Justplainbill's Weblog

March 27, 2017

10 Gun Myths

Myth #1- Semi-automatic rifles are ‘assault rifles’
Semi-automatic weapons only fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. The media would have you believe that semi-automatic weapons are weapons of mass destruction. California has even limited the sale of them. While you can certainly do some damage with a semi-automatic rifle, it’ s not the ‘pull and spray’ imagery the media uses to explain these weapons. These weapons are frequently used as hunting rifles, and are can not always be considered ‘assault weapons’ . Which leads us to #2, click the right arrow…

Myth #2- You can tell an ‘assault rifle’ just by looking at it
Assault weapons by definition are used for battlefield applications. But the media and lawmakers have blurred the lines of this definition to include anything that ‘looks’ like an assault weapon. This includes broad, erroneous assumptions about the weapons including things like “a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.” Up next, we tackle one of the most prevalent myths, click the right arrow below….

Myth #3 – Gun violence increases as gun ownership increases
This is debatable at best. The Washington Post recently pointed to a Duke University study that shows gun violence is high in the South, where gun ownership is high. But this study neglects to report that Utah and Minnesota have high rates of gun ownership and very low gun crime. A study by The Atlantic seems to how the real causation of gun violence: poverty. Which brings us to one of those ‘ viral’ myths that everyone talks about on Facebook…

Myth #4 – Australia’s gun confiscation reduced mass shootings to zero
This is a popular one on Facebook with the gun control crowd. It’ s true in some respect, Australia has had very few mass shootings since it’ s gun buy-back program in the 90’ s. But what everyone neglects to say is that gun deaths were falling drastically BEFORE the gun confiscation. And even Australia’ s own experts say attributing any decrease in violence to gun control is tenuous at best. Plus, Australia has seen a violent underground black market for guns blossom in the aftermath of gun control. Speaking of mass shootings, our next myth…

Myth #5- There were more mass shootings in 2015 than days of the year
This depends on your definition of ‘mass shooting’. Many media outlets, and the FBI in fact, define it as any case where 4 or more people were killed. And there were over 360 of those last year. But the overwhelming majority of those were the result of robbery, drugs, and gang violence. What we most think of as a ‘ mass shooting’ , in which the victims are random, occurs in a public place, and the shooter has some kind of political or social message, there were 4 (FOUR!) in 2015. Which brings us to the most common gun myth…

Myth #6 – Gun control reduces gun violence
Gun control advocates treat this as a forgone conclusion. But the data on whether gun control reduces crime is rarely decisive. Hundreds of studies have been done, and the data can really be parsed to support either side of the debate. There are cases where murder rates spike up after gun bans. In some places crime has been reduced after gun bans, but it’ s not clear if this has more to do with demographic shifts. In any case, when someone says definitively that gun control stops gun crime, they are probably using the only part of the data that suits their argument. But, don’ t most Americans favor gun control? Well….

Myth #7 – The majority of Americans favor gun control
Many media outlets treat the gun debate as if it’ s a forgone conclusion that Americans favor gun control. But Pew research polls show just how divisive this issue is. In a recent poll the data shows that about 50% of people want stricter gun laws. 50% of people support gun rights. But this all comes down to what you think guns are really used for….

Myth #8 – Guns are made to kill
Gun controllers believe that the only purpose of a gun is to kill someone or something. If that were true, guns are doing a pretty terrible job. According to Duke University, less than .02% of the guns in American households were used in a murder. And many of those guns were used in self-defense. The fact is that a gun’s best use is often to prevent crime, not perpetrate it. Which brings us to the contentious meaning of the 2nd Amendment…

Myth #9 – The Second Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to own the weapons of modern society
It’ s a familiar refrain: our forefather’ s could not have anticipated modern technology and would never have wanted citizens to have assault weapons. ‘ They were talking about muskets!’ goes the argument. But the spirit of the Second Amendment was to ensure the right of the people to defend themselves from government and other oppressors. And they felt it was so important they made it SECOND on a list of rights. How would citizens defend themselves from anything if we applied this logic and guaranteed everyone a right to own 18th century weapons? And how would the First Amendment work in modern times if we only applied it to technology available in the 18th century? Finally, we’ll talk about easily the most ridiculous gun myth…

Myth #10 – Gun free zones stop gun violence
This is an easy one to refute. Even with common sense we know that criminals would prefer to target places where the people are unarmed. There is plenty of research that shows that not only do gun free zones not reduce gun crimes, but the only thing that does is concealed carry laws.
PLEASE SHARE THIS ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, OR EMAIL IT TO YOUR FRIENDS.

https://www.selfrely.com/10gunmyths/

March 7, 2017

“Russian Collusion”, Joseph R. John, Capt USN [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 7:41 AM

The Duplicity of the “Russian Collusion” is the Collusion Between Obama, Democrat Senators, and the Russians

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 7, 2017: Op Ed # 340

Since the 1920s Russian Communists have tried to destabilize US elections, as they are currently trying to destabilize elections in France. Russian Communists have been very successful in supporting candidates for Congress in the US who want to bring down the US Constitutional form of government. Over the last 100 years, Russia promoted the philosophies of candidates in the US that resulted in the election of 70 Democratic members of Congress who are Socialists, Leftists, Communists, Progressives, and Muslims (you can easily obtain their names by making a request of Google for the “Socialists, Communists, and Progressives in Congress”).

The goal for all elections in the US should be to prevent the Russians, China, groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and any other foreign power from influencing US Congressional and Presidential elections. Following the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and the left of center liberal media establishment have been promoting Russian conspiracy theories as the reason why Hillary lost the election. The assertion is that the Russia worked with the Trump Presidential Campaign to hack the Democratic National Committee, to interfere with, and deny Hillary what she felt was her right to be elected to the presidency.

The Russian narrative of collusion is fake news propped up by the left of center liberal media establishment, in order to delegitimize President Trump. After 4 months of investigation, there is absolutely no evidence of collusion, or one source that the press can identify who can prove collusion. The Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, James R. Clapper, stated that there has been no evidence that Russia colluded with anyone in the Trump Presidential Campaign Organization, that there is no proof that Russia affected the votes in any state, or that Russia’s actions actually caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election.

Many leftist and progressive organizations have been working closely with Obama’s Organization For America (OFA), with Soros, Bill Ayers, and Valerie Jarret (who moved into Obama’s rented house in Washington) to initiate a silent coup d’état, to oust President Trump from office. Sources told the Daily Mail that Obama hates Trump and plans to bring down the Trump administration. Obama is employing 32,000 Alinsky trained radicals, operating out of 250 offices across the nation, who are being paid by Soros to sabotage the Trump administration.

Obama puts on a charming face for the press, but his hate for President Trump is evil. OFA is leading a full-fledged effort to deny President Trump control of the US Government, with the help of thousands of Obama’s political appointees, still in positions of leadership in the Intelligence Agencies and other departments of US Government. For the last 4 months, Obama has showed his true colors, in his concerted effort to employ OFA and the left of center liberal media establishment to allege that Russia colluded with the Trump Campaign to defeat Hillary and to support violent demonstrations in the streets.

The slow approval of members of President Trumps Cabinet by Democrats in the Senate, and the reluctance to approve over 500 sub-cabinet appointees requiring Senate approval. The slowdown has been orchestrated to allow the Obama political appointees to remain in their appointed positions throughout the government. The goal is to undermine the Trump administration and provide leak of damaging information to the press. All Obama appointees should be required to submit their resignation, as is custom following a presidential election, when a new administration gains power.

In June 2016, it was reported that Obama administration surrogates approached the FISA Court to surveille Donald Trump; the application was rejected by a Federal Judge. In October 2016, the Obama administration Justice Department submitted a second request to a FISA Court to surveil two Russian Banks that was approved. They were apparently successful with that wiretap, because in November the New York Times reported that it was learned “thru a wiretap” that General Flynn had spoken to Russian representatives in the course of communicating with 45 other governments (incidentally that was his job; Obama’s representatives were negotiating with Iran in meetings in the country of Oman long before Obama was inaugurated). Someone in Justice or in one the intelligence agencies leaked to the New York Times, that a wiretap had revealed that General Flynn had communicated with a representative of the Russian government.

On inauguration day, the New York Times reported in a front page story, that The White House received information from a wiretap, that there was no conclusive evidence of any wrong doing by the Trump Campaign with Russia. That was the second violation of federal law by leakers to the New York Times: those leakers should be prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act.

Yet the New York Times keeps reporting that President Donald Trump has given no proof of a wiretap of the Trump campaign; they refused to inform their readers that revealing details of a FISA wiretap is against federal law and details can’t be revealed to the general public. Certain provision s of the Espionage Act and Federal Law EO 1333, Section 23c allows the President of the United States to wiretap phones without a FISA Warrant (that is called collecting incidental intelligence); that may have been the way that Obama’s Justice Department wire tapped Donald Trump’s phones. The wiretap was not an FBI wiretap.

Only 17 days before Obama left office, he changed President Eisenhower’s, tried and true, method of handling very sensitive highly classified signal intelligence. Obama changed the manner in which highly classified and sensitive signal intelligence could be shared by the NSA; he didn’t make that damaging changed the previous 8 years. By authorized the NSA to share very sensitive information with 17 US Intelligence Agencies, Obama allowed too many people access to intelligence that had no need to know. That last minute change by Obama, made it very difficult to track who is currently releasing the classified intelligence information today. Ever since Hillary lost the election, intelligence leaks by intelligence agencies have been ongoing and damaging seriously National Security.

The Democrats tried to hide the fact that the Russian Ambassador had meetings in the Obama White House and Valerie Jarret 22 times to advance the extremely dangerous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement and support Valerie Jarret’s allies in Iran. In addition, 30 Democratic Senators met with Communist diplomats from Russia and China on Capitol Hill to tamp down opposition to, and advance Obama’s dangerous Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement.

It is not far-fetched to report, and there should be no surprise for the American people to learn that the Obama administration instigated the surveillance of the Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign, by simply reviewing how Obama tried to restrict the rights of American citizens, listed below, and learn how Obama violated the US Constitutional rights of Americans over the last 8 years:

(1) The Obama Justice Department wiretapped the telephone of James Rosen, a TV Press Reporter in violation of Freedom of the Press.

(2) The Obama Justice Department wiretapped and compromised the personal information of 28 AP Reporters.

(3) Obama’s IRS targeted Conservative Groups in the “Tea Party Scandal” and prevented them from registering as tax free organization to participate in national election; a violation of Freedom of the Right to participate in elections.

(4) Obama’s ATF “Operation Fast and Furious Scandal” perpetrated by then Attorney General Eric Holder transferred 2000 weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels was aimed at somehow compromising the right of Americans to purchase weapons from gun dealers in the US, in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of a US President to be held in contempt of Congress for his actions.

(5) When it was discovered that Hillary Clinton had transmitted Top Secret SCI messages via a private unclassified server located in the basement of her home for 4 years, and that some of the compartmented messages with even higher classifications may have compromised the safety of intelligent assets in foreign countries, and possibly resulted in their deaths, Obama said that he had no problem with her unclassified server. Hillary and Obama were responsible for compromising very sensitive national security information. Hillary’s transmissions may have led to the attack in Benghazi, because Hillary’s intercepted messages insisted on the removal of security for the Libyan Ambassador, leaving the US Mission virtually unprotected.

A review of the duplicity by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Valerie Jarret, Democratic Senators, and Democratic Congressmen in their meetings with Russians, that was ignored by the left of center liberal media establishment for 8 years. The Democrats can make the below listed egregious agreements with the Russians, yet the press didn’t accuse them of colluding with Russia. President Trump’s staff is being accused daily of wild Russian conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. When the American people compare the below listed information with the few phone calls made by General Flynn in the function of his duties, there should be no doubt about who has been colluding with Russia to the detriment of the United States:

(1) In 2012, shortly just prior to the presidential election, Obama was meeting with Putin’s number two, (then Russian President) Dmitry Medvedev). There was an open microphone and Obama was overheard — and it was reported — “You tell Vladimir that I’ll have a lot more flexibility after the election.”

(2) Then Russia invaded Crimea, and conquered the first country, since WWII, and Obama did absolutely nothing.

(3) Then Russia had their military personnel in unmarked uniforms attacked Ukraine; Ukraine literally begged the US for defensive weapons, and Obama did nothing.

(4) Despite the warning of Israel and many other US allies, Obama did nothing when Putin provided surface to air missiles to protect Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities, protecting them from military strikes by Israel.

(5) When Putin joined Iran and Assad in killing US trained Sunni freedom fighters throughout Syria, Obama did nothing.

(6) Obama allowed Hillary, his Secretary of State, to authorize the transfer of 20% of the United States Uranium to Russia.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/10/obama-approved-giving-iran-116-metric-tons-of-uranium-as-a-thank-you-gift/

(7) Hillary’s Clinton Foundation in Canada received support from a Putin Front Company and John Podesta received stock and was placed on the Board of Directors of that company following the transfer of the 20 % of the US’s uranium to Russia

The true “Russian Collusion” is the collusion between Barack Obama, the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, and the Russians. Obama approved giving Russia, 20% of the United States uranium production, as a thank you gift for supporting the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Agreement on the international stage, and gave Iran 116 metric tons of US uranium. Obama’s team used the pretext of Russian interference in the election to justify wiretapping the Trump Campaign, and to authorize illegal leaks to the press. Obama continues to oppose the legitimacy of President Trump’s election, opposes the retention of Attorney General Session, and was successful in opposing the retention of General Flynn as the National Security Advisor.

Obama is the first former occupant of the Oval Office in 240 years to try to bring down his successor by sabotaging his programs on a daily basis. The below listed article outlines the 64 ways Obama is sabotaging the Trump administration!!!

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

WND Exclusive

64 ways Obama is sabotaging Trump

Ex-president plots to force resignation or impeachment

Garth Kant

818

WASHINGTON – It might seem outrageous and unprecedented that a newly departed president would devote himself to overthrowing his successor, but that is exactly what a mountain of growing evidence appears to indicate.

“Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment,” the Daily Mail reported Wednesday.

The source also told the paper that Obama loathes President Trump and considers his presidency illegitimate.

“Obama is dismayed at the way Trump is tearing down his legacy – Obamacare, the social safety net and the welcome mat for refugees he put in place,” the source told the

The following is a list of what has been publicly reported, by WND and others, about what Obama is trying to do to oppose — many say destroy — the Trump presidency and how he is doing it:

1) Obama is using his new mansion, just two miles from the White House, as his headquarters in his insurgency against Trump.

2) Obama’s shadow White House has a taxpayer-funded office, a chief of staff and press secretary.

3) He is working behind the scenes to set up a shadow government to protect his legacy and sabotage the incoming administration.

4) A family source said Obama was reluctant to lead the opposition to Trump because he was “weary and burned out.” But top adviser Valerie Jarrett convinced him it was the only way to salvage his legacy.

5) The source said, “Obama doesn’t make a decision without her,” and he has now embraced his new role leading the campaign to sabotage the administration because he loathes Trump, whose presidency he considers illegitimate.

6) To guide and counsel Obama, Jarrett has moved into his 8,200-square-foot, $5.3-million mansion.

7) According to the source, Michelle Obama and Jarrett will strategize to topple Trump.

8) The former first lady and the Obama Foundation will both have offices in the mansion. Presumably, Jarrett will, too.

9) Obama will implement his plans through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action, or OFA, the organization that grew out of his campaign group, Organizing for America.

10) That will give Obama a virtual army of agitators and organizers at is disposal. Federal tax records show OFA has 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Another 25,000 are actively under training.

11) OFA has more than 250 offices across the country.

12) OFA is equipped with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, which it will use to rally resistance to Trump and get out the vote for Democratic Party candidates.

13) OFA is registered as a “social welfare” non-profit 501(c)(4), that doesn’t have to disclose its donors. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since 2013.

14) OFA volunteers are professionally trained organizers who go through a six-week training program that includes Alinsky agitation tactics. OFA is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers.

15) OFA plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump’s effort to repeal Obamacare.

16) Obama appeared to be behind anti-Trump protests. He praised demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban. And, after the election he personally rallied OFA troops to protect his legacy in a conference call. “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope” over the election results.”

17) After Trump’s victory, Obama also promised OFA activists he would soon join them in the battle. “Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” he said. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

18) He also said, “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them.”

19) Since the election, OFA has added staff and accelerated its recruitment of liberal activists.

20) OFA promises to fight Trump on illegal immigration, Obamacare, race relations and climate change.

21) Some of the anti-Trump marches organized by OFA across the country turned into riots.

22) OFA is distributing a training manual to anti-Trump activists.

23) The manual is published with OFA newly formed partner “Indivisible,” and advises protesters to go town halls held by GOP lawmakers, blend in, then protest.

24) OFA is working with Indivisible to conduct online training for protesters.

25) Indivisible leaders are associated with groups financed by radical leftist billionaire George Soros.

26) An OFA post on Facebook called on activists to mobilize against Republicans until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

27) The protesters disrupted town halls including one held in Utah by House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who was confronted by hundreds of angry protesters claiming to be his constituents.

28) The manual advised protesters to spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposed the Republican host’s positions. It said, “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urged them to ask “hostile” questions – while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” – and loudly boo the GOP politician.

29) An audio recording obtained by a Louisiana radio station documented that progressive activists plotted to take over a town hall meeting held by Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. Activists were instructed to dress like conservatives and leave at home “any signifier that you’re a liberal in order to blend in.”

30) The station identified one of the voices on the recording as James Proctor, a leader of Indivisible Acadiana, a local branch of the national Indivisible organization, which has organized hostile Republican town halls all around the country.

31) Protesters were advised to send video footage to local and national media. “Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating” for Republican lawmakers, the manual said, when “shared through social media and picked up by local and national media.”

32) Protesters gave networks footage of their confrontations with Chaffetz, forcing him to issue statements defending himself.

33) A study by the Media Research Center found that 88 percent of the broadcast news coverage of the Trump administration was “hostile” during the first 30 days of office. The study analyzed both tone and content for evening newscasts on ABC, NBC and CBS.

34) A script in the training manual advised callers to complain: “I’m honestly scared that a known racist and anti-Semite will be working just feet from the Oval Office … It is everyone’s business if a man who promoted white supremacy is serving as an adviser to the president.” But the document provided no evidence to support the accusations.

35) The manual also advised protesters to flood lawmakers’ offices with phone calls and emails demanding the resignation of top White House adviser Steve Bannon.

36) Protesters also stormed Republicans’ district offices. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., blamed a mob of anti-Trump activists for knocking unconscious a 71-year-old female staffer at his Southern California office.

37) Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said he was certain the former president and elements of the Democratic Party were behind the protests because they have been too organized and too professional to be random eruptions of grass-roots discontent. “Obama. George Soros money, I’m certain, is involved,” he said. “They also discuss how to play up to the media, and they illustrate that the media’s not very hard to convince. The media is on their side. The media is only too eager to cooperate, as we know.”

38) Trump agreed Obama was probably behind the protests. “Well, you never know what’s exactly happening behind the scenes,” Trump said. “You know, you’re probably right, or possibly right, but you never know. No, I think that President Obama is behind it because his people are certainly behind it. And the some of the leaks possibly come from that group, you know, some of the leaks which are really very serious leaks because they’re very bad in terms of national security. But I also understand that’s politics. And in terms of him being behind things, that’s politics, and it will probably continue.”

39) Limbaugh said, “Hedge funds and Hollywood are assisting him (Obama), so there is money and propaganda on his side. ABC is among the worst in the mainstream media, which is a total disgrace for Disney.”

40) Limbaugh also noted that impeachment talk is being used by Democrats to derail Trump: “Now, they don’t have the numbers in Congress to pull it off, but can you imagine if Democrat House managers even start breathing the word seriously? The media is gonna be all over it! The media’s gonna eat it up! The media’s gonna be asking Republicans, ‘Why aren’t you joining the Democrats? Don’t you understand? This is a serious movement to impeach the president. He’s doing great damage to the country.’ I can see it all now.”

41) “Obama has circumvented the Democrats with [Organizing for America] and has established a clandestine unaccountable political party taking money from questionable people,” said Martin Armstrong, whose Armstrong Economics provides commentary on a wide range of issues extending beyond economics, including history, global warming, real estate and world events.

42) Armstrong added: “Obama is behind the effort to derail and block the Trump administration on everything. However, Obama may be sowing the seeds of the destruction of the Democratic Party altogether. Those who think Obama is not behind this coup are blinded by their bias.”

43) Armstrong explained that Obama “is deliberately trying to create an uprising and is side-stepping the Democratic Party himself because they will not agree with his agenda.”

44) At the same time, Obama is said to be angling for control over the party by installing his former civil rights chief, Tom Perez, as the newly elected head of the Democratic National Committee. Perez vowed, “It’s time to organize and fight … We must stand up to protect President Obama’s accomplishments,” while also promising, “We’re going to build the strongest grassroots organizing force this country has ever seen.”

45) OFA is working with the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, or NDRC, launched recently by Obama former attorney general Eric Holder, to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts and to try to redraw the districts in a way more favorable to Democrats to increase their members in Congress.

46) Holder said he had discussed Obama fundraising for the NDRC and interacting with state lawmakers on the group’s behalf.

47) Spokesman Jared Leopold described the tax-exempt NDRC as a “super group” that brings together the efforts of the Democratic Governors Association, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC.

48) On Tuesday, Holder promised Democrats that Obama is getting ready for a public return to politics. “It’s coming. He’s coming,” Holder said while discussing NDRC, which Obama asked him to chair last year. “And he’s ready to roll,” and “will be a more visible part of the effort,” Holder added.

49) Obama signaled his intention before leaving the White House last fall, saying that his post-presidency focus would be on general assembly races and redistricting after the 2020 Census, trying to recapture some of the enormous number of seats Democrats lost at the state level during his presidency.

50) Obama said in September, “Once out of office, I’m gonna stop being polite and start getting real.”

51) Obama hinted that he planned to start speaking out more like an activist than a president. There are “things,” he said in an interview, “that in some ways I suspect I’m able to do better out of this office.” He elaborated that because of the “institutional constraints” of the presidency, “there are things I cannot say.”

52) Obama went on to essentially say he would be an activist after leaving office. “There are institutional obligations I have to carry out that are important for a president of the United States to carry out, but may not always align with what I think would move the ball down the field on the issues that I care most deeply about,” he said.

53) Then, in his final news conference as president, Obama vowed to take action if President Trump dared to “round up” children of illegal immigrants, “roll back voting rights” or engage in “systemic discrimination.”

54) Obama also indicated he would take a more activist role to defend “core values that may be at stake” under a Trump administration. “The reason that we are the only country among advanced democracies that makes it harder to vote, it traces directly back to Jim Crow and the legacy of slavery,” he said.

55) Obama warned Trump not to roll back his executive actions. During his campaign for president, Trump promised to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” Obama also lectured Trump about the use of executive orders, telling the incoming president to avoid taking unilateral action.

56) The Obama administration apparently spied on Trump’s presidential campaign and transition team. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he was concerned by the extent of surveillance but not completely surprised, because he “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.” Anonymous sources have been feeding information to the New York Times suggesting the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials, including intelligence agents.

57) In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election – and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians – across the government.

58) Those sources from the Obama administration claimed Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed – or its sources exposed – once power changed hands. So they reportedly pushed to preserve the alleged intelligence.

59) Obama White House officials took steps to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see the intelligence.

Sensational new report documents start of “CIVIL WAR II” in America. Enraged at losing the election, the left has launched an all-out effort to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency.

60) The sources claimed to suspect the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks, but the Times also reported that American officials acknowledged there is not confirmation of that.

61) The Times reported some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators – including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

62) Intelligence agencies kept the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government – and, in some cases, among European allies.

63) There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress.

64) In the weeks before the assessment was released in January, the intelligence community combed through databases for an array of communications and other information and began producing reports that showed there were contacts during the campaign between Trump associates and Russian officials. However, the Times acknowledged, the nature of the contacts remains unknown, and several of Trump’s associates have done business in Russia, and it was unclear if any of the contacts were related to business dealings.

December 17, 2016

Note on Pearl Harbor, Capt John [c]

To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Dec 7 at 3:35 AM

December 7, 2016: The 75th Anniversary of the Sneak Attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor

The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Imperial Forces of Japan, executed by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto’s strike plan “Z”, commenced at 7:48 AM Hawaiian Time. The base was attacked by 353 Imperial Japanese fighters, bomber, and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six Japanese aircraft carriers. All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four sunk. All but the USS Arizona (BB-39) were later raised, and six were returned to service and went on to fight the Imperial Forces of Japan in the WWII. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, an anti-aircraft training ship, and one minelayer. In addition 188 U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,403 Americans were killed and 1,178 others were wounded. However, important base installations such as the power station, shipyard, maintenance, and fuel and torpedo storage facilities, as well as the submarine piers and headquarters building (also home of the intelligence section) were not attacked. Japanese losses were light; 29 aircraft and five midget submarines were lost, and 64 servicemen killed. One Japanese sailor, Kazuo Sakamaki, was captured.

In the wake of the attack, 15 Medal Of Honor, 51 Navy Crosses, 53 Silver Stars, 4 Navy and Marine Corps Medals, one Distinguished Flying Cross, four Distinguished Service Crosses, one Distinguished Service Medal, and three Bronze Star Medals were awarded to the American servicemen who distinguished themselves in combat at Pearl Harbor. Additionally, a special military award, the Pearl Harbor Commemorative medal was later authorized for all military veterans of the attack

Japan’s Prime Minister’s Will Visit Pearl Harbor Today

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced he would travel to Pearl Harbor today, to recognize the 75th Anniversary of Japan’s attack on the home port of the, US Navy’s Pacific Fleet. Prime Minister Abe is the first Japanese leader to visit Pearl Harbor to “pay tribute [and] comfort the souls” of those who died from both countries during World War II. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor “awoke a sleeping giant”. The attack was labeled “A Day of Infamy” by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In the next 3 years, 7 months, and 25 days, the US Armed Forces and their Allies in the Pacific Theatre, defeated the Imperial Forces of Japan. On September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur, USMA ’03, USA, representing the Combined Allied Forces, accepted the “Unconditional Surrender” of the Imperial Forces of Japan aboard the USS Missouri (BB-63) in Tokyo Bay.

Pearl Harbor – 75 years on

In the below listed Op Ed, by Admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. USNA ’52, USN (Ret), who was the Commander–in-Chief, of the US Pacific Fleet, and the Senior US Military Representative to the United Nations, exposes the US military personnel who were responsible for failing to alert Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, and Lt. General Walter Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii, of the pending attack by Japan, were accused of dereliction of duty following the attack. Admiral Kimmel was reduced in rank to Rear Admiral, and retired from the US Navy. Lt General Short was reduced in rank to Major General and retired from the US Army. Admiral Lyons recommends in the below listed Op Ed that Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short have their honor, reputations, and ranks restored by Congress.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

From: James A. Lyons, Jr
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 6:27 AM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: Op-Ed – Pearl Harbor – 75 years on

My latest op-ed published in the Washington Times.

As an aside, it made the cover of the National Enquirer.

All The Best
Ace

James A. Lyons, Jr.
Admiral, USN (Ret)

Pearl Harbor, 75 years on

Remembering the grim day and an ongoing injustice

By James A. Lyons – – Sunday, December 4, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The 75th anniversary of the Imperial Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor will soon be remembered again as a “Day of Infamy.” On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan launched over 353 aircraft from six carriers, flawlessly executing Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto’s strike plan “Z” and succeeded in crippling the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

How could the commanders in Hawaii be so unprepared when in Washington both the Army and Navy intelligence organizations had broken key Japanese diplomatic codes, including the high level “Purple” code in which Japan was conducting its peace negotiations with the United States? Whether the Japanese naval code “JN-25” was broken prior to the attack remains unknown.

In their new book, “A Matter of Honor,” by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, the authors provide information never before revealed. The authors make the case for restoring the personal reputation, honor and ranks of the two Pearl Harbor commanders who were unjustly made the scapegoats.

The second new book, “Into the Lion’s Mouth” by Larry Loftis, discusses the most successful British double agent, “Dusko Popov,” the real life inspiration for Ian Fleming’s James Bond and Popov’s relationship to Pearl Harbor. In short, the Japanese were fascinated by the British surprise airstrike at Taranto, which destroyed the Italian Fleet primarily by dropping torpedoes in relatively shallow water. They prepared questions and passed them to Germany who in turn gave them to Popov. He turned them over to the FBI on his arrival in New York in August 1941. The U.K. raid on Taranto became the blueprint for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. Loftis contends that J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI Director, never turned over the questions to the military or to the president. Former CIA Director William Casey made the same charges in 1988 and blamed Hoover for failing to share the information with the military. However, according to Mr. Summers and Ms. Swan, Hoover did turn over paraphrased versions of the question to military intelligence who failed to recognize the significance of this information.

Of the eight official inquiries, the most biased conducted was by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts shortly following the attack. Neither Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, or Lt. Gen. Walter Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii, received any information from the decrypted codes which would have alerted them to the Japanese fleet’s intentions. Yet the Roberts commission declared Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short derelict in carrying their duties and held them solely responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. None of the 10 Washington officials authorized to receive the decrypted information was held accountable. Cover up?

The Washington officials authorized to receive the decrypted “Purple” intelligence, referred to as “Magic,” included the Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall; Chief of Naval Operations Harold Stark; Chief of Navy War Plans RADM Richmond K. Turner; Brig. Gen. Gerow; head of Army War Plans; heads of both Army and Navy Intelligence, Secretary of War (Army) Stimson; Secretary of Navy Knox; the president and the Secretary of State Cordell Hull.

The president only saw brief summaries of “Magic” decoded information and at times only received verbal briefings. Further, Marshall and Stark at one point denied the president and secretary of State any “Magic” information for four months because they didn’t trust people around them. Of course, one person who did see Magic was Winston Churchill. The U.S. provided three “Purple” machines to the U.K. to facilitate their breaking of the code. Another machine went to the U.S. Army and two went to the Navy. Interesting, one “Purple” machine was sent to the naval station CAST at Cavite in the Philippines for use by Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Harold Hart. Astonishingly, none were provided to the Hawaii Commanders Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short. What use MacArthur made of the Purple intelligence is unknown. Further, he was unprepared for the Japanese attack that destroyed our FAREAST Air Force at Clark AFB nine hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was never held accountable.

One other aspect that is seldom mentioned is that the Dutch Army cryptanalysts had also broken the Japanese diplomatic code “Purple.” According to Brig. Gen. Elliot Thorpe, USA (ret.) when he was the army attaché in Java, Gen. Tec Pooten, CINC of Far East Dutch Army, provided him a decrypted message from Tokyo to the Japanese Ambassador in Bangkok which told of the upcoming attack on Hawaii, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand. After sending four messages about the upcoming attack, Thorpe as he recalled was directed by our War Department to send “no more on this subject.”

“Magic” decrypted information held a wealth of information. There was the “bomb plot” grid message #83 of Sept. 24, 1941, which divided the fleet anchorages in Pearl Harbor into bombing sectors. We also had the Nov. 30, 1941 message to designated Japanese Embassies to destroy their codes, files, etc. Washington cleared officials also had the 14-part message on Dec. 6 1941, the Japanese response to the secretary of State’s Nov. 26 ultimatum, ceasing all negotiations to which President Roosevelt remarked, “This means war.” Yet none of this critical intelligence was passed to the Hawaii Commanders. As an aside, Churchill was getting much of this information as well. We do know it was his goal to involve “isolationist” America in the war.

The three principals that should have been held accountable were Gen. Marshall, Adm. Stark and Adm. Turner, who assumed responsibility for distributing the decrypted information for the Navy. It clearly is time for Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short to have their honor, reputations and ranks restored. It is a matter of honor for the Navy, Army, and country to correct this terrible injustice.

• James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

[Personal note on this: for over 40 years I have been a proponent of the position that FDR withheld information for the purposes of involving the U.S.A. in the war and to get himself out of the Great Depression. The first purpose is self-evident. However, few know that FDR kept the U.S. in the depression for longer than necessary by, among several wrongful acts, allowing the dollar to become the global currency, and by fixing the dollar to gold during this economic crisis instead of letting it float. By 1938, most of Europe was out of the depression as they prepared for war. FDR did not. Instead, this stalwart liberal insisted on domestic policies that included the National Recovery Act, unconstitutional on its face, called the Negro Ruination Act by integrationists. The NRA permitted businesses to fire colored employees before firing white employees, just one of many discriminatory and crony features. JPB]

December 1, 2016

All Hands FYI Armed Islamic Groups training in the U.S.A.

FYI:

I’ve looked, it is true and verified by Stuart Varney of Varn&y Co., the most watched business news show on cable.

http://www.fuqrafiles.com

Be advised of the Islamaburg NYS compound and remember what happened with Bill Clinton’s AG, Janet Reno, and Ruby Ridge in Waco TX.

September 15, 2016

William Jefferson Clinton on Immigration [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrjassoc@earthlink.net
Today at 4:39 AM

Only 1 ½ minutes long, but an Excellent speech by Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Regional Chairman, Veterans 4 Trump, Southern California (Orange County, Imperial County, and San Diego County)

San Diego, CA 92108

September 1, 2016

Imagine There’s No Border, Victor Hanson [nc]

Imagine There’s No Border
September 1, 2016 12:08 pm / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
A world without boundaries is a fantasy.
By Victor Davis Hanson // City Journal

Borders are in the news as never before. After millions of young, Muslim, and mostly male refugees flooded into the European Union last year from the war-torn Middle East, a popular revolt arose against the so-called Schengen Area agreements, which give free rights of movement within Europe. The concurrent suspension of most E.U. external controls on immigration and asylum rendered the open-borders pact suddenly unworkable. The European masses are not racists, but they now apparently wish to accept Middle Eastern immigrants only to the degree that these newcomers arrive legally and promise to become European in values and outlook—protocols that the E.U. essentially discarded decades ago as intolerant. Europeans are relearning that the continent’s external borders mark off very different approaches to culture and society from what prevails in North Africa or the Middle East.

A similar crisis plays out in the United States, where President Barack Obama has renounced his former opposition to open borders and executive-order amnesties. Since 2012, the U.S. has basically ceased policing its southern border. The populist pushback against the opening of the border with Mexico gave rise to the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump—predicated on the candidate’s promise to build an impenetrable border wall—much as the flood of migrants into Germany fueled opposition to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Driving the growing populist outrage in Europe and North America is the ongoing elite push for a borderless world. Among elites, borderlessness has taken its place among the politically correct positions of our age—and, as with other such ideas, it has shaped the language we use. The descriptive term “illegal alien” has given way to the nebulous “unlawful immigrant.” This, in turn, has given way to “undocumented immigrant,” “immigrant,” or the entirely neutral “migrant”—a noun that obscures whether the individual in question is entering or leaving. Such linguistic gymnastics are unfortunately necessary. Since an enforceable southern border no longer exists, there can be no immigration law to break in the first place.

Today’s open-borders agenda has its roots not only in economic factors—the need for low-wage workers who will do the work that native-born Americans or Europeans supposedly will not—but also in several decades of intellectual ferment, in which Western academics have created a trendy field of “borders discourse.” What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs, methods of marginalization designed by those in power, mostly to stigmatize and oppress the “other”—usually the poorer and less Western—who arbitrarily ended up on the wrong side of the divide. “Where borders are drawn, power is exercised,” as one European scholar put it. This view assumes that where borders are not drawn, power is not exercised—as if a million Middle Eastern immigrants pouring into Germany do not wield considerable power by their sheer numbers and adroit manipulation of Western notions of victimization and grievance politics. Indeed, Western leftists seek political empowerment by encouraging the arrival of millions of impoverished migrants.

Dreams of a borderless world are not new, however. The biographer and moralist Plutarch claimed in his essay “On Exile” that Socrates had once asserted that he was not just an Athenian but instead “a citizen of the cosmos.” In later European thought, Communist ideas of universal labor solidarity drew heavily on the idea of a world without borders. “Workers of the world, unite!” exhorted Marx and Engels. Wars broke out, in this thinking, only because of needless quarreling over obsolete state boundaries. The solution to this state of endless war, some argued, was to eliminate borders in favor of transnational governance. H. G. Wells’s prewar science-fiction novel The Shape of Things to Come envisioned borders eventually disappearing as elite transnational polymaths enforced enlightened world governance. Such fictions prompt fads in the contemporary real world, though attempts to render borders unimportant—as, in Wells’s time, the League of Nations sought to do—have always failed. Undaunted, the Left continues to cherish the vision of a borderless world as morally superior, a triumph over artificially imposed difference.

Yet the truth is that borders do not create difference—they reflect it. Elites’ continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive.
H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel “The Shape of Things to Come”; envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

H. G. Wells’s science-fiction novel “The Shape of Things to Come” envisioned a borderless world run by transnational superelites. (KEYSTONE-FRANCE/GAMMA-KEYSTONE/GETTY IMAGES)

Borders—and the fights to keep or change them—are as old as agricultural civilization. In ancient Greece, most wars broke out over border scrubland. The contested upland eschatia offered little profit for farming but possessed enormous symbolic value for a city-state to define where its own culture began and ended. The self-acclaimed “citizen of the cosmos” Socrates nonetheless fought his greatest battle as a parochial Athenian hoplite in the ranks of the phalanx at the Battle of Delium—waged over the contested borderlands between Athens and Thebes. Fifth-century Athenians such as Socrates envisioned Attica as a distinct cultural, political, and linguistic entity, within which its tenets of radical democracy and maritime-based imperialism could function quite differently from the neighboring oligarchical agrarianism at Thebes. Attica in the fourth century BC built a system of border forts to protect its northern boundary.

Throughout history, the trigger points of war have traditionally been such borderlands—the methoria between Argos and Sparta, the Rhine and Danube as the frontiers of Rome, or the Alsace-Lorraine powder keg between France and Germany. These disputes did not always arise, at least at first, as efforts to invade and conquer a neighbor. They were instead mutual expressions of distinct societies that valued clear-cut borders—not just as matters of economic necessity or military security but also as a means of ensuring that one society could go about its unique business without the interference and hectoring of its neighbors.

Advocates for open borders often question the historical legitimacy of such territorial boundaries. For instance, some say that when “Alta” California declared its autonomy from Mexico in 1846, the new border stranded an indigenous Latino population in what would shortly become the 31st of the United States. “We didn’t cross the border,” these revisionists say. “The border crossed us.” In fact, there were probably fewer than 10,000 Spanish-speakers residing in California at the time. Thus, almost no contemporary Californians of Latino descent can trace their state residency back to the mid-nineteenth century. They were not “crossed” by borders. And north–south demarcation, for good or evil, didn’t arbitrarily separate people.

What we might call post-borderism argues that boundaries even between distinct nations are mere artificial constructs.

The history of borders has been one of constant recalibration, whether dividing up land or unifying it. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 was idealistic not for eliminating borders but for drawing new ones. The old borders, established by imperial powers, supposedly caused World War I; the new ones would better reflect, it was hoped, ethnic and linguistic realities, and thus bring perpetual peace. But the world created at Versailles was blown apart by the Third Reich. German chancellor Adolf Hitler didn’t object to the idea of borders per se; rather, he sought to remake them to encompass all German-speakers—and later so-called Aryans—within one political entity, under his absolute control. Many nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century German intellectuals and artists—among them the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, historian Oswald Spengler, and composer Richard Wagner—agreed that the Roman Empire’s borders marked the boundaries of civilization. Perversely, however, they celebrated their status as the unique “other” that had been kept out of a multiracial Western civilization. Instead, Germany mythologized itself as racially exceptional, precisely because, unlike other Western European nations, it was definable not only by geography or language but also by its supposed racial purity. The fairy-tale origins of the German Volk were traced back before the fifth century AD and predicated on the idea that Germanic tribes for centuries were kept on the northern and eastern sides of the Danube and Rhine Rivers. Thus, in National Socialist ideology, early German, white-skinned, Aryan noble savages paradoxically avoided a mongrelizing and enervating assimilation into the civilized Roman Empire—an outcome dear to the heart of Nazi crackpot racial theorist Alfred Rosenberg (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) and the autodidact Adolf Hitler. World War II was fought to restore the old Eastern European borders that Hitler and Mussolini had erased—but it ended with the creation of entirely new ones, reflecting the power and presence of Soviet continental Communism, enforced by the huge Russian Red Army.

Few escape petty hypocrisy when preaching the universal gospel of borderlessness. Barack Obama has caricatured the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border as nonsensical, as if borders are discriminatory and walls never work. Obama, remember, declared in his 2008 speech in Berlin that he wasn’t just an American but also a “citizen of the world.” Yet the Secret Service is currently adding five feet to the White House fence—presumably on the retrograde logic that what is inside the White House grounds is different from what is outside and that the higher the fence goes (“higher and stronger,” the Secret Service promises), the more of a deterrent it will be to would-be trespassers. If Obama’s previous wall was six feet high, the proposed 11 feet should be even better.

In 2011, open-borders advocate Antonio Villaraigosa became the first mayor in Los Angeles history to build a wall around the official mayoral residence. His un-walled neighbors objected, first, that there was no need for such a barricade and, second, that it violated a city ordinance prohibiting residential walls higher than four feet. But Villaraigosa apparently wished to emphasize the difference between his home and others (or between his home and the street itself), or was worried about security, or saw a new wall as iconic of his exalted office.

“You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world,” Secretary of State John Kerry recently enthused to the graduating class at Northeastern University. He didn’t sound envious, though, perhaps because Kerry himself doesn’t live in such a world. If he did, he never would have moved his 76-foot luxury yacht from Boston Harbor across the state border to Rhode Island in order to avoid $500,000 in sales taxes and assorted state and local taxes.

While elites can build walls or switch zip codes to insulate themselves, the consequences of their policies fall heavily on the nonelites who lack the money and influence to navigate around them. The contrast between the two groups—Peggy Noonan described them as the “protected” and the “unprotected”—was dramatized in the presidential campaign of Jeb Bush. When the former Florida governor called illegal immigration from Mexico “an act of love,” his candidacy was doomed. It seemed that Bush had the capital and influence to pick and choose how the consequences of his ideas fell upon himself and his family—in a way impossible for most of those living in the southwestern United States. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg offers another case study. The multibillionaire advocates for a fluid southern border and lax immigration enforcement, but he has also stealthily spent $30 million to buy up four homes surrounding his Palo Alto estate. They form a sort of no-man’s-land defense outside his own Maginot Line fence, presumably designed against hoi polloi who might not share Zuckerberg’s taste or sense of privacy. Zuckerberg’s other estate in San Francisco is prompting neighbors’ complaints because his security team takes up all the best parking spaces. Walls and border security seem dear to the heart of the open-borders multibillionaire—when it’s his wall, his border security.

This self-serving dynamic operates beyond the individual level as well. “Sanctuary cities,” for instance, proclaim amnesty for illegal aliens within their municipal boundaries. But proud as they are of their cities’ disdain for federal immigration law, residents of these liberal jurisdictions wouldn’t approve of other cities nullifying other federal laws. What would San Franciscans say if Salt Lake City declared the Endangered Species Act null and void within its city limits, or if Carson City unilaterally suspended federal background checks and waiting periods for handgun purchases? Moreover, San Francisco and Los Angeles do believe in clearly delineated borders when it comes to their right to maintain a distinct culture, with distinct rules and customs. Their self-righteousness aside, sanctuary cities neither object to the idea of borders nor to their enforcement—only to the notion that protecting the southern U.S. border is predicated on the very same principles.

More broadly, ironies and contradictions abound in the arguments and practices of open-borders advocates. In academia, even modern historians of the ancient world, sensing the mood and direction of larger elite culture, increasingly rewrite the fall of fifth-century AD Rome, not as a disaster of barbarians pouring across the traditional fortified northern borders of the Rhine and Danube—the final limites that for centuries kept out perceived barbarism from classical civilization—but rather as “late antiquity,” an intriguing osmosis of melting borders and cross-fertilization, leading to a more diverse and dynamic intersection of cultures and ideas. Why, then, don’t they cite Vandal treatises on medicine, Visigothic aqueducts, or Hunnish advances in dome construction that contributed to this rich new culture of the sixth or seventh century AD? Because these things never existed.

Academics may now caricature borders, but key to their posturing is either an ignorance of, or an unwillingness to address, why tens of millions of people choose to cross borders in the first place, leaving their homelands, language fluency, or capital—and at great personal risk. The answer is obvious, and it has little to do with natural resources or climate: migration, as it was in Rome during the fifth century AD, or as it was in the 1960s between mainland China and Hong Kong—and is now in the case of North and South Korea—has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations. People walk, climb, swim, and fly across borders, secure in the knowledge that boundaries mark different approaches to human experience, with one side usually perceived as more successful or inviting than the other.

Western rules that promote a greater likelihood of consensual government, personal freedom, religious tolerance, transparency, rationalism, an independent judiciary, free-market capitalism, and the protection of private property combine to offer the individual a level of prosperity, freedom, and personal security rarely enjoyed at home. As a result, most migrants make the necessary travel adjustments to go westward—especially given that Western civilization, uniquely so, has usually defined itself by culture, not race, and thus alone is willing to accept and integrate those of different races who wish to share its protocols.

Many unassimilated Muslims in the West often are confused about borders and assume that they can ignore Western jurisprudence and yet rely on it in extremis. Today’s migrant from Morocco might resent the bare arms of women in France, or the Pakistani new arrival in London might wish to follow sharia law as he knew it in Punjab. But implicit are two unmentionable constants: the migrant most certainly does not wish to return to face sharia law in Morocco or Pakistan. Second, if he had his way, institutionalizing his native culture into that of his newly adopted land, he would eventually flee the results—and once again likely go somewhere else, for the same reasons that he left home in the first place. London Muslims may say that they demand sharia law on matters of religion and sex, but such a posture assumes the unspoken condition that the English legal system remains supreme, and thus, as Muslim minorities, they will not be thrown out of Britain as religious infidels—as Christians are now expelled from the Middle East.

Even the most adamant ethnic chauvinists who want to erase the southern border assume that some sort of border is central to their own racial essence. The National Council of La Raza (“the race”; Latin, radix) is the largest lobbying body for open borders with Mexico. Yet Mexico itself supports the idea of boundaries. Mexico City may harp about alleged racism in the United States directed at its immigrants, but nothing in U.S. immigration law compares with Mexico’s 1974 revision of its “General Law of Population” and its emphasis on migrants not upsetting the racial makeup of Mexico—euphemistically expressed as preserving “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” In sum, Mexican nationals implicitly argue that borders, which unfairly keep them out of the United States, are nonetheless essential to maintaining their own pure raza.

Migration has usually been a one-way street, from the non-West to the West or its Westernized manifestations.

Mexico, in general, furiously opposes enforcing the U.S.–Mexican border and, in particular, the proposed Trump wall that would bar unauthorized entry into the U.S.—not on any theory of borders discourse but rather because Mexico enjoys fiscal advantages in exporting its citizens northward, whether in ensuring nearly $30 billion in remittances, creating a powerful lobby of expatriates in the U.S., or finding a safety valve for internal dissent. Note that this view does not hold when it comes to accepting northward migrations of poorer Central Americans. In early 2016, Mexico ramped up its border enforcement with Guatemala, adding more security forces, and rumors even circulated of a plan to erect occasional fences to augment the natural barriers of jungle and rivers. Apparently, Mexican officials view poorer Central Americans as quite distinct from Mexicans—and thus want to ensure that Mexico remains separate from a poorer Guatemala.

When I wrote an article titled “Do We Want Mexifornia?” for City Journal ’s Spring 2002 issue, I neither invented the word “Mexifornia” nor intended it as a pejorative. Instead, I expropriated the celebratory term from Latino activists, both in the academy and in ethnic gangs in California prisons. In Chicano studies departments, the fusion of Mexico and California was envisioned as a desirable and exciting third-way culture. Mexifornia was said to be arising within 200 to 300 miles on either side of an ossified Rio Grande border. Less clearly articulated were Mexifornia’s premises: millions of Latinos and mestizos would create a new ethnic zone, which, for some mysterious reason, would also enjoy universities, sophisticated medical services, nondiscrimination laws, equality between the sexes, modern housing, policing, jobs, commerce, and a judiciary—all of which would make Mexifornia strikingly different from what is currently found in Mexico and Central America.

When Latino youths disrupt a Donald Trump rally, they often wave Mexican flags or flash placards bearing slogans such as “Make America Mexico Again.” But note the emotional paradox: in anger at possible deportation, undocumented aliens nonsensically wave the flag of the country that they most certainly do not wish to return to, while ignoring the flag of the nation in which they adamantly wish to remain. Apparently, demonstrators wish to brand themselves with an ethnic cachet but without sacrificing the advantages that being an American resident has over being a Mexican citizen inside Mexico. If no borders existed between California and Mexico, then migrants in a few decades might head to Oregon, even as they demonstrated in Portland to “Make Oregon into California.”

Removing borders in theory, then, never seems to match expectations in fact, except in those rare occasions when nearly like societies exist side by side. No one objects to a generally open Canadian border because passage across it, numbers-wise, is roughly identical in either direction—and Canadians and Americans share a language and similar traditions and standard of living, along with a roughly identical approach to democracy, jurisprudence, law enforcement, popular culture, and economic practice. By contrast, weakening demarcated borders between diverse peoples has never appealed to the citizens of distinct nations. Take even the most vociferous opponents of a distinguishable and enforceable border, and one will observe a disconnect between what they say and do—given the universal human need to circumscribe, demarcate, and protect one’s perceived private space.

Again, the dissipation of national borders is possible only between quite similar countries, such as Canada and the U.S. or France and Belgium, or on those few occasions when a supranational state or empire can incorporate different peoples by integrating, assimilating, and intermarrying tribes of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities into a common culture—and then, of course, protect them with distinct and defensible external borders. But aside from Rome before the fourth century AD and America of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, few societies have been able to achieve E pluribus unum. Napoleon’s transnational empire didn’t last 20 years. Britain never tried to create a holistic overseas body politic in the way that, after centuries of strife, it had forged the English-speaking United Kingdom. The Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires all fell apart after World War I, in a manner mimicked by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s. Rwanda and Iraq don’t reflect the meaninglessness of borders but the desire of distinct peoples to redraw colonial lines to create more logical borders to reflect current religious, ethnic, and linguistic realities. When Ronald Reagan thundered at the Brandenburg Gate, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” he assumed that by 1987, German-speakers on both sides of the Berlin Wall were more alike than not and in no need of a Soviet-imposed boundary inside Germany. Both sides preferred shared consensual government to Communist authoritarianism. Note that Reagan did not demand that Western nations dismantle their own borders with the Communist bloc.

“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” Robert Frost famously wrote, “That wants it down.” True, but the poet concedes in his “Mending Wall” that in the end, he accepts the logic of his crustier neighbor: “He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’ ” From my own experience in farming, two issues—water and boundaries—cause almost all feuds with neighbors. As I write, I’m involved in a border dispute with a new neighbor. He insists that the last row of his almond orchard should be nearer to the property line than is mine. That way, he can use more of my land as common space to turn his equipment than I will use of his land. I wish that I could afford to erect a wall between us.

The end of borders, and the accompanying uncontrolled immigration, will never become a natural condition—any more than sanctuary cities, unless forced by the federal government, will voluntarily allow out-of-state agencies to enter their city limits to deport illegal aliens, or Mexico will institutionalize free entry into its country from similarly Spanish-speaking Central American countries.

Borders are to distinct countries what fences are to neighbors: means of demarcating that something on one side is different from what lies on the other side, a reflection of the singularity of one entity in comparison with another. Borders amplify the innate human desire to own and protect property and physical space, which is impossible to do unless it is seen—and can be so understood—as distinct and separate. Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won’t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition—what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.

August 11, 2016

Dick Morris’ bio of Hillary Clinton [nc]

Dick Morris is a nationally recognized political campaign adviser, analyst and author. He was the senior political adviser to Bill Clinton before and after his occupation of the White House. He was campaign manager of Clinton’s 1996 re-election, and the architect of his successful “triangulation” rhetorical ruse. Clinton’s communications director George Stephanopoulos said of Morris, “No single person had more power over [Bill Clinton].”

This week, in a message entitled “What Bill Left Out, Morris corrected the record regarding Clinton’s glowing remarks about Hillary Clinton, her personal attributes and professional achievements. Morris’s insights into the Clintons are priceless.

What follows is a transcript of Morris’s comments:

“Bill Clinton talked at length about Hillary’s idealistic work in college and law school, but he omits that she was defending the Black Panthers who killed security guards; they were on trial in New Haven. She monitored the trial while she was in law school to find evidence that could be grounds for reversal in the event they were convicted.

“That summer she went to work for the True-Haft (SP) law firm in CA, headed by True Haft who is the head of the CA Communist Party and that’s when she got involved with Saul Alinsky, who became something of a mentor for the rest of her life.

“Then Bill says that she went off to Massachusetts and he went to Arkansas, and eventually Hillary followed her heart to join him in Arkansas. He omits that she went to work for the Watergate Committee and was fired from that job for taking home evidence and hiding documents that they needed in the impeachment inquiry. Then she took the DC Bar exam and flunked it. She went to Arkansas because that is the only bar exam she could pass.

“He talked about how in the 1970’s she took all kinds of pro-bono cases to defend women and children. In her memoirs, she cites one which was a custody case and that’s it. In fact, in 1975 she represented a guy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and got him off by claiming the girl had had fantasies of sex with an older man. In 1980 she gave an interview about it and she joked that she knew the guy was guilty but got him off anyway.

“Then Bill discusses Hillary’s legal career at the Rose Law firm. He doesn’t mention that she made partner when he was elected governor and was only hired when he got elected as attorney general.

“He makes as if it was a public service job — it wasn’t. Her main job was to get state business, and she got tens-of-millions of dollars of state business, then hid her participation and the fees by taking an extra share of non-state business to compensate for the fees on state business that she brought in. Her other job was to call the state banking commissioner any time one of her banks got into trouble to get them off.

“Bill speaks at length how Hillary was a mother, juggling career and family, taking Chelsea to soccer games and stuff — that’s nonsense. Hillary was a mother but Chelsea in the Arkansas governor’s mansion had a staff of nannies and agents to drive her around and people to be with her, and Hillary didn’t have to bother with any of that. All of that was paid for by the state.

“He says she became the warrior in chief over the family finances and that was true, and the result is she learned how to steal.

“She accepted a $100,000 bribe from the poultry industry in return for Bill going easy on regulating them, despite new standards. Jim Blair, the poultry lobbyist, gave her $1,000 to invest in the Futures Market and lined up seven to eight other investors and their winnings were all deposited into Hillary’s account. She made $100,000 in a year and she was out. That essentially was a bribe.

”[She did] a phony real-estate deal for Jim McDougal and the Madison Bank to deceive the federal regulators by pretending someone else was buying the property. She was called before a grand jury in 1995 about that but, conveniently, the billing records were lost, couldn’t be found and there wasn’t proof that she worked on it.

“Bill talks about her work on the health care task force but doesn’t say the reason it didn’t pass was the task force was discredited because the meetings were all held in secret. A federal judge forced them open and fined the task force several hundred thousand dollars because of their secrecy.

“He says that after the health care bill failed in 1994, Hillary went to work on adopting each piece of it piecemeal — mainly health insurance for children.

“That is completely the opposite of the truth. The fact is when that bill failed, I called Hillary and I suggested that she support a proposal by Republican Bob Dole that we cover children, and she said, ‘We can’t just cover one part of this. You have to change everything or change nothing.’ Then in 1997 when I repeated that advice to Bill Clinton, we worked together to pass the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I found a lot of the money for that in the tobacco settlement that my friend Dick Scruggs was negotiating.

“Then Bill extols her record in the U.S. Senate. In fact, she did practically nothing. There were seven or eight bills that she introduced that passed; almost all of which were symbolic — renaming a courthouse, congratulating a high school team on winning the championship. There was only one vaguely substantive bill, and that had a lot of co-sponsors of whom Hillary was just one.

“Then he goes to her record in the State Department and manages to tell that story without mentioning the word Benghazi, without mentioning her secret emails, without mentioning he was getting tens of millions — $220 million in speaking fees in return for favorable actions by the State Department.

“Also totally lacking in the speech was anything about the war on terror — terror is a word you don’t hear at the Democratic Convention.

“Bill says that Hillary passed tough sanctions on Iran for their nuclear program. The opposite is true.

“Every time a tough sanction bill was introduced by Senators Menendez or Kirk, Hillary would send Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman to Capital Hill to testify against it and urge it not to pass, and it was over Hillary’s objections that those sanctions were put into place.

”[Liberal columnist] Maureen Dowd called the speech by Bill Clinton “air brushed.”

“It was a hell of a lot more than that — it was fiction.

(Also see Morris’s comments after Clinton’s DNC acceptance speech. “Its strategy and message will be interdicted by reality at every turn. … She basically has no message. … Her entire campaign is, ‘I’m a woman and I am running against Donald Trump. … She began her speech by saying let’s compromise and work together. Is there any woman in the world less likely to compromise?”)

August 4, 2016

Muslim Refugee Resettlement in the U.S.A. – reference links at end

WHERE MUSLIM REFUGEES RESETTLED IN YOUR TOWN IN 2015 and they are all on Welfare!

STATE AND CITY REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT 2015
AK Anchorage 125
AL Mobile 125
AR Springdale 10
AZ Glendale 895
AZ Phoenix 1,459
AZ Tucson 935
CA Anaheim 175
CA Fullerton 10
CA Garden Grove 150
CA Glendale 1,420
CA Los Angeles 490
CA Los Gatos 144
CA Modesto 250
CA Oakland 615
CA Sacramento 1,276
CA San Bernardino 65
CA San Diego 3,103
CA San Francisco 5
CA San Jose 142
CA Turlock 120
CA Walnut Creek 90
CO Colorado Springs 138
CO Denver 1,690
CO Greeley 150
CT Bridgeport 100
CT Hartford 285
CT New Haven 205
DC Washington 15
DE Wilmington 5
FL Clearwater 200
FL Delray Beach 95
FL Doral 160
FL Jacksonville 895
FL Miami 1,056
FL Miami Springs 133
FL Naples 115
FL North Port 30
FL Orlando 360
FL Palm Springs 150
FL Pensacola 20
FL Plantation 75
FL Riviera Beach 50
FL Tallahassee 50
FL Tampa 660
GA Atlanta 2,100
GA Savannah 100
GA Stone Mountain 685
HI Honolulu 15
IA Cedar Rapids 55
IA Des Moines 585
ID Boise 720
ID Twin Falls 300
IL Aurora 190
IL Chicago 1,595
IL Moline 200
IL Rockford 300
IL Wheaton 2,660
IN Fort Wayne 200
IN Indianapolis 1,285
KS Garden City 80
KS Kansas City 200
KS Wichita 510
KY Bowling Green 310
KY Lexington 410
KY Louisville 990
KY Owensboro 135
LA Baton Rouge 125
LA Lafayette 30
LA Metairie 185
MA Boston 300
MA Framingham 8
MA Jamaica Plain 100
MA Lowell 275
MA South Boston 260
MA Springfield 230
MA Waltham 10
MA West Springfield 340
MA Worcester 443
MD Baltimore 775
MD GlenBurnie 150
MD Rockville 39
MD Silver Spring 845
ME Portland 350
MI Ann Arbor 80
MI Battle Creek 140
MI Clinton Township 650
MI Dearborn 640
MI Grand Rapids 740
MI Lansing 617
MI Troy 1,215
MN Minneapolis 730
MN Richfield 340
MN Rochester 130
MN Saint Paul 695
MN St. Cloud 215
MO Columbia 140
MO Kansas City 540
MO Saint Louis 725
MO Springfield 75
MS Biloxi 5
MS Jackson 20
NC Charlotte 655
NC Durham 380
NC Greensboro 385
NC High Point 405
NC New Bern 165
NC Raleigh 475
NC Wilmington 80
ND Bismarck 45
ND Fargo 270
ND Grand Forks 90
NE Lincoln 335
NE Omaha 990
NH Concord 245
NH Manchester 445
NJ Camden 100
NJ East Orange 6
NJ Elizabeth 300
NJ Jersey City 506
NM Albuquerque 220
NV Las Vegas 640
NY Albany 360
NY Amityville 20
NY Binghamton 40
NY Brooklyn 55
NY Buffalo 1,442
NY New York 240
NY Rochester 643
NY Syracuse 1,030
NY Utica 410
OH Akron 575
OH Cincinnati 140
OH Cleveland 510
OH Cleveland Heights 190
OH Columbus 1,300
OH Dayton 210
OH Toledo 40
OK Oklahoma City 170
OK Tulsa 395
OR Portland 995
PA Allentown 95
PA Erie 625
PA Harrisburg 200
PA Lancaster 480
PA Philadelphia 750
PA Pittsburgh 470
PA Roslyn 20
PA Scranton 150
PR San Juan 5
RI Providence 210
SC Columbia 160
SC Spartanburg 220
SD Huron 90
SD Sioux Falls 490
TN Chattanooga 85
TN Knoxville 190
TN Memphis 200
TN Nashville 1,225
TX Abilene 200
TX Amarillo 442
TX Austin 930
TX Corpus Christi 5
TX Dallas 1,765
TX El Paso 35
TX Fort Worth 1,503
TX Houston 2,605
TX San Antonio 750
UT Salt Lake City 1,126
VA Arlington 500
VA Charlottesville 250
VA Falls Church 450
VA Fredericksburg 120
VA Harrisonburg 140
VA Newport News 300
VA Richmond 243
VA Roanoke 177
VT Colchester 325
WA Kent 985
WA Richland 230
WA Seattle 714
WA Spokane 510
WA Tacoma 276
WA Vancouver 127
WI Green Bay 20
WI Madison 90
WI Milwaukee 890
WI Oshkosh 135
WI Sheboygan 35
WV Charleston 50
TOTALS 76,972

References:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/20/8-facts-about-the-us-program-to-resettle-syrian-refugees
http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/u-s-cities-secretly-selected-for-muslim-immigration/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/01/syrian-refugees-resettled-36-states-catx-mi/
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/

May 16, 2016

Imprimis Apr 2016 V45#4 The Danger of “Black Lives Matter” [nc]

Imprimis
OVER 3,400,000 READERS MONTHLY
April 2016 • Volume 45, Number 4
A PUBLICATION OF HILLSDALE COLLEGE
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.,
as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
For almost
two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has
convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police
officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered
riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to
eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presi

dential task force on policing.
Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a
pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still
The Danger of the “Black Lives
Matter” Movement
Heather Mac Donald
A u t h o r,
The War on Cops
HEATHER MAC DONALD
is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute and a contributing editor of
City Journal
. She earned a B.A.
from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University,
and a J. D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers
and journals, including
The Wall Street Journal
,
The New York Times
,
The New Criterion
, and
Public Interest
, and is the author of three books,
including
Are Cops Racist?
and
The War on Cops: How The New Attack
on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe
(for t hc om i ng Ju ne 2 016).
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 1
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
2
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
venerated as a martyr. And now police offi

cers are backing off of proactive policing in
the face of the relentless venom directed at
them on the street and in the media. As a
result, violent crime is on the rise.
The need is urgent, therefore, to
examine the Black Lives Matter move

ment’s central thesis—that police pose
the greatest threat to young black men. I
propose two counter hypotheses: first,
that there is no government agency more
dedicated to the idea that black lives
matter than the police; and second, that
we have been talking obsessively about
alleged police racism over the last 20
years in order to avoid talking about a far
larger problem—black-on-black crime.
Let’s be clear at the outset: police
have an indefeasible obligation to treat
everyone with courtesy and respect, and
to act within the confines of the law. Too
often, officers develop a hardened, obnox

ious attitude. It is also true that being
stopped when you are innocent of any
wrongdoing is infuriating, humiliating,
and sometimes ter

rifying. And needless
to say, every unjusti

fied police shooting
of an unarmed civil

ian is a stomach-
churning tragedy.
Given the his

tory of racism in this
country and the com

plicity of the police
in that history, police
shootings of black
men are particularly
and understandably
fraught. That history
informs how many
people view the police.
But however intoler

able and inexcusable
every act of police
brutality is, and while
we need to make sure
that the police are
properly trained in
the Constitution and
in courtesy, there is a
larger reality behind
the issue of policing, crime, and race that
remains a taboo topic. The problem of
black-on-black crime is an uncomfortable
truth, but unless we acknowledge it, we
won’t get very far in understanding pat

terns of policing.
* * *
Every year, approximately 6,000
blacks are murdered. This is a number
greater than white and Hispanic homi

cide victims combined, even though
blacks are only 13 percent of the national
population. Blacks are killed at six times
the rate of whites and Hispanics com

bined. In Los Angeles, blacks between
the ages of 20 and 24 die at a rate 20 to 30
times the national mean. Who is killing
them? Not the police, and not white civil

ians, but other blacks. The astronomical
black death-by-homicide rate is a func

tion of the black crime rate. Black males
between the ages of 14 and 17 commit
homicide at ten times the rate of white
and Hispanic male
teens combined. Blacks
of all ages commit
homicide at eight times
the rate of whites and
Hispanics combined,
and at eleven times the
rate of whites alone.
The police could
end all lethal uses
of force tomorrow
and it would have at
most a trivial effect
on the black death-
by-homicide rate.
The nation’s police
killed 987 civilians
in 2015, according to
a database compiled
by
The Washington
Post
. Whites were 50
percent—or 493—of
those victims, and
blacks were 26 per

cent—or 258. Most of
those victims of police
shootings, white and
black, were armed or
− ́
Imprimis
(im-pri-mis),
[Latin]: in the f irst place
EDITOR
Douglas A. Jeffrey
DEPUTY EDITORS
Matthew D. Bell
Timothy W. Caspar
COPY EDITOR
Monica VanDerWeide
ART DIRECTOR
Arthur Donley
MARKETING DIRECTOR
William Gray
PRODUCTION MANAGER
Lucinda Grimm
CIRCULATION MANAGER
Wanda Oxenger
S TAFF A SSIS TANT S
Robin Curtis
Kim Ellsworth
Kathy Smith
Mary Jo Von Ewegen
Copyright © 2016 Hillsdale College
The opinions expressed in
Imprimis
are not
necessarily the views of Hillsdale College.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is
hereby granted, provided the following credit
line is used: “Reprinted by permission from
Imprimis
, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST.
ISSN 0277-8432
Imprimis
trademark registered in U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office #1563325.
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 2
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
3
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
otherwise threatening the officer with
potentially lethal force.
The black violent crime rate would
actually predict that
more
than 26 per

cent of police victims would be black.
Officer use of force will occur where the
police interact most often with violent
criminals, armed suspects, and those
resisting arrest, and that is in black neigh

borhoods. In America’s 75 largest coun

ties in 2009, for example, blacks consti

tuted 62 percent of all robbery defendants,
57 percent of all murder defendants, 45
percent of all assault defendants—but
only 15 percent of the population.
Moreover, 40 percent of all cop kill

ers have been black over the last decade.
And a larger proportion of white and
Hispanic homicide deaths are a result
of police killings than black homicide
deaths—but don’t expect to hear that
from the media or from the political
enablers of the Black Lives Matter move

ment. Twelve percent of all white and
Hispanic homicide victims are killed
by police officers, compared to four
percent of all black homicide victims.
If we’re going to have a “Lives Matter”
anti-police movement, it would be
more appropriately named “White and
Hispanic Lives Matter.”
Standard anti-cop ideology, whether
emanating from the ACLU or the acad

emy, holds that law enforcement actions
are racist if they don’t mirror popula

tion data. New York City illustrates why
that expectation is so misguided. Blacks
make up 23 percent of New York City’s
population, but they commit 75 percent
of all shootings, 70 percent of all robber

ies, and 66 percent of all violent crime,
according to victims and witnesses. Add
Hispanic shootings and you account for
98 percent of all illegal gunfire in the
city. Whites are 33 percent of the city’s
population, but they commit fewer than
two percent of all shootings, four per

cent of all robberies, and five percent of
all violent crime. These disparities mean
that virtually every time the police
in New York are called out on a gun
run—meaning that someone has just
been shot—they are being summoned
to minority neighborhoods looking for
minority suspects.
Officers hope against hope that they
will receive descriptions of white shoot

ing suspects, but it almost never hap

pens. This incidence of crime means
that innocent black men have a much
higher chance than innocent white men
of being stopped by the police because
they match the description of a suspect.
This is not something the police choose.
It is a reality forced on them by the
facts of crime.
The geographic disparities are also
huge. In Brownsville, Brooklyn, the
per capita shooting rate is 81 times
higher than in nearby Bay Ridge,
Brooklyn—the first neighborhood pre

dominantly black, the second neighbor

hood predominantly white and Asian.
As a result, police presence and use of
proactive tactics are much higher in
Brownsville than in Bay Ridge. Every
time there is a shooting, the police will
f lood the area looking to make stops
in order to avert a retaliatory shooting.
They are in Brownsville not because of
racism, but because they want to provide
protection to its many law-abiding resi

dents who deserve safety.
* * *
Who are some of the victims of
elevated urban crime? On March 11,
2015, as protesters were once again
converging on the Ferguson police head

quarters demanding the resignation of
the entire department, a six-year-old
boy named Marcus Johnson was killed
a few miles away in a St. Louis park, the
victim of a drive-by shooting. No one
protested his killing. Al Sharpton did
not demand a federal investigation. Few
people outside of his immediate com

munity know his name.
Ten children under the age of ten
were killed in Baltimore last year. In
Cleveland, three children five and
younger were killed in September.
A seven-year-old boy was killed in
Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend
by a bullet intended for his father. In
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 3
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
4
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
ALL-INCLUSIVE—
CALL TODAY FOR MORE INFORMATION!
(877) 242-6397 | hillsdalecollegecruise.com
Vancouver | Juneau | Hoonah | Hubbard Glacier
Skagway | Sitka | Ketchikan | Nanaimo
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Larry P. Arnn
Larry P. Arnn
President, Hillsdale College
President, Hillsdale College
Author,
Author,
Churchill’s Trial
Churchill’s Trial
Michael Walsh
Michael Walsh
Contributor, National Review Online
Contributor, National Review Online
Author,
Author,
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
John Steele Gordon
John Steele Gordon
Contributor,
Contributor,
Commentary
Commentary
Author,
Author,
Washington’s Monument
Washington’s Monument
David P. Goldman
David P. Goldman
Columnist,
Columnist,
Asia Times
Asia Times
Author,
Author,
How Civilizations Die
How Civilizations Die
Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson
Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College
Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College
Author,
Author,
The Savior Generals
The Savior Generals
Aboard the Crystal Serenity
ALL-INCLUSIVE!
HILLSDALE COLLEGE CRUISE
ALASKA
VANCOUVER ROUNDTRIP
JULY 27-
AUGUST 6, 2016
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 4
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
5
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
November, a nine-year-old in Chicago
was lured into an alley and killed by
his father’s gang enemies; the father
refused to cooperate with the police. In
August, a nine-year-old girl was doing
her homework on her mother’s bed in
Ferguson when a bullet fired into the
house killed her. In Cincinnati in July, a
four-year-old girl was shot in the head
and a six-year-old girl was left paralyzed
and partially blind from two separate
drive-by shootings. This mindless
violence seems almost to be regarded
as normal, given the lack of attention
it receives from the same people who
would be out in droves if any of these
had been police shootings. As horrific
as such stories are, crime rates were
much higher 20 years ago. In New York
City in 1990, for example, there were
2,245 homicides. In 2014 there were
333—a decrease of 85 percent. The drop
in New York’s crime rate is the steepest
in the nation, but crime has fallen at
a historic rate nationwide as well—by
about 40 percent—since the early 1990s.
The greatest beneficiaries of these
declining rates have been minorities.
Over 10,000 minority males alive today
in New York would be dead if the city’s
homicide rate had remained at its early
1990s level.
* * *
What is behind this historic crime
drop? A policing revolution that began
in New York and spread nationally, and
that is now being threatened. Starting
in 1994, the top brass of the NYPD
embraced the then-radical idea that the
police can actually prevent crime, not
just respond to it. They started gather

ing and analyzing crime data on a daily
and then hourly basis. They looked
for patterns, and strategized on tactics
to try to quell crime outbreaks as they
were emerging. Equally important, they
held commanders accountable for crime
in their jurisdictions. Department
leaders started meeting weekly with
precinct commanders to grill them on
crime patterns on their watch. These
weekly accountability sessions came to
be known as Compstat. They were
ruthless, high tension affairs. If a com

mander was not fully informed about
every local crime outbreak and ready
with a strategy to combat it, his career
was in jeopardy.
Compstat created a sense of urgency
about fighting crime that has never left
the NYPD. For decades, the rap against
the police was that they ignored crime
in minority neighborhoods. Compstat
keeps New York commanders focused
like a laser beam on where people are
being victimized most, and that is in
minority communities. Compstat spread
nationwide. Departments across the
country now send officers to emerging
crime hot spots to try to interrupt crimi

nal behavior before it happens.
In terms of economic stimulus alone,
no other government program has come
close to the success of data-driven polic

ing. In New York City, businesses that
had shunned previously drug-infested
areas now set up shop there, offering res

idents a choice in shopping and creating
a demand for workers. Senior citizens
felt safe to go to the store or to the post
office to pick up their Social Security
checks. Children could ride their bikes
on city sidewalks without their moth

ers worrying that they would be shot.
But the crime victories of the last two
decades, and the moral support on
which law and order depends, are now
in jeopardy thanks to the falsehoods of
the Black Lives Matter movement.
Police operating in inner-city neigh

borhoods now find themselves routinely
surrounded by cursing, jeering crowds
when they make a pedestrian stop or try
to arrest a suspect. Sometimes bottles
and rocks are thrown. Bystanders stick
cell phones in the officers’ faces, dar

ing them to proceed with their duties.
Officers are worried about becoming
the next racist cop of the week and pos

sibly losing their livelihood thanks to an
incomplete cell phone video that inevita

bly fails to show the antecedents to their
use of force. Officer use of force is never
pretty, but the public is clueless about
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 5
4/22/16 11:14 AM
APRIL 2016 • VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4
<
hillsdale.edu
6
HILLSDALE COLLEGE: PURSUING TRUTH • DEFENDING LIBERT Y SINCE 1844
how hard it is to subdue a suspect who is
determined to resist arrest.
As a result of the anti-cop campaign
of the last two years and the resulting
push-back in the streets, officers in
urban areas are cutting back on precisely
the kind of policing that led to the crime
decline of the 1990s and 2000s. Arrests
and summons are down, particularly
for low-level offenses. Police officers
continue to rush to 911 calls when there
is already a victim. But when it comes
to making discretionary stops—such as
getting out of their cars and question

ing people hanging out on drug corners
at 1:00 a.m.—many cops worry that
doing so could put their careers on the
line. Police officers are, after all, human.
When they are repeatedly called racist
for stopping and questioning suspicious
individuals in high-crime areas, they
will perform less of those stops. That is
not only understandable—in a sense, it
is how things
should
work. Policing is
political. If a powerful political block
has denied the legitimacy of assertive
policing, we will get less of it.
On the other hand, the people
demanding that the police back off are
by no means representative of the entire
black community. Go to any police-
neighborhood meeting in Harlem, the
South Bronx, or South Central Los
Angeles, and you will invariably hear
variants of the following: “We want the
dealers off the corner.” “You arrest them
and they’re back the next day.” “There
are kids hanging out on my stoop. Why
can’t you arrest them for loitering?”
“I smell weed in my hallway. Can’t you
do something?” I met an elderly cancer
amputee in the Mount Hope section of
the Bronx who was terrified to go to her
lobby mailbox because of the young
men trespassing there and selling drugs.
The only time she felt safe was when the
police were there. “Please, Jesus,” she said
to me, “send more police!” The irony is
that the police cannot respond to these
heartfelt requests for order without gen

erating the racially disproportionate sta

tistics that will be used against them in
an ACLU or Justice Department lawsuit.
* * *
Unfortunately, when officers back
off in high crime neighborhoods, crime
shoots through the roof. Our country is
in the midst of the first sustained violent
crime spike in two decades. Murders
rose nearly 17 percent in the nation’s 50
largest cities in 2015, and it was in cities
with large black populations where the
violence increased the most. Baltimore’s
per capita homicide rate last year was the
highest in its history. Milwaukee had its
deadliest year in a decade, with a 72 per

cent increase in homicides. Homicides in
Cleveland increased 90 percent over the
previous year. Murders rose 83 percent
in Nashville, 54 percent in Washington,
D.C., and 61 percent in Minneapolis. In
Chicago, where pedestrian stops are
down by 90 percent, shootings were up
80 percent through March 2016.
I first identified the increase in vio

lent crime in May 2015 and dubbed it
“the Ferguson effect.” My diagnosis set
off a firestorm of controversy on the
HILLSDALE
HILLSDALE
COLLEGE
COLLEGE
offers free, not-for-credit,
offers free, not-for-credit,
online courses taught by its faculty. In addition to
online courses taught by its faculty. In addition to
weekly lectures, these courses feature readings,
weekly lectures, these courses feature readings,
quizzes, and discussion groups. Those who complete
quizzes, and discussion groups. Those who complete
them successfully receive certificates of completion.
them successfully receive certificates of completion.
To sign up for new and archived courses,
visit
onlin
e.hillsdal
e.ed
u
.
Hillsdale College
Online Learning
Imprimis_April16_8pg.indd 6
4/22/16 11:14 AM

March 17, 2016

ALL HANDS: Imprimis Feb 2016 V 45 #2

ALL HANDS: IMPRIMIS Feb 2016 Vol 45 #2

Hillsdale College, 33 E College St., Hillsdale MI 49292

Islam – Facts or Dreams, Andrew C. McCarthy J.D.

1. Imprimis is paid for by donations to the Imprimis program so it is free to you. We donate at http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis , you can too;
2. For decades I have written on this particular subject. In the February issue, a federal prosecutor writes his legal findings.

Y’all should get a free subscription.

Y’all should read this particular issue, then poke through the blog for supporting articles.

If you are a woman, or related to a woman, this is a MUST READ for you and her and them.

March 15, 2016

Kasich on the 2nd Amendment

Kasich on the 2nd Amendment and his honesty:

February 9, 2016

Violations of the Radical Islamic Watch List, by Capt John, USN, [nc]

Obama Ordered DHS to Eliminate Hundreds of Records of Radical Islamic Terrorists on The Watch List–Violating the National Security of the US

By Capt Joseph R. John, on February 9, 2016

The below listed article explains how the occupant of the Oval Office has been presiding over a conspiracy for 7 years to eliminate hundreds of terrorists from the DHS Terrorist Watch List, endangering the National Security of the United States. That action has been responsible in large measure for the loss of life of some American citizens on the below listed list, especially those in San Bernardino. In 2009, Obama ordered his appointees at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Radical Islamist Terrorist groups from the important federal database of suspected Radical Islamic Terrorists and from the DHS Watch List,

Foreign Radical Islamic Terrorists have effectively been given civil rights by the Obama administration, and for 7 years they have been involved in killing American citizens listed below. By that action, American citizens civil liberties have been effectively abridged by Obama’s Executive Orders in violation of US Federal Immigration Laws. The Obama administration has been Shariah-compliant at all costs for the last 7 years, those actions have been engineered by Muslim appointees in the Obama administration. The Obama administration number one priority for the last 7 years has been to protect Islam and not to use that name to designate terrorists who call themselves Islamic Terrorists, even when it has resulted in the below listed deaths of hundreds of Americans.

Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society and others. The stealth Jihad in the information battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of blasphemy laws under the Shariah, and Obama ordered that counter-terror training materials that I once had access to in the Library at the FBI Academy on weekends and evenings, when I was going thru my training at the FBI Academy, an invaluable treasure of reference material on Radical Islamic Terrorists that he has had eliminated, in order to avoid all reference to Islam and Jihad.

Under Islamic law, which Obama and his many untold numbers of Muslim appointees in the federal government abide by, without exception, they abide by prohibition of all criticize of Islam. New trainees at the FBI Academy, in the CIA, and in the US Armed Forces Intelligence Agencies have been intentionally prevented from having access to reference material formerly used in training about Radical Islamic Terrorists by Obama, especially with regard to Jihad and Islam. Obama has prevented them from having access to the background material I once had access to, in order to learn about the inherent danger to the National Security of the United States and of the true goals of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society (they are all support organizations of the very dangerous Muslim Brotherhood).

Just like the Muslim Brotherhood created Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Q’ieda, ISIS, the Taliban and hundreds of hundreds of other Radical Islamic Terrorist groups throughout the world, it created the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society. For the last 7 years, Obama eliminated all the negative reference material on the Muslim Brotherhood from all Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, all Intelligence Agencies, and the US Armed Forces data bases, and the true stealth goals of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim American Society. Although it took many years to develop that background information Obama intentionally tried to prevent those agencies from learning and training their personnel about the inherent dangers those organizations pose to the National Security Interest of the United States.

The “Coup de Grace” is that Obama has made it very dangerous for the continued employment or for promotion to higher positions of responsibility, in Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, DHS, the CIA, the US State Department, the Immigration Agencies, ICE, the US Border Patrol, and for members of US Armed Forces to accuse Muslim organizations, Imams of Muslim Mosques, or the Resettlement of Muslim Refugees as being responsible or complicit in threatening the National Security Interests of United States. For 7 years, it has not been “Politically Correct” to criticize Muslims or Muslim organizations—every federal employee had been effectively dumbed down (the below listed article will refer to that).

The “Political Correctness” with regard to Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks has been so egregious, that Major Hassan Nidal who was a disciple of the Al Q’ieda Terrorist, Anwar Al-Awlaki, and who on November 5, 2009 gunned down and killed 13 US Soldiers, and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling at the top of his lungs “Allah Akbar”, for 6 years that terrorist act by a Radical Islamic Terrorist was referred to by the Obama administration as “work place violence” was perpetuated by weak kneed US Army Generals, in order to be “Politically Correct.” Finally after 6 years of pressure from Congress, that act is now referred to as a Radical Islamic Terrorist act, and the 45 victims have been awarded with Purple Heart Medals

In 2007, CAIR was named, along with 245 others, by US Federal Prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding case involving the Holy Land Foundation which in 2009 caused the FBI to cease working with CAIR. On August 7, 2007, an FBI Agent testified at the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial that CAIR was “listed as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee”, that it had received money from the HLF. In 2008, the FBI discontinued its long-standing relationship with CAIR. FBI Officials said the decision followed the conviction of the HLF Directors for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas, revelations that Nihal Awad (the co-founder of CAIR) had participated in planning meetings with HLF, and CAIR’s failure to provide details of its ties to Hamas. During a 2008 retrial of the HLF case, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns labeled CAIR “a front group for Hamas.” In January 2009, the FBI’s DC Headquarter’s Office instructed all FBI Field Offices to cut ties with CAIR, as the ban extended into the Obama administration. In November 2014 CAIR was listed as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates; that was followed by Egypt also listing CAIR as a terrorist organization. Many Muslim members in the Obama administration are members of CAIR.

Obama has demonstrated for the last 4 years, that he had absolutely no intention of allowing the FBI to interview the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees coming into the United States thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program, in order to exclude refugees with ties to ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists from entering the United States. For the last 4 years, the US Armed Forces have witnessed the growth of ISIS to a force of over 50,000 Radical Islamic Terrorists prosecuting brutal genocide against hundreds of thousands Syrian and Assyrian Christians with ISIS Terrorist operations expanding to work in 17 countries including operations in the United States, while Obama has demonstrated he has absolutely no intention of defeating ISIS—his dangerous Rules Of Engagement (ROE) have prevented the 10 US Air Force Sorties/day from dropping 80% of their ordnance, but he has deployed 50 Special Operation personnel to prosecute an attack against 50,000 ISIS Terrorists.

For 7 years Obama has been enabled by the leaders of both political parties in Congress, who bear a great deal of the responsibility for allowing Obama to keep the wide open southern border porous, and for allowing the continued entrance of tens of thousands of Illegal Aliens, Mexican drug dealers, Convicted Mexican Criminals, Central America children with infectious diseases who are bringing in mosquitos with the Zika Virus entering without being quarantined, and hundreds of Radical Islamic Terrorist who have been killing American citizens as listed below.

The Obama administration has vigorously eliminated any semblance of what was once America’s borders. Obama has issued Illegal Policy Directives telling Border Patrol Agents to no longer detain Central American children along with their foreign adults chaperons, Illegal Executive Orders cancelling 50% of Aerial Surveillance Flights to monitor illegal border crossings, has violated US Federal Immigration Laws, and has consistently violated the US Constitution. Those intentional actions have been designed to neuter the efforts of ICE Agents, US Border Patrol Agents, FBI Agents, and other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from effectively enforcing US Federal Immigration Laws and preventing the entry of Radical Islamic Terrorists from entering the United States.

The political leaders on both sides of the isles of Congress, and even candidates for the presidency claim to be intent on closing the wide open southern border and fixing the broken US Immigration System- yet, for the most part, their “solutions” are not sincere solutions at all, and may, indeed, exacerbate the problems—there is only one step that will work to stop the flow of Muslim Refugees from entering the US and being resettled in 180 US cities across the US, without informing local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and elected officials as to where they are being resettled. That step is to allow the FBI to interview the Muslim Refugees to determine if they have terrorist ties, before they are granted entry.

At the same time, while having the FBI interviewing thousands of Muslim Refugees to determine if they have terrorist ties, the Congress must finally employ the funds previously authorized to build a wall across the wide open southern border, to actually build the wall after 7 years, in order to keep heroin & drug dealers, Illegal Aliens, Central American children with infective diseases who are bringing in mosquitos with the Zika Virus who are never quarantined in violation of US Federal Immigration Quarantine Laws, Mexican Convicted Criminals, and Radical Islamic Terrorists from entering the United States—nothing else will ever work!!!

Below is a partial list of Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists who have perpetrated

Terrorist Attacks against American citizens—the partial list is truly unbelievable, and the Obama administration has done its best to cover up every one of those terrorist attacks for 7 years—part of a continuing criminal conspiracy that is damaging the National Security Interest of the United States!!!

The United States is under attack from coast to coast in places like Sacramento, Houston, Philadelphia, San Bernardino, Times Square, Moore, Detroit, Boise, Little Rock, Fort Hood Texas, Portland-ME, Chattanooga, Garland, Boston, Portland-OR, Minneapolis, Merced, Missouri, Kentucky, New York, Illinois, Washington-DC, Oklahoma, and many more cities too numerous to list here.

The left of center liberal media establishment is working hand in glove with Obama, to covering up the fact that there have been 72 Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11, that 82 ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist plots have been broken up by the FBI, resulting in the arrests of over 180 ISIS Muslim Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists by the FBI across the United States, so that Americans citizens will not pressure Congress to pass the Terrorist Refugee Infiltration Prevention Act. We encourage all American citizens to put pressure on their Congressmen to pass the Act, and to get the Republican Leaders in Congress to finally do something after 7 years to protect American citizens and their children.

The below “partial list” of the Muslim Refugees and Radical Islamic Terrorists who have participated in Jihad killings and attacks against the American citizens since Obama took office—are only listed, because the complete numbers of Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks are just too many, to all be listed here.

There are now over 900 open cases on potential ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists in all 50 states being prosecuted by the FBI, those terrorist are a percentage of the 900,000 Muslim Refugees Obama forced fed into 180 cities resettling them throughout the US thru the UN Muslim Refugee Resettlement Program while ignoring FBI warnings that they cannot vet them to determine if they have terrorist ties. Now we find out that Obama had his appointees at DHS scrub clean the data base of hundreds of Radical Islamic Terrorist suspects they maintained records on—that was a conspiracy that damaged the national Security of the United States:

• On January 7, 2016, Aws Mohammad Younis Al-Jayab, a Palestine born Iraqi, was arrested in Sacramento, CA on charges of assisting jihadi organizations.
• In an unrelated case, also on January 7, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed al Hardan, an Iraqi Refugee, was arrested in Houston, TX on charges of providing material support to ISIS and going thru terrorist training.
• In Philadelphia, PA, a jihadi opened fire on a cop on January 8, 2016. He fired 13 shots and hit the police officer three times, grievously wounding the man.
• On January 11, 2016, Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions said the number of people implicated in radical Islamic terrorist plots in the U.S. has jumped to 113.
• On January 16, 2016, Mohamed Elmi, 31, and Mohamed Salad, 29, both of Calgary,
Canada, were arrested after they invaded the doorway of a neighborhood bar and grievously wounded a 38-year old stranger.
• On May 3, 2015 an attack with gunfire was carried by two Radical Islamic Terrorists followers of ISIS at the entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center, in Garland, TX featuring cartoon images of Mohammad—both were shot and killed by a police officer. Just prior to the attack one of the gunmen posted “May Allah accept us as Mujahedeen”—he wrote both pledged allegiance to “Amirul Mu’mineen”, a likely reference to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
• An immigrant from Ghana, who applied for and received US citizenship, pledged allegiance to ISIS and plotted a terrorist attack on the US soil (June 2015).
• An immigrant from Sudan, who applied and received US citizenship, tried to join ISIS and wage Jihad on its behalf after having been recruited on line(June 2015).
• In November 17, 2015 A Uzbek Muslim refugee in Boise, ID was convicted of plotting to bomb US military bases.
• On August 14, 2015 three Somali Muslims, Mohamud Mohamed, 36, and Osman Sheikh, 31, Abil Teshome, 23, brutally beat and murdered Freddy Akoa, 49 a Christian in Portland, ME. The attack allegedly took place over the span of several hours, in which Akoa suffered cuts and bruises all over his body, a lacerated liver and 22 rib fractures. However, according to the autopsy, Akoa died as a result of blows to his head.
• Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez murdered five US Armed Forces (1 Navy and 4 Marines) in Chattanooga, TN in July 2015. Mohammad was an immigrant brought here by his family from Kuwait at a young age, and who was later approved for U.S. citizenship, who carried out the Islamist attack that killed the 5 military personnel in Chattanooga.
• The Somali refugee who recruited the San Bernardino killers also recruited the jihadist who attacked the Garland, TX “Draw Mohammad” contest in May 2015, fled the United States.
• An Iraqi immigrant, who later applied for and received US citizenship, was arrested for lying to federal agents about pledging allegiance to ISIS and his travel to Syria (May 2015)
• An immigrant from Syria, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, was accused by federal prosecutors of planning to rob a gun store to “go to a military base in Texas and kill three or four American soldiers execution style.” (April 2015)
• Six Somalian Muslim refugees were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota for attempting to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS.
• Five Muslim refugees (same family) were arrested in Missouri, Illinois and New York for sending arms and cash to ISIS.
• Five Somali Muslim refugees were charged in July 2014 with fundraising for jihadi groups in Africa.
• On December 14, 2014, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, born to a Muslim African American family, executed two NYC police officers as they sat in their patrol car. Brinsley is reported to have approached the two officers as they were sitting in their patrol car in the notorious crime ridden Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, New York and began firing rounds into the vehicle before fleeing on foot to the closest subway station where he later committed suicide.
• Two Bosnian Muslim refugee in Portland, Oregon was arrested in November 21, 2014 for trying to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
• On November 4, 2015 Faisal Mohammad who had a black ISIS flag in his possessions and a terrorist manifesto, stabbed 4 of his fellow student at U C Merced; police had to shoot him to stop his stabbing spree
• In San Bernardino in December 2015 two Middle East Radical Islamic Terrorist who said they were ISIS, attackers (immigrants) killed 14 civilians and wounded 21 others, were recruited to their jihad by a Muslim Somali refugee who has now moved to Syria, but continues to recruit Jihadist in America using social media.
• A refugee from Uzbekistan was convicted of providing material support and money to a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the Department of Justice, he also procured bomb-making materials in the interest of perpetrating a terrorist attack on American soil. (August 2015)
• An immigrant from Albania, who applied for and received Lawful Permanent Resident status, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for giving over $1,000 to terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, and for attempting to join a radical jihadist insurgent group in Pakistan. (August 2015)
• An immigrant from Egypt, who subsequently was granted U.S. citizenship, was charged with providing, and conspiring to provide, material support to ISIS, for aiding and abetting a New York college student in receiving terrorist training from ISIS, and conspiring to receive such training. (August 2015)
• A second Immigrant from India, who is married to a US citizen, who was indicted on charges of conspiring to provide thousands of dollars to Al Q’ieda in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to assist them in their global Jihad, and on one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (November 2015)
• A Kazakhstani immigrant with lawful permanent resident status conspired to purchase a machine gun to shoot FBI and other law enforcement agents if they prevented him from traveling to Syria to join ISIS. (February 2015)
• An immigrant from Pakistan, who entered the United States on a fiancé visa thru Canada, and subsequently became a Lawful Permanent Resident, along with her husband, killed 14 people at a Christmas Party in San Bernardino, CA on December 2, 2015 , and wounded 22 others, in the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.
• A Somali-American was arrested after encouraging several friends to leave the United States and join ISIS, and giving one individual over $200 for their passport application. (December 2015)
• The son of Pakistani immigrants, along with his Pakistan bride, murdered 14 coworkers, and wounded two dozen, in that same terrorist attack. His Pakistani-born father has since been placed on the no-fly list (December 2015).
• A Bosnian refugee, along with his wife and five others, donated money and supplies, and smuggled arms, to terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq. (February 2015)
• An Uzbek refugee living in Idaho was arrested and charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, in the form of teaching terror recruits how to build bombs. (July 2015)
• An immigrant from Saudi Arabia, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, swore allegiance to ISIS and pledged to explode a propane tank bomb on U.S. soil. (April 2015).
• An immigrant from Yemen, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, along with six other men, was charged with conspiracy to travel to Syria and to provide material support to ISIS. (April 2015).
• A Uzbek man in Brooklyn encouraged other Uzbeki nationals to wage jihad on behalf of ISIS, and raised $1,600 for the terror organization. (April 2015)
• An immigrant from Bangladesh, who applied for and received U.S. citizenship, tried to incite people to travel to Somalia and conduct violent jihad against the United States. (June 2014)
• In September 30, 2014, Alton Nolan, a proponent of Sharia and suspect Radical Islamic Terrorist, beheaded an employee of Vaughan Foods, and was prevented from beheading a second employee in Moor, Oklahoma.
• An immigrant from Afghanistan, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, and a legal permanent resident from the Philippines, were convicted for “join Al Q’ieda and the Taliban in order to kill Americans.” (September 2014)
• A Somali immigrant with lawful permanent resident status, along with four other Somali nationals, is charged with leading an al-Shabaab fundraising conspiracy in the United States, with monthly payments directed to the Somali terrorist organization. (July 2014)
• A Moroccan national who came to the U.S. on a student visa was arrested for plotting to blow up a university and a federal court house. (April 2014)
• The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; those brothers and their family were Muslim refugees. -The Boston Bombers were granted political asylum and were thus deemed legitimate refugees. The younger brother applied for citizenship and was naturalized on September 11th, 2012. The older brother had a pending application for citizenship. (April 2013)
• A college student who immigrated from Somalia, who later applied for and received U.S. citizenship, attempted to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon. (December 2013)
• On February 18, 2012, two Radical Islamic Terrorists from Pakistan, who later applied for and received US Citizenship, were apprehended trying to detonate a bomb in New York City
• In September 15, 2012, Amine El Khalifi, and al Q’ieda Radical Islamic Terrorist plotted to do a suicide bombing of the US Capital.
• In 2011 Mohammad Alfatlawi a proponent of Sharia Law was charged with the “Honor Killing” of his wife and daughter in Detroit, Michigan.
• In May 4, 2010 Faisal Shahzad conducted a terrorist car bombing plot in Times Square that failed.
• On June 1, 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam, who had gone to Yemen in 2007 and stayed for about 16 months, open fire on a Little Rock, Arkansas US Armed Forces Recruiting Office in a drive by shooting with a rifle, against a group of US Army Soldiers standing in front of the Recruiting Office. He killed Private William Long and wounded Private Quinton Ezeagwula.
• On November 5, 2009, Maj Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 US Army soldiers and wounded 32 others in Fort Hood while yelling “Allah Akbar” at the top of his lungs—Obama insisted it was simply “Work Place Violence” and not a Radical Islamic terrorist attack by a disciple of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Prior to the shooting, in his previous assignment as an intern and resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center his colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his behavior and anti-American comments—but because they were cowered by the Obama’s administration’s warnings and perceived threats to their military standing, that they better be “politically correct’ and not disparage such anti-American comments—nothing was done to drum that Radical Islamic Terrorist out of the US Armed Forces
• In December 2009, the bombing terror plot to kill 290 innocent passengers on a flight from the Netherland to Detroit the Nigerian Radical Islamic Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutlallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.
• Two Al Qaeda members who had killed American soldiers in Iraq were arrested in Kentucky in 2009 – and, both were refugees!

Please read the below listed article where Obama has erased the identification of hundreds Radical Islamic Terrorist from the DHS data base and watch list so Federal Law Enforcement Officers can no longer locate them or monitor their terrorists activities.
Copyright 2016, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USN(Ret)
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OBAMA DHS SCRUBS RECORDS OF HUNDREDS OF MUSLIM TERRORISTS
PAMELA GELLER
Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of the WND Books title “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.”

Not only did the Obama administration scrub counter-terror programs of jihad and Islam, now we find out that his administration scrubbed the records of Muslim terrorists. If the enemedia were not aligned with the jihad force, this would be front-page news across the nation.

An agent of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, for 15 years, Philip Haney, reported Friday that after the Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, tried to blow up a crowded passenger jet over Detroit, “President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to ‘connect the dots.’ He said, ‘This was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.’”

Haney revealed: “Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material – the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.”

What Haney discloses is truly shocking: “Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to ‘connect dots.’ Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.”

Who gave the order to scrub the records of Muslims with ties to terror groups?

These new shocking revelations come fresh on the heels of whistleblower testimony in the wake of the San Bernardino jihad slaughter, revealing that the Obama administration shut down investigations into jihadists in America (and quite possible the San Bernardino shooters) at the request of the Department of State and the DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. Haney noted: “They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil rights and liberties of American citizens?”

How is this not impeachable? When did foreign terrorists get civil rights?

Haney described how he began investigating scores of individuals with links to the traditionalist Islamic Indo-Pakistani Deobandi movement, and its related offshoots, prominently, Tablighi Jamaat..

I have reported on this infiltration for years. I reported on it extensively in my book, “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.” Obama has partnered with terror-tied groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society and others. The stealth jihad in the information battle-space has led to the vigorous enforcement of blasphemy laws under the Shariah, as Obama ordered that counter-terror training materials must avoid all reference to Islam and jihad. Under Islamic law, it is prohibited to criticize Islam.

The Obama administration is Shariah-compliant at all costs. Its number one priority is to protect Islam, even when it puts American lives at risk. The cold-blooded slaughter of Americans in the homeland by Muslims has not tempered Obama’s Shariah enthusiasm. On the contrary, Garland, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UCMED, San Bernardino, etc., have accelerated it.

My civil liberties and your civil liberties are being abridged in accordance with the blasphemy laws under Shariah. My organization is engaged in 15 different free-speech lawsuits against various cities. Our free-speech lawsuit against Boston is heading to the Supreme Court, because even though truthful, our ads violate the laws of Shariah (“do not criticize Islam”). We are being forced to adhere to Shariah mores, but jihad murderers are given sanctuary and protection – to slaughter Americans.

The moral, or in this case the immoral, of the story is this: Jihad terror works.

Re: The Economist, Vol 418 No 8975 Feb 6-12, 2016 Ref: pp 9+10, How to manage the migrant crisis

Re: The Economist, Vol 418 No 8975 Feb 6-12, 2016
Ref: pp 9+10, How to manage the migrant crisis

To compare the Vietnamese Boat People exodus to the Muslim Euro Hajiri is an absurdity that only The Kool-Aid Drinking Left may accept as reality.
The Vietnamese Boat people were fleeing “re-education camps” where the death toll exceeded 90%. They were fleeing deadly, religious prosecution of the kind Xi Ping and ISIS are bloodily, wreaking upon innocents daily – human rights be damned. They were fleeing unlawful private property confiscation and social genocide.
The Vietnamese Boat people were mostly Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, and a small proportion were Hindi. The Vietnamese Boat People brought a strong work ethic, family values, and their intact families, a respect for personal liberty, and generally a respectful regard for women, with them. By and large, The Vietnamese Boat People were the educated and liberal element of their people. They were the doctors, lawyers, large and small business people, bankers, the middle class, and the professional blue-collar class.
Their core values and beliefs were and still are the exact same as those of us here in Kansas City.
The millions of Muslim “migrants” are over 80% men of military age, unskilled, illiterate in their own language, and primarily uneducated and uneducable. They have little or no interest in working or contributing and most importantly, assimilating – only dominating and enforcing Dhimmitude.
There are over 110 verses in the Qu’ Ran of hate and racial despite. Neither the word nor concept of love is Qu’ Ranic. There are verses that explicitly state that the murdering of non-believer innocents is a positive virtue, 8:12-15 is a good, clear example. It specifically calls believers to behead, behand, and befoot non-believers. Another specifically states that Christians and Jews are a believer’s sworn enemies.
The rapes and assaults in Germany and Sweden were foreshadowed by the Paris Terrorist Attack, the knife murdering of that Coldstream Guard Afghan Veteran in London, the “no-go zones” throughout the Eurozone, the number of Mosques in Detroit Michigan U.S.A., 9/11, the first World Trade Center assault in 1993, Iran’s act of war in its invasion of U.S. Territory (our embassy 1979) and the taking of diplomats as prisoners of war, and in Marseille and Nice in France, and throughout the geography of Western Civilization. In addition, in Thomas Jefferson’s administration with the Barbary Pirates & Preble’s Boys – and they weren’t pirates, they were each and every one of them declaring war and requiring tribute.
For a “news” magazine located in London, UK, a center of anti-Semitism, to talk about assimilation in the liberal terms that you use, I direct your attention to history:
For over 1,000 years, you have still not fully assimilated the Normans with the Angles and Saxons;
For over 900 years, you have still not assimilated the Irish, even with the suppressive practices in Ulster;
For over 600 years, you have still not assimilated the Welsh, even with intermarriage, is not Cardiff DMV the most humiliating posting for a British Civil Servant?
For over 500 years, you have still not assimilated the Scots, who continue to seek independence;
You are still anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, and Jews are afraid to put out celebratory lights and icons during Yom Kippur and Chanukah for fear of vandalism and arson;
Over 230 years ago you mistreated your American colonies with such contempt, disregard and disdain, review how you treated the great Benjamin Franklin Ph.D., when you placed him in ‘the pit’, that Englishmen, entitled to the English Bill of Rights of 1695, felt so abused that they fought the Revolutionary War of 1776.
Does not Castille have a separatist movement? What of Gandhi’s India and Churchill’s South Africa, did you assimilate in these places? & how many other historical examples of your folly are there?
Here, in The New World, when the Incans, Peruvians, and Aztec failed to require assimilation of the Spanish, what happened to them?
Is there not a separatist movement in Quebec?
What happened to the Passamaquoddy, the Navajo, the Comanche, the Mohican, the Mohawk, the Chappaqua, the Chippaqua, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the Apache, the Nez Perce, the Seminole, and on and on and on, when they did not require the newcomers, your “refugee/migrants” of their time and place, to assimilate into the home culture?
Did not the Roman Legions rape a Saxon Queen, and then move north to dominate the land, up to building Hadrian’s Wall? What of that assimilation, eh?
Your smug, Euro-Liberal, ignorant Trans-Nationalism, is a morbid threat to the freedoms listed in Bagehot’s Constitution, The 1695 English Bill of Rights, my Missouri Constitution, and my 1787 U.S. Constitution.
To paraphrase the great Sir Winston Churchill, this is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning, Western Civilization is ending.

In respectful disagreement with you, I am

justplainbill

January 19, 2016

Ann Corcoran video on Hijra [c]

[secession – and, y’all wonder why the Texas governor wants a constitutional convention. FYI the U.S. constitution is NOT subordinate to the U.N. charter, as much as Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Sanders, Pelosi &c claim.]

January 5, 2016

America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, Dan Greenfield [nc]

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Monday, January 04, 2016
America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 11 Comments

America’s mass shooting capital isn’t somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It’s in Obama’s own hometown.

Chicago is America’s mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.

2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they’re all run by the party of gun control which somehow can’t seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.

The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country’s murder capital.

These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.

Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.

Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.

Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.

But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.

Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.

New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.

Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.

Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

(A version of this article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine.)

December 15, 2015

Un-Vetted Refugees, Capt John USN + Pat Buchanan [nc]

Joseph R. John
To jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Today at 5:12 AM

An Establishment Unhinged Over A Recommendation To Pause Un-Vetted Refugee Admission

By Capt Joseph R. John, on December 15, 2015

Citizens of foreign lands have “no” constitutional right to migrate to the United State, and US Federal Law provides a president with broad powers in deciding what foreigner are permitted to migrate to the US, and what foreigners are not permitted to migrate, especially in wartime. The Republic is in fact a nation at “War” with the Islamic State, ISIS, Al Q’ieda, and Radical Islamic Terrorists who are have “Declared War” against the United States. Radical Islamic Terrorists have been killing Americans for over 45 years. Clear thinking Patriotic Americans await Congress to “Declare War” against the Islamic State, so the US Armed Forces can put an end to ISIS.

The left of center liberal media establishment, the Washington ruling political class, and the Obama administration are supporting wide open borders and the infusion of mass immigration of Middle East and African refugees without vetting them to determine if they have terrorist ties. This migration of 900,000 refugees, in violation of the required vetting process required by US Federal Immigration Laws, has been ongoing on for 7 years. DHS and the State Department have restricted anyone in government form reviewing the incoming refugees postings on Social Media, to protect the privacy of incoming refugees—with complete disregard for protecting the lives of American citizens; Social Media is what ISIS has been employing to recruit and convert Radical Islamic Terrorists.

The members of the Muslim Brotherhood appointed to key leadership positions of DHS by Obama and Valerie Jarrett, who instituted such an insane policy should be not only be fired, but should charged by the FBI with aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States, they are responsible for aiding Radical Islamic Terrorist to murder American citizens. Americans with common sense are now demanding that a moratorium be imposed on the massive influx of Middle East and African Refugees, through which Obama has been resettling hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees throughout the US for 7 years, without informing elected state and local leaders and law enforcement authorities in all 50 states that they are now residences of their communities. That inept Obama policy continues to destabilize the National Security of the United States, and must be changed to allow the FBI, ICE, and local, county, and state law enforcement officers to know where those refugees are being resettled.

Until the FBI and DHS can guarantee that every refugee admitted doesn’t have terrorist ties, there must be a pause in the Refugee Resettlement Program. American citizens want the migration of Illegal Aliens, Middle East Refugees, and African Refugees, to cease, because they have been allowed to resettle throughout the United States for 7 years, despite the fact that they were never vetted to determine if they had terrorist ties. US Federal Immigration Laws and the US Immigration Regulations have been intentionally and repeatedly violated in so many different ways over the last for 7 years by Obama, including employing illegal flights to bring refuges in under the cover of darkness. Until the broken immigration system is fixed, the migration of “all” refugees into the United States must be halted. The wide open southern border must be closed by, and unscheduled flights delivering refugees must be halted by the Republican leaders in the House and Senate! We wonder if the new Speaker will follow Pelosi and Boehner’s lead of keeping the wide open southern border open—the wall to exclude Illegal Mexican & Central American Aliens and Radical Islamic Terrorists can be easily built with the funds already approved by previous Congresses.

By clicking on the below listed link, you will be able to view a video explaining how UPS 757 Aircraft, retrofitted to carry passengers, have been landing late in the evenings, under the cover of darkness, on the far side of the US International Airports, where they unload bus-loads of Middle East and African Refugees, who do not go thru the required Customs and Border Protection screening, then those refugees are driven out of the airport to locations unknown—we have been receiving reports from former pilots of those flights for over a year, who opposed those flights, and quit piloting them.

Since 9/11, there has been 72 terrorist attacks by Radical Islamic Terrorists on the United States that have killed thousands of Americans. The FBI recently notified Congress that 250+ Middle East and African refugees, admitted as US Citizens thru Obama’s fast track citizenship program, and/or of first generation Americans of Middle East and African descent have traveled to Iraq and Africa to participate in ISIS’ genocide of Syrian, African, and Assyrian Christians. In a recent press release, Americans learned that 82 ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists plots over the last two years have been foiled by the FBI, and the participants have been arrested for plotting to kill Americans, like 14 Americans were recently murdered by a female and male Radical Islamic Terrorist Disciple of ISIS in San Bernardino, CA (most arrests were affected in NY, CA, and NJ).

The FBI also informed the Congress that they have opened 900+ terrorist related cases in all 50 states, and that the Bureau is not adequately staffed to properly investigate and prevent ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorist from future murderous terrorist attacks on Americans. There is absolutely no doubt that many of the 72 terrorists attacks in the US, the 82 foiled attacks on the homeland, the 250 recent US Citizens participating in ISIS’ genocide of Christians, and the 900 + open FBI cases on terrorism are a direct result of Obama’s policy of open borders, his violations of US Federal Immigration Laws, and Obama’s resettlement of 900,000 Muslim Refugees throughout the United States without vetting them for terrorist ties.

It is time for the US Congress to do, what it is supposed to do, and has never done for 7 years under the Speakership of Pelosi and Boehner. In other words, Congress must finally function as an equal branch of government under the US Constitution, to oppose the repeated violation of US Federal Law by the Executive Branch of government. Congress has had the ability to file law suits in US Federal Court against Obama and individuals appointed by Obama for continuing to violate US Federal Immigration Laws (multiple law suits would paralyze the repeated violations of federal laws by different branches of government), and Congress must use the power of the purse to prevent the wholesale violation of US Federal Laws of the Republic—it can do so, if speaker Ryan is serious, on Wednesday of this week.

Congress must employ all of its powers to assist the FBI in protecting American citizens. Speaker Ryan can do so on Wednesday of this week, by eliminating the funds being voted on in the vote for the omnibus spending bill, that fund the continued resettlement of refugees throughout the United States. The pause in the immigration and resettlement of “all” refugees must be approved and enforced financially. The Refugee Resettlement Program must be halted until the violation of US Federal Immigration Laws can be rectified, i.e. until all refugees can be properly vetted to ensure they have no terrorist ties. Until the Director of the FBI and the Secretary of DHS can personally guarantee that ever refugee being allowed to enter has been properly vetted to be free of terrorist ties, business as usual must be halted. In Wednesday’s budget vote the Congress must also provide adequate funding for the recruiting of more FBI Special Agents.

The other action that must be taken to defeat ISIS is to put ISIS on the defensive in Iraq and Syria, with the assistance of friendly Sunni allies from Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia who are already engaged in combat with ISIS. The Obama administration must finally provide the desperately required arms to the Kurds who are already fighting ISIS, and provide arms to the newly established Christian Assyrian Army that has been doing their very best, with very limited arms to fight ISIS (they have been seeking the support from Obama for defensive weapons for 3 years). Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia have been engaged in combat operations with ISIS in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Libya for over 2 years. Since Obama shifted his alliance to Iran and is facilitating Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, the Sunni allies who once worked with the US in Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, no longer trust Obama at all, and have shifted away from their involvement in Obama’s do nothing coalition (Saudi Arabia is leading its own coalition of 34 Islamic countries actively countering ISIS terrorism).

Obama has been leading from behind for 7 years, and he is no longer trusted by NATO or the US’ former Sunni Allies. The most effective defense is a good offense—it appears the previous two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff failed to explain that to Obama—instead he has listened to the military advice of Valerie Jarrett. The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Special should convinced Obama that the Special Operations Forces of the United States operating in Iraq, on the border of Turkey, and in the Kurdish region, require US ground combat forces to protect the 3400 US military personnel already operating there; US ground combat forces are required and must have the capacity to extricate US Special Forces from a hot zone, if they require immediate evacuation.

The US, England, France, and Germany are either executing or supporting air strikes against ISIS, or have naval and/or Special Forces engaged. ISIS could have been decimated by coordinated attacks from US, NATO and Sunni Allied Forces, if the US had the leadership ability to unite and coordinate those combat forces. Unfortunately, that will never happen, until after Obama is replaced by the election of a new capable President, not by his Secretary of State who initiated the Iranian International Nuclear Weapons Agreement. The reason the US has not been able to provide the leadership to defeat ISIS, and why ISIS has metastasized, is because of Obama’s shifted away from 74 years of US support for its traditional Sunni Allies in the Middle East, in order to provide outright support for the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, Iran, a terrorist state that is actively engaged militarily executing terrorist strikes against former US Sunni Allies in Bahrein, Yemen, and Lebanon.

According to a decorated American military veteran, advising the Christian Assyrian Army, Lt Col Sargis Sangari, USA (Ret), who was a deployed to Iraq during his 20-year career in the U.S. Army, the Christian Assyrian Army is in dire need of military support from the United States to protect Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, and to effectively fight against the continued genocide they are facing at the hands of the barbaric Islamic State (ISIS). Lt Col Sangari is one of a number of American military veterans advising the Christian Assyrian Army, known as “Dwekh Nawsha”, which means “self-sacrifice” in the ancient Aramaic language spoken by Jesus Christ; that language is still spoken by the Assyrian Christians in their ancient homeland on the Plains of Ninveh. According to Lt Col Sangari, the Christian Assyrian Army, which is primarily based in the eastern portion of Iraq’s Assyrian Nineveh plains near Kurdish forces, the Christian Assyrian Army goals are closely aligned with the strategic goals and aspirations of the United States. Not only has the Assyrian Christians desperate need for defensive weapons to protect their women and children, been refused by Obama for 3 years, but the widespread genocide of hundreds of thousands Syrian and Assyrian Christians in the Middle East by ISIS has been ignored by the Obama administration.

The above listed 72 successful terrorist attacks against the Homeland by Radical Islamic Terrorists, the travel by 250+ recruited US citizens to join ISIS’ genocide of Syrian and Assyrian Christians on the Plains of Nineveh, the 82 foiled terrorist attacks in the US by Radical Islamic terrorists, and the 900+ current ISIS terrorist plots designed to kill Americans under investigation by the FBI in 50 states, is an indication of how the attempt to effectively protect the Homeland by law enforcement is getting completely out of control, because of Obama’s continuing violation of US Federal Immigration Laws. Future Radical Islamic Terrorist attacks can be foiled by the FBI with the support and assistance of thousands of Patriotic Muslim American citizens; their cooperation is important to combat the murderous element of Radical Islamic Terrorists who entered the US thru the massive influx of 900,000 Muslim Refugees that Obama immigrated into the Republic over the last 7 years. At the same time those Muslim refugees were allowed to emigrate into the US, 300,000 Christian Middle East refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency have been repeatedly excluded from resettlement in the United States by the Obama administration.

The below listed article by Pat Buchanan goes thru a litany of how previous US President, going back 100 years, excluded certain classes of immigrants from the United States—there is absolutely no reason why the refugees settlement program, can’t put on a “long pause” until the vetting process can be finally instituted to exclude Radical Islamic Terrorists with terrorist ties.

Copyright 2015, Capt. Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. This material can only be posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without permission from the author

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108

Fax: (619) 220-0109

http://www.CombatVeteransForCongress.org

https://www.facebook.com/combatveteransforcongress?ref=hl

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

-Isaiah 6:8

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An Establishment Unhinged

BY PAT BUCHANAN

DECEMBER 11, 2015, 3:10 AM

Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.

As all the old hate words — xenophobe, racist, bigot — have lost their electric charge from overuse, and Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini.

The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.

Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.

But is this really true?

The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.

In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States.

Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.

Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land.

Did this represent 40 years of fascism?

Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration?

Reason one: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber and the San Bernardino killers.

And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us.

Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.

Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism, and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue.

Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.

Third, according to Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington, a “clash of civilizations” is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?

Set aside al-Qaida, ISIS and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when sharia is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.

In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone?

With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?

Many European nations — Germans, French, Swedes, Brits — appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries.

Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?

In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace “Hollywood values” regarding abortion, adultery and homosexuality, can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.

In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren’s interpretation of the First Amendment — about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally — apply?

When is the next “Crusade for Christ” coming to Saudi Arabia?

Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?

President Obama and the guilt-besotted West often bawl their apologies for the horrors of the Crusades that liberated Jerusalem.

Anyone heard Muslim rulers lately apologizing for Saladin, who butchered Christians to take Jerusalem back, or for Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered the Christian Balkans rampaging through Hungary all the way to the gates of Vienna?

Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment — that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.

Trump’s success tells us that the American people really do not celebrate “globalization.” They think our negotiators got snookered out of the most magnificent industrial machine ever built, which once guaranteed our workers the highest standard of living on earth.

They don’t want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured, and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.

As for the establishment, they are saying pretty much what The Donald is saying. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament:

You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!

November 20, 2015

Quick Note: Immigration & Citizenship 20 Nov 15

Said it before, so many of the details are posted in earlier posts.

1. All of Islam is required by the Shar’Ia, the Qu’Ran, and the Hadith, to participate in Jihad, see the post with the over 100 direct citations to the Qu’Ran;
2. Muslims are required to either participate directly, as in violent terrorist attacks as Mohammed requires in the Hadith, or indirectly through cultural infiltration in Jihad. The only exceptions are widows, orphans, and the last male of a family. These exceptions are required to pay a Jihad support tax;
3. Obama lost his, if he ever had one, U.S. citizenship when Soetoro adopted him. For those of you who question this, the quick answer is, “go ask Angelina Jolie if the children that she has adopted from Africa are U.S. citizens or are they still citizens of their countries of origin”;
4. Fulbright scholarships are only available to Non-U.S. citizens ONLY. Obama-Soetoro attended both Occidental College and Columbia University on a Fulbright Scholarship. In order to get a Fulbright Scholarship, the applicant MUST submit proof of non-U.S. citizenship, either a passport or a sealed and certified birth certificate; &
5. My first maternal immigrant was recruited by Lincoln’s union army in 1863. He acquired his U.S. citizenship through honorable military service. My paternal grand-parents came here legally from Poland to avoid the world war. My paternal grand-father was a Polish Patriot running from the Russian secret police. My father’s generation and those subsequent, have all been born in the U.S.

All of my ancestors integrated themselves into U.S. culture. A significant number of us have served honorably in the U.S. military, myself a U.S. Marine with a combat deployment.

It is not just this first group getting in, it is that once they are in, they will be able to vet the second, third, &c waves, none of whom will integrate into American Society & Culture. This is the soft, indirect Jihad of cultural destruction.

And, I keep getting emails regarding my position as a secessionist being either Tea Party or unpatriotic. I draw those of you who question my patriotism and adherence to my oath to the U.S. Constitution to read The Declaration of Independence, then the constitution of 1787, and then the absurdity of the recent SCOTUS rulings on Obama-care and on same sex marriage. Read again the Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. post. The High Federalist/ Marshallistas have completely destroyed the 1787 constitution.

The Surete, the French Security force, has just reported that two of the Paris terrorists came through Greece as Syrian refugees.

Another victim has died in hospital.

Paris, and France in general, has one of the most restrictive in democratic countries gun control laws. If they had a 2nd Amendment, do you really think that the casualty count would be this high?

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has recently stated that most of these people do not meet the legal definition of refugees. He suggests that those looking at this issue, read the statute for the legal reasons for sanctuary to be granted. Most of these Syrian Refugees do NOT meet the definition. Go read the statute, it includes as one of several elements that the applicant have a proven fear of death/ genocide if he is returned to his point of origin. This means that those in safe camps near Turkey, or arriving here from Europe, or any other non-combatant territory, are ineligible for resettlement, as they are leaving safe havens, thus there is no threat of death or genocide. http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii

Semper Fi and God Bless America!

November 11, 2015

Title 18 Sec 2071, from Earl [nc – full text available at www.law.cornell.edu/lii]

Of course our laws don’t mean anything to Obama or Hillary….

What difference does it make?

A former United States Attorney General just reviewed federal law pertaining to Hillary’s case.

His ruling?

Hillary Clinton may not be legally allowed to hold office if she is charged in connection with her use of a private email server to handle classified information.

Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton’s private email server illegal, it “disqualifies” her from holding any federal office.

Such as, say, President of the United States.

“If you do this or that bad thing, you’ve essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world,” said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.

Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.

For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here’s what it says:

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Yes, it explicitly states “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

Shouldn’t voters know that?

The media won’t tell them.

So it’s up to us.

Can you help hold Hillary accountable?

Or do you care?

October 7, 2015

Guns, from Earl [c]

This is worth the read
No matter how you feel about guns, you should find this most interesting.
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.
SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Remember: Guns don’t kill people, Democrats kill people.

A LITTLE BIT OF GUN HISTORY……….
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control:
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
——————————
Germany established
gun control in 1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and
others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.
——————————
China established
gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
—- ————- ————-
Uganda
established gun control in 1970: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————

Cambodia established gun control in 1956: From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
—————————–
56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control!
——————————

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only
the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’; without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WW II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED! Gun owners in the USA are the largest
armed forces in the world!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES A GUN TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD!
SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND TRAINS EVERY ADULT IN THE USE OF A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward this.

If you’re not a believer, please reconsider the true facts. This is
history; not the BS that’s being shown on TV, sanctioned by our
illustrious leaders in Washington.
________________________________________

[I have not been able to verify the first section regarding Democrats, but I know for certain that most of it has been reported as true by the news media. The second section is historical fact that was once taught in high schools throughout the U.S.A. Further, there is a section of federal law which defines the unorganized militia of the United States of America to be all healthy males, except those in certain government positions, between the ages of 16 and 48 and certain females, as the Unorganized Militia of the United States of American, and that those who meet the definition are required, as are the Swiss, to own and know how to use, a rifle.]

September 15, 2015

Immigrants or invaders? An eyewitness report [c]

Third World Invasion: Eyewitness Description, September 5, 2015

SEPTEMBER 6, 2015 BY TNO STAFF— IN EUROPE · 15 COMMENTS

An eye-witness account from Kamil Bulonis, a Polish travel blog writer, who was present on the Italian-Austrian border on September 5, 2015, as swarms of Third World nonwhites poured across the border to invade Austria and Germany (A translation from Polish): (Please note: all pictures from the Hungarian-Austrian border)

trash-02

“Half an hour ago on the border between Italy and Austria I saw with my own eyes a great many immigrants … With all solidarity with people in difficult circumstances I have to say that what I saw arouses horror… This huge mass of people – sorry, that I’ll write this – but these are absolute savages… Vulgar, throwing bottles, shouting loudly “We want to Germany!” – and is Germany a paradise now?

I saw how they surrounded a car of an elderly Italian woman, pulled her by her hair out of the car and wanted to drive away in the car. They tried to overturn the bus in I travelled myself with a group of others. They were throwing feces at us, banging on the doors to force the driver to open them, spat at the windscreen… I ask for what purpose? How is this savagery to assimilate in Germany?

I felt for a moment like in a war… I really feel sorry for these people, but if they reached Poland – I do not think that they would get any understanding from us … We were waiting three hours at the border which ultimately could not cross.

Our whole group was transported back to Italy in a police-cordon. The bus is damaged, covered with feces, scratched, with broken windows. And this is supposed to be an idea for demographics? These big powerful hordes of savages?

Among them there were virtually no women, no children—the vast majority were aggressive young men … Just yesterday, while reading about them on all the websites I subconsciously felt compassion, worried about their fate but today after what I saw I am just afraid and yet I am happy that they did not choose our country as their destination. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people – neither culturally nor financially. I do not know if anyone is ready. To the EU a pathology is marching which we had not yet a chance to ever see, and I am sorry if anyone gets offended by his entry …

I can add that cars arrived with humanitarian aid – mainly food and water and they were just overturning those cars…

Through megaphones the Austrians announced that there is permission for them to cross the border—they wanted to register them and let them go on—but they did not understand these messages. They did not understand anything.

And this was the greatest horror … For among those few thousand people nobody understood Italian or English, or German, or Russian, or Spanish … What mattered was fist law… They fought for permission to move on and they had this permission— but did not realize that they had it! They opened the luggage hatches of a French bus—and everything that was inside was stolen within short time, some things left lying on the ground …

Never in my short life had I an opportunity to see such scenes and I feel that this is just the beginning.”

[secession]

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.