Put Deliberation Back in the World’s Most Deliberative Body

By REP. TRENT FRANKS 1/12/16 12:01 AM

The objective of Democrats leading up to the next election is to deliberately engineer an extended government shutdown Rep. Trent Franks argues (AP file photo/Ross D. Franklin)

The objective of Democrats leading up to the next election is to deliberately engineer an extended government shutdown Rep. Trent Franks argues (AP file photo/Ross D. Franklin)

When noble American champions like Franklin Graham leave the Republican Party and a potential split in the Republican Party is pondered by Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, we should ask ourselves why.

Here’s why.

Republicans currently hold a 54 — 46 majority in the Senate (which conservatives understandably thought would give Republicans the power to resist Barack Obama). However, even if all 54 Republicans vote “yes” on the “motion to proceed” (one of the Senate’s most insidious and hidden-in-plain sight secrets), at least 6 Democrats must also come to the Senate floor and vote “yes” or the motion is defeated.

This rule denies the majority in the United States Senate the essential capability to vote on, or even debate, critical, life and death legislation that may be supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans (like stopping the Iranian nuclear deal).

More from the Washington Examiner

How could we ever come up with a more perfect recipe for gridlock in this polarized, truth-be-damned political era in which we live?

Democrats know that the American people (even the esoteric Republican base) are largely oblivious to this secret, subterranean leverage they so routinely abuse, since the media never seem to report on this elephant (or donkey) in the room.

This has allowed Democrats to repeatedly force the House of Representatives, and especially its leadership, into an impossible conundrum: Either pass legislation that Democrats completely agree with, which enrages the principled, but misinformed Republican base, or allow Democrats to shut down the government, for which Republicans will be unjustly, but entirely, blamed.

In fact, the primary objective of Democrats leading up to the next election is to deliberately engineer an extended government shutdown. This is because both Democrats and Republicans have done extensive polling, and both know a government shutdown gives Democrats decisive leverage to retain the presidency and gain control of the U.S. Senate in next year’s election. This would mean that Democrats will control presidential appointments, gain complete control of the U.S. Supreme Court and turn what’s left of the U.S. Constitution into vapor.

 

Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive

Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 1.57.06 PM

Posted on by

Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive

Matthew Bracken is the author of Enemies Foreign and Domestic, and a well-known advocate for Second Amendment rights. The following guest-essay by Mr. Bracken is also being published at Western Rifle Shooters Association.

parisriots4

Tet, Take Two:
Islam’s 2016 European Offensive

More than a decade ago I wrote my first novel, Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Part of my motivation was to establish my bona fides at forecasting social, political and military trends. I didn’t like the direction America was heading, and I wanted to warn as many readers as possible about some of the dangers I saw coming. At the end of 2015, I hope that my past success at prognostication will encourage people to pay heed to this essay.

isisbloodyknife

1. Islam

Islam is similar to a self-replicating supercomputer virus. It is a hydra-headed monster, designed by its creators to be an unstoppable formula for global conquest. It’s almost impossible to eradicate, because it has no central brain or control center. Islam is like a starfish: when you cut off a limb, another grows to replace it. The names of the Muslim leaders, and the names of their Islamic groups, are transitory and ultimately unimportant. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are succeeded by Al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State, but they will all pass from the scene and be replaced by others. While Muslim leaders and regimes have come and gone, Islam itself has remained steadfastly at war with the non-Muslim world for 1,400 years.

Islam does not recognize secular national boundaries. To devout Muslims, there are only two significant realms of the world. First is the Dar al-Islam — the House of Islam, which is the land of the believers. The other is the Dar al-Harb — the House of War, which must be made Islamic by any means, including violent jihad. The expansion of Islam is sometimes held in check for long periods, but more often Islam is on the march, acquiring new territory. Once conquered by Islam, territory is rarely taken back, Spain being a notable exception.

The Muslim world produces almost no books or new inventions. Short of finding oil under their feet, most Islamic nations are backward and impoverished. So wherein lies the power source for Islam’s nearly constant expansion over the past fourteen centuries? The motor and the battery of Islam are the Koran and the Hadith, or sayings of Mohammed. A messianic Mahdi, Caliph or Ayatollah with sufficient charisma can accelerate Islam’s pace of conquest, but individual men are not the driving force.

Secular “Muslim in name only” strongmen from Saddam Hussein to Muamar Qadafi can hold Islamism in check for a period with brutal methods, but strongmen are often assassinated or otherwise removed from power, and in any event, they cannot live forever. Once the secular strongmen are gone, fanatical mullahs are able to stir their zealous Muslim followers into sufficient ardor to reinstall a radical Islamist regime under Sharia Law, according to the Koran.

This pattern of secular strongmen being followed by fanatical Islamist leaders has recurred many times over the past millennium and longer. Do not be fooled by modernists like King Abdullah of Jordan. To the true believer of Islam, any king or strongman is never more than a rifle shot or grenade toss away from being kinetically deposed, and replaced by another Islamist fanatic.

The persistent virulence of Mohammed’s 7th Century plan for global domination means that it is always ready to erupt in a fresh outbreak. Islam is like a brushfire or ringworm infection: it is dead and barren within the ring, but flares up where it parasitically feeds off the healthy non-Islamic societies around it. What produces this uniquely fanatical motivation, from within nations and peoples that otherwise seem devoid of energy and new ideas?

muslimskoran

The motivation lies within the words of the Koran and Hadith. Most simply distilled, in the earthly realm, these Islamic texts offer immoral men sanction for thrill-killing, looting, raping, and capturing infidel slaves, and when these jihadists are killed, they are promised a perpetual orgy with seventy-two nubile virgin slave girls in Mohammed’s sick, evil and perverted Muslim paradise. Unlike the Jewish and Christian Bibles, the Koran and Hadith appeal not to man’s better angels, but to the darkest aspects of human nature. (Tellingly, Moses and Jesus are said to have climbed to mountaintops to communicate with their God, while Mohammed received his messages from Allah deep inside a bat cave.)

A meaningful or permanent reformation of Islam is impossible, because a new generation of fanatics, wielding the unexpurgated Koran and Hadith as their weapons, will always declare the reformists to be apostates and murder them. In Islam, the fanatics who are holding the unalterable Koran in one hand and a sword in the other always stand ready to seize complete power and exterminate their enemies.

This latent danger breeds fear and causes nearly all non-Muslims to be carefully circumspect in their dealings with Muslims, lest they lose their heads at a later date. This intentionally fostered fear of Islam is used as a cudgel against those who would otherwise resist its domination. The immutable Koran is the constant fountainhead of bloody Islamic conquest. Radical Islam is the pure Islam, the Koranic Islam, the real Islam.

Anyone who does not understand this bitter reality is dangerously ignorant of the past 1,400 years of human history.

socialism1

2. International Socialism

The second great actor or social force is international socialism. It can also be aptly described under the rubrics of leftism, statism, cultural Marxism and communism. These all inhabit the international socialist spectrum. I trace these cultural Marxists at least back to the Jacobins of the 18th Century, a clique of secular humanists who were early globalists aligned with Freemasonry.

The nucleus of the group that would later become the Jacobins moved from Germany to France with a coherent and fully developed plan to engineer a social explosion as a means to take power. The Jacobin destabilization plan became the template for many more bloody “people’s revolutions” to come. Following the French Revolution, we are familiar with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. We are less familiar with the early 20th Century British Fabian socialists, or the Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, or the German “Frankfurt School” of international socialists, who transplanted their vision to the United States via Columbia University.

Unlike Vladimir Lenin and the Communists, they understood that international socialism’s goals could not be fully accomplished until the strong edifice of Western Civilization was hollowed out and sabotaged from within. In the end, the clandestine international socialist forces which burrowed deep within the Western womb achieved results which were far more permanent than the militarily-imposed revolutionary “war Communism” of Lenin and Mao.

Over the course of the past century, while Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, the Fabian socialists have been increasingly successful at poisoning the roots of national, cultural and ethnic identity, leaving the inheritors of Western Civilization disorganized and demoralized, with no central belief system to rally behind. Why has this deliberate demoralization and dumbing-down process occurred? The international socialists have believed at least since the French Revolution that it was their duty to impose a top-down feudal order upon the ordinary “dumb masses,” a new world order managed by self-proclaimed experts chosen from among the correctly-educated elites, both for the benefit of the ignoramuses, and as a way to line their own pockets and continue to live an elite lifestyle of wealth and power.

It may seem paradoxical that major corporate and banking interests are deeply invested in the international socialist new world order, but when you untangle the threads it actually makes perfect sense. Today’s international banks and mega-corporations are powerful global actors in their own right, and they are now written into each new international trade agreement. In fact, corporate lawyers author most of the pages of the multi-thousand-page trade pacts, which are now coming down like rain. Trade pacts which were never voted on by American or European citizens, pacts which are taking on the force of international treaty law, superseding even the United States Constitution.

From the Rothschilds of Europe to the Warburgs of both continents, to the Morgans and Rockefellers of America and back to the Hungarian immigrant George Soros, for several centuries, millionaire (and more lately billionaire) bankers have written their own laws and cut their own political deals. Today, they literally create billions of new dollars and Euros per day out of thin air, and pass it over to their cronies. In the United States, the creation a century ago of the Federal Reserve — a privately run central bank of, by and for the interests of a cabal of private banking interests — is a glaring case in point.

In the USA, the heads of global mega-corporations and investment firms donate massively to both the Democrats and the Republicans alike, ensuring favorable treatment in an era of corporately directed crony capitalism. The picture is much the same in other countries. These post-nationalist crony-capitalists recognize no sovereign borders and believe that patriotism is a laughable anachronism.

For example, in America, open-border traitors bribe politicians to pass laws to allow them to import unlimited numbers of H-1 visa foreign workers to directly replace Americans at their very desks and work places, and these traitors do not lose one wink of sleep over it. The traitor class of the international business set calls this “agility,” moving fungible proles, peasants and paupers worldwide to where they can be set to work most cheaply and profitably. Ordinary American middle-class workers and their families are just collateral damage in this process. The reality is not much different in Europe.

These super wealthy open-border corporate and banking elites, who paradoxically steer the forces driving international socialism, are able to bribe their way to success after success in myriad ways. Their wealth and political connections ensure that cooperative young players with future star quality are steered to the right universities, foundations, councils, government agencies and media positions. For example, when you see a talking head on television, and his listed expert credential is that he is a member of the entirely private Council on Foreign Relations who has written articles for their house publication Foreign Affairs, you will know that he is destined for high positions, and doors will magically open in front of him.

Over on the Fourth Estate, the global mass media have been almost entirely subverted, scripted and stage-managed for decades by these über-wealthy elites through a thousand channels greased with kickbacks, no-show jobs, and secret payoffs that are disguised as special stock offerings and private land deals. Media figures morph seamlessly into senior political advisors and corporate board members, adding millions to their portfolios with each well-timed transition. Even many retired generals and admirals eagerly wallow in this swamp of sell-out and sleaze. It should not be a surprise to anyone that so many politicians leave Washington or Brussels as millionaires. Just as it should not be a surprise that long-time CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” was for his entire adult life secretly a leading member of the World Federalist Association, a fact he proudly revealed only after his retirement from in front of the camera.

pegidadresden20141222-3

3. Nationalism

Nationalists probably comprise most of the population of the non-Islamic world, but there is no way to know their number with any certainty. Opinion polls are so easily rigged that most of them are useless at best, and they primarily constitute false propaganda anddezinformatsiya on behalf of their sponsors.

Nationalists consider themselves to be first and foremost loyal citizens of a sovereign nation. However, it must be borne in mind that the very concept of nationhood is fairly recent in origin. The division of the globe into distinct nation-states only began in the 17th Century, usually marked by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years’ War. Since then, the world has been divided by national borders, which often (but not always) coincided with a national ethnic group, language and culture.

peaceofwestphalia

This national division was particularly successful on the European continent. Shared Judeo-Christian morality, ethics and values promoted notions of fairness and equal rights, leading over time to the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, and racial civil rights. During this period of unleashed human potential, Europeans and Americans enjoyed the greatest increase in overall standards of living ever seen in the history of mankind. Great cities, universities and museums were constructed in Europe and in America. Rising European empires — wealthy, cohesive, confident and highly organized — then conquered or otherwise came to control colonies around the world. America picked up much of the business when the colonial era ended after World War Two.

Happy national outcomes were far from universal. During the 20th Century, Communism rose to take complete power in some countries, notably Russia (as the Soviet Union) and China, but their successes did not lead to an unstoppable avalanche of global revolution, as had been foreseen by Lenin, Stalin and Mao. On the other hand, the slow, grinding “Long March through the institutions” of the traitor-class Fabian socialists (including Gramsci, the Frankfurt School and others) proved far more effective and durable.

By the 21st Century, these cultural Marxist traitor-moles had subverted nearly all of academia, inculcating generation after generation of students with a contempt bordering on hatred for their own national and ethnic identities. Most of the media were also subverted, ensuring that mass communications would always reinforce the politically correct international socialist world view that had already been injected and incubated in the schools and universities.

In this era of mass-brainwashing by the cultural Marxists, Christianity was recast as a retrograde social force, obsolete at best in the modern secular world, and at worst an outright danger to humanity. In the new politically-correct secular religion of humanism, European ethnic and cultural identity became the original sin and the mark of Cain. White European skin meant white privilege, and was transformed into a cause for shame.

Meanwhile, emancipated European and American women aimed toward new goals, which increasingly did not include producing a new generation, and demographic collapse began. Both men and women alike were anesthetized into apathy with 24-hour entertainment transmitted by high-def screens and stereo ear buds planted nearly into their brains. This unceasing fountain of entertainment proved an ideal conduit for mass-brainwashing with politically-correct values and ideas. Thus distracted and demoralized, most Americans and Europeans today seem unable and unwilling to stand up and fight in defense of their diminishing cultural and national identities. Brainwashed “social justice warriors,” the latest iteration of Lenin’s “useful idiots,” hasten the demise of Western Civilization, blissfully unaware of what will follow.

Thus rendered supine, the remaining American and European nationalists constitute the weakest and the most threatened of the three major global social forces. In a few European nations, patriots such as Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, Björn Höcke of Germany, Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Nigel Farage of the UK, and Marine Le Pen of France lead a rear-guard defense of their national, ethnic and cultural identities, while constantly being disparaged in the socialist-controlled “liar press” as racists, Nazis and xenophobes.

fredensborgexplosion

4. World War Three

Going into 2016, I believe that Europe is primed to become the central theater of a third world war. Like an overstrained zipper suddenly failing and bursting open from end to end, the European conflagration could well reignite simmering conflicts from the Ukraine to the Persian Gulf, due to interlocking alliances (NATO, including Turkey, vs. Russia), and the Sunni-Shia divide (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, which has been imported into Europe).

Yes, World War Three. But why now?

A recurring strategic doctrine of the open-border international socialists, going back at least to the Jacobins, has been, “Out of chaos, order.” Lenin put it this way, when told that there were bread riots in Russian cities: “The worse, the better.” No “people’s revolution” (instigated and directed by traitor-class elites) has ever occurred on full bellies in happy countries that were at peace.

The international bankers and corporate elites are just as happy to underwrite revolutions as they are to underwrite other types of war. They have regularly provided loans and armaments simultaneously to all sides of European conflicts, always profiting handsomely no matter which side won or lost, or how many people died. They have also funded revolutions, in order to stir the pot for their future profits by getting in on the ground floor with new regimes.

For example, American bankers funded the efforts of Lenin and Trotsky both before and during their returns to Russia. Once you understand the grand machinations at work behind the forces directing international socialism, this seeming paradox actually makes sense. It’s about control, and brainwashing the idiot proles into the unthinking herd behavior required to manage them under socialism directed from above. But at the very pinnacle of the proletarian worker-bee hive, the controlling nomenklatura elites live like Communist dictators, or Rockefellers, or both at the same time, as they meet at Davos, Aspen, Jackson Hole and elsewhere over champagne and caviar to arrange their next self-dealing international trade agreements.

Now, the elite shot-callers have lit the fuse for the vast social explosion that is imminent in Europe, just as they did in Russia in 1917. How? By throwing Europe’s borders wide open. The Islamist corner of my triad represents a constant threat or push, and Muslims are always eager to fill any demographic vacuum. Their avarice for fresh Islamic conquest is a given or a constant. We see a 1.5-per birth rate among European women, and they see millions of European women with no or worthless husbands, who will soon meet real Muslim men. The current open-border policies of the European international socialists were intentionally designed to allow hundreds of thousands of culturally and religiously aggressive Islamist fighters and colonists to flood into Europe. The European traitor elites understand exactly what they are doing. They know what will happen. But why do it now?

The twentieth-century Austrian School economist Ludwig Von Mises wrote, “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” In contrast, when the socialist economist John Maynard Keynes was asked if his self-styled Keynesian credit expansion could continue in the long run, he replied, “In the long run, we are all dead.” Tra-la-la, who cares? It won’t be my problem.

In 2015, the childless homosexual John Maynard Keynes is indeed long dead, but we are still alive, and his “long run” is finally upon us. Now, just before the bank failures begin, seems to be an opportune time for the traitor elites to throw over the table, scattering the cards, chips and cash, while the lights go dark and shots ring out. The evil actors lurking in the background who sometimes engineer major catastrophes always have a plan to escape their worst consequences, including taking any blame, and they even have a plan to profit from the very disasters they created. The first Baron Rothschild, around the time of the Battle of Waterloo, is credited with saying “The time to buy is when there is blood running in the streets.”

Is there any evidence of a concerted effort to deliberately throw Europe into bloody chaos and civil war? I think that there is. Thousand-passenger ferry ships cost tens of thousands of Euros a day to operate. Muslim hijra (jihad by immigration) invaders are receiving free or subsidized passage from Greek isles that are located only a few miles from Turkey, all the way across the Aegean Sea to mainland Greece. From there, chartered buses and special trains speed the migrants from border to border and onward into Germany, France and Sweden, at little or no cost to the muhajirun, or hijra migrants.

Who is paying for the operation of the ferry ships, trains and bus convoys? Who is paying for the smart phones and prepaid debit cards? Who is passing out the hundred-Euro notes seen in nearly every migrant hand, if they are truly arriving destitute after escaping war-torn Syria? Somebody is underwriting the Muslim hijra invasion of Europe. George Soros is spending billions to fund a hundred groups advocating open borders through his Open Society Foundation, so that might be a good place for intrepid researchers to explore.

tet-cholon

5. The Tet Offensive of 1968

As we roll into 2016, I am reminded of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive. In January of 1968, before the Tet Lunar New Year celebrations, thousands of Viet Cong fighters were infiltrated into Saigon and other South Vietnamese cities. Their coordinated mass attacks on January 30 came nearly by complete surprise, constituting America’s worst intelligence-gathering failure between 1950 in Korea and 2001 in New York. The experts had all agreed that the VC were too weakened and divided to accomplish mass attacks on a national scale, yet more than 80,000 irregular Communist infiltrators simultaneously struck in more than one hundred towns and cities. The Communists used a declared truce period to launch their attacks, while the American and South Vietnamese forces were on holiday leave. Bitter urban fighting in Hue, Vietnam’s third largest city, lasted for a month. Before they were defeated in Hue, the Communists executed thousands of civilian prisoners, dumping them into mass graves with their hands wired behind their backs.

The Communist bosses in North Vietnam miscalculated that the Viet Cong attacks in the cities would trigger a spontaneous national uprising against the American imperialists and their Republic of Vietnam puppets. This general uprising did not take place, and the VC was largely wiped out by hard-fighting American and South Vietnamese troops. City life went back to what constituted normal in South Vietnam. After Tet, the Viet Cong were largely a spent force, and never regained their former power. (The final takeover of South Vietnam in 1975 was accomplished by conventional NVA troops arriving from the North in tanks and on trucks, after Democrats in the American Congress cut off the resupply of ordnance and fuel to our South Vietnamese allies, leaving them unable to defend their republic.)

Yet back in America, in order to deceive and demoralize America in time of war, “Uncle Walter” Cronkite twisted the story of the Tet Offensive into a tale of rising Communist power and reach, of American military failure, and of the hopelessness of the cause to keep the Republic of Vietnam free from Communist conquest. Why did Cronkite do this? “The most trusted man in America” was secretly a leading propagandist for international socialism, which sees a strong and independent United States as the greatest barrier to their goal of eventual global governance. The case of Walter Cronkite and the Tet Offensive false narrative is just one glaring example of the pervasiveness of the international socialist grip on our mainstream media.

To an American nationalist, Walter Cronkite is a classic traitor, but to a dedicated international socialist, national borders and national sovereignty are no more important than they are to a devout Muslim. To both supranational groups, borders and nations are anachronistic constructs to be ignored, trampled, and discarded over time. Cronkite was a traitor to America, but he is a hero to the cultural Marxists. Typical of his dishonorable breed, Cronkite kept his true allegiance a secret until after he had retired from broadcasting lies and propaganda. I am convinced that the global mainstream media is infested with hundreds of Walter Cronkites today, both in front of and behind the cameras.

parisriots3

6. Tet, Take Two

Which brings me to the main thrust of this essay. I believe that Europe is being prepared for a Muslim-jihad version of the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. A vast and concerted act of treason has been taking place across Europe since the creation of the European Union. Under the Schengen Agreement, Brussels promised to guard the outer frontiers of the EU, while abolishing internal border controls. The Eurocrat elites broke the first promise but kept the second, thus opening a wide path for the onrushing Muslim hijra immigration invasion.

Right now, approximately a million new Muslim migrants are engaged in a struggle to find a warm place to sleep in a continent with nothing approaching the capacity to adequately house them. At least 75% of the migrant invaders are Muslim men of fighting age. Native-born ethnic Germans, Swedes and others are being thrown onto the street to provide emergency housing for Muslim “refugees.” Tens of thousands of migrants are currently living in tents, and in temporary shelters like school gymnasiums and underused warehouses.

There will be no means of finding or creating permanent quarters for them before the Central European blizzards come. When the snow is deep in Germany and across Europe, these men are going to enter local houses, demanding to be taken in as boarders — or else. Where it is useful, small migrant children will be held up in front as human shields for their emotional blackmail value, elsewise they will be discarded. One way or the other, Muslim migrants will be attempting to move inside of German homes and apartments seeking heat and food, and the young Muslim men will be seeking undefended infidel or kafir women to slake their lust, (which is their right, under Islamic Sharia law).

In disarmed Europe, any group of a dozen or more cold, hungry and angry Muslim men armed with clubs and knives will be able to enter any German house or business that they like. Worse, there are now reports of vast quantities of firearms being smuggled into Europe by themuhajirun, with cowed European authorities afraid to search the migrants or their baggage, lest they provoke riots. And weapons are not only smuggled in “refugee” baggage: eight hundred assault-style shotguns were just seized in a single truck in northern Italy, bound from Turkey to Belgium. How many truckloads of weapons and explosives have not been stopped?

In Germany, even before the winter snows, the migrants are flash-mobbing and looting shops and stores. Seeking to forestall a social eruption, police do not respond until the mobs have safely departed. For now, the German government is paying these store owners for their lost merchandise, but this cannot continue forever. Businesses are closing and Germans are retreating in fear, as the muhajirun learn that they can invade private property and rob Germans without repercussions, convincing them even further of the docile passivity of their hosts, and the inevitability of their ultimate hijra invasion success.

As attacks mount, the German police will nearly always fall out on the side of the traitor-elite politicians who pay their salaries, and they will not come to the rescue of besieged ethnic Germans. At least, not under official orders, or in uniform. This calculated disregard by the international socialist elites for the safety and welfare of ordinary German citizens will in time lead to vigilantism and death squad actions by “off-duty” German military and police personnel. They will be acting against their “hands off the Muslims” orders, which are ultimately emanating from Brussels. And in time, enough firearms will find their way from the military, police and black markets into the hands of ordinary European nationalists for them to mount an armed resistance.

migrantsmacedonia

The accelerated pace of the 2015 Muslim hijra invasion was conceived, planned and executed by Quisling traitors comprising the elite leadership of the European branch of the international socialist movement, headquartered in Brussels. To paraphrase British nationalist patriot Paul Weston, if a farmer deliberately inserts a fox into the henhouse, who is guilty of killing the hens? Now, today, across Europe the stage is being set for the genocide of the weak, confused and defenseless European hens. The former East German Communist functionary Angela Merkel achieves high marks at both Muslim fox insertion and German hen repression. (Meanwhile, the former Soviet Communist KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin evolves to become a Russian nationalist who always advances Russian interests, at least as they are perceived by himself and his cronies.)

A few days after the Paris attacks, French police commandos fired some 5,000 rounds down an urban street into an apartment set into a crowded block. A year from now, I predict that when police arrive on that street, they could be met with sniper fire, improvised barricades, IEDs and possibly RPGs. In short, Paris, Brussels and many other European cities will in time resemble Beirut during the 1980s.

To understand Europe’s future, simply ask the Lebanese what follows when a nation takes in tens of thousands of angry Muslim “refugees.” Civil war is what happens, even if it begins among the various competing refugee factions. It is a threadbare hope that a wished-for peaceful silent majority of Muslims will be able to influence the radical Islamists away from violence, and thus forestall the coming European Civil War, any more than imagined peaceful silent majorities could have prevented the civil wars in Lebanon, Bosnia, Syria or a dozen other places. Actual peace-loving Muslims will be as insignificant to the outcome of the coming conflict as were any Quaker pacifists hiding in 1944 Berlin. The only significance of the alleged silent majority of peaceful Muslims is that they will serve as living camouflage for the jihadists to hide among.

It is critical to note that none of the examples I just mentioned (Lebanon, Bosnia, Syria) constituted neat bipolar wars between two national state actors. All were three-sided wars — at least. These formulations are inherently unstable and constantly veer toward violence, as temporary alliances of convenience shift and today’s friend becomes tomorrow’s enemy. In this environment of deception, subterfuge and betrayal, the false-flag terror operation becomes a standard operating procedure. It is a simple matter for Group A to conduct a massacre of Group B while wearing the outward uniforms or other insignia of Group C. And it is no trouble at all for Group C to fire a few mortar rounds into the market square of Group A from the territory of Group B. Ethnic cleansing, reprisal operations and mass executions proliferate like mushrooms in this free-booting environment, which is devoid of the behavioral controls normally inherent in a war fought at the national level between two uniformed militaries.

hamburgaltonariot

When any non-Islamic country, such as France (through dangerously naive immigration policies) attains approximately a ten-percent Muslim population, violence and civil war become a constant threat. Ten percent of a total national population translates into more than fifty percent of fighting-age men in key urban districts, due to the concentration of Muslims inSharia-zone ghettos, combined with aging European demographics. Later, these Muslim ghettos will serve as sanctuaries and bastions for the jihadists, until and unless they are finally pulverized with artillery shell fire or aerial bombs. France and Germany will not be exempt from the lessons of history that were hard-taught in Beirut, Sarajevo, and Damascus.

beslanThousands of the recent Muslim muhajirun currently arriving in Europe were schooled in prolonged and savage religious and ethnic civil wars. Today’s Europeans, deliberately brainwashed with politically correct fairytales about the benefits of multi-culturalism, have utterly no idea what horrors await them. Increasing European discomfort will not change the outcome one iota. Just because the Europeans may tire of the irritating presence of Muslims, (both new immigrants and native born), the Muslims will never willingly leave Europe. Nor will the Muslim immigrant invaders knuckle under and turn quiet and docile again.

7. A Score of Beslans and Mumbais

The hard core of the battle-hardened jihadists now fanning out across Europe understands the tried-and-true process of igniting a civil war through terror. They will calculate that the European military and police cannot and will not sustain the battle against an unceasing campaign of terrorism. Brussels cannot remain on virtual lockdown forever without its economy being wrecked. What will happen when a Paris-type attack, or worse, is a daily event in a dozen European cities?

As I mentioned above, just the other day in northern Italy eight hundred combat-style pistol-grip shotguns were discovered in a truck on their way from Turkey to Belgium. Do the math. The Paris attacks were carried out by approximately eight jihadists armed with Kalashnikovs, shotguns and TATP suicide vests (which can be manufactured anywhere there is a kitchen). Now imagine a “Super Tet Offensive,” with every type of target on the hit list from airports to zoological parks, each being assaulted by an eight-man squad of such killers. Some attacks smaller, some larger, from pairs to platoons in strength.

Today, perhaps only a few short months prior to Tet 2016, there is no Islamic high command located in Europe or elsewhere in charge of planning specific terror operations. There is no OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the supreme command of the German Nazi armed forces) planning an Islamic Operation Barbarossa, hence, there is no command and control structure for Western intelligence to penetrate and disrupt.

Instead of a central brain directing many hands, think of a vast swarm of stinging jellyfish, all moving in loose formation, with the same generalized attack plan in their collective hive-mind. At the end of 2015, individual muhajirun may have only a basic awareness that they are heading to Europe to conduct a great jihad. As D-Day draws nearer, coded messages will proliferate with cryptic references to portentous events from Islamic history. “Get ready, and prepare to conduct major operations” will be the thrust of the online chatter and encrypted wireless messages. In each European city, targets will be individually scouted by localmuhajirun in anticipation of a general outbreak of jihad terror attacks.

How many mosques have already received a truckload of shotguns or Kalashnikovs? Run the numbers again: eight jihadists per terror attack, eight hundred weapons per truck, 80,000 Viet Cong fighters in the original Tet Offensive, and an estimated 800,000 muhajirun flooding into Europe. Using radical mosques as clandestine armories is S.O.P in the Middle East, so why would the jihadists not use the same tactics in safe and docile Europe? Out of a sense of fairness and respect for European laws? Please. In the words of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers…” And bear in mind that anyplace an AK-47 can be smuggled, so too can a few kilos of Semtex.

Imagine a dozen or even a score of Beslan, Russia, and Mumbai, India terror attacks all happening at the same time, across that number of European cities. Initially, the first string of major surprise attacks will be coordinated by the most well-organized terror networks using currently unbreakable wireless encryption. Many of the attacks will involve numerous captured hostages, often children, with impossible demands being made to guarantee their safety. Or no demands will be made; just rape and slaughter will ensue, as in the Russian Beslan example. This outbreak of major attacks will be the signal for the general jihad offensive to begin.

The Beslan Massacre happened in 2004 at the hands of yet another killer gang of aggrieved Islamists. Two squads of Chechen Muslim terrorists arrived on the first day of school in a Russian town, using false police vans as camouflage. They took a thousand young hostages and held them for three days. The Muslim terrorists murdered over four hundred innocents, often after rape and torture.

In Mumbai in 2008, ten Pakistani Muslim terrorists armed with Kalashnikovs and grenades created utter havoc over a four day period, attacking a train station, a hospital (unsuccessfully), landmark hotels and a Jewish center, murdering 164 people and wounding over 300. Simultaneous Beslan, Mumbai and Paris terror attacks, accompanied by car bombs, will be the model for the 2016 jihad offensive in Europe.

What Hitler’s Nazis accomplished with Stukas and Tigers and motorized divisions, the Islamonazis will attempt to accomplish by a massive “Tet Offensive on steroids,” overwhelming and stunning the European meta-system into immediate paralysis and first psychological, then material defeat. At least, that is the outcome that the Islamonazis will be striving to achieve. The 1968 Tet infiltration and mass-attack strategy didn’t succeed in Vietnam, and maybe it won’t work in Europe, either. It’s more likely that the hoped-for general uprising by all European Muslims against the kuffar will not be triggered, and it may simply stall and sputter out.

In strategic terms, if nothing else, the 2016 jihad offensive and subsequent civil war in Europe will open up a second major front in the war against the Islamic State, causing NATO and the West to turn their attention inward toward their own survival, and thereby take pressure off the other theaters of war in Iraq and Syria.

And for the Europeans to win the coming civil war, they will have to be at least half as brutally ugly as their Muslim invaders, and that means pretty damn brutally ugly. But while the jihadists will be operating at maximum brutality from day one, the placid and polite European authorities will be starting from far behind in that department. For example: a standard jihadist tactic is to flee from a terror attack straight back into the embrace of their co-religionists in the Sharia-zone ghettos, and hide behind their women and children. Then what will the authorities do? Go in and try to arrest them? (Just joking.) Wait for their next excursion with more terror bombs? Or gut the entire suspected block with shell fire? This is what I mean by damn ugly. The French reaction to the Paris attacks gives a hint of how this phase will run.

Best case scenario, and I don’t see this as likely: the 2016 Islamic Tet attackers will be wiped out the way the Viet Cong were in 1968. But if there are enough simultaneous attacks, in total numbers involving anywhere near the 80,000 or so fighters of the Vietnamese Tet, I can’t see how the present European forces can defeat the jihadists in less than a month, if at all. By very simple math, that number of jihadists means ten thousand Paris-level attacks. Think about that. Ten thousand Paris level attacks! All taking place in the same month, the same week, even on the same day, right across Europe. The politically-correct and overly polite European policemen (and even their militaries, at first) won’t be up to mounting successful counterattacks and rescue operations against a score of Beslans happening in schools, hospitals and concert halls. Not while at the same time, airports, train stations, power plants and other targets are being hit by Paris-sized terror squads right across Europe.

And count on this, for it is a standard tactic used by all Islamonazis in this extremely dirty style of warfare: just like in Beslan in 2004, where the killers arrived in false police vans, in 2016, ambulances, emergency vehicles and other official conveyances will either be hijacked or painted to simulate the real thing. Suicide bombers will arrive in official uniforms to sneak past security. This is a standard tactic, I repeat for emphasis. A jihadist dressed in a policeman’s uniform will drive a hundred-kilo bomb straight into the police headquarters in an official, marked police car. Goodbye, police HQ. (And incidentally, good luck at planning the rescue operation for your town’s local Beslan-in-progress, after your local police HQ is cratered, and much of their crisis leadership is wiped out.)

A few examples; I could go on for pages. The milk truck or bakery van will deliver terrorists to the middle school at mealtime. An ambulance will pull into the hospital’s underground parking garage and detonate. The cement truck won’t be delivering cement. Muslim jihadists are very proud of coming up with ever more clever ways to fool stupid infidels by abusing their naïve faith in official uniforms and corporate logos. The jihadists hurry to sign up for suicide driver school, just for the prospect of exploding a massive bomb inside of a crowd of filthykuffar, and launching themselves straight into the arms of their seventy-two waiting virgins. This is how they will fight in Tet 2016. Forget this lesson at your extreme peril.

Another painful European history lesson has been largely forgotten since the days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. In the 1990s, the IRA forced the British to the peace table when it became clear to all parties involved that the Brits could not prevent car bombs from exploding in the heart of the London financial district, costing billions in repair and lost-opportunity costs after each new blast. Essentially, a competent terrorist organization can hold a modern city hostage in this manner.

A few dozen to a hundred (at most) active IRA terrorist fighters managed to pull off this feat. And they were not even trying to kill people; rather, their goal was to wreck important office towers, with the British economy as their primary target. Usually, the IRA detonated their London car bombs during off-hours in these final terror actions of the Irish Troubles. The Muslim car bombers will not be as considerate in the coming European Civil War. They will strike for maximum civilian casualties, in an attempt to terrorize European leaders into surrender and submission to their Islamist demands.

syriaruins

8. Hama Rules

I predict that the unfolding European Civil War (after the initial Tet 2016 phase) will comprise a steady escalation from Paris-style rifle attacks and suicide bombers, to snipers, to IEDs, to car and truck bombs. This is why I mentioned the possibility of eventually reducing theSharia-zone ghettos to ruins by air and artillery bombardment. This will indeed happen, after the car bombs begin to explode in European cities. At that point, an urban civil war loses any vestige of civilized norms. Fortified ghetto bastions that provide sanctuary to Muslim jihad terrorists will be destroyed if the Islamic conquest is to be quelled.

This type of no-quarter urban warfare already has a name, “Hama Rules,” from the 1982 obliteration of that Syrian town. Hama was a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold used to launch attacks against the regime of Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current Syrian strongman. These guerrilla (or terrorist if you prefer) attacks occurred beginning in 1976, and didn’t stop until Hama was reduced to rubble, and at least ten thousand Sunni Muslim Syrians were killed among the ruins.

If the Europeans don’t have the stomach for that level and scale of total civil war, then over time they will be defeated, and either forced to convert to Islam, or forced into subjugateddhimmi status, or they will be executed, (if they can’t be put to useful work as slave laborers first). Those are Islam’s unchanging options for defeated male foes, at the pleasure of their Muslim vanquishers. The captured girls and women of the defeated kuffar will be taken as slaves, that is a given. So it will be war to the knife, and knife to the hilt, with no holds barred, and no quarter asked or given.

Going into 2016, a peaceful de-escalation is improbable, not with up to a million freshmuhajirun of fighting age currently cast all about Europe without housing or prospects as winter comes on. This rapid mass influx of hundreds of thousands of unattached Muslim men into Europe is the equivalent of pouring a jug of nitroglycerin down the barrel of a cannon, then loading a double gunpowder charge, ramrodding three or four cannon balls on top, and lighting the fuse. It is the perfect recipe for a disastrous explosion.

The 1968 Tet Offensive involved approximately 80,000 armed Viet Cong infiltrators sneaking into Vietnamese cities and towns, (unnoticed by the “experts” in intelligence, I will add.) How many of the almost a million muhajirun now loose in Europe will take up arms for the cause, after the first initiating wave of Tet 2016 terror attacks? Does anybody really have any idea? There is a point when stealthy hijra transitions into overt jihad, and I believe this will occur in the coming year. Historians will look back and marvel at what I think of as the coming European Jihad Tet Offensive of 2016. Or perhaps they will call it the European Trojan Horse Civil War. (I only hope that they don’t call it The Final Islamic Conquest of Europe.)

Historians will study how this mass hijra invasion, and the consequent Tet 2016 and European Civil War came to happen. The truth is it was an inside job by the traitor class, the cultural Marxist open-border international socialists. First, they numbed and dulled their own compatriots into apathy, before opening the gates to the Islamist barbarians. They injected the paralyzing curare of multi-cultural political correctness into their own societies, in order to render them unable to defend themselves from the planned attack.

In reality, the international socialists and the Islamist forces have agreed upon a murder pact, wherein their common enemy, the nationalists, will be removed as a threat to either of them forever. In 2016, European nations will deliberately be torched, in order to finish off their people’s last remaining notions of national pride and cultural identity. In effect, the coming conflict will constitute an agreement about the dinner menu made between a jackal, a hyena, and a supremely stupid bliss-ninny lamb, who was raised on Utopian multi-cultural fantasies. The lamb believes that by its own sweet example, the jackal and the hyena can be turned into vegetarians — but the choice for the dinner entree is already a foregone conclusion. European nationalists will be shot and stabbed in their fronts and their backs until they go down and are consumed by both of their rapacious destroyers.

And depend on this: standing before the crater, in front of the smoking building, after the tenth car bomb to explode that month, telegenic media traitors will mangle the truth into a false narrative that supports the inexorable spread of international socialism as the only possible solution to the “tragic cycle of violence.” The liar press will call patriots Nazis, and Nazis patriots; they will damn saints and praise mass-murderers. These media presstitutes are loyal only to their traitor-class paymasters, and to their common international socialist vision of global tyranny imposed from above by the all-knowing elites. “Out of chaos, order,” will be in their minds if not on their lips.

ummaheuropa

9. The End Game

If the traitor elites can imagine sufficiently far into the future, then they must surely see international socialism lining up next for its climactic struggle against Islam, which shall be fought atop the still-warm corpse of European nationalism. Will these traitor-elite international socialists be able to hold the line against the ultimate victory of Islamic supremacism in Europe, or anywhere? Let us compare their assets and armaments.

The traitor elites control vast wealth and many levers of power. But will the ready offer of unlimited wealth and fast-track career promotion outweigh the fear of the Muslim assassin, kidnapper, and beheader? Which motivating force will prove stronger in the long run, the proffered bribe, or the kidnapped child and her threatened decapitation? International socialism and world Islamism are both evil totalitarian ideologies rooted in a quest for absolute power, but I believe that more socialists will convert to Islam than the other way around, tending to tip the final outcome in that direction. Why? Because you can live without accepting a suitcase full of Euros or a juicy job offer as a bribe. But you cannot live with your head removed from your shoulders.

Another enduring but rarely examined weapon in the Islamic conquest armory is the offer of amnesty to well-placed infidel leaders who agree to convert to Mohammedism. Can I see Angela Merkel wearing a hijab? Yes, certainly. Whether the badge she wears on her suit is red or black won’t matter to the former Communist, not if it is a matter of saving her neck while retaining her status. Study the history of Islamic conquest, and you will find numerous cases where Western leaders announced — after clandestinely opening the city gates to hijrainvasion — that they had already converted to Islam.

As reward for this valuable service, well-placed defectors to Islam are often allowed to preserve their wealth and positions by taking fresh Muslim names and swearing fealty to the new Islamic regime. It’s intentionally made very easy to convert to Islam. The shahadaconversion prayer is only a sentence, a handful of words. Sincere inner belief is not required, only publicly outward submission, which is the true (and nearly always obscured) meaning of the Arabic word Islam. Submission.

So when it comes to last-stand defenses, and head chopping time draws near, will the secular humanist international socialists fight to their last breath against Islamism? Not likely, not when simply repeating a silly and trite incantation about Allah and Mohammed can save their inherently dishonorable and traitorous lives. Simply stated, they will submit to Islam.

I think that in the end, Mohammed’s evil and satanic Koranic blueprint for world conquest will prove to be even more virulent and persistent than the evil and satanic blueprint of the international socialists, going back through the Jacobins, Marxists and Communists. The unchanging Koranic blueprint for global domination is still replicating and advancing after fourteen centuries, while the international socialist blueprint is only two and a half centuries old. Based on proven longevity alone, a betting man would have to favor the Islamic formulation for conquest and tyranny over the international socialist version.

boomlibyaAnd in the event that Islam either destroys or co-opts international socialism, I would expect the strife to continue until only Sunni or Shia Muslims are left alive. Then there would arise schisms and conflicts among new competing sects, because of the innately violent instructions central to the Koranic blueprint. But without an external host for the parasitic Islamic ringworm to feed upon, (having killed and consumed the golden goose of productive Western society), Islam itself will most likely fester and decay. What would succeed a failed global Caliphate, I can’t imagine. By that time, the last believing and practicing Christians in Europe will be lying cold and forgotten in their unmarked mass graves.

10. Alternative Endings

But perhaps the conflict between the three major forces will turn out differently. Perhaps, after the Islamic Tet Offensive of 2016 is turned back, European nationalism will experience a miraculous resurgence, following a rejection of the international socialism which dragged the EU nations toward disaster. Sometimes invading forces badly miscalculate their chances and underestimate the resolve of their enemies, and after sweeping to early success, they are rolled far back from their high-water marks. Napoleon and Hitler in Russia, and the Greek experience in Anatolian Turkey from 1919 to 1922 come readily to mind.

Or perhaps the Islamists will take their jihad a step too far, and a nuclear device or other WMD set off in a Western city might finally provoke a commensurate counter-strike against the nexus of Islam in Mecca and other Muslim holy sites, such as Karbala in Iraq. Certainly Vladimir Putin can be expected to evince more steely-eyed resolve than the current crop of effete and dithering Western European leaders.

Two of the Five Pillars of Islam literally revolve around the black moon rock set into the corner of the Kaaba in the center of Mecca. After 1,400 unchanging years, Islam cannot simply erase two of its five pillars and continue with business as usual. Allahu Akbar means our god is greater. If Mecca were turned into a vast, glowing crater, this would be visibly untrue. When the Aztec and Inca man-gods were visibly thrown down by the Spanish conquistadors, those religions and social systems collapsed. If Mecca were to be destroyed, eliminating two of the five pillars, it’s an open question as to what would happen in and to the worldwide Muslim community. “We used to think our god was greater” won’t be an effective rallying cry. But I don’t suppose I’ll be around to see how this all plays out. For 1,400 years, uncounted millions of Christians and other infidels have died not knowing if Islam would ultimately prevail or be vanquished.

I’m not sure if there is a future ahead for sovereign nation-states as they have been constituted for the past four centuries, especially nations with their own unique histories, cultures and languages. I don’t know if the wealth and influence of the traitor-elite international socialists can overcome the constant threat of terrorism contained within the deadly Koranic conquest plan. And when it comes to how the approaching European storm will affect China and Asia, my crystal ball is cloudy on the other side. It’s hard to imagine a world war extending from Scandinavia to the Persian Gulf not going nuclear at some point. Perhaps the patient and cautious Chinese will simply inherit the ruins of the West. Perhaps they will be drawn into the world war.

No matter what else happens over the coming decade, 2016 is shaping up to be an epic year in European and world history. I hope that whatever develops across the Atlantic might at least provide clear lessons that will be valuable for the defense of a free and sovereign United States of America. Including lessons about the extreme danger of importing millions of Islamicmuhajirun.

And lastly, thank God — through our Founding Fathers — for the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution. Unlike the Europeans, we are at least still free to warn one another of impending dangers, without our being silenced by the traitor elites who operate the levers of state power. And because of the Second Amendment, we will never be pulled down to the ground like helpless lambs by the Islamist hyenas and socialist jackals. When one-too-many ravenous foxes are placed into the henhouse by socialist traitors, in due time both the foxes and the traitors might just get a face full of buckshot.

Just remember: never, ever give up your guns.

You’re going to need them.

Matthew Bracken was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1957, and attended the University of Virginia, where he received a BA in Russian Studies and was commissioned as a naval officer in 1979. Later in that year he graduated from Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, and in 1983 he led a Naval Special Warfare detachment to Beirut, Lebanon. Since then he’s been a welder, boat builder, charter captain, ocean sailor, essayist and novelist. He lives in Florida. Links to his short stories and essays may be found at EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com

 

Hillary’s and the Democrats’ ‘War on Children’

Posted on December 31, 2015 by Wayne Allyn Root

Hello and goodbye. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty®. And this is my final column for Personal Liberty®. I greatly appreciate all of my friends and fans from my four wonderful years here. It’s ironic and telling that my final column comes on the eve of New Year’s 2016 because 2016 is our last stand. It’s the most important year in our country’s history.

After what Barack Obama has done to damage America, I fear the window is closing fast. I don’t believe America can be saved if a Democrat like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders follows Obama in the White House. Either we take back the White House; repeal and replace Obamacare; stop the madness of climate change/green energy; stop the EPA dead in its tracks; undo all the onerous regulations put into place by Obama; build a wall and secure the border; stop the madness of importing Syrian refugees to America; and dramatically lower taxes, spending and debt, or America is lost forever.

If the GOP doesn’t win the White House on Nov. 8, the very next day we need to all be thinking of where to go and what to do to protect our families, our incomes, our assets, our children’s future. It’s time for “Escape From America.”

It sounds like the title of a fictional horror film, except this time it’s real. Every friend I have with substantial assets to protect is already making plans either to leave or to obtain dual citizenship. The preparations have begun for smart people with the resources.

Today’s column is about the campaign theme that the GOP presidential candidate must use to win the 2016 election. This is the theme that can save our country and our children’s future. If Republicans don’t use it 24/7 from now until the election in November, they should be prosecuted for gross negligence. Their only defense would be insanity. I call this theme the Democrats’ “war on children.”

Democrats understand marketing and branding so much better than Republicans. Obama, Hillary and Bernie always take a page right out of their favorite playbook, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals,” by declaring a “Republican war on women.” It’s all Hillary talks about. It will most certainly be the theme her 2016 campaign is built around.

Sadly, Republicans are cowards afraid of their own shadows. Democrats trot out “the race card” and the “you hate women card” again and again. The GOP responds by playing defense and running scared.

It’s the reason I’m a big fan of Donald Trump. He doesn’t play that game. He isn’t afraid of anyone. He doesn’t apologize or play on defense. He plays on offense. He’s in your face. He tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may — no matter how offensive or politically incorrect. He plays to win. 

Donald understands that we need to be relentless to make America great again and to make America safe again.

It’s time for all Republicans to learn from Trump. It’s time to fight fire with fire. It’s time to throw out all the gentlemen’s rules because we’re not fighting gentlemen. We’re fighting liars and frauds out to destroy America and steal our children’s future. We can’t afford to “play nice.” It’s time to put Democrats on the defensive.

Democrats understand the marketing and branding power of using emotional hooks like “the war on women.” Well, two can play at that game. It’s time to use an emotional hook of our own. The difference is this one isn’t made up. It’s time to point out that the real war is the Democrats’ “war on children.”

The war on children starts in the womb. Hillary and her ilk don’t hesitate to kill children in the womb. No point in a woman’s pregnancy is too extreme. No limit to abortion is acceptable. Not even ripping a child to pieces with partial birth abortion is too extreme for Hillary and the Democrats. Not even the harvesting and sale of organs from innocent fetuses by Planned Parenthood is too extreme.

And anyone who tries to point out these extreme examples of murder or torture upon children, anyone who champions or defends children who cannot speak for themselves, is immediately slandered and labeled as “extreme” or “an enemy of women.”

Well-meaning people can have legitimate disagreements about whether or not life begins at the moment of conception. But surely only radical extremists would argue that after five months or more, a fully formed fetus with a beating heart is not a child. Surely only radical extremists would defend the harvesting of organs from dead babies.

But this is only the start of Hillary’s and the Democrats’ war on children. The children who survive are then consigned to government schools where they are kept marginally ignorant, taught to always obey authority and show loyalty to government, and taught it’s OK to be dependent upon government. The brainwashing begins young, starting with free breakfasts and lunch provided by government. Parents no longer take care of the most basic of responsibilities: feeding their children. Can you imagine? Moms and dads are no longer capable of making breakfast for their children. Government schools teach kids to expect breakfast, lunch and now even a backpack filled with food to take home for the weekend. Big Brother now provides your meals, not mom or dad.

These same government schools have outlawed being a boy, labeling the actual signs of masculinity as “Attention Deficit Disorder” and drugging boys because they act like boys. Not to mention the more boys they count as “disabled” the more money the school gets from the federal government.

These same government schools teach our children to be sheep. They are discouraged from thinking for themselves, taught that competition in all forms (but especially in business and the workplace) is bad, and rewarded with a trophy if they simply show up.

What does this lead to? A future taking orders from a manager at a fast food restaurant, or a future sitting home watching cartoons and Jerry Springer while waiting for a welfare check in the mail. But of course, this is how you create future loyal Democratic voters.

Perhaps worst of all is that for many years now our schools have been keeping America’s schoolchildren ignorant about basic economics. Our children are never taught in school (and the mainstream media keeps it well hidden, too) the numbers $164,000 and $8,200: $164,000 is the current federal debt each American family of four owes; and $8,200 is the amount, at 5 percent interest, you are paying on that debt each and every year.

No one teach our children that this debt will destroy their future and rip their hopes and dreams to shreds. No one teaches our children why the debt keeps growing: to keep progressive politicians in office for life and line the pockets of the political class.

This government spending and debt machine is at the heart of the Democrats’ war on children, and the day of reckoning is fast approaching.

If you have any doubt about a day of reckoning and what it might look like, all you need do is look at Greece. That bankrupt, broken country proves that debt is a poison, a dream killer, the death of a nation.

But we can look closer to home to see even more proof. Just study Detroit, a city under 100 percent Democratic control for well over 50 years. The last Republican mayor of Detroit left office in 1962. Ruled for half a century by the same policies and leftist agenda of Obama, Hillary and Bernie, Detroit is a bankrupt broken cesspool of murder, violence, crushing poverty, broken street lights, abandoned buildings and taxes so high everyone with any assets has left. Both Greece and Detroit are places that prove the Democrats’ war on children is brutal and real.

So setting aside abortion, you mean a place where children can’t walk the streets without risking shootings, rape or murder is not a war on children?

You man a place where children are almost guaranteed to never get a solid education, never find a good job, and rely on food stamps and welfare for life isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where almost no child has a father in the home isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where your environment is abandoned buildings, broken street lamps and drug dealers’ owning the streets isn’t a war on children?

You mean a place where a child is more likely to wind up in prison than college isn’t a war on children?

Again, let me stress, only Democrats and their policies and progressive agenda have created this brutal environment. Only Democrats like Obama, Hillary and Bernie have been in power and control of Detroit since 1962. And don’t forget the party that ran Greece into the ground was called the “Socialist Party.”

It’s always liberals, leftists, progressives and socialists who lead a war on children.

So let’s stop talking about a made-up war on women. It is only meant to distract. The GOP must start talking about the real war: Hillary Clinton’s and the Democrats’ war on children.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty®. This is my final column here. I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on my columns for four wonderful years. I hope you’ll continue to watch my videos and read my columns at my personal website, ROOTforAmerica.com. Because that’s what my life is dedicated to: I root for America. I’m Wayne Allyn Root. God bless you. God bless America. And Happy New Year 2016, the year we take back our great country!

This entry was posted in Featured and tagged Democrats. Bookmark the permalink.

A Letter from Act for America

Obama-SOTU-1-Getty-640x480Dear Friend,
Former Representative Pete Hoekstra’s commentary below is spot-on about the seriousness of the Obama Administration’s spying on conversations between the Israeli Prime Minister and Members of the U.S. Congress — just as our federal legislators were debating the Iran nuclear agreement.

Americans should be outraged. When the president should be concerned with protecting the citizens of this country by monitoring the jihadists within our midst, he and his Administration instead, are spying on U.S. legislators who disagree with his policies, and on the leader of our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

If you wish to register your concerns about this matter to your U.S. Representative or Senator, the U.S. Capitol Switchboard phone number is: (202) 224-3121.

Thank you for all that you do for this great nation. Keep your voice active. It makes a difference.

Sincerely,
Brigitte Gabriel

EXCLUSIVE – Pete Hoesktra: NSA Spying on Congress Requires Suspending State of the Union Invite

Pete Hoekstra – Breitbart

Elected officials and leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) must maintain the integrity of America’s vast intelligence enterprise as a lawful, neutral, independent and fair arbiter of facts. Recent news that the Obama White House obtained intelligence containing private conversations of members of Congress and American Jewish organizations from the National Security Agency (NSA) suggests the integrity of our intelligence agencies have been undermined.

The heads of the 17 organizations in the IC oversee a massive foreign data collection network that produces sensitive information on adversaries and allies.

It is an awesome capability for good, but it poses a threat to free society if exploited for political purposes.

The prospect of the White House – or any political element – using one of these agencies to mine information on members of Congress and U.S. citizens is frightening and criminal. So it is of grave concern to learn that the administration allegedly permitted the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor American communications between the Israeli prime minister and U.S. Congressmen and members of Jewish organizations during the sensitive domestic political debate on the Iran nuclear agreement.

Lawmakers must respond quickly. This is about the NSA potentially violating constitutionally protected civil liberties.

The rules are clear. When the electronic communications of U.S. citizens are inadvertently swept up, which happens frequently, the NSA is required to immediately minimize them.

First, it needs to identify the phone number associated with the person and cease monitoring it. Second, any reference to the individual in collected data must be eliminated.

And there are special NSA rules if information about the discussions or communications of members of Congress is collected. Under NSA rules, this information is supposed to be destroyed unless the NSA Director issues a waiver to collect and disseminate this information because of a compelling foreign intelligence reason.

The administration likely failed on all of these counts. It apparently looked the other way and didn’t implement long established safeguards. That is why this issue is so serious.

The government can only retain content on Americans when it contains national security implications and must obtain a court warrant if it wants to maintain surveillance on an American person. Israel’s prime minister has no protections.

More to the point, this alleged surveillance was never about national security. The White House wanted to learn the strategies that opponents of the Iran nuclear agreement would use to attack the president’s political agenda.

Congress should demand a full accounting, which should not take long. The NSA has all of the information lawmakers need at its fingertips.

Here are seven questions that the administration needs to answer about the continued monitoring of U.S. persons by the NSA.

  1. Exactly how many and specifically which Americans were monitored?
  2. On which members of Congress did the NSA spy?
  3. How many conversations were collected and what did they disclose?
  4. Who within the IC knew about the ongoing and intentional collection of American communications with the Israeli prime minister? Did NSA Director Mike Rogers know? Who approved it?
  5. Who within the White House knew of this collection and who knew of its content? Did they attempt to stop this collection once they became aware that it was possibly illegal?
  6. How did the NSA justify and rationalize providing the White House with intelligence on the private conversations by members of Congress and American Jewish organizayions? At what security level was the information transferred to the White House?
  7. Did this surveillance practice extend to any other intelligence agencies?
    There needs to be a full public accounting.

This is not an isolated instance of IC negligence. CENTCOM is under investigation for cooking the intelligence on the threat from ISIS.

Both are serious violations of the public trust, but the NSA case is potentially so egregious that it threatens the very credibility of the IC. Whether conservative, progressive, Republican, Democrat or Libertarian, all Americans fear the immense capability of government to target them. A proportional reaction is required because it extends to the very heart of constitutionally guaranteed protections.

I strongly disagreed with Edward Snowden’s actions and the substance of his allegations, but the NSA might have fulfilled his predictions that the government would unleash the IC capabilities for unlawful domestic purposes.

Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan should suspend the president’s invitation to deliver his State of the Union address from the House chamber on January 12 until the administration fully complies with all congressional demands.

Congress must act forcefully now. Extraordinary abuse requires an extraordinary response.

Pete Hoekstra is the Senior Shillman Fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and the former Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

Posted by Nabeel Qureshi on December 27, 2015Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 3.28.55 PM

The Wheaton Controversy
On December 15, 2015, Wheaton College, a flagship of evangelical educational institutions, placed one of its professors on administrative leave for “theological statements that seemed inconsistent with [their] doctrinal convictions.” Five days prior, donning a hijab and staking her position on a variety of controversial matters, Larycia Hawkins had stated on Facebook, “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book. And as Pope Francis stated last week, we worship the same God.”

Wheaton’s decision to give Dr. Hawkins “more time to explore theological implications of her recent public statements” ignited a firestorm of controversy. One strong voice in the fray was that of the Chicago Tribune, which described Wheaton’s actions as “bigotry… disguised as theology.” This assessment was partially based on the input of Yale Professor Miroslav Volf, a theologian greatly respected for his contributions to Christian-Muslim dialogue, who said, “There isn’t any theological justification for Hawkins’s forced administrative leave. Her suspension is not about theology and orthodoxy. It is about enmity toward Muslims.” Such dialogue-stifling judgmentalism is shocking from a highly acclaimed Ivy League scholar, but it serves to illustrate the enormous tensions in Christian-Muslim relations during this time when the nation is pulled between the poles of Muslim refugees pouring into Staten Island and Muslim terrorists massacring innocents in San Bernardino.

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 3.30.51 PM

In the past week, I have received dozens of requests to provide my input on the matter, especially from those who are aware that I do not have “enmity toward Muslims.” As a former Muslim, I have many Muslim family members and friends that I spend time with regularly, and I often adjure Christians to consider gestures of solidarity with the hope that, somehow, this affection will trickle down to the Muslims I know and love. I have even recommended that Christian women consider wearing the hijab in certain circumstances, as well as counseled Christian men to consider fasting with their Muslim neighbors during the month of Ramadan, as long as it is clear these gestures are out of Christian love and not submission to Islam.

 Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

With this desire for love in mind, I turn now to the question: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Like all good questions, the answer is more complex than most want, but I am confident of my position: Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, but given the complexity of the matter we all ought to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.”

I should start by saying this: for years after leaving Islam and accepting Jesus as Lord, I believed that Muslims worshiped the same God as Christians but that they were simply wrong about what He is like and what He has done. After all, I had been taught as a young Muslim to worship the God who created Adam and Eve, who rescued Noah from the flood, who promised Abraham a vast progeny, who helped Moses escape Egypt, who made the Virgin Mary great with child, who sent Jesus into the world, who helped the disciples overcome, and who is still sovereign today. Is that not the God of the Bible?

For that matter, the Quran asserts that the Torah and the Gospel are inspired scripture and that Jews and Christians are people of the Book. The Quran tells Muslims to say to them, “our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender” (29.46). If the Quran asserts that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, does that not settle the matter?

For years I thought it did, but I no longer do. Now I believe that the phrase“Muslims and Christians worship the same God” is only true in a fairly uncontroversial sense: There is one Creator whom Muslims and Christians both attempt to worship. Apart from this banal observation, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. I do not condemn those that think they do, but the deeper I delve into the Christian faith, the more I realize that this assertion is not only untrue but also subverts Christian orthodoxy in favor of Islamic assertions.

Let’s start with the obvious: Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran is so opposed to this belief that it condemns Jesus worshipers to Hell (5.72). For Christians, Jesus is certainly God, and for Muslims Jesus is certainly not God. How can it be said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God? This fact alone is enough to settle the matter, but at the very least, no one should argue as Volf has that “there isn’t any theological justification” for believing Christians and Muslims worship different Gods. There certainly is, and it is the obvious position when we consider the person of Jesus.

Another difference between the Islamic God and the Christian God that is quite personal to me is his Fatherhood. According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

The same is the case when we consider the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam roundly condemns worship of the Trinity (5.73), establishing in contrast its own core principle: Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that it is safe to say the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

There is much more to be said about the differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God, but this much can already be said with confidence: the Christian God, both in terms of what he is (Triune) and who he is (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not just different from the Muslim God; He is fundamentally incompatible. According to Islam, worshiping the Christian God is not just wrong; it sends you to Hell. They are not the same God.

Why Do People Say Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

So how can people argue that Muslims and Christians worship the same God? By unduly giving priority to the Islamic assertion that this is the same God. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Bible, so He must be. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Biblical prophets, so He must be.

The Quran says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, so it must be the same God. Ultimately, this is the reasoning of those who believe, as I once did, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and it is flawed.

The similarities between the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are fairly superficial, and at times simply semantic. Though Islam claims that the Muslim God has done some of the same things as the Christian God and sent some of the same people, that is not enough to say that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. These minor overlaps are far less essential to the reality of who God is than the fundamental differences of his nature and persons. What God has done or whom He has sent is far less of a defining characteristic than what He is and who He is; though Islam and Christianity overlap at points on the former, they differ fundamentally on the latter.

Volf’s challenge in response is that Christians believe they worship the same God as the Jews though the Jews do not worship the Trinity. How can Christians accuse Muslims of worshiping a different God without also indicting the Jews of doing the same? That would be inconsistent or hypocritical.

The response should be obvious to those who have studied the three Abrahamic faiths: the Trinity is an elaboration of Jewish theology, not a rejection. By contrast, Tawhid is a categorical rejection of the Trinity, Jesus’ deity, and the Fatherhood of God, doctrines that are grounded in the pages of the New Testament and firmly established centuries before the advent of Islam. Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, incorporating their encounter with Jesus into their Jewish theology. Nothing of the sort is true of Muhammad, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Islam did not elaborate on the Trinity but rejected and replaced it.

Additionally, Volf’s assumption that Jews did not worship something like the Trinity is unsubstantiated. Many Jews held their monotheism in tension with a belief in multiple divine persons. Though the term “Trinity” was coined in the second century, the underlying principles of this doctrine were hammered out on the anvil of pre-Christian Jewish belief. It was not until later, when Jews and Christians parted ways, that Jews insisted on a monadic God. The charge of Christian hypocrisy is anachronistic.

Conclusion

The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex. Wheaton made a respectable decision in giving Hawkins time off to consider the implications of her statement: she is allowing Islamic assertions to subvert the importance of essential doctrine. That said, one ought not fault her harshly for the mistake, as these issues are murky. What is dangerous is the path of Volf, accusing people of bigotry to shut down valid conversations. One can both love Muslims and insist that the God they worship is not the same as the Christian God.

Christians worship a Triune God: a Father who loves unconditionally, an incarnate Son who is willing to die for us so that we may be forgiven, and an immanent Holy Spirit who lives in us. This is not what the Muslim God is; it is not who the Muslim God is; and it is not what the Muslim God does. Truly, the Trinity is antithetical to Tawhid, fundamentally incompatible and only similar superficially and semantically. Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.

Nabeel Qureshi is the New York Times best-selling author of Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.

Read the entire article on RZIM.org

In the past week, I have received dozens of requests to provide my input on the matter, especially from those who are aware that I do not have “enmity toward Muslims.” As a former Muslim, I have many Muslim family members and friends that I spend time with regularly, and I often adjure Christians to consider gestures of solidarity with the hope that, somehow, this affection will trickle down to the Muslims I know and love. I have even recommended that Christian women consider wearing the hijab in certain circumstances, as well as counseled Christian men to consider fasting with their Muslim neighbors during the month of Ramadan, as long as it is clear these gestures are out of Christian love and not submission to Islam.

 Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

With this desire for love in mind, I turn now to the question: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? Like all good questions, the answer is more complex than most want, but I am confident of my position: Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God, but given the complexity of the matter we all ought to stop demonizing those who disagree with us.”

I should start by saying this: for years after leaving Islam and accepting Jesus as Lord, I believed that Muslims worshiped the same God as Christians but that they were simply wrong about what He is like and what He has done. After all, I had been taught as a young Muslim to worship the God who created Adam and Eve, who rescued Noah from the flood, who promised Abraham a vast progeny, who helped Moses escape Egypt, who made the Virgin Mary great with child, who sent Jesus into the world, who helped the disciples overcome, and who is still sovereign today. Is that not the God of the Bible?

For that matter, the Quran asserts that the Torah and the Gospel are inspired scripture and that Jews and Christians are people of the Book. The Quran tells Muslims to say to them, “our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender” (29.46). If the Quran asserts that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, does that not settle the matter?

For years I thought it did, but I no longer do. Now I believe that the phrase“Muslims and Christians worship the same God” is only true in a fairly uncontroversial sense: There is one Creator whom Muslims and Christians both attempt to worship. Apart from this banal observation, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. I do not condemn those that think they do, but the deeper I delve into the Christian faith, the more I realize that this assertion is not only untrue but also subverts Christian orthodoxy in favor of Islamic assertions.

Let’s start with the obvious: Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran is so opposed to this belief that it condemns Jesus worshipers to Hell (5.72). For Christians, Jesus is certainly God, and for Muslims Jesus is certainly not God. How can it be said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God? This fact alone is enough to settle the matter, but at the very least, no one should argue as Volf has that “there isn’t any theological justification” for believing Christians and Muslims worship different Gods. There certainly is, and it is the obvious position when we consider the person of Jesus.

Another difference between the Islamic God and the Christian God that is quite personal to me is his Fatherhood. According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

The same is the case when we consider the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam roundly condemns worship of the Trinity (5.73), establishing in contrast its own core principle: Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that it is safe to say the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

There is much more to be said about the differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God, but this much can already be said with confidence: the Christian God, both in terms of what he is (Triune) and who he is (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not just different from the Muslim God; He is fundamentally incompatible. According to Islam, worshiping the Christian God is not just wrong; it sends you to Hell. They are not the same God.

Why Do People Say Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

So how can people argue that Muslims and Christians worship the same God? By unduly giving priority to the Islamic assertion that this is the same God. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Bible, so He must be. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Biblical prophets, so He must be.

The Quran says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, so it must be the same God. Ultimately, this is the reasoning of those who believe, as I once did, that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and it is flawed.

The similarities between the God of Islam and the God of Christianity are fairly superficial, and at times simply semantic. Though Islam claims that the Muslim God has done some of the same things as the Christian God and sent some of the same people, that is not enough to say that Muslims worship the same God as Christians. These minor overlaps are far less essential to the reality of who God is than the fundamental differences of his nature and persons. What God has done or whom He has sent is far less of a defining characteristic than what He is and who He is; though Islam and Christianity overlap at points on the former, they differ fundamentally on the latter.

Volf’s challenge in response is that Christians believe they worship the same God as the Jews though the Jews do not worship the Trinity. How can Christians accuse Muslims of worshiping a different God without also indicting the Jews of doing the same? That would be inconsistent or hypocritical.

The response should be obvious to those who have studied the three Abrahamic faiths: the Trinity is an elaboration of Jewish theology, not a rejection. By contrast, Tawhid is a categorical rejection of the Trinity, Jesus’ deity, and the Fatherhood of God, doctrines that are grounded in the pages of the New Testament and firmly established centuries before the advent of Islam. Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, incorporating their encounter with Jesus into their Jewish theology. Nothing of the sort is true of Muhammad, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Islam did not elaborate on the Trinity but rejected and replaced it.

Additionally, Volf’s assumption that Jews did not worship something like the Trinity is unsubstantiated. Many Jews held their monotheism in tension with a belief in multiple divine persons. Though the term “Trinity” was coined in the second century, the underlying principles of this doctrine were hammered out on the anvil of pre-Christian Jewish belief. It was not until later, when Jews and Christians parted ways, that Jews insisted on a monadic God. The charge of Christian hypocrisy is anachronistic.

Conclusion

The question of whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is complex. Wheaton made a respectable decision in giving Hawkins time off to consider the implications of her statement: she is allowing Islamic assertions to subvert the importance of essential doctrine. That said, one ought not fault her harshly for the mistake, as these issues are murky. What is dangerous is the path of Volf, accusing people of bigotry to shut down valid conversations. One can both love Muslims and insist that the God they worship is not the same as the Christian God.

Christians worship a Triune God: a Father who loves unconditionally, an incarnate Son who is willing to die for us so that we may be forgiven, and an immanent Holy Spirit who lives in us. This is not what the Muslim God is; it is not who the Muslim God is; and it is not what the Muslim God does. Truly, the Trinity is antithetical to Tawhid, fundamentally incompatible and only similar superficially and semantically. Muslims and Christians do not worship the same Go.

Nabeel Qureshi is the New York Times best-selling author of Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus.

Read the entire article on RZIM.org

Of Course Christians and Muslims Don’t Worship the Same God

To the Muslim, God (Allah) is too transcendent and "other" to be our friend. He to is worshiped, adored and obeyed, just as our heavenly Father is to be worshiped, adored and obeyed, but Muslims do not have "fellowship" with God as Christians do. (Reuters)

To the Muslim, God (Allah) is too transcendent and “other” to be our friend. He to is worshiped, adored and obeyed, just as our heavenly Father is to be worshiped, adored and obeyed, but Muslims do not have “fellowship” with God as Christians do. (Reuters)

It is true that the three primary monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all believe in an eternal, uncreated Creator God to whom all human beings must one day give account. But it is self-evident that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.

First, God is the heavenly Father of Christians, but Allah is not the Father of Muslims.

This is one of the most fundamental revelations of the Bible, which is why Jesus taught His followers to pray the “Our Father” prayer on a daily basis (Matt. 6:9-13). The New Testament even goes as far as saying that God has put the spirit of sonship into our hearts so that we can call God “Abba,” just as Jesus called His Father “Abba” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

But Allah is not seen as the heavenly Father in Islam, let alone as “Abba,” an even more endearing term. That’s why “father” is not one of the 99 names of Allah in Islamic theology.

Second, through Jesus, we can have intimate fellowship—even friendship—with God.

Already in the Old Testament, God referred to Abraham as His friend (Is. 41:8), but in the New Testament, Jesus takes this even further, saying to His disciples: “Greater love has no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” (John 15:13-14).

A Muslim could not possibly think of Allah in such terms.

To the Muslim, God (Allah) is too transcendent and “other” to be our friend. He is to be worshiped and adored and obeyed—just as our heavenly Father is to be worshiped and adored and obeyed—but Muslims do not have “communion” with God as Christians do (2 Cor. 13:14).

In Islam, a human being cannot enjoy that kind of personal intimacy with the Creator.

This difference between the Christian conception of God and the Muslim conception of God is seen clearly when we consider the aspect of prayer. The depth of communion we enjoy with the Lord is expressed in the words of a famous hymn by Fanny Crosby, who wrote,

“O the pure delight of a single hour
That before Thy throne I spend,
When I kneel in prayer, and with Thee, my God
I commune as friend with friend!”

In Islam, Muslims must follow prescribed prayers in Arabic, even if they don’t understand Arabic. So much for friendship with the deity. This alone underscores the deep contrast between these two faiths in terms of how God is viewed

Third, Christians believe that Jesus is the full manifestation of God, whereas Muslims see Jesus as only a human prophet, not as the unique representation of the image of God.

Jesus told His disciples that if they He had seen Him, they had seen the Father; that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him; and that He and the Father are one (John 14:9-11; 10:30). The New Testament also states that Jesus is the very image of the invisible God and “the express image of Himself” (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).

All of these concepts are totally foreign to Islam.

For Muslims, Jesus is simply another creation of Allah. For Christians, Jesus is the one through whom the Father made the universe.

Fourth, the Christian “blessed Trinity” is, for Muslims, a cursed blasphemy.

 For 200 years, Christians have sung the classic hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy,” which speaks of “God in three persons, blessed Trinity,” articulating truths taught by the Church for centuries.

The words of that hymn are terribly offensive to Muslims, as emphasized in a chapter in the Quran which Muslims recite in prayer five times a day, Sura 112, which states that Allah “begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.”

This Sura was originally spoken with reference to Muhammad’s polytheistic hearers but was then applied to Christian beliefs as well. This means that five times a day, Muslims denounce some of the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.

 Fifth, true Christians would rather die than deny Jesus as Lord; true Muslims would rather die than confess Jesus as Lord. 

 This is as basic as it gets, and I can’t imagine that a devoted Christian or Muslim would argue with this premise.

The New Testament tells us that an essential element of salvation is confessing Jesus as Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). In stark contrast, the Quran says of those who believe that Jesus is God’s Son, “May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (Sura 9:30).

Can there really be any serious debate as to whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Someone could argue that both faiths represent human attempts to please and obey the Creator, but what those faiths say explicitly about that Creator is mutually exclusive.

We do not worship the same God, which is why Muslims seek to convert Christians to Islam and Christians seek to convert Muslims to faith in Jesus.

The good news is that Jesus really is Lord and that one day, willingly or unwillingly, every knee will bow to Him and every tongue will make that very confession—”Jesus Christ is Lord”—to glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

Verses of Violence: Comparing the Bible and Quran

We often hear people say “Islam is a religion of Peace,” or they want to make the point that Christianity is as bloody or violent as Islam. Dr. Michael Brown help to correct that myth by examining the holy books of both the Quran and the Bible. See what he has said below!

Wednesday, December 16, 2015, “In the Line of Fire,” by Michael Brown

When Christians point to the violent verses in the Quran, Muslims reply, "But what about the violent verses in the Bible?"

When Christians point to the violent verses in the Quran, Muslims reply, “But what about the violent verses in the Bible?”

How should we respond to this fair challenge from Muslims?

1. The violent verses in the Bible were for a specific time and place; the violent verses in the Quran are spoken in general terms.

In the Bible, God commanded Joshua to annihilate the Canaanites, meaning to kill men, women and children, since the Canaanites were considered guilty sinners. Centuries later, during the time of King Saul, the prophet Samuel said that it was God’s will to annihilate the Amalekites because of the sins they had committed.

While these commands seem monstrous to many readers today, they cannot possibly be applied to contemporary situations and they have never been considered normative for all times in either Judaism or Christianity.

In contrast, the Quranic injunctions to smite at the necks of unbelievers and to kill and punish them in various ways have been applied to contemporary situations since the days of Muhammad, right up until today.

(For Christian reflections on the command to kill the Canaanites, see Paul Copan and Matt Flanagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God, and David T. Lamb, God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Bible Angry, Sexist, and Racist?)

2. For Christians, the Old Testament is the foundation on which the New Testament is built and so the New Testament contains the final revelation. Significantly, there are no verses in the New Testament in which believers are called on to kill their enemies. For Muslims, the Quran is the final revelation.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were commanded to drive out the Canaanites; in the New Testament, Christians are commanded to drive out demons (evil spiritual beings), not people. In the Old Testament, sins such as adultery and idolatry were punishable with the death penalty under Israelite law; in the New Testament, professing Christians who practice those sins are to be excommunicated (meaning, put out of the fellowship of believers), not executed.

For Jews, the Old Testament is read in the light of Jewish tradition, which also removed the death penalties for certain sins over a period of time. Jewish tradition also claims that some Old Testament laws were never meant to be taken literally (such as eye for eye, tooth for tooth, or the law calling for a woman’s hand to be chopped off for grabbing a man’s genitals when he was fighting her husband). Instead, Jewish tradition tells us that these laws always referred to monetary payment.ghout Islamic history, the violent verses have often been applied literally by Muslims in their treatment of unbelievers and enemies.

3. The ultimate example for Christians is Jesus. For Muslims, Muhammad is the perfect man and the model to be followed.

Jesus was crucified and ordered His followers not to defend Him from His fate. Muhammad, who began his mission as a preacher rather than a soldier, led pillaging raids (to get money for his followers); fought aggressive, offensive wars to subdue his enemies; and on one famous occasion, beheaded his Jewish captives.

In stark contrast, the most “violent” thing Jesus did was overthrow the tables of the money changers in the Temple and drive out the animals.

How can anyone compare the two?

Jesus is called the Lamb of God in numerous texts, speaking of His sacrificial death on the cross, and He is worshipped by Christians as the Lamb who was slain. Do Muslims commonly think of Muhammad in those terms?

The issue here is not whether it’s appropriate for Christians to defend themselves against terrorist attacks or whether Christians should serve in the military.

The issue is that the early Christians were killed for their faith rather than killing others for their faith. The early Muslims did, in fact, kill others for their faith, and many have continued to do so through the centuries.

So, when a Christian is killed by a radical Muslim for refusing to deny his faith, both the Christian and the Muslim can point to their leaders—Jesus and Muhammad—and say, “I am following the example of my leader,” one by being killed for his faith, the other by killing for his faith.

I’m quite aware of ugly aspects of Church history, including the violence of the Crusades (in particular, against European Jews who were not part of the military conflict between Christians and Muslims), but examples such as this prove the larger point: They are horrific exceptions to the rule and they are without New Testament support.

In contrast, wars fought in the name of Allah have a rich Islamic history, tracing back directly to Muhammad and the Quran.

As for wars that America engages in, such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, while many Muslims view these as “Christian wars” (since America is perceived by the Muslim world to be a Christian nation), these wars have not been waged in the name of Christianity but rather in the name of national security. If America was an entirely secular nation, it could have engaged in such wars just as easily.

I do appreciate the fact that millions of Muslims, including many respected leaders, believe that the violent verses of the Quran were also for a specific time and season, and I applaud them for repudiating the theology, ideology and actions of radical Muslims worldwide.

At the same time, the close association between Muhammad, the Quranic verses of violence, and violent Islamic history cannot be denied.

This similar pattern cannot be found from New Testament times until today in practicing Christian circles. And where it can be found, it is aberrant.

Not surprisingly, while Muslims celebrate Muhammad’s bloody victory at Khaybar, Christians celebrate Jesus’ bloody death on the cross, followed by His glorious resurrection.

Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire and is the president of FIRE School of Ministry. His newest book is Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide. Connect with him on Facebook at AskDrBrown or on Twitter @drmichaellbrown.

John Bolton – 2017 Foreign Policy and the 2016 Campaign

John Bolton, our former Ambassador to the United Nations and the non presidential candidate that never had the opportunity to run. He is one political American asset that sadly we will not have the benefit to profit from. In his address below he demonstrates a grasp of the political scene America is presently facing and articulates the political minefield left by our current administration for the one taking office in 2017.

2017 foreign policy & the 2016 campaign –
Idealized strategies founded on hypothetical scenarios no longer useful

Ambassador_John_Bolton_at_FITN_in_Nashua,_NH_by_Michael_Vadon_06_(cropped)By John Bolton
Sunday, December 13, 2015

Islamist terrorists have again shed American blood on American soil. The San Bernardino killers’ ideology is clear, as it was with the 9/11 hijackers. The continuing global threat from their terrorist comrades is not a criminal-law problem but a barbaric war against our country’s deepest principles.

It is, therefore, increasingly critical that national security take center stage in 2016’s political debate. With just over a year until Barack Obama’s term ends, presidential candidates must begin articulating foreign and defense policies based on the international reality they will inherit on Inauguration Day 2017.

The strategic environment Obama actually bequeaths to the incoming president will be the point of departure, not what exists today. Candidates must now be both more comprehensive in their strategic thinking and more directly address the world they will face after they finish the oath of office.

Idealized strategies founded on hypothetical scenarios are no longer useful.

Critiquing Obama’s daily failures also is no longer enough. Neither can we return to Jan. 20, 2009, and start over again. ISIS, collapsing national governments (indeed, chaos) in Iraq and Bashar Assad’s Syria, and Iran’s continuing nuclear-weapons program together constitute a critical focus for the new realism and specificity candidates must now demonstrate. Consider these key facts a new president will face:

• First, Obama has done precious little to reach his self-professed goal to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. For Obama, “ultimately” is very far off. Even after the Paris and San Bernardino savagery, Obama shows no hint of moving beyond his current flaccid efforts. Thus, by January 2017, the ISIS global threat likely will have become materially more serious.

• Second, despite repeatedly asserting that Syria’s Assad must be removed from power, the president has done almost nothing to make it happen. For years, Obama was paralyzed by fear that taking effective action against Assad would endanger his chances for a nuclear deal with Iran, Assad’s chief regional supporter.

Moreover, Obama and secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry consistently misread Russia’s position on Syria’s Ba’ath Party regime, claiming that Putin shared their goal of replacing Assad with some alternative regime. That never was true. Now, Russia has doubled down, building a substantial air base at Latakia, using air power to bolster Assad against the Syrian opposition.

So blind is Obama that he continues hoping Putin will change his mind. No way. If anything, 2016 will see Russia more entrenched militarily in Syria — and more adamantly behind the Ba’athist government. Moreover, because of the deeply flawed Vienna nuclear deal, Tehran, in just months, will gain access to more than $100 billion of previously frozen assets, thus providing resources to finance increased Iranian and Hezbollah military activity supporting Assad.

Obama’s unwillingness to act will therefore leave us, by Jan. 20, 2017, with Assad far more difficult to remove and the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis greatly strengthened.

• Third, Tehran by then also will have made another year’s worth of progress toward its long-sought objective of deliverable nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent report made clear that Iran continued military work on its nuclear program until at least 2009, well after the 2003 cut-off date asserted in the highly politicized (and now thoroughly discredited) 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. The IAEA also stressed Tehran’s continued stonewalling on key questions it never had answered fully or satisfactorily on military issues. These findings alone show how duplicitous and untrustworthy the ayatollahs remain.

Given this prognosis, it is unrealistic for candidates to talk about removing Assad from power, however desirable such an objective might be in the abstract. This does not mean we should accept Assad or work with his regime; it means that Obama’s mistakes have stuck us with Assad for the foreseeable future.

By January 2017, Russia will be even more entrenched in Syria, meaning either direct confrontation with a new president or accepting a trade Putin would delight in making: reduced Russian involvement in Syria in exchange for lifting the West’s Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia.

Sadly, given the chance, Obama and Europe would both likely make that trade. A new Republican president should not.

As has been true since 2011, Syria and Assad are a strategic side show. The real issue is the regime in Tehran. It is Tehran that is speeding toward nuclear weapons and provoking a regional nuclear arms race. It is Tehran that most threatens Israel. It is Tehran that keeps Assad in power. And it is Tehran that remains the central banker for international terrorism.

Accordingly, the new president must simultaneously pursue the elimination of Iran’s nuclear threat and a robust policy based on U.S. leadership and full participation, including ground forces, to destroy ISIS, not ultimately, but now. Assad simply is secondary to these larger objectives. A realistic 2017 American foreign policy should focus more on eliminating the actual threats we face, not merely on their symptoms.

You Won’t Believe What Atheists Want to Replace Bibles With in Hotel Rooms

Just about the time you think you have run into the last Godless group, then surface with yet another world saving demand. Just today the following was posted by our friends at Charisma.
10:30AM EST 12/11/2015 Troy Anderson

Atheists seeking 'Bible-free' hotel rooms. (Reuters)

Atheists seeking ‘Bible-free’ hotel rooms. (Reuters)

The nation’s largest association of atheists and agnostics has started a campaign to convince the hotel and motel industry to offer “Bible-free” rooms.

In a statement, the Freedom From Religion Foundation said it asked the hospitality industry to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering “Bible-free” rooms.

In a letter to the American Hotel and Motel Association, the FFRF said Gideons International is “exploiting hotels and motels to proselytize a captive audience.”

“Those who must read the Bible every day will surely take precautions to travel with their own copies,” wrote Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor on behalf of FFRF’s 23,000 nonreligious members. “The rest of us deserve a break from mindless evangelizing when we are on vacation.

“Many of your guests are freethinkers—atheists, agnostics, skeptics or ‘nones’—who are deeply offended to be charged high fees only to be proselytized in the privacy of their own bedrooms.”

As an alternative, Barker and Gaylor said they would prefer placement of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in hotel and motel rooms.

Gideons International, which is known worldwide for placing Bibles in motels and hotels, hadn’t responded as of Thursday afternoon to the FFRF’s statement.

Gideons recently surpassed the 2 billion mark in distributing Bibles and New Testaments.

“It is more than just a number,” International President Dr. William E.G. Thomas said. “We are placing Bibles because they save souls. Behind every number is a face, behind every face a story, behind every story a priceless soul that could live throughout eternity.”

 

Blockbuster: DHS Whistleblower Says Obama Regime Shut Down Probe That Would’ve Stopped San Bernardino Attack

December 11, 2015
EIB WEb P{age Disgronifier

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Megyn Kelly had a blockbuster exclusive last night on the Fox News Channel.  The former customs and border agent, Philip Haney, claims that the State Department and Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties closed down an investigation. He was looking into a group named Tablighi Jamaat.  Philip Haney says the investigation was shut down because the Regime “did not want to profile Islāmic groups.”  Well, who the hell are we profiling if we’re not profiling Islāmic groups at Homeland Security and at immigration, for crying out loud?O-and-P-Haney-BPhilip Haney says the Feds “the feds also deleted his files, which included information on an organization with ties to Farook’s mosque…” This is a guy that had a connection with Syed Farook “Climate Change,” and the Regime ordered this guy to shut up, stand down, and destroy his files. And now he’s on television telling anybody who listen. “Philip Haney claims that if his investigation had been allowed to continue, Syed Farook [“Climate Change”] may have ended up on the no-fly list,” and if he had ended up on the no-fly list, he would not have met and connected with Tashfeen Malik, or Malik, and they would never have gotten married and they wouldn’t have become Bonnie and Clyde of Islam.

Audio sound bites.  Philip Haney last night with Megyn Kelly.  She said, “Philip, why do you believe the work you were pursuing may have led to the detection of these two?”

HANEY:  The network of individuals that we work with were tied to a large group called Tablighi Jamaat part a larger group called Deobandi.  We had thousands of organizations or individuals in the database, and we tracked them as they moved in and out of the United States on the visa waiver program.  Farook mosque is called Dar-al-Uloom.  It’s a global network of similar kinds of mosques under the umbrella of this organization.

RUSH:  Look at how much we knew.  Look at how much the regime knew about Syed Farook “Climate Change.”  Megyn Kelly says, “Under your program you would have identified the mosque, and then what would you have done?”

HANEY:  Individuals that are already in the case in 2012 went to that mosque.  Therefore as we are tracking them we would have put the red light on them.  Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because of his association with that mosque and or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his affiliation with a known organization.

KELLY:  Mmm-hmm.  And you say they shut you down because they felt this was essentially profiling of Muslims?

HANEY:  They specifically got that, we got the internal memos, and it says that we are not allowed to develop a case based on Tablighi Jamaat  specifically or any specific group.

RUSH:  “We are not allowed to develop a case” on any Islāmic group.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I made a point yesterday — and it actually found its way on the television sound bites today.  I made a big point yesterday about the lack of moral authority in our government at the leadership level.  I mean, there’s nobody… You know, Obama doesn’t have any moral authority.  Obama can’t condemn anybody or he can’t praise anybody.  Obama’s lost the moral authority to have credibility and believability.

The problem in our country right now is that there’s nobody in leadership in Washington of any party. Nobody has any moral authority.  There’s nobody that’s uber-respected.  There’s nobody, when they tell you something, you believe ’em.  There’s nobody, when they condemn something or approve some, you believe them.  And evidence like this just exacerbates that.  What the hell are we supposed to be looking for if not Islāmic groups?  So what does this mean?  I’ll tell you what this means.  Terrorism, folks, is a national security issue.

Terrorism is a safety issue.  Terrorism against American citizens, domestic or international — stopping it, identifying it, protecting, defending, keeping safe American citizens — is in the top two/three things that the Constitution requires leaders in this country to do.  National security ought not be political.  There ought not be one aspect of national security that’s political. Yet this administration has politicized everything, and in the process they have corrupted it.

Meg-K-Fox-B

So now we have a whistleblower, Customs and Border Agent, working at the State Department and the Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties basically being shut down, for obviously political reasons.  And this is what gives rise to questions about Obama.  Why’s Obama so insistent? Why is he so insistent that we not discover what there is to be discovered about Muslims? Why would the Obama administration demand that an investigation like this be shut down, evidence destroyed and the man involved files deleted and told not to say a word about it?

Well, it’s those kind of questions that give rise to all kinds of answers. When there’s no leadership and no moral authority, then feel are free to fill administrate blanks.  And things like this don’t make common sense.  We’re in the midst of it, and have been arguably since 1993.  But, folks, you can go back to even prior to that, when there were terrorist hijackings of American airliners.  You could go back to the eighties and the terrorism against US military in the Middle East.  I mean, this is nothing new.

It’s intensifying, and now the war has been brought to our shores. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The 2001 World Trade Center.  Fort Hood.  The incidents are numerous and they are expanding. They are increasing in number.  San Bernardino last week.  Yet no matter where we turn in our government, we are told to not see what we see, to not think what is obvious.  And anybody in government who does see what there is to be seen apparently is shut down and their data deleted.  It’s being politicized.

Obviously, for some reason, Obama doesn’t want any of this known.  I’ll tell you what’s happening.  People within the Obama administration are now breaking.  Obama is becoming isolated on this.  We had the secretary of defense on television yesterday saying ISIS is not “contained.”  We’ve had a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say ISIS is not “contained.”  Obama said in his Sunday night speech (that even Democrats are now panning as embarrassing) that ISIS is “contained,” that there is no threat of anything happening domestically, after a domestic event.

Meg-K-Fox

So even people in the Obama administration they are running away from Obama on this, and yet he steadfastly maintains there’s nothing to see here and that what you’re seeing isn’t what you think it is, and what you think it is you only think it because of your racism and bigotry and so forth and so on.  It’s leading to all kinds of questions that people are asking.  The questions are legitimate based on Obama’s proclamations and his actions and stories like this.

Questions are rooted around the curiosity of what is it that makes Obama so damn protective of Islamists, jihadists, Muslims? What in the world is going on here?  Well, you start filling in the blanks and answering the questions yourself, and I guarantee you millions of Americans are, and they’re coming up with all kinds of answers.  And none of them are pretty.  But our president has created… There’s a moral vacuum, folks, a moral vacuum at the highest levels of our government and leadership.  There is a moral vacuum, there is a leadership vacuum, and there is a common-sense vacuum.

There is so much that appears obvious that is not being acted on, so much that is obvious and is happening that we are told isn’t happening. But we can see it.  Some of our fellow citizens are being killed right before us and we’re told, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  You’re racist if you think that! You’re bigoted if you think that.  No, no.”  It’s inexplicable.  And then over here, everybody wonders why somebody like Donald Trump continues.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here we go.  Daily Caller. Yet another story that is similar to that from the whistleblower Philip Haney on Megyn Kelly last night.  This is from The Daily Caller.

“The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism, but a new report shows that FBI reluctance could have been due to external pressure from the White House.” Let’s go back to that night, that afternoon, the San Bernardino massacre.  Speaking for myself, when I got home, I turned on… Do you know I forgot what channel cable news channels are?  I watch them on in.  And I don’t have these auto-program buttons. So I said, “Wait a minute, what number is Fox?” It came back to me real quick.  But so rarely do I have it on anymore.

Anyway, so I turned it and I’m surfing around to the various networks, and they’re all… I’m sure you saw the same thing.  They’re all saying, “Oh, you know, we’ve got a name. We’ve been leaking a name, but it’s a very, very delicate situation and we can’t really announce the name.  It’s a very volatile situation out here, a very volatile situation around the world, what with what just happened in Paris and so forth. We’ve got a name, but it’s a very, very delicate situation here, very, very careful we have.  We cannot jump the gun on anything! I’m sure you understand,” blah, blah.  And on it went like that from six p.m. to 10 p.m.ISISBefore-and-After-C Meanwhile, we all knew the name. If you knew where to look, the name was already leaked. It was out there.  But the Drive-Bys wouldn’t go anywhere near it.  And from The Daily Caller we now know why.  “The FBI has taken heat for failing to immediately classify the San Bernardino shootings as terrorism…”We all knew it was.  Everybody knew it was! But, remember: Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore this could not have been perpetrated by Muslims.  I mean, that’s Barack Obama 101: “Islam is a religion of peace. There is no terrorism in Islam.  These are people perverting it.”

Well, “[A] new report shows that FBI reluctance [to tell us what we all knew] could have been due to external pressure from the White House. A source told Jack Murphy of SOFREP that the FBI instantly believed the shooting, which left 14 dead, to be a clear act of terrorism.”  By the way, I can confirm this.  You know, I don’t live as a hermit.  I’m not a recluse out here. Well… Meaning, I’m in contact with people.  I know people, former FBI people, and I was in contact with ’em — e-mail, chat, what have you.  We all knew, and people close to the investigation knew.

I was told I can’t tell you how many times between six p.m. and ten p.m. that night that, “Rush, don’t worry.  The FBI knows it’s terrorism and they’re on this like white on rice.  They know this is a terrorist attack. They know much more than they’re reporting.  Don’t worry about it.  Whatever you’re seeing on TV is just what you’re seeing on TV.  But they are already zeroed in on the fact that this is Islāmic terrorism.”  So that just added to the frustration. I know this, I’m told this, and many people were told, and I shared it with some friends of mine back and forth.

They’re watching television, and, “Well, we can’t say for sure! We’re being very delicate here. We’re very reluctant,” and so forth.  Well, it turns out here that the source who told this to Jack Murphy, the White House didn’t want this event to be reported as terrorism.  “The White House, however, didn’t feel the same way and quickly moved in to squash the terror classification. This source added that as soon as the shooting took place…” Are you ready for this?

“[As soon as the shooting took place, Obama convened a meeting with the National Security Council and the heads of other federal enforcement agencies to discuss a public relations strategy. Part of the reason for trying to avoid the designation of the shootings as terrorism is because it threatens to upset the [Regime]’s strategy in Syria. A case of Islāmic terrorism in the US would put additional pressure on the [Regime]’s to play a much more active role in the conflict,” because it’s spreading.

ObamaSyrian-Refugees-Obama

It’s spreading beyond Syria.  If it’s come to the United States, Obama has to get involved, he has to get in gear.  And he simply won’t because he has cozied up to Iran.  Now, we have mentioned this — we’ve repeated it from Walid Phares and a couple of other sources — that Obama strategically is tied with Iran when it comes to ISIS, and Iran doesn’t want anything happening to ISIS.  Iran is benefiting from the chaos, the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’ites.  Iran wants to control that region — and for some reason, Obama has ties to ’em.

But beyond that, folks, another example of how national security has been politicized. And the White House, according to this report, was exerting pressure on FBI agents on the ground, and the FBI command in Washington, to not refer this, to not classify this, to not go on TV and report it as terrorism, because it would have negative impact and consequences for Obama.  National security has even been corrupted because politics that comes from liberalism is by nature corrupt.  Liberalism is corrupt.  Liberalism is a lie. It’s a series of lies.

It does not rely on truth. In fact, can’t coexist with the truth. So Benghazi was the result of a video. They couldn’t have the truth of that out! That’s too close to the election in 2012.  And then we were also considering the 2016 election. We couldn’t have anything happen to Mrs. Clinton in 2012.  It would damage her chances, and the Democrat Party’s chances 2016.  In this case it’s Obama’s strategy in Syria that must be protected politically.  But it’s even greater than that.  There can’t be terrorism here because Obama already said on the Wednesday prior that there wasn’t any reason to fear terrorism in America, and that ISIS remained contained and was the JV team.

Less than a week later, the San Bernardino massacre happens.  Well, it can’t be terrorism!  Why, that would expose Obama as incompetent.  That would expose Obama as not knowing what he’s doing.  We can’t have that.  He’s the smartest man that’s ever been in the White House.  We can’t have any of this.  We can’t let any of this expose Obama as a fraud or as an incompetent or worse.  National security, something as encompassing and crucial as that has now been corrupted by the politics of Barack Hussein O and the Democrat Party.

ObamaIslamGOPHeadinSandIslam-OH-1-1

So while the FBI, on Obama’s orders, was looking like fools to everybody watching on TV by refusing to say what we all knew — that the San Bernardino massacre was Islāmic terrorism — the whole world knew.  And this is striking.  Obama believes that he can make it so just by thinking it.  He can make it so just by saying it.  And you can’t blame him in a sense.  He’s childlike in many ways.  He’s been coddled as a special child, an only child all of his life.  The media has treated him as a mini-god.

So if Obama believes that all he has to do is say something is or isn’t and that makes it is or isn’t, the media has fed that. The media’s never challenged Obama. The media has never questioned, the media has never investigated, the media has never exposed. The media has done nothing but lapdog it up.  So after seven years, if you were Obama you would think you could get away with anything you want to say.  “That’s not terrorism. That’s gonna violate our values.”  Our values?  That’s another thing that just continued to grate on me.

These people speak of “our values.”

They’re butchering babies in Planned Parenthood, and we’re supposed to listen to them talk about American values?  I’m sorry, folks, it just doesn’t wash with me.  None of this does.  But with national security being compromised and nobody able to apparently do anything about it, it’s why the presidential campaign has become what it is.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

499963644_large

RUSH: Tom in Sarasota, Florida.  Hello.

CALLER:  Great being able to speak with you.  Yeah, I was watching TV the other day and saw all those reporters tramping through a crime scene just a day after the San Bernardino shootings, and I wonder, you know, in tying that in to the whistleblower from Homeland Security —

RUSH:  No, I don’t… I know what you’re talking about.  The FBI cleared the crime scene after only two days, and the landlord turned it loose, and people were allowed to run through there. And we had a story from a former New York Police Department detective, NYPD detective, who just could not believe what he had seen.  He couldn’t believe that a crime scene would ever be allowed to be overrun like that. But what he also saw: No trace of any fingerprints having being taken. He didn’t see any fingerprint dust. He said there were loose documents and pieces of paper running around.

He said this was the wanton destruction of a crime scene that he’d just never seen before. He couldn’t understand it.  And what Tom here is wondering about is maybe this was purposefully done and coincides with the whistleblower.  I don’t think they’re linked.  But I think they all both are an indication of what we’re up against here.  It is clear, bottom line, we now know some of the whistleblower last night on Megyn Kelly — or just listening to Obama, we know. He does not want people to think that the people doing this are doing it.

And he believes he can convince us otherwise.  And it’s not just Obama.  This government goes to great lengths to deny what everybody can see.  “The religion of peace would never engage in activity like this. In mass murder? No. As a religion of peace, Islam, there is no terrorism in Islam.”  I don’t care why. Political correctness, I don’t care if there’s a

terrorism in Islam.”  I don’t care why. Political correctness, I don’t care if there’s a solidarity that we don’t understand or know.  What I do know is that none of this is working to fool or to calm the American people.  They’re not falling for this.  And the evidence is abundant all over the country.

END TRANSCRIPT