Islam OK, Christianity Illegal in NJ Public Schools

From: Constitution

By Dave Jolly February 23, 2017  


A year ago, a new phrase was coined to describe much of the hypocritical attitudes and actions taking place in America. The phrase is ‘selective allowable discrimination’, defined as the practice of allowing discrimination of a selective group while banning discrimination of opposite groups.

For the past fifty years, any semblance of Christianity is discriminated against if it involves any government person or agency. Courts have said that you can’t have schools involved in reading the Bible or praying because someone was or could be offended.

Yet in many of the same schools that actively ban all references to the Bible and Christianity are now reading and teaching the Quran, reciting the Islamic call to prayer, have students reciting that Allah is God, and allowing Muslim students to roll out their prayer rugs and pray to Mecca during school hours. No concern is given to the fact that many non-Muslims are offended.

Schools are not allowed to hold a Baccalaureate service for graduating seniors because it’s a Christian based service because non-Christian students might be offended. However, public high schools in Michigan have been allowed to hold girl only proms for their Muslim students caring not if any non-Muslim students are offended.

Many of our military personnel have been ordered to remove any symbols of Christianity from their person or their offices and work stations, especially those stationed in the Middle East. They’re not allowed to wear a cross around their neck or as earrings, nor are they allowed to have a Bible on their desks as it will offend Muslims, yet Muslim members of the military are allowed to have Islamic items out in the open, caring not that it offends non-Muslims.

Anyone can go on most social media or mainstream media and say anything they want about Christianity and Christians. You can portray an image of Jesus in a jar of urine and it’s okay, but draw a cartoon about Islam and you best go into hiding. However, if you say or post anything against Islam and Muslims, you can find yourself banned from the social media site, like Facebook. Say anything against Muslims in general on the mainstream media and you will more than likely be suspended or fired.

Today, we see another example of ‘selective allowable discrimination’ in the public schools of New Jersey and a growing number of parents are upset over it. The issue is the teaching of Islam as part of the normal classroom curriculum while at the same time, the teaching of Christianity is illegal.

EAGNews reports:

“Parents of students at Chatham Middle School are calling on the board of education to eliminate lessons on Islam from the 7^th grade social studies curriculum they believe proselytizes the religion.”

“Several parents attended a board meeting Monday to take aim at materials distributed to students through a ‘World Cultures and Geography’ class they believe cross the line, Tap into Chatham reports.”

“The parents emailed board members copies of the lessons they believe violate the district’s policy that ‘no religious beliefs be promoted or disparaged’ and handed copies to others in attendance at the meeting, as well.”

“‘In the Middle East and North Africa unit of the class students are taught about the five pillars of Islam in great detail, there are two videos on it, a 20-page PowerPoint presentation, class work, homework, and testing,’ parent Libby Hilsenrath told the board. “In this unit, there is no mention of any other religion or teaching of it.”

“‘… When it comes to teaching other religions at this level, it’s not done,’ she said.”

“Hilsenrath went over many of the objectionable homework assignments with board members in detail, including lessons that require students to memorize and write the Islamic conversion prayer.”

Where are the atheists who file lawsuits against everything that hints of Christianity in public schools? Atheists have even tried to stop non-school religious clubs and groups. One Christian group met off campus and offered free donuts for students who joined their Bible study and prayer group, and atheists tried to stop them. So where are these same atheist groups when it comes to teaching and promoting Islam in public schools?

Are atheists silent because they fear retribution from Muslims but have never feared any retribution from Christians. Is that further proof that another major difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity is the real religion of peace and Islam is not?

Surely, selective allowable discrimination is alive and well in New Jersey public schools. Parents and students have every right to be angry.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Trump tweets that ‘fake media’ are the enemy of the American people. Trump is correct.

From: Canada Free Press

By Dan Calabrese - February 20, 2017


Think about this: The media are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to do what they do freely. The president of the United States is a creation of the Constitution. Both are extremely important.

Because of the importance of the presidency, the media believes it is essential to hold the president accountable for the way he does his job, because if he does it poorly, that’s a very bad thing for the country. No argument here.

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

So . . . if the media does its job poorly, who holds it accountable? And should anyone do so?

What President Trump has been saying in recent days about the media is nothing I and others haven’t been saying for years. If you listen to the media in all their sanctimony these days, you would think Trump is attempting to rid America of its free and independent press. That’s why they keep saying silly things like: Attacking the press is how dictators rise to power!

Trump is not trying to get rid of the free press. Trump could not do that if he tried. He doesn’t have that kind of power. But Trump recognizes the same thing many others do: In recent years, their job performance has been abysmal. And in the aftermath of his much-ballyhooed (and misreported) press conference, he brought the message home with this tweet:

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017

Enemy of the people? Strong words! Radical suggestion!

No. Not really. Sure as hell not to me.

In 2013, I said this very thing about the New York Times. In 2015, before Trump was even running for president, I made the same exact charge as the media were whipping people into a frenzy over religious freedom laws. In September 2016, I said it in other words after they intentionally caused race riots with completely false reporting about police-involved shootings. Two days later, I said it again about one particular cockroach at USA Today, calling him an enemy of free speech because he tried to ruin the career of a baseball player for expressing an opinion.

So sure, it doesn’t sound radical to me. It sounds right on.

But let’s be very clear about what we mean here. As Trump said at his presser, we want the press to be free and independent and to do their jobs well. This is very important to the nation. Without a free and independent press doing their jobs well, we have serious problems.

And right now, we don’t have that.

What we have instead is an entire profession engaging in self-important groupthink, playing up narratives that advance certain agendas while ignoring other things that happen either because they are personally not interested or because they fear how public opinion would be affected if they gave these things attention.

In fact, we should start by destroying the notion that the media love the First Amendment and are its champions. Bolshevik. They are not. They are champions only of the parts of the First Amendment that benefit them. If they were really First Amendment champions, they would be going to bat for Baronelle Stutzman, who is losing her livelihood because she wouldn’t be forced to violate her religious beliefs. If a court forced a journalist to do something that was thought to violate journalistic ethics, the entire industry would have a collective cow. But trash the First Amendment rights of this Christian woman? Crickets.

First Amendment champions my #.

But all you have to do is look at their behavior during and after Trump’s Thursday presser to understand how far off the rails they’ve gotten. We dealt with this on Friday, so I’ll just sum it up briefly here. Trump spent the first 35 minutes updating them and the public on the governing he’s been doing - the issues of substance that are his job and that are supposed be the focus of their coverage. Given the chance to ask him questions, they almost completely ignored all that and asked him the same question over and over again about whether his campaign coordinated with the Russians. After he told them again and again that it did not, they went on a rampage claiming he had not answered the question.

Then they accused him of being a racist because of a totally innocuous exchange with a black reporter toward the end of the presser.

In the aftermath, they continued to ignore the substance of the things Trump talked about and focused on his criticism of them. And yet the very next day, the Associated Press provided a textbook example of what Trump was talking about when they published a false story claiming Trump wants to send 100,000 National Guard troops to round up illegal aliens.

There are real consequences of the media’s incompetence and malfeasance, some of them deadly. The Ferguson riots were the direct result of the media playing up an angle on the Michael Brown shooting that turned out to be totally false. They led people to believe Brown had put his hands up and said “hands up, don’t shoot” before Officer Darren Wilson shot him. This was totally false. Even the Obama Justice Department came to that conclusion. Yet people were hurt, property was destroyed and Officer Wilson lost his job because the media embraced this angle for months.

Reporters are now fretting that some of them might be physically attacked as a result of Trump’s criticism, which they think might inspire some nut. If that’s a legitimate concern, why can’t we lay the recent ambush shootings of police officers at their feet? Hmm?

There all also broader consequences stemming from the irresponsible way the media do their jobs. One is that far too much of the American public is ignorant about the real threats facing this nation. We are approaching $20 trillion in debt, and unfunded entitlement obligations top $100 trillion by some estimates. This is a massive problem. The nation’s survival depends on our ability to address it. But most people have no idea how serious these problems are because the media ignore them in favor of stories about transgender heroes and whatever else their favored narratives require.

You wouldn’t know the sorry conditions of ObamaCare exchanges unless you check the conservative alternative media, because you certainly won’t see it in the headlines of the MSM. You might read about pipeline protesters, but you won’t gain any understanding of how desperately the nation needs to improve its energy infrastructure, because they either don’t know or don’t want to tell you. You probably don’t know that Democrats stopped passing budgets in 2010, because the media didn’t think this was a big deal. It’s a fundamental constitutional responsibility, but hey, why give Republicans a talking point?

In recent years the media have developed particularly sneaky ways of pushing their bias while pretending not to. One of the worst is the rise of so-called “fact-checker,” which sees an opinionated reporter offer rejoinders to things politicians say - usually mixing a healthy portion of his or her own opinions in with highly subjective “facts,” then declaring that someone had “pants on fire” or earned “four Pinnochios” simply because they said something with which the reporter disagrees. The media sell these “fact-check” pieces as authoritative arbiters of truth, and gullible people dutifully share them on social media as if they settle arguments. They do not. They are merely the latest example of people with a bias pretending to be neutral.

They are obsessed with trivial “gaffes” and gotcha moments. They are obsessed with optics. They are obsessed with race, and seize on every wrong word or inflection to imply that a disfavored person is a racist. And above all else, they are obsessed with themselves and their own importance.

They understand nothing about religion. They understand nothing about business. They are hostile toward traditional notions of morality. They are hostile toward free-market capitalism.

All of this matters because a nation will lose its way if its primary sources of information push false narratives, misinformation and trivia while failing to deal responsibily with the truly serious issues that face the nation.

I studied journalism in college and was the editor in chief of the student newspaper. I wanted to be nothing else but a journalist, and I believed in certain principles of the profession: That you reported facts and not your opinions, and that you used anonymous sources only in the most extraordinary of circumstances because the known credibility of your sources was so crucial to the trustworthiness of your own work.

Today, political reporting in this country is ideologically driven for the purpose of bringing down the current president, and the use of anonymous sources is as commonplace as writing a byline. And this after eight years of cheerleading for a president who was no friend of the press, but was their ideological ally.
The media have never had a president hold their feet to the fire like Trump is doing. They think its their job to hold his feet to the fire, but that they are so sacrosanct that no one - particularly him - can do it to them. Now they feel threatened, but the only thing that’s really happening is that their own poor performance is being exposed in a high-profile manner.

Trump does not like them and will probably never like them, but if they do their job competently and fairly - focusing on facts and on the issues that really matter to this country - Trump would stop attacking quite so viciously. I don’t think they will do that, though, because they see themselves as at war with him. They were the ones who started the war during the campaign, when they decided it was their job to do anything they could to keep him from being elected - to abandon objectivity and become openly oppositional toward him. Trump joined the battle. Trump won. Now they don’t like how the war is going.

Well, they shouldn’t have started the war, and they can stop it by doing their jobs the way journalists are supposed to do their jobs. That doesn’t mean licking Trump’s boots by any means. Trump does make a lot of mistakes and news coverage should reflect that. But Obama made a lot of mistakes too. He should not have been treated by the MSM the way we treat him here because this is an opinion-driven site, but America should know about some of the problems we face as a result of Obama’s policies. By and large, the public does not.

Cover Trump honestly and fairly, with an emphasis on governance and policy substance. These are the things that really affect the American people. Do that and the media will regain the public’s trust, while the public will regain an understanding of some things it really needs to know.

But if the media continue on its current path, the nation will suffer from ignorance while some of the worst actors in the political world are empowered. That is a terrible thing, and yes, it makes them an enemy of the public. They don’t like Trump saying it, but the charge is resonating precisely because they wear it so well.

A free and independent press is crucially important, which is exactly why it’s such a big problem when the free and independent press conducts itself so dishonestly and irresponsibly. They need to stop with the sanctimonious BS about how important they are, and start considering how to do their very important job in a way that benefits the country instead of harming it.


God bless,
JohnnyD

OFA Made the DNC DOA: Obama’s Community Organization Ruined the Democratic Party

From: Canada Free Press

By Arthur Christopher Schaper - February 20, 2017


Who would have guessed?

Those obnoxious organizers are so out of touch with reality. They don’t seem to recognize that working men and women of all backgrounds are barely making ends meet. Democrats really believed that a bunch of spoiled, screaming razor-blade snowflakes invading town halls and lecturing people about their Western, white privilege was going to be well-received.

Most Americans—responsible people who care about the future—want to ensure that their kids are safe, that the trains and the buses move on time, and the roads are safe and secure. Instead of responding to those concerns, the Democratic Party let OFA push a secular utopia in which the government has all the answers.

Friends of mine and well-connected political operatives have been telling me over and over that Organizing for Action is going to make Trump’s Presidency one disaster after another. All these young people and old hippies are going to rebel and fight in the streets, demand socialism at all costs, and harass politicians until they do what the protests and the liberal organizers want.

Here are the problems that OFA faces, though:

1. Working people and active conservatives have begun to organize, motivated by deeper beliefs and motivations than whatever OFA offers.
2. The promises for “marriage equality” and Health Care for all have blown up in Democrats’ faces. Why? Economics and fundamental values. These views have been shoved in our faces as correctives to our “backward” Americanism.
3. Red states are still chaffing under the arrogant stupidity of the whole aggravated progressive agenda.

Check out what the Daily Beast reported:

It is difficult to overstate just how enraged state Democratic activists and leaders are with Organizing for Action (OFA) ...

Trouble in paradise!
Get out the popcorn, Republicans, especially in blue states, where OFA had the most impact. No surprise, though, since those the states were bent on enacting socialism. Obama’s shadow army ended up hurting Democratic fortunes in those states, too. The entire state conference for the Democratic was decimated, absolutely wiped out.

It’s so bad for Democrats, that there are Republican governors in otherwise reliably Democratic states:

1. Massachusetts (Even though Baker is a total RINO)
2. Maryland (Go Larry!)
3. Vermont
4. New Hampshire
5. Illinois (and Republicans gained seats in the state legislature in 2016!)

Republicans hold trifectas in 25 states, and enjoy control of legislators and governorships in otherwise Democratic strongholds.

Heckuva job, there, Barry! Let’s never forget that the President is also the de facto leader of his party. 

OFA should have helped Democrats. Instead, OFA destroyed them.

And it gets worse:

These intra-party tensions aren’t going away, especially now that OFA “relaunched” itself last week to protect the Affordable Care Act ...

Totally tone deaf. All American voters, Democratic and Republican, hate Obamacare. The failing monstrosity gets an “F” on every metric. The President rammed this terrible law through Congress without one Republican vote. Democratic lawmakers had to be bribe US Senators with earmarks to get their votes. The state exchanges have failed all over the country, even in deep blue states like Massachusetts.

“This is some GRADE A Bullsh*t right here,” Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party, wrote in a private Democratic-listserv email ...

The Democratic Party has become anti-democratic, refusing commentary or appraisal from the Democratic operatives themselves. Obama still lives in his Saul Alinksy bubble, though. The Democratic Party has itself to blame for electing Barack Obozo in 2008.

In fact, Democrats looked at OFA as a counter-party which disrupted their basic party activities. Other Democratic Party chairs were furious:

”[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties,” Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico last week.

The chair for the South Carolina Democratic Party said something similar. “I love Obama, but not OFA.”

Obama and OFA are one. His presidency, his whole political career, has been endless, left-wing community organizing

But therein lies the problem. Obama and OFA are one. His presidency, his whole political career, has been endless, left-wing community organizing. Why are Democrats surprised by this? State Democratic Party leaders are going to keep losing until they recognize that their pre-eminently popular (?) Democratic President was the worst thing to happen to them as well as to the country. The fact that they are trying to divorce OFA from Obama himself shows how Democrats are further embracing permanent minority status.

Obama never cared about his party, anyway, just as he never cared about states like California, Delaware, Rhode Island, or other Democratic bastions. Yet even those states are taking on a red hue, like Maine, where Trump won one electoral vote, and a Republican Congress represents the northern region of the state for the first time in 20 years.

What has made the Democratic brand so impalatable, with OFA leading the charge? Obama was an anti-American radical from Day One who wanted to fundamentally transform this country. An American political party dedicated to tearing down the system—is not going to last very long within the system.

State party leaders have referred to OFA as “The Devil” in private conversations, too. Wow! Democratic infighting was in full force just after Obama’s re-election? Yes, and add to it the floodgate of scandals, the Obamacare rollout, the depressed Democratic turnout in 2014. And now Donald Trump in the White House, while Republicans now control Congress and the Presidency.

OUCH! Democrats have organized themselves right into irrelevance! Anyone who was not drinking the kool-aid could tell that OFA leader/wannabe President Barack Obama was a pompous jackass unhindered by the decimation on his party. Even fellow Democrats endured this reckless disregard.

OFA is DOA to Democratic Party operatives. If they don’t control those unprincipled activists, the DNC will be DOA next! One good note for Republicans: Who would have believed that Obama’s feared OFA would be the best gift to the Republican Party?


God bless,
JohnnyD

Bill O'Reilly: A stunning display of dishonesty from the national press and radical left

From: Fox News

By Bill O'Reilly - February 14, 2017



Last week, about 680 undocumented aliens were arrested by ICE officials countrywide. Many of them have already been deported. The coordinated raids targeted aliens who had committed crimes in the USA -- mostly felonies.

Seventy five percent of those taken into custody had convictions, including homicide and rape. One man arrested in Chicago, was an Iraqi citizen with a conviction of sexual abuse of a victim [who was] unable to consent. Many of the arrested non-felons were associating with the criminals. But those facts have largely gone unreported by the American press. And by the radical left, which is actively misleading you. Here are a just a few examples:

Speaking on CNN, California State Sen. Kevin De Leon (D) said, “What took place yesterday with raids and personal homes is part of the cog of the Trump deportation machine.”

On MSNBC Attorney Raul Reyes said, “…how inhumane this is to be breaking down people's doors and separating parents from their children.”

Also on MSNBC, Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego (D) said, “This is Donald Trump really executing his campaign plan. He is trying to be a tough guy, so, he will go after, you know, the maids, the moms, the people that are working in the shops instead of going after the hard-core criminals.”

Maids, moms, and shopkeepers, according to that dishonest politician.

Now, the false news reporting, actually reached the level of hysteria.

There were newspaper headlines screaming things like "The Trump deportation regime has begun," "Immigrant community on high alert fearing Trump's deportation force." “On Devon Avenue in Chicago, news of immigration raids intensifies fears.”

We could find no headlines in major newspapers. None.  That bannered the fact that raids were targeted at illegal aliens who had committed serious crimes. Committed them. That is not press bias. That is blatant dishonesty.

Here's another example. In the year 2013, the Obama administration removed from this country more than 434,000 illegal aliens, the highest number in history, which goes all the way back to 1892. Did you see any anti-Obama demonstrations? Did you see any screaming headlines in the national media? No, you did not. Even after President Obama said this:

“What we should be doing is setting up a smart, legal immigration system, that doesn't separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, you know, people who are gang bangers, are criminals, that we are deporting them as quickly as possible.”

And that is exactly what President Trump is doing. Exactly. But the illegal immigration issue has been set up by the media to demonize Mr. Trump, as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor. That is what is really going on here. A set up. It is flat out disgraceful. If the federal government cannot remove aliens who commit serious crimes in this country, then, we don't have an effective federal government. Yet, the far left and the press, knowing full well that the ICE raids last week were directed at dangerous people, chose not to report that.

Instead, [they were busy] smearing President Trump. We have now reached a low point in American journalism.

As for the far left, they are people who do not want any immigration enforcement. They want open borders. They want alien criminals protected. They want anarchy.

Why? Because they don't like America as it stands now.

So, it is very important for all honest citizens to know you are not getting accurate information. And that there is a radical element in this country that wants to destroy it. If this continues, there will be a breaking point. And that is "The Memo."


God bless,
JohnnyD

Left Wing Fascist Anti-fascist Fascism

From: Canada Free Press

By Jim ONeill - February 9, 2017


That the morally bankrupt, intellectually stunted thugs of ANTIFA (ANTI FAscist) wallow in ignorance is to be expected; as recently demonstrated during the riots in Berkley—but that purportedly “conservative” writers and pundits continue to regurgitate the same old leftist lies about fascism is simply unacceptable.

As the title of this article implies, the left-wing is up to their standard leitmotif of clueless idiocy yet again.  In this case, they are reincarnating as Hitler’s fascist brown-shirt thugs in order to protest Hitlerian fascist brown-shirt thugs (although in a nod to modernism they have traded in their brown shirts for black ones, a la Hitler’s SS or Mussolini’s “black shirts”).  How thoroughly liberal of them.

I realize that I may have gone a bit overboard with the repetitions of “fascism” and variants in my title, but I am trying to make a point here—and apparently it is a point that bears repeating, and repeating, and repeating.  My point being: FASCISM IS A LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY. 

Permit me to highlight, underline, and BOLD why fascism is, always has been, and always will be a LEFT-WING IDEOLOGY.  On the off chance that a liberal might read this article I will go s-l-o-w-l-y in the hope (faint though it be) that they may see the light.

First, some ground rules.  I will be referring to the traditional political spectrum throughout this article—the one that runs from Big Government on the left, to No Government (anarchy) on the extreme right.

The further to the left you move on the political spectrum the bigger and more intrusive the government (individual freedom diminishes).  The further to the right you move the more limited and restrained the government becomes (individual freedom increases). 

The United States has traditionally been considered a “center right” country.  Meaning that the majority of “we the people” favor a government slightly to the right of the midway point between the far left and the far right.

I would say that for the majority of “we the people” that is still the case, but our politicians and media (among others) have moved far to the left—resulting in a huge disconnect between “we the people” and our political “leaders” (especially Democrats) and the media, who have become unapologetic propaganda venues for globalism.  (”Globalism” is, of course, the new and improved label behind which the old and unimproved concept of “global communism” hides these days).

So, big government to the left, limited and restrained government to the right.  Fascism, which is big government on steroids, indisputably belongs on the LEFT side of the political spectrum.  Consider the following couple of quotes by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), who is widely credited with popularizing fascism (and coining the term itself).

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state!
For the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State.—Benito Mussolini

Perhaps putting the above quotes in the American vernacular will help to clarify things:

Everything within the federal government, nothing outside the federal government, nothing against the federal government!
For the Fascist, everything is in the Federal Government, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the Federal Government.

Fascism is, always has been, and always will be a big government LEFT-WING ideology.  The battles between communism and fascism during WW II and the Spanish Civil War were essentially turf wars between competing left-wing movements—comparable to Shiite and Sunni Muslims fighting one another.

A few words on the Nazis: Adolph Hitler was a left-wing fascist; whose political party was the “National Socialist German Workers Party”—the operative words being “Socialist Workers Party”—hardly the name for a conservative right-wing outfit.  The leftist nature of the Nazis is rather tellingly spelled out in the 10^th item of their party platform:

It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work.  Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.  [italics added]

To associate the Nazis in particular, and fascism in general, with government restraining conservatism is deceitful beyond words.  It is willful ignorance magnified, multiplied, and dished out by the various globalist propaganda outlets.

The “Bill of Rights” from the US Constitution is the antithesis of fascism.  It does not so much list the rights of “we the people,” as it puts chains on government and restricts what government can do.  The US Constitution stands in exact opposition to the leftist big government tenets of fascism/Nazism.

To call the pro-Constitutional moves of President Trump “fascist” is so ludicrously wrongheaded that the absurdity of it all is stunning.  It would be funny, but for the fact that so many people actually buy into this nonsense.

The left-wing can, and will, continue to peddle their nonsense and ignorance, but “we the people” need to WAKE THE F—K UP.  Fascism and Nazism are NOT to be conflated with right-wing patriotism and conservative thinking.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT-WING FASCIST/NAZI.  Such an animal simply cannot exist.  Left-wing fascist/Nazis, on the other hand, are all over the d—n place.


God bless,
JohnnyD


 

The evolving threat of jihad in the West

Not ‘Lone Wolves’ After All: How ISIS Guides World’s Terror Plots from Afar

From: Canada free Press

By Caroline Glick - February 9, 2017

One of the most important stories related to the September 11 attacks was the one that was deliberately left largely untold. That story is the response of some Muslims in America to the massacre of nearly 3,000 people by Islamic supremacists in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

According to a Washington Post article published on September 18, 2001, in Jersey City, New Jersey, across the river from the destroyed World Trade Center, “Within hours of the two jetliners plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.”

The New York Post reported on September 15, 2001, that Muslim Americans in Patterson, NJ were also seen celebrating the attacks. Word-of-mouth reports abounded in the weeks and months following September 11 of spontaneous celebrations carried out that day in Dearborn, Michigan, in Virginia and other Muslim American communities.

The most notable aspect of the published reports of the celebrations was that there were so few of them.

After all, the notion that any Muslim Americans would celebrate the jihadist attack was certainly newsworthy.

The stories were suppressed at the time by political leaders. Then New York mayor Rudy Guiliani for instance said the celebrations shouldn’t be reported lest they lead to violent attacks against peaceful Muslims.

Then president George W. Bush rushed to defend and uphold Islam as a “religion of peace,” almost immediately after the attacks. Bush insisted that al-Qaida was a fringe movement and ideology in the world of Islam. Its Islamic supremacism did not reflect either the Islamic faith or the ideology of the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

In 2007, then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice banned US officials from using the terms “jihad,” “Islamic” and “Islamism” in describing Islamic jihad and the ideology of Islamism or in conjunction with discussions of Islamic jihad and terrorism.

Under former president Barack Obama, the war on language went into high gear. Not only were all terms relating to Islam banned from use in the federal government, the term “terrorism” was even purged from the official discourse. Obama dumped the Bush-era term, “War on Terror,” for the even more meaningless phrase, “Overseas Contingency Operations.”

Obama barred the FBI from investigating radical Islamic breeding grounds and replaced surveillance operations with a program called, “Countering Violent Extremism.” Under that program, Islamists were given federal support. The notion was that once they were empowered, they would convince their communities to reject violence.

The US federal government’s actions were far from unique in the Western world. Indeed, when compared to the efforts taken by Europeans to sanitize public discourse of all discussion of Islamic jihadism, America’s efforts look downright moderate. In Europe, almost every mention of Islamism has been barred. Those that have criticized it have been subjected to criminal prosecutions and convictions.

In most cases, the rationales for these efforts to block discussion of the threat of radical Islam have been admirable.

Western nations have long histories of racism and intolerance. On the surface at least, placing a spotlight on the actions of one community, or adherents of one specific religion flies in the face of everything that the nations of the West have come to understand about how racism and bigotry takes root in a society. The very act of mentioning bad behavior carried out by members of a specific group seems inherently bigoted.

The problem with this well-intentioned position was self-evident from the start. It is not bigoted to point out the bigotry of others and to confront and challenge it.

It is bigoted not to do so. Even worse, it is dangerous.

It is impossible to solve a problem like Islamic radicalism by ignoring it. To the contrary, by ignoring it, you ensure that it will grow.

One of the strategically significant aspects of the September 11 attacks is that they showed that Islamic terrorists do not require control of territory to cause massive harm to their enemies and to their enemies’ societies.

On September 11, the 19 hijackers did not occupy downtown Manhattan. They did not drive tanks down 5th Avenue.

 

 Armed with box cutters and informed by a bigoted, supremacist ideology, 19 Islamic terrorists viewed themselves as heroes as they used crude weapons to commit murder on a scale never seen before on American soil.

 

 And after they did so, far from being condemned across the board in the Islamic world, they were celebrated as heroes by a very large number of Muslims not only in the Middle East but in the US and throughout the Western world.

 

 The devastating implications of the US government’s decision to ignore the fact that at least some American Muslims celebrated the attacks were revealed over the weekend in an extraordinary report by Ruchmini Callimacci in the New York Times.

Not ‘Lone Wolves’ After All: How ISIS Guides World’s Terror Plots from Afar 

 

Titled, “Not ‘Lone Wolves’ After All: How ISIS Guides World’s Terror Plots from Afar,” Callimacci reported how Islamic State (ISIS) locates and recruits Muslims in countries around the world over the Internet. Once they recruit these adherents, ISIS terror masters in Syria and elsewhere direct them in plotting and carrying out terrorist attacks. These remote commanders dictate the actions of their distant adherents from the moment they make contact with them until just moments before they commit their attacks or are arrested by law enforcement bodies.

ISIS handlers, or commanders, are able to control the actions of their recruits as a platoon commander controls the actions of his soldiers, without ever meeting them. In many cases, the recruits do not even know their handlers’ identities, have never heard their voices and do not know where they are from.

The one thing that joins them to those directing them from thousands of kilometers away is their shared belief in the supremacy of radical Islam over all other ways of life. Their common faith in the justice of acts of mass murder against non-believers is so strong that it bridges the gap between the real and virtual worlds.

ISIS’s mode of operation is a natural progression from the September 11 attacks. Along the way, Anwar al-Awlaki, the commander of al-Qaida forces in Yemen killed in a US drone strike in 2011, was the pioneer of moving the direction of Western jihadists from the physical world to the virtual one. For more than a decade, Awlaki indoctrinated and directed numerous jihadists in the US and the UK. In the beginning Awlaki directed their actions by meeting with them and preaching to them in shared physical space. Later, he decamped to Yemen where he continued his efforts. He preached to them through cassette tapes, through satellite broadcasts and Internet chat rooms. He indoctrinated them through online essays. And he directed their terrorist attacks by email.

An interesting incident in Awlaki’s career came in 1996. At that time, Awlaki was working as a preacher at the Denver Islamic Society. According to a New York Times report from 2010, Awlaki left the mosque, and moved to San Diego shortly after an elder of the mosque upbraided him for telling a mosque member to travel to Chechnya to join the jihad against Russia.

The most revealing aspect of the story is that the elder who criticized Awlaki asked the New York Times not to publish his identity. By 2010, Awlaki had already been publicly implicated in directing scores of Western jihadists to commit attacks in the US and the UK. He was considered the commander of al-Qaida forces in Yemen. And yet, the mosque elder in Denver didn’t feel comfortable openly condemning him. His aversion indicated where the balance of power in the American Muslim community lies.

Whether or not President Donald Trump is able to reinstitute his executive order mandating a 90-day ban on entry of nationals from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, the fact is that such a move will be insufficient to diminish the terrorist threat in America. As Callimacci’s article made brutally clear, so long as the intellectual shackles of political correctness block the US and other Western governments from taking concerted action against the creed of Islamic supremacism and its adherents inside their own borders, the virtual terrorism command ISIS now controls will last until it morphs into an even more deadly threat in the months and years to come. 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

 

The President and the Courts

From: TownHall

by -Judge Andrew Napolitano - February 9, 2017


Last week, in a public courtroom in the federal courthouse in Seattle, the states of Washington and Minnesota -- after suing President Donald Trump, alleging injury caused by his executive order that suspended the immigration of all people from seven foreign countries -- asked a federal judge to compel the president and all those who work for him to cease enforcing the order immediately. After a brief emergency oral argument, the judge signed a temporary restraining order, which barred the enforcement of the president's order everywhere in the United States.

The president reacted with anger, referring to the judge as a "so-called judge," and immigrant rights groups praised the judicial intervention as a victory for the oppressed. The president meant, I think, that Judge James L. Robart had not acted properly as a judge by second-guessing him -- that he had acted more like a politician; and the immigrant rights groups felt, I think, that the United States was once again a beacon of hope for refugees.

Here is the back story.

A 1952 federal statute permits the president to suspend the immigration status of any person or group whose entry into the United States might impair public health or safety or national security. Trump exercised that authority in accordance with the 1952 law when he signed his Jan. 27 order banning all immigration from the seven named countries.

When the president exercises powers granted to him by the Constitution or federal statutes or when Congress passes bills, one cannot simply sue the government in federal court because one does not like what has been done. That is so because the Constitution has preconditions for a lawsuit in federal court. One of those preconditions is what lawyers and judges call "standing." Standing means that the plaintiff has alleged and can most likely show that the defendant has caused the plaintiff an injury in fact, distinct from all others not in the case.

Hence, it is curious that the plaintiffs in the Seattle case were not people whose entry had been barred by Trump's order but rather the governments of two states, each claiming to sue in behalf of people and entities resident or about to be resident in them. The court should have dismissed the case as soon as it was filed because of long-standing Supreme Court policy that bars federal litigation alleging harm to another and permits it only for the actual injury or immediate likelihood of injury to the litigant.

Nevertheless, the Seattle federal judge heard oral argument on the two states' emergency application for a temporary restraining order against the president. During that oral argument, the judge asked a lawyer for the Department of Justice how many arrests of foreign nationals from the seven countries singled out by the president for immigration suspension there have been in the United States since 9/11. When the DOJ lawyer said she did not know, the judge answered his own question by saying, "None."

He was wrong.

There have been dozens of people arrested and convicted in the United States for terrorism-related crimes since 9/11 who were born in the seven countries. Yet even if the judge had been correct, his question was irrelevant -- and hence the answer meaningless -- because it does not matter to a court what evidence the president relied on in this type of order. This is the kind of judicial second-guessing -- substituting the judicial mind for the presidential mind -- that is impermissible in our system. It is impermissible because the Constitution assigns to the president alone nearly all decision-making authority on foreign policy and because Congress has assigned to the president the power of immigration suspension as a tool with which to implement foreign policy.

These rules and policies -- the requirement of standing before suing and the primacy of the president in making foreign policy -- stem directly from the Constitution. Were they not in place, then anyone could sue the government for anything and induce a federal judge to second-guess the president. That would convert the courts into a super-legislature -- albeit an unelected, unaccountable, opaque one.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the courts have no place here. Rather, they have a vital place. It is to say what the Constitution means, say what the statutes mean and determine whether the government has exercised its powers constitutionally and legally. It is not the job of judges to decide whether the government has been smart or prudent, though.

One of the arguments made by the state of Washington to explain why it had standing was laughable. Washington argued that corporations located in Washington would suffer the irreparable loss of available high-tech-qualified foreign employees if the ban were upheld. Even if this were likely and even if it were provable, it would not establish injury in fact to the government of Washington. When pressed to reveal what entity Washington was trying to protect, it enumerated a few familiar names, among which was Microsoft.

Microsoft? The government of the state of Washington is suing to protect Microsoft?! Microsoft could buy the state of Washington if Starbucks were willing to sell it.

I jest to make a point. The rule of law needs to be upheld. Carefully paying attention to constitutional procedure protects personal freedom. In similar environments, the late Justice Antonin Scalia often remarked that much of what the government does is stupid but constitutional and that the courts' only concern is with the latter.

The DOJ is now challenging the Seattle restraining order in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and this case may make its way to the Supreme Court. Will federal judges be faithful to the rule of law? We shall soon find out.


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

Dr. Alveda King: Sen. Warren Used the King Name to Stir Up Emotions

From: Fox Business

By Julia Limitone - February 08, 2017

Dr. Alveda King reacts to Sen. Warren's comments

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., reacts to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s wife in the Senate.

The Senate voted along party lines in favor of a rule that essentially silenced Senator Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday night after she quoted from a letter written by Dr.  Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow, Coretta Scott King, during her criticism of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick for Attorney General.

The rule states that senators may not “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

Senator Warren spoke Opens a New Window. after the dust up about what she couldn’t say, early Wednesday.

“This is about Coretta Scott King’s letter and that’s all this is about,” Senator Warren told reporters. “She wrote a powerful letter about an important moment in history that directly involved Jeff Sessions and is directly relevant to the question of whether Jeff Sessions ought to be the attorney general of the United States -- and Mitch McConnell didn’t want me to read that letter."

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., however, said Senator Warren is using the King named to play the race card and stir up emotions.

“In that letter [Coretta Scott King] would be referring to some of [Sen. Jeff Sessions] comments,” King told the FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto. “However, she would agree today that he of course ended some [school segregation and] he worked to prosecute members of the KKK.”

King added: “It’s almost like a bait and switch, stir up the emotions, in the name of King—and my name is Alveda King… [and] play the race card, which she was attempting to do.”

Nevertheless King said the issue hasn’t divided the family.

“We are taking a look at many things that Mrs. Coretta Scott King said, Martin Luther King Jr., my daddy A.D. King,” she said. “But our family—we are peacemakers, we bring people together… we do not divide people.”


God bless,
JohnnyD

WATCH – This 22-Year-Old Viral Video Just DECIMATED Every Pro-Muslim Protester

From: Angry Patriot


Liberals are crying over the “unjustness” of barring immigrants from entering this U.S. while the Clintons remain symbols of “tolerance,” but this wasn’t always the case.

This video from over 20 years ago shows former President Bill Clinton speaking about immigration, stating, “All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.”



 He continued, “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”

This seems like something Donald Trump would say, but it was Bill Clinton who said this. He once believed it was not fair to the American people that illegals and refugees were able to come into this country and steal from the American people, and he didn’t want it to continue.
It did, however, and it has continued all the way until now. While liberals are protesting the ban of people coming from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it is by no means a “Muslim ban,” and this is certainly not the first time it has happened.

Clinton, both Bush’s, and even Obama himself put similar bans in place, and they are not the only presidents who have done so either. Reagan and Carter did so too, yet the liberals are acting scandalized and calling Trump a monster for this ban.

Not too long ago, the Democrats used to believe in putting the American people first. They believed in upholding our laws and pushing illegals out of this country — when did that change? Most would blame Obama, who has led this country to the most illegal and refugee immigration it has seen in a long time.

Liberals are sitting on their high horse, saying how unfair it is that Trump is doing this, but they had no problem when Obama did it. To them, Obama was being practical and respectful, keeping both Americans and Muslims safe from unnecessary harm.
When Trump does it, it’s because he’s a white supremacist and a bigot who hates all Muslims. How does this make any sense? Why is it so different to the liberals of the world who implements the ban? It shouldn’t be a popularity contest.

Bill Clinton’s speech is very fitting for today’s situation — we do need to deport the illegal aliens who are criminals, we do need to stop people from hiring illegals over Americans, and we do need to stop them from getting benefits we have to pay for.

We also need to stop these sanctuary cities from rising up all over the place, protecting the illegals from the “big, bad” ICE and deportation. If they didn’t want to be deported, then they should not have broken the law.

I’m glad Trump put the ban in place because we need a better vetting system. Does this mean I hate Muslim people? Of course not! I just don’t want terrorists slipping into this country, but they are slipping through the cracks. Do I hate Mexicans? Of course I don’t, but I do not think they should be here illegally and require to pay their way! It’s not fair to the American people, and it needs to end.


God bless,
JohnnyD

Watch as Donald Trump Listens to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama Agree with Him on Illegal Immigration!

From: Constitution

By Onan Coca February 2, 2017 


The guys at Filming Cops recently produced an excellent video that proves the hypocrisy of the left on the issue of illegal immigration. Using two speeches, one from Bill Clinton, and one from Barack Obama, they were able to prove that not only are Donald Trump’s words in line with our political history, his actions are completely in line with more than 50 years of presidential precedent. President Obama himself mentions it; nothing President Trump is now saying/doing is any different from what his last 10 predecessors have done.

The media and the Democrat Party only want to pretend his actions are out of keeping with past presidents so that they can undermine his presidency.



Here’s what the guys Filming Cops had to say about their little video:

Everybody is interpreting the video how they want and a few people are calling us “fascist” (?), so here is our own interpretation: the video shows that presidents have expanded state power in the name of border security for quite some time and to varying degrees. Obama deported 2.5 million immigrants, more than any other president in history. Bill Clinton went so far as to deny thousands of immigrants welfare — even food stamps — even though many of the immigrants were legal. Why are we supposed to pretend this never happened? Why are we supposed to narrow our focus onto Trump’s wall and act hysterical instead of being honest about the political realities that led to this moment? What is so “fascist” about recognizing that the State itself is the problem? We cannot fully understand the present if we fail to situate it in its historical context. It is possible to cut through the party politics of “D vs R” and reject unmitigated State power, regardless of who the president is. We will disagree with Trump if/when he expands a police state, just as we disagreed with Obama and Bush and Clinton in the past, sorry if that makes us “fascist,” lol.

By the way, it wasn’t just Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who have made speeches supporting, defending, and agreeing with Trump’s immigration policies… Hillary Clinton has too.




God bless,
JohnnyD

Imagining Bill Belichick analyzing film of the Left's strategy

From: Fox News

By Larry Alex Taunton- February 02, 2017




New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick was the man I’d been looking for. I needed keen insights, and only he could provide them.

Belichick was famous for analyzing the game film of opposing teams, identifying their strategies and beating them. His team, once again, was about to play in the Super Bowl. My mission was delicate. Who else could I rely on?

So I collected film of the American Cultural Left’s recent games on the Washington Mall, on various news outlets, and in the halls of government, put them in an envelope and took it straight to Belichick’s office in Foxboro, Mass.

At first Belichick complained of being busy, what with a Super Bowl and all. But seeing the obvious importance of this, he made time for me. With a cigar in one hand and a remote control in the other, he broke down the film with his usual attention to detail. Although he was hard to understand at times — he mumbles a lot — he missed nothing. The man is truly a genius.

Deftly maneuvering a laser pointer, he identified five primary strategies to which the Left defaults in any game where playing by the rules isn’t enough to win:

1. Referees. When the other team scores a touchdown in a tight game, Belichick said, note that the Left wastes no time appealing to the referees. Challenge flags are thrown, lawsuits are filed and, in Tom Brady-like fashion, they take their deflated balls to federal court. Slowing down the game and gumming up the works is the point, rather than an excuse for more commercials.

2. Ideals. They find ways to (vaguely) identify their cause with the average fan. Do their ideals conform to the average American? Of course, not. Americans want the sidelines clearly defined and guarded from fans illegally running onto the field; they want the referees and the league to mostly stay out of their lives and out of their pockets, and they want to play the game according to the rules. But, Belichick noticed, the Left often defeated teams that employed this defense by making them feel like this was somehow an un-American and bigoted way to play. Boundaries and first-down markers are moved mid-game, and by shifting the center of the game continually to the left, they manage to convince many Americans that they are out of step with other teams in the league.

3. Obfuscate. That which is black and white, they make gray. What is clear, they make blurry. Rules are intentionally made ambiguous to ensure that everything becomes a discretionary call by their selected review booth. Take marriage, for instance. We all thought we knew what that was. Man and woman. Flange A, Slot B. What could be more obvious? But by the time they are through talking about it, they have convinced you that sex as you know it — as the whole of history has known it — isn’t natural at all! Indeed, they have convinced you that defining words like “man” and “woman” is a very, very difficult thing to do. It’s certainly not a job for ordinary people.

4. Tacitus. Was this a famous coach or quarterback from a previous era? No. It turns out that Coach Belichick is an educated man. He went on to explain that Tacitus, a Roman historian, had spoken of a principle called “divide and conquer.” The Left knows that evangelicals, 26 percent of the U.S. population, pose the greatest threat to their game strategy. So the Left tries to run a spread offense, to get evangelicals running sideline-to-sideline. And getting evangelicals off their assignments is easy. Relying on misdirection, the Left simply finds a verse in the Bible that appears to support its agenda. Failing that, it finds a Christian — or someone who at least says he’s one — and quotes him liberally against other Christians.

5. Scream. This, Belichick declared, is the Hail Mary. They use this play, he insisted, when all else fails. This chiefly means they storm the field and pull down the goal posts — but for precisely the opposite reason that this is usually done — that is, after winning a big game. This, the coach said, was the play they ran on the Washington Mall. Ashley Judd and Madonna were the halftime show. (On this point, he did not seem impressed.) The idea, it seems, is to bully, ridicule, demonize and isolate anyone who is in opposition. This is where fans are useful. They are encouraged to boo the opposition loudly on social media.

Coach Belichick stamped out his cigar and turned on the lights. I was dizzy from this whirlwind of coach-speak, and he knew I might not remember everything he had said, so he gave me one of those clever wristbands that quarterbacks wear so that they won’t forget the plays.

On it he had inscribed:

R.I.O.T.S.

“It’s an acronym,” he said. “It’ll help you remember.” Noting my confusion, he added: “It’s Patriots — without the P-A-T, of course.”

I tested my memory on the meaning of each letter: Referees, Ideals, Obfuscate, Tacitus, Scream.
“Got it, coach.”

Our meeting now over, I left a sadder and a wiser man.


God bless,
JohnnyD

‘Stop Operation Soros’ – Massive Movement to Overthrow Soros Takes Off in Macedonia

From: The Free Thought Project

by - Jay Syrmopoulos -  January 25, 2017


Macedonia – Only a week after Hungary announced plans to purge all NGO groups funded by globalist progressive mega-donor George Soros, a new global initiative – Stop Operation Soros (SOS) – dedicated to the countering the influential political/social engineering the billionaire activist is now engaged in across the globe through his Open Society Foundations, was announced in Macedonia.

During a press conference last week, SOS founders called on all “free-minded citizens,” regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, to “fight against one-mindedness in the civil sector, which is devised and led by George Soros,” the Vecer newspaper reported.

This move comes on the heels of the Hungarian government announcing that it will use “all the tools at its disposal” to target and “sweep out” all non-governmental organizations funded by Soros, a Hungarian-born financier who has become one of the U.S. Democratic Party’s major sources of funding, according to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ruling party.

Co-founder of the movement, Nikola Srbov, called out Soros for hijacking civil society, in an effort force his own personal ideology upon others by monopolizing civil discourse through strategically funding certain organizations via his group Open Society Foundations.

At the press conference, the group announced that their first step would be to work at uncovering ‘subversive’ activities by Soros-funded NGOs.

“We’ve witnessed the takeover of the entire civil sector and its abuse and instrumentalization to meet the goals of one political party. That is unacceptable and goes beyond the principles of civic organizing,” Srbov said at the press conference.

“The Open Society Foundation, operating under the Soros umbrella, used its funding and personnel to support violent processes in Macedonia. It has monopolized the civil society sector, pushing outside any organization which disagrees with the Soros ideology,” he stated.

Co-founder, Cvetin Cilimanov, editor-in-chief of the state-run MIA news agency, noted that Soros worked to undermine Macedonian sovereignty by colluding with the opposition center-left SDSM party and outside globalist interests. By cooperating with foreign embassies and organizations such as USAID, Cilimanov believes Soros-backed groups have interfered in the political process of Macedonia.

“This is unacceptable and has largely contributed to a feeling in the public that the traditional relations of partnership Macedonia enjoyed with some countries are being undermined,” Cilimanov told journalists.

These complaints are par for the course with the Soros’ Open Society Foundations, as Russia has banned a progressive charity founded by globalist hedge fund billionaire George Soros in 2015 – noting that the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution.

In a statement, Russia’s General Prosecutor’s Office said two branches of Soros’ charity network — the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) — would be placed on a “stop list” of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed “undesirable” by the Russian state.

The Open Society Foundation (OSF) was created by the Hungarian-born billionaire with the stated aim of helping former Eastern bloc countries transition from communism. However, instead, it operates as a lever in the domestic politics of states by funding subversive political activities. For example, Soros publicly supported the violent overthrow of the legitimately-elected government in Ukraine during the ‘Euromaidan’ revolution.

Subsequently, leaked memos, appearing on DC Leaks, exposed Soros’ plan to destabilize and overthrow Putin – the ultimate prize for Soros.

The document details in an extensive bullet point list, “what must be done” to destabilize Russia, focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn governments.

Essentially, Soros works to install his political will on states, under the guise of promoting a free and open society. In reality, he looks to capitalize on the installation of puppet governments that are largely beholden to him and his OSF in an attempt to increase his massive fortune and create a globalist system of governance that supersedes national sovereignty.

You would think the U.S. would follow their lead.


God bless,
JohnnyD