12/13/16

Elizabeth Warren speaks out against president-elect Donald Trump at terror-linked Boston mosque

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Senator Elizabeth Warren addressing Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center December 11, 2016 via Facebook

“I must say I am really discouraged by the people he’s bringing into his administration.  He starts with someone like Steve Bannon, who celebrates white supremacy.” -Senator Elizabeth Warren, Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, December 11, 2016

Imagine if a prominent mayor and senator spoke at an organization founded by white supremacists convicted of plotting to murder [name religious or ethnic group here]. Imagine that the organization also happened to have prior members who murdered innocent people in the name of white supremacy and yet additional members who were serving prison sentences for their roles in various plots to hurt [name religious or ethnic group here].

Would there be questions?

But there is precious little discussion in the mainstream media about the attendance of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh at the terror-linked Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center on Sunday night at an event sponsored by the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization.

Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh “joined a crowd of more than 2,000 people at Boston’s largest mosque on Sunday night for a rousing conversation about diversity and solidarity as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take over the White House.” Photo via JIM DAVIS/GLOBE STAFF

The event was evidently organized to publicly distort the intentions of President-Elect Donald Trump. “For those feeling disenfranchised by the election last month of President-elect Donald Trump,” reported CBS Boston, “the goal was to come together and heal.”

Speakers such as Senator Elizabeth Warren parroted the blatant lies about 1.) an uptick of “hate crimes” since Donald Trump’s election and 2.) the #FakeNews about Trump proposing a so-called “National Muslim Registry.”

Both of these allegations are verifiably false.

And there is the minor detail that the Islamic Society of Boston has ties to numerous Islamic terrorists.

As reported at the NY Post by Paul Sperry in September, 2014, the most famous members of the Islamic Society were Boston Bombers Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother Dzhokhar.

Other worshipers at the Islamic Society of Boston have included:

  •  Abdurahman Alamoudi, the mosque’s founder and first president, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying Alamoudi raised money for al Qaeda in the US.
  •  Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist-turned-al Qaeda agent, who in 2010 was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack. Known as “Lady al Qaeda,” she is related to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. ISIS has tried to trade her release for journalist hostages.
  •  Tarek Mehanna, who in 2012 got 17 years in prison for conspiring to use automatic weapons to murder shoppers in a suburban Boston mall.
  • Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a mosque trustee and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader banned from the US after issuing a fatwa that called for the killing of US soldiers.
  • Jamal Badawi, another former trustee who in 2007 was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plan to funnel more than $12 million to Palestinian suicide bombers.
  • Ahmad Abousamra, …a “top propagandist for ISIS” whose father “sat on the board of directors of the Muslim organization that runs the mosque.”

Image via Facebook

Sperry points out that “investigators found a mosque prayer card for [ Tarek] Mehanna tucked in a Russian dictionary in Tsarnaev’s Cambridge apartment.”

Patrick Poole of PJ Media wrote that the mosque’s founder and first president Abdurahman Alamoudi “was tasked with founding and developing the Defense Department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain program. Alamoudi himself handpicked the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain corps.

Abdurahman Alamoudi with Al Gore, Bill Clinton

One of the trainers of the chaplains was Anwar Al-Awlaki, (aka Anwar al-Aulaqi) who influenced the Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan, the “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, San Bernadino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, Tennessee Navy terrorist Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, the Tsarnaev brothers and Ahmad Khan Rahami, the radical terrorist “accused of planting a bomb that injured two dozen people in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood….”

Abdurahman Alamoudi with George Bush

Al-Awlaki “was also said to inspire would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad” and preached at the mosques attended by 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour. As reported at Fox News, the three hijackers “were all onboard Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon.”

But these minor details are not mentioned in news coverage of the event, described at the local WBUR news outlet as “a rousing conversation about diversity and solidarity as President-Elect Donald Trump prepares to take over the White House.” The article continues with the #FakeNews that President-Elect Donald Trump supports “the idea of a national Muslim registry.”

During her speech, Elizabeth Warren warned against “bigotry:”

“We’re here to stand against bigotry in all of it’s forms. Yes. These are challenging times and many people are afraid. Since the election, hate crimes have been on the rise. Attacks on religious and racial groups have sky-rocketed. And now is a time when we must be willing to say, loud and clear, ‘there is no room for bigotry anywhere in the United States of America.’ None. Let us be clear, let us say it as many times as we need to. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. And we will fight back against discrimination whenever and wherever it occurs. We will fight back calmly, we will fight back deliberately, and we will fight back with absolute resolution.”

These words would be inspirational if they were not based on an entirely false premise, and that is that the election of Donald Trump has empowered racist white Americans to commit hate crimes. It is a lie reminiscent of that which fuels the “Black Lives Matter” movement, similarly based on the entirely false premise that white police officers are indiscriminately murdering black Americans.

It should be noted that several prominent citizens published an open letter to Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Martin Walsh expressing concerns about their appearance at a terror-linked mosque. But it went ignored.

Watch the entire event here:

08/17/16

Abdulrahman Al Harbi: Revisiting the first suspect in the Boston Bombings

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Boston Marathon Bombing via Wikipedia

Boston Marathon Bombing via Wikipedia

“If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.” – New York Times Investigative reporter Judith Miller, who was “sent to jail after a federal judge declared that she was ‘defying the law’ by refusing to divulge the name of a confidential source”

Media mogul Glenn Beck has been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris (appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993) “to identify at least two confidential sources” that gave him information about Abdulrahman Al Harbi, the Saudi national and initial “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing, which took place on Monday, April 15, 2013.

Lingering questions remain about Abdulrahman Al Harbi

While Abdulrahman Al Harbi is very possibly innocent, the appalling behavior of the federal government, particularly then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is in-and-of-itself suspicious, particularly her condescending denial that Abdulrahman Al Harbi was scheduled to be deported, despite evidence to the contrary.

Read more here…

08/8/16

Weekly Featured Profile – Wilma Chan

KeyWiki.org

Wilma Chan

Wilma Chan (born October 5, 1949) in Boston,Massachusetts, serves on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in the Bay Area. A leading Democrat, Chan served as the California State Assembly Majority Leader from 2002–2004. She also served as Assembly Majority Whip from 2001-2002. Chan was a resident of Oakland for more than 20 years; she now lives in Alameda.

Chan is also a teacher and the Legislator-in-Residence at theUniversity of California, Berkeley. She taught the course Cal-in-Sacramento in the Spring of 2007. She is currently working on “expanding healthcare in Oakland and Alameda County.”

Wilma has been one of California’s most left wing legislators. During her six years in the Assembly, she passed more than 70 bills and resolutions… and has been a reliable ally of the illegal immigrant amnesty movement.

Dave Brown

Wilma Chan was, for many years, a leader of the Maoist movement and was an organizer in the Chinese communities of Boston and San Francisco since 1969. She was in the early 1980s, the Chairperson of the National Asian Struggles Commission of the League of Revolutionary Struggle, at the time America’s largest pro-China communist organization.

Chan stayed with the organization until its dissolution in 1990, but continues to work with former comrades, many now in the Democratic Party, right up to today.

For instance, Wilma Chan‘s current Chief of Staff Dave Brown is also a former League of Revolutionary Strugglesupporter.

(Wilma Chan|more…)

06/27/15

Weekly Featured Profile – Rev. David Carl Olson

KeyWiki

Rev. David Carl Olson

Rev. David Carl Olson

David Carl Olson is Minister of the First Unitarian Church of Baltimore, Maryland. Previously he served in churches in Flint, Michigan and Boston, Massachusetts.

In 1991, David Olson, while in Massachusetts, was one of several hundred Communist Party USA members to sign the a paper: “An initiative to Unite and Renew the Party” – most signatories left the Party after the December 1991 conference to found Committees of Correspondence.

At the Committees of Correspondence Conference on July 19th,1992, David Carl Olson was an unsuccessful candidate for the CoC National Coordinating Committee.

Rev. Olson apparently returned to the Communist Party soon after.

In May of 1995, the Communist Party USA newspaper Peoples Weekly World published a May Day supplement. Included was a page offering May Day greetings to Massachusetts’ Communists Lew Johnson, Laura Ross and Anne Timpson. Endorsers of the greeting included David Carl Olson.

The Anne Burlak Timpson Labor Forum is a creation of the Massachusetts’ Communist Party. It was established in honor of party member Anne Timpson, who died in 2002. Founding Committee members included Rev. David Carl Olson.

In 2004, Olson wrote an article for the Communist Party USA‘s Political Affairs on the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

He later moved to Maryland where he worked with Rep. Elijah Cummings on “jobs” issues in 2011.

In 2014, Rev. David Carl Olson served on the Steering Committee of the Maryland Coalition for Trans Equality.

(more…)

06/9/15

America’s See-No-Islam Problem Exposed With Boston Jihadism

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

The Boston Globe published a column in the wake of the shooting of an Islamic State-linked jihadist from Rosindale, Massachusetts that is a quintessential example of why the West is losing to Islamic supremacists.

In “Are Boston terrorism cases a trend?” two Globe authors reach out to several “antiterrorism specialists” and ask why it is that Boston appears to be so “vulnerable to violent extremism.”

Some submit that Boston’s “emergence as an international hub may leave it exposed to strains of radicalized behavior.”

Others find the existence of Boston-based jihadists curious given these jihadists “cannot be traced to one network, and individuals and groups do not appear to be connected.”

One such expert who has written on the Islamic State, J.M. Berger, acknowledges that “There is some degree of social network here that seems to be involved in radical thought.”

Halfway through the Globe article, the reader is left utterly unaware of any link between Boston jihadists and…jihadism. In fact, readers will not find the word “jihadist” in the column.

What readers do see is the lexicon of our see-no-Islam national security establishment, including euphemisms such as “violent extremism,” “homegrown terrorist,” and “radical presence.”

Somewhat closer to the mark are comments of James Forest, director of security studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell’s Center for Terrorism and Security Studies, who says: “The ideology that motivates these kind of attacks, there are no geographical boundaries.”

What this “ideology” is, the reader is left to guess.

Usamma Rahim was wielding a knife when he was shot by Boston police. Rahim had planned to attack “boys in blue” according to his intercepted communications. (Source: WCVB-TV)

Next quoted in the piece is Farah Pandith, the first special representative to Muslim communities in then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Pandith asserts that Muslim millennials are “asking questions that parents aren’t answering. The loudest voices seducing these kids are extremists.”

Pandith notes that “extremism” is not so much a matter of geography as “what’s happening in virtual space around the world.”

As for the “seductive” “extremist” voices and the impact of social networks, of course the young and impressionable can be brainwashed, but what are they being brainwashed in, and who is doing the brainwashing? Should not these millennials and their parents be both rejecting as well as rooting out this ideology from their communities altogether?

Some experts seem to recognize an ideological component to what we have seen in Boston – an Islamic supremacist ideology that can proliferate wherever computers or cell phones are found, that thrives especially in tight-knit Muslim communities in free Western countries — yet they cannot bring themselves to define this ideology.

Coughlin Chart

Credit: Steven Coughlin

Juliette Kayyem, another Obama administration official who served as Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, is next given the floor.

Kayyem believes that Boston — which the columnists describe as a “global city that is diverse, tolerant, and welcomes immigrants and students” – is “a breeding ground for the disaffected to either radicalize or hide.”

Kayyem asserts that “We are going to see this kind of radicalization in any urban area globally.”

But do global cities become “breeding grounds[s] for the disaffected to either radicalize or hide” in a vacuum?

Throughout world history, international locales have been free of the scourge of “violent extremism,” a politically correct term used to avoid offending Muslims while simultaneously drawing moral equivalence with and thereby smearing “right-wing” Americans.

One would think that modern, cosmopolitan, liberal urban areas by their very nature would consist of modern, cosmopolitan, liberal people.

Only to the degree to which these global cities invite in people with retrograde views antithetical to these ideals does their diversity and tolerance make them “breeding grounds” for jihadism.

It is hard to fault the piece’s authors for quoting “mainstream” “antiterror experts.” Yet these “experts” all seem to subscribe to the very see-no-Islam philosophy that paralyzes our national security establishment more broadly, rendering us unable to defeat our enemy.

Parenthetically, the idea of an “antiterror” expert should itself draw our ire, given that terror is a tactic, not the name of an ideologically-driven enemy. After all, during the Second World War we didn’t call upon anti-Blitzkrieg experts to define our enemies. We understood and were able to articulate that we were at war with a foe, not a fighting method.

Meanwhile, today there is nary a mention of Islamic religious tenets like jihad, abrogation and taqqiya, nor a discussion of Islam’s ultimate goal to create a global Ummah under which all submit to Shariah law.

This is not an issue of semantics. If we fail to be precise in how we describe our enemy and its ideology, it will defeat us.

How did we get to a point over a decade after Sept. 11, 2001 when columnists writing about Boston jihadists dance on egg shells around the Islamic supremacist ideology that by the jihadists’ own admission animates them?

While Nazism and Communism were political ideologies, jihadists subscribe to a theo-political ideology based in Islam’s core texts and modeled on the behaviors of Muhammad.

This offends the sensibilities of Americans either ignorant of Islam or uncomfortable with the idea that religion could be used to justify the slow motion worldwide slaughter of Jews, Christians, Hindus, infidel Muslims, gays, women, apostates, cartoonists and others.

In the case of the recently killed would-be jihadist Usamma Rahim, a simple set of Google searches regarding Rahim and the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) might have provided the Globe columnists and the antiterror experts they quote an illuminating fact pattern worth investigating in response to their question, “Is Boston more vulnerable to violent extremism than other parts of the country?”

Below are some of those relevant data points:

  • Usamma Rahim had been a security guard at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) in Roxbury, Massachusetts, an affiliate of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB)
  • The ISB’s executive director pulled the ISBCC out of President Barack Obama’s own Countering Violent Extremism Summit, essentially deeming the program Islamaphobic
  • Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev prayed at the ISB’s Cambridge, Massachusetts mosque
  • Notwithstanding ISB denials, Tsarnaev had been the latest in a long line of jihadists linked to the organization:
  • The ISB was founded by Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah currently serving a 23 year prison sentence on terrorism charges
  • ISB’s Cambridge mosque is operated by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim American Society
    According to Discover the Networks, among other revelations:
  • “FBI surveillance documents show that two days before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Suhaib Webb, Imam of ISB’s Boston mosque, joined al-Qaeda operative Anwar Awlaki in headlining a fundraiser on behalf of the Atlanta-based Muslim extremist Jamil al-Amin (formerly H. Rap Brown), who had recently murdered two police officers in Georgia.”
  • “Aafia Siddiqui, who occasionally prayed at ISB’s Cambridge mosque, was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 while in possession of cyanide canisters and plans to carry out a chemical attack in New York City. Siddiqui subsequently tried to gun down some U.S. military officers and FBI agents, and is now serving an 86-year prison sentence for that offense.”
  • “Tarek Mehanna, who worshipped at ISB’s Cambridge mosque, received terrorist training in Yemen and plotted to use automatic weapons to inflict mass casualties in a suburban shopping mall just outside of Boston. In 2012 he was sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid Al Qaeda.”
  • “Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at ISB’s Boston mosque in 2009 and again in 2012, advocates replacing American democracy with Sharia Law; characterizes Christians as “filthy” polytheists whose “life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad”; and accuses Jews of plotting to destroy Muslim peoples and societies. Further, Qadhi is an acolyte of Ali al-Timimi, a Virginia-based Imam who is currently serving life in prison for inciting jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”

The Boston Globe article is instructive because it represents the very line of thinking and questioning that is mandated in the halls of America’s national security institutions.

It is also instructive — in light of the facts about the ISB — that a see-no-Islam national security stance leads us to ignore the threats hiding in plain sight, to America’s great detriment.

Those who ignore the nature of the Islamic supremacist threat we face are doomed to submit to it.

05/30/15

Emergence of a National Police Force

By: Andrew Kopas – Guest Columnist
Stand Up America

With the recent shooting in Ferguson and deaths in New York City and Baltimore of residents there involved in criminal activity at the time of their arrests, there is an outcry from the likes of civil rights activist Al Sharpton and others for nullification of state’s rights and the takeover of local and state police forces nationwide by the Federal Government, specifically by the Executive Branch.

BESTPIX BALTIMORE, MD - APRIL 27:  Demonstrators climb on a destroyed Baltimore Police car in the street near the corner of Pennsylvania and North avenues during violent protests following the funeral of Freddie Gray April 27, 2015 in Baltimore, Maryland. Gray, 25, who was arrested for possessing a switch blade knife April 12 outside the Gilmor Homes housing project on Baltimore's west side. According to his attorney, Gray died a week later in the hospital from a severe spinal cord injury he received while in police custody.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) *** BESTPIX ***

BESTPIX BALTIMORE, MD – APRIL 27 (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In all of this, keep in mind that Obama has very successfully used “straw man” arguments to advance his objectives. In this particular case, the “straw man” argument being put forward is that all law enforcement agencies across America are inherently racist and that only his takeover of them will fix these racist organizations.

He has essentially painted a bull’s eye on the backs of our local and state law enforcement personnel and endorsed instead the criminal element in America that has responded by assassination style shootings of law enforcement personnel in NYC and most recently in Mississippi as well.

The nationalization of our local and state police forces is indeed a very bad idea and should be adamantly opposed by both the states and the general populace for several reasons.

First and foremost, it would bring ALL organized armed personnel, namely the American Military, Homeland Security, and all local and state police under the direct control of one man, namely Obama and any future Presidents of the United States.

That would in turn allow for tremendous abuses of that power that we have already seen in this Administration, such as use of the IRS and DHS against what he perceives to be his domestic enemies, namely anyone who opposes him and his policies.

Remember the National Police Force Obama Promised in 2008?

Remember the National Police Force Obama Promised in 2008?

Secondly, if he decided to fully seize power and set aside the limitations of the Office of President imposed on him by the Constitution of the United States, which he has already done in a number of particulars such as with illegal immigration, failure to enforce DOMA, bypassing Congress unilaterally in matters of treaty negotiations, etc., there would be no armed force except the American people directly to stop him.

But without organization and leadership, the probability of that successfully happening on a national scale is remote.

In fact, he could use all of the organized armed forces at his disposal, including local and state police who would be under his direct control, to put down any such opposition that the people might undertake.

As reported in The Daily Bell on December 7, 2011, as early as 2009 Obama advocated “a civilian police force to match the size and power of our armed forces.”  One has to ask the question “Why” such national control is required vs. local law enforcement properly trained and equipped to deal with any domestic terrorist threats?

bearcat-2His expansion of the Homeland Security Department has followed that pronouncement, as has his use of the NSA to go far beyond its mandate and monitor the communications of every man, woman and child in America.

And the fact that he is actively promoting and funding illegal immigration on a massive scale in America today without screening for terrorists crossing our borders begs the question of if he indeed wants to see an increase in domestic terrorist attacks like we have seen in many places across the USA such as at Ft. Hood, Oklahoma, Boston and most recently in Garland, Texas with the expressed purpose of forcing the need for such a national police force under his direct control to put down such attacks?

Obama has gone on record on more than one occasion to praise the Chinese Communist form of government and other authoritarian regimes that are essentially dictatorships based on central government control over all aspects of their citizens’ lives including how many children they can have, how they worship, how they communicate with each other over the Internet, and even how they assemble.

Do we want a man with the belief that an authoritarian form of government is preferable to a democratically elected government with clear separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as set for in our Constitution to have the kind of unlimited power that nationalization of our local and state law enforcement agencies would give him?

God forbid!

05/5/15

Dreams from Obama’s Different Fathers

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

President Obama on Monday is celebrating his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative, designed to create and expand “ladders of opportunity” for young blacks, many of whom have no fathers to guide them. But does President Obama have the credibility to deal with this crisis when he has failed to acknowledge as President the debt that he owes to his mentor and father figure, Communist Frank Marshall Davis?

What’s worse, Obama’s own half-brother, Malik Obama, is calling the President a con man who has failed to help members of his own poverty-stricken Kenyan family. Asked if President Obama has contributed to the foundation for his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., Malik told filmmaker Joel Gilbert, “No. No. Nothing.”

Perhaps the senior Obama isn’t Obama’s real father, after all.

The fatherhood crisis in black America was illustrated by the controversy over a black mother in Baltimore pulling her son off the streets when she caught him throwing rocks at the police during the riots. The mother, Toya Graham, has six children but no husband.

In addition to his initiatives on behalf of black fathers and their sons, Obama has unveiled a “fatherhood pledge,” which goes as follows:

“In response to President Obama’s call for a national conversation on responsible fatherhood and healthy families:

  • I pledge to renew my commitment to family and community.
  • I recognize the positive impact that fathers, mothers, mentors, and other responsible adults can have on our children and youth, and pledge to do all I can to provide children in my home and throughout my community the encouragement and support they need to fulfill their potential.”

Signers are told that “President Obama grew up without his dad, and has said that being a father is the most important job he has. That’s why the President is joining dads from across the nation in a fatherhood pledge—a pledge that we’ll do everything we can to be there for our children and for young people whose fathers are not around.”

In one of several stories expected to highlight Obama’s alleged commitment to the progress of black people, Yahoo! News describes Obama’s Monday launch of a new foundation to help black youth as part of his presidential legacy.

But in the blockbuster revelations that have been ignored by the pro-Obama “mainstream media,” Malik Obama, son of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., told Joel Gilbert in an interview from Kenya that he feels disappointed in, used and betrayed by President Obama. “In the beginning, I didn’t think that he was a schemer,” Malik Obama said. “His real character, his real personality, the real him, is coming out now.” Malik says that after using his Kenyan family for political purposes to get elected, Obama has largely abandoned them.

Malik is so disillusioned that he wants his half-brother to take a DNA test to see if he is really related to him.

The version of Barack Obama’s family history that continues to be disseminated nationally is that he grew up without a dad after his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., abandoned the family. The experience of not having a dad is said to have sparked Obama’s commitment to strengthen the black family through the “responsible fatherhood” initiative and the “My Brother’s Keeper” program. The foundation launched on Monday is an extension of the latter.

Gilbert asked Malik if he had approached Barack Obama about getting some funds to help bury their aunt, Zeituni Onyango, in Kenya after she died in Boston.  Malik responded, “Yes I did. I told him that she’s our aunt, she’s your father’s sister, she loved you very much and we need to do something for her. We need around $20,000 and he said that was too much and that it seemed like she deserved what she got. And I was saying in my mind, ‘what kind of person is this?’ And I told him, ‘you say you’re your brother’s keeper, I don’t feel it, and I don’t see you living up to what you say.’ She had really been good to him when he came. I felt really sad that he would just abandon her like that. I just left. She was stuck there for a month. People were trying to raise money and we finally got her back.”

“The White House had no comment on Onyango’s passing,” the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Malik’s statement to Obama, “you say you’re your brother’s keeper, I don’t feel it, and I don’t see you living up to what you say,” is just another indication that Barack Obama’s family history is questionable.

Obama’s claim to have been abandoned by his Kenyan father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., is usually combined with the story that he was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii. However, this has been demonstrated to be a carefully concocted lie designed to hide the fact that his grandfather picked black Communist Frank Marshall Davis to be Obama’s childhood mentor in Hawaii.

According to Barack Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, Davis, referred to as “Frank,” gave him advice on such topics as going to college and race relations, telling him that blacks “have reason to hate.” Davis’s true identity in the Obama book Dreams from My Father was obviously concealed because of his controversial background—which has been extensively documented by Accuracy in Media—as a suspected Soviet espionage agent, pornographer and pedophile.

It was communist historian Gerald Horne who initially disclosed “Frank” to be Davis at a 2007 event announcing that the archives of the Communist Party USA were being stored at New York University’s Tamiment Library. He had noted Davis’s influence over Obama and predicted in his remarks, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party,” that Obama would go down in history as a major and influential figure.

Despite Obama’s professed concern for the future of the dysfunctional black family, he has never been asked publicly by the media to explain his relationship with Davis, and he has avoided even mentioning the subject in public, except for one 1995 appearance that just recently surfaced on the Internet in a video. Obama said in that appearance that Davis had schooled him on the subject of white racism before he went off to college.

At one time, Malik Obama said, they were very close. Yet, Barack Obama has largely abandoned his family in Kenya. “He doesn’t want anything to do with me anymore,” Malik said. “I don’t understand how somebody who claims to be a relative or a brother can behave the way that he’s behaving, be so cold and ruthless, and just turn his back on the people he said were his family.”

Gilbert, the director of a film claiming Obama’s real father is Davis and not the Kenyan Obama, asked Malik if he thinks Barack Obama may be the child of Frank Marshall Davis rather than Barack Hussein Obama Sr. “There’s a great resemblance,” Malik replied. “I think Frank Marshall Davis and Barack, they look alike. Some kind of moles I see on his face and Frank, he has those too. There’s a resemblance.”

President Obama has promised to visit Kenya in July. White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said, “he did not yet know whether the President would visit with members of his extended family,” CNN reported.

Gilbert asked Malik, “Do you expect when he comes to Kenya that he will come to see you?” He replied, “No, I don’t expect that. I don’t. He’s coming to Kenya right now. I’ve not been informed…An embarrassment and demeaning.”

We are two years into the second term of the presidency of Barack Obama and still serious questions are raised about the history and background of the President of the United States.

However, Gerald Horne and others on the left always have seemed secure in their knowledge of what this presidency represents.  “At some point in the future,” Horne had said, “a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, ‘Living the Blues’…”

At that point, perhaps, we will learn the complete truth about Barack Obama and Frank Marshall Davis.

02/3/15

The Tea Party: Then and Now

By: Michael Johns

The largest and most impactful political movement, at least since the civil rights movement and perhaps in all of American history, originated in the minds and efforts of less than a dozen American citizens.

It was late February 2009, just weeks after the inauguration of Barack Obama, and there was every reason for conservatives to fear the worst: That we had elected a polarizing, far left and ultimately ineffectual president who would prove a threat to constitutional law, our economy and America’s global standing in the world.  Most concerning was that he would gradually or even quickly erode our nation’s two centuries of respect for individual rights and liberties upon which America was founded, “fundamentally transforming” (as he promised) our nation in destructive ways.

On the morning of February 19, 2009, as was often the case, I had the financial media outlet CNBC playing on a distant television in my suburban Philadelphia home.  This particular cold February morning, Rick Santelli, a Chicago-based CNBC reporter, was doing his usual stand-up reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade (COMEX).  Santelli began reporting on Washington’s federal subsidies of housing under Obama when mid way through his report his sense of outrage began to escalate passionately.

Santelli accused the Obama administration of “promoting bad behavior” in subsidizing mortgages then at default risk with a $75 billion housing program, known as the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. He then turned and, while still live on CNBC, stated assertively to COMEX floor traders: “We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party!” Santelli’s suggestion of a Tea Party response to the federal government’s overreach was greeted with supportive applause and whistles of approval from COMEX traders. Santelli then said: “What we are doing in this country is making our founders roll over in their graves.”

I found Santelli’s Chicago comments accurate, inspirational and even bold for a mainstream reporter in a media world that really never challenged Obama on much of anything during or since the 2008 campaign. What I did not realize was that his remarks were viewed similarly by several other conservative-leaning Americans, who would go on to inspire a national political movement that would shake the nation.

Just a few days following Santelli’s rant, 12 or so conservative activists, including me, were invited to participate in a strategic organizing Tea Party conference call moderated by Nashville-based, Stanford educated conservative Michael Patrick Leahy.  It was Leahy who earlier launched the now famous #tcot (Top Conservatives on Twitter) hashtag, where it remains today one of Twitter’s most commonly used hashtags and a key methodology for conservative communication.

Most on the call, unlike me, were new to political engagement.  They had largely never worked in government, public policy or politics. Aside from Leahy and me, the others had never managed an organization either.  They had largely never written or spoken on political or public policy themes, even though all of us would soon be called upon to articulate our Tea Party message nationally in the weeks to come.  Most had never even worked on a political campaign.  But the passion on that call was infectious.  The 12 or so of us left it with a feeling that a potentially influential national political movement was emerging—and quickly.

Several follow-up calls were scheduled, and they led us to devise a now well-known plan for Tea Party protests across the nation on Tax Day, April 15, 2009.  The aggressive six-week timeline, like much that the Tea Party movement has undertaken since its creation, was organized hastily, with a sense of urgency, and not without its errors. But April 15, 2009, is now a fairly notable day in American history in the sense that it was the physical manifestation of a national political movement, comprising tens of millions of Americans and quite possibly the largest in American history, that would go on to impact significantly the nation’s political debate.

The day of April 15, 2009, was a busy one. For my part, in the afternoon, on Boston Square in downtown Boston, just blocks from the original Sam Adams-led Tea Party on December 16, 1773, I spoke to a large and passionate crowd furious with Obama and the country’s direction.  I then left Boston to speak that evening at one of the nation’s largest tea parties of the day, held in lower Manhattan, not far from the memorialized 9/11 attack location. Three days later, on the grounds of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, I spoke for a third time in just three days to a very large and vibrant Tea Party rally organized by the Independence Hall Tea Party Association, of which I was then an officer.

The years 2009 and 2010 were full of flurry and a sense of urgency for the national Tea Party movement, an urgency that has continued to this day.  In 2010, in Quincy, Illinois, where Lincoln held his sixth debate with U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas on October 13, 1858, I joined Leahy and the late media personality Andrew Breitbart in addressing a large Tea Party crowd on the precise location where Lincoln pointedly articulated his anti-slavery message: “We (the Republican Party) also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself,” Lincoln said that day in Quincy.

By this time, the message of our movement was being refined and polished, comprised mostly of three universal themes that were and continue to be broadly popular with the American people: First, the federal government has grown too big and its taxes vastly too excessive.  Second, the sovereignty of the United States—in controlling its borders, in developing its national security and foreign policies — must be defended at all costs.  And third, that the U.S. Constitution was a document containing absolute truths to which government needed to adhere if it was to avoid lawlessness and chaos.

As I was in Boston and New York City, Leahy and others organized one of the day’s largest and most successful events in Nashville, drawing thousands.  In downtown Chicago, just a couple blocks from where the Santelli rant heard round the world took place, another Tea Party founder organized a large and hugely successful Tea Party rally.  His name was Eric Odom.

Quickly, the passionate and activism of this small cadre spread to thousands, then tens of thousands, and ultimately to millions of Americans who identified themselves as being supportive of the Tea Party movement. On November 2, 2010, a highly motivated Tea Party movement rocked the nation, sending 65 new Republican House members to Washington and thus forcing then Speaker Nancy Pelosi to surrender her gavel to new Republican John Boehner. Four years later, on November 4, 2014, the Tea Party movement again proved a huge difference maker, further increasing Republican presence in the U.S. House and increasing its U.S. Senate seats by nine, including pulling out wins in hugely contentious races in many states, including Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and South Dakota.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. House of Representatives, a Tea Party Caucus, chaired by former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, had been developed with the movement’s input to coordinate the Tea Party agenda in Congress.  And the national strategy discussions continued. In Chicago, for instance, Odom and I spent three long days in detailed discussion on the movement’s strategy, messaging and allocation of limited resources.

In the months and years since, along with other Tea Party founders from the February 2009 conference call, we continued tireless efforts of what by then had become a vast, influential, though sometimes chaotically organized movement of political consequence. All the Tea Party movement founders from Leahy’s first conference call are impressive in their own ways, and have their own personal stories about what sparked their leadership in this now historical movement.

In the years that followed, along with other national Tea Party leaders, Leahy, Odom and I crisscrossed the nation articulating the Tea Party message and helped to organize the movement politically in order to prevail in elections.

In Dallas, Leahy organized a national Tea Party leadership meeting that included many of the founders from the original February 2009 call participated.  “Let’s begin this meeting with a prayer to God for His guidance of this movement,” I suggested privately to Leahy, who agreed. We began the meeting exactly that way.  Later, also in Dallas, we organized a two-day training course for regional and other Tea Party leaders on political and public policy activism.

One of those leaders was Chicago-based Eric Odom.  In fall 2010, from Las Vegas, we poured ourselves into the campaign of Nevada State Senator Sharron Angle in hopes of replacing the Obama administration’s strongest U.S. Senate ally, Harry Reid.  As the movement’s prominence (and the associated strategic questions facing it) evolved, Odom and I spent several days in Chicago asking and discussing those questions and developing our best answers.  And there was the day in Philadelphia where I invited Odom to join me in addressing an important pre-election Tea Party rally held on the iconic grounds of Independence Hall in front of the very building where 56 founders of our nation pledged with a “firm reliance of the protection of divine providence,” their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to remove imperial British forces and rule and establish a self-governed nation rooted in liberty and the rule of law.

The Tea Party movement’s efforts, as even its detractors would concede, have since proven hugely consequential, ensuring that Obama, at least since 2011, was not given full reign of the legislative and executive branches of government.  A Tea Party-influenced Republican House and Senate, along with our extensive grassroots efforts, have held liberal Obama’s agenda at bay, despite the Tea Party’s ultimate inability to defeat Obamacare.

Since that first February 2009 conference call, the founding and ongoing development of the historic Tea Party movement is one of many intriguing personal stories, and a singular collective story.  Along the way, we have done many things well (removing Pelosi and then Reid as Speaker and Majority Leader, respectively).  We have strengthened the Republican Party as a party that stands more than before for conservative principles expressed (but too often ignored) in the GOP platform.  We also quickly obliterated the 2008 progressive political culture that maintained that Obama was a man who singularly held the answers for the nation.  Time has proven those ideas were not at all innovative and were actually just a rewording of those from the liberal playbook of more government and more taxes.  In all these ways, since those February 2009 planning calls, the national Tea Party movement has exceeded the accomplishments of the effective and well-constructed 2008 Obama for America campaign that ultimately propelled Obama to the presidency.

All this history is important because it reaffirms the veracity of Margaret Mead’s famous statement: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” It’s worth asking: If those first organizing calls had not been launched, would Republicans today control the U.S. Senate and House? If no, that means that Obama’s entire far-left political agenda would have been rubber stamped by an equally liberal Congressional leadership.  Has the Tea Party movement saved the nation?  I believe it likely has.

Yet, to be truthful about the inner workings of the Tea Party movement, we have done many things well, but failed in others.  In 2015, the Tea Party and patriot movement’s top priority must be communicating and impacting public opinion and explaining why and how Tea Party principles can make America great again: creating jobs and economic prosperity, restoring rigid adherence to the U.S. Constitution, and restoring a strong America that can defeat serious national security threats.

With a reliance on divine providence again, let’s roll back this utterly destructive, unconstitutional government and welcome in a century or more of strong liberty leadership.  Next step: We must explain our Tea Party vision and solutions for America.