Justin Smith is sure to be ridiculed as a racist as he writes the truth about Martin Luther King, Jr. that I bet most of you are clueless of the documented facts.
Look at today’s Black race-baiters who were considered colleagued/disciples of MLK (e.g. so-called Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton). You have to wonder if MLK wasn’t martyred by assassination, would he be deified with a National Holiday and near American sainthood? Read these documented MLK facts and you might wonder alongside me.
(Yeah, I am aware MLK Day has come and gone in 2022, but the facts remain the same.)
At the end of the Justin essay I am adding a roughly 45-minute documentary on MLK that appears to line up with Justin’s details. The documentary is presented in a sermon-style by Pastor Steven L. Anderson on the Bitchute video platform.
JRH 1/19/22
I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome expenses:
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
*************************
MLK: A Deeply Conflicted and Flawed Man
I’ll Not Sing King’s Praises
By Justin O. Smith
Sent January 17, 2022, 09:11:58 PM CST
Born in Atlanta on January 15th 1929 and assassinated in Memphis on April 4th 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a walking, talking paradox and a man who both united and divided much of America, and since January 20th 1986 and the creation of a Martin Luther King Day, millions of Americans are forced to watch him praised across all the major news networks, despite the fact that in far too many respects, he was an anti-American radical in his last years on earth and is unworthy of such a high praise.
I value the idea and sound principles behind Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and the idea that all children of all colors should be able to live fruitful, productive lives in America, as they are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And while it should go without saying, most of America would surely agree today that Jim Crow laws and keeping the Black people of our country held as second class citizens had to be ended, for America to become a better country and a better society.
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically feels that he can set a timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a ‘more convenient season’. Shallow understanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
But it was White America, in large part, that ensured King’s agenda would ultimately succeed and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 would be passed. “Lukewarm acceptance”? Liberals, leftists, useful idiots of the Communist Party of the USA and many misguided Americans have since gone on to pass other “laws” and regulatory rules that have essentially granted Black people privileges greater than the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and Heaven forbid any law enforcement dares to try to keep hordes of Black thugs from rioting, burning cities, including DC, or murdering, raping and robbing anyone.
Yes, America can and should acknowledge the good actions that our government finally took, as it was motivated by King’s many hard fought battles within the Civil Rights Movement to end the double standard represented by Jim Crow laws, but all Americans must be honest about who MLK really was, for posterity’s sake and to ensure that we look deeper into all future emerging movements and the people behind them. One has to look no further than the Marxist inspired Black Lives Matter to see the common sense within this admonishment.
Whether or not MLK may have started out as a fairly conservative preacher, in the early years of his ministry, which quite a few pundits regularly assert, by the last decade of his life, [JRH] King was surrounded and funded by outright Communists who sought to use his charisma and advocacy for the Civil Rights Movement to subvert the United States. [JRH] King embraced [JRH] W.E.B. Dubois and [JRH] Malcolm X, both [JRH] anti-American radicals and both Communists.
“Shown in the photograph sitting adjacent to King are Abner Berry, a correspondent for the Communist Party newspaper, The Daily Worker; Aubrey Williams, identified as a member of the CPUSA and President of the SCEF [the Southern Conference Educational Fund]; and Myles Horton, a founder and director of the Highlander Folk School.”
“The evidence demonstrates convincingly that Martin Luther King, Jr. was buddybuddy with well-identified communists from the early 1950s to the time of his death in 1968. Bayard Rustin, a stalwart of the Young Communist League, was at one time King’s secretary. Hunter Pitts Odell, who in 1956 took the Fifth Amendment on questions involving his communist activities, also served on King’s staff.
The record is replete with evidence linking King to the notorious Highlander Folk School, a communist training center. King’s close associates included such figures as Abner W. Berry, James A. Dombrowski, Paul Crouch, and Carl and Anne Braden. The shadowy figure of the late Stanley Levinson floated in and out of King’s life … The FBI has traced it also, and finds evidence that for at least 10 years Levinson played a secret role as a funnel of money from the Communist Party to various communist fronts.”
MLK would never have had the rapid success he saw at the national level, if not for the promotion and publicity and funding and support provided him by radicals, subversives and communists, such as Stanley David Levinson, one of his advisors, and Communist groups. The FBI was well aware of MLK’s chummy attitude with Amerrikan Marxists, but most of America is totally unaware of this association, even today. And if one takes Levinson’s assessment of King as remotely close, King apparently wasn’t quite capable of making so rapid a climb on his own.
“Levinson … proposed that King should lead a march [in Cleveland, Ohio] of 10,000 Negroes, each one of them carrying a brick or a bottle. … and dump [them] on the lawn of [Cleveland] City Hall as a symbol of protest to the racial situation. [Clarence Jones and Levinson] agreed … and thought King would lead such a march. … Further, they agreed that under no circumstances should King be permitted to say anything without their approving it. Jones advised that he feels King should not be permitted to think for himself, [and] Levinson stated that King is such a slow thinker he is usually not prepared to make a statement by himself without help.”
I’ll bet a hundred dollars against a stale donut that those bricks would have busted more windows than littered lawns had this plan come to fruition.
In addition to this, one might ask what is more of a betrayal to the Christian principles that founded America and the teachings of Jesus as they relate to human rights and life than for one to support abortion, baby murder. And yet, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the supposed staunch Christian evangelist, supported and even spoke of Margaret Sanger, an evil, Machiavellian abortionist, in glowing terms, even in light of her attempted genocide against Black people through the eugenics driven Negro Project [1939-1942], and he supported Planned Parenthood. King saw unplanned pregnancies as “a cruel evil” that “urgently need[ed] … control.” He was later awarded the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in 1966.
[Blog Editor: Further reading on Margaret Sanger, MLK and Black genocide:
Far from what anyone should call a “good Christian”, MLK was a heretic, who denied the divine nature of Jesus. His so-called “theology” was extremely liberal, as seen in papers he wrote at the Crozer Theological Seminary, rejecting faith and the Virgin Birth for “objective (thinking)” and stripping the notion of Jesus as the Son of God, the virgin birth and the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from his version of “Christianity”. He noted that the ideas of salvation, the atonement for one’s sins and the second coming of Christ were fundamentalist notions that stand in the way of adapting Christianity to social and cultural change.
King did not believe these doctrines and rejected them as superstitions, even though the doctrines he rejected were fundamental to Biblical Christianity. And he never repudiated his written views, as he went on to preach a twisted, bastardized, leftist brand of something he attempted to pass off as “Christianity; in reality, [JRH] he was preaching under the banner of Black Liberation Theology and restructuring Christianity to construct his own story of the world and appeal to the downtrodden peoples’ longing for freedom, to serve his own agenda and political purposes.
[Blog Editor: You need to be aware of the anti-Christian nature of Black Liberation Theology:
Nowhere in King’s messages would one hear Jesus presented as our Savior. His messages were aligned with the deliverance of Israel from their slavery in Egypt, and during his famous ‘I’ve Been to the Mountaintop’ speech, he mentioned the Exodus but not the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As a curious aside, it’s most interesting to find that Joe Biden supported segregation in the early years of his Senate career, that started in 1973, despite his many decades long assertion he actually supported desegregation. He was also great friends with many other supporters of segregation in the Senate, such as Senator Strom Thurmond and Senator Robert Byrd, who also just happened to be a one time member of the Ku Klux Klan.
[Blog Editor: Interestingly, it appears the Washington Examiner has purged critical links of fraudulently elected Biden. Justin provides this link about Biden embracing segregation:
Photo from above post: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, John Stennis, James O. Eastland, Herman Talmadge & George Wallace
Wasn’t it ironic that Joe Biden recently invoked the names of Bull Connor and George Wallace, fellow Democrats, in comparison to today’s Republicans?
Even more curious, America now sees a large segment of the Black population that supports a renewed brand of segregation across our country and a new racism directed at White people and the founding of America. These young radicals see White people as people who must now be silenced, reviled, controlled and even oppressed, if not killed outright.
Biden is radical and subversive to American principles, and so too was Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.
King was a red, radical Communist who wanted to directly redistribute America’s wealth in accordance with the economics of Marx and Lenin, and although he preached “non-violence” and “civil disobedience”, he and his followers regularly violated the criminal laws. King also allowed his name and prestige to be used freely for events sponsored by Communist fronts, as he did in 1967 for the National Conference for New Politics in Chicago, where he appeared as the main speaker. The events sponsors, to name a few, included the Communist Party USA, The W.E.B DuBois Clubs, the Draft Resistance Union, the Socialist Workers Party and the Revolutionary Action Movement.
Yes, King did facilitate many good things within his movement, but he was a deeply conflicted and flawed man too, and he wasn’t really working to make America better in the end. He was a radical at odds with America’s founding principles, whose few solid ideas have now been warped, manipulated and bastardized to such an incredibly high degree, that America finds the Marxist/Maoist Communists of Black Lives Matter and the white-hating racists of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers using them as cover to do their dirty, destructive work against America.
No one will hear me singing King’s praises in the coming days.
By Justin O. Smith
______________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Embedded source links are by Justin Smith except when indicated by “JRH.” Content embraced by brackets are by the Editor. Bold text indicates Editorial agreement.
Blog Editor: While verifying these stunning facts presented by Justin Smith, I ran into a documentary on MLK presented sermon-style by Kim Osbøl which was posted on Bitchute 1/18/22. Osbøl acquired the documentary from the Angel White Youtube Channel who some how acquired it from Pastor Steven L. Anderson who put the documentary together in 2015. I say “some how acquired” because my searches of Anderson preaching show Youtube removing the video, which is the reason I use this Bitchute version. Left-Wing Wikipedia lists all the reasons Pastor Anderson is hated by Left which sadly includes Antisemitism. Death threats and Jew-hatred if true are not a good thing and I am not going to take the time to see if Wikipedia is placing their Leftist overemphasis on the guy. Here is a bit more favorable Anderson-profile I stumbled upon just before closing Duck Duck Go: https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Truths/soulwinners_are_heroes.htm.
Here is PastorSteven L. Anderson providing the Christian perspective on MLK which I believe lines up with Justin Smith’s essay.
I find it extremely interesting that occultist Aleister Crowley died aged 72 on December 1st,1947. 72 years later on the very same day was when the first patient to be diagnosed with 2019-nCoV (COVID 19) December 1st, 2019.
Justin Smith highlights the deception the Left has to actual history. The American Left imposes the bad news over the good news of history in an effort to transform the minds and hearts of Americans through violence, intimidation, twisted facts and outright lies.
JRH 6/25/20
Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check
I wonder when they will start tearing down statues of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia who was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, and will they destroy or rename buildings and roads bearing his name?!???
Robert Byrd (younger days)
In a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) in 1944, Senator Byrd declared:
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
On one critical issue, Byrd broke ranks with his Democratic colleagues. In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was being considered for passage on the Senate floor, Byrd filibustered for 15 hours, declaring at one point, “Men are not created equal today, and they were not created equal in 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was written…Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision.” Byrd would later apologize profusely for these opinions and his participation in the KKK.
According to Fox News, there are no less than 20 buildings, from universities to courthouses, and three highways wearing Byrd’s name, in honor of his “accomplishments”. Multiple buildings are named for him on the campus of Marshall University alone, which is, in fact, now calling for them to be renamed.
Upon Byrd’s death, he had allies even in the Civil Rights movement, with the NAACP at the time praising his legacy and his transformation from a former KKK member to a “stalwart supporter” of civil rights. Byrd’s evolution, however genuine or simply for political points and show, was even honored by then President Obama, after he died.
Once one starts erasing history, no one is safe from the destruction.
You may not like what a person stood for but rather than seeing any particular statue as an idol or representative of the bad the person did, try to understand why the statue was erected in the beginning. And if there’s nothing socially redeeming about the person and his actions over a lifetime, understand him and those actions through the prism of history, as a teaching tool to build a better society and prevent a repeat of those same horrible mistakes and deeds.
Often times, men associated with the Civil War, such as General Nathan Bedford Forest, did a good number of fine things before and after the war. Forest actually worked towards racial reconciliation and healing in America, despite false claims that he founded the KKK.
[Blog Editor: One should remember history is disseminated through the eyes of the victors. Nathan Bedford Forrest benefits as a historical enigma. Since the Confederate seceding States were not obliterated but defeated with the concept of restoration to the Union, depending on historical sources Forrest was a villain or hero. In today’s Leftist revisionist history obsesses with cancelling the past, Forrest is in the villain lane. With that in mind every source I consulted places Forrest in the beginnings of the KKK yet when questioned under oath in Congress in 1871 Forrest denied KKK association yet writings and interviews at the least KKK sympathies. I am listing several biography sources that connect Forrest to the KKK in varying degrees and one source indicating Forrest a proponent of Black civil rights later in life. None of the finger-pointing KKK biography sketches talk about the Forrest efforts on behalf of Memphis Black Americans after the Civil War.
During a recent battle over his statue in Tennessee, Tennessee Rep. Micah Van Huss was defiant in a statement written during the brouhaha: “Leftists are free to choose not to look at these glorious monuments,” he wrote. “You want to blind yourself to history? Go ahead and live in your politically correct fantasy world. I live in the real world and will represent my constituents from that viewpoint. I won’t be bullied into pandering to your fragile feelings. I will stand by my heritage and the history of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.”
Further, a July 5th 1875 speech that was delivered to the Independent Order of Pole Bearers, a group of black Southerners in Memphis, Tennessee, got Forrest in trouble with Southern racists at the time, mostly because he dared to kiss a young black woman on the cheek when he accepted a bouquet of flowers from her.
Nathan Bedford Forrest bust-statue
Some quotes from the speech:
“This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation.”
“I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.”
“I am your friend … We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don’t believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace.”
“When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.”
“Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief.”
One view proposes that whites have an obligation to rule over, and encourage the cultural development of people from other cultural backgrounds until they can take their place in the world economically and socially. The term “the white man’s burden” has been interpreted by some as racist, or possibly taken as a metaphor for a condescending view of “undeveloped” national culture and economic traditions, identified as a sense of European ascendancy which has been called “cultural imperialism”. An alternative interpretation is the philanthropic view, common in Rudyard Kipling’s formative years, that the rich (whites) have a moral duty and obligation to help “the poor” (coloreds) “better” themselves whether the poor (coloreds) want the help or not. [Blog Editor: Similar text in paragraph scroll or page search for “From David Cody, The growth of the British Empire” at this link – http://widercontexts.gyldendal.dk/theempire/TheWhiteMansBurden/post-reading.aspx]
This style of racism probably shouldn’t be called racism because that is misleading. We don’t have a modern term that expresses the prevailing belief of the ruling class of the time. Roosevelt’s outlook was one of benevolence such as one has for a child. Condescending perhaps but not evil.
But because his statue outside the Museum of Natural History in New York City depicts him as a white man of great stature with two men subordinate and trailing behind, one black and one Native American Indian, the censors and the revisionists are demanding its removal.
Teddy Roosevelt on horse with Native American & Black American statue
And it’s a damn shame, because history is so much more complicated than just a few years out of any one person’s life, a life that holds so many different possibilities and opportunities to do the right thing for all, to never ask for forgiveness or to one day seek redemption and beg for forgiveness.
By Justin O. Smith
___________________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Text embraced by brackets and embedded links are by the Editor.
Brigitte Gabriel emailed an excerpt from her new book being released on the 17th anniversary of the 9/11. Whereby Islam terrorists attack in NYC and the Pentagon as well as the sacrifice of lives who thwarted another Islamic terrorist attack by confronting Muslim hijackers of Flight 91 resulting in the jet crashing.
Gabriel trashes the hypocrites of the Left who bully via violent acts and Muslim apologists who defend Islamic terrorism and Jew-hatred all on college campuses across America.
The article posted below is an excerpt from Brigitte Gabriel’s newest book, RISE: In Defense of Judeo-Christian Valuesand Freedom, which is coming out this September 11th, 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Leftist Censorship Thrives on University Campuses in America
In America today, there is perhaps no better example of the all-out assault leftists have launched against freedom of speech than on college campuses.
Leftists have progressively taken over American universities and, just as quickly, systematically eroded freedom of speech and engagement for the students. Not only are voices that leftist faculty members disagree with prevented from speaking, but voices espousing violent, anti-Semitic and radical Islamic rhetoric are welcomed in open arms.
One of the most active Islamic organizations on college campuses is the MSA-Muslim Students Association. They have nearly 600 chapters on college campuses in the United States and Canada, making them the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America. The MSA is mentioned in the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum for North America as one their front organizations to destroy America from within.
In May 2010, Jewish author David Horowitz was taking questions from an audience at UC San Diego when a female MSA student stood up to confront Horowitz about his views. When Horowitz asked the young woman if she supported the terrorist organization Hamas, she replied: “If I say something I’m sure that I will be arrested. For reasons of Homeland Security.”
In other words, of course she supported Hamas, but she didn’t want to be arrested or investigated on terrorism charges if she essentially admitted that she was a terrorist. But Horowitz pressed further. “I’m a Jew. The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For it or against it?”
After a pause, the Muslim student leaned into the microphone and with a cold, calculating voice stated, “For it.”
If that doesn’t send chills up your spine, nothing will. When a student can stand up and declare herself a supporter of Jewish genocide with absolutely no consequence and the terrorist-linked organization she’s a part of can still function openly on campus, we’re way past the tipping point.
Of course, adding to the absurdity of allowing terrorists and anti-Semites to openly flourish on campus, conservatives are shunned and accused of “hate speech.” In response to a scheduled appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos at leftist haven UC Berkeley, Antifa and their leftist comrades started a violent riot, smashing store windows, causing over $100,000 in damage and injuring innocent civilians.
Black-masked leftists threw large rocks, commercial fireworks and Molotov cocktails at police, in response to Milo setting foot on campus to say things they didn’t like. Over 1,500 angry leftists formed a mob and chanted, “No safe space for racists,” and “This is war,” but were strangely missing their pitchforks.
One innocent woman who is a Trump supporter was pepper-sprayed in the face while being interviewed on live television by an ABC affiliate. That’s strange, I thought the Left was supposed to be fighting for the rights of women.
Embarrassed by the national disgrace, administrators at Berkeley tried to play defense, while at the same time letting the violent mob know they support them in spirit.
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives.”
See, it was all peaceful until 1,500 trouble makers showed up. They continued:
“While Yiannopoulos’ views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus’s Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.”
There’s the continued attack on Yiannopoulos, an openly gay man, whose biggest crime was that he attempted to speak at a public university. When it comes to free speech, the aggressors are almost exclusively on the Left.
Remember, at multiple rallies then-candidate Trump spoke at during his presidential and primary campaign, countless interruptions of crazed leftists arose, as they screamed mindless babble at the top of their lungs to try to silence him. They knew that if the American people heard his message about putting America first and speaking truthfully about the threats of open borders he would win. So they tried desperately to silence him. But their plans failed, and President Trump won handily over Hillary Clinton.
How many times were Hillary Clinton’s speeches interrupted by conservatives during her campaign? Did she ever have Secret Service Agents rush the stage during one of her speeches after a crazed conservative tried to attack her, as a crazed leftist did President Trump?
Hillary didn’t confront those issues for the same reason that an anti-Semitic terror sympathizer like Linda Sarsour[bad link – better Sarsour link] can speak at CUNY, and a domestic terrorist like Kathy Boudin can teach a class at Columbia, because the Left has a monopoly on violent anti-free speech radicalism.
The reality is freedom of speech, the most fundamental pillar of our Constitution and Western civilization at large, is under attack by two relentless enemies: radical Islam and the radical Left. Both are working together to shut you up and prevent your children and grandchildren from exercising the same rights that every American since the nation’s founding have had the privilege of doing.
Unless Americans take hold of this increasingly dangerous threat, our ability to fight back with truth could be gone forever. We must not take this most crucial freedom for granted, for if we do, it’s only a matter of time before the enemy takes it away. We must make sure those who represent us in Washington understand that freedom of speech is an absolute right, and that we will not be silenced.
___________________
ACT for America is the nation’s largest national security grassroots organization with over 1 million members dedicated to keeping America safe and its citizens secure from all threats foreign & domestic. Click here to support our efforts.
About Brigitte Gabriel, Founder of ACT for America
Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders.
he has addressed the United Nations, Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others.
In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America.
Ms. Gabriel is Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with One million members dedicated to preserving national security and promoting Western values. She is a NYT best-selling author of three books the latest is “RISE” In Defense of Judeo Christian Values and Freedom.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock you are probably aware the wicked Left has been trying to mute Conservatives and Counterjihadists for some time via censorship and cutting off revenue streams.
I have posted on this effort to mute Conservatives several times. Here are some of the most recent titles:
Mastercard has reportedly forced funding platform Patreon to kick conservative author and “Jihad Watch” owner Robert Spencer off its site.
“My name is April and I’m on the Trust & Safety team here at Patreon. I’ve been notified by Mastercard that we must remove your account from Patreon, effective immediately,” wrote Patreon in an email to Spencer. “Mastercard has a stricter set of rules and regulations than Patreon, and they reserve the right to not offer their services to accounts of their choosing. This is in line with their terms of service, which means it’s something we have to comply by.”
After Patreon banned me without explanation, I set up a GoFundMe account, with the same goal in view of constructing a studio for Jihad Watch videos, and quickly raised over $3,000. …
…
But today, I got this:
Hi Robert,
We’re sorry, but we have canceled your 08/21 withdrawal of $3,299.42 from WePay Payments.
The funds from this withdrawal have been added back to your balance.
…
I also got multiple notices from GoFundMe; each informed me that a particular donation to me from a particular person had been refunded.
When I asked for a reason why they had canceled my withdrawal and were refunding all the donations to me, they did not, of course, answer.
We’re under attack by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)…
For years, the SPLC has labeled the Freedom Center a hate group and tried to get organizations like Amazon, Facebook and Twitter to ban us and silence our message.
Yesterday, SPLC finally convinced MasterCard and Visa to cut us off. Now we can’t process donations from any major credit card companies.
In fact, if you received Robert Spencer’s e-mail last night, you may have noticed your donation was DENIED.
The pattern is quite obvious. If the Left can’t outright censor Conservatives and Counterjihadist websites, the plan is to starve the finances until there is no resource to operate.
THIS MUST CEASE!
Below is the Spencer email flowed by a Jihad Watch article on the situation by Christine Douglas-Williams.
The fascism is coming down fast. I’ve now been banned from Patreon and GoFundMe. MasterCard and Visa have stopped processing donations for the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Why? Because David Horowitz and I are defamed as “hate group leaders” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which is now strong-arming businesses to deny service to us. The SPLC has been discredited as a dishonest, far-Left propaganda outfit determined to destroy all those who dissent from its Leftist agenda, but that doesn’t matter: these companies are allowing no appeal, no discussion, no right to reply.
This will by no means end with David Horowitz and me. The authoritarian Left is working energetically now to ban all dissenting voices in the run-up to the 2018 elections.
If this keeps up, only Leftists will be allowed any kind of platform anywhere.
It’s clear that I am one of the principal people in the Left’s crosshairs. Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison has already demanded that Amazon stop stocking books by people who are blacklisted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I wrote The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISISas a challenge to the elites’ narrative about jihad and Islam. And it’s clearer every day now that the elites are brooking no challenges to their narrative, and are moving as fast as they can to muzzle the people who refute their lies and distortions.
Given that initiative, and Ellison’s specific demand to Amazon, I don’t know how long The History of Jihad will be available, although I’ll circulate it in mimeographed form if I have to.
The book is listed as out of stock right now at Amazon: the publisher and distributors were caught off guard by demand much greater than they expected. But if you order it now, you should receive it soon — as long as the book burners don’t shut the whole enterprise down. They’re on the horizon. Click here to order The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS now.
And please – again, while you still can – make a tax-deductible donation to Jihad Watch here.
++++++++++++++++
Citizens beware: MasterCard and Visa cross the line into totalitarian thought control
Like many people, my inbox has been flooded by concerned citizens aboutDavid HorowitzandRobert Spencerover MasterCard and Visa, blocking their flow of revenue needed for daily operations. Spencer stated:
This is getting very serious. It won’t stop with David Horowitz or me. The Left is moving quickly to silence all dissenting voices in the run-up to the 2018 elections. The freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society, and it is rapidly being destroyed in the United States.
To add to the heartfelt concerns of those who respect the work of these stalwart defenders of freedom and human rights, all citizens would do well to recognize that the actions of MasterCard and Visa are also a slap in the face to their customers. These companies have infringed upon the rights of anyone who supports the cause of freedom and the efforts of Horowitz and Spencer. Customers who choose to donate to these necessary initiatives have been told that they are financing “hate” and therefore are stripped of their right to donate. They have been dictated to by MasterCard and Visa, who are acting as if they do not have the right to think for themselves as long as they want to use the services of MasterCard and Visa.
As totalitarianism overshadows America, no one can say that they were not forewarned. Both Horowitz and Spencer have been sounding the alarm for years; the Muslim Brotherhood plan for North America has been public knowledge for years. Its Explanatory Memorandum is expansive and detailed in describing its mission:
“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
“We will win because Americans don’t realize . . .we do not need to defeat you militarily; we only need to fight long enough for you to defeat yourself by quitting.”
Mohammed was correct. Far too many citizens of the West have quit — they take their freedoms of granted and are in denial, having not learned the lesson of history that fascism is insidious and does not take control of societies suddenly, as many seem to think. Its invasion is methodical and gradual.
Some examples of how businesses have joined the totalitarian initiative:
Kellogg Co.announced on November 2016its decision to pull ads from Breitbart “because its 45,000,000 monthly conservative readers are not ‘aligned with our values as a company.’” Here we see Kellogg’s attempting to control the thoughts of citizens and impose its values on consumers. Fortunately, Breitbart “launched a #DumpKelloggs petition and called for a boycott of the ubiquitous food manufacturer, which lead to plummeting stock and reported $53 million loss in the fourth quarter.” The arrogance of Kellogg Co. was astounding, with CEO John Bryant claiming that the company’s massive losses were just a “coincidence” and not due to the boycott.
In the three months following Kellogg’s war against Breitbart:
Last August, Paypaldecided that it, too, wanted to interfere with freedom of speech and thought. The company cancelled Jihad Watch’s account, but it was reinstated not long afterward after public outrage. Meanwhile, the Islamic State used PayPal to send money to jihadis inside the U.S., but that revelation wasn’t enough to stop Paypal from pontificating in its letter announcing its reinstatement of the Jihad Watch account:
PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy in our User Agreement prohibits individuals and groups from using PayPal for activities that promote hate, violence, or racial intolerance.
This is a key statement, as Jihad Watch is not a hate site. It is a news aggregate and commentary site dedicated to exposing the broad range of human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam, and reports from a range of news sites are referenced. Take, for example, a few recent Jihad Watch headlines:
These are but a mere few examples, but they go on and on. What normal citizen can point out the “hate” in exposing such news? Every single day, reports emerge from the four corners of the earth about human rights abuses committed in the name of Islam, Islamic supremacist incursions into once-peaceful countries, the slaughter and injury of innocent people committed in the name of Islam, and jihad attacks. If reporting and discussing these facts are an offense to Muslims and deemed to be “hateful” and “racist,” then we need to have serious open discussions about why and how this is so. But there is a strenuous effort to shut down all discussion of these matters.
Meanwhile, who remembers or cares about the victims? Jihad Watch, the Horowitz Center and others that are unashamed to stand for human rights and who are grateful to those who died in the cause of freedom. Fierce battles have been waged against fascism, and if history has taught us anything, we should know that fascist regimes endeavor to control the thoughts and words of their people, as does the Southern Poverty Law Center today. The SPLC has mutated into a hate group itself. In the words of its former spokesman Mark Potok, who spent 20 years as an SPLC senior fellow (according to LinkedIn):
Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate groups, I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them.
As reported by Breitbart:
The David Horowitz Freedom Center has had their donation processing system blocked by Visa and Mastercard allegedly following a campaign by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Visa has since contacted Breitbart News to deny involvement in the blacklisting of the Freedom Center.
It is by degrees that totalitarians manage to seize control. The establishment media becomes a mouthpieces of the people in power, and soon, the population becomes enslaved to their ideologies, as we see with Islamofascism. It is abusive, oppressive and aims to silence all dissent as it marches against the House of War in order to subvert it and bring it into the House of Islam. This 1,400-year-old doctrine has infiltrated the West in the private and public sectors, and the Muslim Brotherhood, in accordance with its memorandum, has managed to redefine “hate” to mean any criticism of Islam.
Now Horowitz and Spencer stand accused of “hate,” without any semblance of justice or due process. MasterCard and Visa have bowed to the totalitarian impulse, and in so doing have also indicted their customers. This will continue, if there is no resistance. Let’s hope that boycotts and class action suits will soon be in the offing, prompted by both consumers and the leaders of conservative organizations.
ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of eighteen books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery Publishing) and The Truth About Muhammad (Regnery Publishing). His latest book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS (Bombardier Books).
Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy.
Spencer is a weekly columnist for PJ Media and FrontPage Magazine, and has written many hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in …READ THE REST
Alex Jones is literally being censored on every digital media format I can think of.
I have to be clear. I am not a supporter or big fan of Mr. Jones. Many of his Conspiracy Theories propagated from his soapbox are just plain outlandish and crazy.
The massive digital censorship Jones is accused of is hate-speech. Frankly, as outlandish and offensive Jones can be I am not surprised the hate-speech accusations are levelled against him.
I do have a couple of problems with the censorship.
ONE: The same media platforms censoring Jones allow Muslims to spew Jew-Hatred and promote physical harm to Jews and other non-Muslims. However, when a non-Muslim points out Islamic tenets and Muslim history demonstrate violent hatred for all things non-Muslim specifying Jews, Christians and polytheists. Militant homosexuals overtly express hatred toward Biblical Values Christians yet will censor Biblical Values Christians for supporting the Bible’s labelling the homosexual practice a sin against God’s Word. In essence this is censorship hypocrisy.
TWO: The same media platforms rarely if ever censor Left-Wing calls for violence against Conservatives yet they will censor Conservatives refuting a violent Leftist agenda. For example Maxine Walters advocating Leftists to disrupt reputed Conservative meetings and Conservatives living their private lives at open-to-the-public venues. Astonishingly to date, Conservative individuals have refused to respond with self-defense violence for Leftist provocation. I’m a disabled dude and I don’t know if I would exhibit such self-restraint to respond with action if someone shouting directly in front of my face.
I hate defending Alex Jones because I am convinced he has used actual hate-speech; however look at some of phrases the digital media platforms label as hate-speech worthy of censorship via banning:
The same article on Forward.com also illustrates actual forms of hate-speech via sexual harassment which is unacceptable but demonstrated on Alex Jones programs.
I don’t know what Alex Jones other than the vague accusation of the kind of speech the digital platforms call hatred or inciting violence:
If the hate-speech was critical of a belief system corresponding to Islam or the LGBTQ agenda, then said hate-speech violation is an absurd accusation. If Jones said something dimwitted such as maybe, “hunt down the camel jockeys and give them a tasted of their own medicine” or “rope the fudge-packer and drag the shem down the road”. Those kinds of phrases are indeed inciting violence and is a good reason for censuring and/or banning.
Here is the Joseph Farah email (which is also a bit of a fundraiser) that inspired my thoughts.
I’ve been warning everyone who would listen about the greatest threat to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in America today.
It’s not government.
Instead, the overt attack on America’s First Amendment comes from the corporate behemoth internet gatekeepers who are in ideological lockstep with each other – from Google to YouTube to Facebook to Twitter to Apple to Amazon.
This week, YouTube and Facebook followed Apple’s lead in banishing Alex Jones, the iconic, high-energy voice that rails against globalism and the Deep State daily on radio, podcasts and his own Infowars TV show. He was an easy target and a predictable one – a controversial figure, without doubt, and a high-profile one with a sizable following.
Not everyone wants to defend Alex Jones – certainly not everything he says.
Yet, the First Amendment wasn’t crafted by America’s founding geniuses to protect tepid, non-controversial speech. It was crafted to protect just this kind of fiery dialogue – the kind that offends some people, some sensibilities. Alex Jones is a good choice to start the censorship juggernaut rolling if you think like the Southern Poverty Law Center. And one thing Apple, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon all have in common is their love of, reverence for, and partnerships with this extremist band of smear merchants who never met anyone right of center that they didn’t label a “hater,” a “fascist,” a “Nazi” or a “racist” – including, of course, the current president of the United States.
So, first the Digital Cartel came for Alex Jones.
Who will be next? I don’t know, but I don’t plan to find myself in the position in which Martin Niemöller found himself in Nazi Germany. He’s most famous for this prescient quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
I’m going to defend Alex Jones’ right to say what he wants – even if I sometimes, or even often, find myself in disagreement with him. And I’m going to condemn this cabal of bloated mega-corporations imposing their ideology on America’s most vital public square – the digital media.
Maybe you say, “Well, Farah, don’t these corporations have the absolute right to approve and disapprove of the viewpoints they carry – just like you do?” The answer may be surprising: No, they don’t. None of these conglomerates are publishers, content producers, part of the “press.” They are more akin to “utilities” – like the telephone companies of old, or the electricity producers who have a public obligation to be fair and neutral in offering the services they provide to all, without regard to race, religion and ideology. They don’t have to like Alex Jones. They don’t have to listen to Alex Jones. But if they are going to hold these privileged positions of making lots of money by distributing all manner of content, data and information to the public, they dare not think of themselves as ideological gatekeepers against “offensive” political speech. And they better not designate the disgraced partisan hacks of the SPLC as their content cops, which is precisely what they have done – all of them!
I know I sound like a broken record on this theme, but I’m going to keep pounding on it until the public catches on to the threat these trillion-dollar monopolies pose to America’s precious institutions of free speech, the free press and freedom of religion. We need congressional hearings. We need action in Washington. We need President Trump to recognize who the biggest purveyors of fake news really are. It’s not just CNN and the Huffington Post. It’s their distribution arms – Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon – the Digital Cartel.
It’s time to throw down the gauntlet, draw a marker in the sand, file class-action lawsuits, summon our leaders to action.
Are we going to let this cabal render the First Amendment null and void?
I’ve been telling you how they have attacked WND relentlessly and ruthlessly through its politically and religiously discriminatory algorithms. I’ve told you how they have been coming after the independent media, especially since the 2016 election that so disappointed all of them.
Do you really want to talk about supposed Russian interference in our free society when this powerful monolithic cartel is setting the rules of debate for Americans out in plain sight – openly censoring voices they don’t like while systematically elevating those they do like? What a sick joke!
As for me, I will defend the voices of dissent, and even controversy, as long as I have a soapbox upon which to stand. I know they are coming after me and the world’s first independent online news company, which I founded 21 years ago. Once again, I ask you to stand with me, or else find yourself living in a country you won’t long recognize. No privacy. No freedom.
Please support us, or risk finding yourself living in a very different and scary version of America soon.
The Leftist propaganda organization vainly trying to shore up their reputation as a hate-watchdog – Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – constantly condemns non-violent Christian organizations, Conservative values organizations and Counterjihad people/organizations as hate-groups. BUT the SPLC says violence oriented ANTIFA is not a hate-group.
But there’s something you simply don’t understand about antifa, according to the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, which has appointed itself America’s leading arbiter of “hate”:
The brutally violent “domestic terrorists” don’t actually espouse hate.
“If you are familiar with our work, we write about antifa often,” SPLC President Richard Cohen told the House Homeland Security Committee on Nov. 30. “We condemn their tactics – I’ve said so publicly and we do so always – but antifa is not a group that vilifies people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and the like.”
Except antifa certainly does vilify people, especially based on political viewpoint, and sometimes even based on religion.
On the day of President Trump’s inauguration, antifa members rioted in Washington, D.C., smashing a limousine window with a hammer, shattering storefronts, vandalizing bus stops and throwing rocks at police officers, six of whom sustained injuries.
After the inauguration, antifa rioters smashed windows and set fires in Portland.
In February, antifa activists set the University of California at Berkeley campus on fire, throwing rocks through windows and causing $100,000 in damages. In March, they shouted down a Gold Star mother whose child was killed in the line of duty. Then they crashed a pro-Trump march in Berkeley while reportedly toting bricks and baseball bats.
The “alt-left” has been around for decades, but conservatives have remained ignorant. Now, WND takes you inside antifa with an exclusive special report revealing the origins, motivations and future of America’s most widespread and active domestic terrorist group. Get your FREE copy of “Antifa: What Americans Need to Know about the Alt-Left.”
In April, they crashed a Trump rally again, this time carrying knives, flagpoles and sticks. In May, they made an appearance at a May Day rally in Portland, assaulting cops, lighting fires and spray-painting a police car. In June, antifa activists wore masks and protested in Portland at a rally for President Trump. Police were forced to deploy stingballs and grenades with rubber pellets to keep the antifa activists away so Trump supporters could finish their speeches.
Antifa threw bricks, rocks, marbles, tampons, urine and feces, PBS reported. They left graffiti messages stating, “STAB A NAZI, TWICE :).”
In August 4,000 Antifa agitators and other leftists shut down a “No to Marxism” rally and prayer vigil being held by about 400 conservative Christians in Berkeley, California. Police released mugshots of 11 of the 13 persons arrested at the violent political riots in the university town. Charges include assault with a deadly weapon, felony assault and various municipal code violations. One officer was injured while making an arrest, and several others were struck with paint and bottles.
Antifa’s war cry, caught on video during the rally, was no less than the total destruction of American society. “No Trump, no wall, no USA at all!” they chanted.
But don’t confuse any of those actions with “hate,” says the SPLC, which has condemned groups and public figures who disagree with its agenda, putting them on its “hate” map, which once prominently included former presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson before the group was skewered on social media, prompting an abrupt retreat.
While featuring organizations such as the KKK, the “hate map” – which is cited by many media outlets – also includes mainstream groups such as the Family Research Council.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., questioned the SPLC’s refusal to include antifa on its “hate map,” telling Cohen that it “reduces your credibility.” Perry accused the leftist group of picking and choosing which individuals and groups it includes on its map based not on actual facts but “only your opinion.”
“So you’re OK with antifa as long as they don’t say things that you don’t agree with, but it’s OK if they hit people on the head with a bike lock or set things on fire or riot and flout the law by wearing face masks and incite riots – you’re OK with that?” Perry asked.
Cohen responded: “We condemn groups like antifa. We write about them often. We don’t list them as hate groups.”
He claimed the Family Research Council is included on the “hate map” because it “relentlessly vilifies” members of the LGBT community.
“Our listing of hate groups doesn’t necessarily mean that they engage in violence, although we think that the anti-LGBT propaganda is one of the factors that makes the LGBT community in our country the most likely to be victimized by hate crimes,” Cohen said.
Ironically, the SPLC’s own “hate map” appears to have incited violence against the Family Research Council in 2012 when a gunman shot the group’s security guard after consulting the “hate map.”
SPLC was linked to domestic terror through Floyd Lee Corkins, who cited SPLC as his inspiration for his going to the Washington offices of the Family Research Council, armed with a gun, intending to kill as many people as he could. He was stopped by a security guard, who was injured. WND reported a video showed Corkins entering the FRC offices and confronting Leo Johnson.
On August 15. 2012 at 10:46 a.m., Floyd Corkins entered the lobby of Family Research Council armed with a loaded semi-automatic pistol, 100 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. FRC building manager Leo Johnson was temporarily manning the front desk at our Washington headquarters when a now-confessed terrorist intent on killing everyone in the building entered with a handgun and 100 rounds of ammunition. As he drew his gun, Leo courageously charged the attacker into oncoming gunfire. Even after sustaining a direct hit to his forearm, he subdued the attacker and wrestled the gun away from him.
Why did confessed terrorist Corkins choose Family Research Council as a target for his attack? In an FBI interrogation, Corkins admitted he found his target from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list.]
Cohen denied all responsibility for the 2012 shooting at FRC.
He defended SPLC’s selections of groups and individuals to include on its “hate map,” noting that includes groups like the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party.
Perry then noted that the organization Students for Justice in Palestine has called for violence against Jews. He asked Cohen why the group wasn’t included on its map.
“I don’t know about that particular group,” Cohen said. “We try to call hate as we see it. We limit our list not by left versus right but by groups that villify others for factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or the like.”
“What we try to get Google to do is not prioritize hate groups,” he explained, citing racist shooter Dylann Roof, who searched “black on white crime” before he killed nine black churchgoers in 2015 at a church in Charleston, South Carolina.
Cohen continued, “So we’re trying to say to Google, your algorithm is flawed or easily manipulated.”
In another line of questioning, Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., asked why SPLC, a nonprofit, is stashing at least $69 million in its offshore accounts.
“I think there’s been some confusion in the press about this,” Cohen claimed. “It’s common for nonprofit organizations, including universities and big foundations, to have money in offshore accounts. It avoids two things: certain kinds of filings and unrelated business income tax.”
Cohen also told the House Homeland Security Committee that Trump’s campaign for the White House “energized the white supremacist movement.” He said the white-supremacist website Stormfront doubled its visitors between 2008 and 2017.
But Rep. Thomas Garrett, R-Va., noted that the number of Stormfront’s visitors increased most rapidly during the administration of Barack Obama. And the biggest growth in black separatist groups on SPLC’s “hatewatch” list took place while Obama was president.
“Again, this isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not, is it?” Garrett asked. “I mean, I don’t think it is. If someone were to say that the prevalence of these groups is because of the rhetoric of one individual, that would be oversimplifying the problem, would it not?”
Cohen responded, “Depending on the individual.”
Garrett then observed that SPLC’s staff tends to contribute to Democrats. And he also noted that SPLC works with leftist organizations like Media Matters for America.
“I respect what you do. I’m concerned with how you’re doing it,” Garrett said, adding: “[It] troubles those to see an entity that has essentially been de facto made responsible for determing [sic] what is and isn’t hate that skews almost exclusively as do their collaborators in a particular direction.
But it shouldn’t be shocking to anyone that SPLC is staffed by leftists, Cohen said.
“The liberal tradition is an inclusive one,” he said. “Hate is the opposite of that liberal tradition of inclusivity. So it’s not surprising to me that people at the SPLC, people at other inclusive organizations tend to give money to liberal organizations. It seems obvious to me.”
The “alt-left” has been around for decades, but conservatives have remained ignorant. Now, WND takes you inside antifa with an exclusive special report revealing the origins, motivations and future of America’s most widespread and active domestic terrorist group. Get your FREE copy of “Antifa: What Americans Need to Know about the Alt-Left.”
WND, formerly WorldNetDaily, can best be explained by its mission statement: “WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.
“We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.”
Indeed, WND is a fiercely independent news site committed to hard-hitting investigative reporting of government waste, fraud and abuse.
Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence.
WND has broken some of the biggest, most significant and most notable investigative and enterprising stories in recent years. See “WND Scoops” for a comprehensive list of major WND exclusive reports that first saw the light of day in these pages.
WND’s unique and aggressive reporting style has captured a large and growing audience on the Internet:
WND was voted the most popular website on the Internet every week for nearly two years running between 1999 and 2001 on the independent, European-based Global100.com.
WND consistently ranks as the “stickiest” news site on the Internet, meaning readers spent more time on it than on any other – including giants CNN, MSNBC and ESPN.
Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post writes about the hypocrisy of the Dems, Leftist MSM, and RINOs reporting on the Charlottesville rumble. It’s a great follow-up on my post “Charlottesville Violent Participants Pt ONE”.
“It is the manners and spirit of a people, which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson (1787)
Last weekend, according to NBC Chicago, there were ninepeople killed and more than 30 wounded in gunfights on the streets of Chicago — and those figures don’t include the deaths and injuries from other weapons within that DemocratParty pit.
This is a recurring tragedy in Chicago, and yet it’s highly probable that 99.999% of Americans have not heard about those deaths. Indeed, even though most of the murdered were black, who beyond the immediate family and friends of the deceased can name a single unfortunate victim of all the hatred and violence that is commonplace there?
The reason their names and faces are anonymous is that their lives have no value as political fodder for the Demo/media propaganda machine or its so-called “Black Lives Matter” constituency. Those victims are simply tossed onto the pile of 430 homicides in Chicago thus far this year, to the horror of those of us who believe that “all lives matter.”
Now consider this: Last weekend, there was one person murdered in Charlottesville, Virginia, by an Ohio man, and the whole world knows the name of that unfortunate victim.
Charlottesville is, as anyone who has been there can attest, a great town. In January, I declined an invitation to attend the Trump inaugural fanfare, opting instead that weekend to meet my son in Charlottesville for a few days visiting friends and re-visiting historic sites.
This area is, in my opinion, the richest historic region in America.
Charlottesville is the site of Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello home, which sits just above the town, and his beloved University of Virginia. Just beyond Monticello is James Monroe’s Highland home place. To the north is Montpelier, home of our Constitution’s author, James Madison. To the west is Lexington, home of Washington and Lee University and Virginia Military Academy — and burial place of Virginia sons Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Northeast is George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and the home of George Mason. To the east are Richmond, Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown — the final battle site of the American Revolution.
Despite being the epicenter of such extraordinary history, Charlottesville is also lorded over by a disgraceful mayor, Mike Signer, and his Leftist city council — a group of Berkeley wannabes who have led local historical purges of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee.
It was the planned removal of a small statue of the latter from a city park that was the catalyst for the obscene riotslast weekend in this otherwise quiet and idyllic town.
That riot was a clash between sociopathic forces — the antifa, the ironically self-styled “anti-fascists” leading the Leftist intifada against anyone supporting Liberty or any economic system other than socialism, and the alt-right, an anarcho-fascist fringe movement of white supremacists. Notably the alt-right racists had an ACLU-defended permit for their protest hatespeech. The antifa socialists and black supremacists showed up in mass without a permit.
Eight years of racial antagonism by Barack Obama and his radical regime led to mass riots in more than 20 American urban centers, fomented by Leftist groups operating under the banners of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, antifa, et al. That violence erupted in Oakland, Akron and Pittsburgh in 2009; Santa Cruz, Oakland and Los Angeles in 2010; Oakland in 2011; Chicago and Anaheim in 2012; Brooklyn in 2013; Ferguson and New York City in 2014; Baltimore in 2015; Anaheim, Chicago, St. Paul, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Standing Rock, Oakland and Portland in 2016; and DC, Berkeley, Anaheim, Berkeley part 2, Berkeley part 3, Olympia and Portland in 2017.
While Republicans, Democrats and the mainstream media have correctly tagged one side of the hateful antagonists in Charlottesville as “white supremacists,” you won’t find any reference by any Democrat, or their Leftmedia propagandists, to the “black supremacists” who were at the center of, or significant participants in, all the aforementioned urban violence.
Nor did a single politico or media outlet rightly tag Micah X, who murdered five police officers in Dallas a year ago, a “black supremacist.” He was just the latest manifestation of the Democrats’ playbook, which endeavors to fomentdisunity to rally constituencies. To them, dead police officers are just collateral damage.
Perhaps “Virginia is [not] for Lovers” after all? Actually, Virginia is a great state when it’s not baiting anarchist haters.
Given the media feeding frenzy inspired by the riots in Charlottesville, allow me to impart a few observations.
First: Regarding President Donald Trump’s repeated condemnation of both the racists and the socialists…
Assessing the violence, Charlottesville police chief Al Thomas noted, “Other groups [opposing the alt-right faction] began amassing along the street and in the park. Gradually, the crowd sizes increased along with aggressiveness and hostility of attendees toward one another. … We did have mutually combating individuals in the crowd.”
This mutual violence was evident to everyone present, and it was affirmed in real time by New York Times reporter Hawes Spencer, who observed, “Protesters maced each other, threw water bottles and urine balloons — some of which hit reporters — and generally beat the crap out of each other with flagpoles.”
However, Trump should not have dared to suggest that the violence was from both sides of the idiot line. According to the Leftmedia, the antifa groups are just a bunch of wholesome all-American “counter-protesters” defending our country against an epidemic of right-wing (Republican) hatred.
After concurring with the police chief and other observers about “mutually combating individuals,” Trump said, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides. No matter our color, creed, religion or political party we are all Americans first.”
But that denunciation wasn’t sufficient for the Leftmedia — or for establishment Republicans, who knew full well that the Demo/MSM would label them as “soft on supremacists” because Trump dared to identify both ugly factions.
Sunday, the White House communications staff followed up with: “The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry and hatred and of course that includes white Supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”
But even that was insufficient for the Leftmedia. Trump had failed to elevate the standing of the conflict to the level that best serves the Demo/MSM agenda and the need to cash in on the chaos for ad revenue and political contributions.
So Trump on Monday called a press confab and repeatedly condemned the racists in what was to be a unifyingspeech.
But that was too little too late for the Leftmedia.
On Tuesday, in a contentious confrontation with MSM agitators, Trump dared again to suggest that the violence was mutual: “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now: I think there is blame on both sides and I don’t have a doubt about it and you [reporters] don’t have a doubt about it either.”
He also condemned the removal of historic markers, saying, “This week it’s Robert E. Lee. I notice that Stonewall Jackson’s [statue is] coming down. I wonder, is George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really do have to ask yourself, when does it stop?”
Of the Leftmedia “outrage” over Trump’s responses, Vice President Mike Pence said, “I take issue with the fact that many in the media … have spent an awful lot of time focusing on what the president said and criticisms of what the president said, instead of criticizing those who brought that hatred and violence to the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia.” He is correct.
Second: The Bannon problem…
While I believe Trump’s response to the violence was measured — if very Trumpian — I also believe he has a problem on his staff by the name of Steve Bannon, chairman of his 2016 campaign and now his chief strategist.
Here’s the problem.
Jason Kessler is the white supremacist organizer of the “Unite the Right” protest in Charlottesville. He’s a University of Virginia graduate who lists on his résumé his last job as being a writer for “Daily Caller,” an online “conservative” news website co-founded in 2010 by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. For the record, despite the fact that I like Carlson’s commentary, our staff considers Daily Caller a well-funded titillation tabloid, and for that reason, it undermines the standing of genuine grassroots conservative publications. Indeed, as of this week, Daily Caller has scrubbed the commentary it hosted from Kessler.
Kessler’s colleague, Massachusetts native Richard Spencer, also aUVAgraduate, was agitating the hatefest in Charlottesville.
Spencer is the founder of AlternativeRight.com, the alt-right homepage espousing, among other things, white supremacist views. After Trump’s election, Spencer led an alt-right conference group with “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” chants. When Trump tapped Bannon to be a senior advisor, Spencer claimed he was in “the best possible position” to influence policy.
That brings me to Bannon himself, who took control of Breitbart News in 2012 after the death of Andrew Breitbart. Bannon did to Andrew’s popular website what Jeff Bezos is doing to the once-respectable Washington Post — adulterating its content to comport with extremist political views.
Breitbart News described Spencer’s website as the “center of alt-right thought,” and in 2016, Bannon declared Breitbart “the platform for the alt-right.” Spencer concurred, noting that Breitbart “has acted as a ‘gateway’ to alt-right ideas and writers.”
This, of course, doesn’t make Bannon or Trump “white supremacists.” Bannon, like Trump, has a propensity for shooting from the hip and saying stupid stuff. And most Trump supporters would have no idea what the “alt-right” is because, in fact, it’s nothing more than a minuscule fringe political identity group. But the Leftmedia would have you believe it’s the very foundation of the Republican Party.
In November 2016, Trump responded to questions about Bannon’s appointment, saying, “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right … I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”
But can you detect the problem here?
All you need to know about Bannon is that he does not have enough humility, in the interest of Trump’s agenda, to resign.
Third: Regarding the Orwellian trend of “historical cleansing” underway by Leftists…
The “progressive” use of violence to force the removal ofhistorical monuments from public spaces should concern Americans of all political stripes. This extremely dangerous trend by Leftists, like those sitting on the city council of historical hub Charlottesville, smacks of socialist Soviet “airbrushing” and the Maoist “Cultural Revolution.”
Longtime friend of The Patriot Post, distinguished George Mason University professor Walter Williams, has issued erudite warnings about the consequences of historical ignorance here and here, including the removal of historic markers to Confederategenerals and the rewriting ofAmerican history.
The vast majority of Americans, including me, who strenuously object to tearing down and stamping out our historical heritage do not object because of some racist affinity. We object because this is our story, and because whitewashing it is an affront to American history and to our legacy of Liberty.
As 20th century philosopher George Santayana concluded in his treatise, “The Life of Reason”: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
English writer Aldous Huxley put it more succinctly: “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”
Fourth: The ACLU and Charlottesville Police…
Notably, ACLU observers on Twitter were among the first to report that the Charlottesville police had stand-down orders, allowing the violence to escalate: “Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police say, ‘We’ll not intervene until given command to do so.’” But that order never came.
This was affirmed by Fox News reporter Doug McKelway, who was in the middle of the combatants. “When the tear gas started to fly, thrown by protesters, the police themselves began to evacuate. I asked the guy who was in charge, ‘Where you going?’ He said, ‘We’re leaving. It’s too dangerous.’ They had a chance to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to.”
If police officers are wholly unprepared for the level of violence, they should retreat. But this retreat looked more like the “stand-down” order that accelerated the 2015 Baltimore race riots.
Fifth: Who is funding antifa, Black Lives Matter and all the other Marxist/black supremacist groups that have emerged since 2008?
Judicial Watch is suing America-hating billionaire socialist George Soros for his funding records of Leftist political groups. Keep a sharp eye on the outcome of this lawsuit.
Finally, regarding the Republicans’ stampede to distance themselves from phony Leftist charges of racism, seeking to distance yourself from something already far removed actually feeds the narrative that maybe it is not so far removed.
To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Republicans doth apologize too much, methinks.”
The Democrat Party and its Leftmedia outlets are colluding to publicize, and thus politicize, upcoming alt-right-versus-antifa venues for conflict in order to advance their agenda. In doing so, they hope to hang these riots around Republican necks.
But let’s be clear: Every drop of blood that’s shed in these riots — and there will be more of them — is on the hands of the Demo/MSM propaganda machine that is fomenting the disunity that propagates them — and Republicans had better start shining a light on that, as Donald Trump has done, rather than cowering behind a microphone.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with ourTerms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”
He did so with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus) and Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus), foreseeing a day when the Internet would overtake print and cable media as a primary source of news, policy and opinion — the most significant First Amendment advancement since our nation’s founding.
Susan Rice is a typical lying Dem that unmasked Trump campaign staff names that did NOTHING illegal while using an investigation of Russian collusion/voting interference as a MERE excuse to politically impugn Donald Trump during the 2016 election and during the Obama lame duck period leading President Trump’s inauguration!!!!
AND even more reprehensible is the Left Stream Media either didn’t report on Ly’n Rice or defended her for doing nothing wrong while simultaneously still stick to the UNPROVEN – ergo lie – accusation the President Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Crooked Hillary in the 2016 election cycle.
For any American to believe Rice’s words that she “leaked nothing to nobody,” were also duped by her lies about Benghazi and her lies the traitor Bergdahl was an upstanding loyal American: “He served the United States with honor and distinction …”
Hmm … IF SUSAN RICE SAYS SHE DIDN’T UNMASK TRUMP SURVEILLANCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE HER!”
I have found loads of articles that question the veracity of Susan Rice and Barack Obama. The Left Stream Media will not take up the question of reliability because they are essentially a propaganda of Obama, The Dems and the Left in general.
I am cross posting two articles. One from The Federalist posted today and another from Fox News’ Adam Housley post on April third. At the end, I will provide some links (perhaps some excerpts) from other sources that pretty much have the same opinion about Susan Rice but may add some details lacking between each article.
Susan Rice was one Obama official who requested the unmasking of Trump associates’ information that was widely disseminated. Here’s why that’s significant.
Since Donald Trump won the election for president in November, U.S. media outlets have received and eagerly published selective, damaging leaks about him from anonymous intelligence officials. The general effort, which appeared highly coordinated, was an effort to delegitimize Trump’s election and paint him as a stooge of Russia or otherwise unfit for office.
The media outlets claimed their information came from very highly placed officials in the Obama administration. Even if they hadn’t claimed their anonymous sources were Obama officials, the information they were leaking, such as the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in surveillance by the Obama administration, would have been known only by highly placed intelligence officials.
As the publishers of the information that was illegally disclosed, many media outlets weren’t keen to make a story, much less a big story, about the leak campaign by Obama officials. This despite the fact that the same Obama officials who had run the infamous Iran Echo Chamber operation, in which reporters were duped into reporting the Obama administration’s spin on the Iran deal, had bragged that they’d continue a highly developed communications operation in the Trump era.
In early March, Donald Trump tweeted out a series of unsubstantiated claims:
Trump Tweets on BHO Wiretapping
Two weeks ago, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed that he’d seen dozens of reports featuring unmasked information on Trump and his associates and family members. He said these reports arose out of incidental collection during FISA surveillance, had nothing to do with Russia, were disseminated widely throughout the intelligence agencies, and contained little to no foreign intelligence value.
It should go without saying that the country’s powerful surveillance capabilities are not to be used against American citizens so that such unmasking should be exceedingly rare, be done for only the strongest reasons, and make pains to avoid the appearance of politicization. Nunes said the incidental collection might be legal but the unmasked dissemination of information about political opponents was disconcerting.
Despite the bombshell allegations, many in the media responded by downplaying or denigrating his news, distracting with process complaints, or quickly thrown-together stories from anonymous sources with no evidence claiming more breathless wrongdoing with Russia.
On Monday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg Views reported that sources said “Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, was conducting a review of unmasking procedures when he “discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities.”
Susan Rice was Obama’s National Security Advisor for his second term.
Again, many in the media are attempting to downplay, denigrate and distract, some are doing so shamelessly. Here are five reasons why this is a story worth covering:
1) Susan Rice’s Story Changed Dramatically From Two Weeks Ago
JUDY WOODRUFF: I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.
SUSAN RICE, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.
I know nothing about this, she said.
Yesterday, in a damage control interview with prominent Democratic journalist Andrea Mitchell, Rice admitted her unmasking efforts and said they were routine. Mitchell’s 16-minute interview involved no tough questions. Mitchell asked, “Did you seek to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition?” Rice responded in the Clintonian fashion, “Absolutely not for any political purposes.” A natural follow-up would have been if she requested the unmasking for any other purpose. It didn’t occur to Mitchell. Instead she followed-up with the related question, “Did you leak?” to which Rice responded, somewhat confusingly, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”
Somehow Rice tried to claim later that her initial statement of having no clue about Nunes’ earlier claim was not at odds with her 16-minute answer about her unmasking efforts.
Rice has a reputation for dishonesty, most notably for her claim that a September 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans was a spontaneous result of anger at a video critical of Islam. At the time she said this, the State Department knew well that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.
Rice also falsely claimed that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction,” when critics began raising questions about why President Obama traded high-value Taliban detainees and a ransom for the Army deserter. Bergdahl is expected to face a court-martial in August for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. His desertion was already known at the time Rice made her comments.
2) The Unmasking Was Related To Political Information
When Nunes first alerted the public about his concerns over the unmasking and dissemination, he noted that the information had nothing to do with Russia and had little to no intelligence value. Lake reported that Rice’s multiple unmasking requests were related to reports on Trump transition activities. She is said to have requested the identities of Americans in reports of monitored conversations between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition and in surveilled contact between the Trump team and monitored foreign officials.
“One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration,” according to Lake.
When Rice gave her interview to the friendly journalist Mitchell, she gave a hypothetical example of when it would be appropriate to request an unmasking of a U.S. citizen’s name that was caught up in foreign surveillance. She said that if two foreigners were talking about a terrorist attack to be committed with a U.S. citizen, she would seek out that name. That’s a great hypothetical. And no one is making the claim that Susan Rice sought to unmask a Trump family member or transition member’s name because she believed they were about to set off a bomb. They are making the claim that the information in the reports was politically valuable and related to the Trump transition.
3) Susan Rice Worked In The White House
Rice was known as Obama’s “right-hand woman,” “like a sister,” and was his National Security Advisor throughout his second term.
Weeks ago, diplomat Richard Grennell said that if Rice were involved, that would implicate President Obama:
‘But within that realm there could have easily been a political calculation to listen in, and then to take those transcripts and the summaries of those transcripts, make sure that those in the NSC and the political people – like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice – make sure that they have them so they can leak them to reporters.’
‘I think that it would be easy to figure out if Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes knew about this,’ he added, ‘because if they did, clearly President Obama knew about it.’
Even if Rice wasn’t working with Obama on this effort or informing him of her activities, her role as National Security Advisor means her unmasking request in this instance doesn’t make sense, according to Andrew McCarthy. If the identities of U.S. citizens had intelligence value, it would have been unmasked by agencies that conduct investigations, he wrote:
Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence ‘products’ for the rest of the ‘intelligence community,’ they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under ‘minimization’ standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as ‘obsessive’ in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.
Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.
It is unclear what President Obama knew about Rice’s successful request to unmask information on Trump transition members.
4) This Substantiates Nunes’ Claim
When Nunes told the public that information about the Trump team had been collected, unmasked, and widely disseminated, many media figures questioned the legitimacy of his claim. With the news that no less than Susan Rice requested unmasking of political operatives, it appears that Nunes was onto something.
Also of note, Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member on the committee, had been very upset with Nunes for telling the public and the White House about the reports he’d seen before briefing the committee. However, after Schiff saw the information, he more or less went quiet. He didn’t say the reports were a distraction or unimportant, unlike other Democratic operatives.
5) Civil Liberties Questions Remain
The most frequent defense of the Obama administration’s unmasking efforts is that incidental information collection on U.S. citizens is routine, and that requests to unmask that information about U.S. citizens is also routine. When we learn more about the widespread dissemination of such information, we can anticipate that the media and other Democrats will say that such dissemination is more than routine.
When Nunes revealed the collection, unmasking, and dissemination news, he specifically referenced the incidental information collection on members of Congress during the Iran deal. The U.S. spies on foreign leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors. As a result, the Obama administration picked up information on politically valuable information:
White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ‘a senior U.S. official said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ‘
Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.
In some ways, this “routine” defense of collecting and disseminating information on political adversaries is the most disconcerting. The federal government’s surveillance powers are intense, from metadata collection to surveillance of communications. Such information is easilyweaponizedand exceedingly difficult to oversee for accountability purposes.
As one journalist who used to be worried about such things wrote a few years ago:
Instead, the NSA’s approach of grabbing up every bit of information that it can guarantees that the metadata and sometimes even the content of legislator communications are swept up, and will continue to be available to a secretive class of executive branch employees for years to come. There is obvious potential that this will be exploited with abusive intent–it isn’t like we’ve never had a president try to spy on his political opponents before! But even absent any nefarious motives, incidentally collected data could damage the integrity of our political system.
Members of the media should try to cover, rather than cover up, this aspect of the story. The civil liberties of U.S. citizens are of vital importance and the unmasking of information on them should not be routine, not regular, and not a light matter.
About Susan Rice: The President’s National Security Advisor has authority to request unmasking of American names from intel agencies.
But in this instance, I am stunned by the lack of curiosity most media have shown about the facts and circumstances present here.
This is a good example of media giving soft coverage to President Obama while they’re hard on the GOP in general & Trump in particular.
Bear in mind, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his ‘honorable service’ & claimed he was captured ‘on the battlefield.’
She also said two weeks ago in a TV interview that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.
I would have thought the media would ask tough questions. There is no reason this should be a FOX News and conservative press issue only.
If I were a reporter, I would want to know why Rice sought the unmasking. The FBI is investigating possible Trump collusion, not the WH.
How often did she ask? What reasons did she give? (Each request is tracked and catalogued in writing by the NSA. A procedure exists.)
The info would have been provided ONLY to her as the requester. It is highly classified. Did she share it? With whom? Why?
If she shared it with anyone, why did she do so? What did they do with it? Did they give it to the media or tell media about it?
One of the reasons we live in a polarized era is because too many reporters look the other way at issues like this. Bias is real.
It’s not too late. The press knows how to dig and get answers. I hope they do so.
It’s not just Rice. She wasn’t the only person to request the unmasking of Trump officials regarding politically sensitive operations, and she wasn’t the person who requested that Flynn’s name be unmasked, meaning she requested at least one other Trump associate’s unmasking. We still don’t know who committed the crime of leaking Flynn’s name to the Washington Post. It’s time to start working on covering this story, rather than running interference for anonymous sources.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
+++
Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caughtup in surveillance.
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.
“What I know is this … If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.
“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.
When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.
This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”
Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.
Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”
As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s [sic] later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.
Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”
Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.
Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based senior correspondent.
+++
SOURCES: SUSAN RICE BEHIND UNMASKING OF TRUMP OFFICIALS
White House counsel reportedly ID’d former national security adviser
WASHINGTON – Multiple reports indicate former National Security Adviser Susan Rice was the Obama administration official who requested the unmasking of incoming Trump administration officials.
Mike Cernovich broke the story in an article in Medium on Sunday that said, “The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests.”
Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of U.S. citizens whose communications were monitored during foreign surveillance.
According to Fox News, the unmasked names of people associated with Donald Trump were sent widely to top officials in the Obama administration.
That is a potential felony.
The unmasked names were reportedly sent to every member of the National Security Council, former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan and some officials at the Defense Department.
The NSA is required to remove the names of Americans incidentally collected during foreign surveillance before sharing intelligence with other agencies unless there is an issue of national security, but Rice reportedly requested the unmasking of the identities of Trump associates.
Sources said …….
+++
BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama National Security Advisor SUSAN RICE Behind Unmasking Of Trump Transition Team
In a massive scoop, on Monday morning Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Barack Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process. Normally, raw intelligence masks the identity of American citizens caught up in legal surveillance of other targets.
Here’s Lake:
In February [National Security Council senior director for intelligence] Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations – primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.
Rice denied that she knew anything about members of the Trump transition caught up in incidental intelligence gathering last month. As Lake also points out, the revelation that Rice requested the documents would explain House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’ trip to the White House two weeks ago – he needed to go there to view Rice’s missives. It would also explain why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the most ardent Trump critic on wiretapping and leaks, suddenly went silent over the weekend after seeing documents the White House presented to him.
This is indeed a huge story for the Trump White House. It doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Trump’s accusations that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration – there is still zero evidence to support that claim. But it demonstrates that the Trump team was not only targeted by members of the Obama intelligence community for unmasking and likely leaking, but that such unmasking went to the very top of the Obama administration.
Call it the tale of two National Security Advisers, Michael Flynn and Susan Rice. As much as Flynn has taken fire as being an architect of unspecified “collusion” with the Russians, Susan Rice has been like the iceberg that sank the Titanic — barely visible above water but dangerous enough to threaten the Trump administration’s ship of state.
As reported by Circa News, Rice, while serving as Obama’s National Security Adviser, requested the unmasking of the names of Team Trump officials mentioned in the so-called “incidental” surveillance of the Trump transition team:
Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.
Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.
The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials.
Ordinarily, such references to Americans would be redacted or minimized by the NSA before being shared with outside intelligence sources, but in these cases names were sometimes unmasked at the request of Rice or the intelligence reports were specific enough that the American’s identity was easily ascertained, the sources said.
Well, isn’t that special? While Trump’s pick for this sensitive post was under scrutiny, Obama’s adviser was doing opposition research which involved data mining classified intelligence reports. Rice requested the unmasking of names, something only three people,according to Circa, were authorized to do:
Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
If Susan Rice had worked for Richard Nixon, she could have been one of his Watergate “plumbers”, perhaps retiring as plumber emeritus. We are all familiar with Susan Rice’s tour of the Sunday talk shows after the Benghazi terrorist attack. That was no accident, but a calculated part of the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign to protect President Obama’s reelection chances and …
+++
‘Absolutely false’: Top Obama adviser denies she ‘unmasked’ Trump associates for political purposes
Bloomberg and Fox on Monday reported that Rice had tried to unmask, or learn the identities of, officials on Trump’s transition team whose conversations with foreign agents — or conversations those agents were having about the transition officials — were incidentally collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations. The Daily Caller then reported that Rice had created a “spreadsheet” with the names she had unmasked.
“The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false. [Yeah right, & she never lied about Benghazi either]
“I was the National Security Adviser. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. That’s …
+++
Rand Paul calls for Susan Rice to testify on unmasking Trump officials
GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he believes former National Security Advisor Susan Rice should testify before Congress on her request to unmask the names of Trump transition officials collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations.
Paul argued the situation should not be downplayed, saying reforms need to be made to prevent individuals from being blackmailed on personal aspects of their lives through unmasking. He noted there was nothing stopping the former administration from looking through Trump officials and national security advisors’ conversations during the transition window.
“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it, but I don’t think should just discount how big a deal it is that Susan Rice was looking at these,” he told reporters Monday. “And she needs to be asked, ‘Did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama? I think she should testify under oath on this.”
Paul said he has long thought there are too many people with the ability to unmask individuals.
“The law says you can’t reverse target people, but how would you know that once you get inside the brain and the people that are unmasking people,” Paul continued. “So, what if I decided to unmask and I’m there and I only unmask the conversations of my Democrat opponents — shouldn’t there be more restrictions for unmasking people in the political process?”
BloombergView’s Eli Lake reports that White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.” Not this time. It was Suzie, kids.
I CAN’T SAY I’M REALLY SURPRISED CONSIDERING THIS IS THE SAME LYING FRAUD WHO GOT HER JOB AS NSA ADVISER AS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM OBAMA/CLINTON FOR BEING THE FRONT-PERSON IN THE BENGHAZI VIDEO LYING SCHEME.
And she did this all on her own, huh? Do you believe that?
Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.
“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.
“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”
Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election. More
Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.
In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.”
…
+++
No Proof of Trump-Russia Collusion but Lots of Evidence of Obama Spying
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ripped the national media to shreds while condemning the Obama era White House for wrongfully spying on American citizens for political purposes.
Carlson argued that while media continues to focus in on some phantom collusion between President Trump and the Russian government, something for which they have NO PROOF, they are actively ignoring the real scandal unfolding before their eyes. Susan Rice, one of President Obama’s closest advisors, has been caught wrongfully unmasking members of the Trump campaign and transition teams for what seem to be nakedly political purposes. How do we know she did it for political purposes? Many of the reports now being produced show that the data that Rice was collecting had nothing to do with Russia or other national security issues, meaning that she unmasked the names of members of the Trump team without cause.
This fact is what Carlson finds most disturbing because it means that civil libertarians were right all along – there really is NOTHING we can do to stop the government from spying on us.
Carlson then transitioned into a conversation with former Obama advisor David Tafuri, a conversation that grew quite heated when Tafuri argued that the Russia story was the real issue here. Carlson pressed, as he has done time and again with liberals and journalists, for Tafuri to present ANY EVIDENCE that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, for that matter, for Tafuri to present any evidence that Russia had any impact on the recent election. Of course, Tafuri could provide none, nor has any liberal politician or liberal member of the media been able to show a tangible connection between Russia and recent events.
WASHINGTON – Is it a real story, or is it fake news?
That’s the raging debate about the exploding scandal over Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of incoming Trump administration officials when she served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser.
Despite some likening the White House use of classified leaks for political purposes to a scandal bigger than Watergate, media outlets Tuesday were shooting down – or flat-out ignoring – the blockbuster report that verified the Obama administration surveilled the Trump team.
…
+++
Susan Rice Responds To Trump Unmasking Allegations: “I Leaked Nothing To Nobody”
If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.
[Several MSNBC Tweets of Mitchell/Rice interview]
We doubt that anyone’s opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that, in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his “honorable service” and claimed he was captured “on the battlefield”, and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.
Unfortunately, Mitchell’s list of questions did not go so far as to ask about her false claim in the PBS interview, in which she said “I know nothing about unmasking Trump officials.”
It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been “refreshed” about her role in the unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.
On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday. “Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on …
Americans that have not been brainwashed by eight years of the Obama Administration in collusion with the Leftist MSM, should not be surprised at the Dems and media excoriating President Trump’s protection of American from Islamic terrorism.
Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center (More specifics on the SPLC from theSocial Contract Press) were fairly successful in purging Law Enforcement of knowledgeable Counter Terrorism experts. Then proceeded to label Conservative organizations, Traditional Values Christian organizations and Counterjihad organizations as bigoted, hate-inspiring, and Islamophobic American right wing terrorists.
Check this out:
Unreal… Obama’s DHS Continues to Target Conservatives & Liberty Lovers As Terrorists (Video)
It’s an Obama bizarro world…
The Obama administration holds peace talks with Taliban killers but treats patriotic Americans as terrorists.
Go figure.
The Department of Homeland Security is continuing to target patriotic Americans and conservatives who “believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack” as terrorists. They even have this listed in their latest report.
This is unbelievable.
[Not part of Gateway Pundit article but important] Posted by usACTIONnews
Published on Jul 9, 2012
“Groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.” describes potential terrorists? WTH? DHS is using left wing hate groups and even Islamic groups with ties to terrorism as consultants to determine who are threats.
From a Jan, 2011 article “How Dept. of Homeland Security identifies ‘right wing extremists’:
The radical leftist group Southern Poverty Law Center has partnered with the Department of Homeland Security in a ‘Working Group’ called Countering violent Extremism to paint conservatives as hate groups and extremists.
…
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese says it is “despicable” for the Southern Poverty Law Center to classify the Family Research Council and a dozen other top conservative organizations as “hate groups” similar to the Ku Klux Klan.
The SPLC has a history of targeting conservatives and conservative groups as racist, homophobic, or extremist if they disagree with the radical left positions of the SPLC on any number of issues. An article at Discover the Networks.org says “What makes the Southern Poverty Law Center particularly odious is its habit of taking legitimate conservatives and jumbling them with genuine hate groups (the Klan, Aryan Nation, skinheads, etc.), to make it appear that there’s a logical relationship between say opposing affirmative action and lynching, or demands for an end to government services for illegal aliens and attacks on dark-skinned immigrants. The late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called this “the broad-brush smear.””
…..
The SPLC has joined the Department of Homeland Security in a ‘Working Group’ called Countering violent Extremism. John Cohen, President and CEO of SPLC is listed as a member and Laurie Wood, Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is listed as an ‘expert in subject matter’. The members of the group also include three from Muslim organizations but we don’t see any conservatives. (see the list at the end of the report)
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which has been determined by the courts to be a terrorist support group proudly points out on their Facebook page that its Michigan members ‘participated a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group meeting with law enforcement officials and community advocates in Dearborn, Mich.'[ibid].
So we have the Southern Poverty Law Center, also known as The Church of Morris Dees, which calls groups and individuals like the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, the Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) ‘right wing extremists’ and the Council on American-Islamic Relations which the FBI has proven to be linked to a terrorist organization teaming up with the US Department of Homeland Security to determine what groups in America should be categorized as ‘extremist’ and potentially violent.
Now you can see why the DHS came out with its Rightwing Extremism report in April of 2009 that warned of potential violence by people against illegal immigration and gun control, and returning military veterans. Now that’s change.
If you want to see the idiotic SPLC list of legitimate Counterjihadists labelled as dangerous right wing hatemongers, you can go to this one of many titles (this one 10/25/16): “A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists”.
Here is an excerpt pointing to the Obama purge of anything Islamic from training manuals and official reports:
…
In another example of the administration’s ability to make key words disappear, a 2013 Judicial Watch report revealed that the FBI scrubbed its law enforcement training material of any language that might be deemed “offensive” to Muslims. Per those guidelines, hundreds of references to “Muslim,” “Islam” or “jihad” were removed from the 2004 9/11 commission report.
The witnesses provided more evidence to corroborate these findings. Mr. Philip Haney, a retired Customs and Border Protection Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, revealed that the CIA has scrubbed more than 800 law enforcement records that were almost all connected to the Muslim brotherhood.
The first “great purge,” he said, was in 2009. Yet, in 2012 they didn’t just modify the records, they eliminated them out of the system, which, he noted, bypasses security protocol in Homeland Security. … READ ENTIRETY (Cruz Hearing Exposes the Obama Admin’s History of Purging References to Islamic Terror; By Cortney O’Brien; Townhall; 6/29/16 9:15 AM)
So, why the heck am I rehashing Obama’s treacherous history after a majority of States elected Trump over Crooked Hillary? BECAUSE America’s Left is doing everything from lying, Fake News, civil disturbances, and questionable legal procedures to prevent President Trump from following through on his campaign promises.
I was alerted by email via Counterjihadist writer Paul Sutliff, that the Donald is going undo Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda which focused on White Supremacists. Please recall from above, that the Obama Administration lumped Conservatives, Christian Values and Counterjihadists with right wing extremists.
The new agenda focus will be Islamic terrorism. Paul Sutliff’s email alerts the reader he has been writing about the CVE agenda for some time:
SO imagine my excitement with that news! All I can say now is thank you Mr. President. You have earned my prayers and respect.
Get informed on Obama’s CVE in Paul’s articles linked above. For your convenience, I am cross posting the Tepes-Sutliff interview from The Rebel linked above.
This is the second part of the interview with Paul Sutliff. Paul explains the US Government’s use of the office of Countering Violent Extremism to assist the Muslim Brotherhood, and of all things, fund mosques.
Among the litany of Obama administration disasters, the rapid collapse of his “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) agenda is among the most consequential.
But groups in line to receive federal CVE grants announced just days before the end of the Obama era are now whining as the Trump administration seeks to put an end to the CVE scam.
Driven directly from the White House, the Obama administration’s CVE agenda was a replacement following a purge of counter-terrorism training across the federal government during 2011-2012 in response to a targeted series of reports by far-Left bloggers and reporters claiming widespread bias and “Islamophobia.”
Many of those claims were later debunked, but with the damage done the administration’s purge pressed ahead as it implemented CVE at the demand of Islamic groups, some of whom were directly involved in the formation of the administration’s CVE policies.
But as it became apparent that terror recruitment was escalating rapidly at nearly the same time that CVE was being imposed on agencies and departments across the board, the inability of CVE to actually countering any “extremists” was exposed. The same Islamic groups that urged the imposition of CVE then turned against the efforts when they realized that CVE was still primarily directed at the growing threat of Islamic recruitment, and not towards stigmatizing the administration’s perceived domestic political enemies.
By January 2015, Politico was already declaring that CVE was a complete flop:
Obama’s plan to combat radicalism is a flop critics say.
politico.com
The CVE pilot programs in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Boston were already so unsuccessful that the media had to announce they were off to a “slow start” a year ago:
The failures of the program were so pronounced that NPR conceded the point, claiming that even if the CVE programs were not effective they still somehow helped the communities.
As I noted in an assessment of Obama’s CVE policies here at PJ Media last year, and in a separate monograph, measuring Obama’s policies by his own stated White House goals, the CVE program was proven to be a complete failure in the very three areas it was intended to support: community engagement, training, and counter-propaganda.
It’s no surprise then that one of the first moves by the Trump administration will be to shut down the failed CVE program, as reported by Reuters:
That decision in turn set off a wave of complaints by groups that were hoping to receive federal CVE grants that were rushed out by the Obama administration in its last few days in office:
One of the first groups that took to the media was the Twin Cities-based Ka Joog (which in Somali means “stay away”). Ka Joog had already been one of the groups to receive $300,000 in federal money and another $250,000 appropriated by the state of Minnesota, and was in line to receive another $500,000 federal grant from Homeland Security.
Ka Joog has been one of the premier programs that CVE defenders have pointed to in calling for additional funding for the CVE program.
And yet in one of the group’s most visible failures, the nephew of the organization’s executive director was recruited by the Islamic State and eventually tried and convicted in federal court.
Another Twin Cities groups, Heartland Democracy, was scheduled to receive $165,000.
That group had been among the first to participate in a pet “deradicalization” project by the chief federal judge in Minnesota who tried many of the Islamic State recruiting cases.
But court documents exposed that Heartland Democracy had no experience in “jihadi rehab,” and its curriculum was described as “more high school civics course than religious deprogramming.”
The Daily Beast reported on the regimen established for their first “deradicalization” client:
He and a Somali-American mentor began to work through an extensive reading list, which included Richard Wright’s Native Son, a novel about growing up poor and black in the 1930s, and an article by Native American author Sherman Alexie about how poetry freed him from the “reservation” of his mind.
McKinley would not say how often Yusuf met his mentor.
“We met with him regularly, I don’t know the number of times a week,” she said. When pressed on whether they met weekly, biweekly, or at a different pace, McKinley would not clarify. “We met with him regularly.”
Court documents also reference Yusuf meeting with religious leaders, but McKinley wasn’t sure about that.
“I don’t know if he’s met with any religious leaders,” she said in response to a question about meeting with imams. “I mean, he’s an adult, he can get any visitor he wants.”
That first client was sent back to jail after a search of his room at a halfway house found a box cutter.
The Obama administration’s CVE programs have a lengthy history of failure:
As I reported here at PJ Media just a few days ago, an Associated Press investigation into the Pentagon’s $500 million WebOps program to counter Islamic State propaganda found widespread incompetence and corruption. According to whistleblowers, civilian Arabic specialists with no understanding of Islam tried to defeat complex religious justifications for terrorism, resulting in the program becoming a laughingstock in jihadist circles.
In December 2014, the New York Times reported that the then-head of Special Operations Command, Major Gen. Michael Nagata, convened a series of conference calls with outside experts attempting to understand why the message of the Islamic State had grown so dangerous. But after the Obama administration’s counter-terror training purge, Gen. Nagata was forced to admit that “we do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it….We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”
In September 2011, Obama signed an executive order creating the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC).One of their early failures was a graphic video produced called “Welcome to ISIS Land,” targeting would-be Islamic State recruits. The center’s director was quickly replaced. Then a Twitter campaign, “Think Again Turn Away,” was largely panned by terror experts who claimed the effort was largely ineffective and was actually legitimizing the terrorist narrative. A panel of outside experts convened by the State Department agreed, finding that the CSCC was so counterproductive to its mission that they questioned whether the U.S. government should be involved in counter-propaganda at all. The center was promptly closed.
One of the first CVE guidelines produced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2011 was to instruct federal agencies to avoid using “trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim Reformers,'” and yet documents uncovered regarding meetings with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano show the agency soliciting advice from known extremist groups and controversial Islamic leaders. Some of these extremist leaders even held official positions advising DHS. Last June, when the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee released its recommendations urging $100 million in new CVE funding, it urged banning the use of “jihad” or “sharia” in training — two very common terms used by terrorist recruiters. One of the subcommittee members, a Syrian immigrant, had previously said that the 9/11 terror attacks had “changed the world for good.” And in December, DHS teamed up with the State Department to bring in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that the Justice Department had argued in federal court had supported terrorism, to teach a CVE course for French officials. Even though the State Department programs have been universally panned, it was reported last August that they had tripled the budget.
In implementing the Obama administration’s CVE agenda, the FBI had conducted a wide-scale purge of its terrorism training curriculum at the request of Islamic groups claiming it was biased. In a move questioned by members of Congress, the FBI classified the identities of the outside experts brought in to censor the material. A subsequent review of the censored terror-training material discovered suspect and inconsistent standards in purging the curriculum. More recently, a FBI website and video game (“Don’t Be a Puppet”) intended to target youth vulnerable to terrorist recruitment was launched, and then suspended after just a day in response to complaints of Islamic groups, terror experts, and even teachers unions that the effort was biased, ineffective, and encouraged students to inform on each other. Some of the criticism came from the FBI’s own Muslim outreach partners that were brought in to advise the bureau on its CVE policies.
So it’s no great mystery why the incoming Trump administration began discussions about scaling back and ending Obama’s CVE program.
Others contend that the CVE grants were political payoffs to groups to enlist their aid in scuttling counter-terror programs and to silence any possible criticism of the Obama national security and foreign policy agenda.
The chairman of one group that was scheduled to receive a $400,000 CVE grant, Life After Hate, has publicly launched attacks on the incoming Trump administration and even called for the violent removal of President Trump one day after his inauguration.
Meanwhile in Minneapolis, as Ka Joog declines the $500,000 in announced DHS CVE grants the group has quickly transitioned from attempting to deradicalizing area Somali youth to publicly declaring that President Trump is engaged in “an official war against Islam” — parroting a standard terrorist narrative.
But as mentioned previously, the nephew of the executive director who had participated in Ka Joog programs was still recruited to join the Islamic State.
In another instance, an Islamic State recruit from Alexandria, Virginia, later captured by Kurdish troops and currently facing federal charges, lived less than 50 yards from one of the Obama administration’s top go-to CVE experts.
If these so-called CVE “experts” can’t prevent their closest relatives or neighbors from joining terrorist groups, why should the Trump administration continue to entrust them with our national security?
Despite all the media hand-wringing, it seems that questioning the effectiveness of Obama’s CVE program is entirely in order given its constant track record of failure.
Yet in light of the current media climate, the new administration should expect that it will come under fire for whatever they eventually replace the failed CVE agenda with. And the Islamic State and other terrorist groups continue to recruit and encourage supporters to conduct attacks inside the homeland.
Ending the CVE scam would be a good first step in reversing the corrosive policies established by the Obama administration that have hampered and sometimes punished our law enforcement and national security professionals for doing their job.
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
