+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Melanie is clear eyed thinker:
Twenty years on, the cultural fault-line remains
For the west, there are no "forever wars". For the Islamists, war is indeed forever
By Melanie Phillips
Few of us, if any, will ever forget those terrible images of the 9/11 attacks on America. Twenty years on, it’s painfully clear that many westerners still don’t grasp the full nature and scope of what they witnessed when the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in Lower Manhattan fell.
On that dreadful day, the west was brought face to face with the fundamentalist strain dominant in the Islamic world. This involves the promotion of jihad, or holy war, against the non-Islamic world and those Muslims who the fundamentalists think aren’t Islamic enough.
The west, particularly Britain and America, had mostly ignored the fact that this war had already been under way against itself for at least a decade.
In the 1980s, western-backed mujahideen ran the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. The British and Americans ignored warnings that those fighters were Islamic fundamentalists who would now be galvanised to follow their defeat of the Soviet empire by attempting to defeat what they saw as the western one. The rise of al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks were the result.
But the west had also ignored the mounting evidence of a cultural onslaught against it that had been waged by both Sunni and Shia Islam for years.
Britain seemed oblivious to the fact that, during the 1980s, Muslim immigrants had brought with them institutions dominated by the fundamentalist Wahhabi strain of Islam that had been imported into Pakistan and Bangladesh from Saudi Arabia. With a growing domestic constituency of fundamentalists who were being either ignored or indulged, Britain was sleepwalking into Islamisation.
In 1989, the British writer Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, for insulting Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses. He was forced to live in hiding for years, with his book publicly burned on British streets.
Yet few grasped that this was far more than an attack on a writer. It was an attempt to force the west to submit to Islamic values. And the emergence of the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran itself galvanised in turn the Sunni world to jihad.
After 9/11, however, the west told itself that jihadi fundamentalism was a “perversion” of Islam. This is dishonest. While many western Muslims endorse human rights and deplore the atrocities perpetrated in the name of their religion, jihadi excesses are nevertheless rooted solidly in Islamic religious texts. Sept. 11 was an act of Islamic holy war.
Those who cannot even bring themselves to name the enemy that is waging war upon them will be defeated by it. That’s why the claim of “Islamophobia” is so troubling.
For while real prejudice against Muslims is wrong, “Islamophobia” was invented by the holy warriors of the Muslim Brotherhood to silence any adverse comment of Islam. It was a religious obligation to impose a Muslim law of blasphemy. By enlisting against “Islamophobia,” the west has effectively bent its knee to Islam — whose very name means submission.
Even today, Britain has not outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, ignoring the way its sponsorship of myriad groups and institutions has embedded the jihad into British and western society.
In 2004, The Washington Post reported that American Muslim Brotherhood supporters made up “the US Islamic community’s most organised force” by running hundreds of mosques and business ventures, promoting civic activities and setting up organisations to promote Islam.
Yet documents unearthed during the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007 alleged that the Muslim Brotherhood in America was involved in weapons training, counter-espionage against the FBI and CIA, and “eliminating and destroying the Western civilisation from within”.
No less perversely, the west has continually denied that the Arab and Muslim war against Israel is rooted in Islamic holy war (a blindness shared by Israel itself, which chooses to deal with this war of annihilation on more manageable nationalistic rather than religious grounds). It has similarly ignored the antisemitism that courses through the Islamic world, even though leading Islamists have acknowledged that their fear and hatred of the Jews lie behind their war on the west and modernity.
The 9/11 terror attacks didn’t just reveal the west’s blindness over Islamisation. They also exposed its cultural and civilisational fault line that had been opening up since early in the 20th century.
British isolationism is rooted in the carnage of the First World War. In America, the avoidance of what Thomas Jefferson called “entangling alliances” goes back to the founding fathers.
Appeasement-minded Britain and America woke up to the threat from Hitler almost too late — and too late to prevent the Holocaust.
But after the Second World War, Western elites persuaded themselves they could actually abolish war itself. Economic ties would avoid it, international law would prevent genocide, and war itself would be replaced by negotiation and “peace processes”.
For a while 9/11 punctured this lethal fantasy, resulting in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to suppress their incubation of Islamic terror.
In both places, however, the west was unable and unwilling to stay the course. Public rage at the junking of the “never war” fantasy was hugely compounded by the west’s strategic error in believing that invading these countries and then helping them become democratic societies would draw their terrorist sting.
The seriousness of the resulting mistakes in Iraq, in particular, seemed to confirm the influential view, in a west that had lost its belief in itself, that this arrogant and imperialistic culture had no right to tell others how to behave.
So the west failed to see that, while the execution of these wars may have been deeply flawed, the necessity to defend itself against a deadly foe was all too real and had not gone away.
This loss of cultural self-belief had many causes. Secularism had eroded the biblical foundations of the west. The carnage of World War I destroyed the belief in dying for your country.
Most devastatingly of all, the Holocaust passed a shattering judgment against modernity. So in the repudiation of its foundational beliefs, the west arrived at precisely the same point as the Islamic jihadists.
Of course, westerners never saw any similarity between themselves and Islamists locked into the seventh century and whom it dismissed as incomprehensible, crazy and worthless.
But in a mirror image, the west was busily severing the connection with its own historic values. This was compounded by an arrogant assumption that western attitudes were universal.
The west therefore tried to impose its utopian, post-modern belief in negotiation and compromise upon a Middle East and Islamic world that saw conflict solely in terms of victory and defeat, strength and weakness.
And so the west has continued to repeat its fiascos by indulging in the same fantasies that it will end the “forever wars” — whether through the Israel-Palestine “peace process,” the Iran nuclear deal or abandoning Afghanistan, where both British and American governments are now spinning themselves the fantasy that Taliban “realists” will keep the Taliban jihadists in check.
For Islamists, war is indeed forever. For such fanatics, defeat is only ever temporary.
For the west, however, there are no “forever wars.” Its wars are either won or lost; there are victors and vanquished.
And military strength matters less than belief. The 9/11 attackers didn’t use sophisticated military hardware. They hijacked civilian aircraft and turned them into flying human bombs of enormous destructive potential.
What fuels the jihad is the power of an idea. That idea is the cult of death.
To overcome a cult of death, the west needs a belief in life. Its own life. That is the way to draw the necessary courage and resolve from this most somber anniversary; but alas, it seems the most difficult of lessons to learn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When radicals observe there is a build up contrary to their views they attack.
For instance:
When blacks think conservatively they are vilified.
When Americans stand up to honor the flag they are vilified.
When Trump places America first they criticized him as ubber nationalistic
And so it goes.
There is no way to love this country without taking grief and being intimidated. This is what all the attacks on our values is all about. Make us doubt our loyalty, feel confused about our nation and even get accustomed to leaving Americans to fend for themselves as Biden chose to do.
How can you consider America a untied nation when a president ducks out of our fellow citizens?
I listen to our putrid State Department and this administration tell me those who sought to kill us, have become business like and we should kiss their ass because they are being humane. I guess we should vote in favor of The Taliban being given The Nobel Peace Prize.
When I reflect on the president we have had in my lifetime, for what it is worth, this is what I conclude and listed according to their political affiliation:
Democrats:
FDR, appropriate for the time but clearly made mistakes and was influenced by his Soviet loving wife.
FDR, appropriate for the time but clearly made mistakes and was influenced by his Soviet loving wife.
Truman, solid to the core, decisive, well read.
Kennedy first youthful image and presidency cut short. Withheld truth about his health First time could vote and voted for him.
Johnson, amazing politician did his best ,was distrusted
Carter -, projected weakness and was mean spirited. Voted for him first time, not second.
Clinton, amazing politician, balanced budget, lecherous
Obama, empty suit, Muslim at heart, hid contempt for country, racially biased
Biden, off to bad start as expected, basically a disaster in the making , worse than Carter.
Republicans
Eisenhower, far better than I realized and gave him credit for being
Nixon, insecure, brilliant in many ways, lied and lost.
Ford, tough time to serve, far better than given credit for being, very decent man.
Reagan, did not surprise me. I saw him as just what we needed. Humor, respect for office, solid in his understanding of America and good poker player. Voted for him twice.
Bush '41,most qualified based on previous job experience, not in touch, Gulf War decision outstanding.
Voted for him both times, was involved somewhat in his election and appointed by him to Commission On White House Fellowships.
G.W Bush, tough time to be president, never understood tribal relationships among Arabs. Somewhat pig headed , overall good guy who cared . Voted for him both times.
Trump, far better than history will treat him because of his irritating personality, ego, narcissism. Thought outside the box, was what we needed in terms of reversing adverse trends. Voted for him both times.
Conclusion
American leadership a mixed bag and inconsistent. Actually if America was a stock would not have wanted to own shares throughout the entire period of the aforementioned presidents.
And:
A NON-PARTISAN CANADIAN JOKE THAT CAN BE ENJOYED BY All PARTIES!
While walking down the street one day a "Member of Parliament" is tragically hit by a truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.
'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you. '
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity. '
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven, 'says the MP.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress .. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises ....
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity. '
The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the MP.
'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened? '
The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning ..... Today you voted
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inflation falls most heavily on the young, the poor, those with most children and who live in cities.
The cost of that free lunch Democrats love to serve just went up in price folks.:
And:
Friedman always paid for his own lunches:
| Milton Friedman's Long-Run Impact |
| by David R. Henderson via Defining Ideas He made a profound mark on economic thinking |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Don't interrupt our desire to remain ignorant:
www.israelhayom.com
'If we cannot name our enemy, how can we ever expect to defeat it?'
Speaking with Israel Hayom, Steve Emerson describes how he tried to warn the US government about the threat of Islamic terrorism in the runup to 9/11, only to be rebuffed.
By Damian Pachter
Steven Emerson is considered one of the most esteemed experts on Islamic Jihad. As early as 1992, he sounded the alarm that a major attack on US soil was just a matter of time, but no one seemed to care. Speaking with Israel Hayom, he has vivid memories of 9/11, as if it happened yesterday.
Unlike most Americans who were shocked by the horrific events, he was not surprised. In fact, about a month before the attack he predicted that something big was imminent, but again, to no avail.
Q: What lit up your interest in going after the subject of the jihad in America and how it happened, a decade or so before 9/11.
"In December 1992, I had been working as an investigative correspondent for CNN (my second year for CNN; my 12th year as a journalist). In late December I got a tip that in Oklahoma City, the Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor was going to unveil his final report on the Iran-Contra affair but I didn't know what day. So I flew to Oklahoma City on December 24, the day before Christmas and checked into a downtown hotel, waiting any day for the report to be released. Well on December 25, Christmas Day, everything was closed, even the restaurant in the hotel. So I took my rented car and drove around downtown looking for a fast-food restaurant and I suddenly passed a most unusual sight as I drove near the Oklahoma City Convention Center: Streaming in and out of the Center were thousands of men and women dressed in traditional Middle East clothing – women wearing hijabs and men wearing the galabias (long robes). My first instinctive reaction was that there must have been a film being made and that these folks were extras. So I parked my car nearby and went inside the convention center. I immediately realized that this was actually a convention of some kind – I really didn't know what kind until I went down to the convention floor where there were scores of tables, each one cluttered with books, audio and video cassettes, and pamphlets or Middle East clothing for sale. I felt a bit conspicuous but I was warmly welcomed from the table as I began collecting the books, cassettes, and pamphlets. Some were in Arabic, but many were in English. And the ones that were in English had very radical anti-American, anti-Israeli, and antisemitic rhetoric with names of organizations based in Tampa, Florida; Boston, Massachusetts; Bridgeview, Illinois; Brooklyn, NY; Tucson, Arizona – from all over the country.
"I soon discovered that the organization hosting this conference was called the Muslim Arab Youth Convention or MAYA for short. (Only later would I found out that it was founded and headed by Abdullah bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's half brother). In fact, I was warmly welcomed by one of the attendees – Abdullah, who identified himself as a 'revert' to Islam (since everyone in the world is born a Muslim including Jews and Christians, one doesn't convert to Islam; rather one reverts to Islam). Abdullah told me he had been born a Jew but had reverted to Islam. He took me under his wing and actually allowed me to accompany him as his guest to 'Palestine Night' that very evening where we sat in the section of converts or reverts. The speakers including Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal, Muslim Brotherhood leader Kamal Helbawi and leaders of other radical Islamist groups including Al Gama al Islamiya. Although the fiery speeches were in Arabic with thunderous applause from the audience of about 3000, there was a simultaneous translation for all 25 of us in the revert section. At one point, everyone got up and starting chanting something about 'Yahudi.' So naturally, we all tried to join in as well. I asked Abdullah what were we chanting? He blithely responded, ' Oh, just 'Kill the Jews.'
"The conference went on for 3 days. I was shellshocked that something like this could be taking place in the United States. In fact, on that very night, I later went down on my own to the third-lowest level of the Convention Center to a bank of public telephones. I needed to find out if the FBI knew what was going on. So I called the FBI switchboard in DC and asked to speak to a high-ranking official in the counter-terrorism division. The FBI operator refused and treated me as if I were crazy. Just before she was about to hang up on me, I screamed to hear that this was a national security emergency and that I needed to be patched thru to the home of that specific FBI official. Grudgingly, she complied. When I reached the official, I had obviously woken him up and he was not very happy. I asked him, 'Do you realize what is going on here in Oklahoma City?' And then I started to describe the leaders of the groups I just heard as well as the myriad terrorist groups represented on the convention floor. Before I could finish two sentences, the official interrupted me and asked me, 'What have you been smoking? Cuz we have no cables on any of this.' (Meaning he had not seen any reporting from local FBI offices).
"In the meantime, I continued to collect masses of materials from the convention vendors, many of whom tried to recruit me to their cause. (I stayed in Oklahoma City until I got the CNN exclusive and flew back to DC)
"Upon my return, in the meantime, I later discovered that local FBI agents had in fact reported on the existence of the MAYA conferences – held annually in Oklahoma City from 1988 thru 1992 – but the information had never filtered up to the top tier at headquarters. I began getting briefings from NYC FBI agents about a blind Egyptian-born Sheik in Brooklyn who operated a radical Islamic cell that had engaged in weapons training in Long Island.
"Weeks later, on February 26, 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred – this one however killed 'only' 7 people. The FBI knew immediately who had perpetrated the bombing. When CNN asked me to do a documentary on the roots of the bombing, I immediately suggested a documentary about the jihadist organizations in the United States that had gone undetected for so long. CNN's response? 'That's too politically sensitive.' Well, my reaction was one of incredulity: Since when did 'political sensitivity' dictate news? So I quit. My annual salary dropped immediately from 6 digits to 4 digits. But I began immersing myself in the investigation of the WTC bombing as well as the larger cell that had not yet been apprehended and I also pursued the hitherto unperturbed operations of Hamas (in Texas) and Islamic Jihad (in Tampa) and other Islamist terrorist groups throughout the United States. I also had the good fortune of being welcomed to work on the WTC investigation by legendary Manhattan DA Bob Morgenthau who gave me access to anything I needed.
"It soon became 100% clear to me that the United States had become occupied Islamist terrorist territory with virtually every single radical Islamic terrorist group in the world operating freely and without any restriction – they had even been given tax-deductible IRS status as nonprofits."
Q: What was your conclusion for the future, your assessment regarding that trend before 9/11, what I mean is: in your eyes, was it something obvious that was about to happen? When you warned about it, what were the reactions in America?
"Well, months after I left CNN, I was able to get seed money to produce a documentary for public television. And in producing that documentary, I traveled across the United States interviewing jihadist groups and leaders from the leader of Islamic Jihad, Univerity of South Florida Professor Sami Al Arian (later convicted and expelled from the US) as well as Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Al Qaeda (but they used other names), and numerous others – located in at least 20 different cities. But I also realized the need to interview the mujahedeen, especially those that had been victorious over the Soviets in Afghanistan and then had turned their ire on the United States. So after making the proper introductions, I flew off to Pakistan where I was welcomed by Hodeyfa Azzam, the surviving son of Abdullah Azzam, the founder of the jihad against the Soviets who had been assassinated in Peshawar in late 1989. In the first part of 1994, I spent several months in Pakistan shuttling between Islamabad and Peshawar where Hodeyfa lived along with scores of mujahedeen. Although language was a barrier, I was still able to get to know some of the holy warriors. And in November 1994, my documentary 'Jihad in America' was broadcast on public television.
"I began testifying before Congress on a regular basis about the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. And I met more and more law enforcement officials from different cities who were only too happy to be able to compare their notes with someone else who had been investigating the same groups in their localities. But a defining moment occurred when I was briefing Congress on the morning that Osama bin Laden issued his infamous 1998 fatwa declaring his intention to launch a jihad against the Crusaders (Christians) and Jews. It was the second such fatwa in two years. And no one seemed to be taking him seriously. That was, at least, until the twin bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But even though it was crystal clear to me that bin Laden was planning a major attack in the United States – I gave various interviews warning about an upcoming WTC bombing – it was hard to galvanize the public because the casualty count on American soil had been virtually nil. And even though the jihadist evidently took me seriously – a jihadi assassination team from South African had been dispatched to kill me in 1995 forcing me abruptly move into an undisclosed location – most of the media dismissed my warnings as well as the hard evidence I had uncovered about the operations of the entire spectrum of jihadist groups operating freely on American soil. If I couldn't get the government to even shut down the US front organizations of Hamas and Islamic Jihad despite the hardcore evidence I had unearthed of their financial support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad (even though relevant officials in the FBI and the US Treasury kept telling me that they were ready to shutter these groups with hammer and nails but could not get a political green light), I started to have my own doubts about my own analysis. But each time, I came back and looked at the mountain of evidence I had collected and it was clear to me that something was about to happen. By the summer of 2001, the evidence was overwhelming. And I said so. In a Wall Street Journal piece, I co-authored in August 2001 with Middle Eastern scholar Daniel Pipes, we both predicted that bin Laden was going to launch an attack on American soil within a very short time. We had no idea it would be less than a month later."
Q: When did you hear Osama bin Laden's name for the first time and what were your thoughts about him back then?
"I had actually started to track bin Laden following the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Even though he took credit for it, later on, it turned out he took credit for various attacks that he had nothing to do with. Yet, still, his name and that of Al Qaida – which means 'the Base' – surfaced in a non-public Arabic document found in the possession of one of the conspirators of the February 1993 WTC bombing. That document – in Arabic – was made available to me in my capacity as an investigator for DA Bob Morgenthau. I don't know to this day whether that document was ever made public. And I don't recall the provenance of that document. But it put OBL's name on the radar screen to investigators even though it was a slender connection. As I began to dig further, it was clear that the FBI knew very little about OBL. But the CIA, well that was another story. Members of the CIA do not talk to the media. Period. At least then. And they didn't talk to Congress or the FBI either especially if the information implicated them. Well, I can confess that I did not have at that time any sources in the intelligence community. With one exception. It was a retired CIA official who had been deeply involved in the supply of stingers to the mujahedeen – well indirectly thru the Saudis. And it was this official who reached out to me after he met me in NYC in the summer of 1993 at a watering hole for FBI agents. I didn't know what his background was at the time but he provided me with a primer on bin Laden, at least as much information that he said he could provide. And it was then that I learned of the love-hate relationship that bin Laden had with Abdullah Azzam. And how bin Laden had become a reluctant leader of the nascent Al Qaid after Azzam was assassinated in 1989. So reluctant that bin Laden refused to give interviews or rabble-rousing speeches as his predecessor had – which held true till at least 1995-96. But someone who, I was told, I should watch, as he had become a 'leader of an existing terrorist group ' who had 'enormous personal wealth at his disposal,' and who 'wanted the jihad to be continued against the Jews and the Americans.' When I went to Peshawar in 1994, I met a Syrian 'journalist' – I later discovered he actually had been on the payroll of Al Qaida – who after I mentioned OBL's name, he offered to set up an interview for me with OBL in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Well, after a harrying trip to Jalalabad, I checked into a 'hotel' where the ambient temperature in the hotel was the same as it was outside – around 17 degrees. The tap water – when it ran-- was choleric. And I waited and waited and waited. OBL never showed up. And so I left to return to Peshawar.
"OBL became an egomaniac taking credit retroactively for terrorist attacks he had nothing to do with. Yes, he was definitely a co-conspirator in the 9-11 plot. But in hindsight, he did not play the critical role that the media or that members of the government attributed to him. The 9/11 plot had already been hatched without OBL's knowledge. We made OBL into a myth. And who is the we? It is the media first and foremost. It includes terrorist analysts like myself. And it includes some government agencies that needed to justify their multi-billion dollar year budgets. But except for the media, I don't believe narrow self interest was ever a motivation. The men and women of the FBI and the CIA, especially at the street level, are the true heroes in this saga that has still not ended."
Q: Where were you during 9/11 and what did you do that day following the tragic events.
"I was in my office when suddenly the phones began ringing off the hook. I turned on the tv and watched, hypnotized and horrified at what we saw. No one knew at the point the extent of the attacks. We got a call from someone at the Pentagon telling us they had just been attacked and that we just should abandon our offices. No one knew the extent of the plot that day nor the extent of casualties. Later that evening, I was asked to meet a senior counter-terrorism official with whom I had worked during the previous five years on investigating Al Qaida at his office in the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House. At that point, we knew that al-Qaida was responsible. But that entire day I can almost remember minute by minute as if it were in slow motion. When I tried to drive downtown to meet this official near 17th Street, Washington DC looked like World War II. There were tanks and armored personnel carriers at nearly every corner. And thousands of troops from the National Guard as well as the military. Literally, at every corner, we were stopped with rifles pointed directly at us as we were asked for identification and our purpose for being downtown. It had taken nearly four hours to travel four blocks. We turned around to go back to the office. I felt a combination of feelings – of almost disbelief that our country had been so savagely attacked; of absolute horror and sorrow for the families of the untold thousands of dead – we had no idea how many – from the fallen towers, the downed plane in Pennsylvania, and those hit at the Pentagon. And yet no one knew if this was just the beginning."
Q: What's your message 20 years after the attacks? Have we learned the lessons from history? Are you optimistic?
"I am a pessimist. I remember that only a few years after the attacks, the same pre-9/11 mentality had started to creep back into our mindsets. No longer could we call the perpetrators of this horrific act of terrorism for what they were: Islamic terrorists. Radical Islamist front groups for Hamas that were born out of the Muslim Brotherhood, just like Al Qaeda, and who have consistently rationalized and even denied the culpability of Islamic terrorist acts, became transformed by the mainstream media into legitimate 'civil rights' organizations. The Washington Post's obituary of the leader of ISIS, who was killed by American forces, was described as an 'austere' Islamic 'scholar.' The words 'Islamic terrorists' have become stricken from our lexicon replaced by the neutered non-meaningless term 'violent extremists.' If we cannot name our enemy, how in the world can we ever expect to defeat him/her/it? Yet, the FBI, the CIA, CNN, NBC, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the ACLU, and the SPLC have all legitimized blatant radical anti-American and anti-Semitic l Islamist front groups. No, I am especially pessimistic made by elites in academia, the media, the publishing industry, Big Tech and the teacher's unions where the Cancel Culture and Critical Race Theory have become ideological paradigms to erase our history, our enemies and our freedoms. May God help us."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
t's only your money:
Nancy Pelosi thinks she deserves $200 million. Here's why
House Republicans failed to stop a proposed $200 million grant for renovations to a national park in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district on Thursday.
The funds would be included in a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package presently before Congress.
Republicans sought a half-dozen amendments to redirect the $200 million to other needs, but the Democrat-controlled House rejected each one.
"It fully takes the mask off what this is all about," said U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis. "This is a Pelosi payoff. This is where somebody puts themselves before their office."
Members of the Presidio Trust, which manages the San Francisco park, have donated almost $19 million to Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, including $1 million in June, according to U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark.
It's clear that Democrats are helping themselves to your tax dollars to pay for their pet projects. Will Americans wake up and do something about it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment