07/3/15
The Russian Bear

Mesmerized by the Bear: The Great Soviet Deception

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Part 1

Part 2

This is a rather prophetic lecture, if you ask me, by Don McAlvany on the false demise of Communism. It was recorded 25 years ago, in 1990, shortly following the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marked the beginning of the Weidervereinigung des Deutschlands (Reunification of Germany).

What I find particularly fascinating about McAlvany’s presentation are his references to KGB defector Anatoliy Golytsin’s book New Lies for Old. I have written previously (see here) about Anatoliy’s Golytsin’s startlingly accurate predictions concerning Soviet plans to deceive the West into believing Communism was dead, and that the Soviet Union was a thing of the past. Golytsin went on to write his second book entitled The Perestroika Deception in 1995.

Most of Golytsin’s predictions have proven true in hindsight. In 1984, when New Lies for Old first hit the bookshelves, Golytsin predicted that the Berlin Wall would be torn down in order to fool the West into believing that the Soviet Union was shattered. What makes Golytsin’s prediction even more eye-opening is the fact he had written the manuscript years before New Lies for Old reached publication.

The Soviets were masters at disinformation and deception. The sophistication of their subversive techniques are breathtaking in scope and audacity. Many in the West have failed to grasp the incredible lengths the Soviets and the KGB were willing to go to in order to deceive and subvert their enemies—namely, the United States and the entire Western world.

Many of the strategies and tactics employed by the Soviets—such as the dialectical and the “two steps forward, one step” back  strategies—are foreign to many Western minds. But a thorough understanding of these strategies is paramount if one hopes to counter them. (You might’ve noticed I’ve switched to the present tense. I’ll get to that.)

Take the dialectical strategy, for example. Without getting into a dissertation on Marxist dialectics, the dialectical strategy entails the manipulation of friend and foe alike—playing both sides of the fence, so to speak. Communists are known for setting up “false opposition” groups in order to control and herd their opposition. Vladimir I. Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Leading the opposition requires infiltration, also referred to as “controlled opposition.”

Golitsyn-Perestroika-Deception-Dialectical-Quote

Communists are willing to take “one step back” in order to “move two steps forward”; giving a false impression they are in a position of weakness; when, in fact, they are strong. Such a strategy can provide an opportunity to offer “concessions” to the enemy—but only “concessions” that provide the ability to move “two steps forward.” The goal is to goad the enemy into offering real concessions (i.e. compromise), while only offering token concessions that have no real lasting consequences on the long-range strategy of crushing the enemy.

“We advance through retreat … when we are weak, we boast of strength. and when we are strong, we feign weakness.”

—V.I. Lenin

All-war-is-based-on-deception

The strategy of feigning weakness in order to lull the enemy into complacency is a rather Machiavellian concept; but it also is derived from the ancient Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu’s maxims on war.

… Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat…. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength…. Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy; masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions…. Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something, that the enemy may snatch at it…. [“two steps forward, one step back”] By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him.

—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Back in February of 2014, I had the opportunity to sit down with world-renown researcher Trevor Loudon, author of the book Barack Obama and the Enemy Within. He relayed a story to me that left me incredulous, and it ties right into the whole Soviet strategy of feigning weakness.

An ex-Communist friend of Trevor’s from New Zealand actually attended Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning in Moscow. Promising members of the Communist Party, from all over the world, were sometimes offered the opportunity to travel to Russia for further training at the International Lenin Institute, where they learned things like racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (albeit selective Russian history)—even training in explosive devices, small arms and guerrilla warfare tactics. Trevor’s friend said that a Soviet official at the Moscow institute told the students the reason the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan was that the Soviet Union needed “their own Vietnam.”

Yes, you read that correctly.

But, if you ever listen to former Soviet officials speak about the Russian experience in Afghanistan, they often times make the comparison to the U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. According to Trevor’s friend, it was all done to feign weakness and lull the West into thinking the Soviet Union wasn’t the military force they purported themselves to be. The fact of the matter is the Soviets could’ve wiped Afghanistan off the map, had they so chosen to do so.

As I drove home from my meeting with Trevor, I could scarcely believe what he had told me. But I began to ponder my own knowledge of Soviet history. The more I thought about what Trevor had told me, the less incredible it seemed.

For example, in the late 30s, the Soviet regime under Josef Stalin was systematically liquidating thousands of Russian citizens every single day. It was known as the “Great Purge.” Stalin’s depraved and blood-thirsty executioner, Lavrenti Beria, oversaw the murder of millions of Russians, and even participated on countless occasions in the executions of his own people.

After war broke out between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, there were numerous incidents of Soviet units being ordered to attack German positions and strongholds in suicidal frontal assaults that resulted in horrific casualties, often numbering in the hundreds or thousands. There are accounts of the dog tags being stripped from the dead in order to cover up the crimes of the Soviet regime. Rarely has there been an example in history of a nation that treated its own war dead with such utter contempt.

So, as I thought more and more about what Trevor had told me, it started to seem quite plausible—if not to be expected from such a morally bankrupt regime. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it was not unwarranted hyperbole. For it is not possible, in words, to describe the horrors and terrors that have been visited upon the Russian people under the Soviet system—and, more than likely, are still being visited upon the Russian people … albeit not at the astonishing levels as was experienced during Stalin’s merciless and bloody reign.

As Don McAlvany points out in his lecture, there had been six periods of “glasnost” dating back to the 20s prior to 1990. During all of the so-called glasnost periods, the United States and the West were duped into believing the Soviets were changing their tune—only to watch the Soviets return to their oppressive and tyrannical ways after securing concessions from the United States. The old dialectical doctrine of “two steps forward, one step back” has proved wildly successful against the United States and its allies, helping to further the Russian strategy for international rule and subversion.

Six-Periods-of-Glasnost

The Soviets (i.e. Communists) employ long-range strategies. Like a master chess player, they think ten steps ahead. Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria said in the early 50s, “Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” Sadly, the United States has never really formulated long-term strategic goals to counter such threats.

Golytsin predicted the Soviets would put a “happy face” on Communism by calling for “democratic reforms” in Russia, and in the former Soviet republics and Eastern Bloc countries.

Many in the West viewed the chummy meetings between Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan as a clear sign the Cold War was over, and that Soviet-style Communism had been defeated. Talk of glasnost (“openness” or “publicity”) and perestroika (i.e. restructuring, remaking, reforming, regrouping) filled the airwaves and Western press at the time.

Did Mikhail Gorbachev ever renounce Communism? Was he really a reformer who only wished to move Russia toward “democracy”?

Well, that depends on how one defines democracy.

Via MRC:

During the 70th anniversary of the Marxist revolution [in October 1987], Gorbachev reaffirmed his country’s expansionist desires: “In October of 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a New World, the World of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

Oh, and there’s plenty more of that, from where that came from (hat tip: The Contemplative Observer):

We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!!!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’], we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking to a group of Russian students, Nov. 15, 1989

“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’ and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.

—Mikhail Gorbachev, early in his tenure, speaking before the Politburo

The Party has made “specific decisions on how to update our political system”. – “Thus we shall give a fresh impetus to our revolutionary restructuring. We shall maintain our quiet [i.e. Leninist] creativity and daring in an efficient and responsible fashion in a Leninist Bolshevik manner.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking at the 27th CPSU Congress, March 1986

“Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution!”

—Mikhail Gorbachev, closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress, March 6, 1986

“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realization of its crucial characteristics.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘Perestroika’, 1987

“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already!!!] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process.

—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987

“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev: “Perestroika,” 1987

“Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed.”

—Mikhail Gorbachev:  “Perestroika,” 1987

“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism …

—Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988

Alexander-Trachtenberg-Bella-Dodd-Quote

Many in the West are also of the belief that the KGB no longer exists. But nothing could be farther from the truth. While no longer called the KGB, the secretive security agency merely restructured (i.e. perestroika), and is now known as the FSB (Russian Federal Security Forces). The FSB is still headquartered in the infamous Lubyanka building in Moscow. The FSB is the KGB.

A little while back, I visited the official FSB website (fsb.ru). I used Google translation services to translate the pages. One link titled “Our Leaders” lists the names of such notorious figures as Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yakov Peters, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrenti Beria, Yuri Andropov … and Vladimir Putin. Remember, the official FSB website lists these individuals as their “leaders.” It doesn’t look like anything has changed to me, as far as the old KGB is concerned, except for the name.

One of the main goals of the Soviets was to eliminate NATO. With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the dialectical application of their “two steps forward, one step” back strategy, Moscow hoped to gain concessions from the United States—namely, the dissolution of NATO. But the United States was resistant to the idea of breaking apart the NATO alliance. So, like the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”—NATO, that is. Once again … infiltrate and take over from within.

“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO.

—Then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996

Perhaps one of the most important predictions Anatoliy Golytsin made was his repeated insistence that the purpose of all these subversive tactics was “the establishment of a neutral, socialist Europe” (New Lies for Old, pg. 334).

Enter the European Union.

“The collective security model … should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] and the EU [European Union], strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO [and] working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.”

—Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry, in International Affairs, Vol. 4, #5 (1995): “Europe: Towards a New Security Model”

Of particular note in the above quote is the reference to “transforming NATO.”

For those who may still be of the opinion that talk of a “one-world government” (i.e. “new world order”) is strictly relegated to the realm of crackpots and so-called “conspiracy theorists,” consider the words of the unelected full-time President of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy, who has openly referenced the agenda for “global governance” on more than one occasion. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has referred to the European Union as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

In 2009, Van Rompuy said:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen, is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

Van Rompuy has also stated his desire to work closely with Russia in order to further the agenda of global governance:

“By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance … to global economic governance in the G8 and the G20.”

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine shows the “Russian Bear” still has its claws. Just today there was a report Russia was reviewing the “legality” of Baltic states’ independence. The level of disinformation coming from Putin’s state-run media machine has reached fever pitch within Russia. The Russian people are being fed a steady and constant diet of hyper-nationalistic and intensely anti-American rhetoric; it resembles a war-time footing.

Ex-Communist turned vocal anti-Communist, Dr. Bella V. Dodd (1904-1969), author of the book School of Darkness, pointed out there are three concepts that are important to differentiate concerning Communism, i.e., the Communist Conspiracy (i.e. “world conspiracy”), the Communist Party (political arm), and the Communist Movement (“social action,” i.e. praxis).

At the heart of Communism lies conspiracy. In order to subvert and deceive, conspiracy is a vital and necessary component. Communists are taught to lie … the predetermined ends always justify the means. Period.

Excerpt from page 24 of John Stormer's book None Dare Call It Treason (1964)

The one thing Communists and their ilk cannot withstand is their strategy and process being exposed. Communism is a form of psychological warfare (i.e. psyops) based on deception. Psyops only work if the party who is being deceived and manipulated is unaware of the tactics being employed against them. In essence, it’s a mind game. This is why it absolutely crucial to understand the dialectic process when it comes to Marxism-Leninism, if one wishes to have any success at countering such subversive and deceitful tactics.

Unfortunately, for many Americans and Westerners, it is still inconceivable that such a conspiracy is, and has been, employed against them. As one long-time and well-known researcher on Russian (i.e. Communist) strategy and tactics, J.R. Nyquist, recently wrote:

This last point is not to be made in polite society, and few are well-informed enough to know something of its validity. For 99 out of 100 persons, it is preferable to believe a lie. As a former British MP once said within my hearing; “Reagan and Thatcher saved the West from socialism.” But a former Russian GRU colonel, sitting across the table, whispered in my ear, “But America is the Marxist paradise.”

If you still find it hard to believe that the U.S.A. is already a “Marxist paradise,” and the world is moving toward global governance (i.e. worldwide socialism), I would encourage you to read the Communist Manifesto. Pay particular note to what has been referred to as the “10 planks of the Communist Manifesto” in Chapter Two. And then ask yourself, how many of these 10 points have already been implemented in the United States? I think, if you’re intellectually honest with yourself, the answer will shock you. And if it’s still too hard to digest and believe, just apply the scientific method: observe, make predictions, test your predictions, and then draw your own conclusion.

06/19/15
Israel

The Ups and Downs

Arlene from Israel

Lots of “downs,” for sure, but we have to also seek out the “ups” wherever we can find them.

~~~~~~~~~~

American-born Michael Oren – historian, immediate past Israeli ambassador to the US, newly elected MK in the Kulanu party, – has surprised me, and a whole lot of other people as well. He was always a very middle of the road, “two-state” advocate, and someone who has seemed to be an “establishment” type. I would not – could not! – have predicted the critique of Obama he has now produced.


Credit: Bloomberg

~~~~~~~~~~

Oren has written a book – Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide, which will be released June 23 – and a major article in the WSJ, in which he discusses Obama’s attitude towards Israel with startling candidness.

John Podhoretz wrote about the book thus (emphasis added):

“It’s an ultimate insider’s story told while all the players save Oren are still in place…

“It’s not that there’s lots of breaking news in ‘Ally’ that will startle people. Rather, it makes news on almost every page with its incredibly detailed account of the root hostility of the Obama administration toward the Jewish state…

“On major matters, the administration seemed to hold Israel accountable for problems it had nothing to do with…

“Oren also writes about bizarrely petty offenses. In 2010, Obama left Israel off a list of countries he mentioned as having helped in the wake of the Haiti earthquake when it was the first nation in the world to dispatch relief teams and get them to the disaster sites — because the president was angry about something having to do with the peace process…”

http://nypost.com/2015/06/09/a-new-inside-account-of-obamas-israel-ire/

~~~~~~~~~~

In his Wall Street Journal piece, written this week, Oren writes (emphasis added):

“’Nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes.’ When I was Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 to the end of 2013, that was my standard response to reporters asking who bore the greatest responsibility—President Barack Obama or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—for the crisis in U.S.-Israel relations.

“I never felt like I was lying when I said it. But, in truth, while neither leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately

“From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.

The first principle was ‘no daylight’…immediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and America.

“’When there is no daylight,’ the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, ‘Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs’…

The other core principle was ‘no surprises’

“Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.

“Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40 years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps—formerly the Palestinian position—as the basis for peace-making. If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-obama-abandoned-israel-1434409772

~~~~~~~~~~

Obama’s inherent hostility towards Israel will come as news to very few of us.  It is a very “down” side of what we must contend with today.

The “up” aspect is Oren’s willingness to catalogue his experience publicly, and point an appropriate finger.  More routinely, there is an inclination to diplomatically paper-over problems between nations, especially nations that are supposed to be the closest of allies.  One can only guess at the level of distress and frustration Oren coped with during the years he served as ambassador.

What is more, I see it as part of the “up” side that Prime Minister Netanyahu is refusing to comment or criticize Oren or apologize on behalf of Israel.  Netanyahu has had to swallow a whole lot of fury with regard to Obama’s treatment over the years.  Surely, he must feel vindicated at some level now, although he cannot give overt expression to this vindication.  Let us hope he continues to stand strong.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196943#.VYQWg5sVjIV

~~~~~~~~~~

It goes without saying that the response of the Obama administration to Oren’s revelations has been angry and indignant.  That angry indignation was expressed here in Israel by US Ambassador Dan Shapiro, who has been pressuring Netanyahu to apologize.  All the more credit to Bibi that he is not responding to this pressure.

The one who did back down is Moshe Kahlon, head of the Kulanu party, to which Oren belongs.  He says that Oren does not speak for his party.

According to the article I cite above, Gilad Erdan, Minister of Internal Security, has written something criticizing Oren, as well. That disappointed me.

~~~~~~~~~

An item of importance to mention here, and a real downer:


Credit: Menahem Kahana/AFP

A famous Catholic church – the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fish – in Tagbah, near the Kinneret, suffered a serious fire on Thursday.  Arson is being assumed because of the nature of the fire, and an investigation is in process.

I want first to condemn this act of arson in the strongest terms. This is not only wrong morally in and of itself; it tears the fabric of Israeli society and damages the name of Israel – which prides herself on being a place where there is freedom of worship for all.  I would like my Christian readers especially to know how abhorrent Israelis find this behavior.

Netanyahu said: “There is no room for hate or intolerance in our society.”

Chief Rabbi David Lau declared that the attack “contradicts Jewish values and human morality.”

At the same time, I caution just a bit of patience, as the investigation proceeds.  Perhaps, as is being charged in some quarters, ultra-religious young Jews are responsible for this.  But we do not know this yet.  I have memories of other times that the assumption was made, in the face of religious desecration of one sort or another, that it was Jews who did it – when it later turned out that others were responsible but had attempted to make it appear that it was an act of Jewish extremists.

A group of young Jews was questioned, but then released quickly because there was no evidence that they were involved  Fervently I hope it was not Jews who did this, but I am prepared to accept the verdict that it was, if that is what is determined in the end, and to fully condemn those responsible.

What everyone needs to know is that the investigation will be serious.

~~~~~~~~~~

Time grows short, and so I simply say, Shabbat Shalom.

05/4/15
Draw Mohammad Contest

ISIS Comes To Texas – This Is War

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Now this is personal… Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) and Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch) are people I consider friends. I’ve known Pamela a long time. Geert Wilders has long been a man I have admired. And now ISIS has the gall to attack us on our own soil, in Texas no less!

In the spirit of this attack and considering it is a declaration of war on American soil with ISIS, they can go pound sand.

From my friends at IOTWReport.com:

Last night in Garland, Texas at the “First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest,” which this site promoted, two armed gunmen with semiautomatic weapons opened up on a security guard wounding him in the ankle. He will be fine thank God. They had bombs and hand grenades I’m told. The event was sold out with about 300 attendees and ran late – which probably saved their lives. As this was going down outside, they sang God Bless America… I couldn’t be prouder of everyone there. And I am overjoyed the two asshat ISIS thugs are dead.

From CBS here is the timeline from last night:

7:45pm CT: Officers tell Gabriel Roxas that two suspects were shot dead. Pamela Geller spoke to to CBS 11 from lockdown via phone at 7:45p CT. In addition to echoing our ground team, she told a news producer, “I heard officers talking of possible explosions in backpacks and the car.” Sources told CBS 11 there was a report of a ‘grenade’ at an area Walmart but the Garland PD said none was found.

8:11pm CT: Joe Harn, spokesman for the Garland Police Department, tells CBS 11 two men pulled up in vehicle on the roadway in front of the center and began firing at a Garland ISD security guard. Garland Police returned fire and killed both suspects.

8:11pm CT: Suspects’ vehicle being checked for explosives. It is scheduled to be detonated.

8:20pm CT: Authorities tell CBS 11 that SWAT will escort 48 people at a time out of arena soon, but many are parked in a now secured area and cannot access cars.

8:30pm CT: Garland ISD spokesman Chris Moore says one of their security guards was shot. His name is Bruce Joiner. He has been with the district for 8 years. He has non-life threatening injuries after being shot once in the leg. He’s in stable condition at a local hospital.

9:00pm CT: Security guard Bruce Joiner released from hospital.

9:12pm CT: No press conference until authorities have cleared the suspects’ vehicle.

9:29pm CT: Muslim Response to Dallas Shooting. Harris Zafar, Vice President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association told CBS 11 via email: “People need to hear a strong Muslim voice condemning this insanity.”

9:29pm CT: Suspects’ bodies still at the scene.

10:16pm CT: Joe Harn of the Garland Police Department told CBS 11, “We were prepared for it.”

10:33pm CT: Harn holds a press conference. When asked about the suspects, he said, “They drove out, got out, and opened fire on the security officer.” When asked about their identities, no information was disclosed.

10:34pm CT: There were reports of a third suspect but Harn said, “I don’t have any idea about that.”

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack – the contest was held at the same location and in the same room a pro-Shariah law event was held just recently. When the killers opened fire and one reached for his backpack, the police didn’t hesitate, they took them out. Exactly what should have happened. Those officers did their job and I’m proud of them for it.

The SITE Intelligence Group reported that an ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals. In a series of tweets and links, a Jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British ISIS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas. ‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet. And ISIS thought they could do whatever they wanted – not in Texas evidently, you asshats.


Attack: The suspects’ bodies are seen next to their vehicle as it is searched for
explosives at the anti-Muslim event. Two men got out the vehicle and opened fire, wounding
a security guard in the leg, before they were shot dead by police.


ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling
himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, but police have yet to formally identify the culprits.

The two gunmen’s vehicle also looked like there was damage from an explosion to it.

From the Daily Mail:

Other Isis supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, using the account name @atawaakul, according to New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.

He had posted a message earlier that said ‘the bro with me and myself have given bay’ah [oath] to Amirul Mu’mineen [ISIS leader Al Baghdadi]. May Allah accept us as mujahideen #texasattack’.

However, Ms Callimachi pointed out that it’s not even known at this point if the attackers are Muslim. The Shariah is Light account has now been suspended.

You can bet everything you have on them being Muslim my friends… that is a certainty. As Pamela Geller put it on Fox News this morning, this is a war on free speech. Pure and simple. Islam is trying to strip us of our Constitutional rights and we will not be silenced.

There had been no credible threats before the event and the shootout lasted seconds with about 20 shots being fired. Although there were no threats, Pamela and Robert have traveled with security for over 10 years and they had paid for heavy security for the event. This is a way of life for Geert Wilders. What a sad statement that is.

More from the Daily Mail:

The attack unfolded shortly after Dutch member of parliament and leader of the far-right Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, had delivered his keynote speech. There had been calls by members of Congress for him to be stopped at the border so he would not be able to speak.

‘We are here in defiance of Islam to stand for our rights and freedom of speech,’ he said during his speech shortly before the building was shut down. ‘That is our duty.’

He added: ‘Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.’

His remarks were met with a standing ovation. He then told the audience that most terrorists are Muslims, and ‘the less Islam the better.’

In 2009, he sparked controversy for showing a controversial film which linked the Koran to terrorism and has previously said the Netherlands is being taken over by a ‘tsunami of Islamisation’.

Pamela Geller, the organizer, told CBS 11 from inside the building: ‘I heard officers talking of possible explosions in backpacks and the car. There was talk of a grenade at the nearby Wal-Mart.’

The outspoken leader of Stop Islamisation of America then wrote on her personal website: ‘This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?’

In a post in late March, she insisted that the event was necessary to fight back against what she described as ‘the jihad against freedom’.

It was set up by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and had been described by opponents as an attack on Islam. They booked the center a little more than a week after Islamic militants in France killed 12 people at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The AFDI issued a statement on Facebook after the shooting saying, ‘This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?’

The Garland Independent School district, who own the cultural center, allowed the event to go ahead despite criticism from residents and local Muslims that it was a risk to public safety.

The group spent $10,000 on 40 additional security officers, aware of potential threats they may attract, while Garland Police officers were fully prepared to deal with any issues that arose.

Before the event, the New York-based organisation made the headlines for its sponsorship of anti-Islamic adverts which it paid to run on transit systems in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and San Francisco.

Any innocent blood spilled is all over Obama’s hands on this… he opened the borders and let them in. Hell, he’s flown and bused them in from all over the world. He’s brought ISIS here and now the fight is at hand.


Artist Bosh Fawstin (left) is presented with a check for 12,500 by Dutch politician Geert Wilders (center)
and Pamela Geller (right) during a ceremony at the Curtis Culwell Center just before the shootings occurred.

Here is a captured timeline from one of our readers on Twitter – this account has now been suspended:

And know that every time you insult the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w we will respond harshly, from paris to texas u are not safe at all.
3 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 14m 14 minutes ago
They showed their love for the prophet Muhamamd s.a.w by sacrificing their lives for his honor – ‪#‎GarlandShooting‬
7 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 15m 15 minutes ago
The brothers in texas may have had no experience in shooting but they was quick to defend the honor of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w !
6 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 47m 47 minutes ago
“And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive it not”
8 retweets 5 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 49m 49 minutes ago
The 2 Brothers attained shahdah in texas! O Kuffar know that death is better than living humiliated! Allahu Akbar !!! #garlandshooting
17 retweets 10 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 53m 53 minutes ago
If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions #GarlandShooting ‪#‎TexasAttack‬
8 retweets 8 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 58m 58 minutes ago
They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State – #garlandshooting #TexasAttack
18 retweets 9 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 1h 1 hour ago
Kill Those That Insult The Prophet – #GarlandShooting
16 retweets 8 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 1h 1 hour ago
Allahu Akbar!!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire at the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) art exhibition in texas! #TexasAttack
44 retweets 16 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 1h 1 hour ago
@atawaakul May Allah swt reward you and give you Jannah !
#TexasAttack
View conversation
0 retweets 3 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani retweeted
Shariah is Light @atawaakul · 2h 2 hours ago
The bro with me and myself have given bay’ah to Amirul Mu’mineen. May Allah accept us as mujahideen.
Make dua
#texasattack
31 retweets 21 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 4h 4 hours ago
The knives have been sharpened, soon we will come to your streets with death and slaughter! ‪#‎QaribanQariba‬
12 retweets 7 favorites
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 4h 4 hours ago
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it” -61:8
3 retweets 3 favorites
View translation
AbuHussainAlBritani @_AbuHu55ain · 4h 4 hours ago
Im back, follow & shoutout inshAllah – JazakAllah khair.

The Daily Mail couldn’t even bring themselves to show Mohammad in their report. After the Charlie Hebdo murders, this should be a stark reminder to Americans we are not immune from such atrocities. They are here and the war is now here in Good Morning, America. As Matthew Vadum at FrontPage Mag says the anti-cartoon Jihad has come to America.

Right now police are searching apartments of suspects and this will keep developing throughout the day. Search warrants are being executed at a condo in Phoenix, AZ where the culprits were roommates as I write this. As for me, I stand with Pamela, Robert, Geert and all the other brave souls who fight back against the Islamists and their evil agenda to conquer America.

03/19/15
Lois Lerner

Contempt of Congress by Any Other Name

By: Frank Salvato

Initially I was going to start with the line, “It is stunning to think,” but then I remembered I was opining about the Obama Administration, of which I have come to expect the unexpected, especially when it comes to nefarious doings meant to advance his agenda. To be certain, all of the actions (and inactions) taken (and not taken) by this administration – without exception – have been executed to advance his ideological agenda, chief among them the handling of the IRS’s targeting of the administration’s political adversaries.

TheHill.com reports that Ronald Machen, the US attorney for the District of Columbia –an Obama appointee – has not acted on a Contempt of Congress charge for former IRS official Lois Lerner even though the contempt citation has been in his hands since May of 2014. Manchen is set to step down next month.

Search the mainstream media headlines and you find this item far down the list if, in fact, you find it at all. Yet the issue is no less important than that of the Constitution’s First Amendment guaranteed rights themselves; to both “peaceably assemble” and to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

There is now no defense, nor believable denial in ignorance, for the illegal actions taken by the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service under Lois Lerner. The facts present as undeniable. Under her direction, applications for organizations with political ideologies antithetical to those of the Obama Administration were treated as politically adversarial, receiving excessive scrutiny and myriad unreasonable demands for discovery; treatment not experienced by organizations whose ideologies were symbiotic with the administration’s. Succinctly, Ms. Lerner executed a political attack on a large faction of the American people for their support of a political ideology anathema to that of the President’s.

Ironically, Ms. Lerner’s claim to have learned of the illegal targeting through the news media failed to afford her the popular cover that has served President Obama well through several sensitive issues; cover that is now beginning to expose the disingenuousness of the claim, much to his chagrin. Ms. Lerner’s refusal to cooperate with the House Oversight Committee in its examination of these events – including her intentional denial of the existence of emails pertaining to her actions – rightfully garnered a Contempt of Congress charge.

But what is the worth of a Contempt of Congress charge if the authority tasked with bringing the weight of that charge to bear abdicates the responsibility of doing so? What punishment is there for transgression in a simple designation?

Citizens in the United States have been guaranteed the right to redress government; to be openly critical of the government’s policies and actions. Further, these defined rights allow them to openly oppose any and all elected officials, regardless of station, in an effort to affect change in political offices under which the people are represented.

So, too, are citizens guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble for political purposes; to create groups and organizations – especially under the banner of educating the public – that enjoy all the rights and privileges afforded under the law, including tax-exempt status, should the qualifying criteria exist.

Ms. Lerner’s action usurped these guaranteed rights, and her refusal to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee not only aggravated that usurpation, but proved – beyond reasonable doubt – that she holds the value of her politics above the rights of the People, and above the guaranteed Rights in our Constitution. Yet, when tasked with executing a Grand Jury referral mandated by a Contempt of Congress charge, Mr. Machen saw fit to prioritize the routine prosecution of dozens of district court financial fraud and local public corruption cases, as if to intentionally ignore the contempt citation. This leads to this question. If the police officer is corrupt – or intentionally abdicates his sworn duty, who do the innocent turn to for justice?

Article II, Section 1, of the House Judiciary Committee’s Articles of Impeachment against Pres. Richard M. Nixon (R) states:

“He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to…cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”

If the use of the IRS to target political enemies was enough to bring about impeachment charges that would eventually see the first resignation of a sitting President, how does the exact same criminal act not warrant – at the very least – a referral to a Grand Jury for examination?

The Obama Administration claims the mantle of the most transparent in the history of the United States. In the non-execution of the Contempt of Congress charge against Lois Lerner they are transparent in their tyranny against the American people. Case closed…with prejudice.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director of BasicsProject.org a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy, and internal and external threats facing Western Civilization. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His opinion and analysis have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, The Jewish World Review, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Townhall.com and are syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is the author of six books examining Islamofascism and Progressivism, including “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam”. Mr. Salvato’s personal writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com.

03/12/15
Duty

Duty to Country Is Deadly Business

By: Frank Salvato

I awoke to the news that 7 Marines and 4 Army soldiers went missing, all presumed dead, after a special operations training mission helicopter crashed not far from where I live; not far from the pristine beach where I took the picture that sits atop my Facebook page. It is a sober reminder that those who volunteer to place themselves in harm’s way; between the evil and the innocent, face dangers even as they train to protect the nation they serve and the innocent they swear to protect.

ABC’s WEAR Channel 3 in Pensacola reports:

“Seven Marines and four soldiers went missing early Wednesday after an Army helicopter crashed during a night training exercise at Eglin Air Force Base in Navarre.

“Defense officials say the military members aboard the aircraft are presumed dead. Heavy fog is having an impact on recovery efforts. Human remains have washed up on shore but the number of remains has not be released at this time. This is still considered a search and rescue mission…Pentagon officials say the heavy fog played a role in the crash.”

In a time when the chattering class demands that we debate the ideological genesis of the deadly threat to our nation – and Western Civilization – emanating from the Middle East, it would well serve our nation’s collective soul to personalize not only the seriousness of the threat, but the guardians of our nation; the rough and ready men and women who step into the coarse void between the way of life afforded us by the American dream and the oppression and cruelty many around the world would love to inflict upon us.

When we have the courage to confront and accept the truth, it is undeniable that there are vicious zealots committing atrocities; crimes against humanity, in the name of Islam. Yet, some among us in the West; some whose ideological addictions force them to see everything through a morally relativistic lens, seek to designate our nation as one of many among equals; our military personnel as simple countermeasures to enemies who have equal claim to ideological and moral legitimacy. But this stunted line of thinking couldn’t be further from the truth and, in fact, serves as a smear against the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces; our sentinels who stand between “the barbarians and the gate.” I know this to be true because my wife and I live among them; we know them and love them like family.

Our enemies, those who willingly join the ranks of Daesh (the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabab, etc.), execute barbaric acts of tyranny in the name of their religion, committing unspeakable acts of ferocious cruelty in an effort to either convert the un-Islamic or cleanse the earth of those who refuse their dictate, all in an aggressive pursuit of global domination.

The men and women of the United States Armed Forces, in extreme contrast, step into the ugly void of a no-man’s land where the weak and oppressed suffer at the hands of tyrants; a land where the cowardly fear to tread. They inject themselves into situations to free the oppressed, to preserve the liberty of the innocent and to vanquish the tyrannical. And as they do they carry with them the moral clarity that understands “good versus evil”; “right verses wrong”; “duty, honor, country,” lessons gleaned from the righteousness of the American dream, not the ideological clap-trap of theorists hell-bent on believing in the impossibility of global utopia, or the manipulation of political creatures questing for power, influence and fame.

Our military men and women are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and neighbors. They go to the store for food, they fill-up their cars with gas, they help their children with their school work, they laugh, and the cry, just like those who do not serve. They cut their grass, they take out their garbage, they pay their taxes and they socialize. The live, laugh and love. But sometimes when they kiss their spouses goodbye at the door; sometimes when they kiss their children good night; sometimes when they promise to be back in a few days, sometimes those kisses are their last and those promises to return are broken, not of their own commission, but because their call to duty, their call to serve, sent them on a path that does not return home.

So it is with the 7 Marines and 4 US Army soldiers who kissed their loved ones goodbye with every intention of returning in a few days. So it is with many military families who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

A close friend of mine who teaches at a military special operations school wrote me after I queried him about the training accident. He closed by saying, “This business is a dangerous business.” Indeed it is. It is dangerous and it is necessary. It is necessary for the longevity of liberty and freedom. And it is rightly necessary for all of us to thank and honor them for their sacrifices; honor them like family, because they protect us like we are family.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director of BasicsProject.org a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy, and internal and external threats facing Western Civilization. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His opinion and analysis have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, The Jewish World Review, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, Townhall.com and are syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is the author of six books examining Islamofascism and Progressivism, including “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam”. Mr. Salvato’s personal writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com.

03/9/15
M. Stanton Evans

The Serious Side of Funny Man Stan Evans

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

M. Stanton Evans joked about his “Law of Inadequate Paranoia” at the Thirty Fifth Annual The Pumpkin Papers Irregulars dinner on October 31, 2012. He said, “No matter how bad you think something is, when you look into it, it is always worse.”

The comment was a humorous look at America’s internal security problems. People laughed, but it was nervous laughter. The audience knew that Stan was talking about a real problem that he had dedicated his life to exposing.

At the same event, named after the documents hidden by Whittaker Chambers that confirmed the role of State Department official Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy, Stan said he was optimistic that things would turn around. “I see in the country a rising tide of traditional values, a belief in personal liberty, limited government, strong national defense,” he said. “In other words, an atmosphere of hate.”

Stan made jokes exposing the insidious liberal mentality and its domination of government and what passes for public debate in the media. I recorded and posted a video of the Pumpkin Papers event from a table a few rows back, but you can still get a sense of how great a speaker and how funny he was.

But Stan also wrote important books on conservative philosophy, such as The Theme is Freedom, and ran the National Journalism Center in order to correct liberal bias in the media by training young conservative journalists dedicated to objective reporting and accuracy. Hundreds went through the training process.

I came to the National Journalism Center program as I was graduating from college in journalism in 1978. My work in Stan’s program included an outside internship at Accuracy in Media, and I was then hired by AIM’s Reed Irvine. It was my first job out of college. I later went to work for Allan Ryskind at Human Events.

In short, my career has been blessed by associations with some of the great minds in journalism and the conservative movement. All were Reagan conservatives who believed in the three-legged stool of conservative philosophy—moral values, a strong national defense and economic freedom.

I had an inkling of what journalism was all about after using Curtis MacDougall’s classic textbook, Interpretative Reporting, in college. It helped me to understand that a massive shift had taken place from objective news reporting to advocacy journalism. That’s a major reason why I became a media critic as well as a journalist.

MacDougall, who taught at Northwestern University, ran for office on the Communist-controlled Progressive Party ticket. I obtained Curtis MacDougall’s 319-page FBI file, showing he was on the “security index” of the FBI and under surveillance because of his affiliation with many communist fronts.

As I have previously reported, his Interpretative Reporting textbook criticized the media for being too soft on the late Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI). It was the perfect primer for a generation of liberal journalists taught to think that anyone opposed to communism or socialism was an extremist. MacDougall advertised himself as an “expert on McCarthyism,” and praised Fidel Castro as a “world statesman” and an anti-imperialist with a “record of achievement.”

It is not surprising, therefore, that in its obituary, the liberal Washington Post took a shot at Stan for trying to “rehabilitate the reputation of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy with a sympathetic biography.”

In attacking Stan over his McCarthy book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies, Post reporter Matt Schudel insisted that McCarthy “ruined many careers with his accusations.” Of course, he failed to name anyone whose career was ruined by McCarthy.

Accuracy in Media gave Stan the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2009 for his McCarthy book.

In looking back at Stan’s career, many have noted his role in writing the 1960 Sharon Statement of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), a group that got me involved in the conservative movement while still in high school. I attended a YAF conference in Sharon, Connecticut, at the estate of William F. Buckley, Jr., and heard Buckley give a powerful speech on how the desire for human freedom will never die.

I was drawn to YAF for its support of what became critical to Ronald Reagan’s conservative coalition—a belief in economic freedom, a strong national defense and traditional moral values.

While Stan had a tremendous impact on the growth and direction of the conservative movement, it’s also the case that we have seen a libertarian tendency assume prominence in recent years. Stan was always a libertarian in the limited government sense, and welcomed libertarians into the conservative movement. But what we are now seeing under the guise of “libertarianism” is something quite different.

Consider the fact that the Charles Koch Institute and the National Review Institute are co-sponsoring an event to promote the book, The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future, with the author Charles C.W. Cooke. It is described as a call to arms for the growing movement of members of the right “who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.” The book strikes me as an attempt to fundamentally transform the conservative movement into an ally of the “progressives” on such matters as gay rights, abortion rights, and drug legalization.

This is not what drove Stan Evans and the candidate he promoted for the presidency, Ronald Reagan.

There is also a foreign policy dimension to this unfolding debacle. Young Americans for Freedom itself seems to have been eclipsed by Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty, libertarian groups which have declared NSA defector Edward Snowden a hero, and sponsor speeches by such left-wing figures as filmmaker Oliver Stone and Snowden mouthpiece Glenn Greenwald.

Based on these curious connections, as well as the adoption of a libertarian foreign policy that quite clearly would permit the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons, I get the definite sense that a traditional conservative belief in a strong national defense is in peril if these libertarians take control of the movement.

One cannot read the Sharon Statement without concluding that Stan Evans and the founders of YAF and the conservative movement were devoted to the national security of the United States. The Sharon Statement referred to the importance of national sovereignty and called for victory over the forces of international communism.

The Sharon Statement is still relevant today.

As we witness a former KGB spy preside over Russia’s re-emergence, in alliance with Communist China, as well as Marxism taking control of country after country in Latin America, we can now understand that declarations of victory over communism were premature. But the goal of the Sharon Statement then and now is still legitimate.

In this context, Stan’s book on Stalin’s Secret Agents, co-authored with Herbert Romerstein in 2012, is required reading. The book demonstrates that we are still coming to grips with the full story of how enemy agents operated on American soil in the highest levels of government. Trevor Loudon’s book, The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress, brings this terrible story up to date.

Stan Evans showed that we can laugh at the ridiculousness of the liberals while taking seriously the threat they pose to the American way of life.

But with progressives taking aim at, and even infiltrating the conservative movement, we should only laugh long enough to catch our breath and take action to preserve the legacy Stan and so many others left behind for us. Stan’s “Law of Inadequate Paranoia” may not be so funny after all.

02/24/15
Al Sharpton

Eric Garner & Trayvon Martin Family, Michael Brown Lawyer Say Al Sharpton Exploited Their Tragedies

Project Veritas

(New York, February 23, 2015) – Award-winning journalist and New York Times’ best-selling author James O’Keefe released a powerful new video today showing how the families, and attorneys of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown really feel about Al Sharpton. O’Keefe, president and founder of Project Veritas, led a team of investigative journalists to uncover how these families and the communities of Staten Island, NY; Miami, Florida; and Ferguson, MO really feel about Sharpton’s involvement in the aftermath of the deaths of Garner, Martin, and Brown.

O’Keefe’s latest video confirms and highlights what many have long suspected: Al Sharpton is motivated by avarice and pride, rather than social justice and bringing about change.

A member of O’Keefe’s team spoke with the late Eric Garner’s oldest daughter, Erica, on a brisk January evening in Staten Island. Garner did not hold back when asked about Sharpton’s involvement, stating: “he’s about the money.”

Garner, who has become a passionate champion for social change following the death of her father, accused Sharpton and his National Action Network of “attacking” her for not giving them credit; and trying to capitalize on her father’s death. “Instead of me, he wants his face in front of them,” said Garner of Sharpton.

Garner was visibly angered at Sharpton and the National Action Network. Indeed, rather than help, Garner felt as if Sharpton and NAN were trying to take advantage of her: “Al Sharpton paid for the funeral. She’s [Cynthia Davis, President of the Staten Island Chapter of NAN] trying to make me feel like I owe them,” a statement that shocked one of Garner’s friends who was speaking with Erica and a Project Veritas journalist.

In Florida, a Project Veritas investigative journalist spoke with Tracy Martin, the father of the late Trayvon Martin, at a banquet for the Trayvon Martin Foundation. Martin quickly distanced himself from Sharpton, stating: “he’s on his own personal mission.”

Troy Wright, the President and Executive Director of the Trayvon Martin Foundation, further distanced Martin’s family and the Martin Foundation from Sharpton. When asked about Sharpton and NAN, Wright responded “that’s a sore subject with us right now.” Indeed, all traces of Sharpton and NAN have recently been removed from the Foundation’s website. Wright also strongly insinuated to Project Veritas that a decision had been made not to invite Sharpton to a recent Foundation banquet.

O’Keefe’s team also spoke with prominent leaders in Ferguson, who were sharply critical of Sharpton. Bishop Calvin Scott, whose personal dealings with Sharpton in the aftermath of the Michael Brown tragedy left him critical of the MSNBC host, told Project Veritas that he “incites people for the wrong reason,” that he gets people “all fired up,” and that is “not the way you want to go.” Bishop Scott went as far as to place partial blame on Sharpton for inciting violence in Ferguson: pointedly stating “when you have a fuse that is already lit, you don’t need to add no more fire to it.”

When asked if Sharpton used the Michael Brown controversy to raise money, Bishop Scott told a Project Veritas journalist “you’re not the first person to raise that question… someone in the higher up that even mentioned… the history of an Al Sharpton, and an organization such as him, and they emphatically stated that… for them, knowing their history, it’s about money.”

Stacy Garner (no relation to Eric or Erica Garner) of Ferguson Christian Church told another member of O’Keefe’s team that he believed Sharpton was exploiting the Michael Brown tragedy for his own profit and that “instead of bringing us together, I think he was drawing us apart.”

“Sharpton’s perception of himself is a far cry from how he is perceived by the families and communities he thrust himself upon,” stated James O’Keefe. “By all accounts, Sharpton appears to be abusing the bully pulpit given to him by MSNBC to capitalize on tragedies. It was quite apparent from the number of individuals we spoke to that Sharpton views tragedies as opportunities, and that he is willing to do whatever it takes to further his personal agenda.”

02/23/15
Barack Obama and Frank Marshall Davis

The Mysterious “Frank” Returns

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Yesterday’s news became big news on the Fox News Channel on Thursday when former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought up the name of President Barack Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. It was almost seven years to the day when we published our seminal piece about Davis, “Obama’s Communist Mentor.”

Davis was a member of the Communist Party and a suspected Soviet espionage agent. He was included in the FBI’s security index, meaning that Davis could be arrested or detained in the event of a national emergency. The FBI file on Davis documents his anti-white and pro-Soviet views, infiltration of the Hawaii Democratic Party, and other activities.

Davis also wrote an autobiographical and pornographic sex novel, Sex Rebel, disclosing that he had sex with a young girl and engaged in shocking and bizarre sexual activities.

Giuliani’s public identification of Davis and discussion of his role in grooming a young Barack Obama marks the first time, in my memory, that a top Republican has ever mentioned the Davis-Obama relationship. It was done in the context of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly of questioning how Giuliani could dare ask whether Obama loves America.

If the Republicans had brought this up during the 2008 campaign, Obama might have been defeated and the country could have been spared the last six years of “progressive” hope and change. The Davis-Obama relationship is something so damaging and corrupt that its public airing would have raised questions about the Democratic Party’s vetting of Obama and the direction of the Democratic Party itself.

However, Republican operative Karl Rove was warning Republicans not to accuse Obama of being a socialist. He said such a charge would generate a negative backlash. The result in 2012 was another Obama victory.

Now that it has become apparent to more and more people that Obama is not a traditional liberal Democrat and is, in fact, a Marxist with Muslim sympathies, a figure such as Giuliani feels compelled to speak out. So let’s take a look at what Giuliani said.

“I don’t feel it. I don’t feel this love of America,” Giuliani said, talking about Obama. “I’m talking about a man who grew up under the influence of Frank Marshall Davis who was a member of the Communist Party, who he refers to over and over in his book, who was a tremendous critic of the United States.”

Kelly countered that Obama “was raised in part by his grandparents. His grandfather served in World War II, his grandmother worked in a munitions plant to help the nation during World War II. I mean, to suggest he was raised by people who don’t love America or didn’t help him learn to love America.”

Giuliani argued that “his grandfather introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist.” He added, “You can fight in World War II, and then you introduce someone to a Communist and the young boy gets…”

After Kelly interjected that “it’s a political world view. It’s not a hatred for the country,” Giuliani responded, “Communism wasn’t hatred for America?”

Giuliani is correct about the Davis influence over Obama and the role that the grandfather played in picking Davis as a mentor.

But when Giuliani notes that Obama refers to Davis “over and over in his book,” Dreams from My Father, it’s important to point out that Davis was not identified as Frank Marshall Davis in that book. Instead, Obama identified him merely as “Frank.” The rest of the story was put together by anti-communist researcher Trevor Loudon, and we confirmed the identification with another source in Hawaii who was a close friend of Davis.

Even more of the story was put together by Paul Kengor in his authoritative book on Davis, The Communist. It appears that Davis was an influence over Obama for about nine full years, until Obama was 18 and went off to college. Obama went off to college and, by his own admission, would attend socialist conferences and pick Marxist professors as his friends.

This relationship alone would have disqualified Obama from getting low-level federal employment. The loophole in our system is that background checks are not required for federal elected officials. Our founders counted on a free press to review the fitness of those running for office.

When former Obama adviser David Axelrod talks about Obama being free from major scandals, he is ignoring the biggest scandal of all—how Obama concealed his Marxist upbringing and relationship with Davis. Axelrod of course was part of the cover-up. When “Frank” was identified as Davis, the Obama campaign insisted he was just a civil rights activist.

As we reported at the time, news organizations such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Newsweek and even Fox News ignored or downplayed Davis’s communist sympathies.

As Giuliani indicated, there are other influences on Obama that help explain his anti-Americanism. These include the “community organizing” philosophy of Saul Alinsky, his pastor Jeremiah Wright and the communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Giuliani clearly feels, at this stage in Obama’s presidency, that some things have to be said openly for the sake of the country. A former crime-busting U.S. Attorney who was mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, Giuliani fears for the future of our country. But it’s not just the fate of America that is at stake. It is clear that Obama has no love for America’s traditional allies, such as Israel. Hence, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to America to plead his case personally. He is afraid that Obama wants to make a deal that will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Now that Giuliani has publicly raised some inconvenient truths about Obama, the “progressives” and their media allies will naturally scream and cry “McCarthyism.”  Strangely taking this tack, Fox News’ Kelly wondered if Giuliani’s comments about Obama had damaged “the Republican brand.” The Republican brand will only be damaged by an inability to face facts and confront and expose anti-Americanism at the highest levels of the United States government. It is shocking that it has taken this long for the evidence to emerge publicly on a national basis on Fox News and other channels.

This controversy will help determine what direction the Republicans will take. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who has made it his job to protect Obama from the fallout from major scandals, was quick to label Giuliani’s remarks about Obama as “stupid.” He also attacked Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker as “spineless” for saying Giuliani “can speak for himself,” and not directly challenging what the former mayor had said

“What Scott Walker did ought to disqualify him as a serious presidential contender,” wrote Milbank.

This is a signal from one of Obama’s best friends in the media that the information unearthed by Giuliani is of the blockbuster variety. Giuliani went for the jugular and hit a gusher.

The first thing Republicans can do is simply challenge the media to report on the Davis FBI file. They have been avoiding it for over six years.

Congress could also investigate Obama’s communist connections, which stretch from Hawaii to Chicago, and question the FBI about what they knew, if anything, about the Obama-Davis relationship. The reestablishment of House and Senate internal security committees, including a loyalty program for U.S. officials to eliminate security risks, should be considered.

Republicans could remind people that it was anti-communist Democratic President Harry Truman who started the first loyalty program. He issued executive order 9835 establishing the program in 1947.

The executive order said that “each employee of the Government of the United States is endowed with a measure of trusteeship over the democratic processes which are at the heart and sinew of the United States,” and declared that “the presence within the Government service of any disloyal or subversive person constitutes a threat to our democratic processes…”

It is time for a background check on the President of the United States. Does he pass the loyalty test?

02/7/15
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Christian horses found too high

By: Olga Photoshopova
The People’s Cube

User avatar

Christian_Horses.jpg
Uppity Christian horsemen from the Crusades are still
trampling modern-day Muslim pacifists.

As everyone knows, the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington is a yearly event designed to put Christians in their place and advance Islam as the national religion. At today’s breakfast, President Obama once again met the expectations of the progressive movement by telling off those uppity Christians like a true Muslim would:

“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Indeed, in these dark times of Christian Extremism, what we need is a president who can inform the world about all of the Christian atrocities throughout history for which currently living Americans are personally responsible. Having effectively airbrushed “Islamic Extremism” from the lexicon, Obama completed his sermon with a prayer towards Mecca.

Christians are hereby instructed to remove incorrect pages from their Bibles and replace them with the following corrected transcript of Jesus’ words: “Thou shalt murder gays; thou shalt enslave minorities; thou shalt bomb women and children.”

Since there isn’t an equivalent in the Quran of anything so hateful as this corrected version of Biblical history, Christians need to get off their high horses and admit that Jesus had personally instigated terrible atrocities, as proven by the Crusades and the Inquisition.

As if that weren’t enough, Jesus had the audacity to die but not stay dead, to walk around alive and kicking for forty more days, and then to fly up to heaven. Such antisocial behavior allowed Christians to start getting uppity around 33 A.D., which still continues unabated to this day.

The science is settled: there are no Islamic Extremists anywhere on Earth because President Obama has never uttered the words. Christians, on the other hand, are committing terrible atrocities daily, taking hostages, cutting off heads, blowing themselves up in public places, burning people alive, and otherwise terrorizing the peaceful and rapidly diminishing Muslim community. No verification of these facts is required simply because Obama is a genius who would never tell a lie.

Obama_Horse_Stick.jpg
President Obama is seen modeling a People-approved low-horse for those who are barely Christians, pretending to be Christians, or embarrassed by Christianity.
(Photo Credit: blurbrain.com)

~

It is known that President Ronald Reagan liked to ride horses – all of them high – for which he is revered among Christian Extremists. He was once even injured in a fall from his high horse. Let that be a lesson to all Christians to get off their high horses and stay off.

Horse_Reagan.jpg

President Reagan’s horse was so high that in order to fit it into his Presidential Library, workers had to chop off its legs. This picture gives a whole new meaning to “Reagan’s quarterhorse.” Too high a horse would not be a humble memorial for a Christian anyway.

04.jpg
Here, President Reagan is seen assisting his wife Nancy off of her high horse.

In view of the above, our scientists at the People’s Cube Karl Marx Treatment Center have developed recommendations on how to get Christians off their high horses efficiently: hack off the high horse’s legs or replace them with miniature low horses.

A standard horse owned by a Christian should be no taller than 36 inches. All horse-riding Christians will be subject to measuring with a pole similar to those used on amusement park rides.

Pony_Girl.jpg
This Christian got off her high horse, and the world is a lot better off.

Compliance with these measures is expected to level the playing field, bringing Christians closer to the ground where the peaceful Muslim crowd congregates.

And finally, as we discussed the subject of Christian high horses at our latest meeting, we received a few questions from confused members of the audience. People wanted to know whether the horse in question was a Christian, what exactly the definition of “high” was, and what if President Obama really meant to say that the horse was high from marijuana and the Christian should get off to avoid contact.

We will make sure to ask the White House spokesperson, Josh Earnest, for clarification on what the President really meant. Until then, the debate gallops on.

Horse_Athlete.jpg
This Christian white male needs to get off his high horse. It’s offensive to Muslims.