ADMINISTRATOR’S NOTES: As a true believer in Jesus Christ the Lord, as a man who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture and knows the entire Bible is for our nourishment, as a person who has always looked at and seen the connections of EVERYTHING, as a man who has always loved history and knows everything, every deed of every person IS HISTORY and there is no separation from that fact for one person on earth at any time, I look at the pieces to the puzzle. I examine how the constant thread that weaves the fabric is woven.
We are coming up on 10 years since our nation, and people comprising that nation, were attacked by Muslim terrorists. Almost every single one of them Saudi Arabian. I want you all to slowly read, then seriously contemplate what has transpired in that very short period of time. The facts of the transition are reprinted immediately below in news articles. If you haven’t been paying attention it is now time to. If you have become complacent and are only concerned with your small sphere in this life it is now time to change. If you believe in error man can make this world better, that there is this new age of enlightenment upon us, and some man or woman will save us it is now time to cast that evil aside and seek, absorb, and live God’s Living Word of Truth.
The mainstream news media no longer uses the word “terrorist.” Unless a so-called Christian white person commits a heinous and very non-Christian act. Begin paying closer attention. The world is ending. All the pieces are falling into place. The puzzle is almost assembled. The cloth almost completely woven. It is not only dramatic…it is very subtle. And always constant.
August 19, 2011
Palestinian terrorists on deadly rampage, but Wash. Post, NY Times still call them ‘militants’
On Aug. 18, a series of coordinated attacks by Palestinian terrorists in southern Israel killed eight people — 6 civilians and 2 military personnel. The terrorists used an array of lethal weapons as they targeted a couple of buses and two civilian cars near the seaside resort of Eilat. It was the worst terrorist rampage perpetrated against the Jewish state in years.
Yet, both the Washington Post and the New York Times, in their Aug. 19 editions, carefully and deliberately erase “terrorism” and “terrorists” from their vocabulary in reporting the previous day’s bloody events. Not once do their correspondents and headline writers use the “T” word.
Yes, when it comes time to quote Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak or to write about the White House response, the “T” word appears in quotation marks, attributed to someone else, but not assumed by the Washington Post or by the NY Times, which maintain their steadfast practice of acknowledging terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, but not when Israel is the target.
Instead, they trot out their favorite euphemism — “militants” — to sanitize and perfume the lethal depredations of Palestinian terrorists.
The Post, for example, sprinkles its coverage with “militant” no fewer than six times, starting with its front-page teaser “Attacks in Israel — Assaults blamed on Gaza militants….” Then turn to page A6, where it runs correspondent Joel Greenberg’s dispatch. His article is supplemented by a map, with an arrow pointing to the deadly scenes, with a brief explanation “Militants launch multiple attacks.”
Greenberg’s piece itself is loaded with “militant” four times, such as when he reports that Israeli officials said there were prior indications that “militants” slipped out of Gaza into Sinai to stage their attacks.
The headline similarly strives to attenuate the atrocities perpetrated by the terrorists — “Attacks kill eight in southern Israel — Six Palestinians in Gaza slain in retaliatory strike; lawlessness in Sinai cited.” Note there’s not the slightest hint that most of the Israeli fatalities were civilians and that virtually all the Palestinian fatalities were the leader and members of the Palestinian terrorist group that Israel fingered as responsible for the attacks near Eilat. Instead, there’s a baseless, moral equivalence drawn here — Palestinians kill Israelis, Israelis kill Palestinians.
Greenberg, for his part, when apparently overwhelmed by “militant” fatigue, uses a few fall-back euphemisms ;like “assailants” sent by the “armed wing” of the Popular Resistance Committee,” or “attackers”. Anything to avoid the “T” word.
Over at the New York Times, the absence of the “T” word is similarly glaring in a dispatch by Isabel Kershner and David Kirkpatrick (“Attacks Near Israeli Resort Heighten Tensions With Egypt and Gaza — Israel blames Palestinians for an assault from Sinai.” Israel, of course, didn’t blame “Palestinians;” it blamed Palestinian “terrorists.”
The Times’ lead paragraph opts for “armed attackers,” definitely not tainted with the “T” word. Hamas, which rules Gaza, is described as a “militant” group. Ditto the Popular Resistance Committee — described as a “shadow group that has worked with Hamas.”
Does all this semantic twisting and turning to avoid the “T” word matter? You bet it does.
“Terrorist” is an adjective grounded in absolute morality that brooks no excuses, rationalizations or justifications. It’s beyond the pale. It has a clear, objective definition — deliberate use of violence against civilians in pursuit of a political, religious, or ideological agenda..
“Militant,” on the other hand, is a rubbery, malleable adjective, a euphemism subject to varying impressions and interpretations. It opens the way to rationalize and even justify “terrorism.”
By substituting “militant” for “terrorist,” The Post and the Times attenuate the vile immorality of Palestinian terrorism. They allow readers to absorb terrorist events without revulsion. They provide Palestinians with semantic camouflage to do their worst.
New DHS video ignores previous controversy over deliberate racial overtones
Paul Joseph Watson
August 17, 2011
Despite causing controversy last month with a video that portrayed white middle class Americans as the most likely terrorists, the Department of Homeland Security has released yet another PSA that depicts an attempt to bomb a subway station not by Al-Qaeda Muslims, but well-dressed white people.
Watch Video Produced by Department of Homeland Security Portraying White Middle Class Citizens as “Terrorists.”
A new Public Service Announcement entitled ‘The Drop Off – If You See Something, Say Something’ was unveiled by none other than Big Sis herself, Janet Napolitano, on the Homeland Security website today.
The PSA, which will be played on television and radio stations, shows a well dressed attractive white woman exiting a taxi before walking into a subway station. The taxi driver – a white man – then makes a phone call and sets a timer on a device in the trunk of the car. The woman then leaves her bag in the station.
“If you see something, say something – report suspicious activity to local authorities,” states the voiceover as the clip ends with other commuters reporting the incident to a black security guard and a black police officer.
In her accompanying statement to the video, DHS chief Napolitano also hints that gun stores could be a prime breeding ground for terrorists, making reference to a recent case where, “the owner of a gun store near Ft. Hood called authorities when an individual in his store was behaving in a suspicious manner.”
As we highlighted last month, a longer PSA recently produced by the DHS overwhelmingly went to significant lengths to portray white Americans as the most likely terrorists, despite the fact that the 126 people who were indicted on terrorist-related charges in the United States over the last two years were all Muslim.
Bizarrely, the majority of the people shown reporting suspicious activity to authorities were portrayed as non-whites.
The story, first featured on Infowars.com, went viral and prompted a furious response from many, appearing on the Drudge Report, Fox News, Breitbart.tv, the Daily Mail as well as featuring highly amongst the most read articles on the entire Internet during that 24 hour period. The Fox Nation version of the story received well over 2000 comments.
Despite the DHS’ claims to the contrary, many saw the ad as being deliberately racially motivated. Some concluded that this was merely a nod to political correctness while others viewed it as part of a pattern of demonizing white middle class Americans – many of whom are furious with the federal government for all manner of different reasons – as the DHS increasingly targets its anti-terror apparatus against politically motivated citizens.
Of the numerous different scenarios shown in the video, no less than 12 of them depict white people as terrorists whereas only three are non-whites. In addition, of the people depicted as patriotic Americans for reporting the terrorists, only one of them is white, while seven are non-white.
As Pajamas Media highlighted, “The DHS video goes out of its way to avoid showing any terrorist who fits the profile of the actual terrorists who have been waging war on us for more than a decade: Young men primarily from the Middle East. Instead, it tends to show them as middle aged white men. And it doesn’t really show them doing much of what actual terrorists do. It’s as if DHS is trying to make a completely useless anti-terrorism video.”
Watch the video that prompted last month’s controversy below.
Watch Video of FEMA & Homeland Security Teaming in PSYOPS Training
|ATF Rewards Agents Who Ran “Fast and Furious” and Then Helped Cover It Up|
|Friday, August 19, 2011|
|In what can only be described as “WashingtonD.C. logic,” the three BATFE agents who were responsible for the “Fast and Furious” debacle inPhoenix have been promoted.
You read that right, promoted! Not reprimanded, not demoted and certainly not fired, but given bigger jobs with more responsibility and more pay.
Each of the agents now have high profile positions in D.C. William Newell is now special assistant to the assistant director of the agency’s Office of Management, David Voth has been made branch chief for the BATFE’s tobacco division.
And if those two promotions seem hard to understand, the third is particularly hard to fathom. William G. McMahon, who had been the BATFE’s deputy director of operations in the West, has been made the deputy assistant director of the Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations. That is the division within BATFE that investigates misconduct by agency personnel.
Now, McMahon will be called on to investigate BATFE agents who abuse their positions. Perhaps in “Washington D.C. logic” it makes sense to put a rogue agent in charge of investigating other rogue agents. To the rest of the country, it makes no sense at all.
For months, the Department of Justice and the BATFE have stonewalled congressional inquiries into “Fast and Furious.” These three agents were not only at the center of running the failed operation in Phoenix, but directly aided DOJ in the efforts to hide the truth from Congress.
In testimony before Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee, all three evaded and dodged questions. This appears to be exactly what senior DOJ officials wanted and expected, and now they have rewarded the agents with promotions.
NRA has called for the resignation of attorney General Eric Holder. But all those involved in “Fast and Furious” should be fired. To promote them instead is a slap in the face of Congress and the American people.
New Warning About Muslim Brotherhood’s Influence on White House From…Liberal Marxist Muslim
Reprinted from The Blaze - August 17, 2011
You‘ll never guess who’s now warning about a Muslim Brotherhood influence at the White House. Newt Gingrich? Nope. John Bolton? Not exactly.
Instead, it’s Canadian political activist, devout Muslim and self-described liberal Marxist, Tarek Fatah. Surprised?
Back in June, Fatah appeared at Ideacity, Canada’s “Premier meeting of the minds” to share his shocking viewpoints on both mainstream and radical Islam (including the Muslim Brotherhood). During his fascinating talk, Fatah said that “the religion of Islam is being used as a tool by a fascist force.” It is important to note that Fatah is also a Muslim. Perhaps most shocking, though, were his words about the Muslim Brotherhood and its relation to the American presidency. He said:
“Instead of bringing victory over the fascist forces of the Muslim Brotherhood, we now recognize that their infiltration is right up to the American White House, but we can’t say that.”
“Today we are fighting another idea of Islamo-fascism that has shut our mouths and we can’t speak because we’re too scared that someone may turn around and call us a racist. And mind you, everyday as I speak, a few dozen Muslims would have been killed by now by these Jihadis.”
Fatah went on to challenge Canadians to stand up against Islamists, warning that the “sponge-like spine“ people are showcasing when it comes to confronting the issue of radicalisation could lead to the end of ”civilization as we know it.” See him make this statement here:
Tarek Fatah Video #2
Tarek Fatah Video #3
So, considering these statements, the question still remains — Has the Muslim Brotherhood truly infiltrated the Obama White House? Fatah certainly seems to think so. His accusations, particularly those that focus on U.S. government infiltration, are worth exploring further.
After all, how better to take down an opponent than to infiltrate U.S. leadership ranks? That, in fact, has been one of the Brotherhood’s plans for years. Cal Thomas writes:
In 1991, a memo written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood spelled out the objective of the organization. Akram said the Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Back in February, there was an uproar after James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, publicly stated that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “heterogeneous group“ that is ”largely secular.” His bizarre and contrary to evidential statements, which can be viewed below, were made only hours after the Brotherhood claimed that Sharia law is its ultimate goal.
Video of U.S. Intelligence Director Regarding Muslim Brotherhood
Considering these bold calls to action and warnings (particularly the charge that the Muslim Brotherhood has worked its way into the White House) one wonders if there is legitimate evidence to backup these claims. And if so, then who, in particular, has infiltrated the U.S. government?
Trevor Loudon has a post on his web site that asks these same questions, while providing two potential names of individuals some say have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Here, we will examine these individuals to see if they do, indeed, have any connection to the radical political group.
The first name mentioned in the Loudon piece is Rashad Hussain, a lawyer and the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In February 2010, Thomes wrote that Hussain’s appointment to the OIC “should be of serious concern to Congress and the American public.” According to FrontPage Magazine:
The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report took a look at Hussain’s official biography and found several concerning affiliations. The first is that in October 2000, Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, which was listed in an internal Muslim Brotherhood document as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” and the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University, which receives Saudi funding and is directed by prominent Muslim Brotherhood advocate, John Esposito.
Coincidentally, in 2003, Hussain was also a fellow at the Paul and Daisy Soros Foundation. Paul Soros is billionaire “philanthropist” George Soros’ brother. Additionally, FrontPage reported that Hussain “played a role” in the Muslim Students Association’s annual conference back in 2004. This group, too, was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood (in fact, it was founded by the Brotherhood) in 1963.
It was at this conference that Hussain spoke with the daughter of Professor Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was convicted of being a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; he later admitted to being a Muslim Brotherhood member as well. At the event, Hussain defended Al-Arian and claimed that his legal ordeal was essentially “politically-motivated persecution.”
But, it doesn’t end there. In May 2009, Hussein also spoke at a conference which was allegedly sponsored by Islamic Brotherhood affiliates. This being said, Hussein does support the term “Hamas terrorists” and there is no evidence that he has been sympathetic to the group. Still, Thomas writes, “…it is unsettling to see someone with Hussain’s background representing the United States to nations that may harbor or fund terrorists and want to destroy Israel and America.”
The second name Loudon’s site mentions is Dalia Mogahed, who is coincidentally the Senior Analyst and Executive Director at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.
In 2009, Obama nominated Mogahed to sit on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. According to DiscovertheNetworks.org, she co-authored the book “Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think” with the controversial Esposito. Here, though, is where much of the controversy surrounding her stems from:
In early October 2009, Mogahed was interviewed on a British television program hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party, which seeks to facilitate the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of a worldwide Islamic state governed by Sharia Law. Bsis and another guest (also a member of Hizb ut Tahrir) stated that Sharia should be “the source of legislation” for all nations in the world; they also repeatedly condemned the “man-made law” and the “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism” that existed in Western societies. Mogahed did not dispute any of their assertions.
Critics were upset over Mogahed’s refusal to take a stand against these claims. But, even more bizarre was her discussion during the interview of the West’s take on Sharia law (and her defense of it). DiscovertheNetworks.org continues:
Instead, Mogahed stated that the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified,“ and that the majority of Muslim women around the world associate Islamic Law with ”gender justice.“ ”I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of Sharia than the common perception in Western media,” she said;
Dalia Mogahed Face of Lies and Deception in America for the Muslim Brotherhood
In early 2010, Tablet Magazine called Mogahed, “The most important person shaping the Obama Administration’s Middle East message.” In the article, concern over her potential inability to distinguish between radicals and moderates is cited. The Investigative Project on Journalism has written extensively on Mogahed as well, claiming that she has been a staunch defender of both the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
She has claimed that it would not be fair be unfair to see these groups become “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation” that is perpetuated. She has been quoted claiming that “there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it’s kind of a witch hunt.”
Of course, neither of the individuals can be conclusively tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Are their connections and associations curious? Certainly. But, there is no direct evidence that they are working with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Instead, they appear sympathetic to the causes and goals that the political movement embraces. Still, Fatah’s warning to Canadians and recent history do expose the potential for unsettling connections within the administration. Earlier this year, Robert Spencer reiterated the Obama administration’s connections with the Muslim Brotherhood:
Obama first reached out to the Brotherhood when he chose the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had been named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case to give a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies. Ingrid Mattson, then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), offered this prayer at the National Cathedral on Obama’s Inauguration Day—despite the fact that the ISNA has admitted its ties to the Brotherhood…
Obama didn’t ask Mattson to explain the ISNA’s links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. On the contrary: He sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at the ISNA’s national convention in 2009.
These connections, to a degree, are troubling. As time progresses, the media will need to hold the administration accountable in terms of the individuals it brings on board and their stated opinions on the tenets of radical Islam.