All Posts (30922)
We do --- and it's almost certainly supplemented with the avalanche of data compiled by the private sector.
If you go to the Facebook ad-buying site -- which anyone can do; it's right here -- it only takes a few clicks to get the social network's estimate of the number of Americans on Facebook who are interested in the Muslim faith. Cobbling together everyone who lives in the U.S. and who has liked pages or items dealing with Islam gives you 9.4 million possible targets for your ads -- a number substantially higher than the the 2.75 million Muslims Pew Research estimates in the U.S. But still: Facebook has a sense of who's interested in the subject.
If that level of pinpointing surprises you, wait for the punchline. Facebook's information is very, very rough compared to that compiled by large consumer data companies. According to one expert, it is also almost certainly the case that the government buys that data to get a clearer picture of the American population.
Here's how it works. Go to the Google ads site and you can see what the search giant thinks it knows about you -- or, at least, what it's willing to share about what it knows. Based on my search history and the websites I visit, Google figures that I am a male aged 35-44, which is correct.
Google knows a lot about me, but not everything. Imagine if you combined what Google knows about me with what my grocery store loyalty card knows about me and what my cable provider knows about me. It's the blind-men-examine-an-elephant situation: Each company only sees a small part and so it doesn't know me well. By giving information to a central source, a data broker like Acxiom or Experian, marketers know that I'm an elephant. Or a donkey. Or anything else.
"The data broker industry is sophisticated enough to pick out people as if they were grains of sand on a huge beach, identify them with particularity and make fine-grained determinations about virtually everything in their lives," said Tim Sparapani, principal of SPQR Strategies and former senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union who, in that capacity, testified before Congress on the subject.
The brokers learn who you are "by amalgamating data from people's offline lives and their online lives," he said. Data like credit card purchases, browser history, online shopping, who you donate to, magazine and newspaper subscriptions, purchases in grocery stores where you swipe your loyalty card. Particularly for credit card purchases, "it's really trivially easy for that data to be sifted and sorted," Sparapani said. All of that data isn't always specific to an individual (whose Time magazine subscription is it, anyway?), but data can also easily build out a profile of a household. Where you vacation. Where you work. They can analyze languages spoken and last names to develop a picture of a person's or family's ethnicity, or religion. It goes on.
Where does this overlap with the government? The government could create a tool to pull in data from all of these other places, too. But why bother, when the private sector already has? "I think it's a well-established fact that the government, writ large, is the largest source of funds for the data brokerage industry," Sparapani said. "They have elastic budgets. They can spend whatever they think they need to spend, particularly post-9/11 and in an era of ISIS commanding our attention." Many of those budgets are classified.
You know of the government's existing databases instinctively: Social Security, Census data, your college or home loans, your tax information, and so on. For immigrants and refugees, there's more information, including interviews and background checks. Law enforcement -- the FBI, Homeland Security -- wants to identify the people they should be keeping an eye on. So they take the government's existing data and overlay the data compiled by the private sector. Then match that against the the profile of who you think is a threat. It's almost certain that if the government wanted to pick out the Muslim population in an area, they could do so quickly and accurately.
We all know about one of these databases: The government's no-fly list. This is a more-constrained version of the Muslim database that's been discussed this week on the campaign trail (though it's not that constrained). It is a list of possible threats that the government and parts of the private sector (like airlines) can access. Obviously, there are also other names that were considered and screened for the list and not added. The government also has a larger "terrorism watch list," which exists for precisely the reason that you'd expect.
In other words, there's no need for Donald Trump or anyone else to start registering Muslims at mosques (as Trump suggested he might do in response to a question on Thursday) to create a picture of the population.
"It's absolutely unnecessary for the U.S. government to build these lists," Sparapani said, "because the DHS and others have already purchased these materials -- and they do every day -- from the data brokerage community."
Patriotic citizens of America, rise up an remove the Islamic communist Traitor Obama now from our White House! His policies will cost the lives of many innocent Americans here in our homeland.
The Hill: “President nObama said Sunday that the Republicans running for president and in Congress continue to respond to terror attacks are doing what the terrorists want them to do….‘Prejudice and discrimination helps ISIL and undermines our national security,’ nObama said.”
"The paper just gives you the location," never the details, said Abu Hajer al-Maghribi, who spent nearly a year as a cameraman for the Islamic State. Sometimes the job was to film prayers at a mosque, he said, or militants exchanging fire. But, inevitably, a slip would come with the coordinates to an unfolding bloodbath.
For Abu Hajer, that card told him to drive two hours southwest of the Syrian city of Raqqa, the capital of the caliphate, or Islamic realm, declared by the militant group. There, he discovered that he was among 10 cameramen sent to record the final hours of more than 160 Syrian soldiers captured in 2014.
"I held my Canon camera," he said, as the soldiers were stripped to their underwear, marched into the desert, forced to their knees and massacred with automatic rifles.
His footage quickly found a global audience, released online in an Islamic State video that spread on social media and appeared in mainstream news coverage on Al Jazeera and other networks.
Abu Hajer, who is now in prison in Morocco, is among more than a dozen Islamic State defectors or members in several countries who provided detailed accounts to The Washington Post of their involvement in, or exposure to, the most potent propaganda machine ever assembled by a terrorist group.
What they described resembles a medieval reality show. Camera crews fan out across the caliphate every day, their ubiquitous presence distorting the events they purportedly document. Battle scenes and public beheadings are so scripted and staged that fighters and executioners often perform multiple takes and read their lines from cue cards.
Cameras, computers and other video equipment arrive in regular shipments from Turkey. They are delivered to a media division dominated by foreigners - including at least one American, according to those interviewed - whose production skills often stem from previous jobs they held at news channels or technology companies.
Senior media operatives are treated as "emirs" of equal rank to their military counterparts. They are directly involved in decisions on strategy and territory. They preside over hundreds of videographers, producers and editors who form a privileged, professional class with status, salaries and living arrangements that are the envy of ordinary fighters.
"It is a whole army of media personnel," said Abu Abdullah al-Maghribi, a second defector who served in the Islamic State's security ranks but had extensive involvement with its propaganda teams.
"The media people are more important than the soldiers," he said. "Their monthly income is higher. They have better cars. They have the power to encourage those inside to fight and the power to bring more recruits to the Islamic State."
Increasingly, that power extends beyond the borders of the caliphate. The attacks in Paris were carried out by militants who belonged to a floating population of Islamic State followers, subjects who are scattered among dozens of countries and whose attachments to the group exist mainly online.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged architect of the attacks who was killed in a raid in France, had appeared repeatedly in Islamic State recruiting materials. The barrage of videos and statements released afterward made clear that the overriding goal of the Islamic State is not merely to inflict terror on an adversary but also to command a global audience.
The United States and its allies have found no meaningful answer to this propaganda avalanche. A State Department program to counter the caliphate's messaging has cycled through a series of initiatives with minimal effect. Islamic State supporters online have repeatedly slipped around efforts to block them on Twitter and Facebook.
Overmatched online, the United States has turned to lethal force. Recent U.S. airstrikes have killed several high-level operatives in the Islamic State's media division, including Junaid Hussain, a British computer expert. FBI Director James B. Comey recently described the propaganda units of the Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS, as military targets.
"I am optimistic that the actions of our colleagues in the military to reduce the supply of ISIL tweeters will have an impact," Comey said at an event last month in Washington. "But we'll have to watch that space and see."
Research for this article involved interviews with Islamic State defectors and members, as well as security officials and counterterrorism experts in six countries on three continents. The most authoritative accounts came from seven Islamic State defectors who were either in prison in Morocco or recently released after facing terrorism charges upon their return from Syria. All spoke on the condition that they be identified only by the adopted names that they used in Syria.
Those interviews were conducted with the permission of the Moroccan government in the administrative wing of a prison complex near the nation's capital. The prisoners said they spoke voluntarily after being approached by Moroccan authorities on behalf of The Post. Other prisoners declined. Most of the interviews took place in the presence of security officials, an arrangement that probably led participants to play down their roles in the Islamic State but seemed to have little effect on their candor in describing the caliphate's media division.
Abu Hajer, a soft-spoken Moroccan with a thin beard and lean physique, said he had been active in jihadist media circles for more than a decade before he entered Syria in 2013. He began participating in online Islamist forums after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, he said, and later became an administrator of an influential site known as Shamukh, giving him authority to admit new members and monitor the material other militants posted.
Those credentials cleared his path to coveted assignments within the Islamic State, a group that began as al-Qaida's affiliate in Iraq before splitting off from that terrorist network in an ideological rupture two years ago.
The group has an elaborate system for evaluating and training new arrivals. Abu Hajer said that shortly after entering Syria he was groomed to be part of the Islamic State's media team. He spent two months undergoing basic military training before he was admitted to a special, month-long program for media operatives.
The program "specializes in how to do filming. How to mix footage. How to get the right voice and tone" in interviews, he said. After completing the course, he was given a Canon camera, a Samsung Galaxy smartphone and an assignment with the caliphate's media unit in Raqqa.
Abu Hajer, who is in his mid-30s, had come from an impoverished corner of Morocco. Now that he is in prison, his wife and children have returned to the encampment where they lived before departing, a shanty village of corrugated tin and plywood with no running water near a cement plant on the outskirts of Rabat.
In Syria, they were given a villa with a garden. Abu Hajer was issued a car, a Toyota Hilux with four-wheel drive to enable him to reach remote assignments. He was also paid a salary of $700 a month - seven times the sum paid to typical fighters - plus money for food, clothes and equipment. He said he was also excused from the taxes that the Islamic State imposes on most of its subjects.
He quickly settled into a routine that involved getting his work assignments each morning on pieces of paper that also served as travel documents enabling him to pass Islamic State checkpoints. Most jobs were mundane, such as capturing scenes from markets or celebrations of Muslim holidays.
Abu Hajer said he encountered only one Western hostage, John Cantlie, a British war correspondent who was kidnapped in Syria in 2012. Cantlie was cast by his captors in a series of BBC-style news reports that touted the caliphate's bustling economies and adherence to Islamic law while mocking Western governments.
Abu Hajer said he filmed Cantlie in Mosul in 2014, and he said that by then the British broadcaster was no longer wearing an orange jumpsuit or confined to a darkened room and was allowed to wander among the markets and streets of Mosul for camera crews.
"I cannot tell you whether he was coerced or threatened. He was walking freely," Abu Hajer said, an assertion that is at odds with what is known about Cantlie's captivity.
A video released in January shows Cantlie in multiple locations in Mosul, including one in which he is riding a motorcycle with an armed militant seated behind him. It was among his final appearances before the series was halted with no explanation or subsequent indication of Cantlie's fate, although articles attributed to him have since appeared in the caliphate's magazine.
One of Abu Hajer's next assignments took him to an elaborately staged scene of carnage, a mass execution-style killing choreographed for cameras in a way that has become an Islamic State signature.
After arriving at the site, he said that he and the other camera operators gathered to "organize ourselves so that we wouldn't all film from the same perspective."
Abu Hajer said he had grave objections to what happened to the Syrian soldiers in the massacre that he filmed in the desert near Tabqa air base. But he acknowledged that his misgivings had more to do with how the soldiers were treated - and whether that comported with Islamic law - than any concern for their fates.
As the soldiers were stripped and marched into the desert, Abu Hajer said he filmed from the window of his car as an Egyptian assistant drove alongside the parade of condemned men.
"When the group stopped, I got out," he said. "They were told to kneel down. Some soldiers got shot. Others were beheaded." The video, still available online, shows multiple camera operators moving in and out of view as Islamic State operatives fire hundreds of rounds.
"It wasn't the killing of soldiers that I was against," Abu Hajer said. "They were Syrian soldiers, Nusairis," he said, referring to the religious sect to which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his closest supporters belong. "I thought they deserved to get shot."
"What I didn't like was that they were stripped to their underwear," he said, an indignity that he considered an affront to Islamic law.
Abu Hajer also said he kept his lens aimed away from the beheadings because of his objections to the practice. But asked whether he considered refusing to record the massacre, he said he feared that would consign him to the fate of those he filmed.
"You don't want to do it," he said, "but you know that you cannot say, 'No.' "
The contradictions of the Islamic State's propaganda apparatus can make its structure and strategy seem incoherent.
The group exerts extraordinarily tight control over the production of its videos and messages but relies on the chaos of the Internet and social media to disseminate them. Its releases cluster around seemingly incompatible themes: sometimes depicting the caliphate as a peaceful and idyllic domain, other times as a society awash in apocalyptic violence.
The dual messages are designed to influence a divided audience. The beheadings, immolations and other spectacles are employed both to menace Western adversaries and to appeal to disenfranchised Muslim males weighing a leap into the Islamist fray.
A separate collection depicts the Islamic State as a livable destination, a benevolent state committed to public works. Videos show the construction of public markets, smiling religious police on neighborhood patrols and residents leisurely fishing on the banks of the Euphrates.
Even the concept of the caliphate has a dual aspect. The terrorist group's rise is a result mainly of its demonstrated military power and the tangible territory it has seized. But a remarkable amount of its energy is devoted to creating an alternative, idealized version of itself online and shaping how that virtual empire is perceived. That project has been entrusted to a media division that was operational well before the caliphate was formally declared in 2014. U.S. intelligence officials said they have little insight into who controls the Islamic State's propaganda strategy, although it is presumed to be led by Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the caliphate's main spokesman.
The media wing has relied on veterans of al-Qaida media teams, young recruits fluent in social media platforms, and a bureaucratic discipline reminiscent of totalitarian regimes. Defectors and current members said that phones and cameras they brought to Syria were impounded upon arrival by the Islamic State to prevent unauthorized and potentially unflattering images from finding their way online.
Only sanctioned crew members were allowed to carry cameras, and even they were to follow strict guidelines on the handling of their material. Once finished with a day's shooting, the crews were to load their recordings onto laptops, transfer the footage to memory sticks, then deliver those to designated drop sites.
In an Islamic State enclave near Aleppo, the media division's headquarters was a two-story home in a residential neighborhood, defectors said. The site was protected by armed guards, and only those with permission from the regional emir were allowed to enter.
Each floor had four rooms packed with cameras, computers and other high-end equipment, said Abu Abdullah, 37, who made occasional visits to the site as a security and logistics operative. Internet access went through a Turkish wireless service.
The house served as an editorial office of Dabiq, the Islamic State's glossy online magazine. Some also worked for al-Furqan, the terrorist group's main media wing, which accounts for the majority of its videos and mass-audience statements.
Overall, there were more than 100 media operatives assigned to the unit, Abu Abdullah said. "Some of them were hackers; some were engineers."
Abu Abdullah had no affiliation with the media arm, but he often did its bidding. At one point he was tapped to install a generator at the media headquarters so that it would not lose power when electricity went down.
Another assignment involved recovering corpses from battle scenes and arranging them to be photographed for propaganda videos exalting their sacrifice. He would wash away dried blood, lift the corners of dead fighters' mouths into beatific smiles, and raise their index fingers in a gesture adopted by the Islamic State as a symbol of its cause.
Many in the American public were introduced to the Islamic State through wrenching videos in which Mohammed Emwazi - a masked, knife-wielding militant with a British accent known as "Jihadi John" - slit the throats of Western hostages, including Americans James Foley and Steve Sotloff.
Scrutiny of those and other videos revealed an extraordinary level of choreography. Discrepancies among frames showed that scenes had been rehearsed and shot in multiple takes over many hours.
The releases showed professional-caliber attention to lighting, sound and camera positioning. Certain videos, including one showing a decapitated American Peter Kassig, appear to have employed special effects software to digitally impose images of Kassig and his killer against a dramatic backdrop.
Those production efforts were reserved for videos aimed at mass Western audiences and were addressed explicitly to President nObama. But defectors said that even internal events not intended for a global viewership were similarly staged.
Abu Abdullah said he had witnessed a public execution-style killing in the city of Bab in which a propaganda team presided over almost every detail. They brought a white board scrawled with Arabic script to serve as an off-camera cue card for the public official charged with reciting the condemned man's alleged crimes. The hooded executioner raised and lowered his sword repeatedly so that crews could catch the blade from multiple angles.
The beheading took place only when the camera crew's director said it was time to proceed. The execution wasn't run by the executioner, Abu Abdullah said. "It's the media guy who says when they are ready."
For two decades, the dominant brand in militant Islam was al-Qaida. But the Islamic State has eclipsed it in the span of two years by turning the older network's propaganda playbook on its head.
Al-Qaida's releases always exalted its leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden. But the Islamic State's propaganda is generally focused on its fighters and followers. Appearances by leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or his senior lieutenants have been rare.
Rejecting the lecture format employed by al-Qaida, the Islamic State's videos are cinematic, emphasizing dramatic scenes, stylized transitions and special effects.
"The group is very image-conscious, much like a corporation," said a U.S. intelligence official involved in monitoring the Islamic State's media operations. Its approach to building its brand is so disciplined, the official said, "that it's very much like saying 'This is Coca-Cola' or 'This is Nike.' "
The propaganda competition with al-Qaida is a high priority, defectors said. One former Islamic State fighter said that he came under enormous pressure from the organization after it learned that his father had been a high-ranking al-Qaida operative killed in Pakistan in a CIA drone strike.
Islamic State media figures pushed the recruit to appear in a video renouncing his father's organization, said the son, who spoke on the condition that neither he nor his father be identified. His refusal, and reluctance to fight al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria, damaged his standing in the Islamic State, and he said he fled in fear for his life.
Al-Qaida has typically required extraordinary patience from its audience. Even its most media-savvy affiliate, the al-Qaida branch in Yemen, often takes months to release new issues of its online magazine, Inspire.
The frequency and volume of releases by the Islamic State are staggering by comparison. The group has produced hundreds of videos in more than a half-dozen languages, puts out daily radio broadcasts and garners as many as 2 million mentions per month on Twitter.
Twitter and Facebook have moved to shut down accounts associated with the Islamic State and ban the distribution of its messages, but users have found ways to resurface. Thousands of loyalists have also flocked to new services that are less vulnerable to government scrutiny, including Telegram, a messaging application created by a Russian software entrepreneur, although Telegram began shutting down Islamic State channels after the Paris attacks.
The Islamic State has also exploited apparent connections to news organizations in the Middle East. A video that surfaced in 2013 appeared to show an Al Jazeera correspondent working with a cameraman, Reda Seyam, a militant who had been linked to terrorist plots and is a senior figure in the Islamic State.
In a comprehensive examination of the terrorist group's media releases in the summer, Charlie Winter, until recently an analyst at the Quilliam Group in the United Kingdom, identified 1,146 distinct pieces of propaganda, including photos, videos and audio releases, during a single month-long stretch.
Winter counted as many as 36 separate media offices that answer to the Islamic State's headquarters in Raqqa - including affiliates in Libya, Afghanistan and West Africa - and saw evidence of extraordinary coordination across the network.
At one point during his study, on July 19, he noticed that every affiliate had simultaneously shifted to a new logo with the same stylized Arabic script. The icon appeared in the same location on every image and in the initial frame of every video release.
"There was clearly a communique issued," Winter said in an interview. "The Islamic State is constantly striving to be as formalized, as bureaucratic-seeming as possible, to keep up the appearance of being a state."
That effort to simulate legitimacy is particularly pervasive inside the caliphate.
The same videos employed to shock outsiders are used internally to cow the group's less enthusiastic subjects. A constant stream of utopian messages is designed to convince residents, in Soviet-style fashion, of the superiority of the Islamic State.
While Internet access is often restricted to the public, propaganda units set up giant viewing screens in neighborhoods where residents come out in the evenings to watch approved videos streamed from laptops.
"It's like a movie theater," said Abu Hourraira al-Maghribi, a 23-year-old with a shaved head who wore an Adidas hoodie when he met with reporters in prison. The videos are drawn from the Islamic State's expanding film library, he said, depicting "daily life, military training and beheadings."
The Islamic State's most notorious videos - including those showing the beheadings of Western hostages and the burning of a caged Jordanian fighter pilot - were shown over and over, he said, long after their audiences beyond the caliphate dissipated.
Abu Hourraira said he attended one screening on a street near the University of Mosul that attracted about 160 people, including at least 10 women and 15 children. One of the videos showed an execution by Emwazi, who is believed to have been killed this month in a U.S. drone strike.
"The kids, they are not looking away - they are fascinated by it," Abu Hourraira said. Jihadi John became a subject of such fascination that some children started to mimic his uniform, he said, wearing all "black and a belt with a little knife."
The Islamic State maintains strict bureaucratic boundaries within its media wing. Camera crews were kept separate from the teams of producers and editors who stitched the raw footage together, adding titles, effects and soundtracks. Real names were almost never exchanged.
But Abu Hajer and two other defectors said that an American in his late 30s with white skin and dark-but-graying hair was a key player in some of the Islamic State's most ambitious videos.
"The American does the editing," Abu Hajer said, and was the creative force behind a 55-minute documentary called "Flames of War" that was released in late 2014. The film strives to create a mythology surrounding the Islamic State's origin and connection to the historic Muslim caliphate.
It culminates with scenes of Syrian soldiers digging their own graves while a masked fighter, speaking English with a North American accent, warns that "the flames of war are only beginning to intensify."
Another American-sounding figure surfaced more recently, delivering daily news broadcasts that appear to emanate from a radio station that the Islamic State overran last year in Mosul. After the attacks in Paris, his voice was the one that most English-speaking audiences heard describing France as "the capital of prostitution and vice" and warning that governments involved in strikes in Syria "will continue to be at the top of the target list."
U.S. officials said they have been unable to determine the identity of that speaker or others with North American accents. The militant who appeared in the "Flames of War" film remains the subject of an entry on the FBI's website appealing to the public for help identifying him.
The Islamic State's relentless media campaign has fueled a global migration of militants. More than 30,000 foreign fighters from more than 115 countries have flooded into Syria since the start of that country's civil war. At least a third arrived within the past year, the vast majority of them to join the Islamic State, according to U.S. intelligence estimates.
Of the defectors interviewed by The Post, all but one said their decisions to leave for Syria could be traced to videos they saw online, or encounters on social media, that ignited a jihadist impulse. The only outlier said that he had been prodded by a friend to come to Syria and was promptly imprisoned for refusing to fight.
Abu Hourraira, who spent months fighting in Iraq, said he began searching online for material about the Islamic State as the group began to dominate headlines about the war in Syria. He decided to abandon his job at a dry-cleaning business in Casablanca only after watching the group's emotionally charged videos.
"Some were like Van Damme movies," he said, referring to Jean-Claude Van Damme, the Hollywood action star. "You see these men fighting, and you want to be one of these brave heroes."
Like many countries in the region, Morocco has struggled to offset that pull. Moroccan security officials said that more than 1,500 men had left the country to fight in Iraq and Syria, plus more than 500 women and children, many of them seeking to join their spouses, sons or fathers.
Several of the attackers in Paris, including the alleged architect, were of Moroccan descent, but were born and grew up in Europe.
"The fight now is with the propaganda because it plays a very big role in these numbers," said a senior Moroccan security official who spoke on the condition that neither he nor his agency be identified. Al-Qaida recruitment relied almost exclusively on direct contact in mosques or other settings, he said, but "now, 90 percent are being recruited online."
Defectors offered conflicting views on whether the Islamic State would endure. Some said that a cohort of young males in Iraq and Syria are already coming of age immersed in the group's propaganda and ideology, and that a generation of children was being raised to idealize its masked militants.
But all attributed their decisions to leave Iraq and Syria to a combination of factors, including not only fears for their safety but also a disenchantment that set in when the reality of the caliphate failed to match the version they had encountered online.
Some said they were haunted by scenes of cruelty they saw firsthand but that Islamic State propaganda teams edited out. Abu Abdullah, who wore a hood to disguise his identity during an interview, said he witnessed a mass killing near Aleppo in which Islamic State fighters fired into a crowd of Alawites including women and children.
When a 10-year-old boy emerged alive, the highest-ranking militant on hand "pulled out a gun and shot him," Abu Abdullah said. The slaying was recorded by the ever-present camera crews, he said, but the footage "was never aired."
Abu Hajer, the former cameraman, said his standing with the group began to slip when he became involved in helping to administer the Islamic State's religious courts. After sharing views that he said were at odds with his superiors, the perks of his media position were withdrawn.
"They took away my weapons, my monthly income," as well as his villa and car, he said. A relative told a Post reporter that Abu Hajer finally pulled his family out of Syria after he had received a warning in which an Islamic State militant dragged a finger across his throat.
A sympathetic colleague gave Abu Hajer the paperwork he needed to pass Islamic State checkpoints on the way out of Syria, he said. Another friend gave him cash to put his family on a flight out of Turkey. Moroccan authorities were waiting for him at the Casablanca airport.
He now shares a crowded cell with other militants in a high-walled Moroccan prison, with two years remaining on a three-year sentence. Asked whether he worries that his work will induce others to join the Islamic State, he gave an equivocal answer. "To a certain extent I feel responsible," he said. "But I am not the main reason."
His videos continue to circulate online.
By: Craig Andresen and Diane Sori / Right Side Patriots
At last Tuesday’s press conference with French President Francois Hallande, Barack Hussein Obama told two most grievous of lies with the first being about his wanting to stop ISIS in Syria for truth be told, Obama’s true goal is to remove Syrian President Bashir al-Assad from power, thus creating yet another vacuum of power…just like he did with the nightmare called the Arab Spring where ‘secular’ muslim dictators in Lybia, Egypt, and Yemen were forced from power. And Obama filled that power void with his brethren in the Muslim Brotherhood who in turn used ISIS aligned thugs as their police force…if you will…who instilled sharia law and started their attacks on Christians, and doing so in the most horrific of ways…with only Egypt pulling free via a military coup. And siding with the anything-but- moderate rebels in Syria will afford the same outcome and will add Syria into the ISIS ever-expanding caliphate.
And Obama’s lie number two…a lie Vladimir Putin will surely call him to task for…was about who caused Tuesday’s Russian helicopter to be blown-up as it tried to rescue the surviving pilot of the earlier in the day Turkish downing of a Russian fighter jet. And again the truth involves the Obama sanctioned anything-but-moderate rebels…in this case the ISIS-aligned Free Syrian Army… rebels whom the media stated blew-up the Russian helicopter, but what they dare not report is that they did so with an American TOW antitank missile, and guess who supplied the rebels with said missile… Obama and his administration of course.
But before we go further into recent events let’s get some much needed background info to see how we arrived at the point we are today.
The Tea Party Killing Machine "Trump Card LLC" Libertarians Plan To Attack Donald Trump

"Trump Card LLC" Libertarians Plan To Attack Donald Trump

The news about the new attack PAC against Donald Trump is starting to circulate and will be well known fast as the lips can fly and the fingers can tap buttons on the keyboards. Yes, our shiny establishment libertarian republicans have put together a PAC of business wealthies to show the strength of the their collected dollars to a candidate that has his own dollars. The PAC won't let their donor list go public so there's something about the something and I myself am under the thought that some of the donors are of the democratic communist party. I've always stated the rino population that has infiltrated the republican party are the libertarian half democrat, half republican creatures of our despare.
Many many business entities are named, "The Trump Card" and some may or may not be connected to the new "Tea Party Killing Machine" Trump Card LLC. There are even foreign business entities with the name "The Trump Card". "The Trump Card" is a popular name most likely playing off of Donald Trumps popularity. Using the name "Trump Card" is a good laugh for the libertarian republican rinos and mixing the name "Trump Card" in with all the other businesses named "Trump Card" is a good way to conceal the organization that plans to attack Donald Trump.
There are several "Trump Card" business entities. The "Trump Card LLC" I'm investigating was created August, 2015 and is connected to "Paracorp Plus" under the name of "Parasec". Paracec is the registered agent for "Trump Card LLC" that's out to kill Donald Trump and the Tea Party. All the names listed in the next paragraph are without a doubt "Libertarians". My first thought that's not proven is this "Registering Agent Business" Parasec could be and most likely is the connecting rod for the libertarian political machine. Why would the "Trump Card LLC" Tea Party killing machine use someone else's registered agent business and not one of their own? Parasec is "Global".
What is the "Trump Card LLC" and/or "Trump Card Inc.", well, I got hold of a list of participating directors: Liz Mair, Elizabeth Mair, Michael Hanlon, Michelle Hanlon, Reince Priebus, RNC, IGH Holdings Inc, Ron Pauls Private Republican Liberty Caucus, New Media Strategies, Hynes Communications LLC, DCI Group LLC, MAIR Strategies LLC, Rick Wilson.
The " Congressional Republican Liberty Caucus " may be confused with " Ron Paul's Private Non Congressional Republican Liberty Caucus " that is connected to "The Trump Card LLC" attacking Donald Trump. The "Congressional Liberty Caucus" was created by Justin Amash and as of this day the "Republican Congressional Liberty Caucus" does not have any libertarian members and will not attack Donald Trump. MARK SANFORD and RAUL LABRADOR have good conservative voting records in opposition to the GOP libertarians.
If you go to " Ron Paul's Non Congressional Liberty Caucus " you will see they have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul listed as members. After all the research I've done on Ted Cruz there's no doubt at all Ted Cruz is libertarian and "Lying" about his stance on illegal immigration. Ted Cruz will legalize illegal aliens if he happens to get elected. Other libertarians out to take control and distort the "Tea Party" with libertarianism are: Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rand Paul a most if not all of the republican presidential candidates. Ben Carson is dipped into the libertarian puddle also. Half of Fox News anchors, reporters and contributors are libertarian.
Here's the link to the "Libertarian Republican Rino" list. Libertarian Rinos
Article: The Libertarians Believe U.S. Citizens Into Their Non Reality
Read Full Article Here: The Tea Party Killing Machine
.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hilly Clinton tweeted Sunday that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” That’s more than a little problematic given the multiple women who have accused her husband of sexual misconduct over the years, women who the former first lady most certainly did not believe. Daily Caller reports: “The link in her tweet [posted in support of a controversial documentary] went to a campaign webpage on sexual assault on campus that starts with a quote from a speech Hilly gave in September: ‘I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.’” -Fox News
A self-described “old time Catholic” stirred to a major renewal in faith by the anti-communist Pope John Paul II, Biorseth was rejected for the local Diaconate for being “too rigid” in his religious views. He has written a book, Culture = Religion and Politics: Who Are We?, describing the decline of America and how the country can be saved from the Marxist, atheist and Islamic forces trying to destroy it. He dedicates the book to the truth, his wife, and “to the America that was, and that can be again.”
The book looks at the history of America and the West and argues that our success as a nation has been based on Judeo-Christian values, now under sustained assault by the President of the United States, referred to as “Comrade nObama, peace be upon him.” The phrase “peace be upon him” is an Arabic phrase often used to refer to a prophet of Islam. Alluding to nObama’s Marxist tendencies, Biorseth also refers to the President’s approach as “nObamunism.”
In terms of the presidential race, Biorseth praises GOP candidate Donald Trump for making illegal immigration a major national issue and declares, “I don’t like him, but I love what he is doing. He is taking on and doing damage to two exceptionally destructive movements in America: 1. The political correctness movement. 2. The mainstream news media.”
In a list of recommendations for saving America, he calls for “taking down the news media” and opening up new lines of communication for private citizens that include “free, open and unlimited publishing and broadcasting of ideas and opposing arguments…” Indeed, his book, which is self-published throughCreateSpace, an Amazon company, is an example of how ordinary citizens are taking matters into their own hands.
Going further, he says, “Remove the press and all press space, facilities and equipment from the White House, the Capitol Building and all other government facilities…Eliminate all existing press passes and credentials allowing special access to government facilities and personnel. The press is to be no more free and no more restricted in government access than any other private citizen.”
He doesn’t spare his own church from scrutiny, exposing what he calls Marxist and homosexual elements on the verge of becoming a “controlling force,” even in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. An avid listener to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, Biorseth credits the national conservative radio host for covering significant stories ignored by the liberal media, including the recent reports that a secret cabal of Cardinals had forced Pope Benedict to resign, in order to make the leftist Francis the pope.
He faults Francis, during his address to Congress, for citing Dorothy Day among four historical American figures. Biorseth calls her a “Catholic Communizer” who did not belong in the company of figures like Abraham Lincoln. He says Francis, in his remarks, also seemed to favor nObama’s immigration program that is designed to help the “Marxocrat Party” and diminish American sovereignty over its own borders.
What he found most appalling about the address, Biorseth says, was what Francis did not say. He says Francis did not address the “Culture of Death” of abortion and sexual perversion that has been given a stamp of approval by members of the U.S. Supreme Court and others who were in his audience.
At his “Catholic American Thinker” website, referring to our latest blockbuster revelations about how the nObama administration is funding the pro-Muslim immigration programs of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Biorseth writes, “Could you ever imagine that Catholic Bishops would ever bring in illegal Moslems while closing Catholic Parishes? Well, you don’t have to imagine it.” He notes the evidence in our column of how Catholic Churches are closing, mostly across the Northeast, while the Bishops are getting federal funds to settle Muslims from the Middle East in American communities.
Citing one dramatic example, he notes how Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was closed down, and then leased to an Islamic society which renamed it “Mosque of Jesus the Son of Mary,” or Masjit Isa Ibn Maryam. Biorseth comments, “All the crosses were replaced with copper crescent moons, in favor of the moon Mohammed worshiped before he invented Islam.”
Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Syracuse had been built by German immigrants 100 years ago. The church was closed in 2010 and taken over by a Muslim group, which removed six crosses from the steeples in order to turn it into a mosque.
Answering the question in the title, “Who are we?” Biorseth answers, “We are a Christian nation, from our birth.” In order to save the country, he advises, “Get off the couch. This ain’t no pleasure cruise…You make culture. You are the root of culture…Lead the way. Show others how to do it. Show others who we are. Restore Western civilization. That is your calling, and you are the only one who can do it.”
.
There are, however, smaller, less visible and hence especially insidious abridgements of the right to make oneself heard. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear such a case from Texas, where it is a crime for a retired veterinarian to share his advice with people seeking it.
Dr. Ron Hines, 72, of Brownsville, is a licensed veterinarian with a PhD in microbiology. He is physically disabled but eager to continue dispensing his healing wisdom worldwide, which he does using the Internet and telephone. He estimates that about 5 percent of those he speaks to are in Texas. He neither dispenses nor prescribes medications. But in 2005, the Texas legislature, with time on its hands and nothing better to do to perfect the state, criminalized such electronic veterinary advice.
Students of contemporary government will instantly understand that this was not done to protect pets, none of whom has complained about, or been reported injured by, people like Hines. Rather, the legislature acted to protect those veterinarians who were vocally peeved because potential customers were getting online advice that, even when not free, is acquired at less expense and more conveniently than that gained from visits to a veterinarian’s office.
This is rent-seeking, the use of public power to confer private benefits on one economic interest by handicapping another interest. Rent-seeking is what the political class rewards when it is not brooding about why people think the political class is disreputable.
Many veterinarians dispense advice on the Internet and on local radio and television programs; Hines is just a small part of a metastasizing menace. So the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, which has never received a complaint about Hines, has fined him and suspended his license in order to prevent him from piling up ill-gotten gains, which in his best year totaled $2,800.
It is Texas lore: When people wondered why a single Texas Ranger was sent to quell a riot, the ranger said laconically, there’s only one riot. Today, the Texas legislature in all its majesty is challenged by the wee but mighty Institute for Justice. It exists to quell lawless legislators, and it represents Hines.
A few kinds of speech — defamation, inciting violence, falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater — are not protected by the First Amendment. But governments increasingly use their power of occupational licensure — the power to regulate entry into a profession — to justify regulating speech pertinent to the occupations. This has even included restricting interior decorating advice.
Various appellate courts have rendered conflicting decisions as to when — never, sometimes or always — occupational speech merits First Amendment scrutiny and protection. This is one of the few areas of First Amendment law on which the Supreme Court has not ruled. It has rendered decisions about speech in political campaigns and by students at various education levels, speech in signs, advertising, solicitations and video games. Even if the court remains reluctant to take notice of blatant rent-seeking through speech restrictions, the time is ripe for a clarifying ruling to give maximum protection to speech that, although related to licensed occupations, bears no demonstrable relation to a legitimate government interest in public health and safety. And the ruling should limit the latitude government has to evade First Amendment scrutiny by simply declaring that when it regulates occupational speech it is really regulating conduct.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision about whether to hear Hines’s case comes as occupational licensure is spreading. And as the use of the Internet and other technologies for the practice of various professions, especially telemedicine, is burgeoning. And as all sorts of speech are being restricted almost casually.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing about race-based government actions (“a sordid business, this divvying us up by race”), has said: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Tuesday the court can begin saying that the way to stop the multiplying abridgements of freedom of speech is to stop them, large and small, beginning with the one preventing Hines from talking about pets.
Among top-tier GOP presidential contenders, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, saw the least drop off in media coverage in the week since the Islamist raid in Paris.
When it comes to theology, politicians are pretty dire. When it comes to the theology of Islam, American politicians are the pits. Good intentions have led many astray since the start of the current war with Islamist militants. President nObama has been one of the prime offenders, often expounding on what Islam really is and isn’t. The president took plenty of heat for his head-snapping claim last year that the Islamic State is “not Islamic.”
Wanting neither to dignify ISIS as a legitimate power nor to suggest that there is any clash between the Islam and the West, nObama runs in circles. The West is not at war with Islamists, therefore the Islamists with which the West is at war must not really be Muslims. Poof. The relative merits of an enemy’s theology would seem to be no matter for an American president’s attention, but it has become a gag reflex for Democrats when confronted with escalations of the ongoing struggle.
(This has a cousin in the oft-heard argument from Westerners and non-Muslims about what “moderate Muslims” ought to do. As if Muslims were waiting for cues from Bill Maher on what direction their religion ought to take.)
Which brings us to Hilly Clinton, United Methodist, presumptive Democratic nominee and, now, amateur theologian and sociologist. In her speech calling for an escalation of the war against ISIS, Clinton explained who Muslims are. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people,” she said. “And have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” -Fox News
A Syrian passport was found near the body of one of the terrorists. Why was it there? Undoubtedly, to back up the Islamic State boast that it is infiltrating operatives amid the refugees flooding Europe. The passport may have been fake, but the terrorist’s fingerprints were not. They match those of a man who just a month earlier had come through Greece on his way to kill Frenchmen in Paris.
If the other goal of the Paris massacre was to frighten France out of the air campaign in Syria -- the way Spain withdrew from the Iraq War after the terror attack on its trains in 2004 -- they picked the wrong country. France is a serious post-colonial power, as demonstrated in Ivory Coast, the Central African Republic and Mali, which France saved from an Islamist takeover in 2013.
Indeed, socialist President Francois Hollande has responded furiously to his country’s 9/11 with an intensified air campaign, hundreds of raids on suspected domestic terrorists, a state of emergency and proposed changes in the constitution to make France less hospitable to jihad.
Meanwhile, Barack nObama, titular head of the free world, has responded to Paris with weariness and annoyance. His news conference in Turkey was marked by a stunning tone of passivity, detachment and lassitude, compounded by impatience and irritability at the very suggestion that his Syria strategy might be failing.
The only time he showed any passion was in denouncing Republicans for hardheartedness toward Muslim refugees. One hundred and twenty-nine innocents lie dead but it takes the GOP to kindle nObama’s ire.
The rest was mere petulance, dismissing criticisms of his Syria policy as popping off. Inconveniently for nObama, one of those popper-offers is Dianne Feinstein, the leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. She directly contradicted nObama’s blithe assertion, offered the day before the Paris attack, that the Islamic State (aka Isil) was contained and not gaining strength. “I have never been more concerned,” said Feinstein. “Isil is not contained. Isil is expanding.”
nObama defended his policy by listing its multifaceted elements. Such as, “I hosted at the United Nations an entire discussion of counterterrorism strategies and curbing the flow of foreign fighters.” An “entire” discussion, mind you. Not a partial one. They tremble in Raqqa.
And “We have mobilised 65 countries to go after Isil.” Yes, and what would we do without Luxembourg?
nObama complained of being criticised for not being bellicose enough. But the complaint is not about an absence of bellicosity but about an absence of passion, of urgency and of commitment to the fight. The air campaign over Syria averages seven strikes a day. Seven.
In Operation Desert Storm, we flew 1,100 sorties a day. Even in the Kosovo campaign, we averaged 138. nObama is doing just enough in Syria to give the appearance of motion, yet not nearly enough to have any chance of success.
nObama’s priorities lie elsewhere. For example, climate change, which he considers the greatest “threat to our future.” And, of course, closing Guantánamo. nObama actually released five detainees on the day after the Paris massacre. He is passionate about Guantánamo.
It’s a great terrorist recruiting tool, he repeatedly explains. nObama still seems to believe that -- even as the Islamic State has produced an astonishing wave of terrorist recruitment with a campaign of brutality, butchery and enslavement filmed in living color. Who can still believe that young Muslims are leaving Europe to join the Islamic State because of Guantánamo?
nObama’s other passion is protecting Islam from any possible association with “violent extremism.” The Islamic State is nothing but “killers with fantasies of glory.” nObama can never bring himself to acknowledge why these people kill and willingly die: to advance a radical Islamist millenarianism that is purposeful, indeed eschatological -- and appealing enough to have created the largest, most dangerous terrorist movement on earth.
Hollande is trying to gather a real coalition to destroy the Islamic State, even as nObama touts his phony 65. For 11 post-World War II presidencies, coalition leading has been the role of the United States. Where is America today? Awaiting a president. The next president.
There were seven coordinated terror attacks in Paris carried out by militants armed with kalashnikov rifles and suicide vests.
By Oscar Y. Harward
It appears Republican Party’s ‘establishment’ so-called leaders; better known to Conservatives as Republican In Name Only (RINO) Republicans, are striving to manipulate a 2016 GOP Presidential nominee.
Just as President Obama changes the rules in government, Republican Party ‘establishment’ leaders’ changes (y)our Republican Party candidates' rules.
Egotistical groups in the Republican National Committee (RNC), many RINO leaders on Capitol Hill, and other ‘Media’ consultants on TV News criticize you and me for (y)our candidate choices.
Individuals and/or groups of the Washington, DC based Republican Party needs to quit acting like ‘Communist dictators’ and ‘grow up’ by allowing GOP voters to determine the Republican Party nominee.
In ‘all’ Primary Elections, GOP leaders should allow GOP voters to ‘freely’ decide his/her choice candidate(s), unless a particular candidate is improper, illegal, and/or potentially an ‘embarrassment with cause’ candidate.
No GOP leader(s) should become ‘involved’ in ‘Republican Party Primaries’, converting GOP ‘solicited’ and ‘untargeted’ candidate(s) money as happened in the 2014 GOP Primaries.
As Washington based GOP leaders demand a specific 2016 Presidential nominee, Republican voters may take a pass in voting for any or all 2016 Republican Party candidates.
By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots
Illinois Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky was doing a radio interview a few days ago and she tried to make a case that was devoid of logic and any aspect of intelligence.
Before I continue, allow me to point out that Schakowsky is a congresswoman, from ILLINOIS and that IS important to this article.
Schakowsky’s inane point was this…because of the recent terrorist, the recent ISLAMIC terrorist attacks in Paris…we should adopt stricter GUN CONTROL laws in OUR country.
Here’s what she had to say on the matter…
“Obviously it is frightening for every western country, but I do want to remind you that before we killed a jihadist named Awlaki, he did a video that said to Americans, ‘Join the jihad and get guns,’ because it’s so easy in the United States of America to get a weapon. And that ought to be a chilling reminder because, aside from blowing themselves up, which is of course is not about small weapons. These people used the kinds of weapons that are still available in the United States of America. I think it ought cause us to have another consideration of sensible gun safety laws.”
You have got to be kidding me…
In 1953 during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower, the Muslim Brotherhood began infiltrating the federal government. It is a scheme which has accelerated rapidly under Barack Obama, a willing partner and Muslim/Marxist whose anti-American agenda includes the creation of a caliphate in the U.S.
In an outright display of support for the Brotherhood, Obama has refused to stem the infiltration of our nation by Jihadists. In fact, he has chosen to bring 100,000 to 200,000 Muslim “refu
gees” into the United States from Syria; refugees who can never be vetted and whose numbers are comprised of some 85% males, aged 15-35.
Clearly bowing to the president’s bidding, the Director of National Intelligence has-incredibly to say the least-described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular organization.” The State Department issued a visa to Hazi Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House Officials, all the while aware that Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization founded by Omar Abdel Rahman, the same blind sheikh convicted in the first bombing of the World Trade Center. What sort of perverse policy must the St
ate Department embrace to allow such a meeting to take place and what was the tenor of the discussions between the Department and this obvious terrorist? Under the present circumstances could anyone investigating the State Department believe what they are told by the Obama Regime?
And Obama’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood has continued to grow during his years in the White House.
Obama’s principle advisor (some have even suggested co-president) Valerie Jarret has had dealings with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), going so far as to invite ISNA President Ingrid Mattson to work on the W
hite House Council of Women and Girls which Jarrett leads. Seven years ago, Mattson offered the prayer at Obama’s first inauguration. For many, “…the hidden message behind [that] display [was] that members of the [Obama]/[leftist] establishment will continue their torrent love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood.” Mattson’s ISNA “…was founded in 1981 by Muslim Brotherhood members” and “…seeks to establish Islamic law, or Shari’ah, as the basis [of] controlling society.”
Even the President’s brother Malik is known to be in charge of finances and arms procurement for the Muslim Brotherhood and executive secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization, or IDO, which is listed as a terrorist group by the US State Department. Malik has visited the Oval Office and sat with the President, even
though all these facts were known.
The conclusion drawn from this information is inescapable. The current administration is using multiple associations to undermine the security and well-being of the country we all hold dear. From encouraging and facilitating illegal immigration both from the Middle East and Central America, to his blatant unwillingness to close the nation’s borders, Barack Obama has turned to outright support of the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood. And there can be no question that the chaos this administrat
ion is causing in the everyday lives of Americans is intentional. It is time our treasonous Muslim/Socialist President stand aside before the onset of civil war.
Make no mistake, the American people will defend their lives their families and their country by force of arms rather than allow a traitor and his minions to take them from us.
Jindal was quickly rebuked by political commentators and even the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who insisted that “no-go zones” are fictional. “Jindal condemns imaginary no-go zones” wrote Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow’s MaddowBlog. A Washington Post headline mused, “Bobby Jindal Won’t Back Down on no-go Zones. Why?” Geez, I don’t know—because he was right? Not according to Post reporter Chris Cillizza, who concluded that it was all politically calculated. “Here’s what Jindal is up to,” wrote Cillizza. “He is struggling for political oxygen in a Republican field that includes (or might include) the likes of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. So, how do you solve that problem? Throw red meat to the Republican base while simultaneously trolling the left.”
Ten months later, after an even more horrific terror attack in Paris, we learned that in fact some of the perpetrators had emerged from exactly the no-go zones whose existence Jindal’s detractors had denied in January. When investigators followed the terrorists’ trail to Brussels, they raided homes in the Molenbeek neighborhood, which the New York Times describes as “working class.” That’s Times-speak for non-working class and, of course, Muslim. The Times tweeted: “Belgian Minister Says Government Lacks Control Over Neighborhood Linked to Terror Plots” That’s as good a definition as any for a “no-go zone.” Days later, French police laid siege to an apartment in Saint Denis, a heavily Muslim suburb of Paris known for its high crime and wide availability of guns. Saint Denis is by all accounts a no-go zone.
But don’t worry—there’s no such thing as a no-go zone. Never has been, never will be.
This habit of denying the existence of very real threats seems to be a distinguishing characteristic of the Left. Even more enigmatic is the fact that they simultaneously believe in a lot of things that happen to be pure fiction. Until recently I considered liberals’ primary malfeasance to be in stirring up hysteria through the fabrication of incidents that never happened. Rape hoaxes are a favorite. These are the people who brought us the Rolling Stone rape hoax—not to mention the Lena Dunham rape hoax, the Duke lacrosse team rape hoax, the mattress girl rape hoax, and the Tawana Brawley rape hoax. Liberals recently experienced a mass hallucination at the University of Missouri, claiming that the KKK was roaming the campus. Some went as far as to claim that the klansmen were receiving police protection as they tossed bricks through dormitory windows. None of this actually happened. Liberals stage hate crimes, invent appalling statistics, and plant racist signs at Tea Party rallies. They subscribe to all sorts of unproven and unprovable theories such as the “gay” gene. They inhabit a world of utter fakeness—and that’s just the way they like it.
This delusional coin of theirs has two sides. On the one hand liberals embrace lies as truth, while on the other they reject truth as lies. Nor is it enough to simply deny the existence of very real things; they have to defame others, like Bobby Jindal, who refuse to play along. It didn’t suffice to say that he was wrong about no-go zones in Europe—which he wasn’t wrong, by the way—they had to accuse him of far worse. The Washington Post, via Chris Cillizza, all but accused him of lying and racist demagoguery. MSNBC guest and Muslim “human rights” lawyer Arsalan Iftikhar said that Jindal “might be trying to scrub some of the brown off his skin.” So Jindal’s a race traitor too.
Based on my vast experience observing liberals in their natural habitat, I have concluded that nothing really exists unless they say it does. They have to allow things to exist, and if permission is not granted then the thing is not a thing. It’s a non-entity. I have compiled a list of a few things that liberals refuse to allow to exist.
False Rape Accusers
Implicit in feminist rape ideology is the assumption that “women don’t lie.” This is the line liberals stick to whenever the accused rapist is not named Bill Clinton. That’s why no one is allowed to doubt the accuser’s story until it’s proven false, which of course requires a skeptical review, which is what we’re not allowed to do. Wendy Murphy, professor at the New England School of Law, even remarked, in regard to the Duke lacrosse case: “I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.” No, Professor Murphy, your own statistics mean nothing. It’s not even a statistic—it’s just your uninformed worldview.
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
Some eleven years after the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times finally got around to publishing a story about the five thousand chemical munitions discovered since 2003. Yet the myth of “no WMD” persists to the present day. Even the author of the Times article, CJ Chivers, tried to perpetuate the falsehood that the weapons don’t count because they were left over from the 1980s and were thus not the weapons used to justify the war. He must have been expecting his readers not to read UN Resolution 1441, which laid out in explicit detail the rationale or the war. It essentially demanded that Saddam account for all WMD known to be in its possession at the time of his 1991 surrender, which would of course include 1980s weapons. In 2002, after years of blocking and deceiving weapons inspectors, Saddam had one final chance to account for those pre-Desert Storm era weapons. He did not. And we’re supposed to believe that he had nothing to hide? We now know that he had at least five thousand chemical munitions, probably many more. Last time I checked, five thousand is a quantity greater than zero.
Black-on-Black Crime
“There’s no such thing as ‘black-on-black’ crime,” wrote the Daily Beast’s Jamelle Bouie in 2013. Sure, he admits that “from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders” but he warns us not to jump to conclusions. Blacks, you see, only kill other blacks because of proximity. He points out that 86% of white murder victims were killed by other whites. His bizarre conclusion is that the mere existence of white-on-white crime disproves black-on-black crime. What about the fact that there seems to be a lot more of the black-on-black variety, especially in proportion to their 13% share of the population? He deflects that argument by pointing out that violent crime rates are falling among blacks—just as they are among the general population. That’s true, though it only means that today’s blacks are less violent than yesterday’s blacks, not that blacks aren’t disproportionately violent compared to other races.
Islamic terrorism
Hillary Clinton’s expressed the boilerplate liberal explanation for Islamic terrorism in a recent speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she said. Her reasoning is pretty standard—Islam is a religion of peace so anyone who does violence in the name of Islam is by definition not a true Muslim. That’s a convenient rhetorical device—Muslims can’t be terrorists because terrorists can’t be Muslims. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, her definition of a Muslim excludes even Mohammad himself who was a seventh century desert warlord and therefore not very peaceful. Not surprisingly, Islam calls for apostates to be put to death. A recent opinion poll found that large majorities of Muslims from Egypt to Afghanistan believe that the death penalty is appropriate for people who leave the faith. Maybe Hillary can Koran-splain to the imposters that they’ve got Islam all wrong.
Liberals are like Ben Kenobi employing Jedi mind tricks to convince the rest of us that, “These are not the drones you’re looking for.” With a wave of the hand they can make people disbelieve their very eyes. How a person can believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Matthew Shepard was killed for his sexuality is truly astounding, though not nearly as astounding as the idea that these people deny the very existence of ex-gays! They’ve invented this thing called the War on Women™, but vehemently deny that there’s any such thing as a war on Christmas. They deny the existence of voter fraud, non-citizens on the welfare rolls, and disease-carrying illegal aliens. How on earth could one group of people be so out of touch with reality? That’s liberals for you.
Step 1: "Defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq and across the Middle East" (an actual quote) Step 2: ? Step 3: Win the White House.
Lost in translation is calling our enemies what they are: Radical Islamofascists, jihadis bent on death and destruction. Instead, she insisted, "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." Except for all the times they do, of course.She also displayed an astounding lack of self-awareness, lamenting that despite the success in Iraq (without crediting George W. Bush's surge) the Iraqis were later "betrayed and forgotten." By whom? By nObama and his secretary of state, Hilly Clinton. If Clinton can't articulate who the enemy is or why the Islamic State was able to rise, there's no hope she'll be able to craft a strategy that secures America's interests.
-The Patriot Post
My thoughts as they evolved through seven days of thinking aloud:
What is going on, and not only with Republicans, is that American voters are surveying the past 15 years. At home they see an economic near-collapse followed by a feeble recovery, a culture that grows every day grosser and more bizarre, falling educational results, a bigger, more demanding and more corrupt federal government. In the world: two unwon wars, ISIS, a refugee crisis greater than any since the end of World War II, Putin on the move, American clout and prestige on the decline.
They conclude: Maybe we have to expand our idea of “credentials.” Maybe we need another kind of “experience.” Maybe individuals with “attainments” outside the political world are the ones who can get us out of this mess.
Thus Donald Trump the businessman, Ben Carson the neurosurgeon and Carly Fiorina the former CEO. Add their poll numbers up—consistently, for 100 days now, so it’s not a blip but a real trendline—and you have more than half of likely Republican voters saying yes, I want an outsider.
And you know, they have a point. They are derided in the media as irrationally angry, but they shouldn’t be dismissed. They’re trying to make things better, to break through the logjam.
But as we get closer to the voting, there are two things they have to keep in mind. One is that reaching outside doesn’t necessarily make things better. It might. It might make things worse. The fact of outsiderness is no guarantee of anything except a lack of political experience. The other is that, as Carl Cannon of RealClearPolitics has noted, politics is actually a profession, even for some a vocation. You learn important things as you practice it. Experience deepens your ability to decide, to persuade, to lead. Political knowledge can be a handy thing when you hold the country’s highest political office.
Is it possible what we need right now isn’t a nonpolitician but instead a brilliant and gifted politician to lead us through these times? (Yes, I know: Who? I don’t know. The powers of the most successful pols tend to be clearest in retrospect.)
There are two important pieces of context within the above dynamic. One is that the great, enduring issue that divides the wise men, elders and big donors of the GOP (who are the natural protectors and supporters of the party’s professional politicians) and the base (which is turning to the outsiders) is illegal immigration. The base hates it. The elders and donors vary in their support—some accept it for practical reasons, some are enthusiastic, some are true open-borders ideologues—but they all support it. That taints their warnings to stick with politicians who know how things work.
The party on this huge issue is split between the top—the affluent and influential—and the bottom—the indignant, the worried and working-class.
Another part of the year’s context: 2016 is in a way like the dramatic, portentous year 1976. That year Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan fought over one question: Will the Republican Party stay a midcentury moderate-liberal party or become a conservative party? Reagan’s landslides in 1980 and 1984 answered the question: The GOP would be a conservative party, and has been since. But this year’s question is equally fundamental: What does conservative mean in the 21st century?
Is it conservative to spend whatever it takes, and it will be a lot, to create and maintain the best national defense in the world? (The world is safer when America is stronger.) Or is it conservative to care about spending, to look to our allies to pick up their part of the burden? (Build too beautiful a military and you’ll only encourage the politicians to use it.)
Is it conservative to say we have to cut back entitlement spending to cut our unsupportable deficits, or is it conservative to say a deal’s a deal, generations paid into it and have a moral right to everything they were promised? Is it conservative to say there’s plenty to be saved by cracking down on fraud and waste but in a time of economic stress the people will not accept benefit cuts and no serious party that lives in and respects reality should attempt it?
Is it conservative to attempt to be the leader of the world, its sole and acknowledged great power, or is it conservative to be, as they say, the friend of liberty everywhere but the protector primarily of our own interests?
This is a lot to work out. It will probably take more than one election cycle. It’s to the credit of Republicans that they are having these debates. But a party wrestling with these issues is by definition not unified.
The Democrats, for all their small struggles, are. They are disciplined. Their central organizing principle is getting and holding power.
The Republicans this year have more intellectual vitality and engagement. That they are split about ideas, stands, principles is to their credit. They are acting out what politics was meant to be. But that civic virtue is a political liability.
At this point—early, but certain trends are obvious—the Democrats have the advantage. They want one thing. The Republicans want many serious and opposing things.
Which gets us to the subject of super PACs and the damage they can do. The other night in the Fox Business debate some candidates touched on the practical and philosophical disagreements in the party. It was edifying. We need more.
But the first candidate whose super PAC money goes to killing another candidate with heavy opposition research will likely be the killer of more than one candidacy.
While all this is roiling the Republican Party, while all the divisions are thrashed out, is this the time for candidates to do to each other what Newt Gingrich did to Mitt Romney in 2012, grinding him up and handing him on a platter to the Democrats? I wondered last spring if 2016 would come down to Boring versus Bloody—a dull, peaceful Democratic coronation; a Republican rumble from which the nominee emerges damaged beyond repair.
The Democrats are depending on the Republicans to bloody each other in that way. They’re depending on Republicans to be stupid.
There have been reports Jeb Bush’s PAC is considering going after Marco Rubio. If it does, Mr. Bush will look like Al Pacino in “Scarface,” with his allies wielding all that super PAC dough and saying: “Say hello to my little friend.” The Pacino character took out all his enemies, but what’s so memorable about that last scene is that he shot up the entire mansion, pretty much brought the house down, and of course went down himself, in the end.
Putin created all refugee crisis for his own benefit.
If Putin would not continue protecting evil dictators of Syria and Iran we would finish with both very fast. Romney was right. KGB Russia is and was always geopolitical enemy. Nothing changed in former Soviet Union. Problem is that some Godless "Conservatives" still have crush on staged macho images of Putin. As soon as they see him they start to masturbate with their idiotic adoration of this geopolitical enemy not realizing that he is digging their graves. Putin's Communist KGB trained and placed Trojan Horse Obama in the white house and exported all Marxist poison to the Free West. Now Putin is acting as a "Good Christian" and "Savior" of the world while his crooked economy in Russia is total disaster, that is why Putin needs wars and chaos to keep his starving Russian people preoccupied with hate of sinful Free West and adoration of Putin's staged "patriotic" macho image.
http://www.rafaelbrom.com/
Step 1: "Defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq and across the Middle East" (an actual quote) Step 2: ? Step 3: Win the White House.
Lost in translation is calling our enemies what they are: Radical Islamofascists, jihadis bent on death and destruction. Instead, she insisted, "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." Except for all the times they do, of course.She also displayed an astounding lack of self-awareness, lamenting that despite the success in Iraq (without crediting George W. Bush's surge) the Iraqis were later "betrayed and forgotten." By whom? By nObama and his secretary of state, Hilly Clinton. If Clinton can't articulate who the enemy is or why the Islamic State was able to rise, there's no hope she'll be able to craft a strategy that secures America's interests.
-The Patriot Post
In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, nObama declaimed:
When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted … that’s shameful…. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion..
Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion among other things… was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality … and who is unable or unwilling to return to … that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of … religion [among other things] …[.].
The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.
There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.
In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery).
To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. nObama prefers not to dwell on the distinction between the jihadist treatment of Muslims, on the one hand, and of Christians, Jews and other religions, on the other hand, because he – like much of Washington – inhabits a world in which jihadists are not Islamic and, therefore, have no common ground with other Muslims … notwithstanding that jihadists emerge whenever and wherever a population of sharia-adherent Muslims reaches critical mass. But this is sheer fantasy. While there is no question that ISIS will kill and persecute Muslims whom it regards as apostates for refusing to adhere to its construction of Islam, it is abject idiocy to suggest that Muslims are facing the same ubiquity and intensity of persecution as Christians.
The United States needs a leader and not a politician with baggage that preaches the Tea Party message but has done nothing to further Tea Party values other that run their mouths about how much they will get done when they are already in elected offices and have done nothing but run their mouths. We don't need any first term senators that have done nothing but speak the game then avoid staying away from getting rid of all the illegal aliens. Closing the border is one thing but getting rid of the illegal aliens that are here is the first and foremost issue the Tea Party wants "Done" without question. Time for some new blood and Donald Trump fits the Tea Party agenda.
Please take a moment to view this new Donald Trump web site. All Tea Partiers are invited. We support all "Tea Party" true conservative anti illegal alien web sites, persons and candidates.
http://teapartywhitehouse.americantalk.net/
" I'm the Masters of War, I hide behind walls........" a song sung by Robert Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan, many moons ago; during the heyday of the '60s peace marches and, the love and happiness crowd. Next to Prostitution, War is the oldest profession. Followed by Drug running and Terrorism. We have moved into the Terrorism mode full force. The Masters must have Ordo Ab Chao, and what better way, next to drugging us and bending us over, is to get it done? Bands of zealots running around shouting "God is Great" and blowing "non-believers" away, of course - Terrorism, a constant state of fear.
We've already had attacks by these wind-up toys here in the U.S. The whore media, through not reporting this as the case, plays it off as the "lone nut" deal once again - the Marine recruiting center in Tennessee; Fort Hood in Texas; the Garland, Texas episode, and others no doubt. There's no need to look overseas to Paris, France or Mali in Africa. Those are just larger, more dramatic events. However, we can now look forward to similar attacks here in the USA. I'm sure schools, malls, office buildings, gov't. buildings, anywhere large groups of people gather will be targets: gun-free zones of course.
Crunch time is upon us all; all of us Americans, that is. The ones who believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Republic; you know, us kooks who love what made America great; the place our forefathers chose to call home and where they invested in their futures and the futures of their progeny. This crunch time includes the need to protect ourselves. This is where the 2nd Amendment comes in. Everyone reading this needs to do whatever they can politically to stop any government "official" (in reality, public servant) from taking our guns away.
This is no time to get soft on gun ownership. If anything, we need to get more vehement about lawful citizens being able to own firearms AND be able to carry them; not just have them at home for Home Invaders. What good is having a firearm at home when you are outside the home, walking around, being targeted as a chump in a gun-free zone? None. We all need to push for the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and smaller gun rights groups to get on the backs of politicians and govt. "officials"; make them see the light on how important it is for American citizens to be allowed to CARRY firearms, so that when we get caught in the crossfire of one of these "mall" shootings, we're not defense-less.
In Mali, these raving lunatics rounded up innocent people, took them hostage, and over the course of 3 hours, asked each one if they were a Muslim. To prove that they were, they had to quote scripture and verse from the Koran. If they failed the test, they were shot on the spot at close range. Put yourself in that position; I'd say it's a no-win situation. But.....if these were gun owners, not in a gun-free zone (these should be illegal, by the way), the ones lying face down in the aftermath would be the raving lunatics; not the innocent victims. The Police can never get to any scene fast enough to prevent murder and mayhem. Haven't we learned that yet?
Last week, the City of Light went dark. In January of this year, some Islamist gunmen had attacked the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, and another had gunned down shoppers in a kosher supermarket. U.S. President Barack nObama, in an interview with Matt Yglesias, commenting on the supermarket attack, glossed over the motives behind it: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." [Emphasis added]
Two days after last week's attacks, when reporters asked nObama if he would consider additional action against The Islamic State (IS), he declined to give a straight answer. The killings, he said, were "based on a twisted ideology." As so many times before, nObama would not define what ideology -- the belief system of radical Islam, based on violent passages from the Qur'an and Hadith, and modelled on the jihadist actions of generations of Muslims, beginning with Muhammad himself.
This ongoing failure to admit that the law of jihad is explicitly cited by spokesmen for Islamic State is the root cause of our inability to fight this war. The ancestors of today's Europeans knew how to fight against Islamic encroachment, but today, hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants, some of them devoted to waging jihad, are being given free access to enter Europe. At least one of last Friday's killers in Paris appears to have travelled from Syria and entered Europe through Greece.
The targets in all the Paris attacks were not chosen "randomly." Charlie Hebdo stood for the Enlightenment value of free speech, for the right to challenge, even to make fun of figures who deem themselves above criticism: politicians, religious leaders, the rich and famous. It stood for the right to be secular: for refusing to fence off religion, or award believers greater respect than non-believers.
Through bold criticism in a secular manner, European states have been able to create a more pluralistic, tolerant, and humane culture. For devout Muslims (not just radicals), this is blasphemy of the worst sort: democracy, made by man and not by Allah, is evil, and tolerance for all beliefs is a path to hell.
Like the attempts to shut down all criticism of Islam -- whether in novels such as Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, cartoons such as those of Muhammad drawn and published in Denmark, or debates between academics -- the Charlie Hebdo killings were intended to instil fear and silence all honest discussion of Islam and its values.
The kosher supermarket attack was clearly anti-Semitic. Like the multitude of such attacks on Jewish schools, museums, synagogues, and individuals, it celebrated the rise of a new anti-Semitism in Europe, an anti-Semitism (often expressed through anti-Zionism) that has been carried out by the political left, hand-in-hand with Muslim radical groups.
Jews on European streets are the one people most intensely hated by many Muslims (again, not just radicals). The freedom French Jews have for a long time enjoyed (despite high levels of indigenous anti-Semitism) is an affront to Islam, in which Jews especially must be converted, rendered submissive, or killed. Unfortunately, many Europeans have gone out of their way to be helpful. Just the day before the Paris attacks, the EU had singled out Israel, as usual, to label goods to help anti-Semitic, racist Europeans hurt Palestinians and Israelis with an unjust, sanctimonious boycott.
A leader of a British Islamic educational institute writes that, "One should abstain from evil audacities such as listening to music." Another graduate speaks of the "evils of music;" calls London's Royal College of Music "satanic," and claims that music is the way in which Jews spread "the Satanic web" to corrupt young Muslims. Is it, then, surprising that a handful of fanatics gunned down more than 80 innocent young people who had gone to enjoy a rock concert in the Bataclan Theatre?
As sports (apart from archery and horseback riding) are also activities much disliked by fundamentalist imams, three jihadis, in an apparent rebuke to such games and frivolity, went to a football stadium in Paris last Friday night and, although they could not get in, they blew themselves up outside it.
The Nazis hated jazz and modern art (even as they stole it), but not even they rejected all music and all art. Hitler luxuriated in the operas of Wagner and fancied himself no mean painter, even if the art world may not have agreed with him. But today's fascists care for nothing but their own increasingly expansionist beliefs.
As Hamas members have said more than once to Israelis, with whom the Europeans have more in common now than they would like to admit, the extremist Muslims will conquer in the end because "we love death more than you love life." Nothing could better sum up the bitter reality of the Paris attacks.
In a television interview on BBC News at Ten on Sunday night, a singer, Maude Hacheb, expressed her response to the killings: "If they want to break the country, they have to break young people. I think for them, music is no good, fun is no good, love is no good. So I guess it was really significant they go to the Bataclan."