Editor’s Note: RED China’s One World One Dream blueprint. First Tibet, then Xinjiang and elsewhere in RED China, then Taiwan, then America, and the rest of the world. S.U.A. has constantly warned about the goals of The Deep State in which RED China has been selected as the Mother of Managers for the world. And as what occurred with Hitler and the Nazis, some world governments remain silent or outright lie about it being a “Happy Place”.
The Deep State: “Using the Global War on Terror as a Pretext for Control”
“THOSE WHO RESIST WILL PERISH!”
Chilling undercover footage taken inside China’s most oppressive region shows it’s virtually impossible to escape the paranoid police state.
By Alexandra Ma, Business Insider
Jun. 30, 2019
Two journalists pretended to be travel bloggers to enter Xinjiang, the western Chinese province where police are intensely cracking down on the Uighurs, a mostly-Muslim ethnic minority.
They found themselves constantly tailed by both uniformed and plainclothes police officers, who made them delete photos on their devices and ordered locals to stop talking to them.
China’s ruling Communist Party regularly cracks down on online content and people deemed unsavory or destabilizing to the regime. This paranoia is particularly evident in Xinjiang.
A chilling new documentary created by two undercover reporters reveals the paranoia at the heart of China’s 21st-century police state in Xinjiang, the western frontier region where authorities are cracking down on millions of Muslims.
The VICE News Tonight documentary shows dozens of police officers lining the streets of Xinjiang and repeatedly questioning the journalists, who had posed as travel bloggers in order to enter the region.
The documentary — titled “They Come For us at Night: China’s Vanishing Muslims” — premiered Thursday night. It focuses on the plight of the Uighurs, a mostly-Muslim ethnic minority under intense surveillance and oppression by Beijing authorities in Xinjiang.
The documentary shows the journalists repeatedly being stopped on the street and forced to delete all the footage on their phones, even as they insisted that they were tourists snapping photos for their own leisure.
Despite the heightened security apparatus in Xinjiang, the region has continued to attract tourists, but authorities say they can only take photos of sidewalks and tourist sites.
At one point in the documentary, two police officers who appear to be in anti-riot gear are seen stopping the reporters from talking to two local men in Kashgar, a major city in the region. Those two men, ironically, had been praising local law enforcement.
“Individuals cannot accept interviews without government approval,” one police officer can be heard saying. “Especially in Xinjiang.”
Isobel Yeung, one of the VICE News reporters, told Business Insider: “I can’t even count how many times we were stopped. It didn’t help that I was constantly mistaken for a Uighur.”
“Their goal was to keep close tabs on us, to track our every move, and to try to ensure we didn’t take photos or video of anything the Communist Party of China considers sensitive,” Yeung added. “They didn’t know we were filming secretly.”
China’s distrust of the Uighurs permeates into daily life. Authorities require residents to place QR codes on knives— even for those used in the kitchen — so they can track whether they are being used as weapon.
While visiting a wheat dumpling stall, the VICE News reporters also noticed that an axe for chopping firewood had been chained to the ground in accordance with regional rules.
‘It does strange things to the mind’
China’s ruling Communist Party regularly cracks down on content and people deemed unsavory to the regime. It believes that by censoring content and, in some cases, detaining dissidents, it is maintaining political and social stability.
This paranoia is particularly evident in Xinjiang, with journalists having described being tailed by plainclothes officers — as many as six in the VICE News’s case. The country has hired more than 100,000 new police officers over the past two years alone.
Yeung, the VICE News correspondent, told Business Insider that being tailed by police “makes you paranoid to go places or say things.”
“It does strange things to the mind, to know that there are people watching and listening to your every move,” she said. “It makes you paranoid to go places or say things, even among my colleague and I and while in the comfort of our hotel rooms.”
“I can only imagine what living there would do to you.”
Good Morning Taiwan! Reeducating Taiwan’s Chinese.
A COMMON CORE CLASS FROM THOSE THAT KNOW BETTER.
‘Reeducating’ Xinjiang’s Muslims
By James Millward. NYBooks
February 7, 2019
She told the court how she had been transferred the previous November from her school to a new job teachingIn a courtroom in Zharkent, Kazakhstan, in July 2018, a former kindergarten principal named Sayragul Sauytbay calmly described what Chinese officials continue to deny: a vast new gulag of “de-extremification training centers” has been created for Turkic Muslim inhabitants of Xinjiang, the Alaska-sized region in western China. Sauytbay, an ethnic Kazakh, had fled Xinjiang and was seeking asylum in Kazakhstan, where her husband and son are citizens. She told the court how she had been transferred the previous November from her school to a new job teaching Kazakh detainees in a supposed “training center.” “They call it a ‘political camp’…but in reality it’s a prison in the mountains,” she said. There were 2,500 inmates in the facility where she had worked for four months, and she knew of others. There may now be as many as 1,200 such camps in Xinjiang, imprisoning up to a million people, including Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and especially Uighurs, who make up around 46 percent of Xinjiang’s population.Sauytbay’s testimony provided the first dramatic public evidence from a Chinese citizen of the expanding gulag in Xinjiang. But news of it has been emerging since 2017, thanks to remarkable reporting by Gerry Shih (now at The Washington Post) for the Associated Press and Josh Chin, Clément Bürge, and Giulia Marchi for The Wall Street Journal, as well as important early stories from other researchers and correspondents, including Maya Wang (Human Rights Watch), Rob Schmitz (NPR), and Megha Rajagopalan (BuzzFeed News). Especially important is the Washington, D.C.–based Radio Free Asia Uighur service, which has for years provided detailed, accurate coverage despite notorious controls on information in Xinjiang.At first, officials in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) denied there were any camps. Then state media briefly floated a story that 460,000 Uighurs from southern Xinjiang had been “relocated” to “jobs” elsewhere in the Xinjiang region. There have been no further announcements about that jobs program, and the explanation seems to have been dropped. When confronted at an August 2018 UN hearing by Gay McDougal, a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Chinese delegation denied that there were any “reeducation” camps, while admitting that there were “vocational education and employment training centers” and other “measures” to counter “extremism.” When pressed again at the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in November 2018, the PRC representative accused “a few countries” of “politically driven accusations” and repeated that the camps were simply providing vocational training to combat extremism.People outside Xinjiang first began to learn about the camps in 2017. Uighurs abroad grew alarmed as friends and relatives at home dropped out of touch, first deleting phone and social media contacts and then…ArticleThe World View:The future of Google Maps and Mapquest for getting directions to all the franchised “Happy Camps”
“GO RED CHINA! GO RED CHINA!”
New NSA data centers in Utah for all that data from Obamacare and … :
A Message To President Trump from MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.) with an Update on Murder and the Benghazi Cover Up!
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army, Ret.) was recently on Conservative Commandos Radio Show to discuss new information he has on Benghazi. Was there a stand-down order while the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex were under attack that night in 2012? Why didn’t the military send forces to attempt to help those Americans attack in Benghazi that night?
What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?
SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.
Important information on “Secretary of State” Hillary Clinton and the Department of State:
More VIP Revealing Facts on Benghazi! White House notified immediately! Assets available were told to stand down!
MG Paul Vallely and American patriots involved in communications during the Benghazi murders by omission and crime scene staging and the 13 hours and a Training Mission at the time are interviewed by Audrey Russo.
Diplomatic cables and much more were exposed for years prior!
EU Investigating Report of Massive Hacking on Diplomatic Cables
By Natalia Drozdiak
The European Union is investigating “a potential leak of sensitive information” following a report that hackers breached the bloc’s diplomatic communications network.
Using techniques similar to those used by an elite unit of China’s People’s Liberation Army, hackers downloaded cables over a period of three years, according to the report by the New York Times published late Tuesday.
In response, a spokeswoman for the European Council said Wednesday they were “aware of the allegations” and “actively investigating the issue.”
China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR
FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM
By Darren Pauli 18 Sep 2014
Sophisticated Beijing-backed hackers raided civilian organisations responsible for the movements of US troops and equipment 20 times in one year of which only two were detected by the responsible agency, an audit report has found.
Contractors underneath the US Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) agency were hacked a total of 50 times, which included less sophisticated attacks made by actors not identified by the US Government as being on China’s payroll.
The audit was conducted in the 12 months to June 2013 based on information provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defense Security Services, Defense Cyber Crime Centre, and the US Air Force and 11 contractors.
Senate Armed Services Committee members said the intrusions were unacceptable and a sign of aggression on the part of Beijing.
“These peacetime intrusions into the networks of key defense contractors are more evidence of China’s aggressive actions in cyberspace,” committee chairman Senator Carl Levin said.
“Our findings are a warning that we must do much more to protect strategically significant systems from attack and to share information about intrusions when they do occur.”
Ranking member Senator Jim Inhofe called for a “central clearinghouse” for critical contractors to report possible hacks.
The audit found intrusions including the compromise or theft of email accounts, documents, passwords and code.
It also revealed a Civil Reserve Air Fleet contractor lost flight details, credentials and its email encryption key while systems on a TRANSCOM contractor ship were hacked multiple times.
The committee behind the report said TRANSCOM and its contractors lack a universal definition of what constituted a compromise.
It further criticised the reporting structure and said the FBI and Department of Defence knew but did not tell the Pentagon of nine separate intrusions of TRANSCOM contractors.
The committee updated its version of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to direct the Secretary of Defense to designate operationally critical contractors and impose tighter reporting requirements for breaches suspected to be pulled off by nation-states.
The audit findings follow the naming by the US Government of five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army it claimed were behind an eight-year hacking campaign against some American companies to steal commercially sensitive information. ®
“Chinese military cyber attacks revealed in the report included a contractor who was compromised between 2009 and 2010 and lost emails, documents, user accounts, passwords and source code, indicating the penetration gain broad access. ”
“From June 1, 2012 to May 30, 2013, 50 successful intrusions were made into contractors’ systems, and of those, 20 were attributed to an advanced persistent threat (APT). But that wasn’t the most disconcerting finding, according to the report’s executive summary.
“Of those APT-linked intrusions, TRANSCOM was made aware of only two, a troubling finding given the potential impact of cyber intrusions on defense information and operations,” the report said.”
‘We could have been there’: Squadron member speaks out on stalled Benghazi response
By Fox News
May 12, 2016
His squadron got the alert: a “real world mission was going down.”
The team – at Aviano Air Base in northeastern Italy – raced to the field and was briefed, as planes were armed and prepared to launch. Hundreds of miles away, fellow Americans were under attack in Benghazi.
“There were people everywhere,” said the witness, who was on the ground that night but wished to remain anonymous. “That flight line was full of people, and we were all ready to go” to Benghazi.
Only they were waiting for the order. It never came.
“The whole night we were told that we are waiting on a call,” he told Fox News.
This account is from a squadron member at Aviano the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attack in Benghazi. The source, the first in his squadron to speak out publicly since that attack, is going public to explain – in his view – that more could have been done to save Americans under attack that night.
He asked that his identity be protected for fear of retribution. He says others in his squadron also have wanted to talk about Benghazi from the beginning, but no others have been interviewed and all are afraid of the potential backlash from speaking out.
“I’m not trying to give away any type of [information] that could ever harm the military,” the source told Fox News. “That is never my plan. I feel that some things need to come to light.”
Namely, he said, that a team was ready to go that night to help protect Americans under fire in Benghazi – an account that runs counter to multiple official reports, including from a House committee, a timeline provided by the military and the controversial State Department Accountability Review Board investigation, which concluded the interagency response to Benghazi was “timely and appropriate.”
The source said: “I definitely believe that our aircraft could have taken off and gotten there in a timely manner, maybe three hours at the most, in order to at least stop that second mortar attack … and basically save lives that day.”
Former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed in that second wave. Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith were killed in the initial attack on the main compound.
“We could have been there. That’s the worst part,” the source said.
The source who spoke with Fox News challenged the military claim that a re-fueling tanker wasn’t available. He said American jets routinely refuel by using what’s called a “hot pit maneuver,” which allows the jets to land and then get fuel without shutting off the engines.
Multiple sources say there were multiple locations available the night of the attack.
He said they were waiting on the call, though, through the night. The men say they didn’t truly learn about the mission they had missed until they returned home the next day from the airfield and saw the reports about the Benghazi attack on the news.
Many still don’t talk about the subject and some insist it has hurt morale within the squadron because “people know we were stationed there and didn’t respond.”
The same frustrations have compelled Mike, a former team sergeant for a military anti-terror quick reaction force, once known as the CIF, to talk.
“For some reason they were all shut down, and I think it leads back to a policymaker somewhere because nobody in the military is going to shut down an operation,” he said. On the night of the attack, Mike was at Delta Force headquarters in the U.S. monitoring the events as they happened.
“We had hours and hours and hours to do something … and we did nothing,” he said.
Despite the claim by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department that nothing more could have been done, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit recently revealed that Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash immediately offered assistance to the State Department on the night of Sept. 11, saying forces could move to Benghazi and “they are spinning up as we speak.”
Mike echoed that: “I know everything was spun up and nothing was done.”
He added: “At our level, we were doing everything we were supposed to be doing. At everybody else’s level above us, it was political.”
In June 2014, Delta Forces captured Abu Khattala, a man now charged in the attack.
Mike, though, said Khattala is a low-level operative and not one of the terror cell leaders. He said the U.S. could have collected intelligence leading to “bigger fish” had the U.S. acted sooner following the attack.
Meanwhile, while Democrats have called the House investigation into the Benghazi attacks a waste of time and money, committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., says his committee has uncovered new facts – but does admit they still are having issues finding witnesses.
“It’s been very frustrating,” Gowdy told Fox News.
In response to Fox News’ reporting, he also issued a statement saying it is “deeply troubling there are individuals who would like to share their stories, but have not because they are afraid of retaliation from their superiors.”
The two men who spoke with Fox News have not spoken with the committee.
Crime Scene Staging 101 : LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy
Editor’s Note: From our great friend Adm. James “Ace” Lyons, USN (ret) and our friends at WND.com (from 2014). With special thanks to The Citizens Committee on Benghazi and The Legacy National Security Group.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
The road to Benghazi = time and distance. En route. What to wear when visiting each city.
LYONS: Benghazi was a planned tragedy
The event was no surprise, and the massive cover-up appalls
By James A. Lyons – – Monday, March 3, 2014
The recent reports by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Armed Services Committee make clear that no organization in the chain of command, including the White House, should have been surprised by the tragic events that occurred at our Benghazi Special Mission Compound (SMC) on Sept. 11, 2012.
Clearly, there was both strategic and tactical warnings.
The security situation in eastern Libya, particularly Benghazi, was out of control. Trying to explain our failure to protect the SMC as a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the deteriorating security situation or incompetence does not pass muster. This was a planned event and explains the massive cover-up.
There were numerous hostile acts leading up to the attack on the compound. For example, on April 6, 2012, an attack with improvised explosive devices was conducted on the outer wall of the compound.
On May 22, the Benghazi International Red Cross office was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades. On June 1, a car bomb exploded outside the Benghazi hotel where the British ambassador was staying. On June 6, an IED blew a hole in the compound’s perimeter wall. On June 7, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens requested two mobile security teams for his protection but was denied by the State Department.
On June 11, the British ambassador’s convoy was hit by RPGs. On June 17, the U.K. closes its Benghazi consulate, and the International Red Cross closes its office. On June 19, the Tunisian Consulate is stormed by the rebel group Ansar al Shariah.
Then on July 9, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli requests continued security support for an additional 60 days, but receives no answer from the State Department.
On Aug. 2, Stevens requests 11 additional personal-security bodyguards. He calls the security situation unpredictable and violent, but his requests are turned down by State. Stevens sent a cable to State on Aug, 16 stating that the compound cannot withstand a coordinated attack.
The State Department’s reaction was to withdraw the three Quick Reaction Units at our embassy in Tripoli under the command of Col. Andy Wood over the objection of the embassy and Col. Wood.
At this point, AFRICOM offers to provide additional security, but Stevens feels compelled to turn down the offer owing to State denying all his requests for increased security.
The State Department turning down all of Stevens‘ requests for increased security as well as drawing down security assets in country is more than puzzling, particularly since an internal State Department analysis completed two months after the compound opened stated that unless security was increased, the compound should be closed. This assessment is buried in the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report.
The question that needs to be answered is, with the out-of-control security situation in eastern Libya, why were there no contingency plans or forces pre-positioned ready to respond to potential attacks on the anniversary of 9/11?
According to one report, the administration was focused on Tunisia, not Libya. Mind-boggling. Nonetheless, if that were the case, where were the forces positioned to respond to an attack on Tunisia?
On the day of the attack, according to a report in The Guardian, the readiness of the ambassador’s five-member security detail raises questions. Three of the four agents with Stevens, according to the report, left their rifles, helmets and body armor in another area under orders by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, which was confirmed by the ARB report.
This makes no sense, given that standard operating procedures in a hostile environment require that weapon be kept at the ready all times. Another question that needs to be answered: Why would the secretary of state give such an order?
Based on numerous reports, the Obama administration and every organization in the chain of command knew almost instantly that this was a terrorist attack on the SMC.
Within hours, it was known that the attack was executed by Ansar al Shariah, which is a coalition of Islamic and Salafist rebel groups linked to al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and the February 17th Martyrs Brigade.
It should not be overlooked that the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was tasked with supporting the U.K.-based Blue Mountain Security Group that had the contract from our State Department to provide security for the compound.
According to my source, who is a confidential informant for the FBI, the Blue Mountain Security Group is a cover company for MI-6. My source also told me that the February 17 Martyrs Brigade contract personnel were positioned near the compound the day of the attack and were ready to respond but never received orders to execute. Interesting.
My FBI confidential informant has also confirmed my assessment on the Lou Dobbs TV show in October 2012; namely, that this was an operation that went terribly wrong.
According to my source’s in-country contacts, there never was any intention to kill Stevens. He was supposed to be kidnapped and held as a hostage in exchange for the release of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. It should be recalled that this was the No. 1 objective of then-Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in his Washington visit in 2012.
All the unanswered questions and the truth of what actually took place at our Benghazi compound that cost the lives of four Americans can only be resolved by the formation of a special committee with subpoena powers.
House Speaker John A. Boehner, appoint such a committee as called for by Resolution 36 put forth by Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and restore integrity to the office of the speaker.
James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Editor’s Note: Weapons to the wrong groups, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, fore a reason…to keep it going…and…
China to deploy troops to fight alongside Assad in Syria
By: The Middle East Monitor
China is planning to send troops to Syria to aid President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, according to the New Khaleej.
According to informed sources, the move comes as China becomes increasingly concerned with the presence of Islamic militants in the East Turkestan region, who have been sighted aiding opposition groups in Syria.
Last week, during a meeting with Syrian Presidential Advisor Bouthaina Shaaban, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi praised the regime’s efforts at tackling the fighters from the Islamic East Turkistan Movement.
The Syrian regime has also claimed that some 5,000 fighters of Uyghur origin, an ethnic Muslim minority that Chinese authorities regularly accuse of terrorism, have arrived in Syria, illegally passing through Southeast Asia and Turkey.
The sources said that the Chinese Ministry of Defence intends to send two units known as the “Tigers of Siberia” and the “Night Tigers” from the Special Operations Forces to aid Syrian government troops.
This is not the first time Chinese troops have crossed into Syria; in 2015 the Syrian regime permitted some 5,000 soldiers to enter its territory as allied forces and stationed them in the Western region of Latakia. Chinese military advisors were also among the deployment, as well as naval and aerial assets.
China is one of the five veto-wielding powers of the UN Security Council and, along with Russia, has used its power on more than one occasion to protect the interests of the Syrian regime.
Russian support has given the government an upper hand in the six year-long civil war, especially as the battle against Daesh comes to an end.
More than half a million people are believed to have been killed since 2011, the vast majority by the Assad government and allied forces. The regime has also used chemical weapons against civilians and prevented aid from reaching those affected on the ground. UN officials further estimate that some ten million people have been displaced as a result of the fighting.
“President Obama is a threat to our country,” Donald Trump told me in a recent interview.
He’s right. Mr. Obama now poses a clear and present danger to America.
His stubborn insistence on resettling so-called “refugees” from Syria threatens to Balkanize our country and subvert it from within. The president is willing to potentially sacrifice countless Americans on the altar of liberal multiculturalism. He is gambling with our lives.
Obama’s resettlement plan is replete with lies and progressive propaganda. At first, the administration said it only wanted 10,000 refugees to enter the country. Now, the White House is openly talking about allowing 250,000 per year.
In fact, the president recently announced that his goal is an “open-ended” refugee resettlement effort — meaning millions could be allowed to flood our country.
Moreover, who are these refugees? The answer is simple: They are predominantly young Muslim men. In Europe, nearly 80 percent of the migrants pouring into countries, such as Germany, Sweden and France, are Muslim males in their teens and 20s. In other words, they are the very profile of potential Islamic Jihadists.
Yet, while Europeans are waking up to the civilizational invasion taking place, our morally arrogant liberal elites continue to peddle the fiction that only “widows and orphans” will be allowed to enter.
The administration also claims that the Muslim Syrian refugees are the “most thoroughly screened and vetted category of travelers” who can come into the United States.
That is another lie. For the Obama regime and its media allies are deliberately leaving out one salient fact: We do not pick the asylum-seekers, the United Nations does. In particular, it is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, in coordination with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that selects which refugees can be settled within our country.
It is not the State Department, Homeland Security or even the White House that chooses the refugees, but an anti-American leftist bureaucrat and a global Islamist organization.
Mr. Guterres is a self-described “socialist,” who champions open borders and repopulating First World nations with Third World peoples as part of a radical internationalist agenda to redistribute wealth. From 1999 until 2005, he was the president of Socialist International, a global network of over 160 Marxist and far-left-wing parties active in about 100 countries. Their goal: “one-world government” through unlimited immigration.
The OIC is an international Islamic body that consists of 57 Muslim nations. It has deep links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC’s founding charter openly espouses the expansion of Sharia Law and defends what it calls “legitimate Jihad.” In other words, it is an Islamist front group.
Think about this: Obama is entrusting the security of Americans — enabling the very “refugees” who could be coming to a town or community near you — to U.N. leftist globalists and radical Islamists. His policy is not only irresponsible and reckless; it borders on the criminal.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant has already boasted it has infiltrated the waves of Muslim migrants with thousands of Jihadists.
In the Paris attacks, which killed 130 and wounded over 350 persons, ISIL made good on its threats: One of the terrorists managed to enter France posing as a “refugee” with a fake Syrian passport.
As Investor’s Business Daily reports, what Islamists are engaging in is what they call “hijra” — immigration Jihad. The aim of radical Muslims is to invade and conquer Western lands through mass migration.
“Muhammad told his followers to migrate and spread Islam in order to dominate all the lands of the world,” Ann Corcoran, the author of “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America,” said in an interview with IBD.
“He said they were obliged to do so — and that’s exactly what they are doing now with the help and support of the U.N.”
The Boston Marathon terrorist bombings should have taught Americans the folly of welcoming “refugees” from Muslim hotspots. The Tsarnaevs were from Chechnya. They were allegedly “screened” and “vetted.”
Yet, this did not stop them from blowing up pressure cooker bombs at the finish line, murdering four innocent civilians and wounding over 260 — dozens of them maimed and crippled.
Their massacre was part of a larger war against the West to establish a global Islamic caliphate.
We are about to drink from a poisoned chalice. Obama is deliberately — and dangerously — bringing in an army of Muslim migrants. Like the Tsarnaevs and in France, some of them are bound to be Islamist butchers.
It is collective suicide masquerading as compassion. Americans must block his Trojan horse before it’s too late.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at WorldTribune.com and the host of “The Kuhner Report” weekdays 12-3 pm EST on WRKO AM-680 in Boston.
While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.”
During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed.
However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.
But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation.
Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.
In order to understand Mr. Obama’s strategy, you first have to understand the threat that has been deliberately distorted. When President Erdogan of Turkey was prime minister, he said it best — Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers, such as violent extremism.
Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, Mr. Erdogan implied, which is world domination. It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.
No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains that Islam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years.
What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.
As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures.
There can be no peace or co-existence between Islam and non-Islamic societies or their political institutions. Clearly, there must be a reformation of Islam.
Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.
This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embrace Islam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.
Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.
It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:
The unilateral disarmament of our military forces. This makes no sense when we are being challenged throughout the world.
Compounding the unilateral disarmament issue is the social engineering that has been forced on our military to satisfy an ill-advised domestic agenda. It has adversely impacted the military’s moral fiber, unit cohesiveness, integrity and most importantly the “will to win.”
The purging of all our military training manuals that links Islam with terrorism. Our forces are being denied key information that properly defines the threat.
Emasculation of our military capabilities by imposing highly restricted Rules of Engagement. It makes our military look ineffective.
Curtailment of Christianity and its symbols in our military, e.g., restricting the display of the Bible.
Making our military forces in the Middle East either ignore or submit to the atrocities authorized by Shariah law, tribal customs and traditions, e.g. wife beating, stoning, sodomizing young boys.
Unfettered immigration with open borders, plus seeding Muslim immigrants throughout the country.
Shifting sides in the Global War on Terror by supporting al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias, and facilitating the removal of all vestiges of secular rulers who were in fact our allies in the war on terror.
When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all.
Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.”
Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.
James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
Legitimate Fears in US Over Da’esh Attacks Possibly Here Next
By Scott W. Winchell
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Bernie Sanders live in an alternate universe – it is no longer in doubt. If it were not so sad and dangerous, one would have to laugh.
Talk about delusional people, it’s time we re-examine that old r/K selection theory again to understand people who cannot face adversity with the words necessary, yet they spout inanities and scold us when we do not agree.
Why didn’t Kerry and/or Obama show up for the unity parade in Paris last winter after the Charlie Hebdo attack while Mr. Kerry did say that the attackers had “legitimacy” and then immediately realize he had to correct himself now? Why, because that was what you really meant, delusional:
“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘Okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.” (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller.)
Benjamin Netanyahu showed up, and dared to march arm-in-arm despite very serious threats to his well-being, while we get our own President once again complaining about our Republican candidates and anyone who just wants to keep their families safe here while he is on foreign soil.
It is just amazing how Obama bad-mouths Americans for wanting to be safe when 53% indicated they do not want any refugees here after what happened. Embarrassing displays both – again. Are you watching the same planet we are Mr. Obama?
“Widows and children,” really Mr. Obama? Where was Kerry and Obama when Al Assad was barrel-bombing women and children, or gassing them with chlorine in Syria?
The worst thing is the manner in which Obama spoke in yesterday, his delivery, the facial expressions, body language – he is a very petty man, just embarrassing, and so reprehensible. He scolds a very large swath of his own countrymen, no wonder Josh Earnest and the White House were walking their statements back today.
Remember, this was followed up by the Russian admission that their plane was blown up in the air and Da’esh even showed us a similar version of the bomb they used in their Da’biq magazine.
What happens when a real bomb goes off on a plane in someone’s luggage over Kansas, or Ohio like it did over the Sinai? With TSA failing test after test, what’s to say another Sharm-el-Sheikh moment does not visit us here?
Da’esh has proven they can strike anywhere, are we next? Just now we learn that another video came out with threats to New York City and Las Vegas.
But Obama scolds us over the refusal of so many governors and American citizens for taking Syrian refugees in and Kerry says the attacks last January were legitimate. All while Sanders and Hillary can’t utter the words “Islamic Terror” in the Debate last Saturday night like Obama and Kerry.
What would the state of fears be if Da’esh or any terror group pulled off something as the busiest flying days approach next week or a football stadium has to be cleared on Thanksgiving Day or any other day on national television like what Germany had to do last night in Hannover? Will we be allowed to express our fears then?
America may have “bought crazy” in 2008 and 2012, but we ain’t buying anymore on this street corner – go sell crazy somewhere else Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders.
It would be insane to accept refugees now so take your strawman arguments somewhere else as well – in our universe, our citizens’ safety comes first. We are just insulted and embarrassed.
White House on defense over Kerry, Obama comments on terror threat
The White House was on the defense Wednesday morning for statements made by President Obama — who labeled Friday’s Paris massacre that left 129 dead a “setback” — and Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a “rationale.”
Asked about the comments during a contentious interview on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials’ words.
“I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president’s actions as you do his words,” Earnest said on “Fox & Friends.”
Earnest noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks “sickening.” Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support — while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response.
Earnest said the president is consulting on “what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies.”
But the words of both Obama and Kerry have stirred concerns about the gravity with which the administration is treating the threat.
Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack — an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons — during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris.
He at first suggested there was “legitimacy” to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a “rationale.”
He said: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that.
There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.
This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”
Afterward, State Department spokesman John Kirby defended the secretary’s remarks.
The administration’s comments on the terror threat, though, have even started to draw some Democratic criticism.
After Obama said, in an interview shortly before Friday’s attacks, that ISIS is “contained,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told MSNBC that “ISIL is not contained.”
“Obama’s tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong,” he wrote. “At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.
The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy.”
Meanwhile, Earnest continued to defend the military strategy and stand by plans to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S.
“That is still the plan,” Earnest said of the refugee plan. “The reason for that is quite simple. The first thing that people should understand, refugees who are admitted to the United States undergo more rigorous screening than anybody else who tries to enter the country.
Typically, it takes between 18 and 24 months for people to be cleared. … These are the victims of ISIL. These are the victims of that terrible war inside of Syria.”
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.