Terror in Texas – Attack on Free Speech, FBI Knew Suspect

Editor’s Note – Once again, Jihadist types escaped previous law enforcement efforts because our laws, as interpreted by a judge gave sanctuary to would-be terror assassins to later wreak havoc in the name of Allah. Two suspects are dead Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson, both Jihadi sympathisers and would be members of terror groups of ISIS and Boko Haram.

It is terribly ironic that violence in the name of their prophet and in support of Allah is allowed, yet drawing or depicting Muhammad or his successors in any manner is forbidden for all. This defines the so-called ‘Religion of Peace,’ which truly is neither, as the barbaric cancer on society the world is finally coming to understand.

Islam does NOT mean peace, it means submission; have no doubt therefore what their true intentions are and have always been. You must submit to their barbaric, stone-age mind set in their belief system and you have no rights other than what Shariah laws mandate.

The problem is, over these past many years, as politicians invited so many from Muslim lands to live here in America, and the lure of being “Jihad Cool” is overtaking the minds of many of our youth, no one is safe anywhere, anymore, in America from these types. The frequency of these types of terror will only rise, as will the death toll and blood letting.

Our hats are tipped to the Garland, Texas police for anticipating such acts and prevented what could have been far worse than what happened in Paris to the ‘Charlie Hebdos’ staff and the other terror events in recent months in European cities.

Our first amendment right to the freedom of speech trumps any religion, and those who question Pam Geller and the event organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

The Daily Mail of the UK has done a great job of capturing the many aspects of last night’s tragic attack, but the real tragedy is willful blindness to Islam, even by so-called moderates, here in the west.

What next; Christian churches burned, Synagogues torched, or non-Muslim religious classes attacked? That is the logical next step for people like these terrorists because that is exactly what is happening outside our borders.

Attacks in Canada, France, Libya, Australia, Egypt, Israel… the list goes on and on – it is going to get much worse. We applaud Pam Geller and Geert Wilders and others for standing up for us all; now it is time for all non-Muslims to stand beside then!

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

  • Two suspects were gunned down after shooting a guard in the leg outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland
  • The FBI has named one of the gunmen as Elton Simpson, who was convicted of lying to federal agents about traveling to Africa five years ago – but a judge ruled it could not be proved that he was going to join a terror group
  • Simpson’s Phoenix, Arizona home has been surrounded and a bomb squad is carrying out a search 
  • The American Freedom Defense Initiative event had offered a $10,000 prize for the best caricature of the prophet; local residents had expressed their concerns about the event but organizers said they were exercising free speech
  • The security guard who was shot, Bruce Joiner, was taken to hospital in stable condition and has been released 
  • One traffic officer shot both men dead and has been praised by cops for potentially saving many lives 
  • ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals 

By Wills Robinson and Ted Thornhill and Lydia Warren For Dailymail.com

A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after the two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.

Elton Simpson, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, and his roommate were armed with assault rifles when they were killed by a quick-thinking traffic officer after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm.

The shooting unfolded as the American Freedom Defense Initiative held an event inside the building where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were being displayed. Followers of Islam deem that any physical depiction of the prophet – even a positive one – is blasphemous.

Simpson, identified in court papers as an American Muslim, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago, but a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group. He was placed on probation.

The second gunman has not been named but KPNX-TV reported that the two shared an apartment at the Autumn Ridge complex in Phoenix.

On Monday morning, FBI agents and investigators could be seen cordoning off and searching the apartment, as well as a white van believed to belong to Simpson. Investigators are also reviewing computer records from materials found at the home.

Investigators also searched the car that the two gunmen drove to the scene and found luggage and further ammunition inside. Some of the belongings were destroyed as a precaution but no explosives were found inside the vehicle, Garland Police Officer Joe Harn said on Monday.

On Monday, Simpson’s father said that he believes his son, who had worked in a dentist’s office, ‘made a bad choice’.

‘We are Americans and we believe in America,’ Dunston Simpson told ABC News. ‘What my son did reflects very badly on my family.’

Ahead of the attack on Sunday evening, several Twitter messages were sent out, and authorities believe Simpson was behind them. The last one was shared just half an hour before the shooting.

Followers of ISIS had been calling for an attack online for more than a week after learning that the competition in Garland would feature a ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest, with a prize of $10,000 for the best caricature.

After the attack, the SITE Intelligence Group reported that an Islamic State fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-Isis individuals.

In a series of tweets and links, a jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British IS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas.

‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet.

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

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

The contest was just minutes from finishing when multiple gunshots were heard.

The two suspects had pulled up in a vehicle before getting out and firing at a security officer, 57-year-old Bruce Joiner, who was employed by the independent school district. He was later taken to hospital in a stable condition and was released on Sunday evening.

As the gunmen got out of their car with their weapons, one police officer – a tenured traffic cop – shot both men dead, Garland Police officer Joe Harn said at a press conference on Monday. The officer used his service pistol to shoot the men, who were carrying assault weapons.

‘With what he was faced with and his reaction and his shooting with a pistol, he did a good job,’ Harn said of the officer.

‘He did what he was trained to do, and under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job and probably saved lives. We think their strategy was to get into the events center and they were not able to get past that outer perimeter.’

Randy Potts, a contributor for The Daily Beast, recalled how he was watching the speeches wrap up when a man wearing camouflage shouted: ‘Get inside the conference room now!’

‘The room was oddly quiet,’ he said. ‘A hush fell over the crowd of about 150, as if we were listening for something outside. Then a camo-clad security guard with a rifle got up on stage and announced that a cop and two suspects had been shot.’

He described how security surrounding the event was evident even as he drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center. The parking lot was surrounded by yellow tape and his ID was checked twice before he was allowed to enter.

Johnny Roby of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, had also been attending the conference. He said he was outside the building when he heard around 20 shots that appeared to be coming from the direction of a passing car.

Roby said he then heard two single shots before officers yelled that they had the car before he was sent inside the building.

The building, which had about 100 people inside, and surrounding areas were placed on lockdown by SWAT teams.

FBI bomb squad robots were then sent in to check the suspects’ vehicle, as the two bodies of the gunmen lay on the road beside it. The bodies were not immediately taken from the scene because they were too close to the car, which police feared had incendiary devices inside.

Shortly before midnight, police alerted media that a strong electronic pulse would be activated near the scene, presumably as part of the bomb squad’s work, and a loud boom was heard moments later, though police did not comment further on what was carried out.

The art event had been condemned by critics as an attack on Islam, but the organizers insisted they were exercising free speech.

Some Twitter users began posting about the shooting using a #JeSuisGarland hashtag, mirroring the #JesuisCharlie hashtag that became popular after January’s jihadist attacks in France. In that incident, gunmen killed 12 people in the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its cartoons of the prophet.

After the gunfire in Garland, those inside the building started to sing patriotic songs, including the national anthem and God Bless America, and said a prayer for the injured security guard after one woman pulled out an American flag from her bag.

Garland Police officer Joe Harn said on Sunday evening they had been monitoring the build-up to the event and had not received any credible threats.

During a press conference, he described how the shootout lasted only seconds. A large area around the Center remained blocked off late into the night.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott described the incident as a ‘senseless attack’ and praised the ‘swift action’ of Garland law enforcement.

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

‘We are here in defiance of Islam to stand for our rights and freedom of speech,’ he said during his speech shortly before the building was shut down. ‘That is our duty… Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.’

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

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

Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event and the leader of Stop Islamisation of America, wrote on her personal website after the attack: ‘This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?’

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

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

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

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

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

A picture taken from inside the event just before the attack showed Geller giving a check for $12,500 to Bosch Fawtin who won the event.

He told the Dallas Morning News he believed there would be no danger because of the high levels of security surrounding the event.

‘I had known it would be secure, but seeing it is a whole new thing,’ he said before the shootings.

Locals in Garland said they were upset with the exhibit being held in their town, and tried to convince the city council to intervene.

One resident, Dorothy Brooks, said that the event was like shouting ‘fire!’ in a theater – an oft-cited example of freedom of speech taken too far.

She continued: ‘I understand that participants have a right to express themselves with cartoons, but I regret that this will be happening in our city.’

Another, Lena Griffin, asked at a city council meeting: ‘Do we want to be involved with this type of rhetoric?’ It is not an issue of free speech but clearly one of public safety.’

The event had already been the subject of disapproval from further afield, according to ForeignPolicy.com.

The site obtained a letter from congressmen Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and André Carson (D-Indiana) sent to John Kerry and Homeland Security asking them to bar a speaker for the event from entering the United States.

Caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have triggered violent protests in the past, including when the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published 12 satirical cartoons in 2005, triggering deadly protests in some Muslim countries.

In January, just weeks after the Paris attacks, an event called Stand with the Prophet was held in the same center. Muslim leaders from across the world gathered to try and combat ‘Islamophobes in America’ who had turned Muhammad into an ‘object of hate’.

Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event. One chanted: ‘Go back to your own countries! We don’t want you here!’ Others held signs with messages such as, ‘Insult those who behead others,’ an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.

Mr Abbott said state officials are investigating, and Dallas FBI spokeswoman Katherine Chaumont said that the agency is providing investigative and bomb technician assistance.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was followed by another a month later in Europe. A masked gunman sprayed bullets into a Copenhagen meeting in February attended by a Swedish artist who had been threatened with death for his cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

A civilian was killed and three police officers were injured in the attack, aimed at artist Lars Vilks, who stirred controversy in 2007 with published drawings depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a dog.

Denmark itself became a target 10 years ago after the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. The images led to sometimes fatal protests in the Muslim world.


CONTROVERSIAL CARICATURES: WHY DEPICTING THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS BANNED BY MUSLIMS 

It’s not mentioned in Islam’s holy book, the Quran, but the religion’s ban on depicting the Prophet Muhammad — even favorably — has run firm through the centuries.

Religious traditions built over the years have prohibited such depictions out of respect for Muhammad and to discourage idolatry, according to Muslim scholars and clerics. The ban is further rooted in a wider prohibition against images or statues of human beings.

There have been exceptions. A rich tradition of depicting Muhammad emerged in miniatures and illustrations for manuscripts from around 1200 to 1700. The art is mainly from Turkey and Iran, where pictorial traditions were stronger than in the Arab world. The paintings often show traditional stories from Muhammad’s life, such as his journey to heaven, though in some the prophet’s face is obscured by a veil or a plume of flame.

Shiites also differ from Sunnis by depicting Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, revered by Shiites who see him as the prophet’s rightful successor. His image — and those of his sons Hassan and Hussein — are plentiful among Shiites, adorning posters, banners, jewelry and even keychains. For Sunnis, the ban on depictions extends beyond the prophet to his close companions and wives.

‘The Prophet Muhammad enjoys sublime and supreme status among Muslims and it is impossible to let a normal person depict or act the role of the prophet,’ said Iraqi Shiite cleric Fadhil al-Saadi. ‘There is no confirmed information about the shape or the features of the Prophet … So nobody should come up with a painting or an image of him. That would represent an insult to the status of the prophet.’

With no explicit text against depictions — or against images of humans in general — the prohibition comes from deduction by Muslim scholars and interpreters over the centuries from the collections of Hadeeth, or sayings and actions of Muhammad.

The prohibition against depicting humans and other living beings, which emerged from scholars as early as the 9th century, came from reported sayings of Muhammad, in some of which he refused to enter a room with such depictions or challenged their creators to breathe life into them. The presumption was that such art would suggest man can emulate God’s powers of creation — and there were worries that statues in particular could encourage idolatry.

Islamic tradition is full of written descriptions of Muhammad and his qualities — describing him as the ideal human being. But clerics have generally agreed that trying to depict that ideal is forbidden. That puts satirical — and obscene — depictions like those in the French magazing Charlie Hebdo far beyond the pale.

While no one knows Muhammad’s true appearance, followers of the relatively modern, ultraconservative Salafi movement in Islam seek to emulate him as closely as possible — including in what they believe to be his physical features and dress. Hardcore Salafis wear a beard without a moustache, let their hair grow long, line their eyes with kohl or wear robes stopping around mid-shin, contending that was the prophet’s manner.

The ban also extends to his wives, daughters, sons-in-law, the first caliphs who succeeded him and his closest companions. In fact, Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque, the Sunni world’s foremost seat of religious learning, has complained when ‘Mohammed, Messenger of God,’ an epic 1970s Hollywood production, depicted the prophet’s camel.

There is a thriving production of religious TV series in the Arab world depicting the times of the prophet. But Muhammad and his companions are never themselves shown. At times, a white light stands in for Muhammad in the films or in movie posters — and when they are meant to be addressing Muhammad, the actors usually speak into the camera.


TAPES OF A TERROR SUSPECT: RECORDINGS SHOW SIMPSON’S INTENTIONS TO WAGE A WAR

Elton Simpson was well known to the FBI. In 2010, he was convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia – although a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group.

During the investigation, an FBI informant recorded their conversations, which showed Simpson talking about his intentions to fight for the Muslim way of life.

Court documents state: ‘Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away”…. “[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”‘

He added that in countries, such as Palestine, Iraq and Somalia, ‘they trying to bring democracy over there man, they’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws’.

He went on: ‘That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.’

In a recording from 2009, he told the informant that it was time they went to Somalia.

‘It’s time,’ he said. ‘I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… It’s time to roll…

‘People fighting and killing your kids, and dropping bombs on people that have nothing to do with nothing. You got to fight back you can’t be just sitting down… smiling at each other…’

Obama – Damage Control After Paris Snub

Editor’s Note – In the historic rally in Paris, the United States was represented by its Ambassador to France, Jane Hartley. When the world’s leaders, like Israel’s Bibi Netyanyahu and up to 40 others do attend openly, the Obama Administration embarrassed our nation by not sending a higher ranked official.

Stand Up America’s sources tell us that French President Hollande had told Netanyahu not to come, but he came anyway. In a video inside the synagogue, it even appeared that Netahyahu and Hollande, sitting together were chatting and Hollande abruptly got up and left. But there was no Secretary of State John Kerry, he was too busy in India at “Climate’ conference.

Netanyahu spoke eloquently at the event in clear French and was roundly cheered. Yet, no Obama.

There was no President Obama, or Vice President Biden – why? Was the football schedule more important? Obama’s schedule indicated the day was cleared, why? But Attorney General Eric Holder already there – why didn’t he attend?

World Leaders walk arm-in-arm in solidarity in France.
World Leaders walk arm-in-arm in solidarity in France.

Our sources tell that Eric Holder was basically told to take a hike because all he was talking about at the security meetings already underway was not “stereo-typing.” Can we be certain he left because he was no longer welcome and that prompted the White House to send no one, we may never know, but what is for certain is that the White House is now admitting it should have sent someone more prominent.

France is our oldest and one of dearest allies – what was the real reason Obama spurned the French? Today, a lot of walking backwards, stuttering, and damage control is clearly underway.

We are embarrassed! Our sources also tell us that Obama never intended on going anyway, he never consulted the Secret Service on doing so. But assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland did attend and marched, the Obama administration pointed out! Embarrassing!

The damage control may not be strong enough to fix this rift, or our ever weakening world reputation even as the French attempted to downplay it as well.

White House: ‘We should have sent someone with a higher profile’

Damage control after Obama skips unity rally in Paris

By Eric Bradner, CNN

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama’s administration admitted it erred by failing to send a higher-ranking representative of the United States to the Paris unity march on Sunday.

“I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon.

He said Obama himself would have liked to attend the march “had the circumstances been a little different.” But planning began Friday night, 36 hours before the event began, and there wasn’t enough time for the “onerous and significant” security work that needed to take place ahead of a presidential visit, Earnest said. He said Obama’s presence also would have meant extra restrictions on the people who were there.

Je Suis Charlie
Je Suis Charlie

“That said, there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stand foursquare behind our allies in France as they face down this threat,” he said. “And that was evident throughout last week.”

More than 40 world leaders, including the British, German and Israeli heads of state and Russia’s foreign minister, joined at least 1.5 million people on the Paris streets Sunday for a unity march that became France’s biggest-ever public demonstration.

But Obama and his administration’s top hands were nowhere to be found — an absence that triggered complaints that he missed a key leadership opportunity.

The United States appeared to have options to send to the march: Obama spent Sunday at the White House with no public events on his schedule. Vice President Joe Biden was at home in Delaware for the weekend, also with a blank public schedule. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for security meetings — and even recorded interviews with several U.S. Sunday morning programs — but he didn’t attend the march.

A Secret Service official said the agency was not asked to draw up security plans for a potential presidential trip to Paris in advance of Sunday’s march.

“We weren’t asked or notified about a trip,” the official said. But the agency had Secret Service agents on the ground in Paris, per its standard operating procedure.

B6vyjOPIIAA-4SO-446x413“It would have been a challenging advance … based on what we know,” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said. But Leary did not say that such an advance would have been impossible.

During the White House briefing, Earnest suggested security challenges were a factor in not having the president travel to Paris. But Earnest acknowledged the Secret Service could have pulled it off. An agency official noted previous “last minute” presidential trips have happened during the Obama presidency, including a hurried visit to South Africa in December 2013 for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

The White House noted that it was represented in Paris on Sunday — and has offered support to France in recent days.

U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was in the march, as was assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. At a security summit, Holder was joined in those security meetings by deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Obama personally visited the French Embassy in Washington last week to offer his support.

Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, will visit Paris on Friday.

Kerry skipped Monday’s march because he was in India on Monday for a long-planned event there with new Prime Minister Narendra Modi — a key relationship as the United States tries to improve long-strained trade ties with the country.

Kerry brushed the criticism off as “quibbling,” saying he’ll visit Paris on his way back to the United States to make “crystal clear how passionately we feel” about the attacks and response.

“The U.S. has been deeply engaged with the people of France since this incident occurred,” Kerry told reporters, adding that the United States has offered intelligence and law enforcement help.

“This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched, our ambassador was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched.”

France’s ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, sought to show there are no hard feelings, tweeting on Monday: “I am extremely grateful for the overwhelming support France has received from everybody here, from the President to the ordinary American.”

The White House’s push-back comes as Obama takes heat — particularly from Republicans considering 2016 presidential bids — for his absence.

Rick Perry tweeted that Obama “should have stood with France in person to defend Western values and show support for victims.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote for Time: “Our President should have been there, because we must never hesitate to stand with our allies.”

And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Monday that “it was a mistake not to send someone.”

Rubio said on CBS’ “This Morning” that he understands that the President’s security detail can be problem in mass gatherings like the rally, but suggested Holder or Kerry should have gone in his place.

“I think in hindsight, I would hope, that they would do it differently,” Rubio said.

Who did go

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were among those who attended, along with religious leaders.

Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN’s “Global Public Square,” called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake.

France is the United States’ “deepest ideological ally,” he said, and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member, or the President, standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders.

Zakaria noted that security concerns didn’t dissuade Netanyahu or Abbas or other leaders from showing up. But Obama’s absence did show that the struggle against radical Islam is “not all about America,” Zakaria said.

“Many people have tended to think that Islamic terrorism wouldn’t exist without America,” Zakaria said. “This is really a struggle between the civilized world and a band of extremists. Even if you take the U.S. out of it … the civilized world is up in arms.”

And Jake Tapper, host of CNN’s “The Lead,” said American leaders were conspicuously absent from historic Paris rally, perhaps the most important public demonstrations in Europe in the last generation.

Tapper not only called out the President and his administration, but also prospective 2016 hopefuls from both parties, for missing the opportunity to share in the global moment.

What Obama said

Obama spoke about the Paris attacks on Friday, saying he wants the people of France to know the United States “stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow.”

The White House also announced Sunday that it will host a February 18 summit aimed at countering violent extremism.

Earnest said that event will “highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney and Paris.”

He said the summit will include presentations, panel discussions and small group meetings, focused on the local, state and federal government levels.

'Fourth Quarters,' Sony, and 'I'm Not Done' – Hawaii

Editor’s Note – As Obama conducted his end of the year press conferences, several catch phrases emerged and each tell us a great deal about what he is thinking as he goes on vacation to Hawaii.

Not in any particular order, the first is ‘I’m not done,’ and then there is the ‘fourth quarter,’ and  concerning Sony, they ‘made a mistake.’

Each of those quoted phrases again demonstrate his narcissistic approach to everything – it is all about him. Now that he has to govern without useful dupes in the Senate that allowed him to always have a shield and a foil, he is doubling down none-the-less.

Unilateral action with the Cuban Regime epitomizes his executive action and totally ignoring Congress and he plans to do the same in all other areas moving into his last two years.

No matter if you are on the side of bipartisan objection to the move or bipartisan support for it, it was a unilateral, in your face move. SharptonSony640

When talks about the ‘fourth quarter’ of his Presidency where “interesting things happen’ and interacting with  the new Congress in 2015. That sounded a lot like watch me – dude.

The Hill mentions the following:

Obama also seemed hopeful that he could reset his oft-strained relationship with lawmakers in the coming year despite the Republican takeover of Congress.

“I’m being absolutely sincere when I say I want to work with this new Congress to get things done, to make those investments, to make sure the government’s working better and smarter,” Obama said. “We’re gonna disagree on some things, but there are gonna be areas of agreement, and we’ve gotta be able to make that happen.”

Although many believe he will work with Congress, especially since he got his funding in the lame-duck session, we believe he will be just as stubborn and will only offer platitudes and he will go it alone.

Whether you call them Executive Orders, or Executive Memorandums, or proclamations, or any other euphemism, he will fire that ‘pen’ up often and we see Guantanamo in his gaze.

KimJongUnMovieWhat is perhaps most troubling though was his statement that Sony ‘made a mistake’ regarding pulling  “The Interview” from  theaters, and we must couple that with his ‘race-advisor’ Al Sharpton putting pressure on Sony executives.

Sony of course fired back as we see below that they did contact the White House, but Obama seemed to just wave his hand to tell the world he would deal with North Korea at “a time and place of our choosing.”

What is also puzzling is how he did not back the very people who backed him, Hollywood. His Laissez-faire attitude just showed the world that we can be bullied.

By not supporting and proactively protecting a company based in Japan, a staunch ally, he made Sony, a major employer and economic engine in America, act as their own protectors.

It is not Sony’s responsibility to protect American business and the first amendment, it is his.

We think that despite the FBI finding that the DPRK was responsible and may have been helped by others, it was a nation-state that is responsible for an act of terror on the United States.

Sony was in fear, theater owners were in fear and he did nothing despite the action being the definition of terror. (Read the FBI update here.)

Then there was the disingenuous “James Flacco” moment. We shall see if he does strike back, but the minimum should at least be re-designating the DPRK as a state sponsor of terror.

We do not believe he will do this, and we may never know what he chooses to do, but it is clear that immediate and over-whelming retaliation, not just some “proportionate response” will not be forthcoming – that would not fit his capitulations, bowing, and blame America attitude of appeasement, just ask the Castro brothers.

The correct message, despite North Korea’s claims of innocence and offering to aid in determining who did it, would be to send a resounding message, one where anyone else with similar designs would fear the wrath of all hell coming from the US. Why not cripple their entire communications system, or send a “Stuxnet” message.

Obama2014XmasInterviewHawaii

He spoke the words, but what will he back them up with stern action, please read on and view the video:

Monday Morning POTUS: Obama Blames Sony After Failing to Defend Free Speech When it Mattered

BY:

During his final press conference of 2014, President Obama said that Sony Pictures had “made a mistake” by pulling The Interview from theaters after threats from a group of now-confirmed North Korean hackers.

Obama first addressed the issue of cyber terrorism during an ABC interview, after Sony had already announced it was pulling the movie from theaters.

On Friday, however, Obama stood up for the First Amendment, saying we cannot have a society in which “some dictator someplace” can impose censorship on U.S. companies.

“If somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don’t like, or news reports that they don’t like,” Obama said.

“Even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.

“That’s not who we are, that’s not what America is about.”

Watch the segment here:

%CODE%

US Judge Finds Iran/NK Liable in 2006 Missile Attacks on Israel

Editor’s Note – Who is responsible for the latest missile barrages from Gaza on the innocents in Israel? The same folks as in 2006, 2009, 2012… Iran, NK, but unnamed as yet, Qatar!

hamasrally2At least someone in government understands what is happening in the Middle East. A Federal Judge in the US finds for the plaintiffs over damages for the 2006 missile attacks on Israel then like now – North Korea and Iran LOSE! They will never collect likely, but the court did find out who was responsible.

Attention MSNBC – It is not about the “poor Palestinians” – or the civilians in Gaza, it is about state sponsored terrorism. By the way, those civilians in Gaza are either human shields, Hamas family members, sympathizers, and people of all ages indoctrinated into Hamas mentality and goals.

Yes there are some who were in the wrong place and wrong time, but most were every bit the soldier as if they wore a uniform, certainly not Israel’s fault. Collateral damage is always avoided to a fault with Israel, but are they really civilians?gaza-rocket

Also, remember this week, Iran is the country that John Kerry just released billions of frozen assets for a four month extension on nuclear talks. Also, the Obama administration just gave the Palestinians in Gaza $47 million in “relief” funds. Last we knew, Hamas is listed as a terror organization. Who again do you represent Mr. Kerry?

Judge finds North Korea, Iran liable for missile damages

A federal judge on Wednesday found North Korea and Iran liable for damages caused by a series of missile attacks on Israel in 2006.

The two countries are liable because they “provided material support and assistance to the Hezbollah terrorists who fired the rockets at Israel,” U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth concluded. A special master will now be assigned to determine the amount of damages that will be assessed; collecting the money owed, of course, will be a different matter.

john-kerry-chris-wallace

In his 18-page decision, Lamberth said “there can be no doubt that North Korea and Iran provided material support” to Hezbollah.

“North Korea provided Hezbollah with advanced weapons, expert advice and construction assistance in hiding these weapons in underground bunkers, and training in utilizing these weapons and bunkers to cause terrorist rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian population,” Lamberth wrote, “and Iran financed North Korea’s assistance and helped transport weapons to Hezbollah.”

Indeed, Lamberth’s decision in a case first filed on behalf of Chaim Kaplan and other survivors and family members in 2009 is a primer, of sorts, on the linkages between Iran, North Korea and Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah members began travelling to North Korea for specialist instruction as early as the late

1980s,” Lamberth noted. “Hezbollah General-Secretary Hassan Nasrallah himself visited North Korea for training purposes during this time.”

Lamberth added that Among other noted Hezbollah members who underwent training in North Korea was Mustafa Badreddine, who served as the movement’s counter-espionage chief in the 2006 war, as well as the head of Hezbollah’s security and intelligence service.

 

Fort Hood Shooter: "I was defending the Taliban"

Editor’s Note – When a shooter yells “Allah hu akbar” while killing Americans it is obvious to everyone what motivated the shooter, yet the Obama Administration chose to call it ‘workplace violence’. This prevented the assignment of Purple Hearts to those in the military who were training to fight those at war with us who do so under the mantle of Islam who were wounded or killed. How ironic!

By not designating the act as terrorism, the families of those slain had their rights removed from them and the proper attribution of heroism was denied those soldiers who deserve to be recognized with a Purple Heart. Why this was approached in the fashion it was indicates a political motivation rather than a legal one, especially now since the perpetrator said himself said that it was in defense of a terrorist group, the Taliban.

The administration should forthwith amend their stance to properly reflect the facts, sans political rhetoric. This shameful chapter MUST be closed and we need to make the administration and its sycophants and surrogates see fact. We must eschew the propaganda of the Islam apologists, we must know thine enemy!

Fort Hood Shooter Blasts Obama Admin Story

‘I was defending Taliban’ in attack Washington called ‘workplace violence’

From WND Exclusive

For years, the Obama administration has maintained that the victims of the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, for which Islamist Maj. Hidal Hasan is charged, simply were in the crosshairs of a situation of “workplace violence.”

The victims – 13 people were killed and nearly another three dozen were injured when, according to witnesses, Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” and started firing at people – have been denied benefits and combat honors because the government insisted there was no link to terror.

Now, however, the defendant himself is taking that off the table.

As part of his defense, he has demanded to represent himself in his still-unscheduled trial, and this week asked for a delay of several months so that he could prepare his defense which will be built on the idea he did the shootings “in defense of others.”

When asked by the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to identify those he was “protecting,” Hasan said, “The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban” and its leader, Mullah Omar.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, is accused of walking into the Soldier Readiness Center on the base Nov. 5, 2009, and opening fire on his fellow soldiers.

The attack didn’t stop until Hasan himself was shot and paralyzed.

A survivor reported Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar,” or “Allah is greatest,” a phrase commonly uttered by jihadists prior to carrying out an attack. The Fort Hood attack was the worst shooting on an American military base.

Now, however, the defendant himself is taking that off the table.

As part of his defense, he has demanded to represent himself in his still-unscheduled trial, and this week asked for a delay of several months so that he could prepare his defense which will be built on the idea he did the shootings “in defense of others.”

When asked by the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to identify those he was “protecting,” Hasan said, “The leadership of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban” and its leader, Mullah Omar.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist at Fort Hood, is accused of walking into the Soldier Readiness Center on the base Nov. 5, 2009, and opening fire on his fellow soldiers.

The attack didn’t stop until Hasan himself was shot and paralyzed.

A survivor reported Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar,” or “Allah is greatest,” a phrase commonly uttered by jihadists prior to carrying out an attack. The Fort Hood attack was the worst shooting on an American military base.

Hasan had been on federal officials’ radar screen for at least six months prior to the shooting over postings he made on the Internet. He likened a suicide bomber who kills women and children to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to give his life in a “noble cause.”

Intelligence officials also intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and the radical American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan told al-Awlaki in one of the emails, “I can’t wait to join you” in paradise. He also asked al-Awlaki whether it was appropriate to kill innocents in a suicide attack, when jihad was acceptable and how to transfer funds without attracting government notice.

In spite of this, Attorney General Eric Holder declined to press terrorism charges against Hasan. Instead the government has labeled the shooting as a case of “workplace violence.” During a memorial service for the victims, President Obama never once used the word terrorism.

The designation has prevented survivors and the victim’s families from receiving Purple Hearts and being able to obtain combat-related special compensation.

Staff Sgt. Shawn Manning was shot six times in the attack, yet he is denied the same benefits a soldier shot in a similar action overseas would receive.

Fellow soldiers that day “were killed and wounded by … somebody who was there that day to kill soldiers, to prevent them from deploying,” Manning said. “And if that’s not an act of war, an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.”

Survivors and their family are forced to watch while Hasan continues to receive a paycheck and medical benefits from the military – closing in on $300,000 already.

Neal Sher and Reed Rubinstein, who are representing the Ford Hood victims and their families, said Hasan’s statements change the picture.

“Now the government’s ‘workplace violence’ lie has been fully exposed,” they told the Washington Times. “By his own admission, Hasan was a jihadist who killed innocent Americans to defend the Taliban.”

The lawyers said the Army should simply admit the Fort Hood attack was terrorism and then give the victims, the survivors and their families “all available combat-related benefits, decorations and recognition.”

Earlier, a judge who was going to require Hasan to shave – to comply with military regulations, was removed from the case and replaced with Osborn, who allowed Hasan to make his own decisions about grooming.

The dispute over the beard and other issues have caused some to say Hasan is making a mockery of the military legal system.

“If he were not a Muslim and murdered 13 people in cold blood he would long since have been tried and convicted by now,” said Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch. “This ridiculous haggling over his beard is part of the general policy of the United States government not to offend Muslims and accommodate them in every way possible.”

Spencer went on to say the Army’s deference to Hasan on the beard issue is particularly appalling because it was his own piety that led him to kill his fellow soldiers.

“This accommodation is particularly unconscionable because Hassan said he has to have the beard because of his Muslim faith. But he also by his own account murdered 13 people because of his Muslim faith,” Spencer noted. “Because of this why should we be giving him any accommodation because of his faith? This would be like making sure a Nazi guard at a concentration camp in prison was later supplied with a copy of Mein Kampf along with a swastika emblem.”

Some have questioned why Hasan had no problems being clean shaven before the shooting and why it only became an issue later. Spencer explained the reason is Hasan wants to make himself a martyr in the eyes of the Muslim world.

“The martyr goes into paradise in the condition in which they die. A beard is a sign of a Muslim’s piety, and if he doesn’t have it, it is a serious mark against him,” Spencer explained. “He will consider himself to be an Islamic martyr if he is executed for his crimes or even if he dies in prison for his crimes. This is why he has attempted to plead guilty on several occasions.”

Under military law, an individual is not allowed to plead guilty in any case involving the death penalty.

WND Founder and CEO Joseph Farah, in a commentary, said, “Did you hear about Barack Obama’s Defense Department characterizing the execution-style shooting slayings of 13 and wounding of 29 at Fort Hood in 2009 by a crazed Islamist Army officer as ‘workplace violence’? … The reclassification of one of the worst terror attacks ever on domestic U.S. soil came in a strategic plan on battling ‘violent extremism in the United States’ focused on engaging local law enforcement and communities, and on countering ‘extremist propaganda.’ It pledged to put together a ‘task force of senior officials’ to work with local communities that could be targeted for recruitment and radicalization.”

But, he wrote, the report never mentions “radical Islam.”

“This is akin to reclassifying the 9/11 attacks as ‘pilot error,’” wrote Farah.

Also commenting recently was William Murray, author of “My Life Without God.”

“President Barack Hussein Obama refuses to designate Hasan’s assault on Fort Hood as terrorism even though Hasan referred to himself as a ‘soldier of Islam.’ As a result of Obama’s refusal, the families of the dead and the injured have been refused combat compensation.

“President Obama will not even issue Purple Hearts to the victims – not to the families of the dead, and not to those who were wounded,” he wrote. “Barack Obama and his Department of Defense insist Hasan’s attack was mere ‘workplace violence’ and was ‘isolated’ and therefore not terrorism or combat.”

But, Murray pointed out, “Obama ordered the assassination of Hasan’s jihadist partner and instructor in the attack, American-born al-Qaida collaborator Anwar al-Awlaki. A CIA drone killed al-Awlaki and several others in Yemen in September 2011. It was the first execution ever of a U.S. citizen without trial by our government.

“If Maj. Nidal Hasan acted alone and the jihad attack at Fort Hood was mere ‘workplace violence,’ why was retribution required on al-Awlaki? Because the killing wasn’t retribution at all; it was because Obama needed to shut al-Awlaki up and stop his bragging about the attack on Fort Hood. With al-Awlaki taking credit for the shooting, Obama could not classify it as ‘workplace violence.’ All those involved other than Hasan had to be eliminated,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with WND’s Greg Corombos, former U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the successful prosecution against the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, said the military judge had no choice but to allow Hasan to represent himself at trial and probably couldn’t stop Hasan from turning the courtroom into a platform for his radical Islamic views.

“I don’t see how the judge could avoid it. As the Supreme Court has held, if you make a knowing and intelligent decision before the trial starts that you want to represent yourself, you have an absolute constitutional right to do that,” McCarthy said.  ”I think that the objections that people have or the fears they have that by representing himself he’s going to turn the proceedings into a circus are a little bit overblown. Let’s face it, even if he weren’t representing himself he could try to turn the case into a circus if that’s what he was determined to do.

“Whether he’ll be able to do that or not is really going to be a function of how strong the judge presiding over the trial is, not whether (Hasan’s) just a defendant at the table or the defendant who represents himself.”

McCarthy said Hasan’s strategy is most likely to lay the grounds for an appeal of a likely death sentence.

“What a defendant is always trying to do is sow error into the record because that’s the best chance you have of getting the outcome reversed on appeal. I think what he’s really trying to accomplish here is get the death penalty off the table one way or the other. This is a way that makes the trial a little bit more chaotic,” said McCarthy, who argued that if Hasan is convicted and sentenced to death he has a good chance of finding a sympathetic appellate court that could save his life.

Another issue in the case is what discovery evidence Hasan will have access to as he prepares his defense. McCarthy said the government’s cautious charges in this case should limit the amount of sensitive information provided to Hasan.

“It would concern me more if he were being accused as an al-Qaida operative because then there would be an argument that he should be given the discovery about the overall al-Qaida conspiracy,” McCarthy said. “The way the prosecution has a way of regulating how much or how little a defendant is entitled to in terms of discovery is how you plead the case.

“In this case, the prosecution has plead the case narrowly. They’ve gone out of their way not to accuse him of terrorism, which I think is a mistake, but I think they have made it a simple, straightforward homicide case. Therefore, I would say that he should not be entitled to any discovery about our enemies,” said McCarthy, who noted the only al-Qaida-related content the prosecution will likely mention is Hasan’s relationship with radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Hasan is also asking for a delay in the start of the trial because of his intent to pursue a new, “defense of others” strategy.  When asked by Judge Osborn who he was defending, Hasan mentioned the leadership of the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban and Taliban leader Mullah Omar.  McCarthy said he would not delay the trial any further and hopes the judge will rule that way.

Listen to the radio interview between WND and Andrew C. McCarthy here.