The Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam

[Ryan Ruck]

An interesting, yet completely unsurprising, read. Thanks for posting vector!

[vector7]

Kerry: 'Lack of Integration' of Muslims in Europe Like U.S. Civil Rights Struggle in '60s

Jeryl Bier

January 22, 2015 8:02 AM

Secretary of State John Kerry met with EU High Representative Federica Mogherini at the State Department Wednesday and afterwards addressed the press and took some questions. One question from a French reporter concerned problems with Muslim integration in Europe and the potential terrorism ramifications:

Question: [W]e heard recently from President Obama talking about the potential lack of integration of Muslim communities in Europe. He mentioned that as one of the greatest dangers that Europe faces in terms of terror threats that might come. Would you agree with those words from President Obama, and should he have used those? And Mr. Secretary, I’d like to get your opinion on that as well if I can.

Kerry responded by recalling his days as a college student in the 1960s during the civil rights era and the consequent sensitivity of his generation to "this question of minority and rights and integration and so forth." After explaining that although the U.S. has made "unbelievable progress" on race-related matters, "we still have some distance to travel." Eventually, Kerry stressed that "this particular incident of violence [terror attack in Paris] wasn’t a specific targeting that grew out of that [lack of integration]"; however, he said, there is work to do where "one minority or another or another is not able to share fully in the full integration" in the country where they live.

Here is Secretary Kerry's full response to the question:

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me just begin quickly on the integration issue. When I was – I entered college in 1962. And in 1963, ’4, ’5, we were deeply embroiled in this country, and we – college students in the Civil Rights Movement. And we were deeply impacted by that and have always been, I think, as a generation, much more sensitive to this question of minority and rights and integration and so forth. We’ve made unbelievable progress in our nation, unbelievable progress in the years since then. But it would be completely disingenuous not to say to you that we still have some distance to travel. We’re not finished. We’re still – you heard the President last night talk about voting rights. So what was won in 1965 still has to be fully embraced and implemented here, and other things that are linked to that. We’ve seen our own struggles in some communities and great debates about race in America in the last year.

So it would be dishonest of me – and I’m not involved in domestic politics right now, so I’m not going to go into it in depth, except to say that therefore, I think I can say with honesty that there is a challenge in many other parts of the world. And Federica is absolutely correct; this particular incident of violence wasn’t a specific targeting that grew out of that, but we all can do work in many parts of the world that I have seen where one minority or another or another is not able to share fully in the full integration in whatever country they happen to be living. So the world has a road to travel on that, and that’s why we continue to put such a high premium here on the issue of human rights and democracy, and to continue to push, because I think we’ve learned through our own experience the difference that it can make to the strengthening of the quality of our democracy, to our society, and people benefit when we live by that high moral standard.

High Representative Mogherini, whose response to the question came before Kerry's, said the following:

On the integration of minorities in Europe, this is a debate, I think, that within member states in Europe, in – I would say in the global community is – has been going on for decades and probably is going on for decades. I would say that there are different models, different histories, and different traditions. What we have to get right in this moment is the fact that we need to work together. You know that very well. Victims of the attack in Paris were not only called Louis or Charb or Anne; there was an Ahmed that was killed by other people that were having names of the same roots, which means that this is a common fight. I would not go on the line of saying that this is minorities against majorities, also because we have different minorities, in Europe as in the United States. We are living in complex societies, and this is our richness. Our strength is the fact that we are different, but we are united and we live together.

And I think that this is the core point. We would be wrong if we were to look at that as an issue of minorities-majorities. This has nothing to do with that. These are violent acts that were targeting people, persons, regardless of their names, ethnic background, minorities, majorities, whatever. And there is no link, I would stress, between minorities, majorities, and violence. A terrorist act is a terrorist act, and we should not go into that kind of discussion about how we manage, or at least manage the majorities or minorities. There is no kind of roots in that.

[vector7]

Jimmy Carter: Radical Islam’s Ally

By MICHAEL D. EVANS

We just don’t get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right wing and that Bush, the dim-witted cowboy, has created the entire mess.
The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter’s ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.“ Carter’s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.� Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid [ranking cleric], but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty. “

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, “Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?�

Let’s look at the results of Carter’s misguided liberal policies: the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics); the birth of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organization; the Iran-Iraq War, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When Carter entered the political fray in 1976, America was still riding the liberal wave of anti-Vietnam War emotion. Carter asked for an in-depth report on Iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule Iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, Bill Clinton became attorney-general of Arkansas, and Albert Gore won a place in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming “the West killed God and wants us to bury him,� Khomeini’s weapon of choice was not the sword but the media.

Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi (“the plague of Western culture�).

Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have died stillborn.

Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter’s military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: “The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. ‘One cannot do that to a holy man,’ he said.�

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of Ayatollah Khomeini, taken up bin Laden’s call, and is fostering an Islamic apocalyptic revolution in Iraq with the intent of taking over the Middle East and the world.

Jimmy Carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the West, hell bent on killing the soul of America. The bottom line Carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; America should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.

In the ‘60s it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of America with the “God is dead� movement in the ‘60s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the State Department, Congress, and Senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of America while the East attempts to kill the body. Carter’s world view defines the core ideology of the Democratic Party.

What is going on in Iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both Iran and Iraq for decades. The Iran-Iraq war was a war of ideologies.

Saddam Hussein saw himself as an Arab leader who would defeat the non-Arab Persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his Islamic Revolution across the borders to the Shi’ites in Iraq and then beyond to the Arab countries.
Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel – precisely what Iran is doing in Iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the Shi’ites across the border to remove Saddam from power and establish an Islamic republic like in Iran.

Carter’s belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy and nothing but diplomacy now permeates the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, Carter is wrong.

There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.

Khomeini had the help of the PLO in Iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder Iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder Yasser Arafat was hailed as a friend of Khomeini after he seized control of Iran and was given the Israeli Embassy in Teheran with the PLO flag flying overhead.

The Carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the United States would maintain diplomatic ties with Iran. But on April 1 ,1979, the greatest April Fools joke of all time was played, as Khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of God.

In February 1979 Khomeini boarded an Air France flight to return to Teheran with the blessing of Jimmy Carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: “I will kick his teeth in� – referring to then prime minister Shapour Bakhtiar, who was left in power with a us pledge to support. He was assassinated in Paris by Iranian agents in 1991.

I sat in the home of Gen. Huyser, who told me the shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented Carter’s polices. Carter had no desire to see the shah remain in power. He really believed that a cleric – whose Islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least – would be better for human rights and Iran. He could have changed history by condemning Khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of Iran.

On September 23, 1980 I had dinner with Isser Harel, the former head of Israel’s Mossad, at his home with Dr. Reuven Hecht, a senior adviser to then prime minister Menachem Begin. I asked Harel who he thought would be elected president of the United States. He said the word on the street was that Iran would vote in favor of Ronald Reagan by releasing the American hostages during the inauguration.

Little did I know that for months Carter had tried to cut a financial deal to get the hostages freed, knowing it would likely mean the presidency if he succeeded. On Inauguration Day Carter reached a final agreement and transferred $7.977 billion to Iran from the Federal Reserve, along with signing an agreement to respect Iran’s territorial integrity and granting amnesty against law suits to Iran by the hostages or their families.

I asked Harel two more questions that evening. The first was what would happen to then Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. The answer was that he would be killed for preaching Carter’s democratic delusions. My last question was would terrorism ever come to America. “You have the power to fight it,� he said, “but not the will. They have the will, but not the power. All of that will change in time. Yes, I fear it will come to NewYork and your tallest building, which is a symbol of your fertility.



Carter Giving radical Islam its start

Dinesh D'Souza | Jan 29, 2007



Recently Jimmy Carter was on television, denouncing President Bush’s policies in Iraq. I find this highly ironic, because Jimmy Carter and his liberal advisers helped the Ayatollah Khomeini to come to power in Iran a quarter of a century ago. Thus they gave radical Islam control of its first major state. How this happened is worth recalling, because from Carter’s failure there’s a valuable lesson to be learned in Iraq.

Islamic radicals have been around since the 1920s, but for decades they were outsiders even in the Muslim countries. One of their leading theoreticians, Sayyid Qutb, argued that radical Muslims could not just promulgate theories and have meetings; they must seek to realize the Islamic state “in a concrete form.� What was needed, he wrote, was “to initiate the movement of Islamic revival in some Muslim country.� Once the radicals controlled a state, he suggested, they could then use it as a beachhead for launching the takeover of other Muslim countries.

In 1979, Qutb’s goal was achieved when the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran. The importance of the Khomeini revolution is that it demonstrated the viability of the Islamic theocracy in the modern age. And to this day post-Khomeini Iran provides a viable model of what the Islamic radicals hope to achieve throughout the Muslim world.

Khomeini also popularized the idea of America as a “great Satan.� Before Khomeini, no Muslim head of state had said this about America. Khomeini was also the first Muslim leader in the modern era to advocate violence as a religious duty and to give special place to martyrdom. Since Khomeini, Islamic radicalism has continued to attract aspiring martyrs ready to confront the Great Satan. In this sense, the seeds of 9/11 were sown a quarter of a century ago when Khomeini came to power.

Khomeini’s ascent to power was aided by the policies of Jimmy Carter and his allies on the political left. Carter was elected president in 1976 by stressing his support for human rights. From the time he took office, the left contrasted Carter’s rights doctrine with the Shah’s practices. The left denounced the Shah as a vicious and corrupt dictator, highlighting and in some cases magnifying his misdeeds. Left-leaning officials such as Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, UN envoy Andrew Young, and State Department human rights officer Patricia Derian pressed Carter to sever America’s longstanding alliance with the Shah. Eventually Carter came to agree with his liberal advisers that he could not in good conscience support the Shah.

When the Shah moved to arrest mullahs who called for his overthrow, leftists in America and Europe denounced these actions. Former diplomat George Ball called on the U.S. government to curtail the Shah’s exercise of power. Acceding to this pressure, Carter called for the release of political prisoners and warned the Shah not to use force against the demonstrators in the streets.

When the Shah petitioned the Carter administration to purchase tear gas and riot control gear, the human rights office in the State Department held up the request. Some, like State Department official Henry Precht, urged the U.S. to prepare the way for the shah to make a “graceful exit� from power. William Miller, chief of staff on the Democrat-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, said America had nothing to fear from Khomeini since he would be a progressive force for human rights. U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan even compared Khomeini to Mahatma Gandhi, and Andrew Young termed the ayatollah a “twentieth century saint.�

As the resistance gained momentum and the Shah’s position weakened, he looked to the United States government to help him. Carter aide Gary Sick reports that the Shah discovered many enemies, and few friends, in the Carter administration. Increasingly paranoid, the Shah pleaded with the United States to help him stay in power. Carter refused. Deprived of his last hope, with the Persian rug pulled out from under him, the Shah decided to abdicate. The Carter administration encouraged him to do so, and the cultural left celebrated his departure. The result, of course, was Khomeini.

The Carter administration’s role in assisting with the downfall of the Shah is one of America’s great foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century. In trying to get rid of the bad guy, Carter got the worse guy. His failure, as former Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, was the result of being “unable to distinguish between America’s friends and enemies.� Carter does not deserve sole discredit for these actions. This intellectual framework that shaped Carter’s misguided strategy was supplied by the political left.

By aiding the Shah’s ouster and with Khomeini’s consolidation of power, the left collaborated in giving radical Islam its greatest victory in the modern era. Incredibly this same cast of characters who lost Iran wants to block Bush’s policies in Iraq. In doing so they are playing with fire. The radical Muslims who already control Iran are trying to bring a second major state, Iraq, into their orbit. Then, they have said, they will target Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Yes, Iraq maybe a mess but in trying to get out of a bad situation, we don’t want to create a worse situation. Insurgency and sectarian strife is dangerous, but Iraq in the hands of Iranian fanatics or Al Qaeda fanatics is far more dangerous. America doesn’t need more foolish advice from Jimmy Carter. What it needs from him is an apology.


Arafat the KGB's Man

By Ion Mihai Pacepaa

Updated Sept. 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. ET

The Israeli government has vowed to expel Yasser Arafat, calling him an "obstacle" to peace. But the 72-year-old Palestinian leader is much more than that; he is a career terrorist, trained, armed and bankrolled by the Soviet Union and its satellites for decades.

Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.

"I invented the hijackings [of passenger planes]," Arafat bragged when I first met him at his PLO headquarters in Beirut in the early 1970s. He gestured toward the little red flags pinned on a wall map of the world that labeled Israel as "Palestine." "There they all are!" he told me, proudly. The dubious honor of inventing hijacking actually goes to the KGB, which first hijacked a U.S. passenger plane in 1960 to Communist Cuba. Arafat's innovation was the suicide bomber, a terror concept that would come to full flower on 9/11.

In 1972, the Kremlin put Arafat and his terror networks high on all Soviet bloc intelligence services' priority list, including mine. Bucharest's role was to ingratiate him with the White House. We were the bloc experts at this. We'd already had great success in making Washington -- as well as most of the fashionable left-leaning American academics of the day -- believe that Nicolae Ceausescu was, like Josip Broz Tito, an "independent" Communist with a "moderate" streak.

KGB chairman Yuri Andropov in February 1972 laughed to me about the Yankee gullibility for celebrities. We'd outgrown Stalinist cults of personality, but those crazy Americans were still naïve enough to revere national leaders. We would make Arafat into just such a figurehead and gradually move the PLO closer to power and statehood. Andropov thought that Vietnam-weary Americans would snatch at the smallest sign of conciliation to promote Arafat from terrorist to statesman in their hopes for peace.

Right after that meeting, I was given the KGB's "personal file" on Arafat. He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.

The KGB's disinformation department then went to work on Arafat's four-page tract called "Falastinuna" (Our Palestine), turning it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed it throughout the Arab world and in West Germany, which in those days played host to many Palestinian students. The KGB was adept at magazine publication and distribution; it had many similar periodicals in various languages for its front organizations in Western Europe, like the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Next, the KGB gave Arafat an ideology and an image, just as it did for loyal Communists in our international front organizations. High-minded idealism held no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid anti-Zionist. They also selected a "personal hero" for him -- the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who visited Auschwitz in the late 1930s and reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews. In 1985 Arafat paid homage to the mufti, saying he was "proud no end" to be walking in his footsteps.

Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967 Six Day Arab-Israeli war, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment.

In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism" during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. It appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, "imperial-Zionism" was a Moscow invention, a modern adaptation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism.

The KGB file on Arafat also said that in the Arab world only people who were truly good at deception could achieve high status. We Romanians were directed to help Arafat improve "his extraordinary talent for deceiving." The KGB chief of foreign intelligence, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, ordered us to provide cover for Arafat's terror operations, while at the same time building up his international image. "Arafat is a brilliant stage manager," his letter concluded, "and we should put him to good use." In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch.

In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he charmed President Carter. Arafat, he urged, would transform his brutal PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile if only the U.S. would establish official relations. The meeting was a great success for us. Carter hailed Ceausescu, dictator of the most repressive police state in Eastern Europe, as a "great national and international leader" who had "taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community." Triumphant, Ceausescu brought home a joint communiqué in which the American president stated that his friendly relations with Ceausescu served "the cause of the world."

Three months later I was granted political asylum by the U.S. Ceausescu failed to get his Nobel Peace Prize. But in 1994 Arafat got his -- all because he continued to play the role we had given him to perfection. He had transformed his terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority), always pretending to call a halt to Palestinian terrorism while letting it continue unabated. Two years after signing the Oslo Accords, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists had risen by 73%.

On Oct. 23, 1998, President Clinton concluded his public remarks to Arafat by thanking him for "decades and decades and decades of tireless representation of the longing of the Palestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at home." The current administration sees through Arafat's charade but will not publicly support his expulsion. Meanwhile, the aging terrorist has consolidated his control over the Palestinian Authority and marshaled his young followers for more suicide attacks.

Mr. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. The author of "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987), he is finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.




How the left led us into 9/11


By Dinesh D'Souza a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, is the author, most recently, of "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11."

In considering a funding cutoff for U.S. troops in Iraq, the liberal leadership in Congress runs the risk of making the United States more vulnerable to future attacks, not just in the Middle East but here at home. To understand this, it's not enough to revisit the factors that led to the Iraq invasion. We must consider the roots of 9/11 itself. Only by understanding the policies that sowed the seeds of 9/11 can we intelligently decide how best to proceed in fighting the war on terror.

Pundits on the left say that 9/11 was the result of a "blowback" of resistance from the Islamic world against U.S. foreign policy. At first glance, this seems to make no sense. American colonialism in the Middle East? The U.S. has no history of colonialism there. Washington's support for unelected dictatorial regimes in the region? The Muslims can't be outraged about this, because there are no other kinds of regimes in the region. U.S. support for Israel and wars against the Muslims? Yes, but the U.S. has frequently fought on the side of the Muslims, as in Afghanistan in the 1980s or in the Persian Gulf War.

But in a sense the liberal pundits are right. The U.S. made two gigantic foreign policy blunders in recent decades that did sow the seeds of 9/11. What the liberals haven't recognized is that these blunders were the direct result of their policies and actions, and were carried out by Democratic presidents — Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

To understand this, we need a little perspective. Radical Islam became a global force in 1979, when it captured its first major state, Iran. Before that, radical organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood were fighting losing battles to overthrow their local governments. This changed with the success of the Khomeini regime in Iran. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the first Muslim leader to describe the U.S. as the "Great Satan" and to counsel martyrdom and jihad against it. Iran continues to be a model for radical Muslims.

Khomeini's ascent to power was aided by Carter's policies. Carter came into office stressing his support for human rights. His advisors told him that he could not consistently support the shah of Iran, who had secret police and was widely accused of violating human rights. The administration began to withdraw its support and finally pulled the rug out from under the shah, forcing him to step down.

The result was Khomeini, whose regime was vastly more tyrannical than the shah's. The Khomeini revolution provided state sponsorship for Islamic radicalism and terrorism and paved the way for Osama bin Laden and 9/11.

Clinton's policies also helped to provoke 9/11. After the Cold War, leading Islamic radicals returned to their home countries. Bin Laden left Afghanistan and went back to Saudi Arabia; Ayman Zawahiri returned to Egypt. They focused on fighting their own rulers — what they termed the "near enemy" — in order to establish states under Islamic law. But in the mid- to late 1990s, these radicals shifted strategy. They decided to stop fighting the near enemy and to attack the "far enemy," the U.S.

The world's sole superpower would seem to be much more formidable than local Muslim rulers such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden argued, however, that the far enemy was actually weaker and more vulnerable. He was confident that when kicked in their vital organs, Americans would pack up and run. Just like in Vietnam. Just like in Mogadishu.

Bin Laden saw his theory of American weakness vindicated during the Clinton era. In 1993, Islamic radicals bombed the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration did little. In 1996, Muslim terrorists attacked the Khobar Towers facility on a U.S. base in Saudi Arabia. No response. In 1998, Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. Clinton responded with a few perfunctory strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. These did no real harm to Al Qaeda and only strengthened the perception of American ineptitude. In 2000, Islamic radicals bombed the U.S. destroyer Cole. Again, the Clinton team failed to act. By his own admission, Bin Laden concluded that his suspicion of American pusillanimity and weakness was correct. He became emboldened to plot the 9/11 attacks.

Still, the 2001 attacks might have been averted had the Clinton administration launched an effective strike against Bin Laden in the years leading up to them. Clinton has said he made every effort to get Bin Laden during his second term. Yet former CIA agent Michael Scheuer estimates that there were about 10 chances to capture or kill Bin Laden during this period and that the Clinton people failed to capitalize on any of them.

Between 1996 and mid-2000, Bin Laden was not in deep hiding. He gave sermons in Kandahar's largest mosque. He talked openly on his satellite phone. He also granted a number of media interviews: in 1996, with author Robert Fisk; in 1997, with Peter Arnett of CNN; in 1998, with John Miller of ABC News; in 1999, with a journalist affiliated with Time magazine. Isn't it strange that all these people could find Bin Laden but the Clinton administration couldn't?

Two lessons can be drawn from these sorry episodes. The first one, derived from Carter's actions, is: In getting rid of the bad regime, make sure that you don't get a worse one. This happened in Iran and could happen again, in Iraq, if leading Democrats in Congress have their way. The second lesson, derived from Clinton's inaction, is that the perception of weakness emboldens our enemies. If the Muslim insurgents and terrorists believe that the U.S. is divided and squeamish about winning the war on terror, they are likely to escalate their attacks on Americans abroad and at home. In that case, 9/11 will be only the beginning.




Double-Duped Carter: From Soviet Communism to Radical Islam

A look at the record and the diary.

6:00 AM, Oct 4, 2010 • By PAUL KENGOR

Throughout American history, citizens have been duped. It’s a word as old as the republic itself. George Washington, in his “Farewell Address,� warned about “dupes�—that is, those who, unwittingly, allow themselves to be deceived or misled by active adversaries of the United States.



That process accelerated after the Bolshevik Revolution and into the Cold War, when duping was done on a remarkable scale by crass propagandists in the Communist movement, with America’s liberals/progressives the prime target. Yet, the story does not stop there: Many of the same Americans manipulated during the Cold War have resurfaced in the battle against radical Islam, although the periods, and processes, are quite different.

Indeed, there are many ways to be duped. Sometimes, it isn’t a matter of manipulation as much as severe gullibility. As to that, few figures seem as illustrative as Jimmy Carter.
In Carter, we see an unrelenting, longtime misplaced faith in some nasty dictators. He is trusting to a fault. More so, for Carter, this applies not only to Communist despots but to Islamist despots. Most disturbing about Carter is how, historically, he serves as a bridge from our battle against Soviet Communism to radical Islam, from the Cold War to the War on Terror.
For such reasons, we couldn’t resist putting Carter on the cover of my book on Dupes. He is a poster boy not only for what we wanted to describe, but, most soberly, what we want Americans to avoid electing.

It is difficult here to summarize the Carter record, but there are a half-dozen core incidents that typify Carter’s fatal naïveté during his presidency, specifically involving the USSR and Iran. The fall of the latter—the same year the Soviets invaded Afghanistan—birthed the modern Islamic terror state. While some of these incidents are remembered, most are forgotten, or were barely noticed to begin with. More telling, I went to Carter’s newly released diary to see if he regretted or attempted to explain them. Here they are, beginning with the Soviet Union and finishing with Iran:

On July 15, 1978, President Carter provided an enduring illustration of what was wrong with his leadership during the Cold War, and what his successor, Ronald Reagan, would dramatically change. You can find it in the official Presidential Papers, but it has eluded historical accounts.

Carter was in West Berlin. When asked by a West Berlin woman, “For how long, Mr. President, do you think we’ve got to live with the Wall?� a helpless Carter responded. “I don’t know. I hope that it will be removed in the future, but I have no idea when it might be. I’m sorry I can’t give you a better answer, but that’s the truth.�

In response, on-lookers didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. The matter-of-fact Presidential Papers gently inserted the word: “[laughter].�

As a stark contrast, consider another incident unseen by Americans at the time. It occurred four months later, in November 1978, when Ronald Reagan, a decade before he issued his decidedly un-Carter exhortation to tear down that wall, went to West Berlin as a private citizen. In a moment witnessed only by a handful of observers, Reagan stood before the Berlin Wall and firmly told his two colleagues, Richard V. Allen and Peter Hannaford, “We have got to find a way to knock this thing down.�

As president, Reagan would seek that goal, not to mention a wider objective to, as he recorded in his own presidential diary, “bring it [the USSR] to its knees.�

There, too, Jimmy Carter posed a grim contrast. This one came on February 15, 1980, and likewise has escaped our memory. Carter magnanimously made an explicit promise to the world: “We are not trying to bring the Soviets to their knees.�

In his diary, Carter makes no reference to this reassuring promise. It isn’t there. He does, however, mention his trip to the Berlin Wall in July 1978, and the Q&A with townspeople. Did Carter feel he made a faux pas? Not at all: “I had the town hall meeting,� Carter recorded, “answering questions for an hour…. It went off without a hitch, and I did not make a mistake.�

This would have been the perfect spot for Carter to correct any historical outrages made merely 11 years before the Berlin Wall collapsed. Alas, no comments are offered.

Rather than crumble their wall or drop the Soviets to their knees, Carter had another physical gesture in store.

It was June 18, 1979, at the signing of the SALT II Treaty in Vienna. Carter leaned over and planted a kiss on the cheek of Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev. That visual is a most instructive metaphor. In the Cold War, it was the difference between winning and losing.

As this photo graces the cover of my book, you can imagine I wasted little time seeing how Carter recalled it in his diary. Here again, there were no regrets—quite the contrary. On page 331, Carter writes: “The signing ceremony was very impressive and well conducted. When we finished signing the documents and handed them to one another, I shook hands with Brezhnev warmly, and, to my surprise, he leaned forward and put his cheek against mine for an intimate embrace. We were both somewhat emotional.�

It was a moment of intimacy Carter still seems to embrace.

Here is one more example from the Soviet side, which concerns Afghanistan, and shifts the battle toward the contemporary Middle East. It was late December 1979, and the Red Army had just stormed into Afghanistan, the first Soviet invasion of a nation outside the Warsaw Pact since World War II. “My opinion of the Russians has changed most dramatically in the last week,� Carter told ABC’s Frank Reynolds. “[T]his action of the Soviets has made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets’ ultimate goals are than anything they’ve done in the previous time I’ve been in office.�

Those shocking words were streamed across front pages worldwide. Among those reading them was Ronald Reagan, who did his best to keep his disbelief and disappointment to himself, saying privately (in a letter) that Carter’s assessment “would be laughable, I think, if it were not so tragic.� Said Reagan: “It is frightening to hear a man in the office of the presidency who has just discovered that the Soviets can’t be trusted, that they’ve lied to him.�

Indeed it was. So, here was another example I checked in the diary. Surely, Carter lamented this one?

“I had a one-hour interview with Frank Reynolds of ABC,� recorded Carter, adding his reaction and that of Press Secretary Jody Powell: “Jody thought the interview was great, and I think it was a very good one.�

Of course, the rest is history. As Carter was resoundingly defeated for re-election 11 months later, losing 44 states to Reagan, the Soviets commenced a systematic destruction of Afghanistan. In the process, Brezhnev and pals drew to Afghanistan the likes of Osama bin Laden, and sowed the bitter seeds that made possible the emergence of the Taliban. It paved the way for September 11, 2001, and the modern War on Terror.

The headquarters of radical Islamic terror is Iran. Under President Carter, Iran dramatically shifted from being America’s most reliable Middle East ally (along with Israel) under the Shah, to, instead, a repressive theocratic sponsor of Islamic terror. It began in February 1979, the third year of the Carter presidency, with the takeover by the Ayatollah.

That, too, hadn’t started that way: On December 31, 1977, President Carter stood aside the Shah, raised his glass and gave a toast: “Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.�

Given what soon transpired, that quote became infamous.

Well, I’m pleased to report that, here at least, the former president has issued a mea culpa. Listing the exact quote in his diary, Carter noted: “Understandably, this was derided when the shah was overthrown thirteen months later.�


Yes, understandably. That “island of stability� erupted into a volcano, prompting an even more infamous response from President Carter. On December 7, 1978, a reporter asked the president if he thought the Shah “could survive� the present crisis. Carter waffled:

I don’t know. I hope so. This is something that is in the hands of the people of Iran. We have never had any intention and don’t have any intention of trying to intercede in the internal political affairs of Iran…. We personally prefer that the Shah maintain a major role in the government, but that’s a decision for the Iranian people to make.

To say this was a sea change in American policy is insufficient. Carter casually delivered a jaw-dropper. And no one was as surprised as the Iranian extremists, who properly read Carter’s words as a sign that Uncle Sam would not, this time around, save the Shah. It was a fatal vote of no confidence. The situation was an Iranian internal affair. America should not meddle. It was party time for the Shiite revolution.

Did Carter regret this remark? If he did, we don’t know from the diary. There’s no mention of it.

For the record, this statement by Carter bears an uncanny resemblance to President Obama’s initial assessment of the counter-revolution in Iran in June 2009. “[W]e respect Iranian sovereignty,� said a Carter-esque Obama on June 15, 2009, “and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran.�

Within only weeks of that Carter statement, the Shah was gone, the Ayatollah was in. A full decade before the Berlin Wall fell, radical Islam, ultimately the international successor to the Communist menace, established its most tenacious outpost—in Tehran.

President Jimmy Carter is a bridge of sorts between America’s two chief foes of the last 100 years. It is a dubious record and legacy, marred by weak statements and actions, and by a fatal naïveté. It is a record and legacy that America still struggles with today. His long-awaited diary reinforces that reality.


Carter: Muslim Terror Attacks Will Show West Islam is Great

January 13, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield 56 Comments

Literally true, just not in the way he meant it.

Carter also said that the recent attacks in Paris should provide an opportunity for the West to discover what makes Islam “great.�

“I think this is going to give a lot of people incentive to look into Islamicism, what is it about this religion that makes it great, that makes it appeal to really billions of people and to understand that Islamic leaders condemn this kind of terrorism just like the rest of the world,� he said.

That is indeed what made Islam, great. Not faith, not ideas. Mass murder and terror. That’s how Islam expanded.

Carter is also correct that Islamic terrorism propagates the religion in the West. Plenty of Westerners are going to look around and be attracted to Islam, whether because of its violence or because of the myth that it’s peaceful and oppressed.

Islam has expanded its American footprint in large part because of Al Qaeda. But Carter’s own aid to the Islamic takeover in Iran certainly didn’t hurt matters either.

[vector7]

John Brennan – The CIA -Zbigniew Brzezinski – Columbia University and Obama

Posted on January 10, 2013 by sundance

← John O Brennan For CIA ? I Guess Folks Have Forgotten He Owned The Analysis Corp – The firm that was cited in March 2008 for penetrating the files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain in the State Department’s passport office

Happy Birthday, Menagerie! →




Time to connect the dots, again. Treehouse Research – Going Deep.


While attending Occidental University, 1979 – 81′, young Barack Obama meets a former Jimmy Carter administration official Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski is a key CIA asset and expert on Russia. He later becomes a mentor, and then much later a foreign policy advisor to President Elect Obama.

Obama is friends with three Pakistani college roommates, muslims, Mohammed Hasan Chandio, Wahid Hamid, and Indian Vinai Thummalapally. In the summer of 1981 Obama travelled with his friends to Pakistan.Brezinski was deeply involved in the U.S. aspects to support Osama Bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. Pakistan was the base of operations against the Russians in support of the Mujahadeen. Simultaneous to this time Brezinski is in Pakistan / Afghanistan, so is John Brennan as part of his CIA duty.

BEAR WITH ME – Obama goes to Pakistan in the summer of 1981 and then for some reason there is a gap in his historical references and timeline. He does not reappear until the fall of 1982 attending Columbia (?) – or so the story is told, where he graduated in May of 1983. (This timeline has always been a thorn in my psyche of reconciliation).



The trip to Pakistan was unexpectedly noted in an April 2008 fundraiser . We wrote about it HERE. Just two weeks before this speech and surprise announcement of his 1981 visit to Pakistan, employees of John Brennan (who would become Obama’s terror chief) were caught tampering with Obama’s passport files. It should be noted that “Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March 2008 (just before this April fundraiser) for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released July 2009. On April 19th the key figure Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found slumped dead inside a car.

However, against the backdrop of events at the time in 1981 Pakistan/Afghanistan, and



against the backdrop of both Brennan and Brzezinski being in the same area, at exactly the same time, things are adding up.



Again, consider Obama reportedly walked away from a full ride scholarship at Occidental the summer of 81′ never to return. Instead he turns up, on paper only, at Columbia University the fall of 82′. But no-one, I mean NO-ONE has ever noted him ever having attended there – Consider:
1) “Columbia University will not divulge whether the “alleged” diploma issued was in the name of Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama. No public record exists regarding the diploma.”

2) “Obama alleges he attended Columbia in 1982, 1983. But, the investigators have been UNABLE to turn up a single shred of written documentation for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 that show where Obama appeared on a school roster, register, faculty memo, bulletin board, school awards, dean’s list; where Obama’s name appeared in a yearbook, club record, fraternity record, extra curricular activity member roster, student newspaper, student radio or TV activity; where Obama appeared in any records as a worker, employee, laborer in or about Columbia University; where Obama enrolled in any sports activity or program.”

3) “As a graduating senior in 1983 he does not appear in any Political Science (his major) or Graduating Class yearbook or invitation records.”

4) “There is absolutely no documentation of any kind to show Obama attended, lived, worked or played at Columbia University during the investigated 4 years.”

5) “Interviewed professors, college employees, students (who were at Columbia during the years in question) have failed to turn up a single person that can remember Obama. This is irrefutable evidence. Think about your own situation if Obama had attended your college? A “now-famous” person went to your school? Many would be able to say, “Of course I remember.” At Columbia, not a single person has been able to say he or she remembers Obama.” (link)

Obama meets CIA Brzezinski, who is exiting the term of Jimmy Carter, and is frequenting Afghanistan. Brzezinski is a mentor to Obama. John Brennan is in Afghanistan too. The support of the Mujahadeen against Russia is job #1.



Obama takes a trip to Pakistan/Afghanistan with Pakistani friends who happen to be from government families, and are also not aligned with sympathies to Russia, and supportive ideologically, of the Mujahadeen. Go figure?

And, um, well, additionally…. how did young ‘impoverished’ Barack afford such global travel? Those ain’t exactly cheap airline tickets, no? Or was someone else covering the costs and subsequent expenses?

Is this where Brzezinski, Brennan and Obama’s paths cross? Using the connections of Obama who is travelling with Wahid Hamid and staying in Karachi with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo’s family, and visiting Hyderabad as well.

We know Obama also made friends with Chairman of Senate, Muhammadmian Soomro, who said that in Pakistan he [Obama] came to know about Sunni and Shia sects. According to the report of Larry Rohter of April 10, 2008, in The New York Times, the Obama campaign staff, when questioned about the revelation of Obama’s 1981 trip to Karachi, stated:

“Mr. Obama visited Pakistan in 1981, on the way back from Indonesia, where his mother and half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, were living. He spent ‘about three weeks’ there, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton, said, staying in Karachi with the family of a college friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, but also traveling to Hyderabad, in India.”

We know the three week story was BS. We know because it was perhaps the most important revelation never discussed by the media:

Where was Obama from the time he left Occidental to travel to Pakistan via Indonesia, to the time he entered Columbia – Which is Documented and Verified to be September 1982? Where was he? By his own admission this is the year he traveled to Pakistan. The historical claim is he attended Columbia University after Occidental, but amid the discovery evidence in the Dr. Orly Taitz v. Obama lawsuit we find Exhibit #3 Columbia official records show him attending Columbia university only for nine months September 1982-till May 1983. One complete School Fall/Winter – Winter/Spring year. (Exhibit #3 – Click to Enlarge)



The following paragraphs have been extracted from Taitz’ First Amended Complaint, filed at the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

27. Further records from the Student Clearing House show even more shocking evidence. In his memoirs and multiple speeches Obama wrote that he studied for two years at Columbia University September 1981-May 1983. He admitted that in summer of 1981 he traveled to Pakistan to visit his friends, but repeatedly claimed that from September 1981 until May of 1983 he resided in New York and studied at Columbia University.

Taitz ran a check of his years of attendance at Columbia university and found out that Columbia official records show him attending Columbia university only for nine months September 1982-till May 1983 (Exhibit 3 — last line — click to enlarge), which means that the President of the United States lied to the whole nation about his whereabouts for a whole year September 1981 until September 1982. One year absence is the best case scenario, as he could get his university credit by reciprocity or through external studies.

28. As there is no record of Obama residing anywhere else in the United States from September 1981-September 1982, or attending any other university, by way of simple deduction it becomes clear that his visit to Pakistan lasted not a month or two, as he claims, but may have lasted for over a year. (continue reading)

Granted, Dr. Taitz is somewhat of an odd personality, but the context of the Columbia University record is not a matter of her personality or agenda. Nor is it subject to opinion or spin. It is a fact. It is what it is. This missing timeline directly contradicts Obama’s own words, and the construct of the narrative he and his fellow colleagues had created.

However, if you consider he never attended Columbia at that time, because he stayed in Pakistan, things make sense. Not only do they make sense – they actually reconcile.

The “mystery Obama thesis” which just so happens to have turned up in Columbia – though no-one can remember him writing it, was about, wait for it,….. “an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States“. Oh boy, who would have been around to write such a specific thesis paper for cover? It certainly is in the proverbial sweet spot for Brzezinski, no?

And then there’s the matter of how did Barack Obama gain entry into, and afford, Harvard Law School? Mr. John O Brennan spent most of his C.I.A. career as an analyst, but during the 1990s served a tour as the chief of the station in Saudi Arabia.

[…] In late March 2008, a former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton told a New York cable channel that a former business partner who was “raising money” for Obama had approached him in 1988 to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.

In this video interview, Sutton says he first heard of Obama about twenty years ago from Khalid Al-Mansour, who Sutton described as advisor to “one of the world’s richest men,” Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Sutton knew Al-Mansour well, since the two men had been business partners and served on several corporate boards together.

As Sutton remembered, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama’s education and seeking recommendations for him to attend Harvard Law School.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter. “The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas.”

Apparently, al-Mansour serves on the Board of, among others, Saudi African Bank and was responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s investment company.

Is this how it all finally ties together? I mean what are the odds that both CIA operatives Brennan and Brezinski would be in Pakistan at the same time young Obama was there, and then both men end up on his advisory team in 2008, 26 years later – at the same time the State Dept Passport records are breached by John Brennan’s company specifically regarding Obama? The same guy who Obama just nominated to be CIA Director.

Seriously, give me odds?

Was the Columbia University angle just a CIA cover story, replete with faux documents, just to cover for Obama’s time in Pakistan as a liason between affiliated political interests, the circles of his friends parents, in support of the Mujahadeen/U.S. objectives?
The odd thing is, this outline explains every single disconnected theory, reconciles all the fragmented narratives, and actually solves all the disjointed narratives simultaneously.



Oh yeah, and let’s not forget this recent jewel: Famous Jew Hater Brzezinski Defends Hagel As Candidate For Defense Secretary – Anyone Opposed to Hagel is Loyal To The Jews too.

[vector7]

Top general: 'Islamists embedded in White House?'


Posted By Greg Corombos On 02/16/2015 @ 7:02 pm In Front Page,Politics,U.S.,World | No Comments




In the wake of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, beheading 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney is slamming the Obama administration for failing to take obvious military steps to destroy the terrorists and identify radical Islam as the motivating factor for the atrocities committed throughout the region.


McInerney is a Vietnam veteran and rose to the No. 3 position in the Air Force during his career in uniform. He is now a Fox News military analyst.

On Sunday, ISIS released a new video depicting the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt on a beach in Libya.


U.S.-led airstrikes have been aimed at ISIS since August, after the terrorists beheaded American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. However, McInerney said the operations could be far more intense and would quickly cripple the enemy if done right.


“I think the air campaign is not nearly the intensity we needed,” McInerney said. “It’s not even an air campaign. It’s somewhere between seven and 15 sorties a day when we absolutely need upward of 100-200 sorties a day. I’m calling for 200. We need to be attacking the ISIS capital of Raqqa (Syria) 24/7. We need to close the highway between Raqqa and Mosul, Iraq.”


He said those steps would quickly tighten the noose around ISIS.


“Nothing can move on that highway,” he said. “If it’s moving, we’ll destroy it. We’ll kill their commerce. We’ll kill their ability to feed people in their ‘Islamic State.’ That’s going to require between 100-200 sorties a day, plus we’re going to need constant surveillance reconnaissance assets over the area.”


McInerney added, “Let’s get serious on this. The president has elected not to get serious. The Pentagon wants to do this, but the White House is holding back.”


Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney:






Another concern inside Iraq is the fate of 300 U.S. Marines and the Iraqi forces they are training at the Al Asad military base in Anbar Province of Iraq. Reports conflict over what danger ISIS forces pose near the facility. Pentagon officials publicly state they are not at all worried about the safety of U.S. and Iraqi forces. McInerney isn’t so sure and said this is another issue that could easily be resolved with decisive action.


“We need to put a Global Hawk or a Reaper (drone) overhead between Al-Asad and the town that they captured, al Baghdadi,” he said. “Anything that moves out of al-Baghdadi toward Al-Asad should be destroyed. In addition, we ought to continuously attack al-Baghdadi. In other words, a good offense gives you a great defense.”


Again, the general sees a dithering administration.


“By attacking those troops in al-Baghdadi, they’re going to be fearing for their lives, but I don’t see this being done,” he said. “This is 101 in basic war fighting, and we’re not getting that. I know the Pentagon wants to do that, but they’re not getting support out of the White House. This is being micromanaged out of the White House.”


A new CNN poll reveals 58 percent of Americans now disapprove of the president’s handling of ISIS.


In addition to McInerney’s frustration with the military tactics being employed against ISIS, he is livid over the Obama administration refusing to define the motivation behind the threat. Calling the rise and expansion of ISIS the result of “what happens when good people do nothing to fight evil,” McInerney said the Obama administration is keeping its head in the sand about how the ideology of this movement must be confronted.


“The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a radical Islamic organization,” McInerney said. “Al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11, is a radical Islamic organization. Hamas in the Gaza Strip is a radical Islamic organization. All these organizations that people hear about are radical Islamists. The Iranian government is a radical Islamic organization.”


The general said it is incumbent for President Obama to stop avoiding the elephant in the room and clearly state who and what America is fighting.


“Until the president identifies the threat that we are facing as radical Islam, it makes it very difficult to defeat the threat,” he said. “I just can’t say it any clearer. It’s important that this White House and this president identify the threat for what it is.”


Obama was vacationing in California over the Presidents’ Day weekend. The only White House responses to the ISIS beheadings or Saturday’s terrorist attacks in Denmark came from written statements. In a very short response to the shootings in Copenhagen, a three-sentence statement from a National Security Council spokesperson never referred to terrorism or radical Islam. On Sunday, a statement from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest referred to the 21 slain Coptic Christians only as “Egyptian citizens.”


McInerney is mystified by the lengths to which the administration goes to avoid references to radical Islam.


“I don’t know. Maybe we have some Islamists embedded in the White House,” McInerney said. “Whatever it is, it is absolutely bizarre. When Charlie Hebdo was attacked in Europe, everybody was calling it radical Islam except our president, who was calling it violent extremists.”


“What is the ideology of violent extremists? I don’t know,” he said. “Are they Irish? Are they Swedes? Who are they? I do know what the ideology of radical Islamists is. It is the Quran, the Hadith and Shariah law. Those are the things that we are fighting against.”


What do YOU think? Are there Islamists embedded in the White House? Sound off in today’s WND poll!


Last week, President Obama requested a new congressional authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, against ISIS. Some lawmakers are pleased that Obama is consulting Congress on the mission some six months after it began. Others say the scope is too narrow and should not be limited to just the next three years.


McInerney is not impressed by the request.


“He has given a political document,” he explained. “He’s trying to tie the hands of the president who follows him. He is not being aggressive on this because I think it’s a funding thing.

His priorities are on domestic policy. It’s not on the global situation. He’s had four secretaries of defense. No president in our history has had four secretaries of defense. We have lost Libya, Syria and now Yemen. Plus, we have really lost Iraq, because that’s now become a proxy state of Iran when we pulled out.”


In just over six years of the Obama presidency, McInerney said the pendulum in the Middle East is swinging in the wrong direction.


“He has completely changed the geopolitical position in the Middle East,” he said. “Egypt is now getting aid from the Russians. Forty years ago, we made a brilliant move when we flipped Egypt from relying on the Soviet Union to the United States and the Western world. This administration has completely reversed that. It’s a disaster.

[vector7]

Bracken: Why The Left Loves Islam
Posted on February 21, 2015


More politically-incorrect reality from Matt Bracken:

“Why the Left Loves Islam”

Both socialism and Islam are parasitical fascist systems where the elite bosses feed as vampires upon the productive citizenry under their control. Under totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law, productive “people of the book” (Christians and Jews) are tolerated as “dhimmis” (officially subjugated 2nd class citizens) to the degree that the local emirs and sultans decree they should be tolerated. This allows the Muslim bosses to ease their grip or tighten it at will. In socialism this relationship finds many parallels.

For example, Lenin himself, during the disastrous “war Communism” period following the revolution and civil war, allowed the “New Economic Policy” or NEP, where a limited form of capitalism was permitted in order to get the flat-lining economy moving again. Once it was moving, the Communist bosses mass-murdered the successful NEPers, namely the so-called “Kulak class.” The Castros in Cuba have made similar moves over the decades, with Cuban NEPs cycling with harsh Communist crackdowns. Today in Venezuela the productive are tolerated in order to exploit their economic vigor, or they are rounded up and imprisoned, purely at the whim of the elite socialist bosses.

Under Islam, the local Muslim bosses can decide in one place and era to tolerate the dhimmis and exploit their economic vitality (Spain during “Al-Andalus” post 711AD), or wipe them out in a genocide (many examples, the Turkish genocide of the Armenians and other Christians during the early 20th century is just one). But the degree of freedom permitted to the subjugated dhimmis is totally up to the local Muslim power structure. From tolerance to genocide, all is permitted when it comes to Muslims dealing with infidels. The Muslim is always the master, the infidel is always the subjugated dhimmi.

This also is seen in Muslim marital relationships, and in their ownership of slaves. A Muslim husband or slave master can be a wonderful, enlightened and tolerant man, or he can be a ruthless exploiter, brutal rapist and even a killer. It is totally up to the master how he disposes of a slave, or a wife. That is the fate of the dhimmi under Islam. Your Muslim masters will hold your complete fate in their hands.

And leading elite Leftists are totally fine with that power structure. It’s very similar to how they see the world. In the view of the Left, the productive class consists of greedy exploiters who should be taxed heavily, in order to redistribute their ill-gotten wealth to the needy, poor and oppressed. In doling out this stolen largess, the elite bosses of socialism attain all power, and live like sultans and pashas.

In coming years, expect that leading progressive socialist leaders, who today mysteriously promote tolerance for and approval of massive Muslim immigration, will suddenly announce that they have discovered that Mohammed is the last messenger of world socialism, raise their right index fingers, and repeat the Shahada oath declaring their submission to Islam, while dreaming of both Marx and Mohammed.

And that is why the Left loves Islam. They both hate freedom and worship pure power.

https://westernrifleshooters.wordpre...comment-118673

[Ryan Ruck]

Another great piece from Bracken!

[American Patriot]

Matt posts a LOT of stuff, live on FB every day too.

Things that don't make it to the various blogs.

[Malsua]

I just friended Matt on FB. I enjoy his writings, which means I'm probably on someone's list.

[American Patriot]

Matt's list? LOL

[Malsua]

I suspect Bracken is on Obama's list of enemies of the socialist, Islamic state of America and therefore I am guilty by association.

[American Patriot]

Yeah, all of us are guilty by association. We own guns, we're outspoken, some of us have served in the military and have had Muslims get IN OUR FACES before.

So yeah, you're right. (I knew what you meant, was just trying to lighten the mood this morning, but it's not working listening to the news, haha)

[American Patriot]

I'm listening to the whole leaked deal about Iran's nukes.

10 years is the absolute limit on stopping them. After that all of the restrictions are lifted and they would be a year or so from the bomb.

[vector7]

CNN and The Obama Agenda – A collaborative goal to work policy objectives through the media…

Posted on April 20, 2015 by sundance

In December 2014 CNN ran and episode of Anthony Bourdain Parts Unknown filmed in Iran. It seemed innocuous at the time, yet as with all things Turner Broadcasting, it also seemed to be another set up for a larger political agenda item.



Was something, something important to the administration, coming on the horizon which would benefit from some pro-Iranian sentiment blasted into the U.S. psyche. Something which might be known as a 2015 ‘Iranian Nuclear Deal’, perhaps.

Was it just happenstance that Bourdain interviewed Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and his wife, Yeganeh Salehi -also a journalist- who was arrested less than two weeks after the segment was filmed.

Coincidence?

TODAY Jason Rezaian charged by Iran with:

A Washington Post reporter is being charged by Iran’s Revolutionary Court with crimes that include “collaborating with hostile governments” and “propaganda against the establishment.” (link)

Does Iran know something about the State Sponsoring of, and manipulation of, media for the benefit of regime intentions?
Of course they do.

But before getting into why Iran may have viewed Jason Rezaian as a threat, it first becomes necessary to for U.S. audiences to see CNN the same way Iran does, as state run TV.



Last week, April 2015, CNN ran a segment on a new show called The Wonder List with Bill Weir. The focus of the enviro-messaging was the fragility of the Florida Everglades.

Bill Weir […] our first season of “The Wonder List.” To be honest, as a veteran of a few ho-hum airboat rides, I came with really low expectations.

But this place, more than any other this season, surprised me with sublime beauty, great stories and a sense of real urgency as good people try to right the wrongs of the past. (link)

A week later and violÃ*, well, what do you know – another coincidence:

TODAY […] President Barack Obama on Wednesday plans to visit the Everglades — the South Florida wetlands that form part of the state’s large tourism sector -— to promote his policies combating climate change, a major piece of his second-term agenda. (link)

These would seem like disconnected coincidences if we didn’t know, with direct sourcing, that CNN and the White House work in concert with each other both ideologically and specifically with a collaborative goal to work policy objectives through the media.

Most conservatives immediately respond with thoughts of CNN’s Candy Crowley supporting Obama during the CNN hosted 2012 presidential debate. Or you might reference CNN’s Fareed Zakaria who is also a key Obama foreign policy advisor.

2011 – CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said on Thursday that he has been having regular discussions with President Obama about national security and foreign policy. (link)

However, what is less known or referenced is the CNN story by Nick Robertson which never ran; the story of the Cairo Protest on September 11th 2012.

[…] CNN never aired the Nick Robertson report in Egypt because it completely contradicted President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s assertions. In short, the Robertson report, if aired, would have proved Obama and Clinton were lying.

The Nick Robertson CNN report was filmed on 9/11/12, yes the exact morning of the Cairo embassy protest, and, by coincidence, it would have aired at the exact moment Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began attributing the Egyptian embassy protest, and ultimately the Benghazi attack to a “U-Tube Video”. (link)

And then there’s Amber Lyon. Amber Lyon is an award-winning journalist who worked for CNN. She says she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration (like the Nick Robertson report), and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network. Further claiming CNN is paid by foreign and domestic government agencies for specific content.

Since Ms. Amber Lyon made that bold proclamation in 2012 we’ve watched closely. As mentioned above, and with numerous specific examples, everything she has claimed turns out to be 100% accurate.
So is it really that surprising for Iran to see this image and not consider the Iranian national contained within it as a potential subversive.



Think about it.

Spend enough time walking around with a one-legged friend, and sooner or later you’re going to start limping.

[vector7]

Bracken: Tet, Take Two – Islam’s 2016 European Offensive

Posted on November 29, 2015 | 178 comments




TET, TAKE TWO:

ISLAM’S 2016 EUROPEAN OFFENSIVE

By Matthew Bracken, November 2015

More than a decade ago I wrote my first novel, Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Part of my motivation was to establish my bona fides at forecasting social, political and military trends. I didn’t like the direction America was heading, and I wanted to warn as many readers as possible about some of the dangers I saw coming. At the end of 2015, I hope that my past success at prognostication will encourage people to pay heed to this essay.

As we roll into the New Year, we are witnessing the prelude to the culmination of a titanic struggle between three great actors. Three great social forces are now set in motion for a 2016 showdown and collision that will, in historical terms, be on par with the First and Second World Wars.

Two of these great social forces are currently allied in a de facto coalition against the third. They have forged an unwritten agreement to jointly murder the weakest of the three forces while it is in their combined power to do so. One of these two social forces would be content to share totalitarian control over large swaths of the globe with the other remaining social force. One of these social forces will never be satisfied until it achieves complete domination of the entire planet. So what are these three great social forces? They are Islam, international socialism, and nationalism. Allow me to explain the salient aspects of each, and how they relate to the coming 2016 cataclysm.

1. ISLAM

Islam is similar to a self-replicating supercomputer virus. It is a hydra-headed monster, designed by its creators to be an unstoppable formula for global conquest. It’s almost impossible to eradicate, because it has no central brain or control center. Islam is like a starfish: when you cut off a limb, another grows to replace it. The names of the Muslim leaders, and the names of their Islamic groups, are transitory and ultimately unimportant. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are succeeded by Al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State, but they will all pass from the scene and be replaced by others. While Muslim leaders and regimes have come and gone, Islam itself has remained steadfastly at war with the non-Muslim world for 1,400 years.

Islam does not recognize secular national boundaries. To devout Muslims, there are only two significant realms of the world. First is the Dar al-Islam—the House of Islam, which is the land of the believers. The other is the Dar al-Harb—the House of War, which must be made Islamic by any means, including violent jihad. The expansion of Islam is sometimes held in check for long periods, but more often Islam is on the march, acquiring new territory. Once conquered by Islam, territory is rarely taken back, Spain being a notable exception.

The Muslim world produces almost no books or new inventions. Short of finding oil under their feet, most Islamic nations are backward and impoverished. So wherein lies the power source for Islam’s nearly constant expansion over the past fourteen centuries? The motor and the battery of Islam are the Koran and the Hadith, or sayings of Mohammed. A messianic Mahdi, Caliph or Ayatollah with sufficient charisma can accelerate Islam’s pace of conquest, but individual men are not the driving force.

Secular “Muslim in name only” strongmen from Saddam Hussein to Muamar Qadafi can hold Islamism in check for a period with brutal methods, but strongmen are often assassinated or otherwise removed from power, and in any event, they cannot live forever. Once the secular strongmen are gone, fanatical mullahs are able to stir their zealous Muslim followers into sufficient ardor to reinstall a radical Islamist regime under Sharia Law, according to the Koran.

This pattern of secular strongmen being followed by fanatical Islamist leaders has recurred many times over the past millennia and longer. Do not be fooled by modernists like King Abdullah of Jordan. To the true believer of Islam, any king or strongman is never more than a rifle shot or grenade toss away from being kinetically deposed, and replaced by another Islamist fanatic.

The persistent virulence of Mohammed’s 7th Century plan for global domination means that it is always ready to erupt in a fresh outbreak. Islam is like a brushfire or ringworm infection: it is dead and barren within the ring, but flares up where it parasitically feeds off the healthy non-Islamic societies around it. What produces this uniquely fanatical motivation, from within nations and peoples that otherwise seem devoid of energy and new ideas?

The motivation lies within the words of the Koran and Hadith. Most simply distilled, in the earthly realm, these Islamic texts offer immoral men sanction for thrill-killing, looting, raping, and capturing infidel slaves, and when these jihadists are killed, they are promised a perpetual orgy with seventy-two nubile virgin slave girls in Mohammed’s sick, evil and perverted Muslim paradise. Unlike the Jewish and Christian Bibles, the Koran and Hadith appeal not to man’s better angels, but to the darkest aspects of human nature. (Tellingly, Moses and Jesus are said to have climbed to mountaintops to communicate with their God, while Mohammed received his messages from Allah deep inside a bat cave.)

A meaningful or permanent reformation of Islam is impossible, because a new generation of fanatics, wielding the unexpurgated Koran and Hadith as their weapons, will always declare the reformists to be apostates and murder them. In Islam, the fanatics who are holding the unalterable Koran in one hand and a sword in the other always stand ready to seize complete power and exterminate their enemies.

This latent danger breeds fear and causes nearly all non-Muslims to be carefully circumspect in their dealings with Muslims, lest they lose their heads at a later date. This intentionally fostered fear of Islam is used as a cudgel against those who would otherwise resist its domination. The immutable Koran is the constant fountainhead of bloody Islamic conquest. Radical Islam is the pure Islam, the Koranic Islam, the real Islam.

Anyone who does not understand this bitter reality is dangerously ignorant of the past 1,400 years of human history.

2. INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM

The second great actor or social force is international socialism. It can also be aptly described under the rubrics of leftism, statism, cultural Marxism and communism. These all inhabit the international socialist spectrum. I trace these cultural Marxists at least back to the Jacobins of the 18th Century, a clique of secular humanists who were early globalists aligned with Freemasonry.

The Jacobins moved from Germany to France with a coherent and fully developed plan to engineer a social explosion as a means to take power. The Jacobin destabilization plan became the template for many more bloody “people’s revolutions” to come. Following the French Revolution, we are familiar with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. We are less familiar with the early 20th Century British Fabian socialists, or the Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, or the German “Frankfurt School” of international socialists, who transplanted their vision to the United States via Columbia University.

Unlike Vladimir Lenin and the Communists, they understood that international socialism’s goals could not be fully accomplished until the strong edifice of Western Civilization was hollowed out and sabotaged from within. In the end, the clandestine international socialist forces which burrowed deep within the Western womb achieved results which were far more permanent than the militarily-imposed revolutionary “war Communism” of Lenin and Mao.

Over the course of the past century, while Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, the Fabian socialists have been increasingly successful at poisoning the roots of national, cultural and ethnic identity, leaving the inheritors of Western Civilization disorganized and demoralized, with no central belief system to rally behind. Why has this deliberate demoralization and dumbing-down process occurred? The international socialists have believed at least since the French Revolution that it was their duty to impose a top-down feudal order upon the ordinary “dumb masses,” a new world order managed by self-proclaimed experts chosen from among the correctly-educated elites, both for the benefit of the ignoramuses, and as a way to line their own pockets and continue to live an elite lifestyle of wealth and power.

It may seem paradoxical that major corporate and banking interests are deeply invested in the international socialist new world order, but when you untangle the threads it actually makes perfect sense. Today’s international banks and mega-corporations are powerful global actors in their own right, and they are now written into each new international trade agreement. In fact, corporate lawyers author most of the pages of the multi-thousand-page trade pacts, which are now coming down like rain. Trade pacts which were never voted on by American or European citizens, pacts which are taking on the force of international treaty law, superseding even the United States Constitution.

From the Rothschilds of Europe to the Warburgs of both continents, to the Morgans and Rockefellers of America and back to the Hungarian immigrant George Soros, for several centuries, millionaire (and more lately billionaire) bankers have written their own laws and cut their own political deals. Today, they literally create billions of new dollars and Euros per day out of thin air, and pass it over to their cronies. In the United States, the creation a century ago of the Federal Reserve—a privately run central bank of, by and for the interests of a cabal of private banking interests—is a glaring case in point.

In the USA, the heads of global mega-corporations and investment firms donate massively to both the Democrats and the Republicans alike, ensuring favorable treatment in an era of corporately directed crony capitalism. The picture is much the same in other countries. These post-nationalist crony-capitalists recognize no sovereign borders and believe that patriotism is a laughable anachronism.

For example, in America, open-border traitors bribe politicians to pass laws to allow them to import unlimited numbers of H-1 visa foreign workers to directly replace Americans at their very desks and work places, and these traitors do not lose one wink of sleep over it. The traitor class of the international business set calls this “agility,” moving fungible proles, peasants and paupers world-wide to where they can be set to work most cheaply and profitably. Ordinary American middle-class workers and their families are just collateral damage in this process. The reality is not much different in Europe.

These super wealthy open-border corporate and banking elites, who paradoxically steer the forces driving international socialism, are able to bribe their way to success after success in myriad ways. Their wealth and political connections ensure that cooperative young players with future star quality are steered to the right universities, foundations, councils, government agencies and media positions. For example, when you see a talking head on television, and his listed expert credential is that he is a member of the entirely private Council on Foreign Relations who has written articles for their house publication Foreign Affairs, you will know that he is destined for high positions, and doors will magically open in front of him.

Over on the Fourth Estate, the global mass media has been almost entirely subverted, scripted and stage-managed for decades by these über-wealthy elites through a thousand channels greased with kickbacks, no-show jobs, and secret payoffs that are disguised as special stock offerings and private land deals.

Media figures morph seamlessly into senior political advisors and corporate board members, adding millions to their portfolios with each well-timed transition.

Even many retired generals and admirals eagerly wallow in this swamp of sell-out and sleaze. It should not be a surprise to anyone that so many politicians leave Washington or Brussels as millionaires. Just as it should not be a surprise that long-time CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” was for his entire adult life secretly a leading member of the World Federalist Association, a fact he proudly revealed only after his retirement from in front of the camera.

3. NATIONALISM

Nationalists probably comprise most of the population of the non-Islamic world, but there is no way to know their number with any certainty. Opinion polls are so easily rigged that most of them are useless at best, and they primarily constitute false propaganda and dezinformatsiya on behalf of their sponsors.
Nationalists consider themselves to be first and foremost loyal citizens of a sovereign nation. However, it must be borne in mind that the very concept of nationhood is fairly recent in origin. The division of the globe into distinct nation-states only began in the 17th Century, usually marked by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Since then, the world has been divided by national borders, which often (but not always) coincided with a national ethnic group, language and culture.

This national division was particularly successful on the European continent. Shared Judeo-Christian morality, ethics and values promoted notions of fairness and equal rights, leading over time to the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, and racial civil rights. During this period of unleashed human potential, Europeans and Americans enjoyed the greatest increase in overall standards of living ever seen in the history of mankind. Great cities, universities and museums were constructed in Europe and in America. Rising European empires—wealthy, cohesive, confident and highly organized—then conquered or otherwise came to control colonies around the world. America picked up much of the business when the colonial era ended after World War Two.

Happy national outcomes were far from universal. During the 20th Century, Communism rose to take complete power in some countries, notably Russia (as the Soviet Union) and China, but their successes did not lead to an unstoppable avalanche of global revolution, as had been foreseen by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. On the other hand, the slow, grinding “Long March through the institutions” of the traitor-class Fabian socialists (including Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and others) proved far more effective and durable.

By the 21st Century, these cultural Marxist traitor-moles had subverted nearly all of academia, inculcating generation after generation of students with a contempt bordering on hatred for their own national and ethnic identities. Most of the media were also subverted, ensuring that mass communications would always reinforce the politically correct international socialist world view that had already been injected and incubated in the schools and universities.

In this era of mass-brainwashing by the cultural Marxists, Christianity was recast as a retrograde social force, obsolete at best in the modern secular world, and at worst an outright danger to humanity. In the new politically-correct secular religion of humanism, European ethnic and cultural identity became the original sin and the mark of Cain. White European skin meant white privilege, and was transformed into a cause for shame.

Meanwhile, emancipated European and American women aimed toward new goals, which increasingly did not include producing a new generation, and demographic collapse began. Both men and women alike were anesthetized into apathy with 24-hour entertainment transmitted by high-def screens and stereo ear buds planted nearly into their brains. This unceasing fountain of entertainment proved an ideal conduit for mass-brainwashing with politically-correct values and ideas. Thus distracted and demoralized, most Americans and Europeans today seem unable and unwilling to stand up and fight in defense of their diminishing cultural and national identities. Brainwashed “social justice warriors,” the latest iteration of Lenin’s “useful idiots,” hasten the demise of Western Civilization, blissfully unaware of what will follow.

Thus rendered supine, the remaining American and European nationalists constitute the weakest and the most threatened of the three major global social forces. In a few European nations, patriots like Wilders of the Netherlands, Höcke of Germany, Orban of Hungary, Farage of the UK, and Le Pen of France lead a rear-guard defense of their national, ethnic and cultural identities, while constantly being disparaged in the socialist-controlled “liar press” as racists, Nazis and xenophobes.

4. WORLD WAR THREE

Going into 2016, I believe that Europe is primed to become the central theater of a third world war. Like an overstrained zipper suddenly failing and bursting open from end to end, the European conflagration could well reignite simmering conflicts from the Ukraine to the Persian Gulf, due to interlocking alliances (NATO, including Turkey, vs. Russia), and the Sunni-Shia divide (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, which has been imported into Europe).

Yes, World War Three. But why now?

A recurring strategic doctrine of the open-border international socialists, going back at least to the Jacobins, has been, “Out of chaos, order.” Lenin put it this way, when told that there were bread riots in Russian cities: “The worse, the better.” No “people’s revolution” (instigated and directed by traitor-class elites) has ever occurred on full bellies in happy countries that were at peace.

The international bankers and corporate elites are just as happy to underwrite revolutions, as they are to underwrite other types of war. They have regularly provided loans and armaments simultaneously to all sides of European conflicts, always profiting handsomely no matter which side won or lost, or how many people died. They have also funded revolutions, in order to stir the pot for their future profits by getting in on the ground floor with new regimes.

For example, American bankers funded the efforts of Lenin and Trotsky both before and during their returns to Russia. Once you understand the grand machinations at work behind the forces directing international socialism, this seeming paradox actually makes sense. It’s about control, and brainwashing the idiot proles into the unthinking herd behavior required to manage them under socialism directed from above. But at the very pinnacle of the proletarian worker-bee hive, the controlling nomenklatura elites live like Communist dictators, or Rockefellers, or both at the same time, as they meet at Davos, Aspen, Jackson Hole and elsewhere over champagne and caviar to arrange their next self-dealing international trade agreements.

Now, the elite shot-callers have lit the fuse for the vast social explosion that is imminent in Europe, just as they did in Russia in 1917. How? By throwing Europe’s borders wide open. The Islamist corner of my triad represents a constant threat or push, and Muslims are always eager to fill any demographic vacuum. Their avarice for fresh Islamic conquest is a given or a constant. We see a 1.5-per birth rate among European women, and they see millions of European women with no or worthless husbands, who will soon meet real Muslim men.

The current open-border policies of the European international socialists were intentionally designed to allow hundreds of thousands of culturally and religiously aggressive Islamist fighters and colonists to flood into Europe. The European traitor elites understand exactly what they are doing. They know what will happen. But why do it now?

Twentieth-century Austrian School economist Ludwig Von Mises wrote, “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” In contrast, when socialist economist John Maynard Keynes was asked if his self-styled Keynesian credit expansion could continue in the long run, he replied, “In the long run, we are all dead.” Tra-la-la, who cares? It won’t be my problem.

In 2015, the childless homosexual John Maynard Keynes is indeed long dead, but we are still alive, and his “long run” is finally upon us. Now, just before the bank failures begin, seems to be an opportune time for the traitor elites to throw over the table, scattering the cards, chips and cash, while the lights go dark and shots ring out. The evil actors lurking in the background who sometimes engineer major catastrophes always have a plan to escape their worst consequences, including taking any blame, and they even have a plan to profit from the very disasters they created. The first Baron Rothschild, around the time of the Battle of Waterloo, is credited with saying “The time to buy is when there is blood running in the streets.”

Is there any evidence of a concerted effort to deliberately throw Europe into bloody chaos and civil war? I think that there is. Thousand-passenger ferry ships cost tens of thousands of Euros a day to operate. Muslim hijra (jihad by immigration) invaders are receiving free or subsidized passage from Greek isles that are located only a few miles from Turkey, all the way across the Aegean Sea to mainland Greece. From there, chartered buses and special trains speed the migrants from border to border and onward into Germany, France and Sweden, at little or no cost to the muhajirs, or hijra migrants.

Who is paying for the operation of the ferry ships, trains and bus convoys? Who is paying for the smart phones and prepaid debit cards? Who is passing out the hundred-Euro notes seen in nearly every migrant hand, if they are truly arriving destitute after escaping war-torn Syria? Somebody is underwriting the Muslim hijra invasion of Europe. George Soros is spending billions to fund a hundred groups advocating open borders through his Open Society Foundation, so that might be a good place for intrepid researchers to explore.

5. THE TET OFFENSIVE OF 1968

As we roll into 2016, I am reminded of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive. In January of 1968, before the Tet Lunar New Year celebrations, thousands of Viet Cong fighters were infiltrated into Saigon and other South Vietnamese cities. Their coordinated mass attacks on January 30 came nearly by complete surprise, constituting America’s worst intelligence-gathering failure between 1950 in Korea and 2001 in New York. The experts had all agreed that the VC were too weakened and divided to accomplish mass attacks on a national scale, yet more than 80,000 irregular Communist infiltrators simultaneously struck in more than one hundred towns and cities. The Communists used a declared truce period to launch their attacks, while the American and South Vietnamese forces were on holiday leave. Bitter urban fighting in Hue, Vietnam’s third largest city, lasted for a month. Before they were defeated in Hue, the Communists executed thousands of civilian prisoners, dumping them into mass graves with their hands wired behind their backs.

The Communist bosses in North Vietnam miscalculated that the Viet Cong attacks in the cities would trigger a spontaneous national uprising against the American imperialists and their Republic of Vietnam puppets. This general uprising did not take place, and the VC were largely wiped out by hard-fighting American and South Vietnamese troops. City life went back to what constituted normal in South Vietnam. After Tet, the Viet Cong were largely a spent force, and never regained their former power. (The final takeover of South Vietnam in 1975 was accomplished by conventional NVA troops arriving from the North in tanks and on trucks, after Democrats in the American Congress cut off the resupply of ordnance and fuel to our South Vietnamese allies, leaving them unable to defend their republic.)
Yet back in America, in order to deceive and demoralize America in time of war, “Uncle Walter” Cronkite twisted the story of the Tet Offensive into a tale of rising Communist power and reach, of American military failure, and of the hopelessness of the cause to keep the Republic of Vietnam free from Communist conquest. Why did Cronkite do this? “The most trusted man in America” was secretly a leading propagandist for international socialism, which sees a strong and independent United States as the greatest barrier to their goal of eventual global governance. The case of Walter Cronkite and the Tet Offensive false narrative is just one glaring example of the pervasiveness of the international socialist grip on our mainstream media.

To an American nationalist, Walter Cronkite is a classic traitor, but to a dedicated international socialist, national borders and national sovereignty are no more important than they are to a devout Muslim. To both supranational groups, borders and nations are anachronistic constructs to be ignored, trampled, and discarded over time. Cronkite was a traitor to America, but he is a hero to the cultural Marxists. Typical of his dishonorable breed, Cronkite kept his true allegiance a secret until after he had retired from broadcasting lies and propaganda. I am convinced that the global mainstream media is infested with hundreds of Walter Cronkites today, both in front of and behind the cameras.

6. TET, TAKE TWO

Which brings me to the main thrust of this essay. I believe that Europe is being prepared for a Muslim-jihad version of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. A vast and concerted act of treason has been taking place across Europe since the creation of the European Union. Under the Schengen Agreement, Brussels promised to guard the outer frontiers of the EU, while abolishing internal border controls. The Eurocrat elites broke the first promise but kept the second, thus opening a wide path for the onrushing Muslim hijra immigration invasion.

Right now, approximately a million new Muslim migrants are engaged in a struggle to find a warm place to sleep in a continent with nothing approaching the capacity to adequately house them. At least 75% of the migrant invaders are Muslim men of fighting age. Native-born ethnic Germans, Swedes and others are being thrown onto the street to provide emergency housing for Muslim “refugees.” Tens of thousands of migrants are currently living in tents, and in temporary shelters like school gymnasiums and underused warehouses.

There will be no means of finding or creating permanent quarters for them before the Central European blizzards come. When the snow is deep in Germany and across Europe, these men are going to enter local houses, demanding to be taken in as boarders—or else. Where it is useful, small migrant children will be held up in front as human shields for their emotional blackmail value; elsewise, they will be discarded. One way or the other, Muslim migrants will be attempting to move inside of German homes and apartments seeking heat and food, and the young Muslim men will be seeking undefended infidel or kafir women to slake their lust (which is their right, under Islamic Sharia law).

In disarmed Europe, any group of a dozen or more cold, hungry and angry Muslim men armed with clubs and knives will be able to enter any German house or business that they like. Worse, there are now reports of vast quantities of firearms being smuggled into Europe by the muhajirs, with cowed European authorities afraid to search the migrants or their baggage, lest they provoke riots. And weapons are not only smuggled in “refugee” baggage: eight hundred assault-style shotguns were just seized in a single truck in northern Italy, bound from Turkey to Belgium. How many truckloads of weapons and explosives have not been stopped?

In Germany, even before the winter snows, the migrants are flash mobbing and looting shops and stores. Seeking to forestall a social eruption, police do not respond until the mobs have safely departed. For now, the German government is paying these store owners for their lost merchandise, but this cannot continue forever. Businesses are closing and Germans are retreating in fear, as the muhajirs learn that they can invade private property and rob Germans without repercussions, convincing them even further of the docile passivity of their hosts, and the inevitability of their ultimate hijra invasion success.

As attacks mount, the German police will nearly always fall out on the side of the traitor-elite politicians who pay their salaries, and they will not come to the rescue of besieged ethnic Germans. At least, not under official orders, or in uniform. This calculated disregard by the international socialist elites for the safety and welfare of ordinary German citizens will in time lead to vigilantism and death squad actions by “off-duty” German military and police personnel.

They will be acting against their “hands off the Muslims” orders, which are ultimately emanating from Brussels. And in time, enough firearms will find their way from the military, police and black markets into the hands of ordinary European nationalists for them to mount an armed resistance.

The accelerated pace of the 2015 Muslim hijra invasion was conceived, planned and executed by Quisling traitors comprising the elite leadership of the European branch of the international socialist movement, headquartered in Brussels. To paraphrase British nationalist patriot Paul Weston, if a farmer deliberately inserts a fox into the henhouse, who is guilty of killing the hens?

Now, today, across Europe the stage is being set for the genocide of the weak, confused and defenseless European hens. Former East German Communist functionary Angela Merkel achieves high marks at both Muslim fox insertion and German hen repression. (Meanwhile, former Soviet Communist KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin evolves to become a Russian nationalist who always advances Russian interests, at least as they are perceived by himself and his cronies).

A few days after the Paris attacks, French police commandos fired some 5,000 rounds down an urban street into an apartment set into a crowded block. A year from now, I predict that when police arrive on that street, they could be met with sniper fire, improvised barricades, IEDs and possibly RPGs. In short, Paris, Brussels and many other European cities will in time resemble Beirut during the 1980s.

To understand Europe’s future, simply ask the Lebanese what follows when a nation takes in tens of thousands of angry Muslim “refugees.” Civil war is what happens, even if it begins among the various competing refugee factions. It is a threadbare hope that a wished-for peaceful silent majority of Muslims will be able to influence the radical Islamists away from violence, and thus forestall the coming European Civil War, any more than imagined peaceful silent majorities could have prevented the civil wars in Lebanon, Bosnia, Syria or a dozen other places. Actual peace-loving Muslims will be as insignificant to the outcome of the coming conflict as were any Quaker pacifists hiding in 1944 Berlin. The only significance of the alleged silent majority of peaceful Muslims is that they will serve as living camouflage for the jihadists to hide among.

It is critical to note that none of the examples I just mentioned (Lebanon, Bosnia, Syria) constituted neat bipolar wars between two national state actors. All were three-sided wars—at least. These formulations are inherently unstable and constantly veer toward violence, as temporary alliances of convenience shift and today’s friend becomes tomorrow’s enemy. In this environment of deception, subterfuge and betrayal, the false-flag terror operation becomes a standard operating procedure. It is a simple matter for Group A to conduct a massacre of Group B while wearing the outward uniforms or other insignia of Group C. And it is no trouble at all for Group C to fire a few mortar rounds into the market square of Group A from the territory of Group B. Ethnic cleansing, reprisal operations and mass executions proliferate like mushrooms in this free-booting environment, which is devoid of the behavioral controls normally inherent in a war fought at the national level between two uniformed militaries.

When any non-Islamic country, such as France, attains approximately a ten-percent Muslim population through dangerously naive immigration policies, violence and civil war become a constant threat. Ten percent of a total national population translates into more than fifty-percent of fighting-age men in key urban districts, due to the concentration of Muslims in Sharia-zone ghettos, combined with aging European demographics. Later, these Muslim ghettos will serve as sanctuaries and bastions for the jihadists, until and unless they are finally pulverized with artillery shell fire or aerial bombs. France and Germany will not be exempt from the lessons of history that were hard taught in Beirut, Sarajevo, and Damascus.

Thousands of the recent Muslim muhajirs currently arriving in Europe were schooled in prolonged and savage religious and ethnic civil wars. Today’s Europeans, deliberately brainwashed with politically correct fairytales about the benefits of multi-culturalism, have utterly no idea what horrors await them.

Increasing European discomfort will not change the outcome one iota. Just because the Europeans may tire of the irritating presence of Muslims (both new immigrants and native born), the Muslims will never willingly leave Europe. Nor will the Muslim immigrant invaders knuckle under and turn quiet and docile again.

7. A SCORE OF BESLANS

The hard core of the battle-hardened jihadists now fanning out across Europe understands the tried-and-true process of igniting a civil war through terror. They will calculate that the European military and police cannot and will not sustain the battle against an unceasing campaign of terrorism. Brussels cannot remain on virtual lockdown forever without its economy being wrecked. What will happen when a Paris-type attack, or worse, is a daily event in a dozen European cities?

As I mentioned above, just the other day in northern Italy eight hundred combat-style pistol-grip shotguns were discovered in a truck on their way from Turkey to Belgium. Do the math. The Paris attacks were carried out by approximately eight jihadists armed with Kalashnikovs, shotguns and TATP suicide vests (which can be manufactured anywhere there is a kitchen). Now imagine a “Super Tet Offensive,” with every type of target on the hit list from airports to zoological parks, each being assaulted by an eight-man squad of such killers. Some attacks smaller, some larger, from pairs to platoons in strength.

Today, perhaps only a few short months prior to Tet 2016, there is no Islamic high command located in Europe or elsewhere in charge of planning specific terror operations. There is no OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the supreme command of the German Nazi armed forces) planning an Islamic Operation Barbarossa. Hence, there is no command and control structure for Western intelligence to penetrate and disrupt.

Instead of a central brain directing many hands, think of a vast swarm of stinging jellyfish, all moving in loose formation, with the same generalized attack plan in their collective hive-mind. At the end of 2015, individual muhajirs may have only a basic awareness that they are heading to Europe to conduct a great jihad. As D-Day draws nearer, coded messages will proliferate with cryptic references to portentous events from Islamic history. “Get ready, and prepare to conduct major operations” will be the thrust of the online chatter and encrypted wireless messages. In each European city, targets will be individually scouted by local mujahirs in anticipation of a general outbreak of jihad terror attacks.

How many mosques have already received a truckload of shotguns or Kalashnikovs? Run the numbers again: eight jihadists per terror attack, eight hundred weapons per truck, 80,000 Viet Cong fighters in the original Tet Offensive, and an estimated 800,000 muhajirs flooding into Europe. Using radical mosques as clandestine armories is S.O.P in the Middle East, so why would the jihadists not use the same tactics in safe and docile Europe? Out of a sense of fairness and respect for European laws? Please. In the words of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” And bear in mind that anyplace an AK-47 can be smuggled, so too can a few kilos of Semtex.

Imagine a dozen or even a score of Beslan-type school sieges, all happening at the same time, across that number of European cities. Initially, the first string of major surprise attacks will be coordinated by the most well-organized terror networks using currently unbreakable wireless encryption. Many of the attacks will involve numerous captured hostages, often children, with impossible demands being made to guarantee their safety. Or no demands will be made; just rape and slaughter will ensue, as in the Russian Beslan example. This outbreak of major attacks will be the signal for the general jihad offensive to begin.

The Beslan Massacre happened in 2004 at the hands of yet another killer gang of aggrieved Islamists. Two squads of Chechen Muslim terrorists arrived on the first day of school in a Russian town, using false police vans as camouflage. They took a thousand young hostages and held them for three days. The Muslim terrorists murdered over four hundred innocents, often after rape and torture. Now, imagine twenty ongoing European Beslans, with simultaneous infrastructure and “soft-target” (people) attacks happening everywhere in between.

What Hitler’s Nazis accomplished with Stukas and Tigers and motorized divisions, the Islamonazis will attempt to accomplish by a massive “Tet Offensive on steroids,” overwhelming and stunning the European meta-system into immediate paralysis and first psychological, then material defeat. At least, that is the outcome that the Islamonozis will be striving to achieve. The 1968 Tet infiltration and mass-attack strategy didn’t succeed in Vietnam, and maybe it won’t work in Europe, either. It’s more likely that the hoped-for general uprising by all European Muslims against the kafirs will not be triggered, and it may simply stall and sputter out.

In strategic terms, if nothing else, the 2016 jihad offensive and subsequent civil war in Europe will open up a second major front in the war against the Islamic State, causing NATO and the West to turn their attention inward toward their own survival, and thereby take pressure off the other theaters of war in Iraq and Syria.

And for the Europeans to win the coming civil war, they will have to be at least half as brutally ugly as their Muslim invaders, and that means pretty damn brutally ugly. But while the jihadists will be operating at maximum brutality from day one, the placid and polite European authorities will be starting from far behind in that department. For example: a standard jihadist tactic is to flee from a terror attack straight back into the embrace of their co-religionists in the Sharia-zone ghettos, and hide behind their women and children. Then what will the authorities do? Go in and try to arrest them? (Just joking.) Wait for their next excursion with more terror bombs? Or gut the entire suspected block with shell fire? This is what I mean by damn ugly. The French reaction to the Paris attacks gives a hint of how this phase will run.

Best case scenario, and I don’t see this as likely: the 2016 Islamic Tet attackers will be wiped out the way the Viet Cong were in 1968. But if there are enough simultaneous attacks, in total numbers involving anywhere near the 80,000 or so fighters of the Vietnamese Tet, I can’t see how the present European forces can defeat the jihadists in less than a month, if at all. By very simple math, that number of jihadists means ten thousand Paris-level attacks.

Think about that. Ten thousand Paris level attacks! All taking place in the same month, the same week, even on the same day, right across Europe. The politically-correct and overly polite European policemen (and even their militaries, at first) won’t be up to mounting successful counterattacks and rescue operations against a score of Beslans happening in schools, hospitals and concert halls. Not while at the same time, airports, train stations, power plants and other targets are being hit by Paris-sized terror squads right across Europe.

And count on this, for it is a standard tactic used by all Islamonazis in this extremely dirty style of warfare: just like in Beslan in 2004, where the killers arrived in false police vans, in 2016, ambulances, emergency vehicles and other official conveyances will either be hijacked or painted to simulate the real thing. Suicide bombers will arrive in official uniforms to sneak past security. This is a standard tactic, I repeat for emphasis. A jihadist dressed in a policeman’s uniform will drive a hundred-kilo bomb straight into the police headquarters in an official, marked police car. Goodbye, police HQ. (And incidentally, good luck at planning the rescue operation for your town’s local Beslan-in-progress, after your local police HQ is cratered, and much of their crisis leadership is wiped out.)

A few examples: I could go on for pages. The milk truck or bakery van will deliver terrorists to the middle school at mealtime. An ambulance will pull into the hospital’s underground parking garage and detonate. The cement truck won’t be delivering cement. Muslim jihadists are very proud of coming up with ever more clever ways to fool stupid infidels by abusing their naïve faith in official uniforms and corporate logos. The jihadists hurry to sign up for suicide driver school, just for the prospect of exploding a massive bomb inside of a crowd of filthy kafirs, and launching themselves straight into the arms of their seventy-two waiting virgins. This is how they will fight in Tet 2016. Forget this lesson at your extreme peril.

Another painful European history lesson has been largely forgotten since the days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. In the 1990s, the IRA forced the British to the peace table when it became clear to all parties involved that the Brits could not prevent car bombs from exploding in the heart of the London financial district, costing billions in repair and lost-opportunity costs after each new blast. Essentially, a competent terrorist organization can hold a modern city hostage in this manner.

A few dozen to a hundred (at most) active IRA terrorist fighters managed to pull off this feat. And they were not even trying to kill people, rather, their goal was to wreck important office towers, with the British economy as their primary target. Usually, the IRA detonated their London car bombs during off-hours in these final terror actions of the Irish Troubles. The Muslim car bombers will not be as considerate in the coming European Civil War. They will strike for maximum civilian casualties, in an attempt to terrorize European leaders into surrender and submission to their Islamist demands.

8. HAMA RULES

I predict that the unfolding European Civil War (after the initial Tet 2016 phase) will comprise a steady escalation from Paris-style rifle attacks and suicide bombers, to snipers, to IEDs, to car and truck bombs. This is why I mentioned the possibility of eventually reducing the Sharia-zone ghettos to ruins by air and artillery bombardment. This will indeed happen, after the car bombs begin to explode in European cities. At that point, an urban civil war loses any vestige of civilized norms. Fortified ghetto bastions that provide sanctuary to Muslim jihad terrorists will be destroyed if the Islamic conquest is to be quelled.
This type of no-quarter urban warfare already has a name, “Hama Rules,” from the 1982 obliteration of that Syrian town. Hama was a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold used to launch attacks against the regime of Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current Syrian strongman. These guerrilla (or terrorist if you prefer) attacks occurred beginning in 1976, and didn’t stop until Hama was reduced to rubble, and at least ten thousand Sunni Muslim Syrians were killed among the ruins.

If the Europeans don’t have the stomach for that level and scale of total civil war, then over time they will be defeated, and either forced to convert to Islam, or forced into subjugated dhimmi status, or they will be executed (if they can’t be put to useful work as slave laborers first). Those are Islam’s unchanging options for defeated male foes, at the pleasure of their Muslim vanquishers. The captured girls and women of the defeated kafirs will be taken as slaves – that is a given. So it will be war to the knife, and knife to the hilt, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given.

Going into 2016, a peaceful de-escalation is improbable, not with up to a million fresh muhajirs of fighting age currently cast all about Europe without housing or prospects as winter comes on. This rapid mass influx of hundreds of thousands of unattached Muslim men into Europe is the equivalent of pouring a jug of nitroglycerin down the barrel of a cannon, then loading a double gunpowder charge, ramrodding three or four cannon balls on top, and lighting the fuse. It is the perfect recipe for a disastrous explosion.

The 1968 Tet Offensive involved approximately 80,000 armed Viet Cong infiltrators sneaking into Vietnamese cities and towns, (unnoticed by the “experts” in intelligence, I will add.) How many of the almost a million muhajirs now loose in Europe will take up arms for the cause, after the first initiating wave of Tet 2016 terror attacks? Does anybody really have any idea? There is a point when stealthy hijra transitions into overt jihad, and I believe this will occur in the coming year. Historians will look back and marvel at what I think of as the coming European Jihad Tet Offensive of 2016. Or perhaps they will call it the European Trojan Horse Civil War. (I only hope that they don’t call it The Final Islamic Conquest of Europe.)

Historians will study how this mass hijra invasion, and the consequent Tet 2016 and European Civil War came to happen. The truth is it was an inside job by the traitor class, the cultural Marxist open-border international socialists. First, they numbed and dulled their own compatriots into apathy, before opening the gates to the Islamist barbarians. They injected the paralyzing curare of multi-cultural political correctness into their own societies, in order to render them unable to defend themselves from the planned attack.

In reality, the international socialists and the Islamist forces have agreed upon a murder pact, wherein their common enemy, the nationalists, will be removed as a threat to either of them forever. In 2016, European nations will deliberately be torched, in order to finish off their people’s last remaining notions of national pride and cultural identity. In effect, the coming conflict will constitute an agreement about the dinner menu made between a jackal, a hyena, and a supremely stupid bliss-ninny lamb, who was raised on Utopian multi-cultural fantasies. The lamb believes that by its own sweet example, the jackal and the hyena can be turned into vegetarians—but the choice for the dinner entree is already a foregone conclusion. European nationalists will be shot and stabbed in their fronts and their backs until they go down and are consumed by both of their rapacious destroyers.

And depend on this: standing before the crater, in front of the smoking building, after the tenth car bomb to explode that month, telegenic media traitors will mangle the truth into a false narrative that supports the inexorable spread of international socialism as the only possible solution to the “tragic cycle of violence.” The liar press will call patriots Nazis, and Nazis patriots; they will damn saints and praise mass-murderers. These media presstitutes are loyal only to their traitor-class paymasters, and to their common international socialist vision of global tyranny imposed from above by the all-knowing elites. “Out of chaos, order,” will be in their minds if not on their lips.

9. THE END GAME

If the traitor elites can imagine sufficiently far into the future, then they must surely see international socialism lining up next for its climactic struggle against Islam, which shall be fought atop the still-warm corpse of European nationalism. Will these traitor-elite international socialists be able to hold the line against the ultimate victory of Islamic supremacism in Europe, or anywhere? Let us compare their assets and armaments.

The traitor elites control vast wealth and many levers of power. But will the ready offer of unlimited wealth and fast-track career promotion outweigh the fear of the Muslim assassin, kidnapper, and beheader? Which motivating force will prove stronger in the long run, the proffered bribe, or the kidnapped child and her threatened decapitation? International socialism and world Islamism are both evil totalitarian ideologies rooted in a quest for absolute power, but I believe that more socialists will convert to Islam than the other way around, tending to tip the final outcome in that direction. Why? Because you can live without accepting a suitcase full of Euros or a juicy job offer as a bribe. But you cannot live with your head removed from your shoulders.

Another enduring but rarely examined weapon in the Islamic conquest armory is the offer of amnesty to well-placed infidel leaders who agree to convert to Mohammedism. Can I see Angela Merkel wearing a hijab? Yes, certainly. Whether the badge she wears on her suit is red or black won’t matter to the former Communist, not if it is a matter of saving her neck while retaining her status. Study the history of Islamic conquest, and you will find numerous cases where Western leaders announced—after clandestinely opening the city gates to hijra invasion—that they had already converted to Islam.

As reward for this valuable service, well-placed defectors to Islam are often allowed to preserve their wealth and positions by taking fresh Muslim names and swearing fealty to the new Islamic regime. It’s intentionally made very easy to convert to Islam. The shahada conversion prayer is only a sentence, a handful of words. Sincere inner belief is not required, only publicly outward submission, which is the true (and nearly always obscured) meaning of the Arabic word Islam. Submission.

So when it comes to last-stand defenses, and head chopping time draws near, will the secular humanist international socialists fight to their last breath against Islamism? Not likely, not when simply repeating a silly and trite incantation about Allah and Mohammed can save their inherently dishonorable and traitorous lives. Simply stated, they will submit to Islam.

I think that in the end, Mohammed’s evil and satanic Koranic blueprint for world conquest will prove to be even more virulent and persistent than the evil and satanic blueprint of the international socialists, going back through the Jacobins, Marxists and Communists. The unchanging Koranic blueprint for global domination is still replicating and advancing after fourteen centuries, while the international socialist blueprint is only two and a half centuries old. Based on proven longevity alone, a betting man would have to favor the Islamic formulation for conquest and tyranny over the international socialist version.

And in the event that Islam either destroys or co-opts international socialism, I would expect the strife to continue until there were only Sunni or Shia Muslims left alive. Then there would arise schisms and conflicts among new competing sects, because of the innately violent instructions central to the Koranic blueprint. But without an external host for the parasitic Islamic ringworm to feed upon, (having killed and consumed the golden goose of productive Western society), Islam itself will most likely fester and decay. What would succeed a failed global Caliphate, I can’t imagine. By that time, the last believing and practicing Christians in Europe will be lying cold and forgotten in their unmarked mass graves.

10. ALTERNATIVE ENDINGS

But perhaps the conflict between the three major forces will turn out differently. Perhaps, after the Islamic Tet Offensive of 2016 is turned back, European nationalism will experience a miraculous resurgence, following a rejection of the international socialism which dragged the EU nations toward disaster.

Sometimes invading forces badly miscalculate their chances and underestimate the resolve of their enemies, and after sweeping to early success, they are rolled far back from their high-water marks. Napoleon and Hitler in Russia, and the Greek experience in Anatolian Turkey from 1919 to 1922 come readily to mind.

Or perhaps the Islamists will take their jihad a step too far, and a nuclear device or other WMD set off in a Western city might finally provoke a commensurate counter-strike against the nexus of Islam in Mecca and other Muslim holy sites, such as Karbala in Iraq and Qom in Iran. Certainly Vladimir Putin can be expected to evince more steely-eyed resolve than the current crop of effete and dithering Western European leaders.

Two of the Five Pillars of Islam literally revolve around the black moon rock set into the corner of the Kaaba in the center of Mecca. After 1,400 unchanging years, Islam cannot simply erase two of its five pillars and continue with business as usual. “Allahu Akbar” means our god is greatest. If Mecca was turned into a vast, glowing crater, this would be visibly untrue. When the Aztec and Inca man-gods were visibly thrown down by the Spanish conquistadors, those religions and social systems collapsed. If Mecca were to be destroyed, eliminating two of the five pillars, it’s an open question as to what would happen in and to the worldwide Muslim community. “We used to think our god was greatest” won’t be an effective rallying cry. But I don’t suppose I’ll be around to see how this all plays out. For 1,400 years, uncounted millions of Christians and other infidels have died not knowing if Islam would ultimately prevail or be vanquished.

I’m not sure if there is a future ahead for sovereign nation-states as they have been constituted for the past four centuries, especially nations with their own unique histories, cultures and languages. I don’t know if the wealth and influence of the traitor-elite international socialists can overcome the constant threat of terrorism contained within the deadly Koranic conquest plan. And when it comes to how the approaching European storm will affect China and Asia, my crystal ball is cloudy on the other side. It’s hard to imagine a world war extending from Scandinavia to the Persian Gulf not going nuclear at some point.

Perhaps the patient and cautious Chinese will simply inherit the ruins of the West. Perhaps they will be drawn into the world war.

No matter what else happens over the coming decade, 2016 is shaping up to be an epic year in European and world history. I hope that whatever develops across the Atlantic might at least provide clear lessons that will be valuable for the defense of a free and sovereign United States of America – including lessons about the extreme danger of importing millions of Islamic muhajirs.

And lastly, thank God—through our Founding Fathers—for the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution. Unlike the Europeans, we are at least still free to warn one another of impending dangers, without our being silenced by the traitor elites who operate the levers of state power. And because of the Second Amendment, we will never be pulled down to the ground like helpless lambs by the Islamist hyenas and socialist jackals. When one-too-many ravenous foxes are placed into the henhouse by socialist traitors, in due time both the foxes and the traitors might just get a face full of buckshot.

So remember: never, ever give up your guns.

You’re going to need them.





Matthew Bracken was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1957, and attended the University of Virginia, where he received a BA in Russian Studies and was commissioned as a naval officer in 1979. Later in that year he graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, and in 1983 he led a Naval Special Warfare detachment to Beirut, Lebanon. Since then he’s been a welder, boat builder, charter captain, ocean sailor, essayist and novelist. He lives in Florida. Links to his short stories and essays may be found at EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com .

[vector7]

Obama is a sleeper cell... how the destruction of America's culture, economy and national security was planned from the start

Sunday, December 06, 2015
by Mike Adams


As President Obama is about to make a televised speech this evening, it's important that America realize who he really is. Obama is a sleeper cell who's intent is the deliberate destruction of America's culture, economy and national defense. When President Obama speaks, he's speaking not as an American, but as a radical communist Muslim pretending to be an American.

The New York Times, meanwhile, has now chosen to side with ISIS by calling for the complete disarmament of law-abiding American citizens while refusing to call for disarming ISIS terrorists. Between the New York Times, the Washington Post and President Obama, America is now an occupied nation being run by communists and Islamists who continue their insidious push for open borders, race-baited culture wars, transplanting ISIS terrorists into U.S. cities across the nation and destroying the national economy via Obamacare and other punitive mandates that crush small businesses and destroy jobs.

To ultimate goal is the complete destruction of America, replacing democracy and Christianity with communism and radical Islam, where every citizen is a disarmed, propagandized, obedient slave to the state. This is the clear objective of Obama, the mainstream media and the radical left.

"Pay close attention to the closet Muslim in the White House and his speech at 8 pm tonight. Obama's Taqiyya speech will be 110% propaganda to provide cover for his darling religion of bloodthirsty terrorism and hate, Islam," reports the Red Planet Dispatch Blog. "Do you remember not too long ago when he told us all with a straight face that ISIS,ISIL, Islamic State was not Islam?"

Hear the full podcast: Obama is a sleeper cell for radical Islam

To clarify this in great detail, I've recorded a podcast discussing the larger points of why Obama is a sleeper cell:

• Destruction of the U.S. economy and deliberate causing of mass unemployment.

• Destruction of the national defense and the purging of the most capable U.S. military commanders and officers.

• Handing Iran the capability to develop nuclear weapons which will be used for massive destruction in the Middle East (most likely against Israel).

• Attempts by the Obama administration to demonize and criminalize real Americans... the patriots who are the last line of defense against tyranny.

• The ongoing gun confiscation effort by Obama and the mainstream media, all of whom wish to see guns monopolized in the hands of government (and a disarmed, obedient citizenry).

• Obama's cultural destruction of America via the abandonment of morals and ethics and the forced insanity of "gender identity" such as high school boys who say they're girls and thereby are granted access to girls' locker rooms.

To hear my full report, listen to my podcast entitled "Obama is a sleeper cell" at HealthRangerReport.com. This was also broadcast on the Health Ranger Report at www.TalkNetwork.com

If you're on iTunes, subscribe to my iTunes podcasts at this link.

[vector7]

Obama Administration DHS chief promises to protect Muslims from 'McCarthyism'

Johnson confirms his grandfather was eyed for communist connections


Jeh Johnson

A Washington watchdog group says it has identified a second official in the Obama administration whose family history includes an investigation by the federal government into communist activities.

Judicial Watch posted a report Friday that said Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, confirmed in a recent news conference that his grandfather appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1940s.

Judicial Watch said the FBI previously disclosed that “the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.”

Johnson’s family history is relevant, Judicial Watch said, “because, although Islamic terrorists keep attacking America, the cabinet official responsible for the nation’s safety has vowed to protect Muslims from the type of persecution he says his grandpa suffered under McCarthyism in the 1940s.”

Judicial Watch, which focuses on uncovering government corruption, said Johnson’s admission came at a recent event at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society mosque attended by Judicial Watch representatives.

Johnson compared the discrimination Muslims face now, in a climate of “fear, suspicions and prejudice,” to the 1940s and 1950s, when members of Congress charged that communists had infiltrated the U.S. government while it was in a Cold War with the Soviet Union and its allies.

“In 1949, during the McCarthy era, my own grandfather was called upon to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee, to deny he was a member of the Communist Party and defend the patriotism of African Americans,” Johnson said at the time.

“Today his grandson is responsible for the homeland security of this entire nation.”

Judicial Watch said mosque leaders tried to keep Judicial Watch from attending the event, but the Department of Homeland Security “reluctantly intervened” after multiple appeals.

Initially, the DHS acting assistant secretary for public affairs, Todd Breasseale, told JW his agency “does not have the authority to force any private entity to accommodate those whom they do not wish to accommodate.”

But the watchdog group noted the news conference was widely promoted and featured a cabinet secretary.

The report said Johnson’s communist connection “had not previously been revealed and it certainly wasn’t mentioned during Senate confirmation hearings before he took over the massive agency created after 9/11 to keep the nation safe.”

“This was a bombshell, according to an editorial published in a Los Angeles-based newspaper dedicated to covering business, finance and economics.

‘Johnson’s family history is most troubling,’ the editorial reads. ‘As Muslim terrorism hits closer and closer to home, our Homeland Security chief views the war on Islamic terrorism as another Red scare, where Muslim terrorist suspects are Red-baited like his grandfather. No wonder this administration isn’t interested in monitoring radical Muslims for terrorist connections.’”

The report said FBI files revealed Jarrett’s father, pathologist James Bowman, “had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals.”

He also was “a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.”

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, “was also another big-time Chicago Communist,” the report said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/dhs-chief...WkaRPOBYftA.99

[American Patriot]

Nothing wrong with McCarthyism. In my youth, I believed the bullshit I was being lied to about in school and how it was "evil" for people to be down on the Commies.

In my age and wisdom, I've seen and now understand what the Communists do to people they don't like, or who won't toe the line for them. If you're not a "Party Comrade" you die. Simple as that.

What Americans fail to grasp is that in the 1960s the fucking pinko-commies-motherfuckers decided to start using internal propaganda to turn everyone against the Right Wing to make them sound like fascists. While there might be some fascism lurking just behind the facade of American faces, the truth is the Right Wing brought out the truth, that Communism was something diametrically opposed to Capitalism, and therefore diametrically opposed to American Values.

We have far too many wannabe commies in this world today and they don't even KNOW they are commies.

And worse, they do NOT realize how bad it will be if the whole world moves in that direction.

Now we have Islamic scum in the White House, Congress, in key positions in the various agencies and we've been infiltrated by these radical assholes who want to put a stop to America as it was any way they can.

We're being hit from all sides, from all venues and "Helpful Idiots" prevail time and again. It's long past time to put a stop to these assholes in offices like DHS, NASA, EPA and you name it....

Obama has to go, now. Not tomorrow, not in 11 months. Not next week. NOW.

CONGRESS REMOVE HIM BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

[vector7]

French Priest Arrested: Islam Is A Punishment From God For Apostasy

February 24, 2016 Kevin Whiteman


Father Guy Pagès has made quite clear that he loves God, Christendom, and his native France. Due to his fidelity to The Almighty, the Church and his homeland, Abbé Pagès has found himself persecuted by civil authorities on the grounds of advocating terrorism.

As noted by Andrew Bieszad on the Walid Shoebat news portal, French police have arrested the Catholic priest as well as shut down his website, Islam-et-Verite.com (Islam and Truth). Despite the government attempting to silence the Abbé, Bieszad cites an interview he recently gave to the website Polinia Christiana (Christian Poland).

Unafraid to boldly declare the truth, Fr. Pages will undoubtedly face the wrath of the radical Left, militant multi-culturalists, and even the surrenderistas within his own Church when he stated, “The countries of Western Europe, renouncing Christianity, began to promote the Islamization, and the Church itself seems to have nothing against the view that Islam is a religion of good.�

Perhaps sending Islamic enablers into apoplectic fits of Biblical proportions, the controversial cleric continued with, “Europeans, as non-Muslims, they should be afraid of Islam because Islam wants to make them their subjects. Moreover, as already mentioned, the word ‘Islam’ means ‘submission.’ Submission to what? The Antichrist. Because who else can come after Christ, if not the Antichrist? Islam is coming to destroy the work of Christ.�

Perhaps the best summation of the interview overall was Father Pages placing the blame of the Islamization of Europe and the collapse of Christianity on the continent directly at the door of both secular and Christian Europe, “Non-Muslims should therefore understand that if they rejected Christ, they will have the Antichrist. The development of Islam in the West is a tough punishment for apostasy.�

Meanwhile, the French portal Resistance Republicaine has also cited the reason the French police raided the office of Fr. Pages website provider and subsequently seized the server and all related software, hardware and documents.

According to the site, the good Father is accused of violating France’s State of Emergency, which was implemented in the wake of the Islamic jihadist attacks in Paris this past November. As noted, the charges were brought against the priest for embedding photos on his website of the carnage the Islamic terrorists visited on the patrons of the Bataclan Theater, where 89 were killed.

For posting the pictures of the slaughtered innocents, Father Pages has been charged with the following violation;
Article 5461-2, 227-24 and 225-17 of the Penal Code criminalizing respectively the � broadcast of a violent character message inciting terrorism, pornographic or likely to cause serious harm to human dignity […] when this message is likely to be seen or perceived by a minor and breach in respect for the dead.�

But in the meantime, Father Pages Facebook site Islam et Vérité is still up, at least for the time being.

http://kevinwhiteman.com/2016/02/fre...-for-apostasy/

[vector7]

Star Spangled Shariah or a Muslim Brotherhood Revolution?

Sharia Black Lives Matter Revolution EXPOSED!