PipeLineNews Archives: July 2013

The Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton Conspiracy

July 30, 2013 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews. org – The deliciously salacious aspects of Anthony Weiner’s now not-so-private-life are impossible to avoid, plastered across the spectrum of broadcast news. This emphasis appeals mightily to the prurient interests of MSNBC’s drone core demographic far more effectively [not to say entertainingly] than a high speed car chase followed by the requisite crash and burn fireball.

We have touched [sorry] on the topic of Ms. Abedin’s fixation with sidling up to the seat [this is getting weird] power, but wish to expand [uhhh…last time, honest] upon it a bit.

1. Weiner dude is a pathetic person, we pity him, perhaps the best he can expect at this point.

2. Ms. Abedin is very closely linked [through familial ties] to Egypt’s terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, It’s of note that the group’s leader, Mohamed Morsi…victim of a military coup d'état] is now ensconced in a dank cell next to the now comparatively moderate Hosni Mubarak [whom Morsi tossed in the slammer]. The universe does not operate without a sense of ironic humor it seems.

3. Abedin hitched up with Hillary in the mid nineties, has not been seriously vetted despite her serving essentially as an Assistant. Secretary of State. To our knowledge no one has seriously pursued the exact circumstances which these two met and drew so close to each other. Looked at from a skeptical but entirely reasonable perspective, Hillary and Ms. Abedin’s relationship is far more authentic a marriage than their legal pairings with, respectively, ex-president Clinton and the Weinerdude.

4. Thus Abedin had extraordinary access to national security information which would have normally called for the full FBI Monty. Having gone through such once, I can attest that these folks are firmly pleasant and very thorough…yes guys I still prefer size 10 ½ classic wingtips, though on occasion I do lust after the Zuckerbergian Silicon Valley high level executive standard of Stefano Bemer footwear. Yes, they remain superbly crafted despite the recent passing of the company’s found - his lifework, the custom shoe shop, continues to chug along in the hand-crafted Italian tradition of exquisite leather work.

5. Now of course Hillary is out of power, though from what we understand as recently as yesterday she spent the afternoon baking celestially delightful cookies for the president of the known universe.

[Read More]
BREAKING - WH Responsible For Murder?  Blocked Rapid Response To Benghazi?

July 24, 2013 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews. org - According to  Representative Frank Wolf [R. VA], what we have long suspected - that the CIA,  apparently with full knowledge of Barack Obama - blocked what would almost assuredly be an almost automatically triggered rapid response [SpecOps, not meaningless gestures] to the Benghazi  terrorist attack. [Note: embassies are very real extensions of the sponsoring governments, they are inviolate under international law:

"...an embassy or consulate represents a sovereign state. International rules do not allow representatives of the host country to enter an embassy without permission --even to put out a fire -- and designate an attack on an embassy as an attack on the country it represents..." [source, U.S. State Department website]

Thus the full dimensions of Team Obama's now faltering effort to suppress the truth regarding this matter.

As the Wolf presser states:

"...In today’s question(s) about what happened in Benghazi, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) asked:

...According to an excerpt of the new book Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi, which was published in this month’s Vanity Fair magazine, on the night of the attack, Ambassador Stevens made several calls for help after reaching what he believed was a safe room on the consulate compound. Some of those calls were made to “nearby consulates.” Assuming the authors are correct, the government should have the phone records from that night. Which foreign consulates did he call? How did those consulates respond?

If Stevens was calling foreign consulates, did U.S. officials in Tripoli or Washington call any allies with assets in Libya to help respond to the attack?

Did the Pentagon contact any NATO allies with military assets in the region that could have provided assistance that night?

Given how close many of our European allies are to the Mediterranean, wouldn’t they have planes or response teams stationed in locations in or nearby the region that could have been mobilized upon request from Washington?

And speaking of force posture, what have we done to ensure that if another incident were to happen this September 11 that we’re prepared to respond?

The Congressman is now well into a week of posing daily questions to the Obama administration, with no or minimal apparent response, as part of the widening probe into the Benghazi affair continues..."

Today's statement is Mr. Wolf's seventh in an ongoing series designed to hold this administration to account. BenghaziGate looms more menacing every day. Those with first-hand knowledge have been forced to sign non-disclosure forms, betraying a clear intention by Team Obama to deny those with intimate [and most likely incriminating] knowledge of the Benghazi tragedy from exercising their First Amendment rights and more importantly, the American people the [most likely incriminating] truth.

If it is indeed true that Mr. Obama blocked a rapid response team from protecting what are clearly U.S. interests on U.S. property For information regarding the following questions, please refer to Rep. Frank Wolf Challenges The Administration To Come Clean WithinOn Benghazi Tragedy.

[Read More]
 
Is Islam Fatally Defective?

By WILLIAM MAYER

 

July 22, 2013 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – A language war is being waged at the highest levels of the national security apparatus, throughout government as a whole and in a much more general and all encompassing sense, throughout the West. The non-governmental institutions which have been targeted in this clandestine conflict are those - which define and create our way of life, our civilization.

Realizing that these represent the soft underbelly of a republican democracy they are under furious assault by the neo-Marxist left and their unholy revolutionary allies, the jihadists.

The concept is not a new one, control the language, control the parameters within which dialogue is possible...control the narrative, control the culture..This relationship is widely known within the fields of social science and cultural anthropology.

Antonio Gramsci [a 1930s era Italian Communist theoretician] championed and further developed these theories. His writings reveal extraordinary perceptual insight into how customs, language, religion/belief structures etc., might be forcibly changed, pushed as it were in a direction that the culture would not normally have taken under its own inertia.

In his way of thinking, if the culture wasn't friendly to a particular ideology [in his case, Marxism] then one could employ certain techniques to make the proletariat recognize its existence as an oppressed class and then create an awareness of its supposed role in society and the miserable plight of its status in life. It was thought that the "workers," so indoctrinated would welcome and become foot soldiers in the revolution. The institutions chosen for radical transformation include legal and judicial systems, legislative bodies - especially those at the top rung in the food chain [in America this would be the House of Representatives and the Senate], the entertainment industry, the educational aristocracy, religious organizations and the mass media by way of example.

Metaphorically, this is Texas No-Limit Hold’em being played with the highest stakes imaginable, the future of the U.S., Europe and the democratic Far East which all are at risk -  a single misplayed hand having the potential of bringing total, absolute and perhaps permanent obliteration of secular republican democracy..

As we have previously written, please reference, our August 28, 2012 piece:

"…The Italian Communist theoretician, Antonio Gramsci, in the early part of the 20th century, identified the process of cultural transformation, which is entirely what the left is about, as "marching through the institutions," slowly taking over the mechanisms whereby culture is created and molded; the print and electronic news media, the arts, the law, the universities, government, organized religion...nothing that contributes to the nature of a society is left untouched by this process.

When this happens we are bound up in Dostoevsky's contention, a truism it seems, that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.

This is a rejection of the concept of revealed truth, of immutable moral precepts which originate at a level above man's existence. Under this construction both Judaism and Christianity entirely lose their ability to provide guidance in human affairs.

Why not kill, or covet your neighbor's wife or goods. Why set aside a time of contemplation of things larger than yourself?" [source William Mayer, The Sound of Silence Screaming - The West's Cultural Malaise and its Bearing on Resisting External Threat, PipeLineNews.org]


But what does this have to do with Islam?

Everything…

From the waning days of the GW Bush administration and with a far greater degree of zealotry, bleeding into the years of Team Obama’s looming tyranny, no effort has been spared in "sanitizing" the government’s bureaucratic language with an eye towards permanent burial of any negative reference to Islam’s many defective attributes. In many ways this is an example of a self-imposed Shari’a compliance, keeping in mind that "insulting" Islam or its prophet are grave offenses under Islamic law. In a very concrete way removing Islam from the terrorism equation renders the term meaningless.


We have written extensively regarding this matter, for example, the following excerpt from a 2011 piece:

“…To see how far this mindset of censorship has progressed, consider that on November 9, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on DOJ's now infamous gun running program "Fast and Furious," Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL] directed the following to AG Eric Holder, "we have found that the FBI agents who were given counter terrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of Islam and Muslims, for example FBI agents in training were told..."

"Islam is a highly violent radical religion."

"Mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers."

"The Arabic mind is more likely to be swayed by ideas rather than facts."

Holder was apparently ready for the question because as Durbin was framing it, the AG could be seen referring to what appeared to be prepared notes on the matter. His response served to embellish Durbin's clear implication that the civil liberties of American Muslims are under siege:

"The information you just read is flat out wrong."
 
"[it's]...inconsistent with what we have been trying to do here at the Department..."

"those views do not reflect...the views of the Justice Dept, the FBI.."


"...that person is not being used anymore by the FBI...and we are reviewing all of our materials, our training materials to ensure that kind of misinformation isn't being used anymore because it can undermine...the really substantial outreach efforts that we have made ...that kind of training sets back those efforts...have a process underway to make sure that mistake does not happen in the future..." [source, C-SPAN video of testimony, http://www.c-span.org/Events/Lawmakers-Question-Holder-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious/10737425323/]

We contacted Mr. Durbin's office on multiple occasions to determine the source of the quotes he used regarding counter terrorism training. As we go to press the Senator's office has not responded, however we did find a potential source for not only Mr. Durbin's query, but his whole line of questions in that matter.

That source is Wired's "Danger Room," edited by Spencer Ackerman. In a Sept blog posting, FBI Teaches Agents: ‘Mainstream’ Muslims Are ‘Violent, Radical’ [see, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/]. Mr. Ackerman writes, "The FBI is teaching its counterterrorism agents that “'main stream' [sic] American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult leader"; and that the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a funding mechanism for combat."

If nothing else, the similarity between Durbin's question to the AG and Ackerman's post is a remarkable coincidence isn't it?

From outward appearances, Mr. Ackerman seems to be in lock-step [alongside Mr. Durbin] with the campaign undertaken since 9/11 by Islamists to attack any statement which reflects poorly on Islam as being Islamophobic. This could easily be a first step in having such declarations classified as "hate crimes," as they are in much of Europe where they are punishable by fines and potential jail time. Unfortunately these police state tactics seem not to be of much concern on the Continent.

Spencer Ackerman, for those not familiar with his bio, was part of the JournoList debacle, wherein it was revealed there existed a group of hundreds of lefty journalists who communicated via a listserv protocol [the "JournoList"] and basically conspired to advance their ideology via news manipulation.

As the Daily Caller, which broke the story, revealed, '...In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists.'" [source, http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz1dFXQAbL6]
So propagandizing under the guise of journalism is second nature to Ackerman.

We find it unsurprising that a Democrat Senator might read the rants of shill journos and then use them to advance the Obama narrative, that under this regime one will not speak ill of Islam or its prophet.

These proscriptions against the denigration of Islam are elemental components of Shari'a, Islamic law, specifically its "blasphemy/apostasy" codes, as Ms. Shea heretofore noted. Therefore the "sanitization" operation that the administration has put into motion, enacting these self-blinding policies, is in a very real sense, advancing Shari'a principles in pursuit of a perverse and divisive multiculturalism.” [source, William Mayer, The Obama/Holder War On National Security,  November 14, 2011, PipeLineNews.org]

Thus the most illustrative descriptors which might be used to identify and denote the enemy – Ideological Islam, fanatical/literalist/fundamentalist Muslims, Islamic terrorism, jihad, Shari’a based violence, mujahideen etc.,, have been excised from the official lexicon, leaving us willfully blind [as Andy McCarthy has so succinctly put it] as to who or what challenges we face.

In an ideological struggle [and this matter certainly falls into this category] a wise leader first imust identify the enemy. From this his generals and intelligence people should be able develop a threat doctrine and from that a methodology of combating it, though success is by no means guaranteed. The West's successful war against Soviet Marxism proves the value of this strategy. It was no accident that global communism fell before such an onslaught. our response as well as that of our allies was no accident, it was carefully plotted and then executed. This has been a basic strategic theorem going back at least to Sun Tzu’s "Art of War," an ancient Chinese manuscript which counsels that without knowing and understanding your enemy any chance of victory is hopeless.

For an in depth analysis of proven methods for defeating totalitarian ideologies of all stripes, please refer to [William Mayer, Review: Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism, June 26, 2012, PipeLineNews.org], as the piece clearly identifies the ideological aspects of Islam.
 
In 2003 the widely respected Middle East scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes wrote about the dangers inherent in being abstemious when describing who or what the enemy is:

"...If the government is unwilling to state what its goal is or who its enemy is in a war you cannot effectively deal with it. I mean who are we looking for, who are our allies, what are the methods to be pursued?...My view is that our war is not a war on terror, but it is a war on militant Islam, or more specifically a war on Jihad. I think militant Islam is an Islamic version of the radical utopian movements that took roots and became strong in the West about a century ago in the 1920s..." [source, Dr. Pipes' views on Islamic Terrorism and Turkey].


Pipes analyzes what Dr. Samuel P. Huntington termed The Clash of Civillzations, in a more global manner, instead using the terminology clash between civilization and barbarism [please reference, It's Not a Clash of Civilizations, It's a Clash between the Civilized World and Barbarians ]

Thus he cleverly cuts through the intellectually  and politically charged clutter often associated with Huntington's thesis, while retaining the power of this key distinction.

Know thyself, know better thy enemy.

Under Obama and his hand-puppets - the dull witted now-ex Department of Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano for example - this war against the truth and logic has been extended right down to the American war colleges, where instructors [including FBI field intelligence agents] who do not follow the official line are banished.

Additionally, instructional materials casting Islam in a negative light have been redacted to the point of multicultural idiocy...all for the single purpose of not riling the oh so excitable "radical" Muslims. The question arises that what harm might that do given the fact that these folks are already at war with us?

So with this as prologue, let us proceed to develop our initial query - is Islam itself so defective internally, i.e. theologically, that it is irredeemably warlike and expansionist?

Judaism and Christianity have had to grapple with this question thereby allowing their excesses to have been ground away over the millennia; Mosaic law is no longer enforced in anything resembling a harsh manner and it remains the basis of Western law. Yes violation of much of the Mosaic law – thou shalt not murder, steal and plunder are indeed punishable; in the case of murder in a capital manner, but Western secular law is in no way simply a reiteration of Jewish and Christian “religious law.” This is as it should be, as these moral truths are the core of our civilization and recognized to a greater or lesser degree in all other cultures.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share the ancient sense of justice "an eye for an eye," but the similarity stops there, Islam being the outlier, often taking an "eye for an eye" literally.

In contemporary Christianity, pacifism and "turning the other cheek, " are counseled and therefore many Christians believe that intentional killing is still killing regardless of the circumstances and thus capital punishment is strongly opposed.

Much the same can be said for Judaism, violence against human beings is abhorred.

Islam differs however, where according to both the historical as well as contemporary interpretations, in some cases it is literally and eye for an eye, Note the barbaric sentences still being meted out in Saudi Arabia  where every Friday those deemed guilty of violating the Shari'a have a rendezvous with Islamic justice which is delivered at the edge of a blade.

We have and continue to reject the contention that all three are related under the umbrella of being “Abrahamic faiths." That claim is made one two counts. One, the Muslim claim that Islam in essence sprang from the loins of Abraham's son Ishmael is utterly absurd and two, neither Judaism nor Christianity in scripture or tradition support the use of religious warfare simply to extend the reach of those respective faiths, while the Qur'an is replete with exhortations to religious violence.and sadistic torture of infidels.

Even the Jesuits had no theological basis for proceeding with their mad project [the Inquisition].The actions of these men were evil, period.


Additionally, the twin forces of the Reformation and Enlightenment, broke the back of whatever theocratic notions remained, leaving Europe and America secularized.

Islam has three major components, the Qur’an [believed to be the revealed word of Allah], the Hadith [the way of the prophet] and the surrounding case law/ juristic rulings/fatwas interpreting and defining the Shari'a.


Taken as a whole, the evidence now is clearly to the contrary that despite [imam?] George W. Bush's pronouncement that Islam as a  "religion of peace," looks more foolish and dangerous in hindsight than it did at the time he made the statement. Yes, W was and remains an honorable man, but his good nature was repeatedly taken advantage of by those who still mean us great harm. Despite its obvious religious aspects [some of which are lifted directly from both Jewish and Christian theology and tradition] Islam is functionally a warlike ideology of domination and triumphalist in nature.

If Islam is in practice an ideology -  sharing kinship with Soviet communism, Fascism and other totalitarian variants – then it hardly should be afforded the kid glove treatment that it currently receives in the West.


It's undeniable that jihad has been near the core of Islam since its founding and was officially locked into its jurisprudence since at least the tenth century. As commonly understood by most Muslims, jihad is simply fighting in the way of Allah to extend the reach of Islam - warfare justified by "religious" dogma. This is of course the jihad with which we are all unfortunately familiar with and which continues today.

Consider the historical record regarding what changes take place under an Islamic system.

The ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures [circa 3,000 BC] were highly advanced. From those pre-Islamic cultures, we got the scientific and mathematical basis of our society, the idea of a written language and many of the aspects of what is today seen as high culture. This while Europe was largely Neolithic. Egypt and Babylon were the centers of learning, experimentation and the like. However this advanced cultural direction became increasingly stultified upon the advance of Islam, which swept before it Christian Northern Africa, up the Iberian Peninsula and to the center of Europe, Spain [Andalusia to the jihadist] was occupied by the Islamic Moors for nearly a thousand years. To the East much the same occurred. Though still open to contention, it's clear that the great Library of Alexandria was most likely burned as result of the great Muslim conquest of North Africa.  Some try to blame library burning on the "teachings" of “Pope” Theophilus of Antioch.
However Theophilus was merely a bishop in the Coptic Christian church and claiming that he was the Catholic Pope is without substance. Thus it appears that since its very early history Islam has been not only warlike but also anti-intellectual, despite claims by modern Muslim apologists to the contrary.

Islam must additionally deal with another blight - slavery. – though far more prevalent during its earlier period, it remains an issue of concern with 300,000 Saudi Arabian slaves counted as recently as 1962. Though these slaves were, de jure, manumitted at about the same time. [source, John Laffin, Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey". Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Winifred Crum Ewing, Stichting Plurale Samenlevingen (1976). p.452. ISBN 90-247-1779-5] the practice of Saudis keeping low wage foreign workers as slaves endures today.

Defining the slave in terms of being sub-human is indispensible because if he is not Muslim such behavior is justifiable, non Muslims always being second class citizens at best. Normative Islam divides the world into two parts, Dar al Islam [the House of Islam] and Dar al Harb [the House of War]. Thus you were either Muslim or a perceived threat and therefore an enemy. There appears to be little in the way of middle ground here.

Undoubtedly early Islam proved to be an irresistible force, however one borne on the wings as persuasively argued by Dr. Pipes [who has generously offered this work in a downloadable .pdf format here, Slave Soldiers and Islam] of slave soldiers and a cadre of slave administrators and public servants. Without this slave led onslaught, Pipes suggests that Islam might not have survived. Though under the Islamic system, slaves could and did distinguish themselves and rise to high power, sometimes just below the Caliph himself. [differing markedly from the Western slave holding experience, which simply treated these unfortunate human beings as chattel] this shouldn't be understood as a justification. These people were still slaves often forcibly taken from their families [especially in what is now Eastern Europe] at a very young age whereupon they were winnowed into the structure of Islamic culture. The brightest and bravest having the capability of advancement, with the proviso that many of these people were pressed into military service to expand the Islamic dominion.

According to the historical record many of the African slaves were sent to their fate by Muslim slave traders [as depicted in the lead image] often using captives supplied to them as a result of African inter-tribal warfare. It is also undeniable that as Islamic domination congealed,  the spirit of inquiry - scientific advancement - strangled to the point where today it's of little consequence. By way of example one need only compare the huge imbalance of patents issued to the West as contrasted against the paucity of such coming from the Muslim world where the Qur’an is all that matters.

Thus the West progressed and prospered while Islamic culture became frozen in time. Art, music, the sciences are all tertiary to the ideological imperative - expanding the reach of Allah.

In this sense Islam is an ideology operating under the guise of religion.

Indeed, Islam can be and is observed in a secular manner by millions of devout Muslims. The kicker here, and it's an important one, is that this is really possible on a large scale ONLY in the liberal West. Secularity is indeed the rule...but it only can take place within a secular non-Islamic culture.

Try to bring a Bible into Saudi Arabia if you doubt this.

The manhandling of Western Muslim reformers is unfortunate in the extreme because it is only these reasoned voices that can authentically speak to the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the world outside the West.

As codified by 10th century Islamic law, Islam is operatively an ideology, corrosive, warlike and incompatible with our version of a modern world. It differs not at all from Fascism and other totalitarian forms of political organization.  As so defined, it's impossible to afford an ideology the protection of the First Amendment,

Domestically the jihadists have been elevated by the MSM to the status of official spokesmen for the Muslim world. The jihadists to which we refer include the largest Muslim political organization which represent the American wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. Examples would be, the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] and the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] etc. We can reliably make this claim since it reflects the judicial rulings in and around the U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation prosecution, which proved that the phony Islamic charity, the Holy Land Foundtion for Relief and Development channeled at least $12 million dollars to the terrorist group HAMAS.

These and similar groups are national security risks - the tip of the jihadist spear in North America. We daily bear witness to the result of Muslim Brotherhood "democracy," one person, one vote, one time

So we come full circle…is the problem Islam itself or is it anomalous? Is Islam fatally and internally defective as to render it irreconcilable with our republican democracy? 

Perhaps Steven Emerson [The Investigative Project on Terrorism] stated it best in a recent interview on KSFO radio, where he drew attention to a recently issued statement from the terrorist group, Ansar-al-Shari’a in which it was declared that, “change comes by the bullet alone, not the ballot."

To the extent such an interpretation is practiced, Islam is indeed fatally flawed, and that interpretation is now dominant. 

At this point it becomes dangerous to dismiss the  mass of evidence which indicates that the soul of Islam might well be corrupted beyond redemption. While Catholics no longer burn heretics, the same cannot be said for an alarming proportion of the Islamic world where such brutality is the norm and backed up by a long historical record, endorsed by all 5 [
Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, Hanbali and Zahiri] of Islam's major schools of jurisprudence.

To the West one question remains elemental - will the devout Muslim secularists triumph in their attempt to formulate grand Islamic Reformation? It seems unlikely, though of course we remain hopeful.

According to Islamic jurisprudence, "the gates of ijtihad are closed." The great Islamic scholar, al-Bukhari, upon close examination determined [circa 850] that even at that early point in the intellectual development of Islam, the process of ijtihad had already been abusive, excessive and produced inauthentic rulings. Hence from that point onward Islam was locked into an ideology of jihadistic expansionism.

If these gates of change remain closed, then normative or extant Islam can't be afforded protection under Western law. Whatever happens, the process of redefinition must forever remain out of the West’s hands. If the reformers - who are suppressed by the Obama administration - do not triumph, then Islam remains irrevocably linked with jihad.

In closing, much hangs in the balance.

It's beyond argument that the warriors – the mujahideen – who fly upon this expansionist ideology are in no way apologetic, they defiantly quote the Qur'an in support of their barbarism. They can do this in authentic manner because their sacred book is replete with such references.

To reiterate, any thought of granting the ideological aspects of Islam which have now risen to the fore, the protection of our foundational document, courts cultural suicide.


 

[Read More]

Rep. Frank Wolf Question Administration On Benghazi Coverup

July 19, 2013 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Representative Frank Wolf [R, VA] has in a very public way been raising disturbing questions regarding what is now established fact, the Watergate style coverup of the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

Wolf today is demanding that the administration respond to the following statement:

Reports indicate that upwards of 100 terrorists may have attacked the consulate and annex. After nearly a year of FBI investigations, why has the U.S. not located, apprehended and brought to justice a single terrorist responsible for killing four Americans, including a sitting U.S. ambassador?

Why has the Obama Administration not taken any apparent steps to apply pressure to countries that have refused to allow the FBI access to terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attacks? Has the FBI had access to any other suspects, in any country, other than their brief interview with Ali Harzi?
Wolf’s reference to Harzi and the blocking of funding to Tunisia goes back to a floor speech he made last December, where he called on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to block U.S. aid to Tunisia until the country made Harzi, the only known suspect at the time, available for questioning. Instead, they let him go. Today, Wolf said he was pleased the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee reported out a bill which prohibits funding from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) from going to Tunisia.
 
Wolf on Tuesday announced his plan to raise questions about what happened in Benghazi during the weeks before Congress breaks for its August recess, noting that the House has just eight days of legislative business before the break. When it returns in September, the one-year anniversary will be two days away.
 
Wolf is the author of a resolution to create a select committee on Benghazi, H. Res. 36, which currently has 161 cosponsors – more than two-thirds of the majority party – as well as the support of family members of the victims, the Special Operations community and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents the Diplomatic Security agents who were at the consulate in Benghazi.

©2013 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved.

[Read More]
Is Islam Fatally Defective?
 
By WILLIAM MAYER
 

July 15, 2013 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – A language war has been and continues to be waged at the highest levels of the national security institutional apparatus, the DOJ and the rest of government. In a more inclusive sense this has also taken place throughout the Western world.

The CIC has deliberately cut the eyes out of those who are tasked with protecting America from external and internal threat.

The institutions being targeted are those which define and create our culture. This concept of change from the indisde out isn't new. For example it was recognized and championed by leftist intellectuals such as Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was a 1930s era Italian Communist theoretician who spent considerable time in Mussolini’s prisons for sedition. Of course neither Mussolini nor Gramsci were at all comfortable with non-totalitarian rule. Gramsci had extraordinary perceptual insights into how customs, language, religion/belief structures etc., might be forcibly changed, pushed as it were in a direction that the culture would not normally have taken under its own inertia.

It was his hypothesis, since proven entirely correct, that if the culture wasn't friendly to a particullar ideology [Marxism in his case] then specific techniques ccould be put into play in order to make  the common man aware of his existence as a member of the proletariat, a claimed oppressed class, and the workers' supposedly miserable plight and status in life.

If this project succeeded then the proles would welcome and end even foster the revolution. Examples of the institutions to which we he referred included tje legal and judicial systems, legislative bodies,, the bureaucracy, entertainment industry, the educational aristocracy, religious organizations and the mass media among others.

Metaphorically, this is a game of Texas No-Limit Hold’em poker being played with the highest stakes imaginable with the future of the U.S. and Europe in the balance. In this massive gambit, a single misplayed hand could permanently obliteration, what we treasure most, the freedom and liberty guaranteed by out secular republican democracy..

Below, from an August 28, 2012 piece:
"…The Italian Communist theoretician, Antonio Gramsci, in the early part of the 20th century, identified the process of cultural transformation, which is entirely what the left is about, as "marching through the institutions," slowly taking over the mechanisms whereby culture is created and molded; the print and electronic news media, the arts, the law, the universities, government, organized religion...nothing that contributes to the nature of a society is left untouched by this process.

When this happens we are bound up in Dostoevsky's contention, a truism it seems, that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.

This is a rejection of the concept of revealed truth, of immutable moral precepts which originate at a level above man's existence. Under this construction both Judaism and Christianity entirely lose their ability to provide guidance in human affairs.

Why not kill, or covet your neighbor's wife or goods. Why set aside a time of contemplation of things larger than yourself?" [source William Mayer, The Sound of Silence Screaming - The West's Cultural Malaise and its Bearing on Resisting External Threat, PipeLineNews.org]

But what does this have to do with Islam?

Everything…

From the waning days of the GW Bush administration and with a far greater degree of zealotry, bleeding into the years of Team Obama’s looming tyranny, no effort has been spared in "sanitizing" the government’s bureaucratic language with an eye towards permanent burial of any negative reference to Islam’s many defective attributes. In many ways this is an example of a self-imposed Shari’a compliance, keeping in mind that "insulting" Islam or its prophet are grave offenses under Islamic law. In a very concrete way removing Islam from the terrorism equation renders the term impossible to understand in a contextual manner.

PipeLineNews has covered this matter extensively, in a 2011 piece we noted:
 "…To see how far this mindset of censorship has progressed, consider that on November 9, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on DOJ's now infamous gun running program "Fast and Furious," Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL] directed the following to AG Eric Holder, 'we have found that the FBI agents who were given counter terrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of Islam and Muslims, for example FBI agents in training were told...
'Islam is a highly violent radical religion

Mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers.

The Arabic mind is more likely to be swayed by ideas rather than facts.

Holder was apparently ready for the question because as Durbin was framing it, the AG could be seen referring to what appeared to be prepared notes on the matter. His response served to embellish Durbin's clear implication that the civil liberties of American Muslims are under siege:

The information you just read is flat out wrong.

[it's]...inconsistent with what we have been trying to do here at the Department...

those views do not reflect...the views of the Justice Dept, the FBI..

...that person is not being used anymore by the FBI...and we are reviewing all of our materials, our training materials to ensure that kind of misinformation isn't being used anymore because it can undermine...the really substantial outreach efforts that we have made ...that kind of training sets back those efforts...have a process underway to make sure that mistake does not happen in the future...'" [source, C-SPAN video of testimony, http://www.c-span.org/Events/Lawmakers-Question-Holder-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious/10737425323/]

We contacted Mr. Durbin's office on multiple occasions to determine the source of the quotes he used regarding counter terrorism training. As we go to press the Senator's office has not responded, however we did find a potential source for not only Mr. Durbin's query, but his whole line of questions in that matter.

That source was Wired's "Danger Room," edited by Spencer Ackerman. In a Sept. blog posting the claim is made the FBI Teaches Agents: Mainstream Muslims Are Violent... ...the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a funding mechanism for combat.."

 
If nothing else, the similarity between Durbin's question to the AG and Ackerman's post is a remarkable coincidence isn't it?

From outward appearances, Mr. Ackerman seems to be in lock-step [alongside Mr. Durbin] with the campaign undertaken since 9/11 by Islamists to attack any statement which reflects poorly on Islam as being Islamophobic. This could easily be a first step in having such declarations classified as "hate crimes," as they are in much of Europe where they are punishable by fines and potential jail time. Unfortunately these police state tactics seem not to be of much concern on the Continent.

Spencer Ackerman, for those not familiar with his bio, was part of the JournoList debacle, wherein it was revealed there existed a group of hundreds of lefty journalists who communicated via a listserv protocol [the "JournoList"] and basically conspired to advance their ideology via news manipulation.

As the Daily Caller, which broke the story, revealed, '...In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists.'" [source, http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz1dFXQAbL6] So propagandizing under the guise of journalism is second nature to Ackerman.

We find it unsurprising that a Democrat Senator might read the rants of shill journos and then use them to advance the Obama narrative, that under this regime one will not speak ill of Islam or its prophet.

These proscriptions against the denigration of Islam are elemental components of Shari'a, Islamic law, specifically its "blasphemy/apostasy" codes, as Ms. Shea heretofore noted. Therefore the "sanitization" operation that the administration has put into motion, enacting these self-blinding policies, is in a very real sense, advancing Shari'a principles in pursuit of a perverse and divisive multiculturalism.” [source, William Mayer, The Obama/Holder War On National Security, November 14, 2011, PipeLineNews.org]
 
Thus the most illustrative descriptors which might be used to identify and denote the enemy – Ideological Islam, fanatical/literalist/fundamentalist Muslims, Islamic terrorism, jihad, Shari’a based violence, mujahideen etc., - have been excised from the official lexicon, leaving us willfully blind [as Andy McCarthy has so succinctly put it] as to who or what challenges we face.

It is elemental in any ideological struggle [and this matter certainly falls into this category] one must first identify the enemy. From this any tactician worth his salt will develop a threat doctrine and from that a methodology of combating it.

The West's successful war against Soviet Marxism proves the value of such a strategy. It was no accident that global communism fell before such an onslaught. tour response as well as that of our allies was no accident, it was carefully plotted and then executed. This has been a basic strategic theorem going back at least to Sun Tzu’s "Art of War," an ancient Chinese manuscript which counsels that without knowing and understanding your enemy any chance of victory is hopeless.
For an in depth analysis of proven methodologies for defeating totalitarian ideologies of all stripes please refer to [William Mayer, Review: Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism, June 26, 2012, PipeLineNews.org], as the piece clearly identifies the ideological aspects of Islam. As the Art of War counsels, know thyself but know thy enemy better.

In 2003 the Middle East scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes wrote about the dangers inherent in being abstemious when describing who or what the enemy is:
"...If the government is unwilling to state what its goal is or who its enemy is in a war you cannot effectively deal with it. I mean who are we looking for, who are our allies, what are the methods to be pursued?...My view is that our war is not a war on terror, but it is a war on militant Islam, or more specifically a war on Jihad. I think militant Islam is an Islamic version of the radical utopian movements that took roots and became strong in the West about a century ago in the 1920s..." [source, Dr. Pipes' views on Islamic Terrorism and Turkey].
Pipes analyzes what Dr. Samuel P. Huntington termed The Clash of Civilzations, in a more global manner using the terminology [paraphrasing] "clash between civilization and barbarism" [please reference, It's Not a Clash of Civilizations, It's a Clash between the Civilized World and Barbarians ] In setting up this distinction Pipes cleverly cuts through the intellectually and politically charged clutter often associated with Huntington's thesis, while retaining the power of of the idea. Also please refer to Pipes' rather historic debate with "Red" Ken Livingstone [see, My Debate with London Mayor Ken Livingstone]

Under Obama and his hand-puppets - the dull witted now-ex Department of Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano for example - this war against the truth and logic has been extended right down to the American war colleges, where instructors [including FBI field intelligence agents] who do not follow the official line are banished.

Additionally, instructional materials casting Islam in a negative light have been redacted to the point of multicultural idiocy,,,all for the single purpose of not riling the oh so excitable "radical" Muslims. The question arises that what harm might that do given the fact that these folks are already globally at war with the infidels?

With this as prologue, let's proceed to develop the thesis question which remain: is Islam itself so defective internally [ideologically] that it is irredeemably warlike and expansionist?

Judaism and Christianity have previously grappled with the question. Their historically violent excesses have been ground away over the millennia; Mosaic law is no longer enforced in anything resembling a harsh manner and it remains the basis of Western law. Yes violation of its chief precepts such as, thou shalt not murder, steal and plunder are punishable. In the case of murder it can result in capital punishment. This should not suggest that Western secular law reiterates Jewish and Christian “religious law.” This is as it should be; these moral truths are the core of our civilization and recognized to a greater or lesser degree in all other cultures as well as Islamic law, the Shari’a.

Therefore Judaism, Christianity and Islam recognize this ancient sense of justice, "an eye for an eye," it's universal. These religions however differ on just what constitutes murder, theft or unlawful killing.

Contemporary Christian theology encourages  pacifism and turning the other cheek. Many Christians believe that intentional killing is killing nonetheless, regardless of the circumstances; capital punishment is condemned.

Judaism has similar attributes.

Islam differs though, where according to both the historical as well as contemporary interpretations, in many cases it is punishable by torture - note the barbaric sentences still being meted out in Saudi Arabia where every Friday those found guilty of violating elements of the Shari'a meet have a rendezvous with Islamic justice, delivered at the edge of a blade.

We have and continue to reject the contention that all three are related under the umbrella of being “Abrahamic faiths." That claim is made because neither Judaism nor Christianit textually support the use of religious warfare simply to extend the reach of the faith. What excesses there did exist, witness the Jesuit led Spanish Inquisition, have been cauterized completely from practice, thankfully. Yet even the Jesuits had no theological basis for proceeding with their mad project, i.e., they were not able to quote chapter and verse as an endorsement for their barbaric behavior. The actions of these men were evil, period and it thus remains an ever present burden on observant Catholics.

Lastly,the twin forces of the Reformation and Enlightenment, broke the back of whatever theocratic notions remained.

Obviously both Europe and America are secularized, though less so Europe, courtesty of an influx of jihadists.

Islam is based primarily on the Qur’an, believed to be the literal word of Allah as revealed to Mohammed and the Hadith[s], essentially the way of the prophet…examples of his life to be used as guideposts for correct behavior. We have almost exclusively covered for nearly 15 years the national security implication of a "runaway," interpretation of Islam. We were and remain unwilling to define exactly what Islam is. We would never be that presumptuous since we neither fluent in Arabic nor are we imams. Because of this we are much less rigorously following that dictum; the evidence to the contrary is considerable to the point of becoming overwhelming, allowing serious observers to regard Islam itself as an warlike ideology of triumphalist totalitarianism disguised under cover of religion..

This is the most contentious nexus imaginable because if Islam is simply an ideology - not dissimilar to Soviet communism, Fascism and other violent utopian variants – then it doesn't deserve the protection afforded religion under the First Amendment. The question is whether Islam is so imbued with the spirit of violent jihad [as well as the pre-violent stealth variety] as to render further distinctions pointless.

We do know for a fact that jihad has been near the core of Islam since its inception and commonly understood – within the global Muslim community - as fighting in the way of Allah to extend the reach of Islam, warfare justified by "religious" principle. This of course is the jihad with which we are all unfortunately familiar with and which continues today. Consider the historical record regarding what changes take place under an Islamic system.

The ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures [circa 3,000 BC, and here ignoring the advanced Asian cultures of the same period] were the most advanced intellectually on the planet. From them we got the scientific and mathematical basis of our culture, the idea of a written language and many of the aspects of what is today seen as high culture. This while Europe was largely Neolithic. Egypt and the Babylon were the centers of learning, experimentation and the like. However this advanced cultural direction became increasingly stultified upon the advance of Islam, which swept before it Christian Northern Africa, up the Iberian Peninsula and to the center of Europe, Spain [Andalusia to the jihadist] was occuppied by the Islamic Moors for nearly a thousand years. To the East much the same occurred. Though still open to contention, it's clear that the great Library of Alexandria was burned and most likely as a result of the Islamic jihad [circa 640-650 AD] Muslim jihad against Northern Africa. Some try to blame the teaching of “Pope” Theophilus of Antioch, but the Catholic Church simply recognized him as a Coptic Christian bishop and not in any sense a Pope.

Thus it appears that since its very early history Islam has been not only warlike but also anti-intellectual, despite claims by modern Muslim apologists.

Islam must additionally deal with another blight - slavery. – though far more prevalent during earlier period, it actually it remains an issue of concern with 300,000 Saudi Arabian slaves counted as recently as 1962 though all were, de jure, manumitted at about the same time. [source, John Laffin, Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey". Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Winifred Crum Ewing, Stichting Plurale Samenlevingen (1976). p.452. ISBN 90-247-1779-5]

We believe that in a fundamentalist Islamic understanding, defining the slave in terms of being sub-human because he is not Muslim renders such behavior justifiable religiously. This harkens to the concept of the "normative" Islamic understanding that the world is divided into two parts, Dar al Islam [the House of Islam] and Dar al Harb [the House of War]. Thus you were either Muslim or a perceived threat and therefore an enemy. There appears to be little in the way of middle ground here.

Undoubtedly Islam proved to be an irresistible force, however one borne on the wings [as persuasively argued by Middle East Historian, Dr. Daniel Pipes who has generously offered this work in a downloadable .pdf format, Slave Soldiers and Islam] of slave soldiers and a slave cadre of administrative public servants, the Islamic bureaucracy. Without this slave led onslaught, Pipes argues quite convincingly, Islam might well not have survived. In the Islamic system, slaves could iand did distinguish themselves and rise to high power, sometimes just below the Caliph himself. - differing in a major way from the Western slave holding experience, which simply treated these unfortunate human beings as chattel. This is not meant to justify the seemingly more benevolent Islamic slave experience, these people were still slaves often forcibly taken from their families at a very young age whereupon they were winnowed into the structure of Islamic culture. The brightest or bravest having the capability of advancement, with the proviso that many of these people were pressed into military service to expand the Islamic dominion.

According to the historical record many of the African slaves were sent to that fate by Muslim slave traders often using captives supplied to them as a result of African inter-tribal warfare. But it is inarguable that as Islam congealed, scientific advancement was increasingly strangled to the point where today it is of little consequence. as an example of this stultification of “progress,” compare the tremendous number of patents issued to Israelis during a given year with the paucity of the same coming out of the entire Muslim world. The imbalance is obvious.

Analagous to the beilef of some fundamentalist Christians, the Qur’an is all that matters while leaving the young essentially illiterate. Thus the West progressed and Islamic culture became frozen in time. Art, music, the sciences are all tertiary to the religious imperative of expanding the reach of Allah and understanding his revealed word. Literally interpreted. With the doctrine of abrogation incorporated, Islamic religious warfare became justified as dominant almost from its inception.

In this sense Islam is an ideology operating under the guise of religion, breeding the implications of our thesis statement – does Islam deserve the protection of the First Amendment, is it a religion or an ideology?

There is no doubt that Islam can be observed in a secular manner and this is done by millions of devout Muslims, though mostly in the liberal West. These folks practice their faith but can coexist - from only from within a secular non-Islamic culture. Countless other examples exist. These people are friends, neighbors, co-workers and the like. While their belief system markedly differs from that of the dominant Judeo-Christian culture they are nontheless seculatized.

The question arises, is this really Islam that these countrymen are practicing, or is it some mutant variant? This we can’t definitively answer.The key here is secularity. The few intellectual warriors have been roundly condemned, sometimes even declared taqfir – no longer Muslims- a kind of Islamic excommunication, they do pay an unacceptable price.

The manhandling is unfortunate in the extreme because it is these reasoned voices that represent the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish and Christian world outside the West. Without them, as interpreted by 10th century Islamic law, Islam becomes solely an ideology, corrosive, warlike and incompatible with our version of a modern world. It differs not at all from Fascism and other totalitarian forms of political organization such as Marxism and the like. As so defined, it's impossible to afford such the protection of protection of First Amendment, but it is exactly this aspect of Westernism behind which the Islamists hide. Domestically the jihadists though relatively fewer in number have been elevated by the MSM where they have been appointed official spokesmen for the Muslim world. Here we are of course referring to the American wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, et al. Relying on the judicial rulings of U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation prosecution – these groups represent national security risks. They form the tip of the Islamist spear in North America.

Fortunately we can see the result of Muslim Brotherhood, with Team Obama’s major assistance to what is a de-facto imposed – jidadist "democratic" rule in Egypt where the proposition of one person, one vote, one time is operative. Despite assurances to the contrary, in Egypt waiting in the wings are even more radical Islamists, the Salafi types who find the "moderation," of MB rule to be not properly directed at further "purifying" Islam into its combative historical existence. These people are mortal enemies, though our government, and the culture forming institutions fear even broaching the subject.

So we come full circle…is the problem Islam itself or is it anomalous?

Is Islam fatally and internally defective as to render it irreconcilable with our republican democracy?

An objective observer must note, all of the Islamists liberally quote from the Qur’an by way of justification for their actions. As referenced in a recent radio interview on KSFO radio, the well respected expert on Islamic terrorism, Stephen Emerson, drew attention to a recently issued statement from the terrorist group, Ansar-al-Shari’a in which it was declared that, “change comes by the bullet alone, not the ballot."

Islam is fatally flawed This is the reason why forever writing off a significant portion of the global population uuponr an unsupported declaration that Islam is unsalvageable. Our feelings about this matter are totally conditional. This is an observation grounded in reality. As long as the inertia within the ummah continues to support jihad, regardless of mitigating  factors such as exactly how many within this body have opted out such a strict interprettion this practice it remains outside the boundaries of what is acceptable. What has been happening with all too many who have little appreciation for
multicultural

That notion is impossible to dismiss. Where previously our judgment has been that Islam is what it is, given the buildup of overwhelming proof there seems little doubt that the soul of Islam may well be corrupted beyond redemption. Whereas Catholics no longer burn heretics, the same cannot be said for an alarming proportion of the Islamic world where such brutality is the norm and backed up by a long historical record, encompassing all of Islam’s major schools of jurisprudence. In this understanding violent jihad is integral to Islam, it is a "religious," duty and required of all Muslims who so believe, risking the condemnation of being declared taqfir [a kind of Islamic excommunication] lest they stray. So we leave our readers to thoughtfully ponder this. We will however make the judgment that it seems that the operative definition of Islam as widely practiced without a doubt remains highly aggressive and warlike.

The final question here is simple, will the devout Muslim secularists triumph in their attempts at a grand Islamic Reformation?

Islamic jurisprudence has ruled that "the gates of ijtihad are closed." Regarding ijtihad - the process of defining and interpreting the constituent parts of Islam - the great Islamic scholar, al-Bukhari, uclose examination determined [circa 850] that even at that early point in the intellectual development of Islam, the process of ijtihad had already been abusive, excessive and produced inauthentic rulings. Hence from that point onward Islamic ideology became increasingly locked into that period’s very aggressively jihad friendly interpretation].

If these gates of change remain closed, then normative or extant Islam is simply an ideology which should be afforded no special protection under American, or Western for that matter, law. Whatever happens, the process of redefinition must forever remain out of the West’s hands. If the reformers - who are stifled even here in America protected by this administratio - do not triumph then jihadist Islam reigns supreme.

In closing, much hangs in the balance. It’s beyond argument that the warriors – the mujahideen – who fly upon this expansionist ideology are in no way apologetic, they proudly quote chapter and verse in support of their barbarism. Any thought of granting them the protection of our foundational document courts cultural suicide.
 
© 2013 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved. Beila Rabinowitz contributed to this piece.
 
 
-30-
 
 

 

[Read More]
Jeb Bush's Revenge - The Judge From Hell, Debra Nelson

By WILLIAM MAYER

July 11, 2013 - San Francisco, CA - PipeBombNews.com - Well, well, well...for some reason the GOP's aristocracy is currently pushing Jeb Bush - Jebby - as the future of the Republican Party.

Now Jeb Bush is such an insignificant, lightweight dufus that he really doesn't deserve much in the way of expenditure of words. However we would like to provide one insight into his real politics which we haven't heard much of in any media, let alone the MSM.

Witness the unspeakable travesty represented by the trial of Mr. George Zimmerman, who in our opinion is being maliciously prosecuted, goaded on by the Bobbsy Twin criminals, Mr. Obama and his lunatic DOJ side-kick, Eric the Red..

Though we have not had the stomach to follow this case in any great detail - sorry we plumb ran out of barf bags the last time we saw John Boehner attempt to speak intelligibly - it's clear that rather than being prosecuted, Mr. Zimmerman should never had charges of any kind filed against him, let alone murder.

We do feel genuinely sorry for the family of the deceased Trayvon Martin; there is no way to avoid calling the entire matter a tragedy, as is the violent death of any young man cut down on the verge of adulthood. Unfortunately young African American males are falling in unprecedented numbers – often at the hand of an insidious thug culture, pumped up by the race pimps, Hollywood lefties, the educrats and their ilk.

But now Ms. Nelson has blasted through the line of propriety in her unconstitutional rulings regarding additional charges against Mr. Zimmerman that may be considered by the long suffering jury.

This set of instructions is designed for a number of reasons:

1. She is bending over and allowing Obama and Holder to violate her in the same manner that she is now violating Mr. Zimmerman's rights.

2. This is a face-saving gesture, an attempt to convict the defendant of something...anything... this viscous judge wants her pound of flesh.

3. She is attempting to satisfy the apparently insatiable Black racism which has loomed over these proceedings. It should go without saying that this is a complete disservice to the overwhelming majority of America's African American community which does not require "protection" from people like Mr. Zimmerman. The inherent racism of Nelson is in play here also, she has already made up her mind on this case and she seems to be unwilling to settle for anything less than a public hanging of this poor defendant. Her decision has been rendered solely on the basis of color – though both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman are ethnic minorities.

Oh...we forgot, the NY Times has counseled us that Zimmerman though Hispanic, is a WHITE Hispanic, whatever the hell that means. To them Zimmerman is simply WHITEY as the matter is reduced to the most disgustingly base racialism.

Note NY Timers, both Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman are Americans…period. And by the way, just where do you keep your African American writers? In some closet?

Has Nelson failed to note that we have an African American president...one who was recently reelected?

Hell Debby baby, it was in all the papers, even "Revolution," a production of the Communist Party USA carried it, so one way or another you should have at least heard of this breaking development.

Ok, we said few words and thus it shall be…well maybe.

Nelson was appointed by Jebster Bushie...can u imagine this kook on the Supreme Court should Jebby ever rise to the office of prez? We guess this is what you get when a judge's undergraduate degree is in psychology

Perhaps not so oddly, we can imagine such a scenario. She would fit right in with the current coffee klatch of neo-Marxists which currently inhabit the nation's highest court.

The fact that Bush appointed this woman is in and of itself a reason to render him forever unfit for any elective office. The truth is that Jebby fades to black in the shadow of his brother, an honorable, God-fearing, just man, GW Bush. If you were unhappy with W, then Jebby would represent the nightmare that keeps on giving.

What this sorry case demonstrates is that America is no longer a society dedicated to the rule of a just law, justly enforced and completely color/gender/sexual identity and class neutral.

Rather It has been allowed to degenerate into a cesspool of corruption not really that different from any other tyranny. We are now ordered to buy products by the Feds - health insurance, toilets, automobiles, light bulbs – the list is literally endless.

We are told what to think by an in-crowd of contemptible wussy-boys masquerading as journalists – ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and increasingly Fox News. Despite our considerable challenges, news has morphed into Snookietime: Jay-Z, automobile chases, household fires, scripted reality shows…another endless list.

Thus we are on the very precipice of losing this great republic, as Ben Franklin warned over 200 years ago. The nation has become corrupt because its people have done the same and a corrupt people receive the same in return.

As long as the piggies have their I-things, their big screen TVs, their crappy new cars, frighteningly white dentition, etc., they are happy rolling in their own filth.

This is the essence of the Democrat voter base, fat, stupid, amoral automatons who would be just as content under Joseph Stalin, assuming he was able to supply them with their toys.

Fortunately patriots remain…and we are not pleased…not pleased at all.

The nexus of these two antipodes will inevitably lead us to civil strife on a scale perhaps even greater than the devastation of the American Civil War. Do yourself a favor, visit the deep South, the Hearth of Dixie, note that the wounds of that great conflagration still – after 150 years - have not healed, they remain open…festering.

Pssst…right now the NSA is watching you, compiling data and mining that information. They can and do know everything significant about you.. From there this vast cloud of personal information in some circuitous manner gets routed by Team Obama into his instruments of control, the IRS, HHS, Homeland Security, DOJ, EPA…you name it…it’s been dispersed AND it’s currently being used to allow this regime to install the equivalent of a permanent dictatorship…while John Boehner hides under his desk, pitifully chain smoking Camel unfiltereds.

If the Zimmerman ruling goes the wrong way - an inescapable result because no one will be pleased, someone’s fat ox will assuredly be gored - then that might indeed prove to be the second shot heard ‘round the world.

We know violence and we abhor it. We know Muslim terrorism, butchery and barbarism. We have been witness to Africa’s machete wars and to thug terrorism on the streets of Chicago and many, if not most cities which have been mismanaged into bankruptcy by the Democrat Party - while the GOP, fingers up their asses, softly squawks in the corner but nonetheless act as enablers to the coming maelstrom.

When it happens don’t say you weren’t warned, some of us have been in a resistance mode for years…we will never go silently…we will never be loaded onto trains to the ovens like cordwood.

We have seen and rejected that world and prefer meeting our Maker rather than suffer such a fate.

There…we feel better…do you?

Coda:

A brief historical note and final observation; we would rather not revisit this issue.

Our founding fathers gave everything they had to make this country possible. They pledged their lives, fortunes and their sacred honor. Knowing what lay before them they still persevered. Many of them were ruined, some paid with their lives and those of their families.

But there is a poignant special example of this ultimate patriotism.

Consider the case of Caesar Rodney, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, representing Delaware.

[Read More]


 

Auschwitz and the Holocaust – A Clear Warning From History

 

By EMERSON VERMAAT

It was in October 1943 that a young Jewish woman named Franceska Mann grabbed the pistol of an SS-officer and shot him dead. This happened near one of the gas chambers of the Nazi death camp of Auschwitz. Not all Jews were willing to enter the gas chambers without resistance or protest. In October 1942, SS doctor Johann Paul Kremer witnessed the gassing of nearly 1600 Jews from Holland. But three Jewish women refused to enter the gas chamber begging for their lives, Kremer wrote in his diary. They were shot dead.

My new book "Auschwitz – Eindstation van de dood" ("Auschwitz – Final Destination of Death") was published in Holland in April this year. I wrote a paragraph on Franceska Mann who killed SS-officer Josef Schillinger as the SS tried to push a group of women into the one of the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

One of the Dutch Auschwitz survivors I spoke with was Ernst Verduin, a Dutch Jew from Amsterdam born in 1927. He was deported to Auschwitz in September 1943. Upon arrival in Auschwitz-Birkenau he was first "selected" for the gas chamber, but managed to leave the "gas chamber group" and join the group selected for slave labor. "An SS officer protested loudly, but I didn’t care," Verduin told me at the end of February 2012. "I later learned that the SS wanted to avoid panic and that I wasn’t the only one who switched from one group to another." "I already knew about the gas chambers of Auschwitz when I was still in the Nazi concentration camp of Vught in the Netherlands. An SS officer named Franz Ettlinger who was stationed at that camp told me about it. Ettlinger had previously been stationed at Auschwitz, so he knew exactly what was going on there."

Frans Goedhart, a courageous Dutch resistance leader, was also in Vught. He, too, received information about the gas chambers of Auschwitz – from another source, though. He managed to escape and published a lengthy article about "(Nazi) concentration camps – where the Nazis practice their ideas" in "Het Parool" on September 27, 1943. It was the very first article on this subject in Holland! Part of Goedharts remarkable article mentioned the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Het Parool was an illegal underground newspaper during the Nazi occupation of Holland and founded by Frans Goedhart himself. It had a circulation of about 40,000.

[Read More]
In Manchester, Tennessee: A Warning Shot

By CHERYL GATESWORTH

July 8, 2013 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org - Does anyone hear the eerie sound of music playing?
Did anyone happen to notice that the Count, standing in front of His full-length mirror could not see his own reflection?

That Count - Mr. Obama our president - The One He Has Been Waiting For – and his entire administration, not simply content with coddling Muslims – the latest demonstration being his not-so-terribly-successful meddling in Egypt’s the Muslim Brotherhood - is determined to steer around  the First Amendment and strangle free speech vis a vis any discussion of Islam. 

A recent,  DOJ - sponsored presentation last month in Manchester, Tennessee demonstrated this point, intending to create a chilling effect on any discussion as to the negative aspects of Islam…of which there are many.

On June 4 the Department of Justice at the invitation of the American Muslim Advisory Committee (AMAC) spoke to an overflow audience at the above referenced community meeting.  DOJ labeled the event, Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society.

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, William C. Killian was joined by Special Agent in Charge of the Eastern Tennessee District, Kenneth Moore.

AMAC was formed a little over two years ago when the Tennessee State Assembly was considering legislation to prevent the possibility of forced Shari’a compliance [i.e., codifying in American law alien Qur’anic principles]. . Zak Mohyuddin, one of the fifteen AMAC Board Members, represented the AMAC during this presentation.

The event was clearly intended as a warning, couched in fraudulent use of civil rights rhetoric, alleging that those who would use the social media to practice “inflammatory speech,” could find themselves in violation of U.S. Civil Rights codes.

Again Muslims were encouraged to play the victim role in an effort to reinforce the idea that any criticism of Islam, albeit even that accurately based on Islam’s own scriptures [or statements/fatwas by imams] as well as those with an historical basis, would be classified as “hate speech.”

Anti-Jihadist activists such as Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Bill Warner of politicalIslam.com, ACT for America, and other smaller groups swelled the number of protestors to over 2,000. Many were able to enter the meeting hall, and others remained outside during the duration of the presentation.

The hall was filled to capacity with people standing in the aisles and in doorways. The protestors often interrupted the speakers and called out their comments. The speakers only took written questions, and this was the only way the protestors could be heard.

Would Emily Post approve of the interruptions by the audience?  Probably not,  but these were people frightened at the blatant attempt by the Obama administration through the DOJ to , if not put a lid on the coffin of free speech, to let the American people know that a coffin awaited them.

The message was clear, American’s will not see their Constitution trampled by Holder’s and Obama’s DOJ thugs, especially the clowns in DOJ’s alleged civil rights division which is radical beyond belief.

The media present, notably The Tennessean predictably took up the cause of the jihadists, presenting the event not as a veiled attempt to intimidate Americans into silence, but instead concentrated on the anger of the anti-jihadists and their frequent interruptions of the speakers. The story in The Tennessean quoted a woman who said the demonstrators frightened her.  Muslim protestors have interrupted anti Jihadist speakers countless time, sometime preventing them from speaking or from finishing their presentations. As a rule the covering newspapers do not make it the center of their reporting.

Actually we are quite pleased at the prospect of jihadists being scared of the American people who will not sit idly by while being forcibly Islamicized

Mr. Killian spoke first using a Power Point Demonstration.

“…Almost 10 years after 9/11. More than 50 federal prosecutions later and lots of long prison sentences…and far too many people are still repeating the same vicious acts of hate against members of the Muslim/Muslim/Sikh and South Asian communities…”

In reality the number of “vicious acts of hate” against these groups is relatively low. Had Mr. Killian looked into the rising number of anti-Semitic acts, he would know what hate speech is.

Every DOJ study has conclusively proven that anti-Semitism is far more prevalent than any alleged Islamophobia; as a matter of fact the number of violent acts attributable to “hate” of Islam are miniscule.
Said Mr. Killian; “We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected.”

Mr. Killian might familiarize himself with the U.S. Constitution before he next makes a fool out of himself.
“…This is an educational effort with civil rights laws,” Killian explained: “as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion. This is to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the
consequences are...”

What we have before us is an overt attempt by the Department of Justice to send twin messages to the American people:

1. Criticism of Islam is forbidden:

2. Any discussion of Islam that does not consist of unmitigated praise is forbidden.
These evil twins add up to only one thing – suppression of free speech, i.e., censorship.

…next stop…Tahrir Square, Cairo…

Unfortunately the truth is ugly, however it is what it is - when Muslims enter a country it is never with the intent of assimilating.

It’s always to bring that country into the realm of Dar-al-Islam [Arabic, the house of Islam]. Their percentage of the population is the chief determinant of what they will demand.

However, it is not the only one.

Another consideration is the strength of the value system of the country they have for all intents and purposes invaded.  Every act on their part is a probe. With very few exceptions they have not met significant resistance and certainly not on the part of timid government officials…especially now under a president who in many ways is a representative of the Muslim perspective.

 Of course the First Amendment does not excuse threats of violence, but the DOJ can push  the concept of a threat downward. Very few individuals want to take on the power of the DOJ and events such as the following have an intentionally chilling effect on what would be the normal give and take of political discourse.
Political correctness [more precisely Malevolent Multiculturalism] always shadows a free discussion regarding Islam.

Fortunately this push has not yet been codified at the federal level, though it is actively being pushed in numerous state legislatures Therefore it is not – yet - statutory.

What the DOJ is saying is that its extralegal definition of civil rights – their expansion of civil rights statutes – trumps free speech.

The United States does not yet have the hate speech laws as do many Western nations, where merely reading verbatim from the Qur’an is considered a violation. 

Holder’s DOJ with the full support of Team Obama is thus attempting an end run around our First Amendment.
WARNING – this is was merely probe – what will be the next step?


[Read More]

 

BREAKING - Obama’s Bitch, Egyptian ex-Pres Morsi, UnderHouse Arrest, Military Coup Overthrows Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Government.

By WILLIAM MAYER, E&P PIPELINENEWS.ORG LLC

July 3, 2013 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – Well, well, well…seems like Barack Hussein Obanma’s fat little Muslim terrorist bitch Mohamed Morsi is under house arrest. He was overthrown today by the Egyptian military.

Warning: this piece contains adult language, if this offends you, please leave and don’t come back and by all means please do not read on lest ye be offended mightily.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

How this will eventually shake out is impossible to know, we so far we have a few snap judgments.

1. Obama and his UN Representative Designate Samantha Power have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. Morsi’s presidency was forced on Egypt by Obama, he is responsible for the extant Egyptian conflagration.

2. Sam Power, what can we say – please refer to our long form piece published just today - Neo-Marxist Obama Confidante Samantha Power: Unfit For Duty - this woman is nothing but a belligerent neo-Marxist ideologue. She should now immediately withdraw herself from consideration as UN Rep. She is an incompetent, inexperienced know –know-it-nothing. Hell send here back to Harvard, they deserve her. And babe, don’t count on the modeling gig, those pipecleaner legs are not to die for.

[Read More]