Can Mainstream Media Elect The President | Canada Free Press
Being in the eighth decade of my life, I have lived through far-reaching, and distressing, changes in American society. I have also witnessed how the process for selecting presidents has altered, gradually, subtly, and without official sanction. An indication of changes to the presidential selection process is the powerful influence mainstream media has acquired over the years. Mainstream media’s dominance of television and the Internet is profoundly impacting the public’s political opinions.
In the current presidential election, mainstream media has joined forces with career politicians to concoct an intense smear campaign against Donald Trump’s candidacy. I can’t recall any previous smear campaigns that were as all-encompassing and as vehement as the anti-Trump stratagem.
Luckily, the well-coordinated tactical maneuver to blacken Donald Trump hasn’t been as successful as hoped. A primary reason is that media is relying on rationales that worked well in previous decades but have lost their ability to persuade. Admittedly, there are segments of society who are still susceptible to media proselyting, but most of us have to suppress a yawn when Trump is continually accused of demagoguery, hate speech, racism, bigotry, sexism, chauvinism, xenophobia, and all the other worn- out, derogatory clichés. We’ve been inundated with these trite Leftist barbs for so long that they have become boring.
However, mainstream media apparently believes it can still manipulate the public as easily as it did in the past. That’s certainly the impression we get from the nation’s most extreme Leftist publications, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Although the caliber of journalism offered by WaPo and The Gray Lady has seriously declined in recent years, these two outlets continue to assume that their slanted reporting can still manipulate public opinions.
The Washington Post maintains that Trump supporters exhibit “racial prejudice and white ethnocentrism” (I assume this means that they don’t buy into the White Privilege propaganda.) WaPo claims that 20% of Trump supporters disagree with the Emancipation Proclamation – this “fact” from a poll conducted by a London news agency. WaPo also claims that Southerners favor Trump because they detect “racial overtones” in his pronouncements. Southerners neither support nor express such sentiments, but WaPo insists it is capable of uncovering “hidden meanings” in comments otherwise devoid of racial context. In prior years, the public offered few objections when media reinterpreted its opinions, but the naivete of the past has significantly diminished.
A New York Times writer stated that the enthusiastic crowds at Trump campaign events were reminiscent of Hitler’s Nuremberg Rallies. When Trump asked audience members to pledge their vote by raising their hands, another Times’ journalist equated this with the Nazi salute. Others have attempted to compare Trump to Hitler but this allegation hasn’t gained any traction. In addition to comparisons with Hitler, The New York Times links Trump with George Wallace and the Left’s favorite 1950s demagogue, Joseph McCarthy. The Gray Lady’s vilification of Trump has become so vicious that one of its journalists actually joked about his assassination.
The Time’s loathing of Donald Trump contrasts with its passionate endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Consider this astonishing excerpt from that endorsement: “Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.” Media describes zealous crowds at Trump events as malignant and dangerous whereas at Clinton events they are inspiring.
And there are absurd efforts to connect Mr. Trump with the KKK, based solely on the fact that someone who had been associated with the Klan in prior years stated that he would vote for Trump. But this accusation fell flat on its face. America’s population exceeds 300 million, so a candidate can’t be typified by anyone who might support him. Media refers to someone who interrupts Bill Clinton’s remarks as a “heckler” whereas one who disrupts a Trump speech is a “protester.” This is a crafty choice of descriptive wording, a technique clever journalists often employ.
Of course, its not just media and the Left that fear Trump. The Right-Wing establishment, especially the Republican hierarchy, are seriously threatened by the possibility of a Trump presidency. Although they claim to be concerned about the effects on society-at-large, their goal is to protect their own turf. Many Republicans maintain that Trump is not a true conservative and that is correct. But the dire conditions in our country have reached the point where a candidate’s political philosophy is no longer a primary consideration for voters. Pragmatism has taken precedence over ideology.
Top Republicans and CEOs, along with a consortium of millionaires and billionaires, recently held a clandestine meeting at a sumptuous Sea Island resort that is financially off-limits to average Americans. The purpose of this cloak-and-dagger assemblage was to determine a strategy to derail the Trump candidacy. We can only speculate about what transpired behind closed doors, but despite the immense power these elites possess, it could be too late to stop Trump. Reports indicate that a primary concern of these moneyed men was that Mr. Trump might interfere with their ability to finagle IRS regulations to their advantage. Also many believe that this consortium fears that Trump will lessen the inflow of cheap immigrant labor, forcing their organizations to hire American citizens at higher salaries.
A fundamental change in mainstream media over the years has been the emergence of new political voices. The Walter Cronkite’s and Huntley/Brinkley’s are long gone. Today’s TV news “authorities” are network “centerfold” girls, along with comedians and other entertainers. Mainstream media is no longer limited to broadcast media and newspapers, but now includes self-anointed experts from the entertainment field. Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and Whoopi Goldberg are prominent TV celebrities pontificating on political issues. Of course, these three strongly support Barack Obama and also favor a secular society with neutered gender roles. Who can say what impact they will have on voters?
This new breed of TV news personalities is another sad indication of the decline in the level of literacy in our country. Many voters will be swayed by TV personalities, but there will be a counterbalancing from citizens who fear that our traditions are being eradicated too rapidly and without consideration of long-range consequences. These voters are especially upset that cretinous mobs can prevent speakers from expressing their opinions, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Contrary to what some naively think, this is not just another routine presidential election, but a crucial turning point for our country. We are heartened by the groundswell of angry voters and hope they can offset mainstream media’s pernicious propaganda.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/can-mainstream-media-elect-the-president
There is No “Radical Islam” and There is Also No “Moderate Islam” – Just Evil Political Ideology
There is No “Radical Islam” and There is Also No “Moderate Islam”
By
Beginning more or less with 9/11, the expression “radical Islam” became the accepted way for the media, politicians and public to define the religious and ideological foundations of Islam-based violence when referring to what the world calls “terror.” This expression was meant to be contrasted with “moderate Islam” which presents Muslims as ordinary people who wish to live in peace with all of mankind – Christians, Jews, Buddhists, unbelievers and the rest of us. The world created the image of two Islams, one radical and impossible to live with, and one moderate and “just like us.”
This differentiation between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is what gave rise to the claim that Islam had been “hijacked” by the radicals, implying that the real and original Islam is the moderate, not the false, radical one.
This is what allows today’s Europe to relate positively to the wave of mostly-Muslim illegal immigrants washing up on its shores – they represent “moderate Islam” and all they want is to live in peace and harmony with their European neighbors.
Permit me to raise some doubts concerning the psychological mindset that claims the existence of two types of Islam. In order to do this, let us clarify an important point: Islam is a text-based framework of ideas and behaviors, covering religion, culture, strictures, politics, law and economics. It is an all-embracing way of life. The most basic text is the Qu’ran, followed by the Hadith (oral law) and the Sura – biography – of Muhammad. The Sharia, Muslim law, is a system of binding laws and injunctions that Muslims are obliged to obey.
There are no two Islams, no moderate one and no radical one, there is just one Qu’ran that includes everything: verses on Jihad and all out war against unbelievers along with verses that speak of recognizing the “other” and living beside him.
There are no two types of hadith, one radical and the other moderate; there is just one body of hadith that includes everything, both violent and moderate ideas.
Muhammad does not have a moderate biography and a radical one; there is only one life story of the prophet of Islam and it has stories that express a radical, violent approach and others presenting a moderate one.
There is also just one Sharia that includes everything, from the radical cutting off of a thief’s hands to the unquestionably moderate admonition to care for the poor and indigent.
That being the case, there is no “moderate Islam” and no “radical Islam”, just one Islam that incorporates both terms, ranging from extreme radicalism to extreme moderation. In practice, we see people with different cultures, some of them extremists and some moderates, all finding verses,ideas, precedents and laws that support their views on life and society in the same Qu’ran, Hadith, Sura and Sharia. The radical Muslim chooses to quote sources that support his extremist approach, while the moderate Muslim finds sources to buttress his moderate approach.
Those two Muslims, the most extreme and the most moderate, are “kosher”, because they both rely on legitimate Islamic sources, and neither can claim that the other “hijacked” Islam. All the Muslims in the world, all one and a half billion of them, men, women and children, are to be found somewhere on the moderate-extremist continuum. They may live alone or as part of families, tribes, organizations and societies.
Islamic State is a state established and continuing its operations with the participation and cooperation of a large body of Muslims and converts to Islam who are on the extremist tip of the continuum. Al Qaeda is right there next to them, as are Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other terrorist organizations. On the other end of the continuum, the moderate one, are the members of the “Muslims for Tomorrow” organization, a totally moderate group of Muslims living in Toronto, Canada.
Along the scale connecting the endpoints of the continuum, one can find all the other Muslims in the world, each one on a point of his choosing, somewhere between radicalism and moderation. His place on the continuum is a dynamic, not a static one, and a once moderate Muslim can undergo a process of radicalization, while another, who was an extreme radical can change his views and become more moderate. Life has a way of moving people along the continuum, making it harder to predict the future of an individual or group.
Moderate Muslim migrants live in harmony with the foreign societies to which they have migrated. They blend in nicely, work for a living, are law abiding and contribute to the economy and society that absorbs them. More radical Muslims who migrate to new societies tend to live in the enclaves that preserve their culture and way of life, only partially blending into society and the work force and constantly attempting to influence and change for their own ends the society that let them in. If they are on the violent side of the continuum, that violence will be turned on the society that accepted them – a fact that is most evident in today’s Europe.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Israel National News
Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/53822/there-is-no-radical-islam-and-there-is-also-no-moderate-islam-opinion/#82JeZFfFgzrVio7g.99
UK: Muslim docs took prayer breaks during surgery, refused to remove bloody hijabs | Creeping Sharia
COMING SOON TO AMERICA
UK: Muslim docs took prayer breaks during surgery, refused to remove bloody hijabs
…and the whistle-blower got suspended!
AN NHS consultant has been suspended for revealing how a Muslim surgeon refused to remove her hijab for an operation — even though it broke hospital health rules.
Dr Vladislav Rogozov said in a blog that he confronted her as they scrubbed up when he realised she planned to keep the Islamic scarf on during surgery.
He claimed the hijab was spotted with blood from previous operations. But she refused to remove it and walked out, forcing the hospital to find a stand-in.
The Muslim surgeon walked out on a patient as a surgery was about to begin. She should never be permitted to work in healthcare again.
The unnamed surgeon later accused anaesthetist Dr Rogozov, 46, of racial discrimination.
Why is she unnamed? Her name should be shared worldwide.
She left Sheffield’s Royal Hallamshire Hospital after a hospital investigation backed Dr Rogozov for enforcing its strict dress code.
It says religious headscarfs are “excluded in areas such as theatre, where they could present a health and cross-infection hazard.”
The incident was not made public at the time.
But Czech-born Dr Rogozov has now been suspended for revealing the hijab bust-up in an interview with an online blog.
In it, he claims other medics had been concerned about the breach of health rules but feared speaking out.
He said: “No one dared to highlight this issue because they feared being accused of racism.”
What race is Islam?
Dr Rogozov also claimed Muslim staff took unscheduled prayer breaks during surgery and alleged a male doctor had recited from the Koran during an operation.
A source said: “Dr Rogozov won’t tolerate anything that puts patients at risk.
“It has nothing to do with the medics being Muslims. It’s his fear they let their beliefs come before the patients.”
It is understood Dr Rogozov was suspended last month pending an inquiry after his blog remarks were repeated in a Slovakian newspaper and a Czech website.
The hijab incident was in 2013. His claims of Koran recital and prayer breaks are more recent.
The allegations by Dr Rogozov, who has lived and worked in Britain for a decade, are also being investigated by the NHS.
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals’ spokesman Dr David Throssell said: “Patient safety is our top priority. As soon as we were made aware of the publication of allegations we began an investigation.”
Muslim Professor: Marriage has No Age Barrier and Muslims Have No Need to be Ashamed about Sex with Children |
GOOD BYE AMERICA:
Muslim Professor: Marriage has No Age Barrier and Muslims Have No Need to be Ashamed about Sex with Children
More and more Americans are learning the harsh, terrifying and disgusting truths about Islam. On a whole host of issues, Islam is simply not compatible with Western values,whether it be slavery, rape, social/sexual equality, violence, murder or pedophilia – in all these things Islam lines up against justice and morality.
What makes all of this worse and is the reason that Islam cannot coexist with the Western World is that the religion teaches that anything Muhammad did was right, just and moral. So murdering infidels will always be okay, slavery will always be just, rape (in certain cases) legal, and pedophilia strenuously protected. Why? Because Muhammad took part in all of these things. If they are wrong – then he was wrong…. and that just cannot be.
Are you starting to understand why such backwards practices continue in seemingly “civilized” nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc.? If any of these immoral behaviors are wrong, then it throws the entire Islamic religion into chaos, and so a large portion of Islam will ALWAYS defend these heinous and disgusting practices.
For example, a religious leader in Bangladesh argued that child marriages should not be banned because that would make Muhammad
look bad.
look bad.In April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.
The influential Muslim website Islamonline.com argued that not only was Muhammad okay with child marriages, but the Qur’an explicitly supported the practice as well.
.The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
In Iran the government says that girls can be engaged at any age and married off at nine!
“Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.” In fact, the most famous, popular and beloved leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year old girl when he was 28. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.
This past week, an influential professor and the Director of the Muslim Rights Concern, Ishaq Akintola, once again voiced support for the disgusting practices of forced child marriage, or better understood – pedophilia.
Akinotla, speaking to the online magazine PUNCH, said that age was not a barrier for marriage in Islam. He also argued that “forced marriage” is a misnomer, even if it accurately reflects what is happening when a child as young as 9 is forced to marry a much older man. PUNCH used the story of 14-year old Ese Oruru as the foundation for their discussion. (You can read more about that story here.)
Here’s some of what Akintola told PUNCH:
Q. Is child marriage permitted in Islam, looking beyond the case of Ese Oruru?
Islam is a complete way of life. As a religion, non-Muslims will have to take Muslims as they are, not as they want them to be. Neither Muslims nor their religion should be judged according to other standards. There will never be any inter-religious understanding so long as non-Muslims continue to measure Muslims and their way of life by Christian, Buddhist or Confucianist yardsticks. The simple truth is: Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this, particularly since 99.99 per cent of such marriages are conducted among Muslims themselves. If the man is a Muslim and the girl is also a Muslim and the girl’s parents give their approval, what is the business of any non-Muslim in that? It is sheer interference in the affair of Muslims and an attempt to exert undue influence on them. More often than not, those who interfere in this manner have ulterior motives. It is either for the purpose of smearing the image of Islam or to gain a comparative advantage and score a religious point (for their own faith of course).
We are not unaware of all these antics, yet we patiently endure them. Non-Muslims should therefore keep off Muslims’ affairs. Who are non-Muslims to be the judge of Muslims when every religious group has its own failings? This interference often causes unnecessary strain on Christian-Muslim relationship. Despite the fact that our Christian neighbours sing the hymn ‘I want to be like Jesus…’ repeatedly, they are not behaving like Jesus (peace be upon him). Neither are they following his teachings. There will be peace if they do. But they don’t. Jesus taught Christians to mind their own business and to resist the temptation to judge others. He said, ‘Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure that you give will be the measure you get.’
Q. That means your organisation, Muslim Right Concern, supports child marriage?
I am a Muslim and I support all truly Muslim practices. Our organisation, MURIC, is an Islamic human rights outfit. So naturally we should support all principles of Islam. It promotes Allah-given fundamental human rights as well as Allah-given fundamental rights of all creatures, animals – mammals, invertebrates, birds in the sky, the environment and all natural entities. Everything created by Allah has a right. We promote their rights. MURIC believes in all Shariah-compliant marriages, regardless of the age of the girl. The sensationalisation of intra-Muslim marriages to the so-called minors is uncalled for and, more often than not, done with hidden malice. For your information, we don’t have what you call ‘child marriage’. We have nikah (Islamic marriage). I affirm clearly, emphatically and unequivocally, that what happens among Muslims is strictly a Muslim affair and should remain so as long as it is Shariah-compliant. Non-Muslims have no right to poke their noses into any religious action taken by Muslims for Muslims. Nikah is a marriage of the Muslims conducted by the Muslims for the Muslims. How the Muslims do it is nobody’s business. Do we come into the church to criticise the way marriages are conducted? Have Muslims said anything about gay marriages inside churches? That is the Christian way of life and they should stop attempts to impose their lifestyle on Muslims. We will never allow that. It is an attempt to subject Muslims to public ridicule.
You cannot hold us in contempt and talk about love. It is sheer deceit. It is hypocrisy. Even Jesus (peace be upon him) called those who ignore their own faults to interfere in other people’s matters, hypocrites. He said, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye’ when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” So, instead of paying attention to marriages conducted among Muslims, Christians should do something about gay marriages inside churches.
When PUNCH turned the conversation to the increasing acts of violence from Muslim terrorists like Boko Haram, Akintola cried foul and argued that the publication was “making a mountain out of a molehill.”
Q. What is the Muslim community going to do about these alleged abductions (like the one in Sokoto)?
There you go again! Baseless, clueless, unfounded and untenable allegations; rumours, rumours and rumours! Where you have cases, bring them forward. You cannot turn us into suspects overnight. You know where abduction is rampant. I won’t mention states. Why is the Nigerian press so keen on causing distractions? A whole region has turned abduction into family and tribal business. The Nigerian press looks the other way and starts prying into issues that have nothing to do with abduction.
Q. Abductions of female children for sex slavery and forced marriage have become a trend in the country. What’s the way out?
That’s not true. You are making a mountain out of a molehill and I am not under any obligation to answer that kind of question. It is prejudicial. I respect the press and I will continue to cooperate with them but I will not be an accomplice to untruth. Better still, if you must have an answer, the security agencies are the ones who would provide an answer to your question.
These responses are interesting, considering the fact that Boko Haram and other Muslim terrorist organizations have kidnapped and sold thousands of people into slavery in recent years. Several hundred of these kidnappings have been widely reported in the international newspapers, and the handful of young girls who have been recovered all attest to the fact that these occurrences are widespread and growing ever more common.
The fact of the matter is that Islam is simply not compatible with the modern world. And no condescending liberal platitude will change that fact.
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.
Article reposted with permission from Eagle Rising.
Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA. He is also the chief editor at EagleRising.
Don’t forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks, or by offering a small donation to help us keep spreading the truth.
Navy SEALs say there aren’t enough rifles, they have to share | Kinda looks like its all over folks –Ovomit rules
Navy SEALs say there aren’t enough rifles, they have to share
Can’t get proper equipment for our men yet plenty of resources for transgenders!
Via AP: Navy SEAL teams don’t have enough combat rifles to go around, even as these highly trained forces are relied on more than ever to carry out counterterrorism operations and other secretive missions, according to SEALs who have confided in Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
After SEALs return from a deployment, their rifles are given to other commandos who are shipping out, said Hunter, a former Marine who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. This weapons carousel undercuts the “train like you fight” ethos of the U.S. special operations forces, they said.
Hunter said he’s been contacted by several SEALs, but he declined to provide further information about the weapons they use in order to protect their identities. U.S. military officials said they were looking into the issue.
Sharing rifles may seem inconsequential. It’s not. The weapons, which are outfitted with telescopic targeting sights and laser pointers, are fine-tuned to individual specifications and become intensely personal pieces of gear. “They want their rifles,” Hunter said. “It’s their lifeline. So let them keep their guns until they’re assigned desk jobs at the Pentagon.”
The problem isn’t a lack of money, according to Hunter. Congress has frequently boosted the budgets of special operations forces in the years since the 9/11 attacks, he said. Rifles also are among the least expensive items the military buys, leading Hunter to question the priorities of Naval Special Warfare Command, the Coronado, California, organization that oversees the SEALs. “There is so much wasteful spending,” he said. “Money is not reaching the people it needs to reach.”
Combat rifles can cost up to several thousand dollars depending upon the type of weapon and quality of the sights and other attachments. But the M-4 carbine, the standard combat rifle used by the military branches, cost less than $1,000 each when bought in bulk, according to Defense Department budget documents.
Hunter wrote last month to the Naval Special Warfare Command’s leader, Rear Adm. Brian Losey, about the alleged weapon shortage and also asked him for a full accounting of how the command’s budget was spent last year. Losey has told Hunter to expect a reply by Wednesday.
The congressman said in the Feb. 17 letter that the command’s operation and maintenance account increased by nearly $11 million between 2014 and 2015. Yet it is “suffering from budgetary constraints and lack of funding impacting the ability to equip, train and support the SEALs’ critical needs.”
Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the top officer at U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, and Losey’s superior, told Hunter last week that he is aware of the congressman’s concerns. “We’re certainly running that down,” Votel said during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.
Votel added that heavily used rifles need to undergo maintenance and that may be contributing to the perception of a shortage. But “we’ll certainly take immediate action,” Votel said, if it’s determined the combat readiness of the SEALs is being degraded.
One of the SEALs who contacted Hunter blamed a slow, penny-pinching bureaucracy that rarely seeks input from the service members who use the gear, according to a brief excerpt of his comments that the congressman’s office provided to The Associated Press.
Delays of as long as three to four years paralyze the acquisition system, the SEAL said. Once an item has finally been approved for purchase, new and better gear may be available, triggering the same lengthy screening process to see if it’s worth getting instead.
Ammunition also is in short supply for training, the SEAL said, because the bulk of it is being used for combat missions. Hunter also questioned whether the expense of expanding the size of the special operations forces could have left too little in the budget for weapons.
To meet heavy demand, the number of active-duty troops assigned to Special Operations Command, which includes SEALs, Army Green Berets and Rangers, and Air Force combat controllers, has grown dramatically during the past decade — from more than 33,600 to 56,000. There are 2,710 SEALs.
The overall budget for Special Operations Command is $10.4 billion and the Obama administration is proposing a $400 million increase over the current total for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
In his letter to Losey, Hunter also said he’s received reports that the command is slow to settle official travel claims due in part to money shortages. This can cause personal and professional problems for SEALs, who hold high-level security clearances, he said.
Service members who hold U.S. government travel charge cards are ultimately responsible for any late fees, interest and accrued balance on the card. So if the government fails to quickly process a voucher, the service member might have to pay out of pocket or face an overdue bill. A lapse in payment could be forwarded to a credit agency, Hunter said, and that could result in a SEAL being declared ineligible to hold a clearance.
DCG
DCG’s post originally appeared at Fellowship of the Minds.
Don’t forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks, or by offering a small donation to help us keep spreading the truth.
Bolton: GOP forgetting 1 critical issue in debates
Bolton: GOP forgetting 1 critical issue in debates
GOP presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich (Photo: Twitter) Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton says there needs to be much for focus on national security issues by Republican presidential candidates to convince voters they are ready to be commander in chief and would be far better than… (more…)
‘Huge victory’ in Alabama battle for marriage
‘Huge victory’ in Alabama battle for marriage
The Alabama Supreme Court upheld an earlier decision banning state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples last week, and while the legal road is far from over for traditional marriage supporters, they believe the facts of the case and the Constitution are on their side. The fight stems from early 2015, when Alabama justices… (more…)
Dearborn Jihad:Muslim Who Plotted ChurchShooting, Beheading, Burning PPL Alive NOT CHARGED WITH TERRORISM | Pamela Geller
Source: Dearborn Jihad: Muslim Who Plotted Mass Church Shooting, Beheading, Burning People Alive NOT CHARGED WITH TERRORISM | Pamela Geller
Not only did this Dearborn Muslim plot to shoot up a Detroit church, but he kept a sword in his car and said that it was his “dream to behead someone.” Khalil Abu-Rayyan said he wanted to “burn people alive, tie them up, cut their tongues.”
As for the church shooting, Abu-Rayyan said, “Honestly, I regret not doing it. If I can’t go do jihad at the Middle East I would do a jihad over here.”
But Abu-Rayyan will not be prosecuted for terrorism; not in Dearborn, he won’t. To prosecute him for terrorism would be islamofauxbic. Any time a jihadi gets caught plotting mass murder of the kuffar, it’s the FBI that gets the blame: “entrapment.”
The case against Abu-Rayyan has focused on his alleged threats of violence and has raised questions, including whether the government successfully thwarted Abu-Rayyan’s alleged plan for a terrorist attack on a Metro Detroit church, or whether the FBI’s undercover agent radicalized a vulnerable young man with no criminal past until 2015.
The FBI is being accused of radicalizing this savage. Not the Islamic texts and teachings that incite to jihad, not his Muslim brothers waging holy war in the cause of Islam — the FBI.
Wait, it get worse. The FBI is being criticized for arresting him, as opposed to pursuing “other options,” such as going to the family.
Asked whether they explored other options before arresting Abu-Rayyan, U.S. Attorney spokeswoman Gina Balaya said: “Although intervention with a family is appropriate in some cases, when a defendant poses a specific threat of violence, we need take action that protects public safety.”
Go to the family? The family is usually in on it. Look at San Bernardino. Khalil plotted to shoot up a church. There are no other options but arrest. How can the FBI do its job when it is expected to adhere to sharia law and sanction jihad?
The defense is claiming that Khalil heard a voice inside his head. Yes, Allah’s.
This jihadi is being charged him with two felony counts involving firearms and drugs — but not terrorism.
Jihadist or FBI victim? Dearborn case stirs debate
Jennifer Chambers, The Detroit News, March 7, 2016 (thanks to Robert):Khalil Abu-Rayyan allegedly gushed about his fondness for violent acts of terrorism in text message exchanges with an undercover agent and during an in-custody police interview.
Even before he drew the attention of law enforcement in 2015, the 21-year-old Muslim from Dearborn Heights had retweeted, liked and commented on Islamic State propaganda on his Twitter account in 2014, authorities said.
Once face to face with federal investigators in October, authorities say Abu-Rayyan admitted to hearing voices in his head that told him to do terrible things: burn people alive, tie them up, cut their tongues.
“Shooting and death makes me excited. I love to hear people scream and beg. I wish I had my gun,” Abu-Rayyan told the FBI undercover agent in a text message.
Yet Abu-Rayyan’s defense lawyer says his client is no terrorist. Rather, he is a socially awkward pizzeria worker who lives with his parents, smokes marijuana and has no romantic experience with women.
Abu-Rayyan was bragging of jihad and martyrdom to impress a woman, who turned out to be an undercover agent, his lawyer says, adding that black Heritage .22- caliber revolver he was caught carrying illegally is recommended for Boy Scout target shooting, not acts of terrorism.
And he never carried out any of the violent acts he vowed to commit.
Both sides of Abu-Rayyan emerged in a federal courtroom last month in Detroit where prosecutors charged him with two felony counts involving firearms and drugs — but not terrorism.
The case against Abu-Rayyan has focused on his alleged threats of violence and has raised questions, including whether the government successfully thwarted Abu-Rayyan’s alleged plan for a terrorist attack on a Metro Detroit church, or whether the FBI’s undercover agent radicalized a vulnerable young man with no criminal past until 2015.
Prosecutors contend the best place for Abu-Rayyan is behind bars.
According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron Waterstreet, Abu-Rayyan had been retweeting, liking and commenting on IS propaganda on his Twitter account that included videos of a Jordanian fighter pilot being burned alive, men executed by being thrown from a high-rise building, the beheading of Christians in Egypt and news of IS victories.
A detention hearing held last month revealed that Abu-Rayyan made multiple threats of violence against the community and said he wanted to kill a police officer who arrested him in Detroit on Oct. 7. Besides the federal case, his arrest also brought charges in Wayne County on possession of marijuana and carrying a concealed weapon.
Gun not found
He boasted of having an AK-47 with plenty of ammunition to shoot up a nearby church, yet police never found such a gun or bullets to go with it.
Asked whether they explored other options before arresting Abu-Rayyan, U.S. Attorney spokeswoman Gina Balaya said: “Although intervention with a family is appropriate in some cases, when a defendant poses a specific threat of violence, we need take action that protects public safety.”
Todd Shanker, Abu-Rayyan’s attorney and a member of the Federal Defender’s Office in Detroit, declined to comment. In court, Shanker said the case raises an interesting point that law enforcement talks about trying to build bonds with the Islamic community in Metro Detroit but don’t always follow through.
“This would have been the perfect time to talk to Ray (his father) and say we’ve seen (Khalil’s) Twitter feed, ask him to stop. Instead, they took advantage of this young man and inserted an undercover,” Shanker said in court.
Peter Henning, a former federal prosecutor and current law professor at Wayne State University, said federal investigators are faced with a series of decisions and judgments when deciding whether to arrest someone under surveillance for making wide-ranging threats, continue to watch them or close the case.
“You have to make a judgment as the agency arresting him. How far do you go in the cooperative? If they think he really poses a threat, you have to be really careful,” Henning said. “The last thing you want to read is a headline in The Detroit News that the government let a shooter go,” Henning said.
“We are operating now … months out from San Bernardino. Those types of event have a ripple effect. There is always this concern. That is a tough call.”
The FBI must meet the requirements of a federal threat statute before it can take action against someone who is making threatening statements, Henning said.
“Those require more than just a statement. You can’t be punished for your thoughts and for what you said and unless there is some basis to back it up,” Henning said. “What they have done is they’ve picked a charge in the vicinity of the conduct, but it doesn’t involve any terrorism or threatening conduct. It’s enough for them to get him on.”
The threats of violence and martyrdom won’t come in at a trial, Henning said, because they would be so prejudicial that it’s unlikely a judge would allow in that kind of evidence.
Prosecutors will focus on convicting Abu-Rayyan of the charges filed against him, Henning said, which should not be too hard to prove.
Evidence against him includes Abu-Rayyan’s own admissions to police that he used marijuana and an ATF form 4473 that asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Abu-Rayyan checked “no” and signed the form before he purchased the .22.
“These are also hard charges to defend. He can’t testify –– well, he can — but if he does then he opens himself to the statements coming in,” Henning said.
Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on Islamic Relations, said he has been monitoring the court case and has spoken to Abu-Rayyan’s family.
“It is evident to me in speaking to the family that the young man has substance abuse issues and rather than take the route of intervention and social services, they (the government) instead used a young lady as a means of trying to get him to do something,” Walid said.
This is an unfortunate pattern of the FBI, Walid said, when it comes to investigating a person making threats of terrorism. These types of cases involve confidential informants that attempt to bait people into doing things that were not actively discussed, Walid said.
“On the surface, it appears this young man was being enticed to do something through an FBI agent provocateur,” he said. “This is the government attempt of giving us the illusion of making us safer from terrorism when there was no terrorism being plotted. If there was, he would be indicted on it. That’s just it.”
Instead of arresting him, they could have continued to monitor him, Walid said.
“Even if most people find what Abu-Rayyan was looking at despicable, does that allow the federal government to plant an informant to goad them into violent action?” he said.
Walid: It’s a drug case
This is not a civil rights case or a terror case, Walid said, it’s a drug case and “the narrative the government has out there has nothing to do with what he is being charged with.”
“The whole discussion of terrorism linked to dope and a gun are not related. Someone who is a hardcore extremist wouldn’t be a regular pot smoker and chatting up women. He doesn’t fit the profile,” Walid said.
Last week, Abu-Rayyan pleaded guilty to an attempted weapons charge in Wayne County stemming from his Oct. 7 arrest by Detroit police. Sentencing for that case is on March 14.
In his federal case, a trial date of April 19 has already been set. The government has told Abu-Rayyan that if he wants to enter a plea in the case, he must do so by April 6.
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/03/dearborn-muslim-plot-church-shooting.html/#sthash.DFMmXrwd.dpuf
Challenger scorches McCain for support of Muslim refugees
Generated by IJG JPEG Library