Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
By: Trevor Loudon
“Judy Chu, is a communist????”
In April 2012, then Florida Congressman Allen West got himself into hot water with the media, after claiming that 70 to 80 members of Congress were “communists.” While his terminology was too loose, in spirit, Mr. West was essentially correct.
In a mocking interview with the Congressman, CNN presenter Soledad O’Brien confronted West with a list of Congress members, asking him to confirm if they were “communists.”
If West knew as much about communism as he does about radical Islam, he could have made a case for the affirmative for all those named. When Soledad O’Brien asked, “Judy Chu, is a communist????” West could, and should have said, “she’s probably one of the worst!!!”
That would have knocked O’Brien off her chair and it would probably come as a surprise to many – especially Judy Chu’s colleagues on the Congressional Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
Everyone knows the Est Los Angeles Democrat is a “progressive” – but aren’t they all down there? And Judy Chu has been a vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which means she has to be pretty far to the left.
But she’s nice and photogenic, speaks beautifully, is always immaculately dressed – and she likes small business. She’s very politically correct, but hey aren’t they all in SoCal? And she’s a huge supporter of President Barack Obama, so she must be okay.
Unfortunately, there is much more to Judy Chu than meets the eye.
Judy Chu spent much of her younger years in the orbit of the Communist Workers Party, one of the most extreme and violent leftist groups ever active in the United States. More importantly, though the party is long defunct, Chu is still involved with a network of former comrades and seems intent on pursuing their agenda through her Congressional work.
More concerning again, the old CWP was loyal to Red China – America’s number one rival. Elements of Chu’s network remain pro-China to this day – raising serious questions about Chu’s suitability for any Congressional Committees involving national security, trade policy, science and technology, and… well just about anything really.
Over a series of posts, I will examine Judy Chu’s ties to this network. But first, I’d like to examine the Communist Workers Party. Who were they? Why should we worry about a Maoist sect that went out of business many years ago?
Chinese born activist Jerry Tung founded a tiny Maoist organization called the Asian Study Group in New York in 1973. The ASG later merged with other radical groups to form a new organization, also headed by Tung: Workers Viewpoint Organization, which in turn became the Communist Workers Party in 1979.
The CWP emphasized unionization and self-determination for African-Americans and enjoyed some success in the textile cities of North Carolina. The party established branches in New York, Boston, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Greensboro, West Virginia and Colorado.
Mainly Asian to begin with, after absorbing several Maoist sects, the CWP gained a high proportion of a Black, White and Latino cadre. The CWP followed the policies of Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and Cambodian mass murderer, Pol Pot. They also originally gave some support to the Islamists of the Iranian Revolution.
Violent confrontation was a key part of the CWP modus operandi. In 1979, the CWP “was consciously trying to upgrade its level of militancy, to become more adept at combining legal and illegal tactics,” according to CWP activist Signe Waller. In New York’s Chinatown, CWP members and supporters violently attacked the offices of a critical newspaper and members of a rival, radical organization opposing the political direction of a CWP front group. In Greensboro, North Carolina, CWP activists had violent confrontations with a rival Maoist group, the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Greensboro, NC was also the site of the WCP’s darkest hour.
Around Greensboro, the CWP waged an aggressive campaign against the local Ku Klux Klan, going so far as to try to shut down a Klan showing of the movie “Birth of a Nation” at the public library in the town of China Grove.
Planning a “Death to the Klan” rally near the Morningside Heights housing project in Greensboro on November 3, 1979, the CWP publicly challenged the Klan. The CWP claimed that cowardly Klan members would not make an appearance and face the “wrath of the people.” The local Klan, however, sought the assistance of some neo-Nazis and responded to CWP’s challenge.
After CWP activists taunted Klansman and hit their cars, the Klansmen opened fire. Many CWPers were armed too and fire was returned, but city bred academic communists were no match for country raised Klansmen. When the gunfire ended, 5 CWP members lay dead and many more were wounded.
The infamous “Greensboro Massacre” made the CWP world famous, in the worst possible way.
Despite being filmed by journalists, all the Klansmen were acquitted after several trials, on the grounds of self defense.
Enraged by the acquittals, the CWP attempted to storm the 1980 Democratic National Convention in New York.
During the convention, 150 CWPers stormed a Democratic fundraiser at the Plaza Hotel, injuring six policemen. The next evening, a contingent of 200, armed with pick handles and Mace, tried to fight their way into Madison Square Garden, the convention site; 15 were arrested.
A proud account of the violence was published in the CWP’s Workers Viewpoint, Vol. 5, No. 31, August 25-31, 1980:
Thursday, August 14, 9 p.m.: Among the crowds on the streets all over mid-town Manhattan we walked, breaking off in twos or threes to converge quickly at one point. In a few short minutes hundreds formed a tight brigade, running in formation. Rounding the corner off 34th Street, we moved onto 8th Avenue, stopping traffic and sending the pigs scrambling. The Secret Service jammed their walkie-talkies: “The CWP is coming, with helmets and clubs.” But it was too late, we had taken them by surprise.
Brilliant in the glare of Madison Square Garden, the site of the 1980 Democratic Convention, lit up brighter than Yankee Stadium, the demonstrators stood for three long minutes, raising fists, banners, and ringed by helmeted defense teams with sticks. Passersby stood riveted and the air snapped as the chant grew: “Greensboro, Miami, Payback Time!” “WHAT IS THIS?” people were stunned. “This is something. They are ready. Their people got killed before and they are ORGANIZED.”
The pigs swarmed to lock the Garden doors, clambering for their own helmets. Convention television coverage was interrupted to show this demonstration, a march like no other mere protest. Our troops about-faced and stepped out to depart. Some pigs went mad, broke ranks and charged, clubbing demonstrators including women and children. They drew .45 caliber revolvers, chasing people for blocks.
But the pigs were outmaneuvered as the demonstrators organized to fight back. “Some of the demonstrators struck policemen so hard that their riot helmets cracked,” described a New York Times article. One cop from the 114 Precinct was quoted by the New York Post as saying, “They were very well organized. Every time we tried to grab them they splintered and reformed somewhere else. It was a very dangerous situation.” “I didn’t make a single arrest. Every time I tried to collar someone, 3 or 4 came up behind to hit me over the head,” complained a cop at the hospital later.
After several minutes 26 pigs were downed, injured. Seventeen demonstrators were arrested, the rest dispersed into the night, prepared for another battle…The whipped cops, the capitalists’ first-line enforcers, one who was seen to be bawling as he stood face-to-face with the militant demonstration, tried to get even. They arrested comrades, all who were seen to be standing and almost unmarked as they entered paddy wagons. After several hours inside Midtown South precinct, the comrades were sent to hospitals with head injuries and. some broken bones.
What the sick pigs couldn’t do on the streets, they had tried to do behind closed doors, beating comrades with blackjacks and clubs, putting guns to their heads trying to get them to sing “God Bless America.” But even inside their own fortress they were defeated.
In 1981, Mark Loo, a Chinese-American CWP member, his party comrade Rodney Johnson and unionist David Boyd, were charged with the attempted bombing of the National Shipbuilding Company in San Diego, California, during a labor dispute. The trio were represented by radical lawyer Leonard Weinglass.
Defending the NASSCO 3, soon became a major cause for the CWP.
By the mid-1980’s, the People’s Republic of China had largely abandoned attempts to incite world revolution through Maoist sloganeering and street rioting.
China instead chose to expand its influence through business, international trade and buying its way into power through bribery and corruption.
All around the world, including in my country New Zealand, Maoist parties abandoned their old confrontational Marxist-Leninist tactics, for a more subtle approach based on the teachings of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.
No more marching in the streets. Now was the time for a “Long March” through the institutions. In the US, the CWP explicitly abandoned Marxism-Lenism for Gramsci.
Instead of university graduates going into factories to win converts to Maoism, these same comrades were to use their degrees to infiltrate the highest levels of US society. Academia, the labor movement, business, non-profits and particularly the Democratic Party were targeted. In line with this policy, the CWP changed its name and began a deliberate attempt to bring America to communism from within.
At a convention in mid-1985, the CWP formally dissolved itself, in its place arose a new organization, the New Democratic Movement, devoted to establishing “local power bases.” Jerry Tung, general secretary of the former CWP, explained the idea to the assembled faithful:
“[O]nce you get people elected or appointed to office, you can award contracts to friends…. When you can raise money for political purposes, when you do it in the right place in the right atmosphere, and look right, and the [mainstream] party bosses are there, then that money makes them take you seriously.”
Ben Connors, a lawyer, joined the CWP circa 1984.
He wrote an article for the Party’s internal bulletin, The Expert Red, February 1985, explaining the advantages of the new approach.
Organizing other leftists like ourselves seemed sufficiently important at the time. We came to learn however that it was indeed important, but hardly sufficient. It was time to assume leadership over the whole society…Rather than storm City Hall, we are donning tuxedoes, and preparing to enter through special invitation. We are learning to use our skills in ways that are proving far more dangerous to the ruling class, and far more beneficial to the masses to whom we have dedicated lives of service.
These days we not only organize but will also begin to deliver. We will not be content to petition the state legislature, we want to be the state legislature. It is truly an exciting time to be an American revolutionary.
You want me to be a Congressman? Fine, its what my mother always wanted for me anyway. It’s all very legitimate. For other new comrades as well, the road is wide open – we can follow any career path we choose, so long as it helps the Party lead and serve the American people.
And that’s exactly what they did.
After a few short years, the New Democratic Movement faded from view.
However, there is clear evidence that remnants of the CWP/NDM networks are very much still alive. In Manhattan, former CWPers have a big power base in the Democratic Party and help support New York City Councillor and onetime CWP member Margaret Chin.
There is a smaller network around Oakland, California with Mayor Jean Quan, another former CWP member.
Several former CWP types are also working closely with Congresswoman Judy Chu, in the Los Angeles area.
Part 2 – coming soon.
Trevor Loudon is author of Barack Obama and the Enemies Within and is nearing completion of a new title: “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress.”
By: Trevor Loudon
Given Barack Obama‘s obvious Marxism, its hard to argue with the logic presented here.
February 2013 by Partisan
This white paper will examine a Marxist Revolution under the assumption that the president wants to incite Marxist Revolution in America.
When Vladmir Lenin came to power, he introduced a set of socialist policies that literally crashed the Soviet economy by 1921. After pure socialism visibly failed, Lenin introduced what was called, “New Economic Policy,” a modified form of socialism more akin to state-capitalism. Various industries were allowed to remain in private hands while others were wrangled into the purview of government control.
As we recount the industries over which the government is now in control – healthcare, energy, education, student loans – how can one not draw similarities as the contemporary version of Lenin’s state-capitalism? And if we conclude that the president is a Marxist in a still very much un-Marxist nation, how can we think this is the end of his efforts? As long as the material needs of the neo-peasant class go unmet, the Marxist’s work is never done. (As long as there is a neo-peasant class…) Socialism is only the first step in the march towards “single class” Marxist communism; and that makes us the counter-revolutionaries.
Proletariat revolution and the peasant class.
The president’s thrust to power was the result of the perfect Proletariat revolution. Because the neo-peasant class was able to vote their revolution into place with the aid of the Marxist bourgeois, a violent revolution simply wasn’t needed. But there’s still plenty of work for the Proletariat revolution. The president still needs to continue constructing socialism in order to get to Marxist communism.
This begs the question, How do you sideline, neutralize, or otherwise silence opposition? Conservatives and libertarians make up around 50% of the nation but that number is reportedly declining; therefore a violent Marxist revolution is out of the question. The Marxists simply don’t have the guns.
We would expect the president to not only engage in anti-constitutional but counter-constitutional activities. This includes circumventing the established and separated powers of government; disabling the rule of law in America by selective enforcement; and propaganda campaigns that include how anachronistic the document created by racists is. Further, we can deduce that the president doesn’t care for large portions of the Constitution and he would probably like to get rid of it altogether. We would expect the president and his staff to create a culture of non-compliance with the law, introducing new harmful laws while giving party-affiliated organizations breaks from those laws.
Threat of military coup.
As long as counter-constitutional activity is continued, and before it’s achieved total victory, the Marxist revolution is susceptible to compromise. To mitigate the risk of a military coup by high level leaders who are upholding an Oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, we expect the president and party leadership to identify and replace conservative and Patriot military leaders.
Furthermore, if the president wanted to prevent a military coup, why not take the teeth off the conventional military by fostering dissension among the ranks? It’s unlikely that policy changes would incite a coup, and we’re unlikely – under this president – to get involved in another ground war. Allowing openly homosexual soldiers accomplishes two things: it bolsters the Marxist president’s standing in that community and it sows discord among the ranks of conservative military members.
February 8th, 2013 by Partisan
As for introducing females into line units, no one has proved that this will increase combat efficiency; and there are volumes of data that women can’t compete at the same levels as required in combat units. Walter Williams cites Defense Department statistics and says that dating back to 1994, only 2.9% of females can achieve the male’s standard of pushups and two-mile run time. Defense Secretary Panetta suggested that if women were incapable of meeting the same standards that the Defense Department review those standards and determine if they were too high.
Disarm the opposition.
Disarming the opposition would include a literal disarmament along with a political one. In 1993, before the first Assault Weapons Ban was enacted into law, Attorney General Janet Reno said, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” The first step in 2013 is to re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban, with no expiration date. When that surprisingly doesn’t end all gun violence, the administration go after other firearms until the end goal is achieved.
Speaker Boehner recently claimed that the president was trying to “annihilate” the republican party. As long as it destroys itself, the president will have cooperation in its demise. Part of the plan to destroy the GOP is to introduce millions of democrat voters through amnesty and other citizenship programs for current “undocumented visitors”.
Removing effective representation will leave the Patriot-class severely under represented. The administration will continue to alienate the Patriot community and polarize the issue and, eventually, they could blame the racist, clingers to guns, religion, and low taxes as the cause of their problems; much like Hitler did the Jews in the 1930s and 40s. The ninth rule of Saul Alinsky’s Rule of Radicals is, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” By arresting and publicizing the “most dangerous” Patriots – those with expertise, say veterans – the administration could successfully push the threat of the Patriot and citizen militia as a preeminent national security threat.
Destroy and reassign wealth.
The first rule in the playbook of politics is that power is derived from money. Global banking founder Mayer Rothschild infamously said, “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” As long as the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, our currency will suffer from manipulation to the detriment of the many for the benefit of the few. Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” As I’ve said before, $16 trillion isn’t debt you pay back with money you have in the bank; but with money that you will create. The Federal Reserve, at the behest and cooperation with the federal regime, will destroy the dollar in the process. After all, inflation is just a stealth tax.
In a Marxist revolution, wealth and capital destruction is also achieved through progressive income taxes (“The rich must pay their fair share.”); and the reassignment of wealth to the state through confiscatory death and estate taxes, effectively abolishing inheritance. Assuming state control of the financial and banking industry is the next step. The administration will design federal programs to “protect” pensions, 401Ks, and IRAs until the machinations result in the reassignment of wealth back to the state.
Thanks to Butte.
By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News
FDR ignored informed assessments about Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideological imperialism.
Obama Is ignoring informed assessments about Islamic jihadist imperialism.
Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.), Right Side News
FDR’s Arrogant Ignorance
President Franklin D. Roosevelt arrogantly and ignorantly believed that he, by virtue of his personal charm, could persuade Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin to forsake his well-known ways of foreign policy deceit and mendacity. Shortly after he became president in 1933, FDR decided the U.S. should diplomatically recognize the Communist Bolshevik regime that had come to power in the Soviet Union through bloody revolution sixteen years earlier. When the Russian czar and his family were overthrown in 1917 and murdered a year later, the U.S. had broken off diplomatic relations. The justification for this diplomatic break was soon reinforced by the atrocities committed by the Bolsheviks in their “Red Terror” campaign. The Red Terror was a merciless crusade to eliminate any opposition that resisted Bolshevik rule. The mass murders of opponents were carried out by the Bolshevik secret police, known as the “Cheka,” which was the forerunner of the KGB. One of the regional Cheka chiefs explained the Red Terror as follows in a Bolshevik newspaper:
Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.
This macabre explanation was amplified by Grigory Zinoviev, long time head of the Communist International (Comintern), the Moscow-directed international communist organization dedicated to the overthrow of foreign bourgeois governments, “To overcome of our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.”
Given the Bolsheviks’ demonstrated bloody repression of their own people and their world revolutionary Comintern subversive organization that was the enemy of all non-communist governments, American diplomats Charles Bohlen, Averell Harriman, Loy Henderson, and George Kennan, men intimately knowledgeable of ruthlessness aims and tactics of Bolshevism, all recommended to FDR that the U.S. should have as few dealings with the Soviet Union as possible. Their reason was simple and straightforward – the Kremlin eventually intended to bring about the violent overthrow of all the countries with which the Soviet Union maintained relations.
FDR and his personal foreign policy advisor, Harry Hopkins, never comprehended the vicious meaning of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, in spite of being accurately forewarned.
A few months after his March 4, 1933, inauguration, the State Department’s Eastern European Division presented FDR with a paper on how he might proceed in the negotiations for recognition of the Soviet Union. The memorandum, dated July 27, 1933, contained this prescient paragraph:
The fundamental obstacle in the way of the establishment with Russia of the relations usual between nations in diplomatic intercourse is the world revolutionary aims and practices of the rulers of that country. . . . It would seem, therefore, that an essential prerequisite to the establishment of harmonious and trustful relations with the Soviet Government is abandonment by the present rulers of Russia of their world revolutionary aims and the discontinuance of their activities designed to bring about the realization of such aims. More specifically and with particular regard to the United States, this prerequisite involves the abandonment by Moscow of direction, supervision, control, financing, et cetera, through every agency utilized for the purpose, of communist and other related activities in the United States.
FDR and Hopkins misread Stalin for the next twelve years, culminating at Yalta in FDR’s monumental blunder of actually believing that Stalin would keep his promises and treaties guaranteeing an independent Eastern Europe in post-war Europe. Shortly before he died, FDR stated, “Averell [Harriman] is right. We can’t do business with Stalin. He has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta.”
Why FDR persisted in his willful ignorance of the Soviet intention to spread world communism has been the subject of numerous history books (especially see the chapter, “Duping FDR: ‘Uncle Joe’ and ‘Buddies’,” in Paul Kengor’s excellent DUPES), so suffice to state the obvious and factual here – FDR’s hubris blinded him to the danger of the Soviet threat, even though he was repeatedly and accurately warned.
Obama’s Arrogant Ignorance (And/Or Something Else?)
President Barack H. Obama is following in the footsteps of his Democrat presidential predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in arrogantly and ignorantly treating an existential danger as nothing to be worried about in regard to U.S. national security. In fact, instead of portraying Islamic Sharia law as the incontestable threat it is to the U.S. Constitution, BHO is misleading Americans and others concerning the bellicose nature of jihad and the fact that violent jihad is mainstream Islamic theology, not some radical misinterpretation.
Obama on Jihad: Islam, a peaceful religion, is hijacked by some terrorists
Since BHO is the son and stepson of Muslims and spent his early youth growing up in the Muslim culture of Indonesia, while being officially registered as a Muslim at that time, it is difficult to satisfactorily explain BHO’s apparent willful ignorance of the imperialistic nature of Islam. For instance, BHO has imposed his willful ignorance on the nation’s military and law enforcement forces by ordering suppression of the fact that Islamic law decrees Sharia and secular legal frameworks, like the U.S. Constitution, cannot coexist in the same geographic area. Furthermore, it is all but impossible to believe that BHO is not aware that Muslim law directs followers of Islam to overthrow secular legal frameworks throughout the world and replace them with Islamic Sharia law through jihad. That such Muslim jihadist undermining of non-Islamic legal systems and their replacement with Islamic law is a central organizing principle of Islam is not disputable. Moreover, in view of more than 20,000+ worldwide jihadist terror attacks in the name of “Allah” since 9/11, ignorance of this central Muslim organizing principle on the part of the president of the United States is just not conceivable or believable.
Nevertheless, consider these counterfactual statements about Islam that BHO made in his 2009 Cairo speech that betray a totally unrealistic and misleading concept of Islam and its history:
…throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.
I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam.
Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.
And then there was BHO’s 2012 proclamation to the UN General Assembly triumphantly asserting:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
BHO’s statements are surreal in light of the following Quranic and Sharia instructional commandments to Muslims:
5:51: O you, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing [Jewish and Christian] people. ~ The Islamic god, Allah, in the Quran
9:29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day [Islamic eschatology] and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have made unlawful [that is, do not practice Islamic Sharia jurisprudence] and who do not adopt the religion of truth [Islam] from those [Jews and Christians] who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [Muslim submission tax for non-Muslims] willingly while they are humbled. ~ The Islamic god, Allah, in the Quran
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. ~ Islamic Sharia Law
“I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight [all] people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah . . . .” [this recitation is the “Shahada” – recited when declaring oneself a Muslim] ~ Muhammad, Prophet of Islam, Islamic Sharia Law
This surrealism is compounded by BHO’s principal counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, and his description of jihad as a “holy struggle!”
John Brennan (Counter-terrorism Advisor) Says Jihad is Legitimate
Brennan is correct in revising the “War on Terror” mischaracterization, which was a mislabeling hangover from the Bush Administration. President George W. Bush set the cowardly model for all non-Muslim political leaders after 9/11 by focusing his “war” on the tactic of terror rather than concentrating on the perpetrators of terror, Islamic jihadists, and their motivational sources, the Islamic Quran and Sharia. However, for Brennan to portray jihad as a “holy struggle” in the face the Sharia’s authoritative and unambiguous definition – Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion – indicates Brennan is in denial, or more likely, is attempting deception, or possibly both.
Is BHO Duly Warned?
FDR had the benefit of the wisdom of the diplomats Charles Bohlen, Averell Harriman, Loy Henderson, and George Kennan, four of the most knowledgeable Americans concerning Bolshevik plans for world domination. Unfortunately he ignored their sage advice. But moving forward in history to today, does BHO have access to experts on Islam comparable FDR’s knowledgeable diplomatic quartet? Actually he does. Since BHO is touted as an ivy league intellectual and is also a self-proclaimed student of Islam, he is surely familiar with works of two of the most prominent 20th century Islamic leaders and spokesmen, Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
These two Islamic leaders leave no doubt as to the objective of Islam:
“It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” ~ Hassan al-Banna
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. ~ Ayatollah Khomeini
It is impossible to imagine that BHO and Brennan truly misunderstand the explicit Islamic jihadist imperialism mandated in the Quran and Sharia, or the straightforward statements of imperialistic purpose by al-Banna and Khomeini. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that they are in denial, as FDR apparently was. But since BHO and Brennan both have long personal histories with the Islamic religion, it is more plausible to believe that they are engaged in a combination of deception motivated by denial.
Those benighted souls, who can read the Quranic suras, Sharia injunctions, and al-Banna and Khomeini statements of Islamic imperialistic purpose above and yet maintain that Islam is benign, suffer from willful blindness (see Andy McCarthy’s excellent Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad) born of the misguided beliefs that either most Muslims ignore the violent injunctions of Islamic scripture and it really is just a tiny minority who are violent Muslim extremists, or that Islam may be violent and extreme, but the religion can be “modernized and civilized” through exposure to democracy and economic development. Alternatively, there is a third possibility that seems to apply to most of the liberal segment of the U.S. population, and that is, the unquestioning belief in mindless multiculturalism, which foolishly maintains that all religions are equal and refuses to even consider the jihadist Quranic suras, Sharia injunctions, and al-Banna and Khomeini statements.
Unfortunately these misguided beliefs don’t reconcile with 1400 violent years of Islamic history. Tens of millions of souls have lost their lives as a result of Islamic jihad over the centuries. Efforts to “reform Islam” have failed utterly. The recent U.S. failed nation-building experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increasing political empowerment of Islamic Sharia owing to the “Arab Spring” are tangible proof of the unredeemable quality of Islam for those who have the moral and intellectual fortitude to acknowledge the truth.
Tom Snodgrass RSN Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan working with Pakistani military intelligence, and he was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer in assignments in six other foreign countries during a thirty-year military career. Additionally, he was awarded a year’s educational sabbatical teaching and writing as an Air Force Research Associate at the Center for Advanced International Studies, University of Miami, Florida.
By: Aeneas Lavinium
Chris Knowles of the International Civil Liberties Alliance
The following is our response to an article on The Copenhagen Post website entitled Hedegaard lashes out following failed assassination attempt.
My organisation the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA) awarded Mr Hedegaard our Defender of Freedom Award last year in the European Parliament.
Unlike many newspapers, he is willing to stand up and speak truth to power. Newspapers tend to no longer do their job of informing the public and challenging the powerful. Instead they provide a skewed ideologically driven picture of the world. Rather than report the facts they choose to demonise individuals like Mr Hedegaard and in doing so deliberately put them in danger.
Lars Hedegaard has shown willingness even to put his life on the line in the cause of freedom. How many newspaper editors can say the same thing?
ICLA supports Mr Hedegaard’s call to remove the blasphemy clause. Indeed we call for the abolition of all blasphemy laws worldwide. This includes laws that are effectively blasphemy laws that are dressed in the clothes of secularism. For instance the United Kingdom abolished its blasphemy law but incorporated similar restrictions in other laws. It is the freedom to talk freely about all philosophies that needs to be protected by law. Blasphemy laws stifle freedom of speech and prevent the progressive development of our society.
Lars, we salute your bravery and your continuing commitment to freedom.
International Civil Liberties Alliance