Tyranny is a slow-infecting political virus infecting America. That virus became a bit more explicit in America’s 2020 Election but has been going on under the public radar before that for decades.
A part of that under the radar action is due to UNELECTED Globalists extending their tentacle of control through Treaties and Agreements which in America’s case – some ratified Constitutionally (e.g. United Nations involvements) and some by Presidential Executive Orders (which are fluid depending on whom ever sits in the Oval Office).
Since the China Virus (er…I mean COVID19) began spreading around the world the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dominated World Health Organization (WHO) has been cryptically collecting political clout to override the sovereign authority of independent nations in all matters relating to the spread of viral diseases. Since the WHO is part of -CONTROL-THE-PEOPLE more through political science narratives rather than observable science making critical thinking decisions, CCP-style tyranny will increasingly be glaringly overt political infection of tyranny.
A couple of days ago THE EXPOSÉ examined this World-Wide WHO dictatorship emergence that culminates with a near 90-minute video under the auspices of NTD News and facilitated by Frank Gaffney. THE EXPOSÉ post is from 3/13/23 and NTD News video post was on 3/11/23.
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying women’s menstrual health, healthy collagen, vitamin supplements/products, coffee from my Online stores: My Store (please use referral discount code 2388058): https://modere.co/3SrOHzI
Yesterday, World Health Organisation Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus announced “with great pleasure” a joint project of the IPU Parliament and WHO, “which can guide parliamentarians along the path towards health for all, including on law-making, finance, taxation and accountability.”
A few days ago, we published an article warning that the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) aims to begin installing a One World Government under the guise of global health security. If you didn’t believe us then, this latest development should convince you now.
IPU Parliament claims to “empower parliaments and parliamentarians to promote peace, democracy and sustainable development.” Out of 190 parliaments in the world, 178 national parliaments are members of IPU. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (“IPU”) began in 1889 by Englishman William Randal Cremer and Frenchman Frédéric Passy. You can read more about the history of IPU HERE.
And WHO is a private organisation, a puppet organisation that is funded by Globalist billionaires. Bill Gates, along with the organisations he controls, is, by far, the largest financial contributor to WHO. Only 13% of WHO’s budget comes from assessed contributions, which are set amounts paid by member-state governments.
All parliamentarians who want to protect citizens and their nations’ sovereignty, freedom and rights from these want-to-be global dictators should be calling for their governments to stop funding and exit the WHO. Any who aren’t, by default, are identifying themselves as Globalists and puppets of the planned One World Government.
Some have been already calling to #ExitTheWHO – based on the secretive negotiations taking place regarding amendments to the international health regulations and a proposed “pandemic treaty” – but this latest development should leave no one in any doubt of the dictators at WHO’s intentions. All parliamentarians and all citizens of all nations need to join the calls to put an end to the Globalists’ dystopian dreams of a one world totalitarian state which is under the rule of a very few.
Exit The WHO
Over the past two weeks, the US and other members of WHO have been negotiating ways to give sweeping new powers to WHO’s Director-General. Through material changes to existing international health regulations and/or a new pandemic accord, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus would be able to declare actual or potential “public health emergencies of international concern” in any country based on privately supplied information and without the agreement of the nation(s) affected. Worse yet, he can unilaterally dictate what must be done in response.
The idea of granting WHO and its leadership such potentially fraught authorities is all the more problematic in light of their imperious, and malfeasant, conduct at the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) in the course of the covid-19 pandemic. But, the approval of one or both of these agreements is likely – all other things being equal – to happen when the World Health Assembly meets in May 2023. The new WHO authorities would become provisionally binding on member states, irrespective of whether or not they ultimately endorse them.
Especially troubling is the convergence of these initiatives with measures promoted by WHO to institute global digital identity cards to document and monitor vaccination status and other medical conditions. When combined with the proliferating introduction of central bank digital currencies (“CBDCs”), these “smart” IDs would facilitate efforts to monitor, control and enforce WHO’s diktats, and punish those who defy them.
I’ve got three cross posts I hope you find interesting enough to digest to comprehend the world the American Founding Fathers hoped to frame has been whittled away for decades. Whittled so grotesquely that the whittlers of Liberty’s total annihilation DO NOT even hide their actions any longer believing the Sheeple are so hooked to obedience, total transformation of the masses is nearly complete.
Perhaps there are still enough naysayers willing to withstand the onslaught of complete tyranny – I DON’T KNOW? Do you?
The global governance crowd is on a roll in destroying the sovereignty of nations like ours and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. The Global Resetters and their Chinese Communist allies have recently revealed three initiatives designed to catalyze a New World Order.
First, with the Biden administration’s connivance, the World Health Organization is beavering away in Geneva on agreements that will empower its Chinese-appointed, Marxist director-general to dictate public health policies here and elsewhere.
Second, on Tuesday, China’s Alibaba conglomerate announced at Davos that it will produce a “personal carbon footprint tracker” to monitor everyone’s contribution to climate change – and everything else.
Then, yesterday, German-owned T-Mobile boasted at the World Economic Forum that the World Health Organization has selected it to provide universal Global Digital Health Passports, yet another building-block for insinuating worldwide China’s totalitarian Social Credit System.
A gradual and silent encroachment of our freedom and Federal, States’ and individual sovereignty by a globalist financial corporate cartel continues to proceed. One key aspect of our current political reality in the US is that many of our laws at the Federal level have been placed there by corporate stakeholders. Corporate lobbyists work tirelessly and relentlessly to insert legislation that benefits their industries and increases the wealth of their corporate clients and associated “stakeholders” into our federal laws and regulations, and to twist existing legislation so that it becomes a more perfect tool of their clients’ corporate interests. In parallel, within the many branches of the US Federal bureaucracy, regulatory capture has become the norm. Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that it is grossly naive to expect solutions to these corrupting influences to come from either Congress or the entrenched and captured bureaucracy. And one hard truth learned by the first Trump administration is that the executive branch lacks the power and authority required to replace the entrenched bureaucrats that have become the ruling lords and ladies of the new inverted Totalitarian reality which is the entrenched Federal bureaucracy.
In this new Federal reality, where the culture of government institutions and agencies is damaged beyond repair, real change cannot occur by replacing one figurehead for another. Corrupted policy can’t be easily replaced with good policy. The ideology, the rule of law, the subverted corporatist regulations are baked in. The system is rigged. The unknown (or known) bureaucrats controlling the levers aren’t going to let go of that easily. When they have done their time, most likely those employees will move into corporate leadership positions so long as they have protected corporatist interests during what has all too often become a form of internship-as-prelude prior to landing a “good job”. As most federal employees at the top-tier are well aware of their future career opportunities, they have no incentives to try to change the status-quo and upset their potential future employers . Government institutions that are intrinsically controlled by outside interests cannot be reformed from within, so it is important to not waste too much energy trying. That’s why many argue that a “siege strategy” or even the creation of completely new institution(s) may be the answer.
Those of us fighting for freedom have come full circle and now confront the issue of state’s rights. This is a fundamental principle of our republic (often incorrectly referred to as “our democracy”). Each state has the ability to govern itself, within the confines of the Constitution, Federal law and the Bill of Rights. Those powers are vast but frequently under-utilized. States have the power to ensure that a strong federalized governance is not the norm.
In 2012, Obama lifted restrictions from the Smith-Mundt Act (passed in 1948) that allowed domestic dissemination of government-funded media. Then the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio in 2016, established the Global Engagement Center under the State Department, with the following Mission and Vision statements:
Core Mission: To direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations.
Vision: A data-driven Mission Center leading U.S. inter-agency efforts to proactively address foreign adversaries’ attempts to use disinformation and propaganda to undermine U.S. interests.
This center authorizes grants to non-governmental agencies to help “collect and store examples in print, online, and social media, disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda” directed at the U.S. and its allies, as well as “counter efforts by foreign entities to use disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda to influence the policies and social and political stability” of the U.S. and allied nations. These laws have worked to loosen the controls previously placed on the Federal government regarding its ability to push propaganda. The very fact that we have an ex-president of the USA, the very same one who presided over the lifting of restrictions of theSmith-Mundt Actcalling for censorship of the press to “PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY” and this he is SUPPORTED in this call by so many on the left is chilling.
But what happens when a state like Florida becomes a threat to the Federal government exceeding its enumerated powers, and seizing control of more powers that have been traditionally assigned to the states? The back and forth between President Biden and Governor DeSantis over Florida’s COVID policies make clear the power that the Federal government has developed over states by leveraging the distribution (and ability to withhold) Federal Tax dollars. The actions of Governor DeSantis of Florida are so harshly criticized by those who control the levers of the Federal government (as well as purchased main stream media) because he has refused to comply with the Biden administration’s HHS bureaucratic edicts.
After the Biden administration admonished Florida for stagnant vaccination rates in Florida, the Feds then decided to federalize the distribution of monoclonal antibodies so that those who don’t get the vaccine have no alternative treatment option. This is a prime example of the retaliatory tools available to the Federal government, and illustrates that the Federal government is able and willing to compromise the health of US citizens to punish a state that choses to be noncompliant. Remember, the states regulate medicine and public health policy within that state. Biden refusing to send lifesaving medicine is a clear abuse of Federal power. The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution authorizes states to establish laws and regulations protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens. The practice of medicine is not an inherent right of an individual, but a privilege granted by the people of a state acting through their elected representatives. For further details please see the Federation of State Medical Boards statement “About State Medical Boards”.
It is state’s rights – as imperfect as that system is, that protects us from the WHO/globalist power grab to leverage public health to compromise the sovereignty of the United States. The current strategic agenda of those seeking to advance globalism and global governance policies at the expense of the autonomy of nation-states is often referred to as the New World Order. Those advocating for the New World Order include the World Economic Forum, transnational corporations/globalized investment capital, the UN, World Trade Organization, World Bank and now the World Health Organization. These entities have, to a more or lesser extent, gained control of the Federal government through leveraging the regulatory capture of our federalized agencies, departments and institutions. Money from these entities flows into the coffers of Congress to influence law makers. Often, treaties and agreements on the global level codify these arrangements. This ensures that our federal government is coopted by these entities.
Our federal government believes that it will be stronger when states have little or no control over the rules and regulations of the state. This is not what our founding fathers intended, and this is when the rights of all of us are trampled on. Our constitution codifies that each state maintains its own set of laws, rules and regulations. The beauty of this system is the diversity of cultures can be maintained within states. Living in Texas is very different than living in New Hampshire, and I believe that this is a good thing. Although states are stronger when there is a federal government appropriately assuming and defending those responsibilities enumerated under the US Constitution, they are also guaranteed the freedom to have their own cultural identity and rule of law. This is the beauty of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This interweaving of states rights under the limited umbrella of a Federal government.
For many, the erosion of each states’ right to monitor and control federal elections, as guaranteed in the constitution, is the easy example to reach for as that line is also being repeatedly crossed. But the depth of this problem is much, much deeper than this single issue.
The use of federal tax dollars to control states may be a more persistent and pernicious issue. As an example, the Department of Transportation allocates funds for states that comply with seat belt laws or speeding limits, but will withhold such funds for states that don’t. The Department of Education allocates taxpayer funds based on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) goals or other “reforms”, thereby controlling and harmonizing certain aspects of education in the USA across all states. In the example of COVID lock down policies and masking, it is quite clear that the CDC and the NIH have overstepped Federal powers again and again by leveraging Federal Tax Dollars to create perverse financial incentives within hospitals and to promote mis- dis- and malinformation and to promote propaganda in both old and new media. It is time to return to the rule of law, and return the power back to the state to regulate medicine and public health.
States must remember that Federal funding is not the be all, end all. If a state can develop the political will to refuse such funds, sovereignty can be re-established. This requires that plans can be made to mitigate the impact of such an action. These Tax kickbacks are often weaponized in an arbitrary and capricious way by the Federal Executive branch to illegally control state policies, including public health policies. State leaders who are willing to walk away from federal funding, who are willing to work with other states and congress to negotiate better terms for federal dollars, may offer the best hope for breaking this Federal overreach.
This is why the upcoming ruling on Roe v. Wade is so important, as this ruling by the Supreme Court appears to reset the constitutionally correct relationship between the Federal government and the States in a wide range of ways, including regulation of health care. IF they are willing to plan for and mitigate the risks associated with taking back their Constitutionally-granted powers, States can leverage this new ruling to enable something closer to the intended balance of powers. “We the People” need to insist that they do so by electing strong and independent leaders at the state level, leaders who will fight for the right of each state to govern itself as our founding fathers intended. Governor Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Jeff Landry are two leaders leading the fight on this front. We must support them, so that they can continue to restore and protect the Constitutional rights of each State in the Union. Other states will follow their example. I believe that it is critical to the future success of our nation to have these great leaders paving the way, being brave and setting an example for other state leaders to follow, so that the attempts of the Globalist cabal to empower the WHO to subvert Constitutionally-granted States Rights can be thwarted.
The federal government has been intentionally infiltrated by Globalists trained by the World Economic Forum. Make no mistake. The elites and transnational corporations have and continue to undermine our institutions and our very Constitution. President Trump has taught us that we can’t pull our punches, we must act aggressively and give no quarter. That means utilizing every tool available; these tools include using the judicial branch (the courts), working to elect and educate legislators and of course, educating and mobilizing the populace.
Individuals can have a huge role in working to ensure our freedoms, our sovereignty as a nation by writing letters, phoning legislators, publishing independent articles and memes. Even just re-posting on social media can help. We are all in this fight together. Individuals must organize, join groups and organizations, and create new groups and organizations.
Having an independent and free press that can report on our government and institutions is critical. It is how we can help Americans make informed decisions when voting. That means replacing the captured and outdated old media with new media outlets that are censorship free. Using block chain to create new social media outlets that cannot be subjected to propaganda and censorship is a good step in the right direction.
Organizing into groups that can work collectively to get the truth out is another way to help save the Sovereignty of our great nation, and that of all of the independent nations of the world. We must fight against the narratives that are being constantly pushed by government agencies that have been subverted by the Globalists. They do not want their corruption exposed. What we have learned over the past two years is that they will do whatever it takes to hide their dirty dealings from the American and world public.
So, get ready patriots – we have a lot of work to do in the coming months. First and foremost – let’s take back the House and Senate in November and flip as many states as possible to RED. We must have as many congress people as possible who are committed and aware that our nation is in danger.
A major component of the Great Reset-Technocratic Agenda is the implementation of a worldwide digital identity scheme. One of the first steps to realize this goal is to convince the public that digital identity programs are a “human right” worth fighting for.
Why is the push for digital identity absolutely vital to the Technocrats visions?
The world of 2030 — the one in which the World Economic Forum imagines “you will own nothing and be happy” — depends on an all-encompassing digital id program. This digital ID will allow a track and trace society where the authorities can see every purchase and every move you make.
One could argue much of society has already handed over this data with the ubiquitous use of credit cards which track purchases, and phones which log GPS data.
However, the digital ID scheme will also be linked to a digital wallet holding the local Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the digital currency of governments which will be needed for all legal transactions. Eventually, this digital ID and the digital wallet will be connected to, and impacted by, your individual social credit score.
As I have reported since March 2020, these initiatives were already in the works prior to COVID-19. However, it was the beginning of the COVID-19 panic that allowed governments around the world to push further towards their vision of Technocracy.
For example, we have been told that use of cash should be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether because of reports claiming COVID-19 spread through dirty old money. This conveniently leads into the calls for digital currency programs such as CBDCs.
Of course, we see the push for “contact tracing” apps to track the alleged spread of disease, and jjab passport/health passport apps have begun to acclimate the public to carrying a digital ID card with them everywhere they go.
The jjab passport is simply a gateway to a digital identity which has already been in the works in the United States, to one degree or another, since at least 2005 with the passing of the controversial REAL ID Act.
UN Sustainable Development Goal 16
This push towards a digital identity has its roots in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 interlinked objectives adopted by the United Nations in 2015 with the ostensible goal of ending poverty, protecting the planet, and spreading peace and prosperity to all people by 2030. Their actions, however, regularly belie their stated intentions.
The SDGs were part of a larger resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, or Agenda 2030, with the stated purpose of fighting climate change.
While the United Nations SDGs and Agenda 2030 are often touted as a tool for establishing healthy multilateral relationships between nations, in truth, they are based in a deeper agenda to monitor, control, and direct all life on the planet.
The 17 SDGs each tackle a different area of their ostensible fight for justice and equality. UN SDG 16 focuses on “Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions” and states that “by 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”
One document from the United Nations titled “United Nations Strategy for Legal Identity for All” further defines what is meant by “legal” and “digital identity.” A legal identity is essentially a form of registration with a civil body (a government).
The UN document makes it clear that “legal identity is widely acknowledged to be catalytic for achieving at least ten of the SDGs“, and the data generated by the registration supports the measurement of more than 60 SDG indicators. “Legal identity has a critical role to ensure the globalcommunity upholds its promise of leaving no one behind as espoused in the 2030 Agenda,” the UN report states.
When it comes to digital identity, the document says digital identity is generally understood as a unique and constant identity — a virtual identification card, for example — assigned to individuals that authenticates them as users of all their portable digital devices.
This identity can apply to the digital and physical worlds. Using a digital identity involves passwords, cryptographic key, biometrics such as fingerprint or iris scanning.
Digital Identity as a Human Right
As we approach 2030 the “digital identity as a human right” meme is increasingly being planted in the minds of the masses. I would expect this trend to become a standard talking point amongst corporate media hacks and their followers.
Not only is the public being primed to accept digital identity as a method of tracking illness (and the population), but digital identity is being sold to the bleeding hearts of the Western world as a necessity for helping the so-called “unbanked” of the world and bringing them into modern financial systems.
The term unbanked refers to those people who, for one reason or another, lack bank accounts and credit cards. This apparent lack is often reported as a flaw of modern society, an example of another poor population being left behind. What goes unquestioned is whether integration into the banking system is the best thing for an individual or not.
It is assumed that all people should need or want to be involved in the debt based banking system, allowing the criminal banks behind The Great Reset to fund their projects with the people’s money.
Many of these people live in the developing world, and in places like Mexico there exists a thriving counter or informal economy of people trading, buying, and selling goods without taxes, regulations, or a digital record of any kind.
This type of economic and social activity is the exact behavior the Technocrats want to eliminate, precisely because it flies in the face of the Great Reset vision.
Thus the media must do its job to convince the public that colonization is not colonization when it involves sustainability and diversity. The people need to be convinced that those poor Mexican farmers won’t be complete until they have a digital ID, with a digital wallet for receiving the digital currency as part of the Universal Basic Income program. These gushing stories promoting digital identity as the savior of the developing world fail to mention the dark side to the digitization of all life, specifically the coming terror of social credit and social impact finance tools.
“The lack of identity is not just a loss in terms of being seen by the system and society. It is an exclusion that prevents people from achieving their full potential. They cannot be educated, they cannot access healthcare services, and their children inherit this legacy as they’re born outside the system,” the group wrote in February 2021. Again, the general assumption is that there is no life to be had “outside the system”.
Meanwhile, Impakter Magazine, known for promoting the SDGs, published a piece titled “Digital Identity As a Basic Human Right” in May 2018. The Impakter piece promotes blockchain based ID’s and putting children’s birth certificates on the blockchain as well.
Thankfully there are some examples of pushback to the commonly held narratives surrounding digital id.
In April 2021, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice published a skeptical piece titled “Everyone Counts! Ensuring that the human rights of all are respected in digital ID systems.” This article looked at some of the ways marginalized populations are further marginalized by digital systems. They warn of the “need for the human rights movement to engage in discussions about digital transformation so that fundamental rights are not lost in the rush to build a ‘modern, digital state’.”
The group Access Now published a report, Busting the dangerous myths of Big ID programs: cautionary lessons from India, focused on the concerns surrounding India’s implementation of their digital ID system, Aadhaar. The report concludes that so-called “Big ID programs” — that is programs implemented by governments with the help of Big Tech — are not needed to give people a legal identity. Further, the report found that Big ID creates space for surveillance to flourish, as demonstrated by India’s Aadhaar system.
“If actors fail to consider the risks, ID systems can themselves threaten human rights, particularly the right to privacy. They can become tools for surveillance by the state and the private sector; they can exclude, rather than include.
There are thus risks in the implementation of an ID scheme – not only that it fails to meet the promise of SDG 16.9, but that it also builds a system for surveillance and exclusion. It is thus essential to critically engage with the interpretation of the goal, and the uses to which it has been put.”
The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and The World Bank
The United Nations is not the only supranational body lobbying for digital identity. In January 2021, the World Economic Forum met for their annual meeting to discuss the “Davos Agenda.” As TLAV previously reported, the January meeting was focused on restoring trust and outlining the plan for The Great Reset. In the lead up to the January 2021 meeting the WEF published an article titled “How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world.”
The article notes, “while government’s role is key, regulators have understood that they don’t hold all the cards and that solutions are needed across the public and private sectors. Digital identity trust frameworks led by governments working with the private sector are emerging.” This discussion of “frameworks led by governments working with the private sector” is exactly the public-private partnership the WEF has been promoting for decades.
We should also remember that the WEF was one of the first organizations to begin promoting the idea of jjab passports as part of a “new normal.” The WEF would officially announce The Great Reset initiative in June 2020, only 3 months into the COVID-19 panic.
Of course, the WEF’s Great Reset plan is ultimately a refinement of the UN’s Agenda 2030 and SDGs. Thus it should come as no surprise that the UN is also working on a form of digital identity. The UN Digital Solutions Centre (UN DSC) has developed an “innovative digital identity solution for UN personnel.”
The UN DSC, a pilot project of the UN World Food Programme (WFP) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), says they are working on a suite of digital solutions that can be shared among UN Agencies to “transform common business operations and streamline time-consuming transactional tasks.”
The UN Digital ID will use blockchain and some form of biometrics. It has been described as a digital wallet for UN personnel. The UN DSC website describes the project as “based on a blockchain, biometrics and a mobile app solution, this pilot will look to offer a unique digital ID for every UN employee for end-to-end lifecycle management from on-boarding through to retirement that will be immutable, protected, transparent and portable.”
While the UN and WEF have been promoting the acceptance of digital identity, the World Bank has been funding the development of such programs as part of the Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative. The World Bank is funding digital biometric ID programs in Mexico, pushing digital ID in poorer countries with the ostensible goal of providing legal identity to the 1.1 billion people who do not currently have one.
Luis Fernando García, the director of the Mexican digital rights organization R3D, says the programs are being funded by those interested in exploiting Mexico’s human data. “Sophisticated intelligence agencies in rich countries are delighted that poor countries are creating these databases of people that they can exploit for their benefit. They have offensive capabilities that allow them to attack, obtain, and collect information that less-developed countries create through these databases,”he stated in a 2021 interview.
“Like many other Global South national identity projects — whether in Kenya, Uganda, or Mexico — the World Bank is behind it. The World Bank is giving Mexico a loan of $225 million to implement the system. It is not promoting this approach in Germany or Canada or the U.S.: countries that do not have a national identity system. But they are promoting it in the Global South, which is very telling.”
At the same time an alliance of Microsoft, GAVI — the Global Vaccine Alliance which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — and the Rockefeller Foundation have organized their efforts under the ID2020 project. The ID2020 project is an attempt to create digital identification for every single person on the planet. In 2018, Microsoft announced a formal partnership with the ID2020 project at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The usual cast of characters — the WEF, the UN, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation — have spent the recent years lobbying for the need to create a digital identity for every person on the planet. During the COVID-19 crisis, these organizations promoted the use of jjab passports, which itself is a form of a digital identity.
Now, they are poised to use economic turmoil and fears of pandemic 2 to promote the value of digital identity, whether to receive a digital currency in exchange for dollars, or to prove vaccination status. One way or another, the Technocrats will force their digital identity prisons on the masses.
Colonization 3.0 and the Future of Identity
The colonization of the Americas and Africa took place in the obvious forms — physical slavery, murder, rape, erasing of language, customs, and culture, etc. — and in less obvious ways — psychological trauma, isolation, loss of identity. The exploits of the European empires were the first wave of the colonization, with later colonization in the form of weaponized financial aid and assistance designed to trap developing nations in debts which require them to sell their natural wealth and resources.
Now, digital colonization is on the horizon. Once again, Africa and Latin America are on the list of targets for digital id schemes. As Impakter Magazine reported, there are plans for placing infant identity on a blockchain so there may be a permanent record of the person. These programs are already taking place in South Africa. Dr. Aaron Ramodumo says the country is on a “progressive transition” towards using biometrics for an infant identity with unique ID numbers.
South Africa’s new program will begin in 2024, and provide capabilities for palm prints, fingerprint, footprint, face and iris biometrics. Ramodumo told Biometric Update he hopes it will be available for infants soon. “While we want to build a policy around biometric capture of infants and children, we still have not made a selection of the specific technology,” Ramodumo said. “And that continues to be a subject of research, and I hope researchers will provide other options to choose from.”
Despite the attempts to colonize Africa with digital identity, there is some hope. In late 2021, Kenya’s digital ID program, the National Integrated Identity Management System (NIIMS), was ruled illegal by the highest court because the government did not clearly establish the data privacy risks, nor did they outline a strategy for measuring and mitigating risks.
Ultimately, the crux of this discussion centers around identity and what is needed for a person to operate in the world today.
For example, in many nations a person already cannot open a bank account, attend school, rent a house, take out a loan, or drive a vehicle legally without presenting some form of identification. These are conditions that many people in the modern world have come to accept as norms.
However, there is a growing skepticism of the incoming digital systems, and, in some cases, even the “traditional” systems most people are familiar with.
Why should we have to show a government approved ID to be recognized as a person? Why must we submit to the government sanctioned identity if we do choose to carry a form of identity (digital or physical)?
These are important questions to ask and the assumptions we hold must be questioned. As we push further into the digital world of 2030, I encourage all readers to alert your friends and family to the dangers posed by digital identity.
Help them understand how digital id will inevitably be connected to digital currency, and eventually, a social credit score. This infrastructure, along with widespread facial recognition cameras, will be the invisible enforcement arm of the Technocratic State.
Together, facial recognition, digital identity, digital currency, and social credit scores represent a giant leap forward towards digital totalitarianism.
The Muslim Brotherhood should have been declared terrorist organization decades ago. Thanks to a hearing at the Subcommittee on National Security of the House oversight committee chaired by Ron DeSantis, the terrorist designation seems closer than ever.
WASHINGTON, D.C.— It is no longer a question of whether the United States will designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. It is only a matter of when and how.
That’s the principal take-away from a congressional national security panel this morning that addressed “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Threat” and what the US should do about it.
“This hearing is an opportunity to discuss what the United States’ next step should be in combatting the Muslim Brotherhood’s threat,” said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the House oversight committee.
“The Muslim Brotherhood is a militant Islamist organization with affiliates in over 70 countries,” DeSantis said. “There’s no question that the Muslim Brotherhood’s affiliates are involved in terrorism.”
The historic hearing follows a June 28 Center for Security Policy Decision Brief that called on the Trump Administration to declare the entire Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts and affiliates as terrorist organizations.
“Thankfully the Trump Administration has discarded the Obama-era policy of treating the Brotherhood as a potential ally,” DeSantis said. “Now, the questions are focused on how expansive to make the terror designation, and whether it should be done through the State Department or Treasury Department.”
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a longtime associate of the Center for Security Policy, was one of the four witnesses who testified. He was the only Muslim witness, and made the case powerfully for Center-recommended policy of designating the entire Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts as terrorist entities.
In the course of his testimony, Dr. Jasser rebutted characterizations by the Brotherhood’s apologists and enablers of its critics as “haters” and “Islamophobes”:
Nothing would be more pro-Muslim than the marginalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and its direct affiliates. Making the Muslim Brotherhood radioactive would allow the light to shine upon their most potent antagonists in Muslim communities – those who reject political Islam and believe in liberty and the separation of mosque and state.
He also discussed national security risks associated with failing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates as terrorist entities. One of them is censorship of jihadist terminology in U.S. government agencies. Dr. Jasser correctly observed that such censorship impedes analysts’ ability to protect the nation:
To think that these words and concepts, and others are off limits in the freest nation on earth, censored [in] our agencies, is just incredulous considering the growing threat we face today from violent Islamism. It smacks of a bizarre invocation of blasphemy laws in America. It is groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have benefited from our refusal to discuss these elements of Islam and Islamism.
The three other witnesses – Hillel Fradkin of the Hudson Institute, Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Daniel Benjamin of the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution – agreed to varying degrees that the Muslim Brotherhood constitutes a threat. They recommended, however, more narrow terrorist designations of specific Muslim Brotherhood entities.
Chairman DeSantis observed: “It is clear that the Brotherhood constitutes a real threat to the national security interests of the United States. We can debate the best way to counter this threat, but simply ignoring the threat is not an acceptable answer.”
The Center for Security Policy has submitted a statement for the hearing record endorsing Rep. DeSantis’ assessment and laying out the factual basis for designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.
Center President Frank J. Gaffney urged legislators, executive branch officials, the media and the public at large to examine particularly compelling evidence of the threat the Brotherhood poses: Its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America– a secret plan for “destroying Western civilization from within” written by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Akram, and introduced by the federal government into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation et.al. v. United States terrorism financing trial.
Designate the Entire Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood Now
This is Frank Gaffney with the Secure Freedom Minute.
Congratulations to Rep. Ron DeSantis and others who took on the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday in a hearing on Capitol Hill. They established that it’s a foreign terrorist organization and will be officially designated as such by the U.S. government. The only question is how soon and how comprehensively.
Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser testified that in 2011 then-FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that “elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.” Dr. Jasser added, “Nothing would be more pro-Muslim than the marginalization of the Muslim Brotherhood and its direct affiliates.”
That’s because the Brotherhood seeks to impose its seditious Sharia-supremacist doctrine on pro-American Muslims as it works – according to the group’s secret plan – to use stealthy “civilization jihad” to “destroy Western civilization from within.”
They must be stopped. Start by designating the entire Muslim Brotherhood now.
DeSantis Hearing Establishes the Muslim Brotherhood Must Be Designated as a Terrorist Organization – the Sooner, the Better
Designate the Entire Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood Now
About The Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org
Frank Gaffney has sent an email that has a hook – a petition, and a goal – fund raising. Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy (CSP) in Washington, D.C. Mr. Gaffney is the host of Secure Freedom Radio, a nationally-syndicated radio program. Secure Freedom Radio is a part of the CSP strategy as a Counterjihad organization dedicated to America’s National Security especially against the threat of Radical Islam toward Americans. The CSP looks at the dissemination of Radical Islam via the fifth column aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood and their deceptive offshoots of Muslim-American organizations that outwardly attempt to promote the image of Moderate Islam and the mesmerization of the concept that Islam is peace on the non-Muslim American people yet have a Caliphate agenda to Islamize America.
The petition itself serves an awesome purpose if you can get past CSP fund raising. Although admittedly, CSP is an awesome organization to invest. Largely because most of the CSP educational resources are FREE. One of the points this email makes you aware of is that CSP is donor supported and receives no funding from the government. As if an Obama led U.S. government would ever support any actual Counterjihad strategy to keep America safe from any Caliphate agenda.
(Washington, DC): If there were any lingering doubts that the United States and the rest of the Free World are losing a decades-long war with the Global Jihad Movement (GJM), events of the past week should have put them to rest. Murderous attacks in Europe, warnings by MI5 of more – and worse – to come, there and perhaps here and an intercepted plot to attack the U.S. Capitol are the most obvious indicators.
Less evident, but no less portentous, is the absence of the President of the United States from the Western effort to push back – compounded by his record of accommodation to, and collaboration with, those seeking to impose “blasphemy” and other restrictions driven by their shariah ideology at the expense of Americans’ constitutional freedoms.
Such developments have moved a remarkable, ad hoc group of highly skilled national security professionals to step forward and offer an alternative approach: a strategy for actually countering and defeating totalitarians and their supremacist ideology that has been proven effective in the one environment that matters: the real world.
This “Tiger Team” has been sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, an organization whose mode of operation from its founding 26 years ago has been modeled after the best of America’s military – its elite unconventional warfare units. As the “Special Forces in the War of Ideas,” the Center has pulled together, much as the real special operators would do, sixteen of the best in the business, individuals with unique and necessary skill sets for the mission at hand: Adapting the strategy that defeated the last totalitarian ideology that sought our destruction, Soviet communism.
At a National Press Club conference at noon on Friday, 16 January 2015, ten members of this Tiger Team will introduce and explain the component parts of … READ ENTIRE PDF press release (NATIONAL SECURITY TIGER TEAM PRESENTS THE ‘SECURE FREEDOM STRATEGY’ FOR VICTORY OVER THE GLOBAL JIHAD MOVEMENT; CSP Press Release; 1/15/15)
On The Secure Freedom Strategy page at CSP one of the exponents of the strategy – Tommy Waller (a Marine Reserve Major – LinkedIn profile) – has a roughly four-minute video introducing the concept of Civilization Jihad:
Tommy Waller, Director of State Legislative Outreach at the Center for Security Policy, discusses matters of information dominance and civilization jihad at the launch of the Center’s new “Secure Freedom Strategy” to combat jihad.
The Secure Freedom email you are about to read is informative. At the very least it gives you a great idea to go to one of the great Internet sites to educate yourself on what many call Radical Islam – I just call it Islam. The petition link allows you to read the petition that will be sent to your Congressman according to your zip code. Then as you sign by clicking “submit,” you will be redirected to the donation page of CSP. If it’s in your budget, throw a little support toward the Center for Security Policy. If it’s not in your budget, feel good about doing the right thing for joining the CSP petition that will reach your Congressman. And of course take advantage of educating yourself at CSP. ( For that matter wouldn’t hold it against you to through a little financial love to your Blog Editor via the SlantRight 2.0Paypal button or perhaps this Paypal link.)
The Petition is to encourage your Congressman to do this:
This petition is part of a targeted signature campaign being launched in response to elevated security concerns over the vulnerability of our country due the lax security of our southern border.
This petition is part of a targeted signature campaign being launched in response to elevated security concerns over the vulnerability of our country due the lax security of our southern border.
I do not want to alarm you. We are aware of no actionable intelligence of an immediate threat of violence in your vicinity or against the United States.
But there are growing concerns regarding the threat posed by documented numbers of drug and sex-traffickers, gang members and suspected jihadists who are taking advantage of the border’s porousness.
It is widely known, for example, that Iran and its proxy, the terrorist organization Hezbollah, have had a presence in Latin America for years.
And most recently, ISIS, the notorious terrorist jihad group, has been discovered operating a camp about 8 miles from the U.S. border near Juarez in Mexico. And another ISIS cell in Puerto Palomas is close to the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming and has easy access to the United States.
And perhaps the gravest warning was sounded by the Home Secretary of Great Britain, a key ally in the war on terror, who stated that “ISIS could become the world’s first truly terrorist state,” and that “we will see the risk . . . that the terrorists will acquire chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to attack us.”
Some “experts” and Members of Congress dismiss these concerns. But as Pearl Harbor should have taught us, it is the nature of warfare to exploit surprise and vulnerability. And it is widely acknowledged that our insecure southern border offers enemies of this country abundant vulnerabilities and opportunities for surprise attacks.
In the words of the Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Representative Michael McCaul:
“President Obama claims that our borders are more secure than ever before . . . This is simply not true. As of last count, only 44 percent of the border was under operational control.
“Just last year the Border Patrol apprehended almost half a million individuals along our Southern border — representing only the people we know that are being stopped. We have no way of telling how many people we didn’t catch, or what they brought with them.”
WHY IS CONGRESS NEGLECTING TO TAKE THE COMMON-SENSE STEPS NEEDED TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS FROM THE LIKELIHOOD OF TERRORIST INTRUSION?
We believe a good part of the answer lies with the policies of Barack Obama.
President Obama’s political agenda of dramatically increasing immigration appeals to many of his partisans. And the prospect of more and more aliens-turned-voters causes even some of his political opponents to shy away from taking key steps to secure our borders lest they alienate potentially influential voting blocs.
Politics, in short, has again taken precedence over Congress’ responsibility to do what is right for our country — which is why we have made the decision to launch this citizens’ campaign and ask for your support by signing this letter to your Member of Congress.
Surprise attacks are, by definition, “unlikely.” That is why they are “surprise attacks.” But there are often forewarnings.
For example, the surprise 9/11 attack was preceded by a failed attempt to bomb the World Trade Center years earlier.
And the Wall Street Journal last year ran an account of an attack on a California power station, reporting that the former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “is calling it a terrorist act that, if it were widely replicated across the country, could take down the U.S. electric grid and black out much of the country.”
And the intent of ISIS to launch attacks on shopping malls and kill as many Americans as possible is being widely reported.
Even the threat of nuclear or chemical terror attack, while also dismissed as “unlikely” by some, cannot be responsibly ruled out.
According to Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, “Terrorist organizations could seek to leverage . . . smuggling routes to move operatives with intent to cause grave harm to our citizens or even quite easily bring weapons of mass destruction into the United States.”
The hard truth is, a mass-destruction assault on the U.S power grid, or financial or communications hubs, a population concentration such as a sporting event or shopping mall, or to our seat of government could be catastrophic to our nation.
And who would argue that such attacks are not being discussed, planned and encouraged right now as part of the global Jihad strategy in terror in training camps in places like Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and countless other places around the world?
In light of this, we believe that leaving the “back door” of our nation unlocked, open and unguarded in the face of these gravely serious threats is utterly unacceptable.
THERE ARE SIMPLE, PRUDENT STEPS THAT CONGRESS CAN TAKE.
Under former Texas Governor Rick Perry, his state’s Department of Public Safety, Border Patrol agents and other federal officials utilized an array of military-grade video cameras to monitor key crossing points along the Texas-Mexico frontier.
The cameras’ feed was posted on the Internet, drawing on many thousands of volunteers to help monitor and alert the authorities to aliens sneaking across the border. This army of “online deputies” helped achieve a 92% rate of interception of individuals crossing the Rio Grande and elsewhere illegally. But, incredibly, this practical and proven system — which could be very cost-effectively deployed across the entire U.S.-Mexico frontier — has been discontinued.
In short, we have the technology, know-how and resources to secure our borders. That is not the issue.
WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE POLITICAL WILL TO ACT.
And that is why we are launching this campaign to educate and remind Congress of their prime responsibility to protect our country by protecting our borders — and why your signature is so important.
Limited resources mean we must begin by focusing on certain key Members of Congress for this campaign. Our goal during this phase is to gather a minimum of 1,000 signatures from every targeted Congressional District.
YOU ARE ONE OF THE SIGNATURES NEEDED TO HELP MEET THIS GOAL.
Secure Freedom receives no funding from the government. We are entirely independent — so we must rely on voluntary contributions like yours to sustain our efforts.
Even just the mailing portion of a campaign such as this costs upwards of $100,000 for printing, postage and processing. And, if we have the resources, we hope to heighten the awareness of this critical issue through a campaign of TV, radio and print ads, op-ed articles, position papers and studies to be distributed to the press and Congress.
We face very real, very ominous threats from some of the most ruthless and brutal adversaries our nation has ever encountered. They have said — and demonstrated — that they will do anything to harm and destroy us.
Protecting our “back door” to keep these sworn enemies of freedom and America from literally walking in and doing us harm is just common sense.
Please ask your Member of Congress to act responsibly and protect our borders.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President, Secure Freedom
P.S. Some try to discount these warnings as “alarmist.” But U.S. Representative Lamar Smith, chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, recently substantiated our concern over the border’s insecurity, stating flatly: “The border is not more secure than it’s ever been.” And with reports that ISIS has now set up a camp in Mexico, just a few miles away from the border, I feel it is grossly irresponsible for Congress to wait for another devastating surprise attack on our nation before it takes concrete and long-overdue action.
This year Congress will authorize well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending in order to protect our nation from jihadist enemies and others now on the march around the globe — from Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan and Africa to our own hemisphere.
Taking steps to protect us from harm right here at home just makes common sense. And choosing NOT to do so — for fear of “offending” the political interests of pro-immigration voter-blocs — is grossly negligent and irresponsible. We are, after all at war. The global Jihad mission to destroy the West –and in particular America — is fully known. And our lack of defense of our homeland has already cost thousands of American lives.
If you agree, please let your Member of Congress know how you feel ASAP.
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 201 Washington, DC 20006, (202) 835-9077
As a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, we are able to do our part to keep America safe by educating citizens and members of Congress on vital matters of national security. All gifts to Secure Freedom are therefore tax-deductible. Thank you for helping to secure freedom in America!
About Rapid Response Network
The Response Action Networkteam works every day to ensure that our values are protected. We believe that each of us can make a difference in the political process, and we each have devoted our working lives to that end.
The Response Action Network (RAN) is a special project of Viguerie Political lists, which connects the grassroots to conservative political and advocacy organizations, and campaigns to advance the cause of freedom. RAN gives you perspective you won’t find anywhere else – because everything we do is backed with decades of hands-on political experience. We give you a window on thepolitics and policy affecting our liberties– and a powerful platform to make your voice heard.
You may have heard of Richard Viguerie. He is considered by many to be one of the most innovative tacticians and fundraisers in modern politics. He has always strongly believed in helping the right candidates reach the right voters, and the right organizations reach the right activists. It is this mission that is at the core of who we are.
Viguerie founded what Viguerie Political Lists is today 50 years ago, and has raised billions of dollars in defense of freedom. Richard responded to a question from Campaigns & Elections magazine about what his goals are:
To use theInternetto involve Americans in the political process, to help conservatives gain an advantage over the left. To fight against government’s use of power, to fight for individual rights and responsibilities. . .”
RAN builds on that foundation. We educate. We energize. We connect. And most of all, we listen…to you.
This website is our hub, the place where we share news, ideas, and issue calls to action.
The email breaks down the book to how Radical Islam has been creeping into America due to government policies that are designed to show favoritism to all Islam. And when I say “all Islam” I am saying government policies are looking at Islam as peaceful in general hence believing the lies that Radical Muslims are advocates of Moderate Islam.
This gullibility by the U.S. government was actually began by one of my hero Presidents in G.W. Bush. After the 9/11 attack on American soil by al Qaeda Bush accurately described the act brutality as the work of Islamofascists and that we will find and bring down those who were responsible. Thus began our invasion of al Qaeda’s protectors the Taliban then ruling Afghanistan.
American Patriotism made many Americans angry. Many Americans joined the U.S. Military to do their part in a war effort against Islamofascism. Other Americans had no intention of serving militarily but were still incensed. Angry Americans have a tendency to operate in spontaneous acts of vengeance against people perceived as Muslims.
Thus many Americans and resident aliens that had a Middle Eastern look about them were treated as Islamofascists rather they were non-violent Muslims or Muslim look-alikes such as Sikhs who as a part of their faith wear turbans.
So very soon after President Bush’s hunt-the-Islamofascists down promise, Bush went public with the meme that not all Muslims are Islamofascists to head off the American emerging revenge mindset against all people appearing to be Muslim. President Bush went public with the semi-falsehood that “Islam is peace” statement implying that good Muslims are Moderates in their faith of a true Islam.
Let’s be truthful. A majority of Muslims that are religious indeed believe that Islam is peace because that is what they are told by their religious leaders (Clerics, Mullahs or whatever). Shoot even Radical Muslims believe Islam is peace at least between Muslims that follow Sharia Law.
The reality is that if you read the Quran, Hadith and Sira through unfiltered lenses will see that Islam is violent theopolitical religion against those that refuse to believe in Islam and even against Muslims if they don’t follow the rules of Sharia or the writs of their revered writings.
It is my opinion unwittingly promoted the Islam is peace meme to prevent violent chaos against peaceful people. However, it is also my opinion that President Barack Hussein Obama took this peace meme to the next level that has welcomed Radical Muslims into sensitive jobs in the U.S. government. With most of these Radical Muslims sympathetic or even in collusion with the Radical Islamic paradigm of a global Caliphate.
This is where Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Clare Lopez come into the picture exposing Islamic infiltration into America and offering a scenario to defeat Islamic terrorism. I have not read this book myself yet, but I do intend to pick a copy up. Below is the email promoting the book “See No Sharia”.
(Washington, D.C.): For much of the past fifteen years, the United States government has failed to understand, let alone decisively defeat, the enemy that, under the banner of its al Qaeda franchise, murderously attacked our country on September 11, 2001. The reason why that has been so – notwithstanding the bravery and skill of our men and women in uniform and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars – has been unclear to most Americans, including some in government. Until now.
With the publication by the Center for Security Policy of a new book by two of its leaders, President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. and Vice President Clare Lopez, See No Sharia: “Countering Violent Extremism” and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of Defense, the case has been forcefully made that this sorry state of affairs is a product of a sustained and highly successful influence operation by Islamic supremacists. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular have gained access to and considerable sway over policymakers in the White House, the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security.
[Blog Editor: The email at this point has a photo of Frank Gaffney with a link to a Youtube video associated to the photo. In place of the photo here I am posting the Youtube video.]
See No Sharia describes the trajectory that has flowed from such penetration and subversion. It traces how fact-based counterterrorism and law enforcement have inexorably been supplanted by an approach defined by accommodations demanded by Islamists – purged lexicons and training programs, limitations on surveillance, case-making and rules of engagement and above all, eschewing anything that gives “offense” to Muslims.
In addition to showing the perils associated with such policies and practices as America faces the growing threat of global jihad and its animating doctrine of sharia, this book provides specific recommendations as to how to restore our first lines of defense – the FBI and other law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, the military and the intelligence community – whose effective service is needed today more than ever.
Frank Gaffney noted,
“Americans expect government officials to fulfill their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution, the Republic it established and its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The vast majority of our public servants yearn to do their duty. Yet, as See No Sharia makes plain, for at least a decade and a half, they have been obliged to conform to policies that greatly diminish their chances for success. We simply cannot afford to disarm those in our first lines of defense against Islamic supremacism and its jihad – both the violent kind and the stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilization jihad.’”
Clare Lopez added,
“As a career intelligence professional, the extent to which our policymaking apparatus has been penetrated and subverted by Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist operatives is deeply problematic. This book is meant to expose their handiwork – and to impel the urgently needed and long-overdue policy course-correction.”
The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “The Gulen Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and Its Contribution to Civilization Jihad in America” is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.
BOOK RELEASE: SEE NO SHARIA: How Our First Lines of Defense Have Been Disarmed
About The Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visitwww.securefreedom.org
Since the MRC email is probably a paid ad I suspect the original goal was to lead readers to the Secure Freedom contribution webpage. I mention this only because I am not reposting the email as a part of the Secure Freedom fund raising project, but rather to promote support for what has been dubbed American Laws for American Courts (ALAC).
The function of ALAC is a constitutional method to ensure the supremacy of Constitutional Law over foreign laws from foreign lands. The aim is at Islam’s Sharia Law which is a rule of law observed by Muslims and many Muslim nations which is absolutely contrary to the rule of law embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
An ALAC website provides a very brief summary on its How ALAC Works page:
… (T)he American Laws for American Courts model legislation works to safeguard our individual constitutional liberties against the infiltration and creep of foreign legal systems, such as Shariah law.
As you will read in another ALAC website page – WHY AMERICAN LAWS FOR AMERICAN COURTS? – You will realize nearly zero Federal ALAC statutes are a part of America’s national rule of law because there are none. However you will discover that each State in the Union has the legal constitutional authority to pass laws guaranteeing that foreign laws DO NOT override the U.S. Constitution or the constitutional law of our American union of sovereign states.
Here’s the excerpt:
American constitutional rights must be preserved in order to preserve unique American values of liberty and freedom. State legislatures have a vital role to play in preserving those constitutional rights and American values of liberty and freedom.
America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law. Included among, but not limited to, those values and rights are:
o Freedom of Religion
o Freedom of Speech
o Freedom of the Press
o Due Process
o Right to Privacy
o Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Civil and Criminal Law Serve as the Bedrock for American Values: We are a nation of laws.
Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.
Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations.
These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:
o Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
o Choice of law issues and
o Choice of forum or venue
Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.
Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.
The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic.
I live in the state of Oklahoma. Our state passed a pre-ALAC law by a people’s initiative that specifically targeted Sharia principles as incompatible with American laws. You probably won’t be surprised that a local Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations(CAIR) found a Federal Judge to rule that the State passed a law by a 70% margin of the voters as unconstitutional. Oklahoma was prepared for CAIR though, the state passed an ALAC version law on April 9, 2013 which was nearly three years after Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-Sharia law in 2010. The State House was 85 for and 7 against while the State Senate was 40 for and a mere 3 against.
Nine American States have successfully passed an ALAC version of legislation:
Twenty American States have pending legislation of a version of ALAC:
Twenty states have introduced legislation in 2015 to restrict the use of foreign law in state courts, and Mississippi has enacted legislation on the topic in 2015. Currently eight states have laws prohibiting the use of foreign laws in state courts. For more information on those laws, please see NCSL’s resources on “Laws Regarding the Use of Foreign Law in State Courts.
The Muslim-friendly Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS) polled 900 Syrian refugees spread around Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan in 2014 and found that 13% had a favorable opinion about ISIS (11/1/15 Clarion Project story by Ryan Mauro). Before the ISIS attack on November 13 in Paris, Obama announced in September a plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016. That means statistically over 1,000 may be supportive of Radical Islam. That is 1,000 potential future Islamic terrorists.
At least 32 States are rejecting Obama Syrian refugee plan. This in spite of most Left Stream Media throwing support behind Obama’s resettlement program y propaganda by using Leftist social justice guilt on Americans that welcoming immigrants is part and parcel of American values as a melting pot.
Look at America’s history from colonial days through nationhood: From where do an overwhelming majority of our melting pot Americans come from? That would be some form of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Rite). And the minority of non-Christian immigrants: All conformed to Western ideals embodied in the U.S. Constitution via assimilation.
Do Muslims assimilate? MOST do not. Especially the less educated refugee type of Muslims devoted to Islamic Sharia Law.
So is it actually a travesty of American values if most Americans reject the concept of accommodating Muslim refugees? I say it is more of a travesty to bring non-conforming Muslims into an American culture that stands for everything Islam IS NOT.
As long as a Leftist agenda is successful in bringing counter-culture Muslims to America, Americans must protect and ensure that our American Constitutional Liberties are protected from Multicultural concepts of accommodating Muslims who desire Sharia even though it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
Below is a special message from Secure Freedom. The support provided by these occasional messages allows us to provide, at no cost to you, these vital updates. Please note that the following message reflects the opinions and representations of Secure Freedom alone, and not necessarily the opinion or editorial positions of the Media Research Center. (MRC)
Alarmingly, those who believe Islam and its repressive anti-Constitutional Shariah must rule the whole world, are making serious inroads in towns and cities right here in America – sometimes with our own tax dollars!
What’s more, the followers of Islam’s Shariah are not simply believers in a “religion.” Instead, they are waging jihad (holy war) – in one form or another – to force the whole world to submit to their dictates, non-Muslim and Muslim alike . . .
. . . even coercing or forcing what we would consider to be “the good Muslims” to join them in conforming to Shariah.
And with illegal and legal Muslim immigration in America growing at record rates, Shariah-adherent immigrants are challenging the Judeo-Christian foundation of our U.S. Constitution, our culture and values – often in ways unknown to most Americans.
Worse yet, Islamic leaders are cleverly using our own 1st Amendment rights to establish and defend so-called “Islamic Centers” here in our country, that in reality are Shariah-adherent mosques that advance “Jihad” against America . . .
. . . often providing safe-havens for terrorist recruitment and indoctrination in their quest for world dominance and power.
Whether or not this problem has affected your area yet, just think about this:
o An undercover investigation found that a staggering 80% of Islamic mosques or “cultural centers” in America are under the influence of the Shariah-promoting Saudi (Wahabbist) wing of Islam. Under Shariah, gender and religion determine specific “rights” in ways at odds with our Constitutional ones.
o And Shariah promotes “jihad” . . . violence and terrorism against all Islamic “non-believers.”
And unless thousands of freedom-loving citizens like you share their views with key community leaders and our legislators to stop the creeping political influence of supremacist Islam and Shariah in America, all we need to do is look to Europe to see where our country is headed.
Great Britain now has 85 Shariah courts. In Germany, Shariah law has been used to defend a husband’s right to beat his wife and practice polygamy. France has overhauled its domestic tax laws to accommodate “Islamic Finance.”
Just think about what is already happening in America:
Secure Freedom has identified 146 U.S. court cases in which an attempt was made to use Shariah to decide the dispute. In one in five instances, the judge agreed. We expect those numbers to grow. And recently, a group of Muslims in northern Texas tried to establish the first official “Islamic tribunal” to dispense Shariah law in the United States.
How can this be happening in our country?
It’s because of a clever technique used by a particularly dangerous Islamic supremacist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. They call it “civilization jihad,” a term that describes how the Brotherhood is aiming at, in their words, “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”
Here are some of the ways the civilization jihadist leaders are stealthily trying to take us down:
o Islamists are placing Muslim Brothers into positions as advisors to and, in some cases as employees of, our government – placements that facilitate their insidious influence operations.
o Islamists seek to prevent our free speech – particularly the kind that might allow us to understand and effectively counteract their secretive assaults on our country and its institutions.
o Islamists are trying to use the “Common Core” curriculum – our children’s textbooks – to promote Islamic supremacism in our academic institutions.
o Islamists are working to insinuate Shariah into U.S. courts and establish their own parallel “Islamic tribunals” to subvert our rule of law and Constitution.
o Islamists are using our immigration system – especially our refugee resettlement program – to engage in what the Islamic supremacists call the hijra, a Muslim colonization of America.
o Islamists enlist leaders of other faiths through so-called “interfaith dialogue” to obscure and enable what is fundamentally a subversive political, not a legitimate religious, agenda. And,
o Islamists use what is known as “Shariah-Compliant Finance” to penetrate and coopt our capitalist system.
While the Europeans are further down the tubes than we are at the moment, I think you’ll agree there is reason to believe we are catching up. For example:
o Many national food chains are selling unmarked Shariah-compliant “Halal” meat (the animal is ritually-slaughtered by a Muslim who sacrifices it to Allah), unbeknownst to most Americans who are buying and consuming it.
o Our own U.S. Treasury Dept. has hosted in its headquarters a course called “Islam Finance 101” to promote Shariah-compliant financial activities. And today, most of our major banks and financial institutions – including one-time government-owned and taxpayer-funded AIG – offer “Shariah-Compliant” products that are overseen by Muslim “scholars” to ensure they comply with Islamic law.
o Some public and taxpayer-funded university gyms are now providing separate hours for male and female swimming . . . to comply with Shariah laws for Islamic followers.
o Several years ago, at a Tyson’s chicken processing plant in Tennessee, the American Labor Day holiday was REPLACED with an Islamic religious holiday. A public outcry forced the company to reverse that decision, but it did so by making accommodations for both holidays.
o A New Jersey judge denied a protective order to a Moroccan-American woman being systematically beaten and tortured by her Muslim husband on the grounds that he was just practicing his faith according to Shariah. And in Virginia, an Islamic school operating under Shariah not only ignored the reports by a little girl that she was being molested by her father, but the principal sent her home for him to “handle it”.
o A Muslim father murdered his two daughters in Houston a few years ago in an act known as “honor killing” for dating American boys. Others are having their girls’ genitals mutilated – yes, here in the United States.
So you can see why it is so critical to the future of America to participate in this unprecedented national effort. We must shine the light of day on how supremacist Islam and Shariah are gaining ground. And we must get millions of our fellow citizens behind our effort to prevent Shariah from taking hold here and to counter the jihad of all kinds in America.
I am emailing you and a few other key people in your area who I thought would be most likely to help us stop this growing threat.
My name is Frank Gaffney. I am the founder and President of Secure Freedom (also known as the Center for Security Policy). For twenty-seven years, we have forged partnerships between elected and other government officials, past and present military leaders, experts and citizens like you to safeguard our U.S. national security against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Since before the attacks by jihadists on 9/11, we have been investigating and challenging Islamic supremacism, and the growing influence of Sharia in America.
Perhaps you’ve seen me as a guest on Fox News and other media outlets warning about Shariah. They call me or a member of my staff when they need an expert on how Islamic supremacism, its Shariah program and jihad are becoming problems for Americans, not just somewhere else, but here at home, as well.
Make no mistake. These threats will destroy America from within – unless we stop them.
That’s why we’ve launched a major national educational campaign to expose millions of Americans to the truth and mobilize them to turn this crisis around now . . . before it’s too late.
We hold strategic briefings and training programs for key community leaders, legislators, law enforcement and military personnel, pastors and others to warn them about the dangers of civilization jihad, as well as the violent kind, right here in our own country. We also equip these partners with strategies for defeating the jihadists.
We have modeled our strategic approach after the one my old boss, President Reagan, used to defeat the last totalitarian ideology that tried to take us down: Soviet communism. We call it the Secure Freedom Strategy.
If you would like to know what we are recommending to bring all instruments of national power to bear against today’s ideological counterpart to communism, Shariah, you can check out this strategy for free at act.SecureFreedom.org.
And if you want to learn more about the how the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization jihadist” techniques in our country, visit our free, online course at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com or download for free our publications at SecureFreedom.org.
You may have also heard me discuss this issue on my nationally syndicated show, Secure Freedom Radio. You can also catch our podcasts at any time at SecureFreedom.org.
. . . when Americans are exposed to the facts – without “politically correct,” but factually wrong, statements from our government or media lies and distortions – they will join in taking the steps needed NOW to help prevent Islamic supremacism from securing an ever-larger foothold here, and ensure that every person residing in this country, no matter their religious, ethnic or cultural background, lives by America’s Constitutional rule of law.
That’s because, incredible as it may seem – like many of their constituents – an awful lot of local, state and even federal legislators and officials are unaware of the progress being made by Islamic supremacists determined first to insinuate, then to impose, Shariah in our country. That’s why Secure Freedom must not only educate the public, but also our representatives, about the necessity of preventing this impending national crisis.
But we have a major obstacle facing us.
Muslim Brotherhood-associated organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are trying to suppress the sort of information we need to get out. Their influence operations against our government, media and elites – in which they call truth-tellers “Islamophobes,” “racists” and “bigots” – all-too-often succeed in enforcing Shariah blasphemy restrictions on free expression.
This is all the more outrageous since, in a speech, a former Chairman of CAIR proclaimed:
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth”.
Chilling words indeed!
The rise of the barbaric Islamic State (ISIS) and the resurgence of al Qaeda and its affiliates have begun to arouse many of our countrymen and women to the ever-expanding forces of Shariah-adherent Muslims and the clear and present danger their violent jihad increasingly poses to our homeland and citizens.
Now we need to ensure that our fellow Americans are aware as well of the other principal form of jihad – the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.
With your help and the help of others today, I feel confident that we can effectively counter these stealthy Islamic supremacists and the agenda they share with the violent jihadists: imposing Shariah on America.
Currently, Secure Freedom’s “Counter Jihad Campaign” is working on 4 principal fronts. For our efforts to succeed we must:
1) Contact and educate at least 3 million key Americans like yourself, by exposing them to information about the Islamists’ insidious threat to America.
We want to do that by sharing with them informational letters and getting feedback in our National Citizens Opinion Survey. Funds permitting, we want to distribute our free mini-book with highlights of Shariah, The Threat to America – It contains all you need to know about Islamic supremacism and what its practitioners have in mind for you. Our goal is to do this within the next 60 days.
Then, we must communicate to state, local and federal leaders the results of our Survey to ensure there are, at a minimum, no more jihadists or additional jihadist mosques and organizations allowed to operate in this country and to begin effectively countering those already here.
2) Take out newspaper and radio advertisements, use the Internet – even produce TV ads – to expose the truth about Shariah to tens of millions of citizens and create even more public pressure to defeat jihad.
3) Ramp up our ongoing work to foster among key groups – law enforcement, veterans and other military personnel, pastors and community leaders – awareness of and what to do about the insidious, and growing, Islamic supremacist movement.
Such folks have, after all, an urgent need to know of this danger since in many cases, their towns, cities or states are being systematically subjected to the Islamists’ civilization jihad, colonization or other subversive operations.
4) And I must continue holding one-on-one strategy sessions with Members of Congress, presidential candidates, leading folks in the media and other influential figures in our effort to encourage the necessary course-correction for our country. We have to educate them about the true nature of Shariah and the imperative of preventing it from subverting our Constitution and way of life.
Simply put, Shariah is anti-Constitutional and incompatible with the rule of law in a republic such as ours.
That’s because our Constitution guarantees that every individual citizen is “endowed by our Creator” with an identical set of rights, no matter their gender or religion. But if the Islamic supremacists succeed in hiding their true agenda and the progress they are making towards realizing it, they will continue to erode our freedom of speech and other rights and continue to subvert our country.
By engaging our legislators, enlisting our community leaders and educating millions of concerned Americans around the county with information kits and critical alerts, I believe this is a battle we can win. But not without help like yours and others who we are asking to give us a hand.
And our first and most critical step is to get my email and this National Citizen Opinion Survey to at least 3 million like-minded citizens starting within the next 60 days. And that’s where your assistance is sorely needed.
Yes, we have our work cut out for us, but please know that the Secure Freedom team has the unique expertise needed for us to succeed on this critical task.
But because Secure Freedom is a non-profit organization, our funds are very limited. We must ensure that our financial resources are used to the greatest possible effect.
And today I was only able to afford to contact you and others who I felt would be most likely to help us.
In fact, you are among the first citizens to receive Secure Freedom’s National Citizen Opinion Survey on Islamic supremacism in America.
I know in these hard economic times, many people are tightening their belts and making financial contributions wisely. But an investment in the work of Secure Freedom is one of the wisest contributions you can make, as it is truly unique and urgently needed.
If you and I do not make the effort NOW to stop the Islamic supremacists and their jihad and Shariah from gaining more ground, I shudder to think what America will look like just a few short years from now – and how it will afflict our children and grandchildren.
Perhaps this problem has not directly affected you or your community, yet. But I can assure you, with Muslim immigration at record rates and the success of the Islamists’ civilization jihad, it soon will.
Founder and President, Secure Freedom
P.S. Remember, too many Americans are unaware of the tremendous inroads being achieved by the Islamic supremacists’ global effort to bring Shariah to towns and cities right here in America – often with our very own tax dollars and, in some cases, with the help of the United Nations.
They don’t yet know what you now do: Shariah makes Islam into much more than a “religion.” It is nothing less than a truly global political and military offensive against America and the West. With thousands of mosques in America advancing this program here via stealthy forms of jihad as well, occasionally, as violent ones, we must act now!
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 201
Washington, DC 20006, (202) 835-9077
As a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, we are able to do our part to keep America safe by educating citizens and members of Congress on vital matters of national security. All gifts to Secure Freedom are therefore tax-deductible. Thank you for helping to secure freedom in America!
On June 12 I posted an amalgamation of Justin Smith thoughts – that are preceded by an intro by me – he had left on the Facebook group America’s Party. Now Justin has put together an essay about the same thoughts which relate to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
“Show me the ‘free trade’ section of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and I’ll kiss Obama’s ass.” – Justin O Smith
Under the banner of free trade with trade an afterthought, America was betrayed on May 21st by forty-nine GOP Senators and thirteen Democrats, who voted for the Trade Promotion Authority [TPA] and corporatism and transnational fascism in order to fast-track the anti-American Trans-Pacific Partnership “trade deal” and create an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. This, in essence, would have removed constitutional protections against the creation of global governance structures, and it would transfer Congressional control of numerous issues to international tribunals.
Obama has been negotiating the TPP under a blanket of silence and secrecy for the past five years, and the American people were not allowed to see it before Congress voted on the TPA fast-track on June 12th; only through leaked information do we now understand that the TPP will significantly impact public health, foreign policy, immigration and the environment.
Members of the U.S. Congress have been allowed only limited access to the TPP in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. They can review one section at a time under “supervision” of a guard, and they are forced to relinquish any notes they made before they leave. Yet more than 500 official corporate “advisors” have unlimited access to the TPP text.
Sen. Rand Paul stated, “It boggles the mind,” and he continued, [Who] … decides to keep a trade treaty secret?”
Michael Wessel has forty years of trade policy experience working for former Democrat Leader Dick Gephardt. He has worked on the North American Free Trade Agreement and he was an advisor to Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also a “cleared advisor” who has read the text of TPP and opposes large portions of it. He asserts in a Politico interview that he and other cleared advisors are being censored and prevented from publicly sharing their criticisms of the trade deal concerning specific proposals [See HERE]. Like every other issue, Obama pretends that such criticisms do not exist.
Why isn’t every single member of Congress demanding the full disclosure of the content of the TPP?
More than this, why would any Republican be willing to give Obama extended powers under TPA, when Obama has shown a real disdain for the U.S. Constitution? Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called it “insane to give Obama some power to negotiate an important treaty in secret … [and] not have to account to Congress or the Senate.” [See HERE]
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is one of the few people who have read the TPP, and he noted earlier this month: “Under fast-track Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers. … the power to write legislation … to amend legislation … to fully consider legislation on the floor … to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive two-thirds vote.” __ Session adds, “The latter is especially important since … it [the TPP] more closely resembles a treaty than a trade deal.” [See HERE]
Numerous sources, such as Frank Gaffney – president of the Center for Security Policy, Lou Dobbs – noted scholar and investigative journalist, and political analyst Mark Levin, have all noted that the TPA empowers Obama to unilaterally draft “implementing legislation” that will change U.S. laws and regulations to comply with the agreement he has negotiated. Through the TPA, Congress limits its own ability to debate and amend Obama’s “implementing legislation.”
Curiously, most of the 49 Senators who voted to fast-track the TPP had not read it, before they voted in favor of the TPA, including presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, although Cruz has since read it. So in essence, these men voted on a significant trade policy bill that affects the U.S. beyond anything America has seen to date, without reading the first word in it.
Deceit and subterfuge are being employed, when government officials claim TPP will not supersede U.S. law, because the fast-tracked legislation will. It also should be highlighted that rulings emanating from international tribunals do result in de facto modifications to a nation’s laws through regulations extra-legally, just in the same manner the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules have impacted the U.S.
The transnationalist governance structure of the TPP falls under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, which has extremely broad powers and is taking the form of a nascent European Union. This new transnational commission has been chartered, by all accounts, with a “Living Agreement” clause, and it will have the authority to amend the agreement after passage, to add members and to issue regulations impacting the environment, commercial policy, healthcare, labor and immigration: An entire section of the TPP is devoted solely to immigration policy for the participating nations.
If one needs more reasons to oppose TPA and TPP, they are found in the Clinton administration’s North American Free Trade Agreement (Jan. 1994) and the WTO (Jan. 1995). These two trade treaties have caused serious detrimental effects on the U.S. economy.
Reuters’ reports: “Since the pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free trade partners. In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free trade partners. Since fast-track authority was used to pass NAFTA and the U.S. entrance into the World Trade Organization, the overall annual U.S. trade deficit in goods has more than quadrupled, from $218 billion to $912 billion.”
Daniel DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel, explains that these free trade deals haven’t been free trade at all. We have lowered our barriers to foreign imports, but they have retained their barriers to our imports, resulting in “unilateral trade disarmament” and enabling “foreign mercantilism.”
Along with this, the AFL-CIO labor federation released a report on May 20th that read: “There is no reason to believe that drawing the Pacific Rim countries away from China is a realistic goal, so long as China continues to offer mutually beneficial trade, investments and supply chain opportunities to those countries — It seems reckless to ask Congress to enter into a deal that has a high probability of undermining U.S. wages, jobs and labor rights, as previous trade agreements have done, especially given that the deal has no real chance of diminishing China’s existing economic influence.
In this context, those proponents saying “Our rules, no rules or China’s rules,” over the TPA battle, are presenting fallacies and a false premise.
“Free trade” shouldn’t destroy one-fourth of all manufacturing jobs in the U.S., as NAFTA did. “Free trade” shouldn’t force displaced American workers to take pay cuts of 20% or more, in some cases. And ‘free trade” shouldn’t give transnational corporations more decision-making power than the U.S. government, making them a part of the government and allowing them to impact U.S. society, when their interference is unwanted and outside the normal parameters of any right they might claim.
In effect, TPA fast-track is an agreement to pre-approve and remove constitutional protections against the creation of a global governance structure, whose structures have not been made public yet. Above any desire to understand the legal and constitutional basis for such secrecy involving the TPP, one should ask, “Why is our Congress even considering such a transfer of U.S. sovereign power to a transnational governance structure of any kind, regardless of how beneficial the ‘deal’ seems?”
Can anyone show me the “free trade” in the TPP deal? Is this what freedom, liberty and justice for all has come to mean in America? God help US if it is.
Fortunately for all America, the TPA was not allowed to advance, after Speaker Boehner pushed it to a 219-211 win, because a key element, the Trade Adjustment Assistance segment, was defeated 302-126, in an effort led by labor and Nancy Pelosi. But Boehner has suggested that it will be revisited and another vote taken over the next few days, however, the 188 member Democrat caucus contains 124 hard “NO” votes in the House, with the full backing of Senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. So, it is highly likely that the TAA bill won’t pass, and the TPA won’t even get a vote.
Call Your Congressmen and urge them to stand firm against any new attempt to pass TPA; and then, prepare to engage in the most forceful, powerful Civil Disobedience imaginable, if for some unforeseen reason, our representatives pass the TAA and the TPA, which go against everything remotely in America’s best interests. Prepare to even take up arms should it become necessary to do so, in order to make our government and Obama understand just how far ‘We the People’ believe that they have overreached their authority.
As a longtime supporter of the GOP, I stand with those five Republican Senators, including Jeff Sessions, and the 32 Republican Congressmen, with Tennessee’s representatives noticeably missing from their ranks, and all the Democrats who stood and opposed the TPA on June 12th: Let’s pray that the next vote permanently derails the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
All text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor. All source-related links are by the Editor.
U.S. Flag Officers: Keep Gitmo Open – Don’t Surrender Gitmo to Cuba (Summarized title by Editor)
Sent by Ben Lerner
Sent: February 12, 2015
Center for Security Policy
RETIRED FLAG OFFICERS, NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS ADVISE AGAINST TRANSFER OF GITMO DETAINEES AND SURRENDER OF GITMO TO GOVERNMENT OF CUBA
(Washington, DC):Today, dozens of distinguished retired senior military officers and national security experts signed a letter to President Obama, organized by the Center for Security Policy, urging him to keep the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay open, and to refrain from transferring – either to foreign countries or to the United States – jihadist detainees currently held there. The letter also cautions President Obama against acceding to the demands of the Castro regime that the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base] itself be surrendered to the government of Cuba.
With respect to the detainees held at Gitmo, the letter underscores the extent to which transferring detainees out of Gitmo, either to foreign countries or to the United States, poses serious national security risks. The letter states in part:
“The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so. The actual number could well be considerably higher….”
“…While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention. We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.”
The letter goes on to explain the strategic value of the [Guantanamo Bay Naval Base], and the importance of maintaining U.S. control over that installation from a military and geostrategic perspective. The letter states in part:
“Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so. Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.”
“Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran). We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China. (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)”
Among of the signatories of the letter were:
·Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)
·Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
·Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
·Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
·Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House PermanentSelect Committee on Intelligence
·Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, stated:
“The individuals who have signed this letter urging President Obama to change course on his disastrous agenda to close down the detention/interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, deserve the nation’s gratitude for having stepped up, yet again, in defense of the national security of the United States. It is also most welcome that the signatories of this letter recognize the geostrategic necessity of keeping Guantanamo Bay under American control, rather than surrendering it to the Castro regime, which would most assuredly use that base against the interests of the United States, and invite others to do the same. President Obama should heed the advice of these distinguished warriors and national security professionals and keep Gitmo open, operational and in American hands.”
The full text of the letter, with signatures, can be found below.
12 February, 2015
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
As you are well aware, the Department of Defense has, since shortly after September 11, 2001, detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba dangerous individuals the U.S. government has designated as unlawful enemy combatants. Yet, shortly after you took office in January of 2009, you issued an Executive Order mandating the closure of the detention/interrogation facilities at that installation (popularly known as Gitmo.)
In the intervening period, you have transferred a number of those detainees to foreign countries, particularly during the past several months. You also reiterated in your 2015 State of the Union address your intention to close Gitmo and appear intent on removing from that secure facility the unlawful enemy combatants – jihadists that have been officially described as “the worst of the worst” – still confined there.
Meanwhile, public reports indicate that the Castro regime has demanded that the United States surrender Gitmo as part of any arrangement for normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. As you have made a priority of achieving such a restoration of ties, you may feel tempted to accede to this demand.
Our past experience as military, intelligence, law enforcement and security policy professionals leads us to believe that the continued transfer of detainees out of Gitmo to foreign countries, and potentially into the United States, threatens national security and public safety. This is particularly true given events of recent weeks, during which we have seen a resurgence of al Qaeda, Islamic State and other jihadist organizations eager to deploy operatives both abroad and, if possible, here at home to carry out attacks against the West.
The statistics concerning the recidivism rates of former Gitmo detainees should be cause for you to suspend indefinitely all overseas detainee transfers. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, approximately thirty percent of detainees who have been transferred out of Gitmo since detainee operations were first established there – under the previous administration as well as your own – have either been confirmed as having reengaged on the battlefield, or are suspected of having done so. The actual number could well be considerably higher.
Some of the former Gitmo detainees who have definitely resumed their jihad include: Abu Sufian bin Qumu, now the leader of a group that participated in the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi; Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, now a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; and Mazin Salih Musaid al-Alawi al-Awfi, also a senior leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. There are press reports that at least one of the Taliban commanders exchanged for Sergeant Bo Bergdahl has already returned to the fight. Such individuals pose a direct threat to our military and diplomatic personnel overseas, as well as to our civilian population domestically.
While U.S. law prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States, or the construction/modification of facilities within the United States for that purpose, your former State Department envoy for Guantanamo closure, Cliff Sloan, has indicated to the media that your strategy is eventually to make the case to Congress that the “small core” that may remain after further foreign transfers take place should be transferred into the United States for detention. We believe that such a transfer into the United States would be unacceptable on both the domestic security and legal grounds.
For example, the transfer of detainees to U.S. prisons or military bases would turn those facilities – and the nearby civilian populations – into high-probability terrorist targets. In addition, convicted terrorists are known to have plotted or facilitated attacks while incarcerated in our penal institutions. For example, Sayyid Nosair helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing from a U.S. prison. And Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (a.k.a. the “Blind Sheikh”) ran theal-Gama’a al-Islamiyyaterrorist organization from a U.S. prison.
Moreover, once inside the prison system, detainees will be better positioned to argue that prison security practices violate their rights and need to be altered. That was the case when “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid asserted the Special Administrative Measures(SAMs) interfered with his free exercise of religion. The Department of Justice chose in response to lift the SAMs at Supermax.
Furthermore, once on U.S. soil, detainees will argue that they are entitled, by virtue of their physical presence here, to a range of constitutional protections that can only, they will argue, be realized in our defendant-friendly civilian criminal court system. At least, some federal judges can be expected to entertain such a contention.
Given the circumstances surrounding the capture of these detainees – often on foreign battlefields – civilian prosecutors will likely be forced to choose between revealing classified evidence to secure a conviction, and dropping charges. Such a scenario begs the question of what we will have to do with detainees who, once here in the U.S., cannot be tried and cannot be sent overseas. The options at that point will be either to detain these terrorists inside the U.S. indefinitely, without trial and possibly in the face of court orders dismissing their cases, orrelease them here.
Additionally, proponents of closing detention operations at Gitmo often argue that the facility’s existence is a “recruiting tool” for terrorists. This ignores the fact that the United States was repeatedly attacked by terrorists during the decadespriorto the commencement of detainee operations at Gitmo, including on September 11, 2001. To suggest that Gitmo fuels terrorism ignores history and the reality that the terrorism of greatest concern today is, and has long been, driven by jihadist ideology. Gitmo does not fuel global jihad; rather, it is global jihad that necessitates Gitmo.
That said, there is some truth to the idea that Gitmo has symbolic value to our enemies: It is certain that they would, quite properly, consider its closure a signal victory in their determined effort to demonstrate our submission and enlist new recruits to their cause.
It is also our professional judgment that surrendering to the Castro regime control of the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, with its deep water port and airfield, would be a strategic mistake of the first order.
Quite apart from its use over the past thirteen years for detainee operations, Gitmo has served a vital security role for American interests in the Western Hemisphere since its establishment in 1903, and continues to do so. Notably, that installation provides critical logistical support to ships and aircraft involved in counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean, and also support for contingency operations in the region.
Even worse than the loss of this facility to our forces would be the prospect that its surrender to the Cuban government may well presage Guantanamo Bay becoming an important power-projection base in the Western Hemisphere for other, hostile powers (e.g., Russia, China or Iran). We recall that, in 2007, Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa – shortly before he informed the United States that the agreement allowing the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta air base for counter-narcotics operations would not be renewed – offered the use of that base to China. (Manta has subsequently become a conduit for the very drug-trafficking to this country that it once did so much to disrupt.)
The Castro regime is already making its ports, airfields, intelligence collection and other facilities available to our actual or potential foes. There is little doubt in our view that the Cuban government would be inclined toward similar arrangements with China or others with respect to Gitmo. It would be a serious dereliction of duty were our government to facilitate such a fundamental transformation of our strategic posture in the Caribbean.
For these reasons, we believe that there should be no further transfers of unlawful enemy combatants currently held at Gitmo – either to other nations or to any locale in the United States or its territories – for the duration of hostilities.
We further strongly recommend that the Department of Defense and other federal agencies refrain from spending any funds to accomplish the closure of Guantanamo Bay or the transfer of detainees abroad or to the United States, and that the United States reject Cuban government demands that this vital strategic facility be transferred to the latter’s control.
Gen. Carl Stiner, USA (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. John R. D. Cleland, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Vincent E. Falter, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Alvin W. Jones, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. H. Douglas Robertson, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. George R. Robertson, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Duane Stubbs, USA (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Mel Thrash, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Dale F. Andres, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Terence M. Henry, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Darryl Powell, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Richard D. Read, USA (Ret.)
Brig. Gen. Warren A. Todd, USA (Ret.)
Adm. Jerry Johnson, USN (Ret.)
Adm. James A. Lyons, USN (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Edward S. Briggs, USN (Ret.)
Vice Adm. Robert Monroe, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Lawrence Burkhardt, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert H. Gormley, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Robert McClinton, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. E. S. (Skip) McGinley, II, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Don. G. Primeau, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. Hugh Scott, USN (Ret.)
Rear Adm. H. Denny Wisely, USN (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Henry Canterbury, USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Bentley B. Rayburn, USAF (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. Richard M. Cooke, USMC (Ret.)
Maj. Gen. J.D. Lynch, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. William A. Bloomer, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. James M. Mead, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. Michael I. Neil, USMCR (Ret.) BGen. W.H.J. Tiernan, USMC (Ret.)
BGen. William Weise, USMC (Ret.)
State Defense Forces
Maj. Gen. John Bianchi, CSMR (Ret.)
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United States
Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Former Member of Congress; Former Chairman, House PermanentSelect Committee on Intelligence
Hon. Tidal McCoy, Former Acting Secretary of the Air Force
Hon. Kenneth E. deGraffenreid, Former Deputy National Counterintelligence Executive
José R. Cárdenas, Former Acting Assistant Administrator for Latin America and theCaribbean, U.S. Agency for International Development; Former Staff Member, National Security Council
Daniel J. Gallington, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former General Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Andrew C. McCarthy, Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
Elaine Donnelly, 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services
cc: Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Members of the House Armed Services Committee
About the Center for Security Policy
The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visitwww.centerforsecuritypolicy.org
Justin O. Smith shared a Right Scoop article that largely contained a video of a Heritage Foundation panel Townhall question-answer session with the topic being, “Benghazi: The Difference it makes is Accountability”. At the Right Scoop link the post takes about 9 minutes of the panel discussion that focused on a question form a self-indicated Moderate Muslim gal by the name of Saba Ahmed.
Saba Ahmed’s question is roughly: How does America fight an ideological war with weapons? (In full disclosure I probably just gave an insufficient paraphrase. You’ll have watch the video to hear the full gist of her question.)
Frank Gaffney JR was the first panel member to respond, but Right Scoop wants you to focus on the answer provided by panel member Brigitte Gabriel. Gabriel’s reply was greatly passionate making it clear that not all Muslims are radicalized. Roughly she explains that about 25% of Muslims are proponents of Radical Islam and that the other roughly 75% are Moderate. I have read at various sources that may imply there is disagreement with Gabriel’s percentages. The thinking being more like 10% radical and 90% moderate. Frankly, if you are into the percentages I suspect Gabriel’s figures are probably closer.
Gabrielle points out that the 25% of Radical Muslims still represents approximately hundreds of millions Muslims dedicated to killing Christians, Jews and Americans. That is a bunch of ridiculously angry people!
Gabriel says since there are so many Radical Muslims, the 75% Moderate Muslims are irrelevant in the sense that their peace-loving nature cannot compare to the violent hatred of the agenda of Radical Islam.
I’ll post the video below in order for you to see just how passionate Brigitte Gabriel’s explanation was to Saba Ahmed. BUT that which piqued my interest in the Justin Smith Facebook share of the Right Scoop post was his reaction to the concept of their being a division of Radicals and Moderates practicing the Islamic theopolitical religion. Justin categorically believes any difference between Radical and Moderate Muslims is a politically correct mentality that non-Muslims should view with extreme skepticism.
On my part I have wavered over the years between siding with counterjihad writers in the Brigitte Gabriel camp and the counterjihad writers that specifically read the Islamic text of the Quran, Hadith and Sira (Sunna) who are convinced ultimately that Islam is fully violent in nature. I have wavered because I have known Muslims that are very offended to be included in the group that are the Radical Muslim faithful. But then I witness on the news how huge populations of Muslims in Islamic lands go nutso-crazy over what the West – especially America – that would consider Free Speech issues like when some European Newspapers published parodies mocking Mohammed. Parodies I might add that were actually derived from Quranic, Hadith and Sira text that portrayed Mohammed in a negative light. Crowds went crazy in town squares, at Western Embassies of the host nations that published the cartoons, the publishers and cartoonists had to actually go into hiding in their own nation because of the death fatwas and assassination threats. AND the Mo-Cartoons is just one such issue in Muslims became howling lunatics over their prophet being shown in such a negative light.
These days I am leaning with the counterjihad writers that believe Islam is evil – period. My current reasoning for this are the Muslims own considered holy writings of the – wait for it – the Quran, Hadith and Sira.
So I have given you the gist of Brigitte Gabriel’s thoughts on Radical and Moderate Muslims. I might add those thoughts were quite convincing due to her passionate delivery. Below are Justin Smith’s thoughts on Gabriel’s impassioned reply. I do concur with Justin by the way; however I am reluctant to be as critical of the Radical-Moderate proponents in counterjihad writing. People like Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney JR are huge in the effort to educate Americans that there is a nefarious side to Islam. Whether or not you believe that Islamic nefarious side is limited to the practice of a few Radical Muslims or is the totality of the essence of Islamic theopolitical ideology is up to you. Dear God either way, understand the demands of Islam especially as required under Sharia Law is oppressively anti-Bill of Rights which means anti-U.S. Constitution. Allowing Muslims to practice the unconstitutional aspects of Sharia Law will transform America in ways that our traditional Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will cease to exist.
Below are Justin’s response to Brigitte Gabriel which I will follow with the entire 9 minute and 17 seconds Youtube video of Saba Ahmed’s question followed by Frank Gaffney’s response and then by Gabriel’s passionate response. Brigitte Gabriel speaks at about the 4 minute 17 second point. Right Scoop has a video that just shows only the Gabriel portion of the video.
I am one who does not subscribe to the belief there are “moderate” Muslims, however “peaceful” they may appear initially. Just as Ms. Gabriel remarked, this young Muslim woman essentially took the focus from the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi to make her point about so-called “peaceful” Muslims, even though she is a U.S. citizen. One sees this all too often – The Muslim is worried about Islamic and Muslim concerns, the concerns of their “ummah”/worldwide community, before they are worried for the nation; they are “peaceful”, until called upon, issued fatwas, to be otherwise.
I normally do not like disagreeing with fellow American Patriots, but I would ask the panel, just how in the hell do they think most of the known free world at the time was either conquered or under siege by 1500 A.D. by Islam and Its warriors? Ms. Gabriel says the “peaceful” Muslims were irrelevant and draws an excellent correlation between historical and cultural settings in Germany, Russia and Japan. But more than irrelevant, too often the “peaceful” Muslims, while not actively engaging in violence themselves, perhaps from their own fears, were silently cheering the jihadis on. Case in point, hundreds of thousands of Muslims danced on the rooftops of Europe, the Middle East and the U.S. when the World Trade Center collapsed.
Were the jubilant Muslims yelling “Allahu Akbar” as the Twin Towers crashed to the ground part of the 15-25% Ms. Gabrielle speaks about? How can anyone know the “REAL” statistical figure? From my studies alone, I place the most radical of Muslims at 400 million, but all 1.2 to 1.8 billion of them (depending on stat source) are “radical” in the sense that they always support Islam and the “ummah” over their host nation, whether through their tacit approval and vocal and financial support or through active and violent jihad. And for Gaffney to suggest that not all Muslims seek adherence to Sharia law is surreal. In order to be truly Muslim one is commanded by the Sira and Hadith and the Koran to follow the Sharia – Sharia is central to Islam for ALL Muslims.