Thursday, May 28, 2015

The White House knew the Islamic State was going to take Ramadi, did nothing to stop it

Amazing.  The Obama White House knew, up to 16 months in advance that the Islamic State would try to take Ramadi.  The WH watched as Islamic State jihadists massed on the edge of Ramadi, knew there were hundreds, if not thousands and did...nothing.  No action, no decision, nothing.

This is a disgrace, a dereliction of duty by the president of epic proportions.  Clearly Obama wants nothing to do with actually defeating the Islamic State.


From Bloomberg/Yahoo May 28 by Eli Lake

U.S. Saw Islamic State Coming, Let It Take Ramadi

The U.S. watched Islamic State fighters, vehicles and heavy equipment gather on the outskirts of Ramadi before the group retook the city in mid-May. But the U.S. did not order airstrikes against the convoys before the battle started. It left the fighting to Iraqi troops, who ultimately abandoned their positions.

U.S. intelligence and military officials told me recently, on the condition of anonymity, that the U.S. had significant intelligence about the pending Islamic State offensive in Ramadi. For the U.S. military, it was an open secret even at the time.

The Islamic State had been contesting territory in and around Ramadi for more than a year and had spoken of the importance of recapturing the city. The U.S. intelligence community had good warning that the Islamic State intended a new and bolder offensive on Ramadi because it was able to identify the convoys of heavy artillery, vehicle bombs and reinforcements through overhead imagery and eavesdropping on chatter from local Islamic State commanders. It surprised no one, one U.S. intelligence official told me.

Other observers were willing to speak on the record about how many had seen the Islamic State's assault on Ramadi coming. "The operations on Ramadi have been ongoing for 16 months," said Derek Harvey, a former intelligence adviser to David Petraeus when he commanded the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. Harvey said many observers had seen the Islamic State's series of probing attacks and psychological operations aimed at the Iraqi army and local tribes: "Everyone knew that Ramadi for some reason was a major focus." He conceded that he did not know the exact timing of the Ramadi offensive beforehand and acknowledged that he was surprised at how effective the operations were.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, had also been warning in policy papers that the Islamic State had set its eyes on Ramadi. Kim Kagan, the think tank's president, told me her institute "assessed that ISIS would undertake tactical offensives in different areas of Iraq in April and May in order to disperse the Iraqi Security Forces and prevent them from consolidating their gains after the fall of Tikrit." She said that "ISIS began alternating attacks between Anbar and the Baiji oil refinery in mid-April," which prompted General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to say in Congressional testimony that the U.S. was prioritizing the defense of Baiji over Ramadi. Kagan said the Islamic State's attack on Ramadi was not a "strategic surprise."

Read it all

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Islamic State travelogue: Palmyra today but not tomorrow

The one and a half minute video doesn't feature any fighting in and around the city of Palmyra, which was captured by ISIS militants last Thursday following a lightning advance

A chilling look at what may be the last pictures from the Biblical city of Palmyra before the Islamic State reduces it to piles of rubble.  The city is "jahiliya" or pre-Islamic, therefore it must be eliminated in order to reduce idolatry.

And the world yawns...

From the Daily Mail May 26 by John Hall

Inside Palmyra: ISIS releases taunting tourist board-style video showing smoke rising from ancient ruins as fears grow that the jihadis are preparing to lay waste to the captured Syrian city

Chilling video footage has emerged showing the interior of the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra after it was captured by militants fighting for the Islamic State terror group.

A short video released by the local pro-ISIS media company Aamaq News shows thick black smoke rising over Roman ruins that have stood for thousands of years in the central Syrian desert city.

Heavily armed jihadis can be seen patrolling the steps of Palmyra's ancient amphitheatre as the high-definition camera pans around to capture streets lined with ancient monuments that now face destruction at the hands of ISIS and its history-erasing bulldozers and sledgehammers.

The one and a half minute video doesn't feature any fighting in and around the city of Palmyra, which was captured by ISIS militants last Thursday following a lightning advance.

Instead it looks almost like a tourist video - capturing the beautiful sand-coloured Roman ruins in the kind of slick high-definition footage now synonymous with ISIS propaganda releases.

It seems increasingly likely that the video could turn out to be one of the final documents of the ancient city, as the jihadis are expected to raise much of it to the ground in the same way the bulldozed the equally historic city of Nimrod and destroyed ancient artifacts in Mosul museum.

Even if ISIS decide not to destroy the ruins, their destruction may well come about from the battle to force the jihadis out of the city.

Just this morning separate video footage was released showing the destruction of ancient buildings in Palmyra's rubble-strewn suburbs following intense airstrikes by Syrian regime warplanes.

Majority Democrats favor censorship in the guise of banning hate speech

Frank Zappa was right when he said, in front of a congressional panel that if we create the "piss police" to monitor what people put in their bodies, next we will ban smoking outdoors.  He was absolutely right, and today we have the "thought police" where what you think is punishable on a greater scale than what you do.

This poll shows Democrats over Republicans believe we should have laws that punish "hate speech" more severely than just plain old angry speech.  Now we enter the realm of who decides what is hate speech.  First we must define the question "what is hate speech?"  A good number of Americans believe it should be a criminal offense to "make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people."  What constitutes stirring up hatred?  This leaves the interpretation of hate speech up to the receiver, which would allow for hate speech charges for just about any kind of speech.  Even the most innocuous speech will insult someone, somewhere, at sometime so where exactly is the defining line?  

Any banning or criminalizing of speech that does not directly advocate violence is the slippery slope that will eventually end with no liberty or freedom, except that granted by the tyrant who is now in control.  To even entertain the idea that speech needs restrictions because it might offend or insult is more than anathema to our ideals, it is an attack on the very foundation of all rights guaranteed by our constitution.  

Shame on those Democrats (and Republicans) who consider it a good idea to stifle speech that they, and a good number of Americans find repulsive.

From YouGov May 20 by Peter Moore

Half of Democrats support a ban on hate speech

Since 1994 people convicted of federal crimes motivated by the 'actual or perceived' identity of victims have faced tougher sentences. Many other states had passed 'hate crime' statutes in earlier years, and in recent years many states have been adopting laws which make crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation of gender identity hate crimes which face tougher sentences, something the federal government did in 2009. Unlike much of the rest of the developed world, however, the United States does not make it a criminal offense for people to make statements which encourage hatred of particular groups. For example a prominent British columnist, Katie Hopkins, is being investigated by the police for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as 'cockroaches'.

YouGov's latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups.

Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.

There is much more, read it all

No Kuwait citizenship if Christian, says the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court

This is not unique to Kuwait, virtually all Islamic countries deny citizenship to non-Muslims.  The important question to ask, which makes one an Islamophobe is; why is it only Islamic countries legally discriminate against non-Muslims?

The answer can be found in the Qur'an and the hadiths of Muhammad, yet no one in power will bother to read the texts or try to understand the motivation of Islam in context with the rest of the world.  With that blindness firmly in place, we are doomed.

From Jihad Watch May 26 by Raymond Ibrahim

The Islamic prerequisite of Kuwaiti citizenship

On May 11, the Kuwaiti Constitutional Court rejected an appeal by MP Nabil al-Fadl to adjust citizenship laws in order to allow Christians to become citizens.

The current law, according to Article 4.5 of the Citizenship Act of Kuwait, holds that he [a potential citizen] be an original Muslim by birth, or that he has converted to Islam according to the prescribed rules and procedures and that a period of at least 5 years has passed since he embraced Islam before the grant of naturalization.  Nationality thus acquired is ipso facto lost and the Decree of naturalization rendered void ab initio if the naturalized person expressly renounces Islam or if he behaves in such a manner as clearly indicates his intention to abandon Islam. In any such case, the nationality of any dependant of the apostate who had acquired it upon the naturalization of the apostate is also rendered void.
Such is the idea of “nationality” in Muslim countries—one that is antithetical to Western notions of citizenship, where freedom of religion (and conscience) are paramount.
This also sheds light on why Muslim “apostates,” especially those who convert to Christianity, are regularly seen as traitors: abandoning Islam is synonymous with treason.
Finally, it is a reminder why the modern day rise of Islam is reminiscent of the 20th century rise of European nationalism in nations like Germany and Italy  – and resulting in the same fascism.

Friday, May 22, 2015

The Islamic State now knocking on Israels door

The Islamic State has repeatedly tried to take the Golan Heights, they have always been driven back by Syrian rebels, also known as the Free Syrian Army.  If they succeed in taking the high ground of the Golan, Israel could retaliate in ways that we have yet to see.  This is a dangerous situation, one to watch carefully.  This could be a flash point for the "clash of civilizations" Huntington spoke of back in 1994.

From IBT May 20 by Morgan Winsor

ISIS Approaches Israel: Islamic State Loyalists Thwarted By Syrian Rebels Along Golan Heights Border

Islamic State loyalists in Syria have made attempts in recent weeks to expand the extremist group’s territory near the border with Israel, but have been twice thwarted by Syrian rebels along the Golan Heights. Israel has not yet responded to the incidents, even as mortar shells from the battles with ISIS fighters landed across the border into Israeli territory, Israeli news site Ynetnews said.

In the past, Israel has increased its forces in the Golan Heights near the Syrian border when shells fired by the Syrian army spilled over into Israeli territory, the Jerusalem Post said. However, Israel has remained quiet during the past two weeks as rebel fighters from Syria repelled militants loyal to the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

The ISIS-loyalists have so far failed to gain foothold on the Golan Heights border, which would allow the Islamic State to set up a base for operations against Israel, Ynetnews said. Their attacks have been thwarted by the Free Syrian Army, which reportedly receives Israeli humanitarian aid, in cooperation with the Nusra Front, a Sunni Muslim branch of al Qaeda operating in Syria and Lebanon.

Israel views al Qaeda-affiliated groups as enemies but is far more hostile with Iran and its allies. Earlier this year, Israel opened its borders with Syria to provide medical treatment to the Nusra Front and al Qaeda fighters wounded along the Golan Heights, the Wall Street Journal said.

Nusra Front, which has referred to the United States and Israel as enemies of Islam, is fighting the Iranian-backed alliance of Syrain President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah. Nusra Front seized the border area last summer but hasn’t attacked Israel.

“There is no doubt that Hezbollah and Iran are the major threat to Israel, much more than the radical Sunni Islamists, who are also an enemy,” Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israel’s military intelligence, told the Wall Street Journal in March. “Those Sunni elements who control some two-thirds to 90 percent of the border on the Golan aren't attacking Israel. This gives you some basis to think that they understand who is their real enemy—maybe it isn’t Israel.”

Thursday, May 21, 2015

The Islamic State is not a caliphate...wait, what?

So says the Obama administration,  so it must be true.  The moral myopia is staggering, and the deliberate denial of fact must make it hard for them to put on their pants one leg at a time.

The Islamic State is not waiting for us to tell them what they are and are not.  They satisfy all the requirements under Islamic doctrine of a caliphate, so to deny this is so is folly of the highest order.

More disinformation from our dear leader.

From Breitbart May 21 by Pam Key


Thursday at the White House press briefing, when asked if he believes ISIS has a caliphate, press secretary Josh Earnest said, “No, I don’t believe that at all.”

Earnest said, “No, I don’t believe that at all. What we actually see is they do control some territory, but less than they used too. We also see that ISIS leaders are very concerned about their own security. They are not moving particularly freely these days. They are justifiably concerned about their safety because they know that the U.S. and our coalition partners have the capacity to take them off the battlefield.”

It's official; global climate change is the cause of jihad

Excuse me while I laugh myself into apoplexy.

So now, according to Obama, doctrinal jihad, based in the texts and teachings of Muhammad is not religious in nature, but instead driven exclusively by climate change.

Well then, this solves everything.  Blame mankind for its own demise at the hands of practitioners of the "religion of peace" on its environmental record, and to hell with any kind of doctrinal/theological connection.

I feel better, don't you?

We are doomed.

From the Telegraph May 20 by Nick Allen

Obama says climate change threatens US national security
So which is it, Obama?  "I'm here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate threat to our national security" or do you mean "I understand climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world,..."

President Barack Obama has called climate change a "serious threat" to America's national security and linked extreme weather to the rise of Boko Haram and the outbreak of war in Syria.

Mr Obama said rising sea levels could undermine the effectiveness of USforces, jeopardise its military bases around the world and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. He accused those who deny climate change exists of a "dereliction of duty".

Speaking to graduates at the US Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut, he said: "I'm here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate threat to our national security.

"It will impact how our military defends our country. We need to act and we need to act now. Denying it or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces."

He added: "I know there are some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that climate change is real. Politicians who say they care about military readiness need to care about this as well.

"I understand climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world, yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.

"It's now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East."

Tackling climate change has become one of the main aims for Mr Obama before he leaves office and he intends it to be a major part of his legacy.

In March he pledged to reduce carbon emissions in the US by 28 per cent from 2005 levels over the next decade.

In the face of Republican opposition he is now attempting to frame the debate over climate change not just as an environmental issue, but one of national security and the future of the economy.

Mr Obama said: "In Miami and Charleston streets now flood at high tide. Along our coasts, thousands of miles of highways, roads, railways and energy facilities are vulnerable.

"It is estimated that a further increase in sea level of one foot - just one foot - by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion.

"Climate change, especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economy, infrastructure, and the safety and health of the American people."

Read it all

Houston imam calls for censorship after Garland jihad attempt

Only at the very end of the article do we hear this imam call for restrictions on free speech.  Do you wonder why it is at the end of the article?  Because the MSM continues to carry water for Islamic apologists and reinforce the idea that any criticism of Islam, no matter its form must be censored.  In order not to offend Muslims, doncha know.


From click2Houston May 13 by Joel Eisenbaum

Group that hosted Prophet Muhammad Cartoon Contest has Houston supporters

HOUSTON -The group that hosted the "Prophet Muhammad Cartoon Contest" that ended with the death of two suspected terrorists in Garland, has loyal followers in Houston, Channel 2 Investigates has learned.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative, AFDI, which collected more than $950,000 in donations in 2013, according to a public filing, did not disclose an exact number of members in the Houston area.

But Channel 2 Investigates has learned a handful of local members attended the Garland event.

"We are in a battle to stand for our First Amendment and to me that's a battle worth fighting," a Houston AFDI member, said.

That member, who wanted to be identified as Alexander, attended the cartoon contest event, along with approximately 250 others.?

"I think they were hoping to, possibly, as the crowd was streaming out, they could just wipe us all out," Alexander said.

None of the event's attendees were injured.

In a recent interview with Channel 2's Joel Eisenbaum, Alexander said he does not advocate violence.

The group, AFDI, was founded by Pamela Geller, a New Yorker, who is Jewish.

She has been labeled as anti-Muslim by some groups....

(.) But other Houstonians, including a Houston area Muslim imam, who condemned the Garland attack, but supports restrictions on free speech, believes incendiary language should be restricted by law.

"I think there needs to be a change to the law where people do not disrespect especially high people," Imam Mobasher Ahmed said.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Biblical city of Palmyra under siege by the Islamic State, ancient ruins threatened, again

The Islamic State now has 30% of Palmyra under control.  If history is any indication (and it always is) when they gain the entire city, the first thing to do, after murdering the opposition, will be to destroy, bulldoze, blow up and crush any history which is considered, from the pre-Islamic period or "jahiliya" to be idolatry.  The civilizational genocide continues, and the world does nothing.

From the Washington Post May 20 by Loveday Morris

Islamic State militants seize Syrian city of Palmyra, threatening ancient ruins

BAGHDAD — Islamic State militants seized control of the majority of the Syrian city of Palmyra on Wednesday, marking the second significant strategic gain for the group in the past week and leaving one of the region’s most renowned archaeological sites in peril.

Activists and Syrian state media said pro-government forces had withdrawn from the city 130 miles northeast of Damascus after a week-long assault by the militants. The city’s notorious Tadmor Prison, where scores of anti-regime political prisoners are incarcerated, was also in the extremist group’s hands by nightfall, activists said.

The gain consolidates the Islamic State’s control west toward the Syrian capital and east in the direction of the border with Iraq, where militants seized the city of Ramadi on Sunday. Advances by the Islamic State demonstrate the group’s ability to continue to take territory, despite recent assertions by American officials that it remains largely on the defensive after 10 months of U.S.-led airstrikes.

The fall of Palmyra to Islamic State forces effectively puts its ancient sites, which lie just on the outskirts of the modern city, in the group’s hands. Irina Bokova, ­director-general of UNESCO, said she was “ deeply concerned” about the situation at the site, which rose to prominence as a wealthy caravan oasis in the 1st century A.D. After some 2,000 years, the striking Roman colonnades of the Temple of Baal still stand majestically in the desert.

Not for much longer.

Read it all

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

SCOTUS Kerry says the Islamic State is nothing to worry about and their takeover of Ramadi means nothing

More policy making from deep within the rabbit hole.  As the Islamic State continues to gain strength, territory and recruits, the wagging tongues in Washington pour out their desperate beliefs that their strategy is working, and soon the Islamic State will go "poof" and disappear into the dustbin of history.

From PJM May 18 by Bridget Johnson

Kerry: Don’t Worry About Fall of Ramadi, ‘Daesh Has Been Driven Back’

Secretary of State John Kerry said today not to worry, we’ll probably get Ramadi back from ISIS.

ISIS took the city 80 miles east of Baghdad on Sunday despite a campaign of coalition airstrikes.

Kerry said at a joint press conference with South Korea’s foreign minister today that the administration has “always said from day one that the campaign against Daesh is a long one.”

“It’s going to take a long time. We’ve always said that. And particularly in Anbar, where you don’t yet have the presence of the Iraqi Security Forces in the full numbers necessary to take the fight to Daesh everywhere yet — I underscore yet — there are targets of opportunity like or somewhere else where Daesh has the ability to inflict great damage,” he said. “Notice what they’ve done. They’ve destroyed. They’ve sent in huge numbers of vehicle-borne IEDs, big trucks, massive amounts of explosion, and they’ve destroyed the place. That’s hardly a future.”

ISIS reportedly seized an untold amount of U.S. military equipment when it overran the Iraqi 8th Army Brigade in Ramadi.

“And I am convinced that as the forces are redeployed and as the days flow in the weeks ahead, that’s going to change, because overall in Iraq, Daesh has been driven back,” Kerry claimed. “As much as 30 to 30-plus percent of the area they once controlled they no longer control.”

Yet they still have the capability to wage offensive war and take the major city of Ramadi.  Who is Kerry fooling?

As government struggle to keep with up ISIS’ domination of the social media sphere, Kerry added “their communications have been reduced, their funding and financial mechanisms have been reduced, and their movements by and large, and most certainly where there are air patrols and other capacities, have been reduced.”

“But that’s not everywhere,” he then admitted. “And so it is possible to have the kind of attack we’ve seen in , but I am absolutely confident in the days ahead that will be reversed. Large numbers of Daesh were killed in the last few days and will be in the next days, because that seems to be the only thing they understand. There is no negotiation. There is no proposal whatsoever to educate a child or build a school or a hospital or do something positive. And I think the people of Iraq and the people of the region understand that, which is why every single country in the region, bar none, is opposed to Daesh and is engaged in fighting them.”

Kerry added that he’s “confident about the longer road.”

Ramadi falls to the Islamic State, Baghdad next

This is the beginning of the end.  We are going to witness the historical battle between good and evil, predicted by almost all the worlds major religions.  This time, it is Islam that will be at the center of the maelstrom, girded to not only defend itself from itself (Sunni vs Shia) but to suck in and destroy the West and ultimately eliminate it as a potential and existential threat, now and for the future.

Judgement day is upon us, and woe to those who continue their blindness as to the roots of this global apocalypse.

The Islamic State juggernaut continues to gather steam, rolling on across the land and doing Muhammad's work.  Nothing short of total annihilation will stem the Islamic conquerors from their doctrinal path of world domination.  

To paraphrase an old bumper sticker I used to have, "Allah is coming...look busy"

From the Daily Mail May 19 by Jay Akbar, Steph Cockroft, Simon Tomlinson and Julian Robinson

Iraq braced for the Battle of Baghdad: Chilling images show ISIS victory parade after fanatics seize key city of Ramadi - just 60 miles from the capital - in an orgy of violence and beheadings

ISIS militants have held a twisted victory parade after taking the key city of Ramadi in an orgy of violence and beheadings - and the extremists could march on the Iraqi capital Baghdad within the next month.

Mutilated bodies scatter the streets of the 'Gateway of Baghdad', where Islamic State slaughtered around 500 and forced nearly 25,000 to flee their homes over the last few days.

Now ISIS has released images of militants celebrating, children wielding automatic weapons and a fleet of pick-up trucks carrying its jubilant fighters through the blood-stained streets of Ramadi.

Shi'ite fighters have already launched a counter-offensive to recapture the city, but these kinds of tactics play straight into Islamic State's grand plan to spark all-out war in the region, according to the Middle East director of counter-terrorism think-tank RUSI.

Islamic State militants are already marching east towards the Habbaniya army base - around 20 miles east of Ramadi - where a column of 3,000 Shi'ite paramilitaries are amassing, witnesses and a military officer has said.

And if ISIS manage to reach Baghdad, it would be 'utter carnage', Professor Gareth Stansfield told MailOnline.

He said: 'If ISIS turn up in great numbers in Baghdad, it will be an absolute slaughter between Sunni's and Shia's there.

'They [ISIS] are now having so many successes, and moving so quickly, that Baghdad is under very real threat from ISIS forces outside Baghdad and also the ISIS terror cells inside Baghdad as well.

'We're in for a very long summer of fighting in Iraq and ISIS could make their move [on Baghdad] in the next month. Taking Ramadi will... make the Shia militia in Baghdad even more radicalised and more dangerous.

'And this is what ISIS wants, it wants it to come out and have sectarian scrap which forces all the Sunni's to go towards ISIS.

'If they had any opportunity to enter Baghdad, they would do. But it will be more and more difficult for them to do it because Baghdad is a military stronghold of the Shia militia.'

And if they manage to actually take Baghdad, which is predominantly Shia but has some Christian regions, Professor Stansfield says 'there would be massacres to the scale we haven't seen since the Mongol empire in the 13th Century'.

Read it all

DoD and State Dept knew Benghazi attack was Al-Qaeda jihad 10 days before it happened

From FOIA documents, "The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings"

I pray Hillary does not become President.  Paraphrasing her, I ask, "What does she matter?"

From Judicial Watch May 18

Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.

The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.”

Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.

A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”

The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.

“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”

The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”

(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)

The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:

Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.

During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

The DIA document further details:

The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]

The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.

Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:

The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:

Four COM personnel were killed and three were wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time….

The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.

“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

In defense of free speech and Pamela Geller

The voices of censorship are growing louder by the day.  Normally intelligent people seem to have lost the ability to understand the importance of the 1st amendment and how every other right stems from the right to insult, demean and criticize.  This moral inversion is endemic to the collapse of Western society and the breakdown of ethical thought and the plague of "relativism".

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Patrick Henry nailed it, and as citizens of the last free republican democracy we should be shoulder to shoulder in unison, upholding the absolute right to speak our mind, short of advocating violence or mayhem.  Abdicating our right to be critical of those who threaten liberty is the sure path to tyranny. It appears we have chosen that path, and woe to us when we realize, too late, that we have willingly given in to the "hecklers veto".

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"  Ben Franklin.

From The American Spectator May 7 by Jeffery Lord


The backlash has been considerable.

Pam Geller, whose American Freedom Defense Initiative organized the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that sparked an armed assault by two self-appointed jihadis in Garland, Texas, has come under a withering assault for her actions. From Donald Trump to a crew at Fox that includes Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Greta Van Susteren, Martha McCallum, Alan Colmes, ex-Bush aide and Fox contributor Brad Blakeman as well as liberal radio host Richard Fowler and doubtless more, Geller has been subjected to a firestorm of criticism.

I respectfully dissent.

According to Newsmax, Ms. Geller has now received an ISIS death threat. Or, as they say in the world of Islam, a “fatwa”:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy,” the message reads. “Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.”

Note well the word “khanzeer.” The translation is “swine” — as used in the Islamic world when Jews are called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Geller has been making the necessary media rounds to defend herself, including this post in Time magazine. Sean Hannity has come to her defense, saying: “You can’t draw a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad without expecting this violence? Is this how far we have sunk? That we’ve got to capitulate in this way?” Rush Limbaugh has leapt to her defense.

Megyn Kelly was blunt in her defense. “Even if you hate her message, she was promoting free speech,” Kelly said and told a guest critical of Geller that he was “fundamentally confused and wrong” and that “I’m concerned about the America you would have us live in.”

Me too.

The notion that any American anywhere should restrict their own freedom of speech because to do otherwise would provoke violence is a certain path to ending freedom of speech. Let’s go with one of the favorite criticisms of Geller — that what Ms. Geller did holding that conference in Garland, Texas, was the work of a “provocateur.” OK. And?

American history is littered with “provocateurs” whose words or actions “provoked” violence. From the Boston Tea Partiers in 1773 to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, time after time after time words and actions provoked violence. The Declaration of Independence, in fact, didn’t just provoke a little violence — it provoked a seven-year-long war with Great Britain that was said to have produced 25,000 American casualties. That’s before one gets to the estimated 4,000 British soldiers who were killed. Not to mention that the mere election of Abraham Lincoln provoked a string of events which in turn launched the Civil War. Killing some 600,000-plus Americans. Now there’s a provocation.

Just two months ago President Obama and former President Bush joined together in Selma, Alabama, to celebrate the work of “provocateurs” who knew — and were warned — not to march across Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge in support of black voting rights in 1965. As history records, Selma’s Sheriff Jim Clark faced the protesters at the head of a collection of billy-club wielding, horseback-riding troopers and used a bull horn to warn that the protesters “are ordered” to return to their homes or churches. Thus warned — quite specifically warned — that they were in danger of provoking violence, the marchers refused to turn back and kept coming. At Clark’s signal the troopers launched — and so ruthlessly inflicted violent beatings on the protesters that the event became known as “Bloody Sunday.”

In the aftermath of Bloody Sunday, a Geller-esque white Detroit housewife named Viola Liuzzo heard the call of Dr. Martin Luther King for Americans to come to Alabama and join the fight for voting rights. Liuzzo did so. And on the night of March 25, 1965, Liuzzo was driving a fellow marcher — a 19-year old black youth named Leroy Morton. Liuzzo’s car was spotted by the Ku Klux Klan. They were white racists who saw the fact of a white woman driving a black man as a provocation that violated the social mores of segregation and white supremacy. In response to this “provocation,” Liuzzo’s car was overtaken by a car filled with Klan members. They fired at Viola Liuzzo, shooting her twice in the head and killing her instantly. The car crashed, Morton played dead and once the Klan had departed went for help. This same white woman-black man combination was exactly the same social provocation cited in the killing of Emmett Till, the young black teenager who was murdered in Mississippi for allegedly whistling at a white woman.

Today Viola Liuzzo and the marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge are seen as heroes. In fact, during his visit to Selma for that fiftieth anniversary tribute the President specifically said: “If Selma taught us anything, it’s that our work is never done.” Really? Is the President saying he wants more racial provocations around America? Was he himself acting as a Geller-style “provocateur”?

Should Viola Liuzzo have not gone to Alabama? Should she not have protested for voting rights or had a black man in her car — because what she was doing was “provocative” to the white supremacist view of society and would provoke violence? To listen to today’s chorus of critics of Pamela Geller, apparently the answer is no, Viola Liuzzo should never have gone, and yes, in the end she provoked her own death.

The entirety of the civil rights movement and quite specifically the words and actions of its leaders — most prominently including Dr. King himself — were seen in the day as provocative of violence. In fact, King himself would pay for all those words and actions with his life, shot to death while in Memphis for a 1968 march. Should Dr. King never have marched, spoken, and protested? Should the Civil Rights Act of 1964 never been enacted because it was the result of provocative, violence-inciting Freedom Riders and marches across the South?

There’s another fact here that is ignored. Forget the threat of Islamic radicalism. Take the issue off the table entirely. The uncomfortable fact of life today in a 21st century America drenched in television, films, and social media is that people of prominence, whether they are candidates for office or simply media figures or celebrities, are all too frequently targeted by those who are provoked by their words and actions.

Bill O’Reilly — and I’m not picking on him here but since he has raised the subject himself — is a case in point. Mr. O’Reilly, famously, is the host of Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor, a show with a huge popular following. Five nights a week for 19 years O’Reilly has been delivering a show that is filled with controversial views and frequently controversial people. To his credit, he never holds back in saying what he thinks.

Is what Bill O’Reilly does every night “provocative”? Does Bill O’Reilly invite violence? Well, catch this 2008 CBS interview with O’Reilly himself, as reported by CBS:

“My life is dangerous now,” he said. “You know, I have bodyguards and security. I can’t go many places. I can’t be in certain crowd situations. When I do a book signing, I gotta have a phalanx of state troopers there because there are crazy people. And then there’re the Web sites and all of that, which are just totally out of control.

“They encourage these nuts. You know, I was thinking about John Lennon, you know, and John Lennon was tryin’ to be a nice guy, signing the guy’s thing and [Chapman] pops him. So, that is the worst part of the whole ‘Factor’ experience.”

Got that? What Bill O’Reilly does on his television show is so provocative to some people that his life “is dangerous now” and he has to have “bodyguards and security.” What O’Reilly is saying here is that yes, he too is a “provocateur” — just like Pam Geller. Should O’Reilly quit his show? Should he be seen not as a television host with an interesting show but rather condemned as a deliberately provocative public danger whose very presence anywhere in public could result in violence to innocent bystanders? Should he curtail his First Amendment right to say what he wants on his own television show? Should he be condemned for nightly doing something that is, to use O’Reilly’s description of Geller’s actions, “dumb”?

Absolutely not. That would be dumb.

The disturbing reality here is that, as mentioned, this “provocateur’ phenomenon isn’t limited to Bill O’Reilly or Pam Geller. All kinds of people in the public eye who are not the President of the United States with a retinue of Secret Service agents are targeted by someone Out There as a “provocateur.” As O’Reilly himself mentioned, former Beatle John Lennon’s celebrity alone was enough to provoke a killer. Just the other week, the news brought a recording of a 911 call from a frantic actress, Sandra Bullock. Bullock was locked in a closet in her own home — while a crazed stalker prowled though her home looking for her. Why? For no other reason than Bullock’s movie celebrity had provoked this nut into violently breaking into her home. Should Bullock halt her acting career because it has provoked violence?

What Pamela Geller is about — courageously and boldly — is standing up for freedom. That’s it. That’s all. “My country is in danger,” she said to Sean Hannity on his radio show yesterday — and she is right. When O’Reilly says “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid… It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad,” he is, as Megyn Kelly said, confused. It isn’t Geller’s job to defeat ISIS. That’s the President’s job. It isn’t her job to provoke — or not provoke. It isn’t her job to be smart — or stupid. It is her God-given, constitutional right to stand up for freedom of speech — and she exercises that right. It is her job, as it is that of every American, to work to see that our country is not endangered by gradually giving up our freedoms one by one in a constant backsliding down the slippery slope of tyranny....

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The new jihadi: Pamela Geller

It's not the two jihad gunmen that attacked the Muhammad art contest in Garland Sunday, May 3 who are the bad guys, it is Pamela Geller and her audacity to poke the hornets nest.  How dare she deliberately insult and demean 1.6B people, they say as they wag their finger strenuously, saying that if anything happens, it's her fault.

Pamela is the new jihadi, as evil as the Islamic State and as remorseless as the Nazis.

And this is coming from the mainstream media, as if that is a surprise to any thinking person.

"The free-speech jihadis, led by Geller, fume and bluster, excoriate and desecrate. Absent love, they lust for fame, to see their names in headlines yet again, a trophy of ill gain, their only glory but a fleeting fantasy"

This is what passes today as free and open discussion.  We are doomed.

From RNS May 5 by Bruce B. Lawrence

The jihad of Pamela Geller

(RNS) Can poetry be an antidote to poison? Can it provide an alternative to the jihad of Pamela Geller?

A life without His love is nothing but slow death.
The sum total of love is but three words:
I-burn, I-burn, I-burn.

These verses come from the 13th-century whirling dervish, Rumi. The fire that burns also gives life in the logic of love-induced immolation that Muslims call Sufism. Its opposite is the fire that comes from the end of a gun barrel or a detonated bomb that takes a life; such is the logic of hate-induced terror that some Muslims call jihad.

For true Sufis, the first fire is the only fire, since it requires the greater struggle, also known as jihad (jihad al-akbar): to conquer one’s self.

For Geller, as for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, it is only the second fire that matters. Jihad takes but one form: warfare in the name of Allah. The God of Islam produces hate, not love. His fire brings horror rather than hope: Its flames neither thrill nor elevate; they only kill and decimate.

In 2015 we witness a growing imbalance of imagery, perception and practices of Allah sweeping across the Atlantic, from Western Europe to North America. Charlie Hebdo inaugurated the New Year with death and carnage in Paris, then Copenhagen. There was no immediate copycat in the U.S. till the shootings in Garland, Texas, last week.

Not that negative sound bites about Islam have been absent. Hirsi Ali’s latest screed, “Heretic,”received more than the expected favorable features and reviews from Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and NPR’s Diane Rehm Show. An alluring presence, Hirsi Ali is shy on facts but near perfect in affect: Time and again she says nothing with a convincing smile; her acolytes applaud.

Geller, by contrast, imitates the French extremist Jean-Marie Le Pen. No smiles, just grimaces; the more outrageous the claim, the more tenacious its defense. In 2009 she opposed a mosque project for Ground Zero.

When Muslims “pray five times a day,” she bellowed, “they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day.” One of the 2012 Washington subway posters she sponsored read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

What is missing in these made for media histrionics is the Allah of history, etched in the Quran and replete in the lives of everyday Muslims, from Arabia to America, across Africa, Asia and also Europe. The Allah of piety and poetry, of table talk and critical life decisions, is also the Allah defined, above all, by mercy. The opening words of the Quran announce: In the Name of God, the All Merciful, Always Merciful.

While echoes of that Allah resound through the corridors of time and in the daily acts of millions of Muslims, they have been drowned out in 2015 by provocateurs — first Charlie Hebdo terrorists, and then the respondents to Geller’s parlor game in Garland. Hers is a charade of free speech, a mockery of democratic values. If ISIS hates the West, Geller provides its mirror image: hatred of Islam.

Recently a New York court allowed her to continue to garnish buses and subways with a poster that read: “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah. That’s His Jihad. What’s yours?”

If it weren’t so incendiary, it would be ludicrous, but its consequences are far from funny. It’s important to distinguish true Islam from Geller’s barbs, but also her assault from Hirsi Ali’s.

Read it all

Jihad at MIT

"MIT Muslim chaplain Suheil Laher used his leadership of the MIT Muslim Students Association as a vehicle for raising money for Al Qaeda causes around the world"

But not to worry, this has nothing to do with the religion of peace.

From Breitbart May 11 by Ilya Feoktistov and Charles Jacobs


At the end of April, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology unveiled a permanent memorial to MIT Police Officer Sean Collier. Officer Collier was gunned down by the Boston Marathon bombers, Chechen refugees Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, three days after they blew up the Marathon.

It is painful to learn that in the late 1990s, there were students at MIT who helped recruit for the Chechen jihad and raised funds for Al Qaeda-affiliated groups operating in the Tsarnaevs’ homeland. It is even more painful that the man who led this fundraising effortwas still on MIT’s staff when Officer Collier was gunned down.

Suheil Laher had been MIT’s Muslim chaplain for almost 20 years. Today he continues to preach at the Islamic Society of Boston, the extremist mosque founded by MIT students near campus, where the Tsarnaevs worshipped during their radicalization.

Americans for Peace and Tolerance have just released a mini-documentary, “Al Qaeda’s Base at MIT,” showing how MIT Muslim chaplain Suheil Laher used his leadership of the MIT Muslim Students Association as a vehicle for raising money for Al Qaeda causes around the world. We especially focus on the Al Qaeda affiliate in Chechnya, which Laher and his associates lionized, even as MIT trusted him to be its Muslim students’ spiritual guide.

Read it all

Sunday, May 10, 2015

US officials warn of increased jihad attacks that have nothing to do with Islam

"It’s going to get worse, not better....This is very difficult to stop"

Especially since the Obama White House refuses to equate jihad with Islam, and will not identify Islamic texts and teachings as the motivating force behind jihad.

He doesn't want to be seen as "Islamophobic", doncha know.

From FoxNews May 10

'Terrorism has gone viral': US officials, lawmakers warn of growing jihad-inspired attacks

Top U.S. officials and lawmakers on Sunday intensified concerns about the growing threat of jihad-inspired terror attacks against the United States, after last week’s attempt in Texas and the dire FBI warning that followed.

“I think there’s been an uptick in the stream of threats out there,” Texas GOP Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, told “Fox News Sunday.” “We’re seeing these directives on almost a daily basis. It’s very concerning. Terrorism has gone viral.”

McCaul’s comments follow the May 3 attack by two gunmen outside a “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas.

Tweets by one of the two gunmen, killed by police in the attack, appear to link him to radical Islamic terror groups. And Internet chatter purportedly tipped off officials about a possible attack on the event.

On Thursday, FBI Director James Comey said the attack, in which a security officer was shot in the leg, highlights the difficulties the FBI faces -- as social media facilitates communication between terror groups and potential homegrown extremists.

He also said the Islamic State terror group has thousands of English-language followers on Twitter, including many in the U.S.

The group also is increasingly steering followers into forums that allow for encrypted communications that can be harder for law enforcement officials to access.

In addition, the Islamic State has been encouraging followers to travel to Syria to join the self-created caliphate there, but if they can't do that, to "kill where you are," Comey said.

"The siren song sits in the pockets, on the mobile phones, of the people who are followers on Twitter," Comey said. "It's almost as if there's a devil sitting on the shoulder, saying 'Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill,' all day long."

McCaul said Comey was “exactly right” and that trying to find ISIS’ calling for terror attacks across the broad spectrum of social media is “like trying to find a needle in a haystack.”

He also said the terror threat now is “one of the highest that I’ve ever seen” and warned of similar incidents in the future.

“It’s going to get worse, not better,” he said. “This is very difficult to stop.”

Read it all

Thursday, May 7, 2015

University of Minnesota Muslim students insulted over poster for free speech debate

The reason?  The poster showed one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.  Muslim students and others, having no concept of why the 1st amendment is so important to a free society circulated a petition;  "...eight people filed complaints with the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action office, saying the depiction of Mohammed was offensive and insulting to Muslims. In addition, some 300 people, including 260 Muslim students, signed a petition calling the flier “very offensive.” “Knowing that these caricatures hurt and are condemned by 1.75 billion Muslims in the world, the University should not have re-circulated/re-produced them,” the petition said, and it urged the U to prevent it from happening again"

In this case, their histrionic outrage fell on deaf ears and the school sttod fast to the principles of free speech.  This will not be the last attempt to silence critics of Islamic texts and teachings, but for the moment they have been stymied in Minnesota.

From the Star Tribune May  by Maura Lerner

Poster for free-speech forum sets off debate at University of Minnesota

A poster for a campus forum on the limits of free speech has set off a debate at the University of Minnesota — about the limits of free speech.

The poster, which first appeared in January, prompted hundreds of complaints from Muslim students and others for reproducing a controversial illustration of the prophet Mohammed from the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo.

But it’s the university’s response to the complaints — just weeks after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo — that drew fire from some faculty members.

After initially demanding that the posters be taken down, university officials quickly rescinded the ban, calling it a mistake. Then the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action investigated and advised the dean of liberal arts to disavow the use of the offending image and “use your leadership role to repair the damage” it caused in the Muslim community.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law, said she was taken aback by the U’s response. “There is no question in my mind that this [poster] was protected speech,” Kirtley said.

The incident, which has been simmering behind the scenes for months, first was reported April 29 in the Minnesota Daily. On Tuesday, it drew national attention in the online journal Inside Higher Ed, in the wake of Sunday’s attack by gunmen on an anti-Islam cartoon contest in Garland, Texas.

Prof. Bruno Chaouat said the January forum, which he helped to organize, was designed as “an opportunity to educate about free speech.” He called the university’s reaction — deciding to launch an investigation — part of a worrisome trend.

“I think what’s going on is a global problem … of self-censorship,” said Chaouat, who is chairman of the Department of French and Italian. In particular, he called the recommendation to disavow the poster “profoundly outrageous.”

John Coleman, the liberal-arts dean, said Tuesday he has no intention of following that recommendation. “I really think the important thing here is to affirm and reaffirm the importance of open debate,” he said in an interview. That freedom, he noted, applies to everyone, including “Muslim students, Christian students, Jewish students. We want everybody to feel that they are able to express their views and either agree or disagree.”

The poster featured a now-famous drawing of a tearful prophet Mohammed, holding a sign “Je Suis Charlie,” which appeared on the cover of Charlie Hebdo days after Islamic militants killed 12 staff members at the magazine’s Paris headquarters.

On the poster, the word “censored” was superimposed on the drawing, under the heading: “Can One Laugh At Everything? Satire and Free Speech After Charlie.”

Organizers say the forum drew more than 200 people.

Read it all

Kansas City mosque that calls for censorship and blasphemy laws to host funeral for Garland, Texas jihadist

Not that this mosque is moderate, " the mosque had hosted internationally renowned Islamic hate speaker Khalid Yasin, whose controversial statements include calling for the death penalty for gays and describing the beliefs of Christians and Jews as “filth.”"

But not to worry, it is Pamela Geller and her ilk that are the danger by drawing pictures of Muhammad, not those who honor a warrior for Islam.

From PJ Media May 6 by Patrick Poole

Kansas City Mosque That Wanted to Ban Free Speech Will Hold Funeral for TX Jihadist Nadir Soofi

A Kansas City mosque that petitioned Barack Obama to ban free speech defaming Islam in 2012 will hold the funeral for one of the two jihadists killed in a shootout Sunday outside a Dallas-area convention center that was hosting a “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest.

The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City (ISGKC) will hold a funeral on Thursday for Nadir Soofi, according to KCTV5: The funeral for one of the people suspected in a chilling attack outside a Texas art contest will be held in the metro.

While Nadir Soofi never lived in the metro his father lives in an Overland Park neighborhood near 158th Place with his wife, Nadir’s stepmother. A woman who came to the door at the home told KCTV5 that the family didn’t want to talk about what happened to Soofi.

Police say the 34-year-old and 30-year-old Elton Simpson opened fire at a Dallas area conference center on Sunday. An art exhibit and contest depicting the Prophet Mohammad was being held there.

They wounded a security guard before police shot back, killing both.

While not mentioned in the article’s text, the KCTV5 video report specifically states that Soofi’s funeral service will be at ISGKC.

As I reported at PJ Media back in September 2012, ISGKC launched an online petition calling for Barack Obama to sponsor a bill limiting the free speech of American citizens by criminalizing insults to religion (namely, Islam) following international protest of the “Innocence of Muslims” video.

The petition, which was signed by the ISGKC executive board and posted on the mosque’s website, received 348 signatures. One of the mosque board members defended the petition in an interview with the local media following our PJ Media report:

“Insulting somebody else or putting somebody down can insight violence and lead to people losing their lives. We’re trying not to give these people a chance to misbehave,” said Mohammed Kohia, who started the petition along with the executive board of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City.

But as a local ACLU attorney explained:

Somebody’s speech is no excuse for violence, that’s right … but you can’t punish the speaker for the violence practiced by others. While I understand why they’re upset, their preposition is clearly unconstitutional.

As I noted at the time, the position of ISGKC was particularly peculiar given that the mosque had hosted internationally renowned Islamic hate speaker Khalid Yasin, whose controversial statements include calling for the death penalty for gays and describing the beliefs of Christians and Jews as “filth.”

FBI Chief: Thousands of Islamic State jihadists in the US similar to Garland attackers

But not to worry, Islam is a religion of peace and only a tiny minority of extremists are to be worried about.  As long as we don't agitate them by drawing Muhammad, everything will be fine.

From KAKE May 7

FBI Chief: Potentially 'thousands' of online ISIS followers in US

There may be as many as thousands of people inside the United States consuming online “poison” from ISIS alone, and, “I know there are other Elton Simpsons out there,” FBI director James Comey warned today, referring to one of the men who opened fire outside of an event in Texas earlier this week celebrating artists’ portrayals of the Prophet Mohammad.

“We have a very hard task” in trying to identify and stop anyone inspired to launch an attack inside the U.S. homeland, Comey told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas and a small group of reporters.

Such efforts have become particularly challenging because ISIS has reconfigured and redefined terrorist recruitment, according to Comey. In fact, while the FBI is trying to find that so-called needle in a haystack, “increasingly the needles are invisible to us,” he said.

As recently as two years ago, someone in the United States who wanted to consume “radical poisonous propaganda” would have to seek that out on the Internet, most likely on a jihadist web forum. So the FBI focused its investigative efforts on those jihadist web forums, Comey said.

But “that has changed dramatically, especially with [ISIS] and their use of social media,” where on phones in people’s pockets they ask Americans and other foreigners “to travel to the so-called caliphate to fight” but simultaneously say, “If you can’t travel, kill where you are,” according to Comey.

“It’s almost as if there is a devil sitting on the shoulder saying, ‘Kill, kill, kill, kill’ all day long,” he said. “[They are] recruiting and tasking at the same time. … In a way, the old paradigm between ‘inspired’ and ‘directed’ breaks down here."

And with that distinction “no longer relevant," is it all the more challenging for the FBI to determine whether someone seeking jihadist propaganda online or even promoting themselves is “a talker or a doer,” as Comey described it.

There’s also the question, “Where are they on the pathway from ‘talker’ to ‘doer’? And that’s really hard,” Comey added.

Those are the exact types of questions the FBI faced with Simpson.

Comey acknowledged today that Simpson had been under FBI watch since 2006, when the agency opened an investigation on the Phoenix-area man based on information suggesting he wanted to join al-Shabab, the al Qaeda-linked group in Somalia. Simpson was ultimately indicted on terrorism charges and convicted, but due to questions over the government’s case he never went to prison and was sentenced to probation. The FBI officially closed its case into Simpson last year.

But two months ago, based on social media postings suggesting “renewed interest in jihad” with ISIS, the FBI reopened its investigation into Simpson, hoping to determine “what he was up to,” according to Comey.

After spending recent weeks trying to identify people inside the United States who might have interest in attacking the community center in Garland, Texas, hosting the controversial cartoon contest, the FBI developed information “just hours” before the event on Sunday that Simpson might be among those interested, Comey said.

About three hours before the event was to begin, the FBI sent Garland police an intelligence bulletin warning that Simpson may be interested in traveling to Texas and attacking the event, according to Comey, who said the bulletin included a picture of Simpson and a suspected license plate.

Nevertheless, the FBI had no reason to believe Simpson would actually try to carry out an attack, and, “We didn’t have reason to believe he left Phoenix,” Comey said. The bulletin was simply a precaution....

Read it all

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Breaking report: AFDI Muhammad art contest disrupted with multiple shots, two dead, one injured, possible bomb threat

From CNN May 3

Two shot and killed at 'Muhammad Art, Cartoon Contest' in Texas

(CNN)Two people were shot and killed by police outside of an event billed as the "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest" in Garland, Texas, Sunday night, according to Garland Mayor Douglas Athas.

According to the City of Garland Facebook's page, "two males drove up to the front of the building in a car," as the event was coming to an end. "Both males were armed and began shooting at a Garland ... security officer. Garland Police officers engaged the gunmen, who were both shot and killed. "

Athas said the security guard was shot in the leg and transported to a local hospital. His condition is unknown.

CNN producer Chris Lett, who was covering the event, said there were about 40 people gathered when police announced there had been a shooting.

Authorities are investigating whether explosives were involved.

"Police suspect the vehicle may contain an incendiary device and the bomb squad is on the scene," according to Garland Facebook's page.

The event, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, claimed to have received "over 350 submissions of Muhammad cartoons from all over the world."

Athas told CNN that there was a significant police presence at the exhibit and that it was "secured event."

A law enforcement official told CNN that the FBI is monitoring the incident and stands ready to assist should the need arise.

More here...