Democrats Protect Illegal Alien Criminals


Why do you think the Dems are so supportive of ILLEGAL Aliens invading the USA? How does such an influx of criminals by virtue of being here illegally benefit the objectives of the Democratic Party?

 

Answer: a future voting base to further transform America away from its founding roots and heritage of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the land of entrepreneurial opportunity.

JRH 7/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Democrats Protect Illegal Alien Criminals 

Open to Every Stranger Under the Sun – Disgusting and Shameful

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  7/16/2019 8:48 PM

 

Today in America, there isn’t any other issue more dangerous to all Americans and poised to completely ruin America and tear Her asunder than the necessity of stopping the anti-American, communist inspired globalist and Democratic Party initiatives and policies, that advocate and facilitate Open Borders, free healthcare, voting rights and U.S. citizenship for ILLEGAL Aliens. America is either a nation of laws and the rule of law or it isn’t. America and Her people either stop this madness or Americans will watch as we lose our culture and our American heritage, and indeed, America as She has stood for over 200 years. [Bold Text by Blog Editor]

 

Over a year and a half ago, President Trump called for American’s to set aside their differences and “to seek out common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people … the people we are elected to serve.”

 

I’m pretty damned certain President Trump was speaking about the American people and not the Illegal Alien invaders now attempting to force their way into the nation and even demanding entrance. There isn’t any common ground to be found today between the Democratic Party, who represents Illegal Aliens’ interests over those of actual citizens and the Conservatives of America, who are fighting to save the Republic from their Open Borders policy and their flagrant flaunting of the law.

 

Recently, in response to an ICE operation aimed at carrying out thousands of deportation orders on July 14th, some two thousand protesters gathered outside of the GEO Group’s federal immigration detention center in Aurora, Colorado on July 12th, voicing their anger over Illegal Aliens being held in “cages”, in the same manner seen in at least ten other U.S. cities over this particular weekend. In what has become all too common place a display of Anti-American sentiment, shocking and despicable nevertheless, these protesters defaced an American flag with spray painted words “Abolish ICE” and the raised it upside down and alongside the Mexican flag.

 

Flag Desecration at GEO Group Federal immigration detention center Aurora CO 7/12/19 

 

One young toddler of obvious European descent was pictured in a stroller carrying a sign that read, “Would you steal me from my mother and lock me in a Filthy Cage?”

 

They seem to have forgotten, or they simply choose to ignore, the fact that rivers of blood have been spilled under the American Flag to defend and preserve the freedom they enjoy today, as they use their “rights” to abuse the nation in such a vile, despicable and reprehensible fashion, placing their hatred for America on full display.

 

Claudia Castillo, a former U.S. Army Major and an intelligence officer, was there as a representative for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. She told the Denver Post that those who took part in the disrespect of the American Flag shoved her, cursed her and spit on her when she tried to stop them. Castillo said, “It was disgusting and shameful”. And many Americans agree with you Major.

 

Meanwhile, at approximately 4:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 13th, Willem Van Spronsen, an Antifa member, attacked the Northwest Detention Center, the local ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington. According to the Tacoma Police Department, Spronsen was throwing incendiary devices, setting cars ablaze, and armed with a “homemade” AR15 when they stopped him, killing him, before he could detonate the facility’s propane tank, which could have resulted in the mass murder of the facilities guards and those in detention.

 

Willem Van Spronsen Antifa terrorist killed police Tacoma WA

 

In his manifesto [Blog Editor: Manifesto text on pro-Antifa website actually eulogizing the terrorist as a hero. Can you say seeds of Civil War?], released by KIRO7, Spronsen said he wanted to make a statement at the facility, writing: “I regret that I will miss the rest of the revolution. Doing what I can to help defend my precious and wondrous people is an experience too rich to describe. I am Antifa.” If he was truly interested in defending his “precious people”, he would have been defending them against being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens every day, every week and each year.

 

While Spronsen was attacking an ICE facility, New York’s Marxist Mayor Bill de Blasio was telling Illegal Aliens, “we will do everything we can to protect you.” DeBlasio and others have essentially announced that they are openly violating federal immigration laws.

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged Illegal Aliens to resist deportation on July 11th. She suggested that they have the right to refuse to open their doors to ICE agents who try to apprehend them in any national sweep aimed at their deportation. In similar fashion, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign sent out a mass email, that said the same thing, except with a lot more detail on how to interact with ICE, and in seventeen different languages.

 

What a load of Bull Manure. It is this sort of Commie Lunacy that aids criminal Illegal Aliens over the good and decent Americans. These nuts in our society and even Congress are protecting Illegal Alien criminals.

 

Thankfully, on July 12th, acting ICE director Thomas Homan gave a compelling and emotionally charged accounting for his actions, before Congress, and put AOC in her place, when she castigated him on separating children from families, by noting that even U.S. citizens are separated from their children when they commit a crime. AOC countered that seeking asylum isn’t illegal, but was shown her error and left speechless and fumbling with her papers, when Homan stated: “if you want to seek asylum, then go to a port of entry. Do it the legal way. The Attorney General (Barr} of the United States has made that clear.”

 

https://youtu.be/BRvaqcgbx8k

 

In connection with their report on July 12th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed to the Prairie State Wire in Illinois, that Jose Rodriguez, who struck and killed Corey Cottrell on June 22nd, is an illegal alien. And, according to ICE, Rodriguez had an expedited removal order dating all the way back to April 17th 2013.

 

 Corey Cottrell (left), Jose Rodriguez (right)  

 

Breitbart reports that there are 1.7 million people from Central America and Mexico living in the United States who have been issued final deportation orders. Breitbart also noted that Illinois became a sanctuary state in 2017 and currently harbors 400,000 illegal aliens from being detained and deported. Rodriguez was even granted bail by Illinois despite his deportation order.

 

Engulfing our country with their outrageous and dangerous crap, the blood of thousands of maimed and murdered Americans is on the hands of the corrupt and criminal Congressmen and their supporters, who are obstructing good immigration law and securing our borders. Every damn day more Americans die at the hands of Illegal Aliens and Congress does nothing other than continue their protection of criminal Illegal Aliens.

 

From the first day of the 1965 Immigration Act, the law has been utilized by Democrat administrations to single-handedly alter the face of America forever, and rather than do their duty to America and the Constitution, we see political prostitutes in Congress, represent the antithesis of America’s Founding and openly defy the intelligent enforcement of more than four hundred federal statutes aimed at preventing illegal aliens, drugs and terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from crossing our borders. They have turned the nation into a flaming cauldron of cultural and ethnic differences, in the name of multiculturalism and diversity, and their efforts are resulting in the erosion and destruction of our entire Founding, through mass migrations of people with little respect or love for America’s Western and Judeo-Christian Principles, much less our Constitution.

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

 

And yet, mass legal immigration into America isn’t adequate enough for the red, radical, communist Democrats, who scream “racist” at the very mention of the border wall, calling it a “monument to white supremacists”. However, anyone paying attention understands this is all theater in their fight to ensure their power and control of the U.S. government for the rest of the century.

 

Today, rather than throw America’s doors wide open forever to hordes of the Ungrateful and despite Emma Lazarus’ words, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …”, America should take sound counsel and allow entry to only those hopeful immigrants who support our principles and Constitution and come not to subvert and overthrow our republic as aliens and enemies.

 

No nation can last forever when its borders are open to every stranger under the sun.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in conjunction with the Think Tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has put together a report measuring Russia’s potential threat to American interests today.

 

In the Bush II Presidential years the AEI had a Neoconservative reputation in its policy advocacy. In this day and age Neocons are pretty much castigated by the American Left and American Right.

 

On a personal level I have been an admirer of Neoconservatism’s American Exceptionalism and a Foreign Policy based on military strength. Traditional Conservatives (sometimes called Paleocons) view this kind of aggressive Foreign Policy as a Big Government budget destroyer. There are those the American Left would label as the racist Right who castigate Neocons as ex-Communist Jews that can’t be trusted.

 

There is a large amount of truth to the “ex-Communist” association since a large number of early Neocon proponents were indeed Communists or at least Marxist sympathizers, BUT these rebels against Communism woke up to the ideological failures. Socialism (and yes this includes National Socialism aka Nazism) and varieties of Marxism have led to much of history’s oppressive regimes and the genocide of huge groups of human beings.

 

However, to label a “Communist” a “Jew” is a bit of an oxymoron. Communists are anti-religion atheists by nature and a good Jew practices the religious faith of Judaism. It is true there are people of a Jewish heritage that have repudiated the religious tenets of Judaism and embraced Marxist-Communist ideology. If one embraces Communism one rejects religion. That would make a Jew who became a Communist an ex-Jew. Incidentally, a person of Christian heritage, Islamic heritage, Buddhist heritage or any religious heritage who embraces Communism have rejected their religious heritage and have become an ex-whatever heritage.

 

Condemning all Jews because a few rejected their religious heritage should logically lead to the same condemnation of other people rejecting their religious heritage. I doubt Jew-haters follow that logic since one rarely hears the label that all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are evil because a few accept atheistic One World Government Communism. Hence the hypocrisy of hating Jews because of Communism is just plain racism. (Muslims hate Jews because their revered writings tell them to hate Jews [Percentages]. That’s a whole different kind of racism. One sees that kind of racism among idiot Christians who believe all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus when it was a secret night tribunal of Jewish leaders fearing a rebellion would displace status among their Roman overlords. Human fear and jealousy got Jesus Crucified. God’s love Resurrected the Son of God which offers Saving Redemption to ALL who Believe in the Risen Savior – to the Jew first then to the non-Jew.)

 

The American Left deride the Neocons’ American Exceptionalism as nationalistic anti-globalist rejectors of Socialism/Marxism.

 

Have Neocons made mistakes? DEFINITELY! The principle of nation-building based on American Republic Representative-Democracy only works in cultures amenable to the Western heritage. This unfortunate discovery became evident in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those cultures have been brainwashed into Islamic thought for too long for the populace to understand let alone accept Western Representative Democracy.

 

When Neocons have a warning about Russia in relation to American National Interests and National Security the benefit of the USA is what is in mind.

 

JRH 6/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

 

Russian Soldier

 

By Frederick W. KaganNataliya Bugayova, and Jennifer Cafarella

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)

Institute for the Study of War

[Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute]

June 2019

 

Russia poses a significant threat to the United States and its allies for which the West is not ready.  The West must act urgently to meet this threat without exaggerating it.  Russia today does not have the military strength of the Soviet Union. It is a poor state with an economy roughly the size of Canada’s, a population less than half that of the U.S., and demographic trends indicating that it will lose strength over time.  It is not a conventional military near-peer nor will it become so.  Its unconventional warfare and information operations pose daunting but not insuperable challenges.  The U.S. and its allies must develop a coherent global approach to meeting and transcending the Russian challenge.

 

[Download the full report here and the Executive Summary here.]

 

The Russian Threat

 

President Vladimir Putin has invaded two of his neighbors, Georgia and Ukraine, partly to stop them from aligning with NATO and the West.  He has also illegally annexed territory from both those states. He has established a military base in the eastern Mediterranean that he uses to interfere with, shape, and restrict the operations of the U.S. and the anti-ISIS coalition.  He has given cover to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and Russian agents have used military-grade chemical weapons in assassination attempts in Great Britain.  Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons, even in regional and local conflicts. And Moscow has interfered in elections and domestic political discourse in the U.S. and Europe.

 

The Russian threat’s effectiveness results mainly from the West’s weaknesses.  NATO’s European members are not meeting their full commitments to the alliance to maintain the fighting power needed to deter and defeat the emerging challenge from Moscow. Increasing political polarization and the erosion of trust by Western peoples in their governments creates vulnerabilities that the Kremlin has adroitly exploited.

 

Moscow’s success in manipulating Western perceptions of and reactions to its activities has fueled the development of an approach to warfare that the West finds difficult to understand, let alone counter.  Shaping the information space is the primary effort to which Russian military operations, even conventional military operations, are frequently subordinated in this way of war.  Russia obfuscates its activities and confuses the discussion so that many people throw up their hands and say simply, “Who knows if the Russians really did that?  Who knows if it was legal?”—thus paralyzing the West’s responses.

 

Putin’s Program

 

Putin is not simply an opportunistic predator.  Putin and the major institutions of the Russian Federation have a program as coherent as that of any Western leader.  Putin enunciates his objectives in major speeches, and his ministers generate detailed formal expositions of Russia’s military and diplomatic aims and its efforts and the methods and resources it uses to pursue them.  These statements cohere with the actions of Russian officials and military units on the ground.  The common perception that he is opportunistic arises from the way that the Kremlin sets conditions to achieve these objectives in advance. Putin closely monitors the domestic and international situation and decides to execute plans when and if conditions require and favor the Kremlin. The aims of Russian policy can be distilled into the following:

 

Domestic Objectives

 

Putin is an autocrat who seeks to retain control of his state and the succession.  He seeks to keep his power circle content, maintain his own popularity, suppress domestic political opposition in the name of blocking a “color revolution” he falsely accuses the West of preparing, and expand the Russian economy.

 

Putin has not fixed the economy, which remains corrupt, inefficient, and dependent on petrochemical and mineral exports.  He has focused instead on ending the international sanctions regime to obtain the cash, expertise, and technology he needs.  Information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings in Europe are heavily aimed at this objective.

 

External Objectives

 

Putin’s foreign policy aims are clear: end American dominance and the “unipolar” world order, restore “multipolarity,” and reestablish Russia as a global power and broker.  He identifies NATO as an adversary and a threat and seeks to negate it.  He aims to break Western unity, establish Russian suzerainty over the former Soviet States, and regain a global footprint.

 

Putin works to break Western unity by invalidating the collective defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5), weakening the European Union, and destroying the faith of Western societies in their governments.

 

He is reestablishing a global military footprint similar in extent the Soviet Union’s, but with different aims. He is neither advancing an ideology, nor establishing bases from which to project conventional military power on a large scale.  He aims rather to constrain and shape America’s actions using small numbers of troops and agents along with advanced anti-air and anti-shipping systems.

 

Recommendations

 

A sound U.S. grand strategic approach to Russia:

 

  • Aims to achieve core American national security objectives positively rather than to react defensively to Russian actions;

 

  • Holistically addresses all U.S. interests globally as they relate to Russia rather than considering them theater-by-theater;

 

  • Does not trade core American national security interests in one theater for those in another, or sacrifice one vital interest for another;

 

  • Achieves American objectives by means short of war if at all possible;

 

  • Deters nuclear war, the use of any nuclear weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);

 

  • Accepts the risk of conventional conflict with Russia while seeking to avoid it and to control escalation, while also ensuring that American forces will prevail at any escalation level;

 

  • Contests Russian information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings; and

 

  • Extends American protection and deterrence to U.S. allies in NATO and outside of NATO.

 

Such an approach involves four principal lines of effort.

 

Constrain Putin’s Resources.  Russia uses hybrid warfare approaches because of its relative poverty and inability to field large and modern military systems that could challenge the U.S. and NATO symmetrically.  Lifting or reducing the current sanctions regime or otherwise facilitating Russia’s access to wealth and technology could give Putin the resources he needs to mount a much more significant conventional threat—an aim he had been pursuing in the early 2000s when high oil prices and no sanctions made it seem possible.

 

Disrupt Hybrid Operations.  Identifying, exposing, and disrupting hybrid operations is a feasible, if difficult, undertaking.  New structures in the U.S. military, State Department, and possibly National Security Council Staff are likely needed to:

 

  1. Coordinate efforts to identify and understand hybrid operations in preparation and underway;

 

  1. Develop recommendations for action against hybrid operations that the U.S. government has identified but are not yet publicly known;

 

  1. Respond to the unexpected third-party exposure of hybrid operations whether the U.S. government knew about the operations or not;

 

  1. Identify in advance the specific campaign and strategic objectives that should be pursued when the U.S. government deliberately exposes a particular hybrid operation or when third parties expose hybrid operations of a certain type in a certain area;

 

  1. Shape the U.S. government response, particularly in the information space, to drive the blowback effects of the exposure of a particular hybrid operation toward achieving those identified objectives; and

 

  1. Learn lessons from past and current counter-hybrid operations undertakings, improve techniques, and prepare for future evolutions of Russian approaches in coordination with allies and partners.

 

The U.S. should also develop a counter-information operations approach that uses only truth against Russian narratives aimed at sowing discord within the West and at undermining the legitimacy of Western governments.

 

Delegitimize Putin as a Mediator and Convener.  Recognition as one of the poles of a multipolar world order is vital to Putin.  It is part of the greatness he promises the Russian people in return for taking their liberty.  Getting a “seat at the table” of Western-led endeavors is insufficient for him because he seeks to transform the international system fundamentally.  He finds the very language of being offered a seat at the West’s table patronizing.

 

He has gained much more legitimacy as an international partner in Syria and Ukraine than his behavior warrants.  He benefits from the continuous desire of Western leaders to believe that Moscow will help them out of their own problems if only it is approached in the right way.

 

The U.S. and its allies must instead recognize that Putin is a self-declared adversary who seeks to weaken, divide, and harm them—never to strengthen or help them.  He has made clear in word and deed that his interests are antithetical to the West’s.  The West should therefore stop treating him as a potential partner, but instead require him to demonstrate that he can and will act to advance rather than damage the West’s interests before engaging with him at high levels.

 

The West must not trade interests in one region for Putin’s help in another, even if there is reason to believe that he would actually be helpful.  Those working on American policy in Syria and the Levant must recognize that the U.S. cannot afford to subordinate its global Russia policy to pursue limited interests, however important, within the Middle East.  Recognizing Putin as a mediator or convener in Syria—to constrain Iran’s activities in the south of that country, for example—is too high a price tag to pay for undermining a coherent global approach to the Russian threat.  Granting him credibility in that role there enhances his credibility in his self-proclaimed role as a mediator rather than belligerent in Ukraine.  The tradeoff of interests is unacceptable.

 

Nor should the U.S. engage with Putin about Ukraine until he has committed publicly in word and deed to what should be the minimum non-negotiable Western demand—the recognition of the full sovereignty of all the former Soviet states, specifically including Ukraine, in their borders as of the dates of their admission as independent countries to the United Nations, and the formal renunciation (including the repealing of relevant Russian legislation) of any right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states.

 

Defend NATO.  The increased Russian threat requires increased efforts to defend NATO against both conventional and hybrid threats.  All NATO members must meet their commitments to defense spending targets—and should be prepared to go beyond those commitments to field the forces necessary to defend themselves and other alliance members.  The Russian base in Syria poses a threat to Western operations in the Middle East that are essential to protecting our own citizens and security against terrorist threats and Iran.  Neither the U.S. nor NATO is postured to protect the Mediterranean or fight for access to the Middle East through the eastern Mediterranean. NATO must now prepare to field and deploy additional forces to ensure that it can win that fight.

 

The West should also remove as much ambiguity as possible from the NATO commitment to defend member states threatened by hybrid warfare.  The 2018 Brussels Declaration affirming the alliance’s intention to defend member states attacked by hybrid warfare was a good start.  The U.S. and other NATO states with stronger militaries should go further by declaring that they will come to the aid of a member state attacked by conventional or hybrid means regardless of whether Article 5 is formally activated, creating a pre-emptive coalition of the willing to deter Russian aggression.

 

Bilateral Negotiations.  Recognizing that Russia is a self-defined adversary and threat does not preclude direct negotiations.  The U.S. negotiated several arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and has negotiated with other self-defined enemies as well.  It should retain open channels of communication and a willingness to work together with Russia on bilateral areas in which real and verifiable agreement is possible, even while refusing to grant legitimacy to Russian intervention in conflicts beyond its borders.  Such areas could include strategic nuclear weapons, cyber operations, interference in elections, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, and other matters related to direct Russo-American tensions and concerns.  There is little likelihood of any negotiation yielding fruit at this point, but there is no need to refuse to talk with Russia on these and similar issues in hopes of laying the groundwork for more successful discussions in the future.

 

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.

________________________

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

_______________________

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

 

1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036
ph. (202) 293-5550


©2007 – 2019 THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR

 

A Forty Year Rush to War


Do you remember the old oil filter ads when the car mechanic told listeners, “You can pay me now or pay me later”? Those concerned about a war instigated by Iran should keep that axiom in mind. Do I advocate an Afghanistan/Iraq style military invasion? NO. Or at least not yet.

Shooting an unmanned drone out of international air space might not seem significant enough spank Iran, BUT an Iranian terrorist history of belligerence that often caused American deaths since 1979 should be taken into consideration after the Iranian military shoots at anything American.

 

The U.S. can start by destroying Iran’s military capabilities and going from there depending on Iranian idiocy.

 

JRH 6/22/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**************************

A Forty Year Rush to War

Killing Americans Never Bothered Iran

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 6/21/2019 9:55 PM

 

Avoiding a U.S. military strike by a mere ten minutes recently, Iran has long danced across the razor’s edge and pushed the limits with America, from the first days of the Ayatollah’s revolution to the present, and despite anything to the contrary portrayed by the anti-American Communists and Democrats in our country, no one is to blame for Iran’s current sorry state of affairs, other than Iran’s mullahs and the rogue regime they head, a regime that should have been eradicated long before America ever had to enter Afghanistan.

 

Since May 12th and the Iranian attacks on four oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, close to the port city of Fujairah, the world has witnessed Iran also use mines to attack two other oil tankers on June 13th, the Kokuka Courageous and the Front Altair, while on that same day, according to CENTCOM, they attempted to shoot down a U.S. MQ-9 drone with a SA-7 surface-to-air missile. And now, on June 20th, Iran shot down a $187 million dollar unmanned MQ-4C Triton drone, the Navy’s version of the RQ-4A Global Hawk, over the Straits of Hormuz, the international waterway so vital for the world’s commerce and economy and the transport of oil and food.

This is Iran’s answer to President Donald Trump’s sanctions, and although they are hurting Iran’s economy and creating a steep rise in inflation and the ability to purchase much needed everyday items, they are not really affecting the Mullah’s policies, nor will they. President Trump and the free world seem to forget that this is the same regime that sent unarmed children into machine-gun fire [actual purpose: fodder to clear minefields] against Saddam Hussein during that prolonged war, 1980 to 1988, once their armaments ran short, rather than surrender or admit defeat.

 

Let’s not forget that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Revolutionary Guard took our U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held fifty-two Americans hostage for 444 days; don’t forget that from that day forth, Iran has been the number one exporter of terrorism across the globe, as its terrorist acts still persist today, in the here and now, and through its Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah, it has taken Lebanon, while it tries to take Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen.

 

Let’s also not forget that Iran is responsible for the bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks and 241 dead Marines in 1983, through its Hezbollah proxy, the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut and 17 dead Americans [actually 63 killed of which 17 were Americans], the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing and 19 dead Americans, not to mention disappearing U.S. citizens like Bob Levinson in 2007 and plotting to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States at a Washington, D.C. restaurant.

 

President Trump will make a terrible miscalculation for the country’s future, if he is holding back out of fear that any retaliation may be seen as “unpopular” and cost him the election, because that is just what Iran is hoping he will do. For forty years they’ve subverted U.S. policy in the Middle East, killed hundreds of American soldiers and always waited for the more malleable Leftist Democrats to take the Oval Office, so they could continue on, business as usual.

 

On December 2nd 2013, I wrote something that is even more true today: Does anyone really believe that Iran will ever stop attacking the U.S. and Israel and their interests across the globe, as long as the mullahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Islam — the Mother of All Totalitarian Theocracies — keep Iran in a stranglehold?

 

Many so called experts say we can afford to wait, until Iran collapses under the weight of sanctions, or the people rise up an overthrow the Mullahs. This is unlikely to happen soon, since the Revolutionary Guard has infiltrated all sectors of Iran’s society and murder dissenters at the slightest provocation. The Mullahs are far too willing to sacrifice Iranians so long as they can stay in power and continue with their agenda to create a greater Iranian influence and control of most of the Middle East, especially Shia areas.

 

Do we wait at the expense of thousands of more deaths, in order not to alienate a certain “friendly” segment within Iran, or do we act and end the threat for all time, freeing those “friendlies” from their Islamic masters in the hopes they will understand?

 

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani recently warned: “We have always guaranteed the security of this strait. Do not play with the lion’s tail. You will regret it forever.”

 

And in the meantime, Iran continues at a furious pace to improve its nuclear weapons program. Some experts, such as James Woolsey (former Director of the CIA), William Graham (Pres. Reagan’s NASA administrator) and Fritz Ermarth (Special Assistant to the President under Reagan and former CIA), suggest that Iran already has nuclear weapons and that America should not be too hasty to enter a war with a regime that may not hesitate to use them, if threatened with a final defeat. They add that any retaliatory bombing would only start a war that would be far more difficult than anything seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I don’t think Iran has a fully functional nuclear weapon yet, or at least not one that they are able to deliver to the United States. If they did, I believe they would have already found a way to strike the U.S. — the Great Satan — by giving it to a terrorist and being able to deny any knowledge of it in the aftermath of the radioactive fallout.

Whatever America does, at some point in the future, Iran will not hesitate whenever they decide to deliver a murderous strike on our shores. No one should forget that former Iranian President  Ahmadinejad once warned that some 70,000 Revolutionary Guard were living in the U.S. as sleeper agents prepared to do their worse, ready to conduct widespread terror, if ever called upon by him or the Ayatollah. The unfolding chaos would be worth the risk, as it would smoke these domestic enemies from hiding, with their deaths being the final results and hopefully with few of our own dying.

 

Make no mistake. The Iranian attack on our drone was no “mistake” as Trump hopefully mused.

 

Shortly after the Triton drone was downed, President Trump tweeted: “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate … I asked, how many people will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer … 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

 

America recently learned a retaliatory attack was in the works, over the drone downing, and it was focused on specific targets linked to Iran’s nuclear facilities. As such, those potential 150 potential casualties that prompted President Trump to back off of any retaliation were military personnel, for the most part. Iran has never had any compunction over inflicting U.S. casualties, and it never will.

 

No, we don’t need to rush to war, but I wouldn’t call accepting forty years of murders of Americans and destruction of American property a “rush”. America’s waste of time in this situation only assures us that whenever the time does arrive that we must deal with Iran militarily, it will be infinitely harder than it should have been, especially with Russia and China currently helping them circumvent sanctions.

 

On June 20th, Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters on Capitol Hill: “Here’s what Iran needs to get ready for: Severe pain inside their country”, adding his warning that if Tehran is “itching for a fight, they’re going to get one.”

 

Senator Graham also suggested the U.S. is “a lot closer today (to military conflict) than we were yesterday, and God only knows what tomorrow brings.” He also suggested the likelihood of a U.S. intervention in the region increases greatly if Israel launches its own campaign against Iran.

 

Rather than allow them to acquire viable nukes and missiles with enough range to hit America, or to be smuggled into a U.S. city by a proxy, the United States should mount a sustained bombing campaign, similar to the one used against Hanoi, that hits every nuclear facility and every government building and military installation, sooner rather than later, and without any “boots on the ground” or invasion; let the Iranians pick up the pieces as they will. And although a good many civilians might die too, most of the casualties will be those deserving of death.

 

America must gather up the democratic courage, the intellectual honesty and the willingness to act, or the consequences that so many are afraid of now will pale in comparison later. America must soon act to stop any and all threats from Iran, or the world that evolves ten years down the road will be infinitely more dangerous and deadly than the one we have today.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Trump accuses NY Times of ‘virtual treason’…


President Trump is accusing the New York Times of treason because the Leftist rag told the world about a classified U.S. mission to mess with Russia undoubtedly due Russian cyber warfare being conducted against the United States. The most public of which is cyber meddling in U.S. election cycles.

 

I would not be surprised to find out some day the USA and Russia have been exchanging cyber barbs for quite some time. Is it ethical or even legal for the NYT to expose clandestine and probably Classified cyber missions intended as bloodless reprisals to Russian cyber-crimes? It’s definitely not ethical! If exposing Classified actions against a foreign enemy isn’t illegal, IT SHOULD BE!

 

Justin Smith pointed this post on my Facebook Group Social Media Jail Conversations for Conservatives & Counterjihadists

(yeah I know, lengthy title. I had just emerged from Facebook jail and was quite annoyed at the time. So I created the group. Feel free to join the still relatively small group). The group URL to Justin’s share is HERE.

 

Justin did not include the URL from whence he found the post. Justin’s reason: The “URL is being banned by Facebook”. The banned website is The Patriot Brief. Interestingly The Patriot Brief picked up the article from The National Sentinel. It is from the original source I am cross posting below. In case you are curious The Patriot Brief link to the article is HERE.

 

JRH 6/17/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Trump accuses NY Times of ‘virtual treason’ after report exposing U.S. cyber-targeting of Russian infrastructure: He’s right

 

By Jon Dougherty

June 16, 2019

The National Sentinel

 

NYT Building

 

(NationalSentinel) We have made the observation before that in the age of Donald Trump, the establishment media has become a national security liability due to the fact that major outlets will publish just about anything in order to undermine him.

 

But in doing so, these same outlets also undermine our country — and some 312 million American citizens — making them as big a threat to our security as any foreign power.

 

The New York Times did it again Sunday with a story claiming that the Trump administration has escalated attacks on Russia’s power grid:

 

The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively, current and former government officials said.

 

In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia’s grid and other targets as a classified companion to more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow’s disinformation and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections.

 

Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue, after years of public warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. that Russia has inserted malware that could sabotage American power plants, oil and gas pipelines, or water supplies in any future conflict with the United States.

 

But it also carries significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.

 

“It has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” one senior intelligence official told the Times. “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.”

 

You know what else carries “significant risk?” Reporting classified information that provides valuable insight and intelligence for a nuclear-armed adversary.

 

So much for “Russia collusion,” right?

 

The revelations infuriated POTUS Trump, and rightfully so. He said on Twitter the paper committed “a virtual act of Treason” over its report, The Hill noted.

 

“Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia,” Trump tweeted. “This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country.”

 

“Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today,” he added. “They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

 

He also claimed the Times report was “NOT TRUE.”

 

The fact is the Times report most likely is true. Rational people understand that in light of report after report regarding Russia/China/Iran/North Korea targeting U.S. infrastructure, it makes sense for America — which is a cyber superpower — to respond in kind.

 

But these kinds of operations are not meant to be revealed. Doing so not only compromises said operations, but foreign intelligence agencies gleaning details from published open source information very often learn things that help them counter our moves.

 

Which, again, puts our country at risk.

 

The Times editors know this. They understand full well what revealing this kind of highly classified information can mean to an adversary.

 

And yet, they published it anyway. Just to ‘get Donald Trump.’

 

What does that say about them? It says — again — that the president has been right about our own press since he took office: They are more of an enemy than some of our adversaries. Or at least the equivalent.

 

Even though we have speech protections written into our Constitution via the First Amendment, you still can’t slander someone, libel them, yell ‘fire’ in a theater, or engage in various forms of “hate” speech.

 

Publishing highly classified information that provides ‘aid and comfort’ to an adversary should be legally actionable as well. Doing so harms our country by weakening our national security.

 

Think about it: Does anyone believe that FDR would not have punished the NYTimes or the Washington Post if either paper had published plans for the D-Day invasion, just because their editors believed Americans ‘had a right to know’?

 

Granted, we were in an actual war then, and we’re not fighting Russia — now. Though you could argue that in places like Syria, where Russian-sponsored mercenaries from the Wagner Group attacked U.S. forces and their allies early last year, amounts to a real conflict. Or Russia putting forces into Venezuela, in our hemisphere. Or encroaching on NATO’s eastern flank.

 

We have argued before that reporting the details about these highly classified operations are harming our national security at a time when the world is more dangerous than ever, not less, and for no good reason. The Times is just as guilty, in our view, as the U.S. officials who leaked the information. If they can be charged under the Espionage Act, then the ‘paper of record’ that published the information should be equally culpable.

 

The president is right.

__________________________

Follow Jon Dougherty on Twitter at @JonDougherty10

 

© 2017-2019 USA Features Media LLC.

 

ABOUT The National Sentinel

 

The National Sentinel is a fiercely independent, non-corporate-owned news site dedicated to bringing our readers fresh, informative content and the news of the day, without the bias and political chicanery of the so-called “mainstream” media.

 

Updated daily and throughout the day, rely on us to provide you with unfiltered news and information you won’t find anywhere else that helps you to make informed decisions. Like the media is supposed to do.

 

The National Journal is part of the USA Features Media network of sites. Follow USA Features on Facebook (click here).

 

A note about our advertisers: In accordance with Federal Trade Commission regulations, we are disclosing that our site earns a commission off of items we advertise and sell, as an affiliate. Think of it like a tip for bringing you awesome content! In any event, we have an advertising relationship with the stores we link to. Now you know.

 

See usage rights/permissions here. … READ THE REST

 

The Fires of Treason – No Small Thing


Even as the spoken and written Press propagandizes against President Trump, there is plenty of documentation – with more to be revealed – that a frame-job to depose a sitting President has occurred. Justin Smith does his part sharing what can be publicly dug up by anyone searching about this coup attempt. YET in this latest Justin submission he shared some misgivings about operation of justice in today’s America:

 

I’m not overly optimistic that William Barr is going to ever successfully prosecute the traitors to America that were found within the Obama administration and working together across party lines to destroy our republic, but maybe he will prove me wrong. If some of these people are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and imprisoned soon, I truly believe this republic is going to be so irreparably damaged that we will find ourselves in a continuation of battles and civil strife years out.

Justin has good reason for some pessimism. Politicians and crooks related to the Democratic Party have been committing crimes and getting away with it for at least a quarter century. Even if Attorney General is an honest representative of justice, can he buck a system that has been corrupted for so long? I HOPE SO!

 

JRH 6/16/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

****************

The Fires of Treason – No Small Thing  

The Truth Falls Like Radioactive Ash

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent  6/15/2019 8:46 PM

 

Americans are wondering how such a well-engineered republic, with all its time tested traditions and checks and balances, could be turned into a blazing forest fire of political misdeeds and treason by the Obama administration and the traitors within, but as the nation moves into the summer of 2019, many remain hopeful that U.S. Attorney General William Barr, U.S. Attorney John Durham and the fine efforts of men such as Representatives Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy and others will succeed in identifying, prosecuting and imprisoning all involved in the plot against candidate and then President Trump. The nation cannot ‘move on’ until these traitors, these rats who are now jumping their sinking ship, are held accountable for their criminal and unconstitutional actions.

 

Even prior to President Trump’s declassification order last month, escalating matters in the investigation of the investigators, most of America was already aware of most of the facts, already documented, in the seditious, subversive plot between the Hillary Clinton campaign and many key government figures, including former president Barack Obama, who could not have possibly failed to understand all the action. And now, with a paper trail as wide as Percy Priest Lake [Blog Editor: For readers who are unaware, the significance of the lake mention undoubtedly relates to author Justin Smith residing in Rutherford County Tennessee] and a fouled up coup, the truth is falling down on the traitors’ shoulders like radioactive ash.

Incredulously, during the last week of May, Representative Adam Schiff, House Intelligence Committee Chairman, accused President Trump and Attorney General Barr of attempting to “conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies.” This would be hilarious if it weren’t so serious, and if not for the fact that Schiff accused President Trump of the very thing the Democratic Party and then President Obama did for several of his last years in office.

 

As we know through many testimonies, Christopher Steele wouldn’t even vouch for his own dossier’s veracity and accuracy. Furthermore, FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s damning testimony before Congress stated that contrary to FBI procedures for counterintelligence operations, Donald Trump’s campaign, supposedly infiltrated by Russians and “colluders”, had not been warned of any such nefarious dealings because the Steele dossier was not reliable enough to necessitate any warning.

 

If the dossier was not reliable enough to warn Trump’s campaign about the Kremlin’s plot, how could it remotely serve as the basis for obtaining FISA warrants to spy on Donald Trump and his inner circle? America demands a full accounting of who, what, where, when, why and how the dossier was used four, possibly five, times to dupe the FISA Court.

On May 24th, Representative Lindsey Graham, who has emerged as one of President Trump’s most intense and loyal supporters, spoke on Trump’s declassification order and told Fox and Friends: “You’re going to find out the mentality of the people investigating the president. You’re going to find out what they did and said. You’re going to find out that Papadopoulos was not working with the Russians. There’ll be some transcripts coming out where he says, ‘If you did that, that’d be treason.’ So the bottom line is, there’s going to be a lot of information about they were warned Steele was a bad guy and you can’t trust him. They blew through every stop sign”.

 

If Donald Trump wasn’t the subject of the surveillance, as the FBI asserted, then there was no valid reason not to apprise him of the surveillance and what was suspected, during the January 2017 briefing. Who decided not to give the President a FULL briefing on the dossier? Who decided to deliberately hide this from the new Commander-In-Chief?

 

All of a sudden America is witnessing James Comey, James Clapper, John Brennan accusing each other of being guilty of inserting the unreliable Steele Dossier into a presidential assessment, since its ridiculous stories and outright lies have been exposed. If they truly believed that this dossier was fact — that the American people faced an existential threat from Donald Trump’s sexual perversions, hatred of Obama and ties with Moscow, a reprobate who stole the election from Hillary  — why are they not vying for all the credit for warning President Obama and the American people, given that they leaked and pushed this narrative over the past three years?

 

Fox News investigative journalist Catherine Herridge reported last month that an email from former FBI Director James Comey in December 2016 indicates that it was John Brennan who pushed the dossier to be included in the presidential intelligence report. A source inside the CIA blames Comey for pressing the dossier’s inclusion.

Noting that he has seen the report, former Rep. Trey Gowdy has stated it does not look good for John Brennan.

 

Protesting their innocence, Andrew McCabe and James Comey are at odds too, even though they both swore President Trump remains a threat to the republic and leaked classified documents to the media, supposedly to save us, to save America. McCabe asserts that the Steele dossier was the primary evidence presented to the FISA Court by the FBI, which Comey denies. Why would they be at odds if their leaks were nobly motivated and their cause a righteous one?

 

The fact that President Trump’s declassification order includes the Department of Treasury and the Department of Energy makes the matter even darker, more intriguing, and, in fact, a critical point that suggests pressure applied on President Trump not to release classified documents was more subversion, and the focus was on using Russian collusion as a way to conceal the FBI’s spying and abuse of power; this was also part of a broader attempt to cover up other massive Democrat corruption, especially the Uranium One Deal and real Russian collusion by Democrats and the true depth of Clinton’s pay-for-play operation within the U.S. State Department, with many people aware of its existence.

 

The salary men of the FBI dream of getting the top job, so they play along, which explains Mueller’s motivation as a one-time bag man for Clinton in the Uranium One scheme. And that makes for an extremely vile and dangerous partner when one considers Hillary Clinton’s vermin-like rapacity and her shrewd, corrupt, clever ruthlessness. It’s like selling one’s soul to the devil and realizing too late what a terrible deal one has made.

 

Abuse of power is to the Democrats what drugs are to the addict, as exhibited by Susan Rice, National Security Advisor under Obama, who regularly unmasked American citizens picked up on NSA surveillance sweeps. Also important to note, Samantha Power, U.N. Ambassador, averaged unmasking someone every working day of 2016, unmasking almost three-hundred; in comparison, John Bolton only unmasked three during his tenure as U.N Ambassador, according to PJ Media.

 

And by now, it is pretty well acknowledged that elements within the FBI and most likely the CIA conducted an illegal surveillance operation against President Trump. Attorney General Barr has said as much, stating the only remaining thing is to determine if the surveillance was predicated upon the law and through a substantial evidentiary basis. The only decision left is whether or not these people face charges or the whole thing gets swept under the rug.

 

Some details remain to be confirmed, for instance: Was the entrapment conman Josef Mifsud working for the CIA and/or Britain’s MI6 and/or Hillary Clinton‘s Fusion GPS contractor, or Orbis Business Intelligence? I believe America is going to discover very few Russians involved in all of this, but rather, they will see the FBI attempted to infiltrate the Trump campaign and coordinated with Australia and the United Kingdom to frame Donald Trump for collusion, so he could be prevented from taking office or removed from office after the inauguration. The remaining questions aren’t going to be asked by the New York Times.

 

On May 15th, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Joe DiGenova explained to Breitbart News Daily: “There was a brazen plot that started before the election, and the plot was to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton so that she could become president, and then if she lost, there was an insurance policy to frame Donald Trump so he could be prevented from taking office or removed from office after the inauguration. … John Brennan is at the core of this conspiracy. His handymen and acolytes were Clapper and Comey and the senior FBI officials who worked with Comey. Let’s not forget that all of the people in senior levels of the Department of Justice under Obama were involved in this plot. … Loretta Lynch was too dumb to be allowed to lead it,” DiGenova speculated. “This is Brennan Inc.”

 

No longer standing unified, the drama between Brennan, Comey and Clapper is just the surface. The Durham investigation could reach out of the FBI and CIA up through the Obama administration, including Attorney General Lynch and the White House itself.

 

We are in the midst of a morality play, where some of the most unlikely villains have aligned themselves with the cause of tyranny and Evil. And standing against them is the one time billionaire Playboy, President Donald Trump, an unlikely hero. Yet here we are, with the tide turning our way once more.

 

All of America’s true patriots must raise their voice today and tomorrow and for as long as it takes to arrive at a day of reckoning for these traitors to the republic and our beloved America, otherwise and to our chagrin, we may eventually see the administrative state simply bury this sorry episode of American history. However, make no mistake, the weaponization of federal agencies will happen again, and the next time, America may not be so fortunate to have a president who is strong enough to withstand the onslaught on behalf of the people and the nation.

 

When due process is ignored and justice is measured by compulsion and our Fourth Amendment Rights against improper searches and seizures seemingly no longer exist, freedom and liberty is endangered. When we see men, who rebuke the Constitution, leverage the law through politics, violating other men’s 6th Amendment right to due process and acquiring power over individual liberty by graft and scheme; and our representatives don’t protect us against them, but rather protects them against the people, our republic is endangered. And when America sees corruption wielding heavy influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and suppressed, We the People have realized that our freedom too is endangered and soon to perish.

 

It is no small thing to restore a republic once it has fallen into corruption. It may be that the task is impossible, but it lies before us to do. The alternative offers only a dark future, and thus, it is no option at all. And if we do not try, the Founders’ Republic and the larger war for Western Civilization will be lost.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Genocide of Christians Reaches “Alarming Stage”


If someone ever tells you there is a Moderate Islam and a Radical Islam and the latter is not representative of Islam, that person is an outright liar or is deceived into believing a lie.

 

It’s kind of like telling a Jewish Holocaust Survivor there is a Moderate Nazi and a Radical Nazi.

The horror that is Islam is being experienced NOW by Christians in Muslim dominated nations. Can you say GENOCIDE?

 

JRH 5/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Genocide of Christians Reaches “Alarming Stage”

 

By Raymond Ibrahim
May 26, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing

 

  • The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference….

 

  • Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2), “Christianity is not permitted to exist.”

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (pictured) commissioned an “Independent Review into the global persecution of Christians,” which was recently published. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

 

Christian persecution ‘at near genocide levels,'” the title of a May 3 BBC report, cites a lengthy interim study ordered by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and led by Rev. Philip Mounstephen, the Bishop of Truro.

 

According to the BBC report, one in three people around the world suffer from religious persecution, with Christians being “the most persecuted religious group”. “Religion ‘is at risk of disappearing’ in some parts of the world,” it noted, and “In some regions, the level and nature of persecution is arguably coming close to meeting the international definition of genocide, according to that adopted by the UN.”

 

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also quoted on why Western governments have been “asleep” — his word — concerning this growing epidemic:

 

“I think there is a misplaced worry that it is somehow colonialist to talk about a religion [Christianity] that was associated with colonial powers rather than the countries that we marched into as colonisers. That has perhaps created an awkwardness in talking about this issue—the role of missionaries was always a controversial one and that has, I think, also led some people to shy away from this topic.”

 

Whatever the merits of such thinking, the fact is that many of the world’s most persecuted Christians have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism or missionaries. Those most faced with the threat of genocide — including Syria’s and Iraq’s Assyrians or Egypt’s Copts — were Christian several centuries before the ancestors of Europe’s colonizers became Christian and went missionizing.

 

The BBC report highlights “political correctness” as being especially responsible for the West’s indifference, and quotes Hunt again in this regard: “What we have forgotten in that atmosphere of political correctness is actually the Christians that are being persecuted are some of the poorest people on the planet.”

 

Although the BBC report has an entire heading titled and devoted to the impact of “political correctness,” ironically, it too succumbs to this contemporary Western malady. For while it did a fair job in highlighting the problem, it said nothing about its causes — not one word about who is persecuting Christians, or why.

 

The overwhelming majority of Christian persecution, however, evidently occurs in Muslim majority nations. According to Open Doors’ World Watch List 2019 [WWL], which surveys the 50 nations where Christians are most persecuted, “Islamic oppression continues to impact millions of Christians.” In seven of the absolute worst ten nations, “Islamic oppression” is the cause of persecution. “This means, for millions of Christians—particularly those who grew up Muslim or were born into Muslim families—openly following Jesus can have painful consequences,” including death.

 

Among the worst persecutors are those that rule according to Islamic law, or Sharia — which academics such as Georgetown University’s John Esposito insist is equitable and just. In Afghanistan (ranked #2) , “Christianity is not permitted to exist,” says the WWL 2019, because it “is an Islamic state by constitution, which means government officials, ethnic group leaders, religious officials and citizens are hostile toward” Christians. Similarly, in Somalia, (#3), “The Christian community is small and under constant threat of attack. Sharia law and Islam are enshrined in the country’s constitution, and the persecution of Christians almost always involves violence.” In Iran (#9), “society is governed by Islamic law, which means the rights and professional possibilities for Christians are heavily restricted.”

 

Equally telling is that 38 of the 50 nations making the WWL 2019 are Muslim majority.

 

Perhaps the BBC succumbed to silence concerning the sources of Christian persecution — that is, succumbed to “the atmosphere of political correctness” which it ironically highlighted — because in its own report, it did not rely on the WWL. The problem with this interpretation is that the study the BBC did rely on, the Bishop of Truro’s, is saturated with talk concerning the actual sources of Christian persecution. In this regard, the words “Islam” and “Islamist” appear 61 times; “Muslim” appears 56 times in this review on persecuted Christians.

 

Here are a few of the more significant quotes from the Bishop of Truro’s report:

 

  • “The persecution of Christians is perhaps at its most virulent in the region of the birthplace of Christianity—the Middle East & North Africa.”

 

  • “In countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia the situation of Christians and other minorities has reached an alarming stage.”

 

  • “The eradication of Christians and other minorities on pain of ‘the sword’ or other violent means was revealed to be the specific and stated objective of [Islamic] extremist groups in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines.”

 

  • “[T]here is mass violence which regularly expresses itself through the bombing of churches, as has been the case in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia.”

 

  • “The single-greatest threat to Christians [in Nigeria] … came from Islamist militant group Boko Haram, with US intelligence reports in 2015 suggesting that 200,000 Christians were at risk of being killed… Those worst affected included Christian women and girls ‘abducted, and forced to convert, enter forced marriages, sexual abuse and torture.'”

 

  • “An intent to erase all evidence of the Christian presence [in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, north-east Nigeria and the Philippines] was made plain by the removal of crosses, the destruction of Church buildings and other Church symbols. The killing and abduction of clergy represented a direct attack on the Church’s structure and leadership.”

 

  • “Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped-out in parts of the Middle East where its roots go back furthest. In Palestine, Christian numbers are below 1.5 percent; in Syria the Christian population has declined from 1.7 million in 2011 to below 450,000 and in Iraq, Christian numbers have slumped from 1.5 million before 2003 to below 120,000 today. Christianity is at risk of disappearing, representing a massive setback for plurality in the region.”

 

The BBC should be commended for (finally) reporting on this urgent issue — even if it is three years behind the times. As the Truro report correctly observes, “In 2016 various political bodies including the UK parliament, the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives, declared that ISIS atrocities against Christians and other religious minority groups such as Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims met the tests of genocide.”

 

At the very least, it appears that the BBC has stopped trying to minimize the specter of Christian persecution as it did in 2013, when this situation was just starting to reach the boiling point.

________________________

Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

 

Follow Raymond Ibrahim on Twitter and Facebook

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

[Blog Editor: I did not ask or receive such permission; hence if requested this cross post will be removed.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support. Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.

 

Nina Rosenwald, President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President