Political Islam Explained by Bill Warner (part 2 of 2), Rubin Reports via YouTube, June 6, 2016
Archive for June 10, 2016
Political Islam Explained by Bill Warner (part 2 of 2)
June 10, 2016US issues terror warning for month-long Ramadan
June 10, 2016US issues terror warning for month-long Ramadan
ByPamela Geller on June 10, 2016
Source: US issues terror warning for month-long Ramadan | Pamela Geller

But Obama says it has nothing to do with Islam.
But the media says it has nothing to do with Islam.
But academia says it has nothing to do with Islam.
But cultural elites say it has nothing to do with Islam.
It’s islamofauxbia – rational opposition to jihad – that’s the problem.
SMH
“US issues Ramadan warning for month of terror attacks ahead of start of Euro 2016,” By Tom Batchelor, June 10, 2016:
THE US State Department has issued a fresh warning against Islamist martyrs who plan to wage a month-long jihad to coincide with Ramadan, as the Euro 2016 football championship kicks off in France.ISIS has threatened a wave of lone-wolf attacks during the Muslim holy month and US security officials fear a strike could target football fans over the coming four weeks.
A report from the Overseas Security Advisory Council warned that “martyrdom during the month may hold a special allure to some”.
“The terrorism risk at the moment is generally high,” it added.
The terror alert came after an audio message from ISIS spokesperson Abu Mohammad al-Adnani called on the group’s fighters to “get prepared, be ready…to make it a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers… especially for the fighters and supporters of the caliphate in Europe and America”.
The audio clip continued: “The tiniest action you do in the heart of their land is dearer to us than the biggest action by us.
“There are no innocents in the heart of the lands of the Crusaders.”
Ramadan began on June 6 and will run until July 5.
The month-long celebration coincides with the French football tournament which starts today and ends on July 10.
France has been on high alert for a terror plot during championships, with a senior security official admitting he was “worried” about sleeper cells already based in Europe.
GETTY
France has been on high alert for a terror plot during championships
REUTERS
England play Russia on Saturday 11 June
GETTY
Police officers look on as England fans shout and chant outside a bar
The unnamed counter-terrorism officer said the French security services had done “as much as possible” ahead of Friday’s opening match in Paris.
But he also acknowledged that Europe’s “borders cannot be controlled” and warned of terror cells in Germany “who have stayed quiet and waited”.
Yes, they can but the EU won’t.
Separately this week, Ukraine’s security services arrested a French national reported to be planning 15 separate attacks in France on the eve and during the football tournament.
Political Islam Explained by Bill Warner (part 1 of 2)
June 10, 2016Washington Post: Muslims Killing Jews Not Like the Holocaust, Syrian Refugees Like the Holocaust
June 10, 2016
When Muslims kill Jews as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing while cursing them as “apes and pigs”, it’s not like the Holocaust. But when Syrian Muslims, at least 13% of whom support ISIS, want to invade America… it’s exactly like the Holocaust.
That’s the shameless abuse of history perpetrated by Ishaan Tharoor at the Washington Post who helped popularize that disgusting, “Muslim Migrants = Holocaust Survivors” meme. As documented by James Kirchick. (There are numerous problems with Kirchick’s piece, but the points he makes about Tharoor are quite valid.)
Ishaan Tharoor, a writer for the Post’s WorldViews blog, concluded, “Today’s three-year-old Syrian orphan, it seems, is 1939’s German Jewish child.” (In September, Tharoor had made the same point about European reactions to the crisis, in a post entitled, “Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930’s anti-Semitism.”…
Tharoor’s sympathetic appropriation of the Jewish refugee experience to shame those who question Western governmental capacity to absorb millions of Syrians is ironic given the sedulous efforts he has made in lecturing others—mainly Jews and Israelis—who dare mention the history of Jewish suffering as a means of contextualizing its present-day manifestations. A survey of his work shows that Tharoor uses Holocaust allegories when they’re suitable to his political goals and dismisses them as cheap propaganda whenever they’re employed to make points with which he doesn’t agree…
Muslims are the new Jews has become an Islamic form of political replacement theology. So when Muslims kill Jews, it’s nothing like the Holocaust. Just ask Tharoor.
Last year, when two Palestinians armed with meat cleavers hacked five Jews to death in West Jerusalem, Tharoor took to his keypad to scold Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for stating that the murders were the result of a “blood libel” against Jews. Such language was “explosive,” Tharoor claimed, while neglecting to describe, never mind attach adjectives to, the hair-raising anti-Semitic incitement emitted on a daily basis from official organs of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas….
In a May post titled “7 things that are not like the Holocaust,” … Tharoor listed “The actions of Islamists” as being “not like the Holocaust.”
“As leader of a state that emerged directly after the horrors of the Holocaust, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel he has a particular moral right to invoke the evils of the Nazis when inveighing against his present-day enemies,” Tharoor inveighed. “But that doesn’t mean he’s right in making the parallel. Netanyahu raises the specter of Nazism frequently in speeches criticizing Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, the terrorist Islamic State, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, a geopolitical foe.”
As a purely analytical exercise, a cursory sampling of these entities’ anti-Semitic greatest hits—ranging from a “covenant” that calls for the murder of “warmongering Jews” to the actual bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina that killed 85 innocents—merits at least passing contrast to the ideology of Nazism, certainly as much as the dilemma of Syrian refugees.
But the universalization of the Holocaust has meant its appropriation to serve any random cause of the left while at the same time being routinely used against Israel. Thus it’s not fair to compare Muslims killing Jews to Nazis, but it is fair to compare Jews fighting back against Muslim terrorists to Nazis.
And when Muslims collaborated with Nazis to kill Jews… they also weren’t like the Nazis.
He downplayed the Mufti’s fanatical Jew-hatred by enveloping it within a broader narrative of legitimate anti-colonial struggle. “In hindsight, World War II lends itself to a simple, stark binary as a conflict between genocidal fascists and their opponents. But for myriad communities that experienced the invasions of the Germans and Japanese, the war offered something else—the prospect of liberation from other occupying empires.”
To summarize, Muslims can never be like the Nazis. But they can always be considered victims of the Holocaust… even if they’re trying to kill Jews.
Exclusive — Donald Trump Plans To Continue GOP Legacy Of Leading On Women’s, Civil Rights Against Racist, Sexist Democrats
June 10, 2016Exclusive — Donald Trump Plans To Continue GOP Legacy Of Leading On Women’s, Civil Rights Against Racist, Sexist Democrats, Breitbart, Matthew Boyle, June 10, 2016
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States, tells Breitbart News he plans to continue the rich GOP tradition of standing up for women’s and civil rights in the face of opposition from Democrats.
He also says he plans to help the Republican Party, which led the way on ending slavery, the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage and women’s rights—among other big picture moral leadership causes in American history—take more credit for its victories for women’s and civil rights while fighting Democrats who opposed those measures.
“You’re right—100 percent,” Trump told Breitbart News when asked about how the Republican Party led the way on ending slavery, the Civil Rights movement and women’s suffrage.
On Tuesday night, when now presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton assumed the leadership of that party, she whitewashed the Democratic Party’s history of racism, sexism, support for slavery and long history of standing against civil rights for all in America. In fact, as the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major political party in America, Clinton attempted to align herself with the Seneca Falls convention of 1848, the first ever women’s rights convention organized in large part by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
“Tonight’s victory is not about one person,” Clinton said in her speech accepting her role as the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.
It belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible. In our country, it started right here in New York, a place called Seneca Falls, in 1848. When a small but determined group of women, and men, came together with the idea that women deserved equal rights, and they set it forth in something called the Declaration of Sentiments, and it was the first time in human history that that kind of declaration occurred.
Clinton did not mention Cady Stanton, or the fact that the women’s rights leader went on to become one of the nation’s first Republicans. In fact, Stanton’s husband Henry Brewster Stanton—a journalist and a New York State senator—was one of the nation’s leading voices for the abolition of slavery and helped found the Republican Party in New York back in 1856.
Later in the speech, Clinton took a shot at Trump, arguing that he wanted to send America backward—that his trademark campaign phrase “Make America Great Again” was code for taking the country back before all people had civil rights.
“Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit to be president and commander-in-chief,” Clinton said. “And he’s not just trying to build a wall between America and Mexico – he’s trying to wall off Americans from each other. When he says, ‘Let’s make America great again,’ that is code for, ‘Let’s take America backwards.’ Back to a time when opportunity and dignity were reserved for some, not all, promising his supporters an economy he cannot recreate.”
Never mind the fact that her own husband, former President Bill Clinton, used the phrase“Make America Great Again” multiple times back in the 1990s—a phrase first popularized by former President Ronald Reagan, who used the campaign slogan in his own successful 1980 White House bid—but Clinton is forgetting the history of her own political party. Clinton’s success is built out of a Democratic Party that rose to and clutched onto power by actively suppressing equal rights of not just women, but minorities as well.
Abraham Lincoln, the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery then led the country through the Civil War preserving the Union until his assassination, was a Republican. The general public often forgets how influential the Republican Party was in ending slavery—Democrats wanted to continue slavery, while Lincoln’s Republicans wanted to end it—and if it weren’t for the GOP, slavery would not have ended and the Union itself may have fallen apart.
“Some may not realize that the modern Republican Party owes its origin to the fight over slavery nearly two centuries ago,” CNN’s Tom Foreman wrote back in 2012.
In the tumultuous mid-1800s, right before the Civil War, some political activists were concerned about keeping slavery from spreading into new western territories, and they saw no way to stop it through existing political powers: the Democrats and the Whigs (the pro-Congress party of the mid 1800s that largely destroyed itself in the 1852 elections in a battle over slavery). So they formed a new party, taking the name ‘Republicans’ in a salute to earlier American politicians.
As Republicans led the battle against slavery, in 1861 the party’s first U.S. president—Abraham Lincoln—was elected.
“Soon after, slavery fell,” Foreman wrote.
The Whig party disappeared. And the Republicans began a long steady rise in power. Even back then, the party liked to talk about fiscal responsibility — immigration, religion — and the need for a strong business climate. All of this spurred a sympathetic Chicago newspaper to call the Republicans the Grand Old Party, or the GOP.
Republicans have led the way on every major civil rights movement in American history—ending slavery was hardly the only one. What is now the Party of Trump also led the way in granting women the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a leader in the women’s rights movement in the 19th Century, was a Republican, as was Susan B. Anthony. So were many of the others involved in the effort. In fact, it was Republicans who led the effort for decades that eventually saw passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—which granted women the right vote.
“Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920,” the American Spectator’s David Catron wrote back in 2012.
But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a California Republican named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress. It finally ended four decades later, when the Republicans won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats — including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as “Kaiser Wilson.”
Catron continued by noting that Republicans in Utah—Mormons—granted women the right to vote back in 1870. Then, for years afterwards, Republicans—facing objections from Democrats—over and over again introduced the 19th Amendment for ratification in Congress. Meanwhile, Republican states granted women the right to vote in many other places.
“Meanwhile, the Republicans continued to introduce the 19th Amendment in Congress every year, but the Democrats were able to keep it bottled up in various committees for another decade before allowing either chamber to vote on it,” Catron wrote.
In 1887 it finally reached the floor of the Senate. Once again, however, it was defeated by a vote of 34 to 16. After this setback, advocates of women’s suffrage opted to put pressure on Congress by convincing various state legislatures to pass bills giving women the vote. This met with some success. By the turn of the century a variety of Republican-controlled states, including Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho, had granted women suffrage. During the first ten years of the new century, several other states gave women the vote, including Washington and California.
Eventually, Democrats relented and Republicans succeeded in granting women’s suffrage nationally.
“Congress, however, didn’t deign to vote on the issue again until 1914, when it was once again defeated by Senate Democrats,” Catron added.
It was subsequently brought up for a vote in January of 1915 in the House, where it went down by a vote of 204 to 174. Nonetheless, the Republicans continued to push even after it was defeated yet again in early 1918. The big break for 19th Amendment came when President Wilson, a true Democrat, violated his most solemn campaign promise. Having pledged to keep the United States out of the European conflict that had been raging since 1914, he decided to enter the war anyway. This set the stage for the 1918 midterm elections in which voter outrage swept the Republicans into power in both the House and the Senate. This finally placed the GOP in a position to pass the amendment despite Democrat opposition.
Later in the 20th Century of course, during the Civil Rights Movement, Democrats again stood against equal rights for all Americans regardless of race or gender. Writing in the Guardian of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act back in 2013, Harry Enten detailed how the Democratic Party opposed civil rights efforts while Republicans backed them.
“80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did,” Enten wrote. “Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”
In fact, a PBS special on “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow” detailed how systemic racism was embedded into the very fabric of what has now become Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party.
“The Democratic Party identified itself as the ‘white man’s party’ and demonized the Republican Party as being ‘Negro dominated,’ even though whites were in control,” the PBS special writes on its website of the post-Civil War Democrats. “Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats ‘redeemed’ state after state — sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.”
The PBS special goes on even further to detail how even Northern Democrats tolerated the overt discrimination and racism from their Southern brethren so as to keep their coalition of power together. “The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats,” PBS writes.
A deeper more than 30-page report from the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU)—called “The Truth About Jim Crow”—details how the Democratic Party was integral to the development of such laws.
“Jim Crow’s political purpose was to keep the white population in power, and the Democratic Party thought of itself as the white man’s party,” one part of the more than 10-page-long section on how the Democratic Party pushed Jim Crow laws reads. “A chronological look at the Jim Crow era will illustrate how Democrats created and exploited Jim Crow.”
The report goes on to detail how it was Republicans who ended Jim Crow laws.
Trump, in his latest exclusive interview with Breitbart News, said that Clinton’s rewriting of her Democratic Party’s sordid history on these important narratives is more proof that she is just playing the woman card and the race card for pure political gain—and in opposition of the facts. He also believes that Republicans need to do more to take credit for the party’s leading role in the women’s rights, Civil Rights and slavery abolition movements—all movements the Democrats, the party of Clinton, originally fought against intensely.
“The Democrats have always played that card,” Trump said. “The Republicans have not taken enough credit for what’s taken place. They’ve never taken enough credit for what’s taken place.”
Trump told Breitbart News that he plans to win support across the country despite anyone’s particular race, and aims to seek support from Hispanics and African Americans and white voters alike—and men and women—using the same message delivered to each of them the same way, equally: Jobs and economic opportunity for all. Meanwhile, Clinton, of course, is going to use these race and gender issues to divide Americans into separate classes based on gender and skin color.
“I plan to help Hispanics and African Americans because I’m going to bring jobs back to the country,” Trump said.
She doesn’t know how. I’m going to rebuild the infrastructure of the country, she wouldn’t know where to start. That’s why a lot of the unions, the head people, they routinely endorse the Democrats. Routinely. And they’re having a hard time. Because while they’re dying to endorse the Democrats because that’s where their head people have their lunch and dinner, their membership wants to endorse Trump. Look at the Teamsters. The people within the Teamsters want Trump. They haven’t endorsed yet, and the reason they haven’t endorsed yet is because everybody in the Teamsters wants Trump. The reason they want Trump is because I’m going to rebuild the infrastructure of the country and that’s good for them. It appeals across the lines to people that have small businesses and contracting companies that are not unionized.
When asked about how—when those self-appointed leaders in the African American and Hispanic communities will certainly further the Democratic Party’s agenda and undermine the GOP’s efforts, facts be damned—he plans to get his message out to the actual voters, Trump said it is simple.
“I think that’s been my whole message up to this point,” Trump said. “I’m going to continue to hit it very hard. But I think it’s been very much my own message up to this point, jobs, good trade deals. Last night I talked about it. Great trade deals.”
There are some early signs that Trump—using his unique style of mixing interesting campaigning with his celebrity appeal—might be able to cut through the clutter and reach voters in African American and Hispanic communities that have for years now been outside the GOP’s grasp, despite the Democratic Party’s dark history on civil and women’s rights matters.
As noted by Fox News Latino, Trump’s support among Hispanics is spiking fast according to new data from analytics firm CulturIntel. In fact, he is almost equal with Clinton.
“Based on big data analysis over the last 30 days as of June 1st, Trump reports 37 percent of Hispanic positive sentiment versus 41 percent for Clinton,” CulturIntel writes in the report. “Surprisingly, the candidates tie in negative sentiment across Hispanics at 38 percent; discounting the fact that Latinos default as Democrats or are completely turned off by Trump’s off-color comments. After all, over 50 percent of Latinos identify as political independents.”
Meanwhile, as Gateway Pundit notes in a new report as well based off this and other data, Trump could be on par to win 25 percent of the black vote. It would, the report detailed, lead to a landslide victory for Trump in November. It would also be the first time since 1960, when Richard Nixon failed to beat John F. Kennedy for the presidency before coming back eight years later to win in 1968, that a Republican won such a big percentage of the non-white vote. With black unemployment rates double what they are for whites, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, if Trump hammers his jobs message—and corrects the record on Democrats versus Republicans when it comes to civil rights—maybe he could cut into a significant portion of the black electorate.
On top of all of this, as Breitbart News previously reported in an earlier part of this interview, Trump is also zoning in one place where failed 2012 GOP presidential former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not succeed: proving to voters he cares about them.
He said in this interview that he believes that to run the country, a president must “manage with heart”—a sign that he is appealing to the significant portion of the electorate that looks for a president who cares about people like them, qualifications be damned.
While Trump paints Clinton as “Heartless Hillary,” his second nickname for who he also calls “Crooked Hillary,” he could be growing the GOP tent and expanding the electorate based off key analytics that establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., hellbent on amnesty for illegal aliens and jailbreak style “criminal justice reform” crime bills have completely missed.
First ever Israeli-Russian war game is coming
June 10, 2016First ever Israeli-Russian war game is coming, DEBKAfile, June 10, 2016
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu decided at their June 7 meeting in Moscow to deepen the military ties between the Russian and Israeli armed forces, DEBKAfile reports exclusively from is military and intelligence sources. It was a historic decision that spells the end of the IDF’s unique relationship with the US military.
The head of the IDF’s military intelligence branch, Maj. Gen. Hertzi Halevi, and Mossad chief Yossi Cohen also participated in the meeting.
Our sources report that Putin and Netanyahu decided that a joint exercise by the Israeli and Russian naval and air forces will be held this summer as part of the first stage of expanded ties.
It will mark the first time in modern Middle East military history that Russian military planes take off from an Arab country, Syria’s Hmeymim airbase, and Russian warships sail out of their bases in Tartus and Latakia, for joint maneuvers with the Israeli air force and navy.
DEBKAfile’s military sources add that, ahead of the exercise, the joint mechanism that coordinates Russian and Israeli air flights in Syrian airspace will be expanded.
According to those sources, the bilateral decision for the joint war game was tied to an agreement to allow Russian gas companies to compete for contracts to develop Israel’s Leviathan and Tamar offshore gas fields.
Netanyahu said June 7 in Moscow, “Our doors are open now to all companies from all countries that have substantial experience in developing gas fields, including Russia of course.”
Putin had tried repeatedly to win a foothold for Russian companies, especially energy giant Gazprom, in the development of Israel’s offshore gas fields and export industry. The Russian leader tried to convince Netanyahu by saying that the presence of the Russian navy and air force in the area would guarantee that no Arab or Muslim military force, such as those of Iran, Syria and Hizballah, would attack the gas fields.
DEBKAfile’s military sources point out that increased cooperation between the navies of the two countries could serve as a basis for regional and economic cooperation and for the defense of any future Gazprom energy infrastructure in the Mediterranean.
In the long term, the combination of Russia’s massive warships and Israel’s smaller and faster vessels built for rapid response to any attack along its coast, may provide an effective defense of energy assets in the Mediterranean basin, especially in the region of Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and Israel.
These assets would include shipping routes, drilling platforms, gas pipelines and undersea optic cables, among others.
Alongside the advantages, cooperation with a world military power like Russia holds operational, intelligence, tactical and strategic risks.
Although the joint exercise will be of limited scope, it needs advance preparation, a careful division of tasks, missions and resources, assignment of flight paths and sea routes, and goals preset as benchmarks for measuring the joint drill success. Radio and other communication networks must be set up and the degree of intelligence sharing determined. Both the Russian military and the IDF appreciate that this shared maneuver may result in mutual exposure of some of their military secrets.
To play it as safe as possible, Putin and Netanyahu decided to hold their joint exercise high in the sky and far out at sea, in an effort by both to guard their military secrets as far as possible.










Recent Comments