF

Dr. Jiri Valenta is a noted expert on Russia, the US, national security, and terrorism. Author of Soviet Intervention in Czechoslovakia 1968 and co-editor and contributor to Soviet Decision-making for National Security, he is a former tenured associate professor and coordinator of Soviet and East European Studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is indebted to his partner and wife, Leni Friedman Valenta, editor-in-chief of jvlv.net and CEO of the Institute of Post Communist Studies and Terrorism, with whom he recently published Washington and Moscow: Confrontation or Cooperation? at the BESA Center.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Jul 8 2017

What was the one thing that every world leader, except for Donald Trump, did at the G20 Summit in Germany?

Remember when candidate Donald Trump said he would ALWAYS put America first, no matter how many people and countries it might offend?

As is customary, members of the G-20 Summit are gifted with a special ‘globalist’ lapel pin to wear for the duration of the meeting in Hamburg. But Trump refused. Instead he opted to wear the lapel pin he always wears – the American flag. 

www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/trump-g20-pin.png?resize=800%2C418" alt="" width="590" height="308" />

Everything Trump does is different from what we’ve become accustomed to, including the unapologetic ‘America First’ message he sent to the world. A message that was captured in a photo of Trump surrounded by a crowd of G20 lapel pins.

www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/595fdf9dbad54133f04a0850.jpeg?resize=780%2C520" alt="" width="590" height="393" />

Share this news

This is why you should NEVER ever allow a mosque to open in your neighborhood

No matter what Muslim supremacists tell you when they are trying to gain approval for a mosque, they’ll never tell you about the noise pollution they create for the neighborhood once they move in.  

Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HAQfG3wbY

It’s called the Islamic Call to Prayer and its highly amplified so it can be heard within a 20-block radius FIVE time a day, beginning at the break of dawn. Imagine being awakened to this eardrum-shattering, offensive shrieking everyday. And you’ll be forced to listen to it FIVE times a day. During Ramadan, the final Call to Prayer is often well after midnight. Muslims don’t need to hear a Call to Prayer to know what time to pray. This is just a display of Islamic supremacism, especially in a Judeo-Christian country.

Share this news

Maine: 8 women treated for complications related to female genital mutilation, incl 2 minors

( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! )

There are thousands of FGM victims in Maine because Maine is a dumping ground for Muslim refugees mostly from Somalia. Why are we importing this madness?

Source: Maine’s state legislature shot down a bill that would criminalize female genital mutilation

Eight women in Maine have been treated for complications related to female genital mutilation (FGM), including two minors, according to 2016 MaineCare records.

Local FGM legislation has been introduced in states across the country, and in Maine it was presented by State Representative Heather Sirocki. Her bill would make it a Class B crime to perform FGM on a female under 18 years of age for non-medical purposes or for a parent, guardian, or caretaker to allow FGM to be done on a girl in their custody.

State Rep. Sirocki said, “We know that FGM has been treated here in the state of Maine because I have the MaineCare billing codes and information to prove it.”

The bill, LD745 “An Act to Prohibit Female Genital Mutilation,” had six amendments submitted from the state House and Senate, but ultimately failed in a 74-73 vote on June 23.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Maine said FGM legislation is not worth expanding the criminal code. They released a statement saying, “This bill is nothing more than an attempt to single out behavior that is commonly attributed to certain religious and ethnic communities as different from other forms of abuse.”

“Opposition has to do more with questioning my character, the character of some of the people supporting the bill, and our intentions and motivations as being related to a hate bill,” Sirocki said. “I would say to them they are correct – I hate child abuse. So if that’s their angle, I take issue with that, and would again strongly state that little girls are being horribly abused under the name of a cultural tradition that we do not support here in this country.”

“We believe FGM is a serious problem in Maine but believe that the solutions are not as straight forward as those proposed in the bill,” said Cara Courchesne, the Communications Director with the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault in a statement.

“Currently, many legal experts believe that FGM is already illegal in Maine, under the broader heading of aggravated assault (Aggravated Assault: “Bodily injury to another that causes serious, permanent disfigurement or loss or substantial impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.’)”

There has been a larger focus on FGM since three medical professionals were arrested in Michigan for performing FGM on little girls, some of whom were brought to Michigan from Minnesota. This was the first instance where federal files were charged relating to FGM being performed on a child, and it sparked awareness across the country. Wednesday, two mothers in Michigan were charged with FGM conspiracy and FGM.

Federal legislation was passed making FGM illegal in 1997 and 24 states have passed local legislation to supplement the federal law. Since the case in Michigan, many states including Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Maine have introduced state legislation to either strengthen their local laws, or protect young girls from parents or guardians in favor of FGM, and the people performing the procedure.

“If it is happening, we want it to stop. And we want to send that clear message that we do not do that here in this country,” Sirocki said.

The Maine Prosecutors Association came out strongly in favor of this bill, to clarify and specifically identify this as a crime, with a clear level of crime attributed to both the person doing the cutting as well as the parents who are accomplices.

“If it is happening, we want it to stop. And we want to send that clear message that we do not do that here in this country,” Sirocki said.

The Maine Prosecutors Association came out strongly in favor of this bill, to clarify and specifically identify this as a crime, with a clear level of crime attributed to both the person doing the cutting as well as the parents who are accomplices.

Please Share & Help Wake America Up

Pennsylvania: Resolution to Halt 143-acre State Property Sale to Shady Islamic Org

 (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PUMK13QmhM

( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! )

Sent from a concerned reader in PA.

Pa. State Rep. Aaron Bernstine makes his case about why the Department of General Services should halt the sale of a piece of property in Lawrence County due to a suspicious bidding process.

More details in our previous post Pennsylvania: Lawmakers Ask Gov to Void 143-acre Property Sale to Shady Islamic Org.

Rumor has it that the Governor of Pennsylvania is allowing this shady sale which appears to involve collusion with and within the shady Muslim group.

If anyone has more details, please share in the comments.

At least 61 “refugees” to U.S. engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016

( Muslims do not,assimilate! They infiltrate! )

Source: U.S. refugee program stained by dozens of terror attacks

Leo Hohmann

At least 61 people who came to the United States as “refugees” engaged in terrorist activities between 2002 and 2016, according to a new report authored by the Heritage Foundation.

The report comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of much of President Trump’s travel ban, and it also suggests that it’s impossible to vet Muslim refugees who may have no connections to known terrorist organizations but get radicalized after they arrive in the United States.

The Heritage Foundation identified scores of refugees, including many who came prior to 2002, as having taken part in activities ranging from lying to investigators about terror plots, to actually taking part in them. The report, aimed at reforming the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or USRAP, calls for stricter limits and restrictions on refugees.

…

“The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program should not be used as pretext to advocate for a global right to migrate nor is it a solution to conflict,” the study concludes. “Instead, the U.S. refugee admission program should be reformed to better advance U.S. interests.”

Just a few of the refugees and asylum seekers who have been allowed into the U.S. and later committed acts of terror included the following:

• Somali refugee Dahir Ahmed Adan, who stabbed and wounded 10 shoppers at the Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, on Sept. 17, 2016.
• Afghan refugee Ahmad Rahimi, who wounded 29 in a pipe bomb attack on the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan on Sept. 17, 2016
• Somali refugee Abdul Ali Artan, who wounded 11 fellow students in a car and knife attack at Ohio State University on Nov. 28 last year.
• Uzbek refugee Fazliddin Kurbanov, resettled in Boise, Idaho, was convicted in 2015 of plotting to recruit and train American Muslims to blow up American military installations.
• Six members of Minnesota’s Somali refugee community were arrested and convicted of trying to trying to leave the country to join ISIS in Syria.
• A college student and Somali refugee, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. He is serving a 30-year prison sentence.

The report’s total of 61 terror-stained refugees presumably also does not include the more than 40 Somali refugees who have simply vanished from the U.S. and the FBI confirms they have successfully traveled to the Middle East to participate in jihadist operations with ISIS, al-Shabab and other terrorist organizations.

Hugh Fitzgerald: Couillard Comes to His Senses

( Muslims do not assimilate! Theu infiltrate! )

July 8, 2017 10:03 am By Hugh Fitzgerald Leave a Comment

While Justin Trudeau descends ever further into folly — “Pride Mubarak” and what it implies might get him a prison term in a dozen Muslim countries — Premier Couillard of Quebec gives tentative signs of coming to his senses (although the final returns are not yet in).

From a recent news item in the Globe and Mail:

Quebec’s Premier has sent “a shock wave” through his province’s Muslim communities after he linked the lone-wolf attacker who stabbed a Michigan police officer to the wider Islamic religion.

Philippe Couillard, long seen as an ally in Quebec’s mainstream Muslim communities, has for years taken pains to avoid linking the broader Islamic faith to terrorist attacks, including those perpetrated by Quebeckers on Canadian soil. The Premier’s political opponents have often accused him of being soft on Islamist terrorism.

On Thursday, one day after a Quebec man was accused of wounding a police officer while shouting the Islamic phase “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) in an airport in Flint, Mich., Mr. Couillard dramatically shifted approach.

A reporter pointed out terrorist attacks have often triggered a spike in assault, vandalism and name-calling against Muslims in Quebec and asked the Premier if he had a message to Quebeckers.

Note how expectant and eager the reporter was that the “message” the Premier would offer “to Quebeckers” would not be an attempt to reassure the Infidel targets of Muslim terrorists that security concerns were paramount and Muslim terrorism would be stamped out. Instead, the reporter expected Couillard to offer a reassurance to Muslims themselves. How disappointed he must have been when Prime Minister Couillard, in the past considered to be among the best friends of Quebec’s  Muslims, did not speak according to plan.

This is what Premier Couillard replied:

“You cannot disconnect this type of event, terrorism, from Islam in general,” Mr. Couillard said. “I think President [Emmanuel] Macron yesterday was very eloquent about this when addressing the Muslim community in France. He told them it’s also your responsibility to act on the theological front to explain to your people that this is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion.”

It’s hard to know what Couillard — or Macron — really think. Does Couillard believe that “this” — meaning terrorism by Muslims — is not “part of the religion” of Islam, or does he know perfectly well that it is not just part of it, but a central weapon in the worldwide Jihad against the Infidels? And if he does, is he simply trying to put  Muslim leaders in a bind, by telling them they must “explain to your people” (a telling phrase, signifying a recognition that  Muslims are not “our people,” they are not fully integrated, they remain a people apart, not because the Quebecois shun them, but because they refuse integration themselves) that this “is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion”? But how can Muslim leaders really be expected to tell their “own people,” as Couillard and Macron insist is their responsibility, what for them is an obvious untruth? It’s one thing to mislead Infidels with such falsehoods, but quite another for Muslim leaders to tell “their own people” such things. Muslims know perfectly well what the texts and teachings, of Islam contain. That is, they know that violence and terrorism are “part of the [Islamic] religion,” and are not “contrary to the teachings of the religion.”

Can it be that Couillard and Macron really believe that terrorism “is not part of the [Islamic] religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion”? Or do they mean something like “you’d better start teaching that terrorism is contrary to the teachings of your religion — Islam — whatever you really think, because otherwise even we will abandon you. But how you do it is your own business.”?

Perhaps the defection of Premier Couillard will be taken as a warning by Muslims that, unlike Prime Minister Trudeau, not all politicians in Canada are limitlessly gullible. Even those who were friendliest to them, who could be counted on always to defend them, like Couillard, are getting fed up. Almost every day brings fresh news of some Muslim atrocity somewhere in the world. Just in the last few weeks, there have been attacks in London, Manchester, London again, Paris (twice), Brussels, the Philippines, Israel, India, Kenya, and Michigan, the attack that apparently was the last straw for M. Couillard.

The Muslim leaders know, and so do “their people,” that terrorism is part of their religion. Are some of them, the so-called “moderates,” disturbed enough by the defection of M. Couilllard to realize that they have somehow to dampen the appeal of that terrorism? For years they have been playing a game of let’s-pretend about Islam, claiming that the calls in the Qur’an for terrorism and other Jihad verses preaching violence must be “contextualized.” That’s a game played to mislead credulous Infidels. Some of those “moderates,” realizing they are losing support among those who, like Premier Couillard, they once could count on, should perhaps now try not to persuade not Infidels but, rather,  fellow Muslims, to believe in the “contextualization” of the Jihad verses, including those that specifically mention terror, in the Qur’an.

Reeling from the seeming defection of M. Couillard, some Muslim leaders might be ready for such a volte-face. For Couillard’s defection from the camp of defenders of the faith was truly disturbing:

Samer Majzoub, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Muslim Forum, said the Premier’s words “have honestly caused a shock wave.”

Usually, Mr. Couillard is a very understanding person. Putting the responsibility of one man’s actions on an entire community … we didn’t expect that from a person who we truly believe is open-minded and who has backed us up in the past.”

Shaheen Ashraf, a Quebec board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she “is very disappointed” in the Premier for putting the onus on her community.

“You don’t think we try?” Ms. Ashraf said. “You can tell the community Islam is a religion of peace until the cows come home and there will always be people who don’t want to hear you.”

All these shock waves, all this disappointment, all this unexpected truth-telling from someone whom “we [Muslims] truly believe is open-minded and who has backed us up in the past” certainly can shake things up. Perhaps M. Couillard has had it up to here with making excuses for Islam. At least he would like Muslim leaders “to explain to your people that this is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion.” Whether that is true or false, many Infidels, and “moderate” Muslims alike will agree that it is best to act as if it were true, as if terrorism is “contrary” to “the teachings” of Islam, giving some Muslims a possible way out — call it a willful misunderstanding — of the most disturbing aspects of their own faith.

Ms. Ashraf herself reveals, in casual passing,  that this “religion of peace” business offered for Infidel consumption is not accepted by Muslims — “we [the Muslim leaders] can say it is ‘until the cows come home”’ but “there will always be people” who “don’t want to hear you.” How many? One or two, or quite a few? We all know the answer to that. Perhaps the question ought to be a different one. Perhaps Shaheen Ashraf should ask this of those Muslims who listen to her: “Why should non-Muslims be expected to permanently welcome us, Muslims, into their lands, and endure our demands, and the generous benefits we lay claim to and receive,  and our Stealth Jihad, and our terrorism, and the huge security expenses our presence requires, while we do not even try to find a way to remove the murderous sting from those many dangerous verses in the Qur’an? Yes, it’s up to us to interpret away the malevolent meaning of more than a hundred verses, through the only possible way, making true the very falsehoods  we have been feeding the Infidels (as when we insist that ‘you have to realize this verse — 9:5, 9:29, 2:191-3, 47:4, 8:12 and so on — pertains to a specific context’), to explain away those Jihad verses. We will find a way to limit the application of these verses to a specific context, some 1400 years ago, when Muhammad was fighting against a series of local enemies whose identities we should be able to unearth.”

This will, of course, be opposed by many Muslims. But more than a few Muslim leaders surely realize that when even a man like Premier Couillard has declared it incumbent on Muslim leaders to explain that terrorism “is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion,” then he has to be listened to, and his counsel followed by Muslim leaders. It will not do to have him reluctantly conclude, as he would otherwise have to, that  terrorism is NOT contrary “to the teachings of the religion.”

How long will the increasingly implausible excuses of Muslim defenders continue to be accepted? Those Muslims who are repelled by terrorism, but who also recognize that it’s part of Islam, have to figure out how to “reform” Islam in a way that will leave enough of it intact to satisfy Believers, but that strips the Qur’an of its deepest malevolence. What “moderate” Muslims have to understand, and accept,  is the need for that very “contextualization” that they always bring up to explain away the Jihad verses. This is the only kind of “reform” of Islamic texts that may be possible. Yes, those Muslim leaders should be asked to relate every Jihad verse, and especially those that invoke the need to “strike terror’’ in the hearts of the Infidels, to a specific time and place and enemy, in Arabia 1400 years ago. And then they must work to have Muslims accept as “the real Islam” that which we are perfectly aware is, for now, only the pretend-Islam that is fed to Infidels by defenders of the Faith when they engage in “contextualizing” away, as descriptive rather than prescriptive, so many violent verses in the Qur’an. Expressed otherwise, as Wallace Stevens put it, “let Be be finale of Seem.”

Members of Montreal’s Muslim community were at a loss to explain Mr. Couillard’s change in tone, particularly coming just before this weekend’s end to the holy month of fasting known as Ramadan.

Why were they “at a loss to explain Mr. Couillard’s change in tone”? Could the incessant news of attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims, even just in the last month or so in several dozen cities around the globe, have something to do with that change? Is there a point at which even Prime Minister Couillard might become tired of pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam? At the moment he has gone beyond the stage of offering reassurances to Muslims, but still appears to believe (it’s hard to know what, at this point, he really believes) that Muslim leaders have a duty “to explain to your people that this is not part of the religion, that it’s contrary to the teachings of the religion.” The next stage, of course, would be for him to recognize — it will take some serious study — that in fact terrorism is part of Islam, and is not contrary, in either spirit or letter, to the religion. And if enough of the couillards of the Western world, former defenders of Islam, reach that conclusion, and publicly proclaim it, then Muslims will be on their uppers.

Community leaders said the Premier was a model of understanding and empathy after the January shooting at a Quebec City mosque that killed six people. Mr. Couillard, a former brain surgeon, worked in Saudi Arabia for several years and offered words of comfort in Arabic in the wake of the shooting.

If he  “worked in Saudi Arabia for several years,” then along with his fat Saudi salary, he surely must have observed the misogyny toward women, felt the deep hostility toward all non-Muslims, had even seen the mutawwa or religious police enforcing the Sharia on the streets, and grasped the totalitarian nature of Islam, especially of the ferocious Wahhabi sort. He cannot allow himself to  be fooled forever about Islam. Which is why, although for a while he went along with the party line pushed by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, he finally abandoned the ship of appeasement. He’d had enough.

Ms. Ashraf, unsurprisingly, attributes his change of tone purely to political considerations: “When Mr. Couillard was supportive of Muslims it caused an uproar and now he’s trying to appease the public. He’s pandering.” As long as he held to a pro-Muslim line, he was fine. Once he began to sound a different note about Islam, though, according to Ms. Ashraf, that’s when he was “pandering.” Others might want to turn it around: before, M. Couillard pandered, just like Justin Trudeau, to Muslims, and now, mugged by the reality of so many Muslim terrorist attacks, he has stopped pandering, stopped pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

Could the “contextualization” approach work? That is, could enough Muslims be persuaded to believe that the Qur’anic verses on Jihad are not meant to apply for all time but, rather, to specific campaigns and battles against specific enemies, in western Arabia, some 1400 years ago? It’s impossible to say. It is possible to hope that some Muslims, although they continue to offer lame and even ludicrous excuses for Muslim terrorists (poverty, lack of education, resentment over non-existent “colonialism,” etc.), and still insist, with straight faces, that  terrorism “has nothing to do with Islam,” might welcome having such a “contextualizing” interpretation imposed, or at least promoted by, reform-minded imams and scholars, people such as the outspoken Imam Mohammad Tawhidi in Australia. By accepting this interpretation, and persuading others to follow suit, these Muslims would be participating in deliberately re-fashioning the faith by a sort of textual prestidigitation, so that it will be possible for Muslims not merely to pretend, but actually to be able, to coexist with others.

Qari Asim, an imam in the northeast city of Leeds, and one of several hundred Muslim clergy in the U.K. who signed a pledge not to conduct funeral services for Muslim terrorists, apparently agrees that the most feasible approach at this point would be to “contextualize” the Jihad verses, to put them into a “particular historical context’:

In Britain, Mr. Asim says, Muslim leaders are taking up those cudgels. “We used to ignore those verses” in the Koran that urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims – the ones that Islamic State preachers seize on – he says. “But we need to talk about them and explain to students that they are part of the Koran but that they do not apply today because they refer to a particular historical context that is not the same today.”

This language is astonishing, and most welcome, if only enough Muslims can be persuaded to believe what Qari Asim and his fellows are insisting must be believed. But could this ever come to pass, of treating the Qur’anic verses that call for killing non-Muslims as applying only to a particular context? Or is this merely a case of whistling in the dark by decent Muslims, without this view of the Qur’an having much chance of widespread adoption?

So far none of the signs are good. It seems an impossible task, this hoped-for “reform of Islam” of which even apostates such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak and write. “As long as there is this book [the Quran],” Gladstone is reported to have said, “there will be no peace in the world.” Very likely. But “contextualization” of the most dangerous verses — holding the apologists for Islam to their own assertions, when they defend the faith, that “those verses can only be understood in their specific context” (as Qari Asim insists, those verses “that urge Muslims to kill non-Muslims” are “part of the Qur’an …that do not apply today because they refer to a particular historical context”) — could be tried. It must be tried, before the world is engulfed in the madness of Islam that has spilled over its historic banks, thanks to the millions of migrants, and is already wreaking havoc in Europe.

Kathy Griffin MOCKED Sarah Palin’s Son Who Has DOWN-SYNDROME

Posted By: b j June 4, 2017

Vegas this Friday night! 2 shows at Mandalay Bay. Oh, Palin, ur goin down so hard, you'd better just stay in Wasilla w ur "retarded baby"

— Kathy Griffin (@kathygriffin) October 29, 2009

People blasted Kathy “ISIS” Griffin on social media after the tweet from 2009 was found…

You are a servant of Satan, Kathy "ISIS" Griffin.

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) June 3, 2017

One must have a cruel, dark heart that's grown cold to make fun of a baby with Down syndrome. https://t.co/MQXAVlzFJg

— Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) June 3, 2017

Down syndrome children are so sweet, precious and innocent. I will never understand treating them cruelly or mocking them.

— Trish Laird (@TrishLaird) June 3, 2017

I had no idea she was like this. I was almost feeling sorry for her.

— Kate (@KtBoBt) June 3, 2017

#AdiosBrujaRoja pic.twitter.com/HMvvbpqZLc

— RedMeatMonday (@RedMeatMonday) June 3, 2017

Kathy, you may want to set up another press conference to explain that this baby was trying to ruin your life

— Rugged Indivisualist (@RIndivisualist) June 3, 2017

This woman has quite a history of going after children. Someone please find her a straight jacket cuz she's a straight up sick lunatic

— KℝîstîℕA ღ Çôvƒeƒe (@88_Kris_88) June 3, 2017

Kathy Griffin supporters say that she referred to Sarah Palin’s son as a retarded baby because that’s what Sarah Palin called him…

The New York Mag reported:

Aw, that’s sweet. Except that Johnston didn’t stop short of undermining Palin’s self-appointed post as spokeswoman for mothers of disabled children. She’d come home from work looking for her son Trig, he said, and she’d ask, “Where’s my retarded baby?” She would apparently use the term regularly to refer to the child, who has Down syndrome. “She’d say it kind of regularly. I think she was joking, but that doesn’t make it right.”

It’s sickening that Kathy Griffin would mock a child with a disability regardless of any reasons she has.
Source: http://americanlookout.com

Please Read Part 55:

The Most Dangerous and Treacherous Times in U.S. History! (Part 55)-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On July 3, 2017:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-most-dangerous-and-treacherous-times-in-u-s-history-part-55

The following recent article revealed that Hillary’s Russian Reset in 2009 happened to be more intense than most people are aware, along with revealing that the entire bizarre conspiracy of the Russian/Trump fiasco in American politics may be a smokescreen for Russian ties hidden under the Obama administration and that Russian turbulence continues to hang over the Trump administration even after ex-FBI Director Comey testified to Congress that President Trump was not being investigated. If True-What's wrong with this picture?-You Decide:

To Russia With Love, Signed Hillary (Part 1)!-Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By Anita Hoge-On July 8, 2017:

Why are American technology companies in cahoots with the Russians? What are their future plans? What was Hillary Clinton’s part of the agenda?

Hillary’s Russian Reset in 2009 happened to be more intense than most people are aware. The entire bizarre conspiracy of the Russian/Trump fiasco in American politics may be a smokescreen for Russian ties hidden under the Obama administration. Russian turbulence continues to hang over the Trump administration even after ex-FBI Director Comey testified to Congress that President Trump was not being investigated.

But, here’s the reality: Former President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have the REAL extensive ties to Russia. Together they created an open beltway under the radar for Russia to exchange technology transfer, nuclear energy, neural brain research, and an assortment of extensive research. This was done via a bilateral agreement that would strengthen the Russian economy. The bilateral agreement lasts until the year 2020. This exchange has both countries cooperating in business mergers and acquisitions, multiplying investments in venture nano- technology, education, urban development, and nuclear waste energy. [Link one] and [Link two] Key businesses in the United States have already invested millions of dollars flowing into a new technology corridor, dubbed the “Russian Silicon Valley,” called SkolKovo. The following is a Who’s Who rocking the Russian borders to invest in Russia’s SkolKovo: CISCO paid $1 billion to be on the ground floor of technology gained by Russian influence. American investors and key universities such as MIT, are capitalizing on this, cooperatively converging vast scientific and technological advances made by Russian scientists. (Sources: Source one and Source two)

The hoopla created by Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Presidential debates, and trying to connect Donald Trump to Russia, has obscured the issues. There is actually a complete opposite tale of the real truth that has not been exposed. The piling-on by the media, zealous to connect President Trump to Russia, is a clever ruse to obstruct the facts. The public is not aware of the extent that Hillary Clinton was involved with the Russian Reset, involving millions of dollars and multitudes of businesses and universities, all advancing the United States in partnership with Russia. What did Hillary Clinton get in return? Donors for the Clinton Foundation.

Once you glance through the lists of high tech businesses and higher ed cooperating with Russia, you will have to ask yourself the obvious questions. Can we really trust Russian motives? What do they want from us? And what do the techies want from Russia? (More on this in Part 2.)

Background

Former President Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and signed the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission in 2009.

The Russian Reset began with the Presidential Bilateral Commission to improve relationships and cooperation between the governments of Russia and the United States. No longer would Russia be radioactive to American interests. Although President Obama pushed the supposed agenda of Russian interference with the election, it was the former President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that finagled business deals with Russia prior to that time. Lucrative, under-the-table pay-outs to the Clinton Foundation, and paid speeches for Bill, served as the ultimate incentives. Many start-up companies notably had deep Clinton ties.

The Bilateral Commission would work at identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthened strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people. Scientific talent would also be siphoned off of Russia and transported to the US.

In March of 2009 Hillary Clinton met her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in Geneva, Switzerland. Secretary of State Clinton presented Lavrov a yellow box with a red button to symbolize a “reset button.” Two years later in March of 2011 Vice President Biden met with Putin in Moscow, in an act which reaffirmed the US-Russia ‘Reset’.

The first major part of this technological cooperation included Russian plans to create their own version of Silicon Valley. Their research facility on the outskirts of Moscow, named “Skolkovo,” would be developed with the cooperation and investment of major U.S. tech firms. In May of 2010 the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in the U.S. venture capital market. Cisco pledged $1 billion to Skolkovo, with Google, Intel, and Bill and Melinda Gates entering into agreements. The cooperative would match Russian brainpower with U.S. investment dollars, and provide the entrepreneurial know-how to spark technological breakthroughs in a wide variety of start-ups.

It is interesting to note that Cisco, Google, Intel, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation happened to be major Clinton Foundation supporters, with dozens more companies becoming involved with Skolkovo after the Hillary involvement. It was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who arranged meetings with the hightech companies. Emails, of course, were deleted on Secretary Clinton’s computer, so the exact communications between Russian operatives and donors are supposedly missing. This missing information appears to be indicative of a massive cover-up to conceal the violation of the Espionage Act by using an unauthorized server.

The key to the Bilateral Agreement is:

“…technology transfer and investment, and the Commission played a key role in everything from intellectual property sharing to export licensing to facilitating American investment in Russia and Russian investment in America.

“The FBI warned tech companies about Rusnano, a Russian venture capital firm that technology would have dual use between the defense and civil sectors where technology could be used for revolutionary changes in weapons and defense.” (Source:)

“The opening of a Russian Innovation Center (representing Rusnano, Russian Venture Company, and Skolkovo) in the Silicon Valley will act as another bridge connecting American and Russian high tech companies, investors, and scientific research institutions.”

“To get American companies to participate in Skolkovo, the Russian government promised to give American firms special access to research and projects taking place in Russia. Companies participating in Skolkovo would receive special tax status and access to the Russian market. They would also receive special access to research in Russia. For example, one investment firm received “priority access to the database of the Skolkovo Foundation projects and companies, enabling it to select the most promising projects early in their development.” It further allowed companies to “refer their existing portfolio of companies to Skolkovo” for research. There was also the prospect of gaining access to Russian markets, which had been hampered by export licensing issues involving the export of sensitive technologies. The U.S. State Department had major responsibility for the issuing of export licenses and maintained the list of restricted technologies.”

“In 2014, the FBI sent letters to a number of firms involved with Skolkovo in what was called “an extraordinary warning issued to technology companies. The FBI’s Boston Office warned U.S. tech companies that Skolkovo could draw them unwittingly into industrial espionage.” (Note: The following report hashes out a vigorous discussion and complete details of the close ties of the Clinton’s to Russia:)

Many believe the Kremlin’s motives for attracting cooperation from hundreds of foreign technology companies aren’t entirely benign. Among those who would benefit from the “huge honey pot” for the Russian technology industry, says Seattle-based cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr, would be the security services who monitor every byte of Internet traffic. “If you’re wiring a facility,” he says, “the best time to do it is while it’s being built.” Skolkovo, he says, would provide an information-gathering “coup.” (Source:)

The “danger” information was given to the tech companies by the FBI Boston office. Was that information heeded? It appears not. Hillary’s State Department actively and aggressively encouraged American firms to participate in Skolkovo. The State Department developed numerous and alarming relationships with this Kremlin-controlled entity. Plus, Hillary’s controversial campaign manager John Podesta, who was also Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, has woven many paths passing the “honeypot” with Putin’s investment company, Rusnano, which invested $35m in Joule Global Stichting where Podesta was a member of the board which also included Anatoly Chubais, the Chairman of Rusnano, who also joined the Joule board of directors. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News reported that Rusnano invested $35m to build a research center in Russia. (Source: Source one and Source two)  It appears the honey is dripping everywhere while deepening economic and technological ties to Russia.

There was no need for Russia to conduct industrial espionage. We were giving them business partners and technology. Many Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) signed by U.S. companies to invest and cooperate in Skolkovo were signed under the auspices of Hillary Clinton’s State Department. (Sources: Source one and Source two)

Is it any wonder that former Secretary of State John Kerry stated, “Buy Rosetta Stone and learn Russian,” at his recent Harvard speech in May of 2017?

Who’s watching? Tech firms including CISCO, IBM, and SAP allow Russian authorities to review product source codes. Are we in a downward spiral?

E-Mail Anita Hoge: hogieshack@comcast.net

Source Link:

https://newswithviews.com/to-russia-with-love-signed-hillary-part-1/

The following recent article revealed that today’s progressive Democrats are faithfully journeying on an uplifting odyssey because allegedly they’re horrified by President Trump’s opposition to Obama’s “fundamental transformations” that they have found their own neuroleptics in the form of the 25th Amendment and a bill seeking to impeach the president for being mentally unsound.

It also revealed that, indeed, President Trump has to be mentally deranged and unfit for office, because what other reason could possibly explain his frightening disagreement with the Left’s un-American creed of identity politics, race and gender uber alles? What other factor could possibly be at play in his embrace of individual freedom and responsibility and in his rejection of group privileges and racial/gender hierarchies that, as David Horowitz has noted, can only be manifested after America’s Constitution is null and void? Surprised?-You Decide:

The Democrats’ Soviet Insane Asylum for Trump: ‘The Left’s faithful devotion to socialist-style “psychiatric” disposal of political dissidents’!-Posted on Front Page Magazine-By  Jamie Glazov-On July 7, 2017:

The former Soviet Union possessed many imaginative mechanisms to deal with the problem of enemies of the people who obstructed the path to socialist utopia -- now known as “social justice.” One of those mechanisms was the practice of confining individuals who were thinking the wrong thoughts to insane asylums. Indeed, if you caused any trouble for the commissars, a good inoculation of neuroleptics (powerful drugs used to “quiet” the symptoms of schizophrenia), forcibly administered through a tube in the nose, could do wonders in bringing your politically incorrect behavior to a halt.

Dissidents such as Natalya Gorbanevskaya, Pyotr Grigorenko, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin and Joseph Brodsky were all among the brave freedom-fighters who bore the brunt of the Soviet practice of institutionalizing dissidents in mental hospitals and force-feeding them mind-shattering drugs. Gorbanevskaya was committed to a psychiatric hospital for attending the 1968 Red Square demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Grigorenko suffered the same fate for criticizing the Khrushchev regime. Bukovsky was confined to a psychiatric hospital for “anti-Soviet agitation.” Brodksy was sent to mental hospitals for not writing the right kind of poetry; his treatments involved "tranquilizing" injections, sleep deprivation and forced freezing baths. Esenin-Volpin was institutionalized in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital for his anti-Soviet thoughts.

Today’s progressive Democrats are also faithfully journeying on an uplifting odyssey. Horrified by Trump’s opposition to Obama’s “fundamental transformations,” they have found their own neuroleptics in the form of the 25th Amendment and a bill seeking to impeach the president for being mentally unsound. Indeed, Trump has to be mentally deranged and unfit for office, because what other reason could possibly explain his frightening disagreement with the Left’s un-American creed of identity politics -- race and gender uber alles? What other factor could possibly be at play in his embrace of individual freedom and responsibility -- and in his rejection of group privileges and racial/gender hierarchies that, as David Horowitz has noted, can only be manifested after America’s Constitution is null and void?

Confronted by Trump’s shocking blasphemy against their anointed plan, several Democrats, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), have now signed onto a bill that seeks to remove Trump by invoking 25th Amendment powers. The bill cites section 4 of the amendment, created in 1967 after JFK's assassination, that allows for an independent body to remove the president based on the determination that he has been mentally or physically incapacitated to carry out his duties. Raskin's initiative would activate a probe into whether Trump has been too far "incapacitated" to continue as president.

This effort is, actually, even sicker than the Soviet practice, since the amendment does not refer to psychiatric problems, but to actual incapacitation through assassination or stroke.

Raskin claims he is concerned that "something is seriously wrong" with Trump, citing a "sustained pattern of behavior" and several "errant and seemingly deranged tweets," which he believes are damaging to U.S. interests. But to anyone who hasn’t drunk the progressive Kool-Aid, it is obvious that Trump’s sustained pattern of behavior is not damaging U.S. interests. Instead, it is unhinging his political enemies and damaging the progressive assault on America’s social contract. Trump’s tweets do not warn, for example, that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam (an Obama meme) or that you can keep your doctor if you like him. They are singing the praises of America and calling out a corrupt media for its brazen lies and political partisanship.

The only reasonable observation in Raskin’s statements is that (to people like him): "it certainly doesn't feel like the ship is on an even course right now."

Consequently, the Democrats are now trying to steer the ship back into progressive waters. They are doing so by applying the lessons of the Soviet secret police -- in quashing those who disagree with them like Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov refused to toe the Soviet party line and be politically correct; therefore, like Trump, he was also obviously mentally ill. That’s why the Soviet authorities had to confine him in a closed ward of the Semashko Hospital in Gorky, where he was force-fed and given drugs to alter and enlighten his state of mind.

And now enter the new self-appointed social redeemers of our time: the progressive Democrats who are consumed with ferocious rage as they watch the horror show of an American president strengthening America and abandoning the enlightened course on which Obama’s ship sailed. There is no secret about what the true yearnings of the Raskin Gang are, but absent a totalitarian state to back them up, they are bound to fail.

Source Link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267208/democrats-soviet-insane-asylum-trump-jamie-glazov

The following recent article revealed that under President Trump’s predecessors, leaks of national security information were relatively rare, even with America’s vibrant free press, but allegedly an examination of open-source material by the majority staff of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs shows that under President Trump, leaks are flowing at the rate of one a day.

It also revealed that many watchdog-group reports and news stories have revealed the serious deficiencies that exist are blamed on Obama’s CIA director John Brennan for allowing what was supposed to be a non-political bureaucracy into a politically-motivated subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

Additionally, it also revealed that the new Deep State strategy is to deny President Trump secured secrets and intelligence as a means of undermining him and his administration. If True-What’s wrong with this picture?-You Decide:

New ‘Deep State’ Strategy: Denying President Trump Secured Secrets and Intelligence!-Posted on NewsWithViews.com-By NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri-On July 7, 2017:

Under President Trump’s predecessors, leaks of national security information were relatively rare, even with America’s vibrant free press. Under President Trump, leaks are flowing at the rate of one a day, an examination of open-source material by the majority staff of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs shows.

Articles published by a range of national news organizations between January 20 and May 25, 2017 included at least 125 stories with leaked information potentially damaging to national security. Even a narrow search revealed leaks of comparable information during the Trump administration that were about seven times higher than the same period during the two previous administrations.

From the morning of President Trump’s inauguration, when major newspapers published information about highly sensitive intelligence intercepts, news organizations have reported on an avalanche of leaks from officials across the U.S. government. Many disclosures have concerned the investigations of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, with the world learning details of whose communications U.S. intelligence agencies are monitoring, what channels are being monitored, and the results of those intercepts. All such revelations are potential violations of federal law, punishable by jail time.

But the leak frenzy has gone far beyond the Kremlin and has extended to other sensitive information that could harm national security. President Trump’s private conversations with other foreign leaders have shown up in the press, while secret operations targeting America’s most deadly adversaries were exposed in detail.

Under the direction of Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, majority committee staff examined media leaks between January 20, 2017, and May 25, 2017—President Trump’s first 126 days in office. The examination consisted entirely of publicly available news articles; no classified information was accessed or reviewed. The inquiry found:

1. The Trump administration faced 125 leaked stories—one leak a day— containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama.
2. Leaks with the capacity to damage national security flowed about seven times faster under President Trump than during President Obama’s and President George W. Bush’s first 126 days.
3. Most leaks during the Trump administration, 78, concerned the Russia probes, with many revealing closely-held information such as intelligence community intercepts, FBI interviews and intelligence, grand jury subpoenas, and even the workings of a secret surveillance court.
4. Other leaks disclosed potentially sensitive intelligence on U.S. adversaries for possible military plans against them. One leak, about the investigation of a terrorist attack, caused a diplomatic incident between the United States and a close ally.

Leaked stories appeared in 18 news outlets, sourced to virtually every possible permutation of anonymous current and former U.S. officials, some clearly from the intelligence community. One story cited more than two dozen anonymous sources.

Almost all of the stories leaked during President Trump’s first 126 days were about the President or his administration. In contrast, only half of the stories leaked during the comparable period of the Obama administration were about President Obama or his administration; the other half concerned President Bush and his anti-terrorism tactics.

Many watchdog-group reports and news stories have revealed the serious deficiencies that exist are blamed on Obama’s CIA director John Brennan for allowing what was supposed to be a non-political bureaucracy into a politically-motivated subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee.

While the investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump for President campaign and operatives working for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin does not appear to be bearing fruit, it does prove how easily computer hackers have exposed classified intelligence from the once premiere spy network.

In fact, according to a number of reports coming from watchdogs such as Judicial Watch, the Clarion Project, Larry Klayman’s Freedom Watch, and others, the CIA and FBI have conceded that it may have been insiders illegally divulging classified information and that the CIA is currently searching for the traitorous leakers.

In addition, the former Director of Central Intelligence, John Brennan, allegedly worked feverishly to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by leaking intelligence obtained from Great Britain and European Union countries. It’s already been revealed that a British top-secret signal-intelligence agency sent reports to Obama or his minions who then leaked them to the world’s news media.

“During former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony in front of the Senate, he actually admitted he leaked information. In fact, the coward didn’t have the b*lls to do it himself — he had a professor-friend leak the info,” according to former attorney and political consultant Theo Doreapoulos.

Source Link:

https://newswithviews.com/new-deep-state-strategy-denying-president-trump-secured-secrets-and-intelligence/

The following recent article revealed that influential donors to the DNC are suing their political party for fraud in the 2016 presidential election where they say their candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, was discriminated against, along with revealing that high-ranking members of the DNC, by way of WikiLeaks’ DNC email publications, were caught favoring Hillary Clinton over Sanders and actively working to subvert his chances at winning the party’s nomination.

It also revealed that several individuals close to the lawsuit have turned up dead, and many more plaintiffs have filed grievances with the court, asking for special protection under the law and that they point to threats, intimidation and breaking and entering of their homes as proof the defendants will go out of their way to make sure that the lawsuit does not proceed, along with revealing that there has been a corporate media blackout of this information. Surprised?-You Decide:

Corporate Media Continues Blackout of DNC Lawsuit Even as 2 More Witnesses Die!-Posted on Activist Post-By Jack Burns-On July 3, 2017:

The fiancée of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was murdered in the 2012 Benghazi attack, is speaking out about his death—and the cover-up that followed.

Lydie Denier appeared on Rick Amato’s “Amato Talk” with Will Craddick, founder of DisobedientMedia.com, to discuss the controversial lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, in which “one witness has died and another potential witness was murdered.”

As The Free Thought Project has extensively reported, influential donors to the DNC are suing their political party for fraud in the 2016 presidential election where they say their candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, was discriminated against. High-ranking members of the DNC, by way of WikiLeaks’ DNC email publications, were caught favoring Hillary Clinton over Sanders and actively working to subvert his chances at winning the party’s nomination.

Several individuals close to the lawsuit have turned up dead, and many more plaintiffs have filed grievances with the court, asking for special protection under the law. They point to threats, intimidation and breaking and entering of their homes as proof the defendants will go out of their way to make sure that the lawsuit does not proceed.

Now, as those of us in the alternative media are pointing out, there has been a corporate media blackout of this information.

Video: Media Blackout on DNC Lawsuit: 2 Witnesses Dead!-Posted on YouTube.com-By Politics & Profits with Rick Amato-On July 1, 2017:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQUfgpFR6jQ

“The DNC did actually violate their own by-laws, which state that they are supposed to choose the candidate in an impartial manner, even though they’ve actually turned around and argued in court that they’re actually not required to do that,” Craddick stated with incredulity.

Craddick referred to the current issues within the DNC as a “Pandora’s box” that has resulted from officials working to keep information from being leaked to the public. “There’s going to be a whole bunch of other issues that are uncovered as well—foreign influence in American politics, espionage, things of that nature,” he said.

Amato intimated all of the aforementioned issues had something to do with the Benghazi Attack, which resulted in Stevens’s death. His fiancée agreed.

“I got lots of emails from people saying, ‘There were 47 deaths that the Clintons are involved with. Be careful not to become number 48,’” Denier said. “Definitely, when you start telling the truth and you start to uncover … you have to be so careful.”

In the same way that the attempts to suppress the truth have been used on the DNC lawsuit, Denier said that method was used in the aftermath of the Benghazi Attack. From rumors that the attack stemmed from anti-Islamic propaganda on YouTube to rumors that Stevens was sent to die, Denier said they were all false.

 “They said it was Chris’s fault that he died because he didn’t want security, when in reality, within six weeks, he asked over 600 times for more security,” Denier said. “And then he died, and it’s like nothing happened.”

“Don’t believe them, no, don’t believe them!” Denier said, in reference to the mainstream media’s narrative. The would-be-widow wrote a book entitled, A Voice for Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens, where she goes into much more detail about her late fiancée’s death

Questions remain as to whether full transparency in the deaths of Stevens, Seth Rich and others who have died in relation to the Clintons will ever come to light. Were they killed in an attempt to cover-up an entire political party’s misdeeds?

Were they, as Denier alleges, more Clinton bodies? These questions and more have yet to be answered, highlighting the importance of a lawsuit against the DNC that has the hope of bringing answers to the questions grieving loved ones are asking.

As for Stevens’s fiancée, she appears convinced the Clintons had something to do with his death, and she is not staying silent.

Jack Burns is an educator, journalist, investigative reporter, and advocate of natural medicine. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

Source Link:

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/07/corporate-media-continues-blackout-dnc-lawsuit-even-2-witnesses-die.html

The following recent article revealed that a report from the Wall Street Journal claims that a Republican researcher attempted to obtain hacked emails from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign during the election, and that he believed Michael Flynn was tied to the effort, along with revealing that Peter W. Smith, the operative, died 10 days after speaking to the Journal about his claim. Surprised?-You Decide:

GOP researcher makes shocking claim about Clinton’s deleted emails, dies 10 days later!-Posted on The Blaze-By Carlos Garcia-On June 29, 2017:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/29/gop-researcher-makes-shocking-claim-about-clinton-deleted-emails-dies-10-days-later/

The following recent article revealed that just after noon EDT on Friday, internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom tweeted a response to President Donald Trump’s claim that “Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA.”

It also revealed that Dotcom’s tweet on Friday referred to his May 20 claim that a young DNC employee, Seth Rich, was involved in releasing emails and attachments from the DNC server to WikiLeaks with Dotcom’s own involvement.

Additionally, it also revealed that Dotcom has remained steadfast in insisting that he “knows” that Rich was a WikiLeaks source and has offered to testify to Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person if suitable arrangements can be made for his safe travel to and from the U.S. Surprised?-You Decide:

Kim Dotcom’s Response to Trump on Podesta: “His Name was Seth Rich”!-Posted on The Post & Email-By Sharon Rondeau-On July 7, 2017:

(Jul. 7, 2017) — Just after noon EDT on Friday, internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom tweeted a response to President Donald Trump’s claim that “Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA.”

Trump is attending the G20 in Hamburg, Germany, where as of this writing he has finished a 2+-hour meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Podesta was Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman and former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.  In early October, the open-government publisher WikiLeaks posted thousands of his emails online which cast not only the DNC, but also Clinton, in an unfavorable light to many observers and may have cost Clinton the election.

According to several components of the U.S. intelligence community, the DNC server was breached by Russian operatives attempting to interfere with the election.  It has been reported that an earlier WikiLeaks release beginning last July which revealed hundreds of unflattering and incriminating conversations among DNC leadership was obtained through such “meddling.”

Those emails, released in batches by WikiLeaks just prior to the Democrat convention, indicated that Sen. Bernie Sanders was preempted from obtaining the Democrat presidential nomination by the DNC’s clear favoring of Clinton despite the party’s pledge of neutrality in the primaries.

While Podesta might not have been in a position to permit access to the DNC server to any outside entity, it has been widely reported that the FBI never examined it, including by former agency Director James Comey.

Instead, the DNC had an outside company, Crowdstrike, perform an analysis of the intrusion.

Crowdstrike has been reported to have ties to the DNC outside of its contractual abilities.  According to an article by The Young Turks published at Medium.com, Crowdstrike was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified services at the same time it performed the analysis of the DNC server.

Dotcom’s tweet on Friday referred to his May 20 claim that a young DNC employee, Seth Rich, was involved in releasing emails and attachments from the DNC server to WikiLeaks with Dotcom’s own involvement.

On July 10 of last year, Rich was shot twice in the back by one or possibly two assailants and left for dead in the street not far from his home in Washington, DC. It has been reported that he remained alive and was speaking while paramedics worked to transport him to an area hospital, where he later died.

The DC Metro Police Department has not solved the murder and claims that it was the result of a “botched robbery” attempt.  Others say there is no evidence to support that theory since Rich had all of his valuables on his person when he was found by EMTs.

Dotcom has previously suggested that the DNC avoided the FBI’s offer to inspect its server because of “Seth Rich.”

However, anyone publicly questioning the public narrative has been vilified by the mainstream media, as occurred with Sean Hannity in early June when his advertisers were targeted by such organizations as Media Matters.  The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN have been particularly assiduous in insisting that Rich could not have been a WikiLeaks source by assigning the lead to “conspiracy theory” status.

Dotcom has remained steadfast in insisting that he “knows” that Rich was a WikiLeaks source and has offered to testify to Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person if suitable arrangements can be made for his safe travel to and from the U.S.

In January 2012, the U.S. Justice Department charged Dotcom with copyright infringement and other crimes, shuttering his online file-sharing website, Megaupload. Dotcom’s home in New Zealand was raided and he was placed under house arrest, a circumstance in which he has remained since that time.

Dotcom proclaims his innocence and has offered his side of the story on his website, Kim.com.

Source Link:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/07/07/kim-dotcoms-response-trump-podesta-name-seth-rich/

The following recent article revealed that Americans will be holding silent vigils across the nation July 10, marking the one-year anniversary of the murder of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee voter-expansion data director whom some suspect handed over thousands of DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.

It also revealed that all Americans should be concerned about the investigation of Rich’s murder, a woman who has been at the forefront of organizing the vigil in Washington, D.C., told WND, because “Seth Rich is Russia,” “The ‘Russia-Trump [election] rigging’ story was a complete lie and fabricated probably to deflect in part from the murder of Seth Rich,” along with insisting Rich was the DNC email leaker, not Russia.

Additionally, it revealed that she had also stated, “The whole Russian narrative was created to deflect,” along with, “Any time any of the Democratic Party’s crimes are uncovered, within 15 minutes a story pops up in the media to deflect from it.”  Surprised?-You Decide:

Stunning claim: 'Seth Rich is Russia'!-Posted on WND.com-By Alicia Powe-On July 9, 2017:

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/stunning-claim-seth-rich-is-russia/

The following recent article revealed that allegedly Russian President Putin and President Trump recently  informed G20 Leaders that the ‘NWO Is Finished’ right to their faces. Could this be True?-You Decide:

Putin And Trump Tell G20 Leaders ‘NWO Is Finished’ Right To Their Faces!-Posted on YourNewsWire.com-By Baxter Dmitry-On July 8, 2017:

During this photo-op between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the U.S. President Donald Trump, Putin couldn’t help letting his feelings be known about the globalist leaders gathered at the G20. A woman in the crowd asked Putin if he was smiling because he genuinely likes Donald Trump; Putin kept smiling but said, “I am smiling because the New World Order is finished.”

Putin and Trump were scheduled to meet for 35 minutes in Hamburg on Friday. But their first face-to-face meeting extended well beyond that, clocking in at two hours and 16 minutes. The two proud nationalists and defenders of their people found they had plenty to talk about.

That is no surprise. Putin, fighting the globalist cause single-handedly for so long, has finally found a world leader who matches his fierce resolve and determination to do right by his people. The rest of the G20 leaders are from the globalist school of thought – childless and corrupt puppets of the elite, doing the bidding of corporations, banks and secret societies, without a care in the world about the future of their countries.

But Trump is different. And in the American president Putin has at last found the ally he needs to destroy the New World Order once and for all.

But while the New World Order agenda was dealt a knock-down blow by Trump’s election in November, the globalist’s grand plans have not been completely dismantled. The carnage on the streets of Hamburg are proof of this indisputable fact. George Soros’s goon squad – Antifa and Black Bloc – were at work, torching cars and terrorizing innocent people, attempting to turn the city into hell on earth.

Just as ISIS cause death and destruction in hotspots around the world on the globalists’ dime, domestic terrorists like Antifa also cause chaos in large Western cities. This is all part of the plan to destabilize the U.S. and Europe and take away civil liberties, privacy and the right to a decent life.

Angela Merkel – the G20 host – tittered and tutted all day, refusing to accept that her disastrous open borders have provided the globalist elite with the useful terrorists necessary to do their dirty work for them.

RELATED – Putin: New World Order Are In Final Stages Of Their European Masterplan]

Crisis and catastrophe are the order of the day in Hamburg, as the marauding gangs of globalists, allowed to rule the city due to Angela Merkel’s soft liberal policies, create the terror and division they need to thrive.

As Melania Trump found out while locked in the hotel for her personal safety, the work of her husband and President Putin has never been more urgent. While the terrorists are allowed to roam free and create chaos, we will be the ones imprisoned.

Source Link:

http://yournewswire.com/patin-trump-g20-new-world-order/

The following recent article revealed that President Trump on Sunday said he and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, in their face-to-face meeting at the G-20 summit in Germany, had talked about an "impenetrable cyber security unit" to safeguard against "election hacking" and "many other negative things," along with revealing that in a quick-shot series of Sunday morning tweets, the president also again lashed out at the Democratic National Committee's reported failure to turn over its server to the CIA and FBI, claiming the intel agencies "had to ask" the party "13 times" and was "rejected."

It also revealed that President Trump also appeared to reference reports of U.S. intelligence agencies verifying Russian hacking during the 2016 election, claiming "fake news" reported there were "17" agencies who'd done so when he said there were only four.-You Decide:

Trump: 'Time to Move Forward' with Russia!-Posted on NewsMax.com-On July 9, 2017:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-putin-tweets-cyber/2017/07/09/id/800608/

Please Read Part 57:

The Most Dangerous and Treacherous Times in U.S. History! (Part 57)-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On August 8, 2017:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-most-dangerous-and-treacherous-times-in-u-s-history-part-57

I believe that the above articles and videos relate to and/or further support my following blogs-You Decide:

Obama: Submit to Globalism or Face War, Death, Destruction!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On November 17, 2016:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/obama-submit-to-globalism-...

Nazi Collaborator Soros Continues Multi-pronged War on Trump, Calls Him “Would-be Dictator”!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On January 5, 2017:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/nazi-collaborator-soros-...

Not Since JFK, Has a President Spit Into the Face of the Globalists, Until Now!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On November 21, 2016:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/not-since-jfk-has-a-pres...

Russian Election Intervention Is Nothing New: ‘The Kremlin’s history of backing the losers’!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On December 14, 2016:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/russian-election-interve...

Letter to our NM U.S. Representative Michelle Lujan-Grisham (re: Shadow Party’s alleged agenda to take down America)!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On February 13, 2015:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/letter-to-our-nm-u-s-rep...

Saudi Arabia Implicated In Bankrolling of Extremist Terrorist Movements Around The World!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On January 16, 2017:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/saudi-arabia-implicated-...

Attention Obama: Ft. Leavenworth is Calling You For Treason!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On January 10, 2017:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/attention-obama-ft-leave...

Brainwashing in America: ‘WHY FEW DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY'! (Part 1)-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On March 21, 2014:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/brainwashing-in-america-...

The MSM conglomerates are the most prolific and insidious "fake news" propagators in the marketplace of ideas!-Posted on Tea Party Command Center-By Jake Martinez-On November 30, 2016:

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-msm-conglomerates-ar...