Florida activists helped propel Marco Rubio into the Senate—but many say they feel betrayed by him, and they won’t support his presidential bid.
Marco Rubio – RINO Traitor
MIAMI—In the early days of Marco Rubio’s campaign for U.S. Senate, he spoke at one of the first Tea Party rallies in the state of Florida. As Rubio began to speak about not wanting to lose his country to socialism, lightning reportedly began to flash. It was to be either an omen of the betrayal his Tea Party supporters would later feel, or a foreshadowing of the powerful potential this young Cuban American had for higher office. It had taken a month for his hometown newspaper, the Miami Herald, to notice that the 38-year-old Miami lawyer, once a leader in the state House, had formally joined the race. He didn’t even hold a launch event when he registered as a candidate for U.S. Senate in early 2009. “It was lonely out there. He was living off the land, ” an early supporter said. “If he had held a launch event for his U.S. Senate campaign, you could have held it in a phone booth. ”It was the excitement of the Florida Tea Party movement, which exploded into the public consciousness in the spring and summer of 2009, that ultimately transformed Rubio into a serious contender. “Across the board in 2010, the Tea Party played a huge role. They got people out to vote, they were active, they were knocking on doors, making phone calls. There were little spots during the campaign where you just felt the momentum,” said Anthony Bustamante, Rubio’s former statewide field director and one of the first half-dozen staffers to join the Senate campaign.
Rubio betrayed Tea Party supporters when he worked with Democrats on an amnesty bill that would screw the American worker.
But don’t count on many of those original Florida Tea Party supporters to be in the crowd Monday evening when Rubio is expected to launch his bid for the White House with dramatic fanfare at Miami’s Freedom Tower, converted in the 1990s as a monument to Cuban refugees.
Six years after the movement’s initial rallies, marches, and demonstrations, Tea Party activists feel let down and betrayed by their native son.
“I’m through with him. He will never get my vote. ‘Disappointed’ would mean that he has an opportunity to restore his credibility, and there is no opportunity for that,” said KrisAnne Hall, an attorney and Tea Party activist from north-central Florida. “The overwhelming perception is that Marco Rubio is not a Tea Party candidate.”
Some Florida Tea Party supporters still wax nostalgic about the early, hopeful days of the Rubio Senate campaign.“When he was first running for Senate, I was a big fan… He walked the neighborhood both inside and outside his district, knocked on doors and asked what people’s needs were, what their issues were.
I smell a rat…. A Rubio rat!!
I was so impressed with that,” said Lisa Becker, who helped run A Sisterhood of Mommy Patriots, a Tea Party group geared toward mothers.“Then,” Becker continued, “he got into office.” “Once he got into Washington, he had his sights set early on higher office,” said Jason Hoyt, a Tea Party organizer from central Florida. “He surrounded himself with people who were going to help him navigate Washington to get there, and in that process he disconnected from his base.” Becker still acknowledges Rubio’s charisma and oratorical abilities. But now she thinks she might have been played. “Now I wonder if he was ever listening or it was just a ploy to get votes… He says all the right things to the audience he needs, and we in Florida are no longer his audience. His new audience is national voters who might elect him president,” she said.“ We were hungry for leadership on our principles and values, but it didn’t come from Marco,” Hoyt added. “I thought it would.”Many Tea Partiers point to Rubio’s work in the Senate as part of the so-called Gang of Eight, who tried to come to a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive immigration reform. It ultimately failed, but many on the right will not forgive what they disdain as the senator’s support for “amnesty.” At the Conservative Political Action Conference this year, Rubio tried to distance himself from his work on immigration, saying he had learned his lesson — that broad-based reform was only possible after complete border security. Some libertarian-leaning Tea Party activists also point to foreign policy and national security as issues on which he let them down. Hall, the attorney from north-central Florida, listed off the offenses: Rubio’s support for indefinite detention, support for arming the Syrian rebels, support for the war against ISIS without explicit congressional approval, and support for the NSA. “If he had been listening when he was knocking on those doors, he would have found out what matters. Being in perpetual war matters to families,” Becker said. Bustamante, Rubio’s former statewide field director, plays down any discontentment Florida Tea Party activists feel about the Florida Republican senator. “I don’t think there’s a rift. The Tea Party embraced Marco. I think they still hold them up as one of their own,” he said.Tom Gaitens, who knew Rubio in the state House and formerly worked for the conservative group FreedomWorks, said he had forgiven Rubio for the sin of working with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform.“The only perfect guy I ever met was Jesus Christ, in my heart. What I care about is that they stand up and show courage, and I think Marco has done that every step of the way,” Gaitens said.
Marco Rubio showing how much he appreciates those who put him in office!
And Rubio is still an insurgent. He is far from the front-runner in the large Republican presidential field.
It’s a position where he has thrived: Bustamante recalled the early “startup” days of the Rubio Senate campaign, where they drove 10 hours round trip to Jacksonville just to make $900.
Rubio is not running a startup anymore. He’s running a full-fledged business that hopes to raise millions to elevate him to the White House.
This time, though, he’ll do it without the support of many of the grassroots activists who propelled him to the Senate hoping for a Tea Party champion.
On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Municipality announced it is shelving plans to build 1,500 apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood.
Har Homa Settlements in the West Bank
Officials gave no explanation for its sudden move. But none was needed. Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama. But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.
To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening. First we need to understand that the administration’s hostility has little to do with Israel’s actions.
As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
Obama and Iran – A twisted love story…
Over the past six years we have seen how Obama has consistently, but gradually, taken steps to advance these two goals. Toward Iran, he has demonstrated an unflappable determination to accommodate the terrorism supporting, nuclear proliferating, human rights repressing and empire building mullahs.
Beginning last November, as the deadline for nuclear talks between the US and its partners and Tehran approached, Obama’s attempts to accommodate Tehran escalated steeply.
Obama has thrown caution to the winds in a last-ditch effort to convince Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei to sign a deal with him. Last month the administration published a top secret report on Israel’s nuclear installations. Last week, Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper published an annual terrorism threat assessment that failed to mention either Iran or Hezbollah as threats.
And this week, the administration accused Israel of spying on its talks with Iran in order to tell members of Congress the details of the nuclear deal that Obama and his advisers have been trying to hide from them.
In the regional context, the administration has had nothing to say in the face of Iran’s takeover of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden this
week. With its Houthi-proxy now in charge of the strategic waterway, and with its own control over the Straits of Hormuz, Iran is poised to exercise naval control over the two choke points of access to Arab oil.
The administration is assisting Iranian Shi’ite proxies in their battle to defeat Islamic State forces in the Iraqi city of Tikrit. It has said nothing about the Shi’ite massacres of Sunnis that come under their control.
Parallel to its endless patience for Tehran, the Obama administration has been treating Israel with bristling and ever-escalating hostility. This hostility has been manifested among other things through strategic leaks of highly classified information, implementing an arms embargo on weapons exports to Israel in time of war, ending a 40-year agreement to provide Israel with fuel in times of emergency, blaming Israel for the absence of peace, expressing tolerance and understanding for Palestinian terrorism, providing indirect support for Europe’s economic war against Israel, and providing indirect support for the BDS movement by constantly accusing Israel of ill intentions and dishonesty.
Then there is the UN. Since he first entered office, Obama has been threatening to withhold support for Israel at the UN. To date, the administration has vetoed one anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council and convinced the Palestinians not to submit another one for a vote.
In the months that preceded these actions, the administration exploited Israel’s vulnerability to extort massive concessions to the Palestinians.
Obama forced Benjamin Netanyahu to announce his support for Palestinian statehood in September 2009. He used the UN threat to coerce Netanyahu to agree to negotiations based on the 1949 armistice lines, to deny Jews their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to release scores of terrorist murderers from prison.
Following the nationalist camp’s victory in last week’s election, Obama brought to a head the crisis in relations he instigated. He has done so for two reasons.
First, next week is the deadline for signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama views Netanyahu as the prospective deal’s most articulate and effective opponent.
As Obama sees it, Netanyahu threatens his nuclear diplomacy with Iran because he has a unique ability to communicate his concerns about the deal to US lawmakers and the American people, and mobilize them to join him in opposing Obama’s actions. The letters sent by 47 senators to the Iranian regime explaining the constitutional limitations on presidential power to conclude treaties without Senate approval, like the letter to Obama from 367 House members expressing grave and urgent concerns about the substance of the deal he seeks to conclude, are evidence of Netanyahu’s success.
The second reason Obama has gone to war against Israel is because he views the results of last week’s election as an opportunity to market his anti-Israel and pro-Iranian positions to the American public.
If Netanyahu can convince Americans to oppose Obama on Iran, Obama believes that by accusing Netanyahu of destroying chances for peace and calling him a racist, Obama will be able to win sufficient public support for his anti-Israel policies to intimidate pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers into accepting his pro-Iranian policies.
Obama and Iran’s Rouhani
To this end, Obama has announced that the threat that he will abandon Israel at the UN has now become a certainty. There is no peace process, Obama says, because Netanyahu had the temerity to point out that there is no way for Israel to risk the transformation of Judea and Samaria into a new terror base. As a consequence, he has all but made it official that he is abandoning the peace process and joining the anti-Israel bandwagon at the UN.
Given Obama’s decision to abandon support for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modes of appeasement aimed at showing Israel’s good faith, such as Jewish building freezes, are no longer relevant. Scrapping plans to build apartments in Jewish neighborhoods like Har Homa will make no difference.
Obama has reached a point in his presidency where he is prepared to give full expression to his plan to end the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
He thinks that doing so is both an end to itself and a means of succeeding in his bid to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.
Given this dismal reality, Israel needs to develop ways to minimize the damage Obama can cause.
Israel needs to oppose Obama’s policies while preserving its relations with its US supporters, including its Democratic supporters. Doing so will ensure that it is in a position to renew its alliance with the US immediately after Obama leaves office.
With regards to Iran, such a policy requires Israel to act with the US’s spurned Arab allies to check Iran’s expansionism and nuclear progress. It also requires Israel to galvanize strong opposition to Obama’s goal of replacing Israel with Iran as America’s chief ally in the Middle East and enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.
As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to view Obama’s abandonment of the peace process as an opportunity to improve our diplomatic position by resetting our relations with the Palestinians. Since 1993, Israel has been entrapped by the chimerical promise of a “two-state solution.”
By late 2000, the majority of Israelis had recognized that there is no way to achieve the two-state solution. There is no way to make peace with the PLO. But due to successive governments’ aversion to risking a crisis in relations with Washington, no one dared abandon the failed two-state strategy.
Obama and Iran’s Supreme Leader – Khamenei
Now, with Obama himself declaring the peace process dead and replacing it with a policy of pure hostility toward Israel, Israel has nothing to gain from upholding a policy that blames it for the absence of peace.
No matter how loudly Netanyahu declares his allegiance to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Obama will keep castigating him and Israel as the destroyer of peace.
The prevailing, 23-year-old view among our leadership posits that if we abandon the two-state model, we will lose American support, particularly liberal American support. But the truth is more complicated.
Inspired by the White House and the Israeli Left, pro-Israel Democrats now have difficulty believing Netanyahu’s statements of support for the establishment of a Palestinians state. But those who truly uphold liberal values of human rights can be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s conviction that peace is currently impossible and as a consequence, the two-state model must be put on the back burner.
We can maintain support among Republicans and Democrats alike if we present an alternative policy that makes sense in the absence of an option for the two-state model.
Such a policy is the Israeli sovereignty model. If the government adopts a policy of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in whole – as I recommend in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, or in part, in Area C, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, our leaders will be able to defend their actions before the American people, including pro-Israel Democrats.
Israel must base its policy of sovereignty on two principles. First, this is a liberal policy that will ensure the civil rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike, and improve the Palestinians’ standard of living.
Second, such a policy is not necessarily a longterm or permanent “solution,” but it is a stable equilibrium for now.
Just as Israel’s decision to apply its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past didn’t prevent it from conducting negotiations regarding the possible transfer of control over the areas to the Palestinians and Syrians, respectively, so an administrative decision to apply Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria will not block the path for negotiations with the Palestinians when regional and internal Palestinian conditions render them practicable.
The sovereignty policy is both liberal and strategically viable. If the government adopts it, the move will rebuild Israel’s credibility and preserve Israel’s standing on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Indeed, until 2009, the very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei’s Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states was never even considered. But here we are.
Our current situation is unpleasant. But it isn’t the end of the world. We aren’t helpless. If we act wisely, we can stem Iran’s nuclear and regional advance. If we act boldly, we can preserve our alliance with the US while adopting a policy toward the Palestinians that for the first time in decades will advance our interests and our liberal values on the world stage.
He starts with 54 votes in the Senate, needing 60 and knowing that centrist Democrats don’t want to cross their own party on a bill that’s only going to end up being vetoed anyway.
Mitch McConnell showing how many of his promises he is going to keep….
Without those Democrats, the only leverage the GOP has is to refuse to fund Homeland Security until Obama agrees to scale back his executive action on immigration — however long that takes. That is to say, the “power of the purse” is really just a euphemism for the power to shut down the government, or part of the government. Senate Republicans have made it crystal clear that they refuse to exercise that power.
In which case, what’s left?
McConnell did not provide a path forward Thursday in the likely case that the House bill fails. Passing the House bill would “be our first choice,” McConnell said. “If we’re not able to do that, then we’ll let you know what’s next.” ( total capitulation)…
Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune declined to say Thursday whether the upper chamber would pass a clean funding bill for the department if the House legislation stalls in the Senate, but added: “We recognize the important role that the Department of Homeland Security plays in this country.”…
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, outlined the debate ahead of Thursday afternoon’s panel. “None of us want to see DHS face any kind of a shutdown threat. Too important,” he said. “But we also want to make sure we have done all we can to get the president to work with us rather than go around Congress and around the American people through his executive actions.”
If you won’t take Thune’s and Portman’s words for it, just listen to John Cornyn, McConnell’s top deputy in the Senate:
“The expectation by the rank and file in the House is it’s not going to come back even remotely similar to what we sent over there. And there is a real reticence by members of our conference to allow the funding to lapse,” [one House Republican] lawmaker added…
“No more drama associated with shutting down, for example, the Department of Homeland Security. That’s off the table,” Cornyn told reporters.
“Under no circumstances will we see any shutdowns,” he said.
And that’s that. Even if the bill passes the Senate, it’s a mortal lock that Obama will veto it. Now here’s the Senate majority whip all but telling you that if that happens, if O forces the GOP to decide between a DHS shutdown and a “clean” bill that funds Homeland Security with no concessions whatsoever on amnesty — a total capitulation by Republicans — they’ll choose the latter.
All of this was entirely foreseeable when the GOP passed the “cromnibus,” setting up a showdown with the White House on DHS funding. McConnell and Cornyn have spent the two months since election day telling every reporter who’ll listen that job one for the new Senate majority is showing Americans it can govern. No more shutdowns, no more debt-ceiling standoffs. Message: It’s safe to elect a Republican president in 2016 and let the GOP control all of government. So what does the House do with the last major bill of the lame-duck session? They set up a shutdown-or-bust choice for the party on amnesty, an issue that’s laser-hot with their own base. Mystifying.
Let me repeat a prediction I made a few weeks ago, then: Precisely because the base is paying close attention, they won’t settle for a “clean” funding bill either. There’s a “security first” bill coming on immigration reform. The only question is when.
Leaders have tried to reassure colleagues worried about illegal immigration by pledging action on legislation to secure the border and strengthen enforcement policies against illegal residents.
“Step 1 is to pass pretty much all of [Homeland Security Committee Chairman] Mike McCaul’s [R-Texas] border security bill. That’s the first step we’ll take,” said Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas).
McConnell might get 60 votes for a security bill. Centrist Dems like Claire McCaskill fear a backlash from their party
Claire McCaskill – Can you say RINO?
if they humiliate Obama by voting against amnesty, but security at the border and in the interior U.S. is a regular feature of the comprehensive immigration reform bills that Democrats routinely vote for. They won’t be crossing O by supporting it. They will be reducing their party’s leverage over comprehensive reform by supporting only the Republican-favored security half of it, but that matters less after Obama’s amnesty than it used to do.
The legalization half of comprehensive reform has already been enacted: The GOP, by refusing to shut down DHS, will be effectively agreeing to legalization via executive order. That’s not a perfect deal for Democrats — a “security
first” bill will have the force of statutory law whereas O’s legalization order could be undone by the next president — but everyone understands at this point, I think, that no successor from either party is going to undo O’s order. The politics are too tough. So yeah, McConnell might well get 60 for “security first.” The question is, would
Obama sign a bill like that? And if he won’t, knowing that the GOP has essentially forfeited its power of the purse by forfeiting their power to shut down parts of the government, what leverage will they have to force him to sign?
The practice known as Civil Asset Forfeiture is getting more attention these days, and deservedly so. Americans need to know that there is a legal mechanism for the government to empty their bank accounts, even if they haven’t been convicted or formally accused – of a crime.
The concept of “innocent before proven guilty” has always been a guiding principle in the American legal system. That the burden of proof must be on the accuser rather than the accused is so important that it is specifically included the Constitutions of such diverse nations as Iran, Colombia, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Romania, Russia, and France. Our own Constitution makes it clear in the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments that the government can’t persecute its citizens without first proving that they have committed a crime.
Of course, that prohibition has never stopped the government from doing whatever it wants to do, particularly everyone’s least favorite agency, the IRS. We all justly hate the IRS for walking away with a sizable chunk of our paychecks each month, but most people don’t realize they they have the power to straight up take money out of your bank account if you are suspected – not convicted, not accused, but suspected of criminal activity.
This is not some theoretical or archaic legal loophole that never actually gets used. In fact, it gets used all the time. In 2012, the IRS used this power 639 times, a dramatic increase from the 14 such instances in 2005.
It gets worse. It’s a dangerous world out there, and many of us are justly nervous about terrorist activity. If the IRS is persecuting ruthless criminals,what’s the big deal, right? It turns out, the IRS is doing no such thing. A full 80 percent of the 2012 seizures were not followed up with any criminal proceedings whatsoever. The agency didn’t have a case against these people. In other words, they were innocent, and yet their own government had no problem stealing their hard earned money without so much as notifying them of what was going to happen.
But wait there’s more! Everyone makes mistakes. As long as the IRS gave the money back after they found out no crime had been committed, no harm no foul, right? In many cases, the IRS keeps all of the money it takes, or else only gives back a portion of it.
It would be hard to imagine a more clear cut case of outright theft from innocent people than this. If you arouse the suspicions of the feds, they can take your money and refuse to give it back without any further action. Can someone explain how this is any different from a common mugging?
It’s outrageous in the extreme, and yet it’s only one of a number of abuses that emphasize the need for drastic and immediate criminal justice reform. We should not tolerate a government that treats its citizens as a personal piggy-bank.
When Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley murdered NYPD Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu as they ate lunch in their patrol car last Saturday, the only people who could possibly have been surprised were those who have not realized how assiduously Leftist and Muslim activists have worked – long before the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner — to demonize the NYPD and law enforcement in general. The advent of the killer was only a matter of time.
Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley NYC Police killer was a Muslim
It has been only lightly reported that Brinsley was a Muslim, and generally when it has been mentioned, it has been dismissed as a motive in favor of his statements about wanting to kill police officers to avenge Garner and Brown. But these two motivations – revenge for the perceived racist killings of two black men and Brinsley’s Islamic faith – are not mutually exclusive. Brinsley’s Facebook page featured a photo of the Qur’an open to the eighth chapter, where Allah exhorts the believers to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60).
Brinsley may have thought, what better way to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah than to kill a couple of infidel, racist police officers? Investigative journalist Patrick Poole found an additional sign of Brinsley’s attachment to Islam on his Facebook page, where Brinsley wrote at one point that he was heading to “Al-Farooq Tomorrow inshallah.”Poole notes: “If this reference by the cop killer was from Brooklyn (which is hard to discern since his Instagram account has been taken down), it may indicate that he was going to visit.”
Masjid Al-Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn
Al-Farooq’s long history of terror support goes back more than 20 years, when the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was hatched by members. One imam from the early 1990s, when Al-Farooq was a hub of the nascent Al-Qaeda and was hosting Al-Qaeda co-founder Abdullah Azzam, was Fawaz Damra, who was charged, convicted and later deported for lying to immigration officials about his terror ties when he applied for U.S. citizenship.
Meanwhile, Muslim activists in New York City – with willing help from their Leftist allies — have long cultivated a sense of grievance, claiming that they have been unfairly singled out for NYPD surveillance and monitoring. At an October 2011 hearing about the New York Police Department’s counter-terror activities in Muslim areas, New York City Councilman Brad Lander asserted: “It looks like we are targeting Muslim neighborhoods and communities. That’s not good for us. We have people out there who are partners who feel the trust is betrayed.”
New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly defended the NYPD programs, saying, “What we’re doing is following leads.” His critics were not mollified. In February 2012,Muslims in New York held a massive protest against the NYPD. Many protesters were holding printed signs with slogans designed to enhance Muslims’ feelings that they had been targets of NYPD prejudice and discrimination: “FIRE Ray Kelly!”; “Stop NYPD Ethnic, Racial and Religious Profiling”; “Stop Entrapment and Surveillance Without Warrants”; “Muslims Demand Equal Rights”; and “NO to a Police State!” A handwritten sign held by a woman in a hijab foreshadowed the charges widely made against the NYPD after the death of Eric Garner: “GOOD BYE RACIST RAY!”
“Racist Ray”’s days were numbered in October 2013, when, according to CBS NewYork, “Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio told a group of Muslim supporters Wednesday that they won’t have to live in fear of being under constant surveillance if he’s elected mayor.” Linda Sarsour, head of the Muslim Democratic Club, was pleased: “People are tired of a mayor,” she
Linda Sarsour Anti-Semite and Islamic Supremacist
asserted, “that unequivocally stands behind the (police) commissioner and says that everything we’re doing is right.”
When he became Mayor, de Blasio moved swiftly, dismantling the legal NYPD Muslim surveillance program in April 2014 – thereby validating the Muslim activists’ claims that the program was racist, discriminatory and unjust. But the end of this program did not end the Muslim and Leftist sense of grievance, which was only fueled by the Brown and Garner incidents. Leftist and Muslim groups continued to fuel the perception that police were “racist” and “Islamophobic.”
The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has repeatedlyexhorted Muslims to contact a lawyer and the nearest CAIR office if contacted by the FBI, and to “Know Your Rights” and say as little as possible. CAIR would, of course, hotly deny that they have given this advice to Muslims to protect those engaged in terror activity from detection and prosecution, but then the only other alternative is that CAIR wants Muslims to believe that law enforcement officials are engaged in an ongoing campaign to entrap and persecute innocent Muslims.
That message, of course, coincides perfectly with that of race-baiters such as Al Sharpton, who have labored so long to foster among black Americans the same idea. In Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley, these dual and interrelated grievances came together, and two policemen are dead. There will be more.
We really need to start killing the police … OOooopppss I mean our oppressors.”
Jaleel Tariq Abdul-Jabbaar is just another enemy within….
The idea that Muslims or anyone else are oppressed in America today is absurd, but there are numerous organizations and individuals wholly devoted to keeping this falsehood alive and capitalizing upon it.
Jaleel Tariq Abdul-Jabbaar’s Facebook page features the black flag of jihad that jihad groups including the Islamic State use.
“Feds: Kirkland man arrested for threats to kill Ferguson officer,” by Martha Bellisle, Associated Press, December 2, 2014 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
SEATTLE (AP) – A man was arrested Tuesday on federal charges of posting Internet threats against a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, after a black teenager was shot and killed.
Defendant Jaleel Tarik Abdul-Jabbaar, 46, of Kirkland began posting threats on Facebook soon after the shooting of Michael Brown, according to the criminal complaint.
The complaint includes FBI Special Agent Brett Grover saying, “the threats relate to the widely publicized events of Aug. 9 during which Officer D.W. fatally shot Michael Brown.”
The complaint does not specifically name then-Officer Darren Wilson as the victim of the threats. It’s a policy to withhold the names of victims in such cases, said Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle.
Wilson later resigned from the Ferguson Police Department.
Abdul-Jabbaar made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court and was appointed a federal public defender. The judge set a detention hearing for Friday.
On Aug. 30, Abdul-Jabbaar posted, “we really need to start killing the police … OOooopppss I mean our oppressors,” the complaint said.
Federal prosecutors said Abdul-Jabbaar posted inflammatory messages for months that called on others to join him on a trip to Ferguson to “give back the bullets” that were fired at Brown.
Acting U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes said Americans have a right to speak out about current events and criticize the government, but “our freedom of speech does not, however, extend to making threats to kill or injure law enforcement officers.”…
Check out Mr “pants on the ground” who after calling for rioters at Ferguson to “Burn the b**** down!!” will not be facing ANY charges!
Rudy Giuliani puts racist Eric Dyson in his place.
As an American who happens to be black, I say, “Right on, brother. Way to go, Rudy!” It is about time someone got into the face of these despicable human beings like Dyson, whose evil intention is to divide our great nation along racial lines for political and personal gain. Dyson and his ilk are disgusting. We must not submit to their arrogance, bullying, and assumed superiority.
Typically, the left is having a cow, and even some on the right are chiding Rudy for “going too far.” Simply telling the truth is not allowed when dealing with black destructive behavior in America. Nuanced responses are expected, exempting blacks from all responsibility, citing racist white America as the bad guys.
In typical race pimp fashion designed to silence whites, Dyson used the deplorable tactic of calling Rudy a racist, claiming that Giuliana has a “white supremacy” mindset. Thank God, Rudy did not back down, cower in fear, and start walking back his comments. God forbid that compassionate Americans who have a sincere desire to turn things around in the black community allow themselves to be intimidated into silence by evil race exploiters and profiteers.
Remarkably, Dyson went on to launch the absurd narrative that Rudy, by simply stating facts and refusing to pander to black bad behavior, is racist and a contributor to the problem. This is what vile race pimps do – usually getting away with their crap. Rudy refreshingly showed some backbone.
During a recent interview, I was asked what event turned me into a black conservative. Upon giving it some thought, I was reminded that my great awakening began at around age 9.
Back in the 1950s, my parents, four younger siblings, and I lived in a rundown leaky-roof row house in the ghetto of east Baltimore, with a potbelly-stove in the living room. I remember our excitement upon being approved to move to the brand-new 11-story government projects building. Our 6B apartment (funny how I still remember our apartment and apartment number) was fully equipped with new appliances. We were in heaven.
Over time, I witnessed the destruction of and disrespect for our building by a majority of the all-black residents. The elevators were regularly out of service due to vandalism. After people broke the light bulbs, the dark stairwells were used for various forms of criminal activities and as toilets. Despite overhearing numerous residents complaining about whitey, I clearly saw that whitey was not solely responsible for all of our woes. According to my childhood experiences, only a handful appreciated, respected, and kept their apartments nice.
Did Whitey do this?
At my early age, I sarcastically said, “How can we stop mean white people from sneaking into our building at night, peeing in the stairwells, leaving broken wine bottles, and raping people?” Even as a child, I knew everything wrong was not the white man’s fault and that we possessed power to positively impact our lives.
It is beyond-the-pale evil that the MSM, Democrats, and a majority of the modern civil rights movement are attempting to convince blacks that in terms of race relations, our nation has progressed minimally since the 1950s. Their vile, insidious false narrative says blacks are denied justice and white cops shoot blacks at will.
Living in the projects, I was too young and uninformed to understand the political dynamics involved. And yet, I instinctively understood that fellow residents in the government projects did not respect their apartments because they did not earn or own anything, thus feeling no pride of achievement or ownership.
As a young adult, I won the Mr. Baltimore contest. While I cannot remember the question, here is the answer that won me favor with the judges. “You must first get the ghetto mindset out of the people before you can truly take them out of the ghetto.” This observation was birthed out of my firsthand experiences living in the projects.
I do not recall a single “road to Damascus” moment marking when I officially became a black conservative. However, the seeds of my conservative roots were planted in my early childhood.
Fortunately, I have built up an immunity to the victim mindset instilled by Michael Eric Dyson and his shameful traitorous black posse to keep conned blacks voting for Democrats.
Again, I tip my hat to my patriot brother Rudy Giuliani for compassionately taking a courageous step toward starting an honest dialog regarding uplifting and empowering my fellow black Americans.
The failure of some presidencies can be encapsulated in a phrase. Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook” was one of them. Barack Obama provided us with another when he threatened a Congressman who was reluctant to vote for Obamacare with the taunt, “Don’t think we‘re not keeping score, brother.”
And with that phrase Barack Obama laid bare the fundamental problem of his presidency: the idea that loyalty to Barack Obama trumped loyalty to American voters.
Presidents want to enjoy support for their policies and agenda, but Barack Obama has surpassed previous presidents in demanding universal support among members of his own party. Many presidents have lived and worked in the real world where working with others — including those not considered allies — is required to perform well. When presidents have listened to the American people and seen their party “shellacked” in elections, they have “triangulated” — adjusted and moderated their policies. Bill Clinton was compelled to do so when Newt Gingrich led a resurgent Republican Party to widespread victories in 1994. However, Barack Obama refused to change tack after losses in 2010 and he shows no inclination to do so now.
Obama’s Reign of Terror!
He had made many mistakes but this was probably the most critical one. And among the victims have been a slew of Democrats who have seen their careers wrecked because they showed obedience and allegiance to Barack Obama and have paid the price for doing so.
When Obama laid down the line about “keeping score” he made clear to one and all that they were expected to do his bidding in Congress: to fall in line and support his agenda to the hilt, come what may.
He may have threatened to reduce or eliminate campaign money or support for their campaigns. There are few labors more dreaded than dialing-for-dollars and attending fundraisers. But raising money was the one talent Barack Obama had in abundance. “Follow the money” was an expression coined in Washington, and it so well describes the mores in our capital city.
That money leverage of Obama may have been implicit or explicit. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chosen by Obama to chair the Democratic National Committee, was one of his enforcers. The control of campaign money and help (including the massive data banks under DNC control) was under her aegis. Perhaps other inducements were offered to compel obedience – say, an Ambassadorship here or there that Obama routinely hands out as rewards for supporting him — regardless of the impact on America’s relationships with other nations. Max Baucus was rewarded with an Ambassadorship to China for helping secure passage of Barack Obama’s legacy legislation, Obamacare (as well as give the Democratic governor of Montana a chance to appoint another Democrat to the seat to help secure the seat in the next election).
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was Obama’s other major enforcer — as Reid used his dictatorial control of the Senate to control what legislation came up for a vote and what amendments would be allowed to be offered by other Senators. The result was total deadlock, as the Republican House passed law after law — challenges to Obamacare, to Obama’s legislation, to Obama’s overreach, to Obama’s trampling of the Constitution, only to see them die-smothered- at the hands of Harry Reid.
Axis of Evil – Obama and Reid
However, he would let Obama-approved legislation and amendments come to a vote. Democrats fell in line to vote for policies that would haunt them in the days to come.
The result — as we now know from thousands of ads — was to provide ammunition to the Republicans. The handiwork of Obama and company has harmful to Democrats seeking reelection: as Republicans note the obeisance shown by Democrats to Obama. As I previously wrote in Voting is the best revenge:
Congressional Quarterly published an annual president position votes report that charts every elected official’s votes in support of Barack Obama. That report is behind a paywall but has been tapped in races across the nation: New Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen’s votes match Obama’s 99 percent of the time; North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan hits the 96% level; Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor supported Obama’s stances 91% of the time; Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu comes in at 90 % ; Alaska’s Senator Mark Begich comes in at 97 percent. In other words, to quote John F. Kennedy, there are no profiles in courage in this lot. They are profiles in submission.
Their colors are not blue, but yellow. And these are colors that run and bleed.
They had tried to deny voting for Obama, claimed they would be his worst nightmares if returned to Washington (when they were not busy airbrushing Wikipedia entries and their own websites), tried to distract voters with claims of misogyny and racism. They refused Obama’s visits as if he had Ebola (his money was more than welcome, however).
But, try as they might, they could not hide from their shameful histories and records.
They were trapped by Obama and his need for people to bend to his will — his aspiration to dominate.
Barack Obama’s ego and narcissism — his most dominant character traits (flaws, that is) would brook no opposition. Democrats had to vote in favor of all his policies or face retribution. This is what happens when a bully is president.
A better president, a man with more foresight and concern for his country as well as members of his own party who staked their futures on him, would have chosen a different path.
There is a practice known as logrolling in Congress. Politicians agree to reciprocate for each other’s votes. If one vote would cause Congressman A problems at home, he might work out a deal with Congressman B to vote for that legislation. Congressmen B would have a chit to call in the future if he needed help to get a bill passed but could not personally vote for it for campaign reasons. Obama, Reid and Pelosi (when she was Speaker of the House) did not see any reason to allow such “trades” when they dominated Congress and when the House was lost, Reid would (as noted above) only allow Obama-approved legislation to come to a vote. And, of course, all Democrats were expected to follow orders.
Lyndon Johnson was called the “Master of the Senate” for myriad reasons but foremost among them was the ability to count votes. That skill was a major reason John F. Kennedy chose him to be his Vice-President. When the Texan had enough votes to pass legislation he would give vulnerable Democrats a pass-they would not be asked to cast votes that could cause them electoral problems at home. He and Kennedy as a team knew how to work Congress to get work done without demanding total allegiance to them, personally. Indeed, Kennedy and Johnson would often give southern Democrats a pass on civil rights legislation because they knew it would cost those Congressmen and Senators votes back home.
But Obama was not that smart or humble or confident. He would not allow other politicians to show their independence from him, to show voters back home they represented them and their concerns. Instead, they acted as tools to fulfill Obama’s agenda. Obama had been quite willing to show flexibility to Vladimir Putin and other adversaries and enemies of America but would not show the same flexibility to members of his own party-even if their careers were at stake.
Democrats were cowed into submission; they could not show their independence –assuming they had any backbone.
Obama has provided us reminders of his political poison.
As it stands today, Republicans will add seats in the House and recapture the Senate on Tuesday.
However, the near-certainty is that those elections will be swiftly eclipsed by issues of war, peace, immigration and race, all of which will be moved front and center this November.
Consider. If repeated leaks from investigators to reporters covering the Ferguson story are true, there may be no indictment of Officer Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Michael Brown.
Should that happen, militant voices are already threatening, “All hell will break loose.” Police in the city and 90-some municipalities in St. Louis County, as well as the state police, are preparing for major violence.
Don’t they have something better to do?
After flying out to Ferguson to declare, “I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man.” Eric Holder has once again brought his healing touch to the bleeding wound.
Yesterday, Holder said it is “pretty clear” that there is a “need for wholesale change” in the Ferguson Police Department.
But, Holder notwithstanding, that is not at all “clear.”
Should the grand jury decide that Wilson fired in self-defense in a struggle with Brown over his gun, and fired again when the 6-foot-4-inch, 300-pound teenager charged him, what would justify a purge of the Ferguson Police Department or the dismissal of Chief Thomas Jackson?
What exactly have the Ferguson cops done to deserve the remorseless vilification they have received?
Yet, as St. Louis is bitterly divided over this incident and how it has been exploited, so, too, will be the nation, should November 2014 provide a replay of the urban riots of yesteryear.
And the president himself will invite a social explosion if he proceeds with White House plans for an executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens residing in the United States.
Amnesty for criminals is what Obama has in mind!
Obama is reportedly considering an end to the deportation of an entire class of illegals, perhaps numbering 5 million, providing them with work permits and putting them on a path to permanent residency.
Such a post-election amnesty would bring a full-throated roar of approval from La Raza and the liberal wing of Obama’s party, but it would evoke an even louder roar of protest from Middle America. And such a presidential usurpation of power would poison Obama’s relations with the new Congress before it was even sworn in.
Undeniably, this would be a decision for which Obama would be remembered by history. But it is not at all clear that he would be well-remembered by his countrymen.
Indeed, among the reasons Obama did not act before the election was that he knew full well that any sweeping amnesty for illegals would sink all of his embattled
The corporate wing of the GOP might welcome the removal of the immigration issue from the national debate. But conservatives and populists will bring it back in the presidential primaries in the new year.
There are also two simmering issues of foreign policy likely to come to a boil and split Congress and country before Christmas.
First is America’s deepening involvement in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, for which Obama has never received Congressional authorization. When Congress returns for its lame-duck session, opponents of this latest Mideast war will be demanding that a new war resolution be debated and voted upon.
As yet, the president has made no convincing case that ISIS terrorists are primarily America’s problem. Nor do we have a convincing strategy or adequate allied ground forces to fulfill Obama’s declared mission to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.
What could bring this to the fore rapidly would be an Islamic State attack on Baghdad, the Green Zone, the U.S. embassy, or the Baghdad airport.
Some political and military analysts believe the attack on Kobane on the Syrian-Turkish border is a diversion from a planned attack on Baghdad to shock the Americans, just as the Tet Offensive of 1968 shocked an earlier generation.
While a military disaster for the Viet Cong, Tet convinced many Americans, Walter Cronkite among them, that the war could not be won.
Any such attack on Baghdad would likely trigger a debate inside the United States about whether, and at what price, we should try to put the Iraqi nation back together again.
Lastly, Nov. 24 is the deadline for the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. If Obama decides that an agreement is acceptable to him and our European allies, and moves by executive action to lift some sanctions on Iran, he could face a rebellion in this city and on Capitol Hill.
Yet, should no agreement be reached, and the talks with Iran break off, there will be mounted a major drive by the War Party for the United States to exercise the military option to resolve the issue.
New battles at home, new wars abroad – this remains, unfortunately, the future prospect as well as the old reality.
Alton Nolen barged into an Oklahoma food plant Thursday, beheaded a woman and stabbed a second, police said. But he may have foreshadowed the attack months ago: In March, he posted a gory photo of a decapitation on Facebook, explaining that ‘Islamic terrorists behead their victims’ because of a ‘precedent bestowed by their Prophet.’
Alton Nolen, the man accused of beheading a woman in an Oklahoma food plant office, maintained a Facebook page full of disturbing warnings to America and photos of terrorist fighters.
Months before he beheaded a co-worker at an Oklahoma food plant, a fired factory worker posted on Facebook a photo of a burning lower Manhattan during the 9/11 attacks.
“Dnt yall knw why the Eastern part of the world hates Amerika? Everything God says don’t do Amerika does,” Alton Nolen wrote in the photo caption.
“She (the Statue of Liberty) is going into flames. She and anybody who’s with her.”
The picture and sickening screed are among many chilling posts on the 30-year-old Islamic convert’s profile.
Nolen used the name Jah’Keem Yisrael on Facebook.
The most disturbing is a gruesome photo of a beheading.
“Thus do we find the clear precedent that explains the peculiar penchant of Islamic terrorists to behead their victims: it is merely another precedent bestowed by their Prophet,” reads a message written above the photo posted in October.
Next to a photo of Pope Benedict XVI posted in May, Nolen wrote: “SHARIA LAW IS COMING!!!!”
Nolen’s barbaric attack Thursday came hours after he lost his job at Vaughan Foods in Moore.
The knife-wielding suspect barged into the plant’s front office and decapitated co-worker Collen Hufford, 54. Nolen then attacked a second female co-worker, Traci Johnson, 43, and stabbed her repeatedly.
He warned that America is ‘going into flames’ and once posted a photo of a beheading.
Nolen’s rampage came to an end when the company’s chief operating officer Mark Vaughan shot his deranged former employee.
Reserve Deputy Mark Vaughan heroically shot Moore, Okla. beheading suspect Alton Nolen at a food plant.
Nolen underwent surgery at a local hospital and is expected to survive. Johnson was hospitalized in critical condition but has been upgraded to stable, officials said.
A spokesman for the Oklahoma City Islamic group said Saturday that Nolen was seen as “a little weird” but didn’t raise any red flags.
Police have said there was no evidence that Nolen’s new faith motivated his barbaric crime.
But his online presence provides a portrait of a man who appeared to be obsessed with Islamic extremism.
His cover photo featured Taliban fighters — and he posted several uncaptioned pics of Osama Bin Laden.
Beside a photo showing an explosion, Nolen wrote: “WARNING TO MANKIND: ONE DAY THE EARTH WILL BE CHANGED TO A DIFFERENT EARTH, AND SO WILL BE THE HEAVENS.”
“You can lead them to water, but you can’t make them drink.” After having its head dunked into the truth of Islamism, the Obama administration seems to prefer to drown in its failed anti-Bush pacifism.
Everyone knows that the most reliably pro-American military in the Syria/Iraq region is the Peshmerga, yet American arms have not been provided to these Kurds, nor has their justified nationalist aspiration been acknowledged, let alone endorsed.
Peshmerga fighters retake villages from Islamic State
Instead, America is handing the region to Iran (enhancing its nuclear ambitions), accommodating resurrected Turkish dreams of a worldwide caliphate (transcending its “sultanate”), and failing to enlist necessary support from Wahhabist Saudi Arabia (reinforcing its ideological outreach). Indeed, America can’t find anyone to provide the “boots on the ground” that can begin to match the burgeoning Islamic Army, threatening to conquer the American homeland…and everything in between.
Lame excuses for inaction advanced by Obama’s spokespeople are easily punctured. For example, they failed to ensure that the Continuing (Funding) Resolution passed last week allowed direct support for Erbil without first transiting through Baghdad. Again, ideology (here, “We must not undermine the new ‘unity’ government”) shrouds intent to pay lip-service to the legitimate, urgent needs of one of the diminishing number of unabashedly pro-American fighting forces.
The vacuum displacing a relatively tranquil “Pax Americana” is predictably and rapidly being filled by both Sunni and Shiite Islamists, and Kurdistan finds itself in a triple crossfire. It is necessary to define the “moving parts” to deduce the optimal American strategy, for all have been transparent regarding alliances and goals (except for Qatar, which funds Libyan Islamists while hosting the U.S. Combat Air Operations Center for the Middle East at its Al Udeid Air Base). It is no longer possible to sit back and “let you and him fight,” because innocents are being slaughtered, as human rights violations burgeon.
Peshmerga fighters hold the line.
Tehran wants to immortalize a Shi’ite Crescent (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon), Ankara wants to sever it with Sunnis (multinational Arabs and non-Arab Ottomans), and Riyadh wants to stir the pot just enough to foment insurrection, but not enough to allow the kingdom to be threatened. Geopolitical lines are thereby crossed as these aspirations are being fulfilled, while Kurdistan (joining Israel, to a degree) serves as an irritant, a piñata, a stubborn target for those harboring far greater aspirations.
Each of these countries has attempted to manipulate Kurdistan via political alliances that serve only to undermine the legitimate aspirations of the populace – self-determination, either as an independent state or as a quasi-independent federated-region – notwithstanding distinctive cultural and historical roots that others besmirch. In the process, 30-40 million Kurds struggle for survival.
Instead of helping Kurds, who are already “shovel-ready” to do America’s bidding, Obama aspires to vet the Free Syrian Army to decide which surviving “moderates” should receive armaments and year-long training in Saudi Arabia (costing American taxpayers $1 billion). Is Obama enamored of Saudi oil?
Instead of helping Kurds, who desperately need American support, Obama is acceding to Turkey’s rapprochement with the Islamic State, Turkey most recently having absented itself from America’s nascent “alliance of the unwilling” in return for release of 49 Turkish hostages. Is Obama pro-Brotherhood?
Instead of helping Kurds, after more than 60 villages and towns in Syrian Kurdistan have fallen to the Islamic State, Obama is receding from opposing Assad (propped up by Rouhani and Putin), hoping that Syrian air defenses (yet to be degraded) won’t block Allied bombers. Is Obama a genocide-appeaser?
Kurds eagerly and valiantly defend Western civilization against Muslims who continue fighting the Crusades; they may be a millennium remote chronologically, but they remain fresh in mind to zealots hungry to avenge the 1683 defeat of Islam outside the gates of Vienna.
Roj Bash cafe in Kurdistan
Demography is rapidly changing, as Kurds are increasingly subject to ethnic cleansing. If defeated, Kurds will be forcibly resettled out of Syria and thereby lose their distinctive identity. Already, a million refugees have relocated, replaced by pro-Assad Shi’ite or Alawite Arabs. Sporadic air support (recalling the Yazidis’ plight) is grossly insufficient against the Islamic State. Yet, inexplicably, Obama has even failed to ensure that other Arab nations (plus his Turkish pal, Erdoğan) and opposition groups (plus other countries worldwide) condemn specifically the Islamists’ anti-Kurd acts.
Political groups petitioning for support must have “clean hands,” indubitably and uniquely sported by staunchly pro-American Kurdistan, steeped in democracy and reveling in freedom. Kurds have historically rejected multiple adverse entreaties. Thus, elements of the Free Syrian Army seeking Allied arms must pass the litmus test of supporting Kurds, for most are allied with the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda. Unlike stateless Kurdistan, pro- and anti-Assad entities are merely struggling for power, for, sadly, they share too much culture and mentality.
Therefore, America must provide military, political, and humanitarian assistance to Kurdistan urgently, empowering it to lead a coalition of ignored minorities (Christians, etc.).
“New AFDI Ad Campaign Tells Truths About Islam and Jihad That Government and Media Ignore”
In “New AFDI Ad Campaign Tells Truths About Islam and Jihad That Government and Media Ignore” at Breitbart today, Pamela Geller unveils our latest AFDI ad campaign, which is already riling Leftists, Islamic supremacists and their enablers in their enablers in the mainstream media. Please help us take these ads nationwide — contribute here.
My organization, the human rights advocacy group the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has unveiled a new advertising campaign that boldly tells truths that the U.S. government and the mainstream media seem determined to obfuscate.
The series of six ads will run on 100 New York City buses beginning next week. One key new ad points up the uselessness of the distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” Muslims, depicting two photos of Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, a London-based Muslim who pursued a career as a rap artist until he turned to jihad and went to the Islamic State. The first photo shows Abdel Bary as a rapper; the second just before he beheaded American journalist James Foley. Abdel Bary’s face is masked in the second photo, but British intelligence has identified him as the murderer of Foley. The ad bears the legend, “Yesterday’s moderate is today’s headline.” The United States and other Western nations have paid insufficient attention to the fact that Muslim communities in the West have not made any concerted effort to expel supporters of jihad terror from their midst, and have done nothing at all to teach against the jihadist understanding of Islam, even though they ostensibly reject it. This has the effect that we see illustrated by the trajectory of Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary: people taken as “moderate” turn out to be “extremist.”
Another new ad paraphrases and expands upon another statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to emphasize the sameness of the beliefs and goals of various jihad groups – and one of their chief U.S. enablers: “Hamas is ISIS. Hamas is al-Qaeda. Hamas is Boko Haram. Hamas is CAIR in America. Jihad is jihad.” The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has had several of its officials convicted of jihad terror activity, and has opposed every counter-terror measure ever proposed or enacted. It also has been shown to have abundant links to Hamas. This is not the “moderate” group of media myth. The third ad quotes Netanyahu stating another unpopular truth: “Hamas is using civilians as human shields. We use missiles to protect our people. They use their people to protect their missiles.”
The fourth ad points out that “Christians are becoming extinct everywhere in the Middle East except Israel” and calls for an end to U.S. aid to Islamic countries in light of the ongoing and increasing Muslim persecution of Christians.
Two of the ads have run before, including the ad that became the focus of a landmark freedom of speech court case that AFDI won against politically correct attempts to silence resistance to jihad terror. It reads: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” Controversial during its first run for calling jihadis “savages,” now this ad has been abundantly vindicated by the savagery of the Islamic State. As numerous political leaders, including Barack Obama, call the ISIS jihadis “savages” or “barbarians,” AFDI has been shown to have been right all along. Another controversial AFDI ad making a repeat appearance is the one depicting Adolf Hitler with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and stating: “Islamic Jew-Hatred. It’s in the Qur’an.” Here again, with Muslim anti-Semitism rising and becoming increasingly violent worldwide, AFDI has been shown to be right. AFDI plans to roll out these ads across the country on buses and train stations in major cities. AFDI stands for:
The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of “blasphemy” and “slander,” which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia’s institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.
An Al Sharpton-led memorial service yesterday for Michael Brown, the black 18-year-old thug who gave a white Ferguson, Mo. police officer a severe head injury while trying to seize his handgun, became the grotesque political rally some observers feared it would be.
Race pimp Al Sharpton doing what he does best
The distinctly anti-police tone of the service was proof that the lie that Brown tried to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, rather than trying to beat the life out of him, won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama, won’t let it go. The Left’s narrative that the nearly 300-lbs. Brown, who had just robbed a convenience store on Aug. 9 mere minutes before encountering decorated policeman Wilson, is under withering evidentiary assault every day. As federal officials scour the riot-torn St. Louis suburb in a desperate search for material to justify federal civil rights charges, Sharpton is pressing on with his campaign to foment race-based hatred. The funeral sets the stage for the mob-led lynching of Officer Wilson, an outcome eagerly sought by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Missouri’s governor, Jay Nixon (D). Nixon has been covering his left flank in recent days, terrified because activists noticed that he seemed to support law and order and oppose mobocracy, rioting, and looting in the early hours of the crisis that followed Brown’s death. But after criticism from the Left, Nixon, like the Democratic members of the local congressional delegation, wants Wilson indicted, evidence or not.
Brown was remembered at a star-studded Baptist church funeral choreographed by racial grievance profiteer Sharpton. From Hollywood, movie director Spike Lee and actor Wesley Snipes attended the service, along with purported civil rights leader Martin Luther King III, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a left-wing extremist who believes urban riots constitute legitimate political activism. Lee is on record praying that Ferguson would explode in racial violence. Also in attendance were three officials from the Obama White House — a greater number of representatives than Obama sent to the recent funeral for a murdered brigadier general, the highest-ranking U.S. officer to be killed in a war in decades.
But despite growing evidence suggesting Brown wasn’t such a good kid, Sharpton pontificated that the decedent was a gentle giant who only wanted the best for his fellow human beings.
“Michael Brown does not want to be remembered for a riot. He wants to be remembered as the one that made American[s] deal with how we gonna police in the United States,” Sharpton thundered before a crowd estimated at 4,500, in a eulogy that was more like a spirited pep talk before the Left’s planned lynching of Officer Wilson.
Given that the decedent’s rap music recordings focused on the joys of illicit drug use, criminal violence including rape, and “hos” it is hard to imagine Brown gave much thought to law enforcement best practices.
Al Sharpton with the grieving parents of Michael Brown
Sharpton howled that Brown’s body laid out in the street for a whole 90 minutes before a police detective arrived to begin an investigation into the shooting, as if it had been an intentional insult to Brown on the part of racist police:
And when I saw Michael lying there, I thought about how many of us were just considered nothing. How we were just so marginalized and ignored. Whatever the circumstance an investigation leads to, to have that boy lying there, like nobody cared about him. Like he didn’t have any loved ones, like his life value didn’t matter … I told his grandfather, I don’t care what happened, but whatever we can do I’ll be there to do it.
And if the corpse had been scooped up from the ground right away Sharpton and his ilk would now be screaming that the evidence hadn’t been properly preserved by bungling Keystone Kops who didn’t care if a dead black man got justice.
Michael Brown shoplifting and assaulting the convenience store attendant just minutes before his altercation with police.
Sharpton also showed his paranoid side, ranting that people were coming after African-Americans because of their “blackness”:
So that they are justifying trying to come at us because some of us act like the definition of blackness is how low you can go. Blackness has never been about being a gangster or thug. Blackness was no matter how low we was pushed down, we rose up anyhow. Blackness was never surrendering our pursuit of excellence. It was when it was against the law to go to some schools, we built black colleges and learned anyhow.
At one point in the address, Sharpton shouted:
America, it’s time to deal with policing! We are not the haters, we’re the healers!
What does it require of us? We can’t have a fit; we’ve got to have a movement. A fit you get mad and run out for a couple of nights. A movement means we’ve got to be here for the long haul, and turn our chants into change, our demonstration into legislation, we have got to stay on this so we can stop this.
After Brown died violence erupted in Ferguson, Sharpton said, pretending not to approve of said violence. With no obvious oratorical segue, Sharpton screamed:
This is not about you! This is about justice! This is about fairness! And America is going to have to come to terms when there’s something wrong that we have money to give military equipment to police forces, but we don’t have money for training, and money for public education, and money to train our children!
Which is what it is all about for Sharpton: the money.
Shakedowns are the name of the game for Sharpton and his group, National Action Network, whose motto is the cry of the rioter, “No justice, no peace.”
Every time a black person dies tragically, especially when it happens in a newsworthy way, Sharpton sees dollar signs — and his business partner, Barack Obama, sees votes.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) poses as the voice of moderate Islam to protect the Muslim community in the United States from any unjustified backlash that could be sparked by terrorist attacks committed by radical jihadist groups that do not represent the mainstream of Islamic life. That is a laudable mission, if it is pursued consistently.
On its website, CAIR proclaims an “anti-terrorism campaign.” Among its core principles, “CAIR supports foreign policies that help create free and equitable trade, encourage human rights and promote representative government based on socio-economic justice” and “CAIR condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state.” It further says, “We unequivocally condemn all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by al-Qa’ida, the Real IRA, FARC, Hamas, ETA, or any other group designated by the U.S. Department of State as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’.” It welcomed the elimination of Osama bin Laden and has declared “CAIR is a natural enemy of violent extremists.”
Yet, when push comes to shove, it does come to the defense of Islamic terrorist organizations in the Middle East and has had to defend itself against the charge that it is a “front group for Hamas.” Its defense might be more credible if it had not joined the extremist ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition in leading a march on the White House last weekend to protest Israel’s current anti-terrorism campaign in Gaza.
According to ANSWER, “In response to this ongoing massacre, a broad coalition of anti-war, Muslim and Arab-American groups have joined together to organize a national march on the White House on August 2.” The message that the group seems to want to send is that Muslims in America are in league with Hamas, a violent gang that has been on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations since 1997. Hamas was placed on the list the same day as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), another major threat operating in Gaza alongside Hamas. Hamas claims to be the government of Gaza. Both Hamas and PFLP are funded and armed by Iran.
Consider ANSWER’s version of the Gaza conflict that has been a hot bed of violence and aggression since Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliamentary elections of 2006 and took control of Gaza the next year
In the U.S. corporate media, Israel is invariably depicted as the “victim.” Its brutal and cowardly military assaults are justified as “retaliation,” inferring [sic] that Israel’s actions are “self-defense.” Over and over, since the early 1950s, successive Israeli governments have staged provocations to prompt responses that could then be used to justify massive attacks while presenting Israel as the “victim of an unprovoked attack.” The aim has generally been to gain new territory and/or crush any state or movement perceived as a threat to Israeli military domination.
ANSWER also claims no evidence has been presented linking the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teenagers to Hamas. The killings were only a ploy, it claims, while “Fascist Israeli politicians are ratcheting up their genocidal rhetoric.” There is no mention of the over 2,700 rockets that Hamas and PFLP have proudly admitted to having launched against civilian targets in Israel in the last few weeks or of the tunnels used by terrorists to attack and kidnap people in Israel. After all, destroying the tunnels and the rocket stockpiles are the objectives of the Israeli operations.
It is Hamas that wants the war it started to continue. It has rejected every cease-fire, even those proposed by Egypt and the Arab League. CAIR is not interested in Muslim peace efforts. By joining ANSWER, CAIR in effect has chosen to align with Hamas and its terrorist allies since these are the fighters who are in the field opposing Israel.
“It is critical that progressive people in the United States continue to speak out against the latest campaign of Israeli aggression, and demand an end to all U.S. aid to Israel,” says ANSWER, which has never been an “anti-war” group. It has always been a partisan, siding with anyone who takes up arms against “U.S. imperialism” and its allies. At rallies against the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan, ANSWER stages “die ins” where protesters pretend to be victims of American bombers, then chant “Rise up. Fight back” against the U.S. “occupation of empire.” A clear identification of ANSWER (and now CAIR) with the enemy.
ANSWER has acknowledged that the PFLP “calls for a democratic secular state in all of Palestine and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.” This would fulfill what both PFLP and Hamas have called for: the destruction of Israel.
Does CAIR really agree with this outlook? Does CAIR deny that Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorist attacks, or is CAIR only posing as “the natural enemy of extremists” while actually seeking to save Hamas and PFLP from the consequences of their violence? Actions speak louder than words, and give us the “answer” to questions about where CAIR actually stands amid the conflicts of the day.
On Monday, I was honored to host the Empower Liberty Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada. When the NAACP declined to allow me or the Rev. C. L. Bryant to speak at their convention, we were happy to hold our own summit to address the issues that matter to the black community today, to talk about the ideas the NAACP doesn’t think they should hear.
Empower Liberty Summit in Las Vegas, Nevada
Think of it, the NAACP’s leadership is blacklisting blacks who have different ideas about the role of government in our lives. Tragically, this once venerable organization that sought to advance all blacks now segregates blacks based on political views. If you are a black liberal you get to sit at the counter – you get a voice, but if you are a black conservative you sit outside.
The issues facing the black community are too serious to ignore, however, which is why we gathered on Monday to address them head on.
We believe empowering individuals is the best path for prosperity. The NAACP believes in empowering the state. It’s a model that has been tried, and that hasn’t worked.
For far too long, the black community has lagged behind other demographic groups in the U.S.
Blacks suffer from sky-high unemployment rates, now at 10.7 percent; blacks have the lowest average incomes; black children are trapped in failing public schools, and are the victims of deplorable crime ridden urban areas like Chicago.
For far too long, organizations like the NAACP have witnessed these horrible trends and they have not changed course. Instead, the NAACP stubbornly sticks to liberal policies and politicians despite their proven failures. Instead of challenging these losing policies, the NAACP promotes them.
The New Goals of the NAACP
Instead of embracing school choice the NAACP rallies against it, supporting the government monopoly that sets our children up for failure.
Black families with lowest average incomes are hardest hit by rising energy prices, yet instead of promoting the cheapest forms of energy, the NAACP rallies against them, promoting the president’s policies that he admits will cause electricity costs to skyrocket.
High electricity prices disproportionately harm black families. In Ohio black households spend 6.3 percent of their annual budget on electricity while all households spend 3.5 percent.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules for power plants will force electricity prices higher adding to the black economic burden. More money spent on utilities and gasoline means less money for food, rent and clothes.
Even though we were denied a speaking slot at the NAACP for the second year in a row, FreedomWorks was pleased to be able to set up a booth in the exhibit hall where we were able to interact directly with activists and address some of the concerns the NAACP refused to touch.
Each of the panelists appearing at the summit – myself, Rev. C. L. Bryant, Brenda Flank, Lesli Brower, and Wayne Dupree – has been verbally attacked for their views. I’ve been called a House Negro, Aunt Jemima , a sell-out, a traitor and worse. But the NAACP leadership does not defend black conservatives. No, the group criticizes them.
Watch the video below as an example of the type of abuse that conservative blacks have to put up with by NAACP members who are sold out to the government plantation and its agenda.