House Oversight Committee Investigation of Benghazi Terrorist Attack
The Band – The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Cover-up
A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.
The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.
While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.
Glenn Beck Ties Together Benghazi, IRS, & AP Scandals ‘Fundamental Transformation’
Treason: Benghazi Revelations Could Sink Obama
Obama Hiding Arms Shipments To Syrian Jihadists
Gen. Jerry Boykin: “Get accountability and get the truth out” on Benghazi
Lt Gen Mclnemey Is Ashamed Our Military Responded Benghazi Libya & Blames Obama Admin – Lou Dobbs
Adm. Ace Lyons: On Benghazi, Obama Needs to Come Clean
CNBC: Benghazi is not about Libya! “It’s An NSC Operation Moving Arms & Fighters Into Syria”
Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help
The Real Reason Petraeus Resigned
Mother of Benghazi victim: I blame Hillary
ISSA: This Benghazi hearing is over, but the investigation is not
ISSA: Our Goal in this Benghazi Investigation is to Get Answers
(Benghazi Witness) THOMPSON: “We needed to act now and not wait”
(Benghazi Witness) HICKS: Until Benghazi I Loved Everyday of My Job
Gregory Hicks’ 30 Minute Recount of Benghazi Attack
(Benghazi Witness) NORDSTROM: Labors to Uncover What Happened Matters
Benghazi Witness Says State Dept. Told Him Not To Meet With Congressional Investigators
During Call With Clinton On Night Of Benghazi Attacks, No Mention Of A Demonstration
Rep. Jordan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. McHenry Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Chaffetz Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Turner Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Mica Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Gowdy Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Gosar Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Hastings Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Meehan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Walberg Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Duncan Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. DesJarlais Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Lankford Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
Rep. Amash Q&A – Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage
NORDSTROM: It’s not what the ARB report says, it’s what it doesn’t
Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings Tears Into GOP Rep. Issa For ‘Politicizing’ Benghazi
Rep. Gerry Connolly Speaks at Benghazi Hearing (5/8/13)
Benghazi ‘By Definition A Cover-Up’
Conflicting Reports on Benghazi Attack Leave Many Asking Who Changed the CIA Talking Points and Why
The Five Hosts Hammer Obama, Media For ‘Blatant CoverUp’ On Benghazi
Issa and Chaffetz Update Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the Benghazi Investigation, Part 1
Benghazi Whistleblower Claims Clinton Tried To Cut Out Counterterror Dept – Lou Dobbs
Issa and Chaffetz Update Fox News’ Sean Hannity on the Benghazi Investigation, Part 2
Chairman Issa Reveals Startling Information on Benghazi Terrorist Attack
Rep. Chaffetz Discusses the Benghazi Investigation on Fox News Sunday
Benghazi Gate – New Explosive Info On Attack In Libya – Whistleblowers Threaten By Obama Admin
Benghazi Whistle Blower PART 2 Talks to Fox News on 05-01-13
Rush Limbaugh on Benghazi Scandal: “They’re about to Blow this Sky High”; Reviews Scandal Timeline
Death And Deceit In Benghazi – Did Obama Amind Try Hide The Truth? – W Bret Bair
Benghazi-Gate: Connection between CIA and al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria, with Turkey’s Help
Obama’s UN Speech – TheBlaze
The Project parts 1-2, FULL video
The Project, by Glenn Beck, covers the infiltration of the United States government and our institutions by the Muslim Brotherhood
A Caliphate Is Coming – GBTV
Obama: violence and intolerance have no place among United Nations
Obama and his Press Secretary Blaming the Video for the Benghazi Attack
Benghazi white house disinformation
Innocence of Muslims full movie
Background Articles and Videos
Oversight Hearing Part 1 – “The Security Failures of Benghazi”
Breaking News-Benghazi Investigation’s Over. Judge Jeanine:Obama&Hillary Blame the Victim !!!???
Jeanine Pirro and Pat Caddell discuss Hillary Clinton’s roll in the Benghazi cover-up
Below is a letter from a group of about 700 retired U.S. military special operations veterans to the House of Representatives, urging Congress to establish a committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Colonel Dick Brauer, founder of the group Special Operations Speaks explained the effort on Fox and Friends this morning.
To: Members of The U.S. House of Representatives
Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012
The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers
preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi.
The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.
It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:
1. Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?
a. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?
b. If so, were they alerted?
c. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?
d. Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?
e. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?
f. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?
2. What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?
3. How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?
4. Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?
5. Where are the survivors?
6. Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?
7. Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?
8. Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?
9. Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?
10. Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?
11. Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?
12. What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?
13. Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?
14. What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?
15. What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?
16. Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?
This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far, it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.
A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.
The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.
We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.
CBS Devotes Two Straight Days of Coverage to ‘Possible Cover-Up’ on Benghazi; ABC, NBC Out to Lunch
By Matthew Balan
CBS used its Sunday evening and Monday morning newscasts to keep the spotlight on the question of a “possible cover-up” surrounding the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Jeff Glor led CBS Evening News with the scoop from earlier in the day on Face the Nation – that a “career U.S. diplomat is raising new questions” about the Obama administration’s claim that the attack spontaneously erupted in response to an early protest in Egypt.
Monday’s CBS This Morning also aired a report on this latest development on the September 11, 2012 attack. Meanwhile, ABC and NBC have yet to pick up on the veteran diplomat’s allegations, despite the fact that he is set to testify publicly to Congress on the issue on Wednesday.
Glor teased a report from correspondent David Martin by trumpeting that “a new witness emerges – a senior U.S. diplomat contradicts the White House and seems to support Republican claims of a cover-up over the attack in Benghazi.” Martin first outlined what Rep. Darrell Issa had revealed earlier in the day on Face the Nation:
DAVID MARTIN: Greg Hicks – at the time, the number-two diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli…directly contradicts administration claims that at first, the attack was thought to be nothing more than a demonstration growing out of a similar protest that day in Cairo. ‘I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.’
The CBS journalist continued with a clip of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s now-discredited assertion about the terror attack, which she made on several Sunday morning talk shows on September 16, 2012. He also noted that Rep. Issa “pointed out Rice’s statement directly contradicted the president of Libya, who had appeared just before her on ‘Face the Nation’.”
Near the end of the segment, Martin underlined a key assertion from Hicks – that the diplomat “told committee investigators Rice’s words were an insult to the president of Libya, and may have hobbled efforts to capture those responsible for the attack. ‘I firmly believe that the reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows.’”
Hours later, on Monday’s CBS This Morning, correspondent Margaret Brennan rehashed much of what her colleague had reported the previous evening. Brennan also highlighted another statement from Hicks on Rice’s apparent slight to the Libyan president:
MARGARET BRENNAN: Hicks said that the public contradiction was a personal insult to the Libyan president, because Ambassador Rice – quote, ‘basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My jaw hit the floor as I watched this.’ He believes that’s why the Libyan government refused to allow the FBI access to the crime scene for several weeks.
The Benghazi talking points: What’s known and unknown
Posted by Glenn Kessler
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”
— Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jan. 23, 2013
New information is raising questions about the development of the administration’s talking points on the deadly attack on the diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans, including the ambassador, dead.
Readers may recall that The Fact Checker concluded that there was something rather odd about U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice’s comments on the Sunday news shows shortly after the attack. Rice said the attack “began spontaneously” because of a reaction to a protest in Cairo sparked by a “hateful video,” and there was no indication it was “premeditated or preplanned.”
We awarded her Two Pinocchios the morning after she appeared on the shows, concluding that “the publicly available evidence stands in stark contrast to Rice’s talking points.”
The White House at the time sharply disputed that conclusion, but over time that column has held up rather well. (In an interview with congressional investigators that was released over the weekend, deputy chief of mission Gregory Hicks said “my jaw hit the floor as I watched this.”) Some readers have suggested we should boost the Pinocchio rating for Rice’s comments. Still, it is clear Rice was simply mouthing the words given to her. The bigger mystery now is who was involved in writing — and rewriting — the talking points.
The talking points have become important because, in the midst of President Obama’s reelection campaign, for a number of days they helped focus the journalistic narrative on an anti-Islam video — and away from a preplanned attack. As we noted in our timeline of administration statements, it took two weeks for the White House to formally acknowledge that Obama believed the attack was terrorism.
We also have awarded Pinocchios to Republicans for claims about Benghazi. In this column, as a reader service, we outline below some of the new disclosures, contained in a report by House Republicans and an article in the Weekly Standard, and contrast the new information with previous statements made by administration officials.
The House report contains references to specific e-mails between administration officials; the Weekly Standard then identifies who wrote the e-mails as well as various drafts of the talking points. As far as we know, the administration has not publicly denied the information about the talking points contained in the GOP report or the article.
The key new disclosure is that senior levels of the White House and State Department were closely involved in the rewriting of the talking points. Previously, Obama administration officials had strongly suggested that the talking points were developed almost exclusively by intelligence officials.
“Ambassador Rice was using unclassified talking points that were developed by the intelligence community and provided not just to her, not just to the executive branch, but to the legislative branch. And they represented the best assessment by our intelligence professionals about what had happened in Benghazi at that time.”
“The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate. Those talking points originated from the intelligence community. They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.”
Note how Carney stressed that this was “developed by the intelligence community” and the “talking points originated from the intelligence community.”
In a narrow sense, this is correct. Both the House report and the Weekly Standard say the CIA created — or “originated” — the first draft of the talking points. The version as of Friday morning, Sept. 14, 2012, was rather detailed, saying that “Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda participated in the attack” and mentioning the militant group Ansar al-Sharia. It also referred to previous attacks against foreign interests and the possibility there had been surveillance of the U.S. facility.
But a senior State Department official — identified by the Weekly Standard as State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland — objected to this draft after being asked to clear the talking points for release. The CIA made some changes, but apparently that was not enough. Nuland said in an e-mail disclosed by the House report that the edits did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership” and that the State Department’s leadership “was consulting with [National Security Staff.]”
(Update: Reading between the lines, part of State’s concern appears to be inconsistency in messaging. Nuland, as State Department spokesman, had been constrained from saying much about the attack at the podium, and now the CIA was proposing to give lawmakers much more information than the administration had released. Moreover, from State’s perspective, the original draft contained references to CIA’s warnings about the security environment, which appeared designed to deflect attention from the agency’s substantial role in Benghazi.)
Minutes later, a White House official (said to be Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications), who was part of the email group receiving Nuland’s message, e-mailed to say that the State Department’s concerns would need to be addressed and the issue would be resolved at a meeting the next day at the White House.
The result, after the meeting, was a wholesale rewriting of the talking points. The House report says “the actual edits, including deleting all references to al-Qaeda, were made by a current high-ranking CIA official,” which the Weekly Standard identifies as Deputy Director Mike Morell.
Oddly, in November, three GOP senators released a statement saying that Morell had told them that the references to al-Qaeda had been removed by the FBI — but then six hours later the CIA contacted them to say Morell “misspoke” and instead the CIA had actually made those deletions. His own apparent role appears not to have been mentioned.
Morell may have had his hand on the pen, but the available evidence suggests that White House and State Department had much more involvement than the “single adjustment” of changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” as Carney asserted.
The biggest unknown is whether the “building leadership” in the State Department that objected to the initial talking points included anyone on Clinton’s immediate staff. (One presumes that nit-picking over wording would not have risen to Clinton’s level.) There is no indication that Nuland had any role in crafting or even discussing the talking points after her email on Friday evening, nor is it clear from the email portions that have been released whether she had actually consulted with other officials before objecting to the draft.
Nuland is expected to be nominated for assistant secretary for European affairs. Lawmakers are likely to question her closely on this point during her confirmation hearings.
Clinton, during her testimony before the Senate and the House in January, made the following comments about the development of the talking points. She also stressed it was an “intelligence product” and said she was not involved in the “talking points process” and she “personally” was not focused on them — odd locutions that leave open the possibility that she was aware of the internal debate at the time.
“I would say that I personally was not focused on talking points. I was focused on keeping our people safe.”
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process…. As I understand it, as I’ve been told, it was a typical interagency process where staff, including from the State Department, all participated, to try to come up with whatever was going to be made publicly available, and it was an intelligence product.”
“I was not involved in the so-called talking points process. My understanding is it was a typical process, trying to get to the best information available. It was an intelligence product.”
“The evidence was being sifted and analyzed by the intelligence community, which is why the intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points. And there was also the added problem of nobody wanting to say things that would undermine the investigation.”
As more information emerges, we will continue to track how the administration’s statements hold up over time and whether more Pinocchio ratings are appropriate.
Former National Security Adiviser Bud McFarlane: For Obama to Do Nothing is Dereliction of Duty
Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’
Obama Confronted on Benghazi – Stutters Through Response!
Mark Levin – Obama’s “Dereliction of Duty”
Rush military caller says that Obama ordered no response to Benghazi attack
BREAKING OBAMA MAY GO TO PRISON AND BE IMPEACHED KILLING OUR OWN
Father Of Murdered Navy Seal in Benghazi, Recounts Days After Attack – Judge Jeanine
Graham Questions Military Leaders on Response to Benghazi Attack
Part II: Graham Questions Military Leaders on Benghazi
Sen. Chambliss at Benghazi SASC Hearing
Panetta: Benghazi was a ‘problem of distance and time’.
No Word from Hillary During Benghazi Attack Panetta, Dempsey did not speak to Clinton
Panetta Defends Pentagon’s Benghazi Response
Senator Blunt Questions Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey About Benghazi Attacks
Rand Paul’s Reaction To Defense Secretary Panetta’s Benghazi Testimony – Fox News
Obama vs Panetta on Attacks in Benghazi – Obama Could have saved American Lives
Senators challenge military leaders on Benghazi attack response
“…The top two Defense Department officials were sharply challenged by lawmakers Thursday on their insistent claims that nothing more could have been done to save the four Americans who were killed in the Sept. 11 terror attack in Benghazi.
Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey were peppered with questions from Republican senators during a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The officials claimed military aircraft and other assets were too far away to get to the scene in time, and suggested armed aircraft like F16s could have done more harm than good in a chaotic situation. The senators, though, pressed the officials for a fuller explanation on why military assets were not deployed to rescue Americans under attack that night – in what will likely be their last chance to question the outgoing Defense secretary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., disputed testimony that the difficulty in dispatching assets to the scene was “a problem of distance and time.” He suggested the “light footprint” in the region and a failure to respond to threats left the military ill-prepared.
“For you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response — our posture was not there because we didn’t take into account the threats to that consulate, and that’s why four Americans died,” he said. “We could have placed forces there. We could have had aircraft and other capacity a short distance away.”
He continued: “No forces arrived there until well after these murders took place.”
Dempsey acknowledged having gotten word of a warning from the U.S. consulate about being unable to withstand a sustained attack, but said the military never got a request for support from the State Department.
“So it’s the State Department’s fault?” McCain asked, curtly.
“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey said.
McCain responded: “Who would you blame?”
Dempsey went on to claim that several U.S. posts were facing significant threats, though McCain said none so much as Benghazi.
Shortly afterward, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressed Panetta again on why no forces were deployed until after the attack was over. Dempsey and Panetta said they talked to President Obama one time that night, but Graham questioned why there weren’t subsequent follow-up conversations.
“It lasted almost eight hours … did the president show any curiosity?” Graham asked.
Panetta said there was “no question” Obama “was concerned about American lives.”
“With all due respect,” Graham responded, “I don’t believe that’s a credible statement if he never called and asked you, ‘are we helping these people?’”
The secretary’s testimony on Benghazi was long-sought by Republican lawmakers. After then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified last month, Graham had demanded that Panetta be brought before the Senate — threatening to hold up the nomination of his prospective replacement Chuck Hagel over the issue.
Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., announced last week that Panetta would testify.
Responding to long-running questions about whether more military assets could have been dispatched to protect those under fire in Libya on Sept. 11, Panetta in his opening statement claimed there simply wasn’t enough time to do more.
“There was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response. … Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”
Still, he said the Pentagon “spared no effort … to save American lives.”
Panetta was testifying in what may be his final public appearance on Capitol Hill as he prepares to leave the department.
Panetta, in his testimony, detailed the military response on the day and night of the attack.
As Fox News has previously reported, he said an unarmed, unmanned drone was positioned overhead the Benghazi compound.
But he said armed aircraft like AC-130 gunships would have taken too long to get there — “at least nine to 12 hours if not more to deploy.”
“This was, pure and simple … a problem of distance and time,” he said.
Panetta said he also directed that a Marine Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team stationed in Spain prepare to deploy in addition to a second FAST platoon; a special operations force in Central Europe prepare to deploy to a staging base in Southern Europe; and a special ops force in the U.S. similarly prepare to deploy to Southern Europe.
As for what was happening in Libya, he claimed the “quickest response” was the Tripoli-based team of six people which was sent to Benghazi.
“Members of this team, along with others at the annex facility, provided emergency medical assistance and supported the evacuation of all personnel. Only 12 hours after the attacks had begun, all remaining U.S. government personnel had been safely evacuated from Benghazi,” he said.
Since the September assault, some have questioned whether enough was done to protect those at the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed that night.
There have been questions about the perceived delays CIA officials – stationed in Benghazi — encountered that night and their frustration that air support was not sent from nearby Sigonella air base. In recent weeks, Fox News has learned that the rescue unit that left Tripoli was told that air support would be above when they landed in Benghazi, but it wasn’t. …”
Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods discuss Rothbard and the Koch Brothers
People & Power – The Koch Brothers
I am a classical liberal or libertarian.
I greatly admire the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, The Von Mises Institute, Cato Institute, Reason and the Koch brothers.
Competition is what it is all about. This is a mistake the Kock borthers made in not encouraging instead of discouraging the formation of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and trying to marginalize Murray Rothbard. What is needed is many Cato Institutes and Ludwig von Mises Institutes spreading the word on the benefits of free market capitalism and limited government.
The Republican Party establishment, sad to say, is controlled by progressive neoconservatives, which is why many classical liberals or libertarians have left the Republican Party and are now independents.
Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, and Romney are all big government progressive Republicans. They may talk conservative, but walk as big government spenders. Limited government and fiscal responsibility are the last thing these big government progressive neoconservatives want. The Republican Party has became the party of war and the Democratic Party has become the party of welfare. The result is the warfare and welfare economy and state.
It is only a matter of time before a new political party will emerge that will reflect the views of libertarian conservatives, traditional conservatives, social/religious conservatives and national defense conservatives.
Both the Democratic and Republican party leaderships are so permeated with progressives or liberals that they are both lost causes.
Background Articles and Videos
Koch Family
“…The Koch family ( /ˈkoʊk/ KOHK) of industrialists and businessmen is most notable for their control of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States.[1] The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy oil into gasoline.[2][3] Fred’s four sons became involved in litigation against each other in the 1980s and 1990s.[4] According to the Koch Family Foundations and Philanthropy website, “the foundations and the individual giving of Koch family members” have financially supported organizations “fostering entrepreneurship, education, human services, at-risk youth, arts and culture, and medical research.” [5]
David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch—the two brothers still with Koch Industries—are affiliated with the Koch family foundations. Annual revenues for Koch Industries have been “estimated to be a hundred billion dollars.” [6]
Political activities
Main article: Political activities of the Koch family
David and Charles have funded conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States.[7] Since the 1980s the Koch foundations have given more than $100 million to such organizations, among these think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, as well as more recently Americans for Prosperity.[8] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are Koch-linked organizations that have been linked to the Tea Party movement.[9][10]
Family members
Fred C. Koch (1900–1967), American chemical engineer and entrepreneur who founded the oil refinery firm that later became Koch Industries
Mary Robinson Koch (October 17, 1907 – December 21, 1990),[11] wife of Fred C. and namesake of the company tanker vessel Mary R. Koch
Four sons of Fred C. and Mary Robinson Koch:[11]
Frederick R. Koch (born 1933), collector and philanthropist
Charles G. Koch (born 1935), Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Koch Industries
David H. Koch (born 1940), Executive Vice President of Koch Industries
William Koch (born 1940), businessman, sailor, and collector
See also
David Koch Theatre
Charles Koch Arena
David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
The Science of Success, a book by Charles Koch in which he attributes the success of the family business to Market-Based Management
^ Koch, Charles C. (2007). The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-470-13988-2.
^ “Koch Industries, Inc.”. Company Profile Report. Hoover’s, Inc.. 2010. http://www.hoovers.com/company/Koch_Industries_Inc/cftjki-1.html. Retrieved 10 May 2010. “[W]hen he tried to market his invention, the major oil companies sued him for patent infringement. Koch eventually won the lawsuits (after 15 years in court), but the controversy made it tough to attract many US customers.”
^ “Epic struggle among Koch brothers ends”. Houston Chronicle: p. 2. 26 May 2001.
“…Koch Industries, Inc. (/ˈkoʊk/), is an American multinational conglomerate corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, United States, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution[1] of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching,[3] finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries.[4]
In 2011, Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion,[5][6][7] down from the largest in 2006. If Koch Industries were a public company in 2007, it would rank about 16 in the Fortune 500.[8]
Fred C. Koch, for whom Koch Industries, Inc. is named, co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process.[9] His sons, Charles G. Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer, and David H. Koch, executive vice president, are principal owners of the company after they bought out their brothers, Frederick and William, for $1.1 billion in 1983.[10] Charles and David H. Koch each own 42% of Koch Industries, and Charles has stated that the company will publicly offer shares “literally over my dead body”.[5]
History
Predecessor companies
In 1925, Fred C. Koch joined MIT classmate Lewis E. Winkler at an engineering firm in Wichita, Kansas, which was renamed the Winkler-Koch Engineering Company. In 1927 they developed a more efficient thermal cracking process for turning crude oil into gasoline. This process threatened the competitive advantage of established oil companies, which sued for patent infringement. Temporarily forced out of business in the United States, they turned to other markets, including the Soviet Union, where Winkler-Koch built 15 cracking units between 1929 and 1932. During this time, Koch came to despise communism and Joseph Stalin’s regime.[11][12] In his 1960 book, A Business Man Looks at Communism, Koch wrote that he found the USSR to be “a land of hunger, misery, and terror.”[13] According to Charles G. Koch, “Virtually every engineer he worked with [there] was purged.”[12]
In 1940, Koch joined new partners to create a new firm, the Wood River Oil and Refining Company, which is today known as Koch Industries. In 1946 the firm acquired the Rock Island refinery and crude oil gathering system near Duncan, Oklahoma. Wood River was later renamed the Rock Island Oil & Refining Company.[14] Charles G. Koch joined Rock Island in 1961, having started his career at the management consulting firm Arthur D. Little. He became president in 1966 and chairman at age 32, upon his father’s death the following year.[9][15]
Koch Industries
The company was renamed Koch Industries in honor of Fred Koch, the year after his death. At that time, it was primarily an engineering firm with part interest in a Minnesota refinery, a crude oil-gathering system in Oklahoma,[12] and some cattle ranches.[16] In 1968, Charles approached Union Oil of California about buying their interest in Great Northern Oil Company and its Pine Bend Refinery but the discussions quickly stalled after Union asked for a large premium.[11] In 1969, Union Oil began trying to market their interest in Great Northern by telling potential buyers that Koch’s controlling interest could be thwarted by currying favor with another owner, J. Howard Marshall II. When Marshall discovered this he threw his lot in with Koch, they together acquired a majority interest in the company and ultimately bought Union’s interest.[14] Ownership of Pine Bend refinery led to several new businesses and capabilities, including chemicals, fibers, polymers, asphalt and other commodities such as petroleum coke and sulfur. These were followed by global commodity trading, gas liquids processing, real estate, pulp and paper, risk management and finance.[11]
In 1970, Charles was joined at the family firm by his brother David H. Koch. Having started as a technical services manager, David became president of Koch Engineering in 1979.
Subsidiaries
Among Koch Industries’ subsidiaries across various industries[17] are:
Georgia-Pacific
Georgia-Pacific is a paper and pulp company that produces “Brawny” paper towels, “Angel Soft” toilet paper, “Mardi Gras” napkins and towels, “Quilted Northern” toilet paper and paper towels, “Dixie” paper plates, bowls, napkins and cups, “Sparkle” paper towels, and “Vanity Fair” paper napkins, bowls, plates and tablecloths. The Atlanta-based company has operations in 27 states.[18]
INVISTA
INVISTA is a polymer and fibers company that makes “Stainmaster” carpet, and “Lycra” fiber, among other products.
Koch Pipeline Company LP
Koch Pipeline Company LP, which owns and operates 4,000 miles (6,400 km) of pipeline used to transport oil, natural gas liquids and chemicals. Its pipelines are located across Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alberta, Canada. The firm operates offices in Wichita, Kansas, St. Paul, Minnesota and Corpus Christi, Texas.
In 1946 Wood River Oil Co. (a precursor company to Koch Industries) purchased Rock Island Oil and Refining Co. As a part of the transaction, it acquired a crude-oil pipeline in Oklahoma. As a result of construction and investments, Wood River acquired other pipelines in the U.S. and Canada. “In the ensuing years,” according to Koch Pipeline’s website, “the company bought, sold and built pipeline systems transporting crude oil and refined products, as well as natural gas, natural gas liquids and anhydrous ammonia (for fertilizer).”[19] Koch Pipeline and its affiliates currently maintain a 4,000-mile network of pipelines.
In January 2000, Koch Pipeline agreed to a $35 million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and the State of Texas. This settlement, including a $30 million civil fine, represented compensation for three hundred oil spills in Texas and five other states dating back to 1990.[20][21][22]
Pipeline accident
Koch’s Sterling butane pipeline had a leak in Lively, Texas, on August 24, 1996. Two teenagers were killed when the gas exploded and burned. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that severe external pipeline corrosion was the cause of the failure, and recommended to Koch to improve corrosion evaluation procedures.[23] Although Koch distributed pamphlets about safety around the pipelines, they failed to maintain an up-to-date mailing list. Only 5 out of 45 residences in the area of the accident had received pamphlets. The families of the dead had not.[24]
In 1999, a Texas jury found that negligence had led to the rupture of the Koch pipeline and awarded the victims’ families $296 million — “the largest compensatory damages judgment in a wrongful death case against a corporation in U.S. history”.[25]
In a statement released in 2010, Koch Industries offered this comment:
The August, 1996 pipeline accident in Texas was a tragedy. Koch accepted responsibility immediately for the incident, which is the only event of its kind in the company’s history. The thorough review conducted of this pipeline the year before the accident did not uncover any issues that posed a foreseeable threat to public safety. The bacteria-induced corrosion that caused the accident acted more quickly to damage this pipeline than had ever been documented by any industry expert. Koch’s cooperative efforts to identify the source and cause of this problem so that this knowledge could be shared throughout industry were praised by the National Transportation Safety Board, which did a two-year investigation into this incident.[26]
Flint Hill Resources LP
Flint Hill Resources LP, originally called Koch Petroleum Group, is a major refining and chemicals company based in Wichita, Kansas. It sells products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, polymers, intermediate chemicals, base oils and asphalt. It operates oil refineries in six states. Flint Hill has chemical plants in Illinois, Texas and Michigan. The firm is also a major manufacturer of asphalt used for paving and roofing applications. It operates 13 asphalt terminals located in six states including Alaska (2 terminals), Wisconsin (2), Iowa (3), Minnesota (4), Nebraska (1), and North Dakota(1).[27] The firm manages the purchasing of domestic crude oil from Texas and Colorado offices, has four ethanol plants across Iowa, operates three refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and has a refinery terminal in Alaska. The Minnesota refinery can process 320,000 barrels (51,000 m3) of crude a day, most of which comes from from Alberta, Canada, and handles one quarter of all Canadian oil sands crude entering the U.S.[28] It also operates fuel terminals in Wisconsin (4 locations), Texas (6), and one each in Iowa and Minnesota.[29]
In March 1999, Koch Petroleum Group acknowledged that it had negligently dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into wetlands from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River. Koch Petroleum paid a $6 million fine and $2 million in remediation costs, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.[30]
In April 2001, the company reached a $20 million settlement in exchange for admitting to covering up environmental violations at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.[31][32]
In June 2003, the US Commerce Department fined Flint Hill Resources a $200,000 civil penalty. The fine settled charges that the company exported crude petroleum from the US to Canada without proper US government authorization. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said from July 1997 to March 1999, Koch Petroleum (later called Flint Hill Resources) committed 40 violations of Export Administration Regulations.[33]
In 2005, Koch’s Flint Hills Resources refinery was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Awards program for reducing air emissions by 50 percent while expanding operations.[34] The EPA has worked with Flint Hills Resources to develop “strategies for curtailing so-called ‘upset’ emissions, in what agency and company sources say could lead to guidance to minimize such emissions from petroleum refineries and other industrial facilities.”[35] The EPA described the process as a “model for other companies.”[36]
In 2006, Flint Hill Resources was fined nearly $16,000 by the EPA for 10 separate violations of the Clean Air Act at its Alaska oil refinery facilities, and required to spend another $60,000 on safety equipment needed to help prevent future violations.[37]
Koch Fertilizer, LLC
Koch Fertilizer, LLC, which is one of the world’s largest makers of nitrogen fertilizers.[38] Koch Fertilizer owns or has interests in fertilizer plants the United States, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, and Italy, among others.[39][40] Koch Fertilizer was formed in 1988 when the Koch companies purchased the Gulf Central Pipeline and ammonia terminals connected to the pipeline. The next year, the Koch Nitrogen Company was formed in order to market ammonia. The next few years saw purchases of various ammonia facilities in Louisiana, Canada, and elsewhere, and ammonia sales agreements with firms in Australia, the U.K., and other countries. The year 2010 saw the founding of Koch Methanol, LLC, and Koch Agronomic Services, LLC. In October 2010, a plant in Venezuela was nationalized by the government.[41] In 2011, the firm acquired the British fertilizer firm J&H Bunn Limited.
Koch Agricultural Company
Koch Agricultural Company’s Matador Cattle Company division operates three ranches totaling 425,000 acres (1,720 km2) located in Beaverhead, Montana, Matador, Texas and the Flint Hills of eastern Kansas. There are more than 15,000 head of cattle raised on the ranches.[42]
The Matador Land and Cattle Company was founded in 1882 by Scottish investors, whose acquisition included 2.5 million acres in four Texas counties. In 1951, the company was sold to Lazard Freres and Company, which in turn sold some of the Texas land to Fred C. Koch. In 1952 Koch formed Matador Cattle Company, and later one of his companies purchased part of Matador Ranch, which was brought together with other Koch ranches in Montana and Kansas. Today, according to the ranch’s website, it “is owned and operated by Matador Cattle Company, a division of Koch Agriculture Company, which is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries.”[43]
Koch’s Matador Ranch in Texas earned the Lone Star Land Steward award for outstanding natural resource management in 2010.[44] The Montana ranch has earned several environmental stewardship awards, including the EPA Regional Administrator’s award.[45]
Environmental and safety record
From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed “more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments.”[25] Another source points out that Koch has had only “eight instances of alleged misconduct … over the span of 63 years” despite being a giant multinational, and that this compares favorably to the fines, penalties and judgments accrued by the similarly large General Electric corporation.[46]
Pollution and resource fines
In May 2001, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.[47]
In 2007, Koch Nitrogen’s plant in Enid, Oklahoma, was listed as the third highest company releasing toxic chemicals in Oklahoma, according to the EPA, ranking behind Perma-Fix Environmental Services in Tulsa and Weyerhaeuser Co. in Valliant.[48] The facility produces about 10% of the US national production of anhydrous ammonia, as well as urea and UAN.[49]
In 2010, Koch Industries was ranked 10th on the list of top US corporate air polluters, the “Toxic 100 Air Polluters”, by the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.[50]
Awards and certifications
This section relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (May 2011)
According to its website, Koch Industries and its subsidiaries received 289 stewardship awards over the two years ending January 2011.[51]
Koch Industries’ headquarters in Wichita has been certified for meeting the Energy Star standards for superior energy efficiency and environmental protection. As of 2010[update] it is the only Wichita office building to be so recognized.[52][53] A Tulsa, Oklahoma site of the Koch-owned John Zink Company site was part of the EPA’s National Environmental Performance Track program from 2003 until 2009 when the program was suspended.[54][55]
In 2011, the Midway-Kansas Chapter of the American Red Cross awarded Koch Industries with a Corporate Excellence Award for its long-standing commitment to the humanitarian mission of Red Cross.[56]
Legal activity
In 2008, Koch Industries discovered that the French affiliate Koch-Glitsch had violated bribery laws allegedly securing contracts in Algeria, Egypt, India, Morocco, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia after an investigation by Ethics Compliance officer, Egorova-Farines.[25] After Koch Industries’ investigative team looked into her findings, the four employees involved were terminated. A Bloomberg article states that Egorova-Farines’ reported her findings immediately, and even after Koch’s investigators substantiated the findings, her “superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent.”[25] Koch Industries’ general counsel, Mark Holden, gave a different account of the events to Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post.[57] Holden stated that Egorova-Farines failed to promptly share the findings, choosing instead to give the information to a manager at Koch-Glitsch who was later fired for bribery. Rubin writes that, according to Holden, “Egorova-Farines was not fired but instead ran into performance problems, left the company to go on leave and never returned.” Egorova-Farines sued Koch-Glitsch for wrongful termination in France. Rubin writes that she lost and “was ordered to pay costs for bringing a frivolous case.”[57]
In May 2011, a Utah judge dismissed a Koch Industries lawsuit alleging that Youth For Climate Truth, in releasing a fake Koch Industries press release, had infringed on Koch Industries’ trademark.[58]
Political activity
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2011)
This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another article, Political activities of the Koch family. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (November 2011)
See also: Political activities of the Koch family
Koch Industries has spent more than $50 million to lobby in Washington since 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[25]
The company has opposed the regulation of financial derivatives and limits on greenhouse gases.[25] It sponsors free market foundations and causes.[59][60] According to the Center for Responsive Politics, many of Koch Industries’ contributions have gone toward achieving legislation on energy issues, defense appropriations and financial regulatory reform.[61] According to Greenpeace, the company has “had a quiet but dominant role in a high-profile national policy debate on global warming,” and has out-spent ExxonMobil (another corporation active in fighting climate change science and legislation) in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change. “From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding.”[62][63] Another Greenpeace study states that between 1997 and 2008 Koch Industries donated nearly $48 million to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming.[64][65] Koch Industries replied saying the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.”[63][context?]
One policy proposal to control global warming that Koch Industries has come out against is Low Carbon Fuel Standards, such as were passed in 2007 in California.[28] According to Koch Industries, “LCFS would cripple refiners that rely on heavy crude feedstocks to provide the transportation fuels that keep America moving.”[66]
According to a critic of the Mercatus Center and the Kochs, the political activity by some of the Koch-supported foundations — such as Mercatus Center[67] — helps the company financially.[relevant to this paragraph? – discuss] According to Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, “Koch has been constantly in trouble with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Mercatus has constantly hammered” on the EPA.[63][relevant to this paragraph? – discuss] The founder of the Mercatus Center, Richard H. Fink, also heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington DC.[63] According to a study by the progressive media watchdog Media Matters for America, Koch Industries (and other Koch brothers-owned companies) “have benefited from nearly a $100 million in government contracts since 2000.”[63][68]
Koch Industries have also been active in supporting and opposing politicians, including presidents. According to Jane Mayer, During the US 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some $900,000 to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans.[neutrality is disputed][63] It has funded opposition campaigns against programs of the Obama administration — “from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus”[63]. The Koch Industries website includes an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal by Charles Koch, one of the company’s owners, “Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out”[69] The article states:
Because of our activism, we’ve been vilified by various groups. Despite this criticism, we’re determined to keep contributing and standing up for those politicians, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who are taking these challenges [deficit spending by governments] seriously.
^ abc Koch, Charles C. (2007). The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World’s Largest Private Company. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-470-13988-2.
^ “Koch Pleads Guilty to Covering up Environmental Violations at Texas Oil Refinery”. justice.gov. U.S. Department of Justice. 9 April 2001. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/April/153enrd.htm. Retrieved 30 May 2010.
^ “Flint Hills Resources, LP Agrees to Transition Its Texas Flexible Permits to Federally Approved Clean Air Act Permits – Transition affects facilities in Corpus Christi, Port Arthur and Longview”. EPA. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6F25BD791C4B21CB852577C400552339. Retrieved 27 April 2011.
^ “SUMMARY JUDGMENTS: Our daily legal-news aggregator for May 11, 2011″ Thompson Reuters News and Insight
^ Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead by Kate Zernike published October 19, 2010, New York Times
^ Pulling the Wraps Off Koch Industries By LESLIE WAYNE; Published: November 20, 1994; New York Times; ” Their donations reflect their belief in libertarian and free market philosophies or their personal interests.”
^ OpenSecrets, Summary of Koch Industries
^ Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine . greenpeace.org . 30 March 2010]
^ abcdefg Covert Operations The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. by Jane Mayer . newyorker.com . August 30, 2010
^ “Mercatus, the staunchly anti-regulatory center funded largely by Koch Industries Inc.” I Am OMB and I Write the Rules By Al Kamen washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2006]
^ Koch Companies Have Received Almost $100 Million In Government Contracts August 20, 2010 — Media Matters Action Network
^ Why Koch Industries is Speaking Out, Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2011
Andrew Breitbart speaking at Tea Party rally at Independence Mall in Philadelphia in July 31, 2010
IN MEMORIAM, ANDREW BREITBART: PJTV Remembers a True Patriot and Friend
“PJTV’s Roger L. Simon, Bill Whittle, Lionel Chetwynd and Stephen Kruiser remember the energy and impact of the great Andrew Breitbart. From his internet savvy, to his willingness to battle ACORN and the left, Andrew Breitbart will be greatly missed by the PJ Media community.”
The Bully! Pulpit Show: Mark Joseph interviews Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart at The Heritage Foundation
Andrew Breitbart: Father, Husband, Patriot, Warrior
Tribute to Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012
Andrew Breitbart Big Government
Gone Without a Clue: The Suspicious Death of Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart – From Mindless Liberal to Conscious Conservative
Rush Limbaugh remembers Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)
CNN: Arianna Huffington remembers Andrew Breitbart
Michael Savage on the Passing of Andrew Breitbart – (Radio Commentary Aired on March 1, 2012)
Glenn Beck Discusses Andrew Breitbart’s Death P1
Glenn Beck Discusses Andrew Breitbart’s Death P2
Glenn Beck Discusses Andrew Breitbart’s Death P3
Alex Jones – Andrew Breitbart Mysteriously Dies Before Releasing Damaging Obama Video
Is This What Killed Andrew Breitbart? The CIA Heart-Attack Gun
Last Interview with Andrew Breitbart
Peter Schiff’s interview with Andrew Breitbart (May 23, 2011)
Cenk Uygur interviews Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart on his Legacy “I want the left to know they screwed with the wrong guy!”
Dylan Ratigan Interviews Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart’s epic interview on MSNBC
On March 1, conservative activist, blogger and new media publisher, Andrew Breitbart, collapsed and died of an apparent heart attack shortly after midnight while walking near his home in Westwood, California. A bystander saw him collapse and called paramedics. They rushed him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he was declared dead. The Los Angeles Coroner’s Office will be conducting an autopsy.
Breitbart spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2012 on Feb. 10, where he made a surprise announcement about videos he claimed to have of Barack Obama from his college days:
“This election we are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out and the narrative is going to come out. That Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine (Dohrn), equally radical, who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. …Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”
Breitbart’s entire CPAC 2012 speech can be viewed on YouTube.
Andrew Breitbart at CPAC 2012 02102012 – FULL SPEECH
Andrew Breitbart Just Another Weird Death
Did OBAMA KILL Andrew Breitbart?
Obama’s Black Reparations and Redistributing The Wealth Scandal–The Pigford Fraud
Pigford: Claimants Win. Lawyers Win. You Lose
Andrew Breitbart on the Pigford story, part 1
Andrew Breitbart on the Pigford story, part 2
Andrew Breitbart ~ Part 7 of 8
Andrew Breitbart ~ Part 8 of 8
Glenn Beck -SHIRLEY SHERROD Obama Fired Her for being Black
Andrew Breitbart’s epic interview on MSNBC
Shirley Sherrod: the FULL video
Andrew Breitbart: Glenn Beck “Screwed the Pooch”
CNN: 2010, Andrew Breitbart defends Sherrod video
Michael Savage interviews Andrew Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 1
Michael Savage interviews Andrew Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 2
Michael Savage interviews Andrew Breitbart on Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 3
Michael Savage talks to Andrew Breitbart about the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 4
Michael Savage talks to Andrew Breitbart about the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 5
Michael Savage talks to Andrew Breitbart about the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Part 6.
Michael Savage talks to Rep. Steve King about the Shirley Sherrod linked Pigford Affair
For 10 years Breitbart had been an editor of the Drudge Report website and researcher for Arianna Huffington who he helped launch The Huffington Post web publication.
Breitbart published his own websites breitbart.com and a video blog breitbarttv.com and the “bigs” websites–Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism and Big Peace.
His Big Journalism website posted on May 28, 2011, a sexually explicit photo of New York Rep. Anthony Weiner. The congressman had sent a 21-year-old college student a link to the photograph. On June 8, 2011, Brietbart reported that Weiner has sent other photos. Weiner resigned from Congress on June 21, 2011.
Weiner Takes on Blitzer over Weinergate
Breitbart at Rep. Weiner’s press conference
Dennis Miller Interviews Andrew Breitbart About Anthony Weiner And The Jokes Came Naturally
Weiner apologizes to wife, family and Andrew Breitbart
In 2009 Breitbart and his Big Government website assisted in the demise of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Videos of Hannah Giles, who posed as a prostitute, and James O’Keefe, her boyfriend, meeting with ACORN staff in several offices were aired on both the Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity television shows and Fox News. ACORN was subsequently liquidated in November 2010.
PJTV: How Breitbart Conquered ACORN (and the MSM)
Barack Obama – ACORN Will Shape My Domestic Policy
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 1/4
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 2/4
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 3/4
Glenn Beck 20090910 Part 4/4
Much More Footage From The ACORN Prostitution Slavery Sting In Baltimore MA
Hannah Giles Interviewed on Red Eye
Glenn Beck – Hannah poses as a prostitute to ACORN worker
Hannity Interviews Couple Behind ACORN “Pimp And Prostitute” Video
Sean Hannity with Hannah Giles, Andrew Breitbart discuss ACORN
Sean Hannity, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart discuss ACORN San Diego undercover operation
Sean Hannity, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart discuss ACORN San Bernadino
Michael Savage Interviews Andrew Breitbart on ACORN Investigation -(Part 1 of 2)- September 18, 2009
Michael Savage Interviews Andrew Breitbart on ACORN Investigation -(Part 2 of 2)- September 18, 2009
Death Of A Breitbart
He wrote a weekly column for the Washington Times and his work was also published by the National Review Online, the Weekly Standard Online and the Wall Street Journal.
Breitbart wrote two bestsellers, “Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon — the Case Against Celebrity,” in 2004 and “Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World,” in 2011. He recently wrote a new conclusion to “Righteous Indignation” where he said:
“I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it. I love reporting stories that the Complex refuses to report. I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and—famously—I enjoy making enemies.
Three years ago, I was mostly a behind-the-scenes guy who linked to stuff on a very popular website. I always wondered what it would be like to enter the public realm to fight for what I believe in. I’ve lost friends, perhaps dozens. But I’ve gained hundreds, thousands—who knows?—of allies. At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.”
The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart — Media War
Breitbart was 43 and is survived by his wife, Susie Bean, daughter of actor Orson Bean, and four young children.
[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesdays and author of the companion blog www.pronkpops.wordpress.com]
Background Articles and Videos
PART 1 Glenn Beck – Soros puts “hit” on Beck – 10-20-2010
PART 2 Glenn Beck – Soros puts “hit” on Beck – 10-20-2010
FOX News:Judge Napolitano Talks Ron Paul,Mitt Romney,Rick Santorum on Freedom Watch
Ron Paul on Freedom Watch w/ Judge Nepalitano (1-5-12)
SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – The End of Right-Wing Progressivism?
SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire
SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative
SA@TAC – Compassionate Conservative Rick Santorum
Mitt Romney takes Iowa, Who will take New Hampshire? The Progressives!
SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism
An interview with The American Conservative Editor Daniel McCarthy on the state of the American Right in 2010 and how the neoconservatives turned the GOP into the “War Party,” corrupting, devaluing and damaging conservatism for most of the decade prior.
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
Libya and Syria: The Neocon Plan to Attack Seven Countries in Five Years
GBTV: Progressives in the Republican party
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 1
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 2
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 3
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 4
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 5
Glenn Beck on Progressivism Part 6
Making Sense of the Conservative Movement
What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?
Movie Magic Crippled Conservatives
The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement
Progressives have taken over the Republican Party as they did the Democratic Party.
Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry are big government progressives that try to fool the American people into believing that they are conservatives that support limited government.
All four “talk” conservative while they “walk” progressive and expand the size and scope of Federal and state governments.
What is even worse is all four are also neoconservatives that want the United States to police the world and empire or nation build abroad–spread progressivism over the entire world–with an interventionist aggressive foreign policy!
The neoconservatives want war with Iran and Syria.
Progressives want government intervention at home and abroad.
Do not let the so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts fool you that they favor one of the Republican progressive candidates as their “conservative” choice.
None of the Republican progressive candidates are either conservative libertarians or conservative traditionalists, they are big government Republican neoconservative progressives.
The Republican progressives want to make the American people dependent upon war.
The Democratic progressives want to make the American people dependent upon welfare.
Both political parties are running budget deficits exceeding $1 trillion and will never run balanced budgets or pay off the national debt.
The American people pay the bills in taxes, inflation, damaged bodies and their lives.
Only the American people can stop Republican and Democratic progressives.
Keep in mind that most of the media are either Democratic or Republican progressives including many of the so-called “conservative” talk radio show hosts.
Many of these talk radio show hosts are neoconservative progressives that support Romney, Gingrich, Santorium and Perry.
These talk radio show hosts fear that the American people are starting to wake up to the fact that all four Repubican presidential candidates that they support and praise are neoconservative progressives.
This includes Bennett, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt, Levin, Medved and Ingraham.
The American people are reading and discovering that Republican candidates are big government neoconservative progressives and not conservative libertarians or conservative traditionalist.
Do not be fooled by either the Republican neoconservative progressive candidates nor your favorite talk radio show hosts.
I have been in the conservative movement since Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964.
I am a classical liberal or what in America is called a libertarian.
I identify my political philosophy as classical liberal or traditional libertarian or simply conservative.
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
I have read and reread the works of Smith, Burke, Bastiat, Say, Menger, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Rand, Rothbard, Nock, Nash, Kirk and many others.
For many years I voted the lesser of two evil progressives by voting for Republican candidates that I knew were neither libertarians nor traditional conservatives.
Only one President, Ronald Reagan, was a conservative libertarian, but he was a disappointment for he failed to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government.
I am no longer a Republican, but an independent.
Life is too short and I have wised up.
I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils for the simple reason it is still evil.
The only Republican presidential candidate that is clearly not a progressive but a classical liberal or traditional libertarian is Ron Paul.
The only Republican presidential candidate that wants to decrease the size and scope of the Federal government, balance the Federal budget, bring the troops home and eliminate the progressive income tax, IRS, Federal Reserve System, and many government departments, agencies and programs is Ron Paul.
The only way to stop the progressives of both political parties is to vote for candidates that truly believe in the Constitution and limited government.
This will take decades to accomplish and another political party with the financial backing of the American people.
Progressives control both political parties, media, professions, colleges, unions, and most large businesses.
It will not be easy, but it can be done over time.
Do not be fooled by the neoconservatives who are actually right-wing progressives who left the Democratic Party.
Now and in the future I will not support or vote for any Republican or Democratic candidate for any public office that is a progressive or neoconservative.
As they say in Texas, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Republican Neoconservative Progressive Candidates
Party Establishment Choice: Mitt Romney
Rush Limbaugh Admits Mitt Romney is a GOP Disaster if nominated
John McCain endorses Mitt Romney for President
Mitt Romney gets Endorsement from George H.W. Bush (12-22-11)
The story of two men trapped in one body
Mitt Romney: I’m Progressive
Mitt Romney: “R” Does Not Stand for Republican
The Real Romney?
Mitt Romney on the Contract with America
See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate
Romney anti-Gingrich ad “Baggage”
Smiling (Restore Our Future)
Newt Gingrich Vs Mitt Romney 2012 Ad
SA@TAC – No Excuse: Mitt Romney’s Case for American Empire
Party Base Choice: Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich on abortion in 1991: “Relax and accept it”
Newt Gingrich: We should respect pro-abortion Republicans
Newt Gingrich: There’s plenty of room for pro-abortion Republicans
Newt Gingrich Admits He’s a Progressive in the Theodore Roosevelt Tradition
Newt Gingrich is a Progressive Rockefeller Republican
Newt Gingrich: I’m a Wilsonian
Newt Gingrich: I supported Rockefeller over Goldwater
Newt Gingrich FDR was Greatest President of the 20th Century
Newt Gingrich: Progressives took over both parties
Sean Hannity endorses Newt Gingrich
The REAL Newt Gingrich
SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative
Newt Gingrich is Toast
Neoconservative Religious Right Choice: Rick Santorium
SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?
SA@TAC – Compassionate Conservative Rick Santorum
Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms America
Rick Santorum says he’s “proud” of his earmarks
Rick Santorum – Unelectable
Senator Rick Santoum A Big Washington Insider & Spender
Senator Rick Santorum Admits Voting for Ear Marks and The Bridge To Nowhere
Rick Santorum On Earmarks “Congress Appropriates Money! That’s What Congress Is Supposed To Do”
Rick Santorum hearts turncoat Arlen Specter
Rick Santorum on gay marriage
Rick Santorum Opposes Gay Marriage and Adoption
Santorum: pursuit of happiness harms America
Ron Paul Destroys Rick Santorum On Iran! – Iowa Republian Presidential Debate
cnn – rick santorum: barack obama’s foreign policy is appeasement
Dennis Kucinich on Santorum’s attacks on Ron Paul
Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum: He’s a Reckless & Trigger-Happy Big Spender
SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?
SA@TAC – Constitutional Conservatives?
Republican Party Conservative Libertarian Choice: Ron Paul
Ron Paul – The Founders gave Government one Role: Protecting Liberty
Ron Paul Ad – Life
Thanksgiving Family Forum – Ron Paul Highlights
SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?
Ron Paul on Iowa Caucus, Spending Cuts, Opponents
Ron Paul Ad – Plan
Ron Paul: The Economy
Ron Paul: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney Are “Consistently Inconsistent”
Veteran Ron Paul Calls Newt Gingrich A Chicken Hawk Draft Dodger!
“Blessed are the Peacemakers:” Ron Paul’s Christian Foreign Policy
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Ron Paul on Just War, War Breaking Families
SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist
SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”
Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 1
Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 2
Jason Lewis Bashes Gop Establishment for smear campaign against Ron Paul pt 3
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TheDC – “I Like Ron Paul Except on Foreign Policy”
SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist
SA@TheDC – Conservatism’s Future: Young Americans for Liberty
SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?
Israel and GOP join forces to oust Obama
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Conservatives and libertarians have been listening to the smear attacks on talk radio by several so-called “conservatives”, mostly neoconservatives and progressives Republicans that favor big government intervention at home and/or abroad.
They are trying to paint Paul as a racist, anti-Semite, and extremist.
Nice try, but the character and record of Ron Paul speaks for itself.
What is extremist is running deficits, where spending exceeds tax revenues, more than $1 trillion for four years in a row and not balancing the budget for another ten years. This is fiscal irresponsibility and madness. Yet this is exactly what both political parties are proposing.
Principled conservatives and libertarians are not buying this smear attack by the Republican establishment and their shills on talk radio.
The Republican Party establishment is cutting their own throats as are those talk radio hosts who lie and mislead the American people about Ron Paul.
The neoconservatives and the progressive Republican Party establishment have become the party of warmongers, not peacemakers.
The Republican Party is the party of government intervention abroad to make the American people dependent upon warfare.
The Democratic Party is the party of government intervention at home to make the American people dependent upon welfare.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties have been captured by progressive big government interventionists with the Democratic Party establishment largely socialist and the Republican Party establishment largely neoconserservatives.
Both parties have been running massive government deficits and running up the national debt to pay for their excessive welfare and warfare programs.
Just keep it up and you will destroy the Republican Party.
If the establishment does keeps it up, I would urge Ron Paul to run as an independent candidate.
I much prefer Ron Paul to win as a Republican, but the progressive and neoconservatives are revealing themselves as being neither conservative or libertarian, but big government interventionists.
As a conservative and libertarian, I will not vote for another progressive and/or neoconservative Republican including Romney, Gingrich,Perry and Santorium.
Suggest conservatives and libertarians do their own homework and research on the candidates.
Stop listening to Bennett, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Hewitt, just to mention a few of the so-called “conservatives”.
They are really shills for the Republican Party, Republicans first, and not conservatives and/or libertarians first.
Bennett, Hewitt and Levin in particular are misleading you about Ron Paul.
“…Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. …”
“…It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. …”
Below is Glenn Beck’s hit piece on Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy.
You See … Even Glenn Beck thinks Ron Paul is an American Taliban Congressmen
Apparently, Beck skipped over Washington’s warning and advice about “the insidious wiles of foreign influences” and “to steer clear of permanent alliance.”
Beck would be well advised to heed Washington’s advice.
Instead he has become a shill for Israel, the Israel lobby and the neoconservatives.
Beck has said in the past that he was a libertarian.
Do not be fooled, he is a pro-Israel big government neoconservative.
Ron Paul on Glenn Beck 6-27-11
Ron Paul This Speech Gave Me Chills
Ron Paul U S foreign Policy AIPAC Israel greatest obstacle no respect for the constitution
Is Ron Paul Really An Anti-Semite or the only one with the balls to tell us the truth!?
SA@TAC – Why Foreign Policy Matters Most
The Truth About Terror | by The Southern Avenger
SA@TAC – Is Glenn Beck Killing the Tea Party?
SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Conservative Foreign Policy
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
The Lunacy of Norman Podhoretz by the Southern Avenger
Suggest Beck and his followers read George Nash’s book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America.
I always had some doubts about Glenn Beck and frankly never completely trusted him.
He is not a libertarian when it comes to foreign policy, but a closet neoconservative, that pops out of the closet to relieve himself, usually on the champion of the U.S. Constitution, Ron Paul.
Beck is no friend to principled conservative and libertarian, Ron Paul.
Beck, like Romney’s father, has been “brainwashed” about what needs to be done in the Middle East.
George Romney Brainwashing 1968 ElectionWallDotOrg
How to Brainwash a Nation
Romney, Gingrich and Paul on A Nuclear Iran – CBS News & National Journal GOP Debate
The only way Iran will not have a nuclear weapon is if Israel and the United States start a undeclared war with Iran and start World War III in the Middle East.
All Ron Paul is saying is follow the Constitution; go to Congress, make you case and if war is declared, win it.
Neither the progressives nor the neoconservatives want to do this for the simple reason the American people might say, “Are you nuts?”
Israel will most likely have to go it alone in attacking Iran.
The National Review has been captured by the neoconservatives and who did they put on their cover, Mitt Romney for president.
Ron Paul wants a non-interventionist government policy both at home and abroad, as do I.
Beck actually agrees with Paul when he says that we should get out of the region, as do I.
Beck’s problem is he went to Israel and was given the ”treatment” or “brainwashing” by the Government of Israel as have several other talk radio show host including Rush Limbaugh among several others.
The Communists used to do this with their carefully selected “useful” idiots.
I actually agree with Beck and Israel about the threat in the Middle East and Iran from radical Islam.
Iran has been at war with the United States using proxies for over thirty years.
Where we disagree is what to do about it.
Starting a world war by the United States attacking Iran is folly.
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home from around the world, dismantle the American empire of hundreds of military bases abroad and stop the U.S. government from empire or nation building and policing the world.
Let the people in these countries fight their own battles–Arabs against Iranians, Sunni against the Shia, Turkey against Syria and Iran, tribe against tribe, family against family.
America needs to simply mind its own business.
This is exactly what Washington and Paul are saying.
The majority of the American people are concluding after tens of thousands of American deaths and wounded and several trillions of dollars spent on undeclared wars that is would be far cheaper to bring the troops home and obtain our energy domestically.
Both the Democratic and Republican Party establishments and leaderships are deeply penetrated by both progressives and neoconservatives that want big government and a welfare and warfare economy that promotes collectivism and dependency on the government.
The progressive and neoconservatives are afraid of Ron Paul for the simple reason he might very well get elected President.
Question: Who is against Ron Paul?
Answer: Large U.S. banks, the military industrial complex, large U.S. corporation, unions, federal, state, and local governments and their bureaucracies, lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, many foreign governments who rely on U.S. for foreign aid, United Nations, progressives (including the majority of the media and the academy) and neoconservatives including several radio talk show hosts and their regular guests (for example Bill Bennett and his neoconservative guests from the American Enterprise Institute).
Paul must be doing something right for he is scarring the hell out of both the Democratic and Republican establishment and their propagandist on the right, middle and center.
Reminds me of an old Barry Goldwater political ad:
Nikita Khrushchev Ad: Barry Goldwater 1964 Presidential Campaign Commercial
In your heart, you know Ron Paul is right.
I now consider Beck to be a “useful idiot” for the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby.
Beck at least in the past tired to connect the dots.
Beck’s weakness is he does not want to connect all the dots especially those that lead to advertisers such as large corporations.
It never occurs to Beck that if Ron Paul is so wise about the economy, why is he so wrong about foreign policy.
Here are three very big clues for Beck:
Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
Ezra Taft Benson on The John Birch Society
“…This is an excerpt of an hour-long talk given in 1965 by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, just 4 years after having left the cabinet in Washington DC where he served the full 8 years (despite all predictions that he would be the first one in the cabinet to be removed given his severe anti-socialist policies). He sought to undo the bondage and destruction brought on by the New Deal as government now had moved far outside of it’s jurisdiction and constitutional bounds. Visit http://www.JBS.org for more information about The John Birch Society. …”
Government interventionism at home and abroad resulted in the welfare and warfare economy with massive government spending and dependency.
Beck is confusing the American people.
Sound familiar.
The American people and Ron Paul are going in same direction.
Beck manifestly lies when he says that Ron Paul is going in the same direction as Romney and Gingrich.
Both Romney and Gingrich want bigger government not one that is limited in size and scope.
Both Romney and Gingrich want an interventionist foreign policy with America policing the world and nation building.
Both Romney and Gingrich wanted a mandated health insurance plan before they discovered that the American people do not.
Giveme a break.
The progressives, neoconservatives and the Israel lobby support either Romney or Gingrich not Ron Paul!
Ron Paul opposes foreign aid to all nations including Israel.
As a result many Jewish Americans conclude he must be an anti-Semite and anti-Israel.
No he is not. Paul is against foreign aid and for a non-interventionist foreign policy.
I cannot think of one talk radio show host that has served in the military, not a single one.
Beck did not wear the uniform of an American soldier, but now goes on his television show to point out he is wearing the lapel pin of the flag of Israel.
If Beck wants to support Israel may I suggest Beck go to Israel and enlist in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
Shame on Beck for his truly pathetic piece of propaganda and attack on Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running for President that is a veteran.
Dr. Paul served five years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon.
I trust Ron Paul and will vote for him.
I do not trust Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or Perry or their supporters in broadcasting.
Should Romney win the nomination, then the American people could be replacing an incompetent progressive with a competent one.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Instead of attacking Paul, Beck should examine his premises and logic and support him.
The progressive do not care whether Obama, Romney, Perry or even Gingrich are elected president.
Both the progressives and neoconservatives fear the election of Ron Paul.
Why?
Paul’s message is resonating with the American people because it is true and principled
Paul will win the Republican nomination.
However, should he not win the Republican nomination, I hope and pray he will form a new party.
Whether as a Republican or an independent, Paul will be our next president with a landslide victory over Obama.
FOX News is No Better than the “Liberal Media” | by The Southern Avenger
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated….”
“…Speaking in Washington DC in August 2006 as guests of CAIR, Walt made the point that they never said “the Israel lobby was all powerful.” It was “not some secret cabal that controls [U.S.] foreign policy”; rather, there were “countervailing forces out there, though they are much weaker, and the lobby doesn’t get its way on every single issue.” Walt’s important caveats highlight something missing from both the leftist analysis, exemplified by Zunes, and the more traditional conspiratorial analysis, both of which seem to contend that the ruling elites are monolithic and unfractured.
Among conspiracists, particularly those concerned with the New World Order, the dominant assumption is that all groups are so interconnected that the same objective—world government—must predominate. Any evidence to the contrary is usually dismissed as a contrivance designed to deceive the public, or as a grubby squabble for control of the same project. David Icke, for instance, assures us that most world leaders (Illuminati) “only appear to be in conflict for the purposes of deluding the people into a false reality” (Icke 477).
Yet indisputable evidence of elite factionalism—of the upper echelons of the food-chain chasing different agendas than world government —has long been apparent. In his magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope (1966), for example, Carroll Quigley had observed how, since the 1950s, Wall Street had been challenged by the “new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in the Southwest and Far West.” As early as 1964, the representatives of this “new wealth,” based in oil, aviation or armaments, had engaged in a financial struggle with the “old wealth” of the East for control of the political process—and ultimately of the White House—to ensure that high government spending on military and space continued (Quigley 1245-1246). This split between the so-called East Coast “Yankees” and the “Cowboys” of the Southwest was subsequently explored at length by Kirkpatrick Sale (1975) and Carl Oglesby (1977).
Seen through the prism of elite factionalism, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a valuable addition to this neglected field. It highlights in some detail the workings and influence of yet another private grouping that subverts democratic processes in service of a narrow agenda. Of course, some caution is necessary as the outcry over its activities is driven by elite, rather than popular, angst at losing the initiative. But to disregard it, either out of fears of being labeled as anti-Semitic or because it conflicts with other pet theories, would be shortsighted.
Whether the invasion of Iraq was for oil, Israel, or even world government (a contention doggedly advocated by the John Birch Society) will no doubt occupy the minds of various researchers for decades to come. But what should be clear is that in taking issue with the workings of various elite groups, we should not privilege one over the other as targets of our disdain, but recognize that the assault on democracy takes many forms and comes from many quarters and is always at the expense of the powerless.
Ron Paul : Were NOT Threatened Militarily By ANY Country AT ALL! (Part 1/2)
Ron Paul : Were NOT Threatened Militarily By ANY Country AT ALL! (Part 2/2)
More and more American are noticing that the so-called mainstream media are intentionally ignoring Ron Paul.
The political establishment of both parties are running scared of Ron Paul and the word has gone out to either ignore or marginalize Ron Paul.
How scared?
Rush Limbaugh stated today on his radio show that Ron Paul is not a Republican.
Really?
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – End All Foreign Aid
Next Rush will be telling us Barry Goldwater was not a Republican and Bill Buckley was a Progressive.
Rush is losing it.
Seems that Rush, Mark and Sean are closet neoconservatives when it comes to Israel and go nuts when either Ron Paul or Rand Paul propose doing away with all foreign aid including that going to Israel.
Both Rush and Levin are disappointing me.
The United States can no longer spend 2 percent of the Federal Budget on foreign aid including foreign aid to Israel.
The majority of the American people want to eliminate all foreign aid and withdraw from the United Nations.
The majority of the American people want to bring all the troops home.
The majority of the American people want defense spending to be cut.
First let me say I am a big fan and promoter of WordPress and actually teach college students blogging and the use of WordPress.
When one of my past blog posts suddenly gets ten or more hits, I usually look at the post to see what I wrote and what videos I included.
I do this because over time a number of videos that I embed in the page may have been removed by YouTube and appear as a black sceen. I usually delete them.
Also, I may want to update and expand the post and add new tags and/or categories.
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”
~Quran, 9:123
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
~Winston Churchill
American Airlines flight number 11 left gate B32 and took off from Boston’s Logan International airport at 7:59 a.m bound for Los Angeles.
At about 8:46:40 local time, all 92 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were killed as it crashed into the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.
Then at 9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 bound from Boston’s Logan International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport crashes into the South Tower (Tower 2) killing 65 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers.
Shortly thereafter at 9:35 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon killing all 64 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard as well as 125 in the Pentagon.
The only aircraft that did not reach its intended target, the United States Capital building in Washington D.C., was United Airlines Flight 93 bound from Newark International Airport to San Francisco International Airport.
Four Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists hijacked the plane about forty minutes into the flight. However, several passengers tried to take back the aircraft from the terrorists.
All 44 passengers and crew including the 4 Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists died at about 10:03 a.m.when the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Several hundred people choose to jump to their deaths from both towers to escape from the intense fire and choking smoke in both buildings captured in the “Falling Man” photo and recounted in the 9/11 The Falling Man documentary on YouTube and “The Falling Man” online article in Esquire Magazine:
Credit: The Falling Man, a photograph by Richard Drew for the Associated Press.
9/11 The Falling Man
The Falling Man
By Tom Junod
“…They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors — the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. …”
People watching the burning towers from surrounding streets were horrified at what they were witnessing as hundreds from all sides of the two towers jumped to their certain deaths to escape the flames and smoke.
After burning for fifty-six minutes the South Tower of the World Trade Center fell at 9:58.
Thirty minutes later the North Tower fell.
Less than two hours from the time the two jet passenger airliners crashed into World Trade Center towers, both buildings had collapsed.
Killed that day were nearly three thousand people from over 70 countries that were in and around the buildings that were destroyed or damaged including over three hundred New York City fireman and policemen who responded to the explosions and fires in the buildings.
Al-Qaeda’s Islamic Wahhabi jihad or struggle by the sword arrived with a vengeance in the United States on September 11, 2001.
Al-Qaeda is a radical network of militants who call for a global jihad or armed struggle with those not of the Islamic faith, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.
Most Al-Qaeda jihadists are from the Sunni branch of Islam and from the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect established in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to establish a new Islamic Caliphate or leader for the Muslim community or Ummah under Sharia or Islamic law. However, Muslims differ as to the interpretation of Sharia or Islamic law.
The two main branches of Islam are Sunni and Shia. The largest branch of Islam is Sunni who comprise between 87% to 90% of all Muslems worldwide according to the Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The smaller Shia branch of Islam comprises between 10% and 13% of the all Muslims worldwide and who are are primarily located in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and India. Arabs are primarily Sunni and Iranians or Persians are primarily Shia. There are both Sunni and Shia jihadists who use suicide bombers to attack infidels or those of another religious faith mainly Christians, Jews and Hindus.
However, neither Arabs nor Iranians are the largest populations of Muslims. The countries with the largest Muslim populations include Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. In 2010 the world’s population is nearly 7 billion of which nearly 1.6 billion are Muslims or over 22% of the world’s population. There are over 50 countries with a Muslim majority and 57 countries comprising the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) .
The United States with a population of 310 million has a relatively small Muslim population of about 3 million or roughly 1% of the total population of the United States in 2010. The Al-qaeda attackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia with a Muslim population of about 25 million or less than 2% of the world’s Muslim population.
The nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists were religious fanatics of the Sunni Islam Wahhabi sect, including fifteen Saudi nationals. The Al-Qaeda jihadists had hijacked four commercial airline passenger jets in a coordinated attack on the American people and the United States of America.
The death toll from the Islamic Wahhabi jihad attack on America on September 11, 2001 was 2,995 including the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorist hijackers. There were more deaths on September 11, 2001, than the 2350 deaths, mostly members of the United States Navy and Army, from the surprise Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the United States Navy Pacific fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Nearly nine years later a so-called “moderate” Muslem cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants to build a thirteen story Islamic community center and mosque less than three blocks from ground zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.
The planned site for the Islamic community center and mosque is 45-51 Park Place, called Park 51, is two and half block north and 560 feet from the northern boundary of the World Trade Center site at Vesey street.
Few Americans dispute the property owners’ right to construct such a building provided all city, state and Federal laws are complied with including local zoning laws and receipt of the necessary building permits.
Few Americans dispute the rights of all Americans to practice their religious faith.
Few Americans oppose the exercise of free speech.
The vast majority of Americans, however, consider the proposed community center and mosque to be an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.
Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.
In fact the Islamic religion considers such an action to be mischief-making or a fitna, a deliberate provocation against the infidels, those not of the Islamic faith including Christians and Jews.
The site of the World Trade Center and the immediate surrounding area is considered hallowed ground for it is the final resting place or cemetery for many of those who died on September 11, 2001 and whose remains were never found.
The American people demand that this Islamic community center and mosque be moved to another location in New York City.
Otherwise, those behind the building of such an insulting affront to the American people will only receive the rightful indignation and shunning they justly deserve and will soon be exposed for who and what they are–stealth jihadists.
Extreme jidahists can be Sunni or Shia and overt militarist jihadists like those of September 11, 2010 or covert stealth jihadists that want to replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with a theocracy.
Stealth jihadists speak of toleration when speaking to infidels or non-believers in Islam
When the jihadists speak to their fellow Muslims, they speak of Islamic global supremacy and return of the Caliphate under Sharia or Islamic law.
Religious toleration has it limits even in the United States. Toleration should be a two-way street. Toleration does not extend to evil. Toleration is not a suicide pact. Yet Saudi Arabia has zero toleration or an absolute ban for any church, temple or synagogue being built in Saudi Arabia and bans all non-believers in Islam from the city of Mecca.
Sharia is a direct and immediate threat to liberty of the American people. The jihadists seek to replace American law and the United States Constitution with Sharia or Islamic law.
Sharia or Islamic law should be banned from the United States and those immigrants advocating it should be deported to their country of origin.
Saudi Arabia funds Islamic community centers and mosques throughout the United States where both militarist and stealth jihadists are cultivated and supported. The majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have come from extreme Islamic jihadists, from both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and with support and encouragement of local mosques and their Imam.
Authors, journalists, politicians and television and talk radio show hosts such as Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Andrew C. McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are among those who expose the threat posed by the militarist and stealth jihadists. However, those commenting upon the threat posed by the jihadists are quickly labeled by the jihadists, their supporters and mainstream media as engaging in hate speech and accused of being racists and Islamophobes, having prejudice or bias against those of the Islam faith or Moslems. This is especially true when the Quran and actual speeches and words of the jihadists are quoted or made available for viewing on the Internet at such sites as YouTube.
The American people will remember September 11, 2001 and never forget the fallen. The American people will honor their memories by stopping the ground zero mosque and the militant and stealth jihadists of the sword whether they be Sunni or Shia. The American people will defend their country and their liberty.
Imam Rauf Exposed, Elimination of Israel, Terrorist Supporting, N’ Word
Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque
Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”
ADDED And UPDATED March 3, 2011
Frank Gaffney: Jihad By Other Means
“…At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. …”
On May 1, 2011 the President of The United States of America made the following announcement:
President Obama FULL Speech – Osama Bin Laden DEAD – Complete
Osama Bin Laden is Killed in Pakistan – 1st May 2011
CNN: How U.S. found, killed Osama bin Laden
“The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done,”
Former President George W. Bush
NYC reacts to Osama bin Laden’s death
CNN: Big crowds cheer at White House
Osama Bin Laden Is Dead – What Was Pakistan’s Part – 1st May 2011
US kills Osama bin Laden decade after 9/11 attacks
“…Osama bin Laden, the face of global terrorism and architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was killed in a firefight with elite American forces Monday, then quickly buried at sea in a stunning finale to a furtive decade on the run.
Long believed to be hiding in caves, bin Laden was tracked down in a costly, custom-built hideout not far from a Pakistani military academy. The stunning news of his death prompted relief and euphoria outside the White House and around the globe, yet also deepening fears of terrorist reprisals against the United States and its allies.
“Justice has been done,” President Barack Obama said late Sunday from the White House in an announcement that seemed sure to lift his own political standing.
The military operation took mere minutes, and there were no U.S. casualties.
U.S. Blackhawk helicopters ferried about two dozen troops from Navy SEAL Team Six, a top military counter-terrorism unit, into the compound identified by the CIA as bin Laden’s hideout — and back out again in less than 40 minutes. Bin Laden was shot in the head, officials said, after he and his bodyguards resisted the assault.
Three adult males were also killed in the raid, including one of bin Laden’s sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden’s sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida. U.S. officials also said one woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two other women were injured.
The U.S. official who disclosed the burial at sea said it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial. …”
Leader of Ground Zero Mosque Refuses To Disclose Source Of Funding
Ground Zero Mosque 9/11 Liars for Islam, Muhammad said you can lie: Taqiyya
Radical Islam: Saudi Wahhabism responsible for worldwide terror
Robert Spencer on Hannity exposes Imam Rauf on Ground Zero Mosque
Robert Spencer Jihad Watch
Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda]
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)
]
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)
Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque
Andy McCarthy – The Grand Jihad (5.24.10)
ADDED March 9, 2011
Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”
Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque
Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy
Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”
First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?
Michael Savage Gets Pissed Off About Jihadists and Terrorism
annity 05/04/2010 w/ Mark Levin
REVISED AND EXPANDED ON MAY 1, 2011
Steve Coll on The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-1/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-2/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-3/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-4/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-5/6
The history of the Bin Laden Family-good!-6/6
Conversations with History: Steve Coll
September 11 Attacks
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.
The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[4] In addition, there is at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse.[5]
The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism. It invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. The United States also enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.
The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[6] …”
American Airlines Flight 11
American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport. It was hijacked by five al-Qaedan terrorists and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer. Mohamed Atta, a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls. Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 local time; the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, plus an unconfirmed number of people in the buildings impact zone. Many people in the streets witnessed the collision, and the Naudet brothers captured the impact on video, as did Pavel Hlava. Mark Burnback and Wolfgang Staehle had a webcam set up that captured the impact through a series of photographs. Before the hijacking was confirmed, news agencies began to report on the incident and speculated that the crash had been an accident. The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims (see section Aftermath below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37am EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, and 125 in the building were killed. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims, arranged according to the year of birth, ranging from 1930 (age 71) to 1998 (age 3). Flight 77′s cuts directly through the park. …”
“… United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport, in California. On the morning of September 11, 2001, the flight was hijacked by five al-Qaeda-associated Islamist terrorists, and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks. Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes, before air traffic controllers noticed at 08:51. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which had struck the top of the North Tower eighteen minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse, 56 minutes later, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims (see chapter Aftermath, below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…United Airlines Flight 93 was a United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport in Newark, NJ to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA that was hijacked on September 11, 2001. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots and took control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result of this knowledge, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft.
The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including the four hijackers. Many witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting on the event within an hour. The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified. Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers’ intended target, thought to be either the White House or the United States Capitol. A permanent memorial is planned for construction on the crash site, with dedication scheduled for 2011, though it has been the subject of criticism.
Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 (the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175), United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its intended target. …”
“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.
Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.
Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[10]
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[11] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. …”
“…Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)“.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
A wide range of opinions exist about the exact meaning of jihad. Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[4] The differences of opinion are the result of different interpretation of the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the ahadith (singular: hadith). For example, the prominent orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that, in the Qur’an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that “one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct”.[6]
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as “holy war”.[7] Muslim authors tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[8] In technical literature, the term “holy war” is often used to describe jihad.[9] However, scholars of Islamic studies often stress that both words are not synonymous.[10]
Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).
Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the “greater jihad”, Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadith, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur’an and other writings.[31][32]
In contrast, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that “internal Jihad” is important[33] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider “Jihad of the heart/soul” to be more important than “Jihad by the sword”.[34] Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.”[35]
Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[36]
Jihad of the heart(jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
Jihad by the tongue(jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue.
Jihad by the hand(jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
Jihad by the sword(jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[37]
“…Most Americans continue to be puzzled by the Saudis. 15 or the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudia Arabian. Not Taliban. Not Libyan. Not Palestinian. Why? They don’t like our military presence in the country, our culture, our policies, in general they just don’t like us and want us dead. What’s more they’re increasingly unhappy with the ruling Al Saud Family, who a decade ago cut a deal with us for military protection. The Key to understanding the vicious attack on America is in understanding “Wahhabism.”
Wahhabi Clerics control education in Saudi Arabia. They teach that all who do not believe exactly as they do are “enemies.” They also teach holy war against enemies (Die fighting a jihad and you die a martyr with special rewards afterlife.)
The Saudi hijackers were Wahhabi. When they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon they believed they were doing a holy act and ensuring martyrdom. This twisted thinking is a perversion of Islam. The Wahhabis use their wealth to export their twisted message. They target the poor and illiterate with the promise of an education, only to teach religious INTOLERANCE, the oppression of women and terrorist warfare.
The Al Saud Family is worried about civil war. It has been Osama Bin Ladens main objective has ben to terrorize the U.S. out of Saudia Arabia and then incite the Saudi people to help him seize the kingdom and it’s vast oil reserves.
The Al Saud Family regularly pays off the Wahhabi Clerics and Islamic charities simply to avoid civil war. A lot of the money has been funnelled to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network.
If Islamic terrorists were to seize control of Saudia Arabia and its 260 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, they would be ten times more powerful than Iran or Iraq.
While Kuwait is the only Arab Democracy in the Middle East, the Islamic Fundamentalist Party is the fastest growing party there. The Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Islamic extremism is rapidly growing. …”
A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population
ANALYSIS October 7, 2009
Executve Summary
“..A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion.
While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories1 in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater.
More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.
Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.
These are some of the key findings of Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The report offers the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population, including sectarian identity.
Previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.2 But these commonly quoted estimates often have appeared without citations to specific sources or explanations of how the figures were generated.
The Pew Forum report is based on the best available data for 232 countries and territories. Pew Forum researchers, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centers around the world, acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at these figures – the largest project of its kind to date. (See Methodology for more detail.)
The Pew Forum’s estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world’s Muslim population.3 Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate. …”
by Daniel Pipes
April 22, 2003
updated Nov 22, 2009
“…Islam is widely touted as “the fastest growing religion in the United States,” so how does one explain that The World Almanac and Book of Facts has these figures for Muslims in the United States:
1997 edition (p. 644) says 5.1 million
2003 edition (p. 635) says 2.8 million
No, the population did not actually decrease; to understand this reduction in the estimate, see my October 2001 analysis, “How Many U.S. Muslims?” In it, I report on two recent surveys, by the American Religious Identification Survey 2001 and Tom Smith of the University of Chicago, which found the number of U.S. Muslims to be under two million. So, it appears that the almanac’s editors stopped accepting the overblown Islamist estimates as accurate and instead relied on scholarly and reliable work. A good round estimate is that Muslims make up just under 1 percent of the U.S. population. (April 22, 2003) …”
“…Islam
Islam (a word that literally means “surrender to the will of God”) arose in Arabia with what Muslims believe are a series of revelations to the Prophet Mohammed from the one and only God, the God of Abraham and of Jesus. These revelations, conveyed by the angel Gabriel, are recorded in the Qur’an. Muslims believe that these revelations, given to the greatest and last of a chain of prophets stretching from Abraham through Jesus, complete God’s message to humanity. The Hadith, which recount Mohammed’s sayings and deeds as recorded by his contemporaries, are another fundamental source. A third key element is the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Islam is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shia. Soon after the Prophet’s death, the question of choosing a new leader, or caliph, for the Muslim community, or Ummah, arose. Initially, his successors could be drawn from the Prophet’s contemporaries, but with time, this was no longer possible. Those who became the Shia held that any leader of the Ummah must be a direct descendant of the Prophet; those who became the Sunni argued that lineal descent was not required if the candidate met other standards of faith and knowledge. After bloody struggles, the Sunni became (and remain) the majority sect. (The Shia are dominant in Iran.) The Caliphate-the institutionalized leadership of the Ummah-thus was a Sunni institution that continued until 1924, first under Arab and eventually under Ottoman Turkish control.
Many Muslims look back at the century after the revelations to the Prophet Mohammed as a golden age. Its memory is strongest among the Arabs. What happened then-the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe within less than a century-seemed, and seems, miraculous.6 Nostalgia for Islam’s past glory remains a powerful force.
Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two.
To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life. Periodically, the Islamic world has seen surges of what, for want of a better term, is often labeled “fundamentalism.”7 Denouncing waywardness among the faithful, some clerics have appealed for a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. One scholar from the fourteenth century from whom Bin Ladin selectively quotes, Ibn Taimiyyah, condemned both corrupt rulers and the clerics who failed to criticize them. He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.8
The extreme Islamist version of history blames the decline from Islam’s golden age on the rulers and people who turned away from the true path of their religion, thereby leaving Islam vulnerable to encroaching foreign powers eager to steal their land, wealth, and even their souls.
Bin Ladin’s Worldview
Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.9 He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since “the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.”10 For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his “Caliphate” as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world.
Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood11 executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”12
Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan.All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.13
Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?”
Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.
Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”15 …”
“…We keep hearing that the only issue at hand is whether building the Ground Zero Mosque is legal or not. We keep hearing that opposing this mosque is un-American and makes us just like the enemy. In short, those who oppose a mosque are bigots.
This is, of course, a tactic employed by the left to narrow the debate, a tactic used to deny the very existence of Jihad. It’s also a way of smearing those who want to know more about the ideology of Imam Rauf and to find out if this mosque is terror-financed.
Questions: If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is revealed as an Islamist supremacist and the financing as dirty money, would it make a difference to those who support the building of the mosque?
If it makes no difference that Rauf is an Islamist who wants America to become Sharia compliant, then you are enabling Salafist Islam, an ideology that is, at the core, dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization.
If it does make a difference then we should exercise due diligence and investigate Rauf and the already murky financing behind the mosque? …”
“…Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”) is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.
Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur’an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with ‘aql, or “reason”. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.
Introduction (or reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15].
…”
Pearl Harbor
“…Pearl Harbor, or Pu’uloa, is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval base. It is also the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II. …”
“…Aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy began an attack on the U.S. The Americans had deciphered Japan’s code earlier and knew about a planned attack before it actually occurred. However, due to difficulty in deciphering intercepted messages, the Americans failed to discover Japan’s target location before the attack occurred.[6] Under the command of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the attack was devastating in loss of life and damage to the U.S. fleet. At 06:05 on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes composed mainly of dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters.[7] The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona. The first shots fired were from the destroyer Ward on a midget submarine that surfaced outside of Pearl Harbor; Ward sank the midget sub at approximately 06:55, about an hour before the assault on Pearl Harbor. Japan would lose 29 out of the 350 planes they attacked with. …”
“…In Pearl Harbor were 96 vessels, the bulk of the United States Pacific Fleet. Eight battleships of the Fleet were there, but the aircraft carriers were all at sea. The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Army forces in Hawaii, including the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, were under the command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short, Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. On the several airfields were a total of about 390 Navy and Army planes of all types, of which less than 300 were available for combat or observation purposes.
The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor and on the airfields of Oahu began at 0755 on December 7, 1941 and ended shortly before 1000. Quickly recovering from the initial shock of surprise, the Americans fought back vigorously with antiaircraft fire. Devastation of the airfields was so quick and thorough that only a few American planes were able to participate in the counterattack. The Japanese were successful in accomplishing their principal mission, which was to cripple the Pacific Fleet. They sunk three battleships, caused another to capsize, and severely damaged the other four.
All together the Japanese sank or severely damaged 18 ships, including the 8 battleships, three light cruisers, and three destroyers. On the airfields the Japanese destroyed 161 American planes (Army 74, Navy 87) and seriously damaged 102 (Army 71, Navy 31).
The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,896 casualties of which 2,117 were deaths (Navy 2,008, Marines 109) and 779 wounded (Navy 710, Marines 69). The Army (as of midnight, 10 December) lost 228 killed or died of wounds, 113 seriously wounded and 346 slightly wounded. In addition, at least 57 civilians were killed and nearly as many seriously injured.
The Japanese lost 29 planes over Oahu, one large submarine (on 10 December), and all five of the midget submarines. Their personnel losses (according to Japanese sources) were 55 airmen, nine crewmen on the midget submarines, and an unknown number on the large submarines. The Japanese carrier task force sailed away undetected and unscathed.
On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere. …”
“…Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.[1] It is often referred to as a “sect”[1] or “branch”[2] of Islam, though both its supporters and its opponents[3] reject such designations. It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through the funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth.[4]
The primary doctrine of Wahhabi is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God.[5] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned medieval interpretations of Islam, claiming to rely on the Qur’an and the Hadith.[5] He preached against a “perceived moral decline and political weakness” in the Arabian Peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation.[5]
The term “Wahhabi” (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab.[2] It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called “unitarians” (Muwahiddun).[6]
The terms “Wahhabi”, “Salafi” (and also sometimes Ahle Hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called “a particular orientation within Salafism”, [2] an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. [7][8] …”
Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?
Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah
“…The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.
Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.
Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.
The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”
In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.
Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.
The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however. …”
Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals
The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
“…Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.
“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that “the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!”
Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”
As the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” has turned into a political debating ground, it’s also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:
Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of Ground Zero.
Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.
As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred. …”
Limbaugh’s Take On Obama’s Tax Deal “We Could Have Got More”
Mark Levin – We Need Leaders, We Need Leaders That Know What There Doing
Mark Levin – I Was In A Great Mode Today Until This Latest Act Of Tyranny
I am not buying at all the Republican Party talking point that the extension of the existing tax rates is required to avoid the economy going into another recession and this requires agreeing to the Obama’s Tax Cut Compromise massive new stimulus spending bill.
Nonsense.
The U.S. economy is already in a recession with unemployment going over 10% in January 2011.
The Obama Tax Cut Compromise– aka The Bad Deal– only creates more uncertainty as to whether the Republican Party leadership and establishment has a clue as to what is required to grow the economy.
The Tea Party Movement expects and demands massive cuts in Federal Government spending and balanced budgets.
This requires Obama’s proposed budgets be cut over $1,000 billion per budget year.
So what does the Republican Party leadership and establishment do.
They negotiate the Obama’s Tax Cut Compromise–aka The Bad Deal.
The Republican leaders are the biggest suckers, sellouts or both.
Let the Democratic Party throw a fit over Obama’s apparent sellout.
Angry Dems Threaten Obama’s Tax Cut Compromise
Nonsense. This is a political trap and the Republican leadership falls for it.
Only the political ruling class in Washington D.C. and the big media would call the extension of the existing tax rates by two years as a tax cut.
No tax rates were cut!
You do not compromise and negotiate deals will liars.
You defeat them.
No fiscally responsible Republican should vote for the Obama Tax Cut Compromise–aka The Bad Deal.
Instead wait until the new Congress starts on January 2011.
Vote on a very limited and narrow tax bill that in essence extends the existing tax rates indefinitely.
Call the Democratic Party’s bluff.
If Obama vetoes such a bill, the Democratic Party will lose hugely in the next election.
Obama will become the Hoover of the Democratic Party if he vetoes such a bill.
Republicans on mass should walk away from The Bad Deal.
As the song goes, you need to know when to fold them.
Kenny Rogers – The Gambler
Fold now.
Run from The Bad Deal.
Otherwise you will be targeted for defeat in the next election.
The American people and the Tea Party Movement oppose the so-called Obama Tax Cut Compromise–The Bad Deal.
Kill The Bad Deal.
The Republicans better dance with the one that brought you:
Shania Twain – Dance With The One That Brought You
Make the call Boehner and tell President Obama that The Bad Deal is called off.
Stop crying and start fighting for the American Dream for the children and future generations of Americans.
Rush – You Have To Ask Yourself What Was The Point Of The Election
Brett gives details Krauthammer a big win for Obama but more debt
Dick Morris Calls Tax Cut Deal “A Surrender”
Michael Savage Dec 10 2010
News From the Cartoons – Bush Tax Cuts
Extending the bush tax cuts explained.
Will Obama’s Tax Cut Extension Boost Economy?
Suspend SS Payroll Tax? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Conservatives Oppose Extension of Jobless Benefits
House Democrats Reject Obama Tax Compromise
Mike Pence: It’s ‘Unconscionable’ the Democrats Didn’t Vote on Bush Tax Cuts Extension
Laffer Curve: Obama gets it? Is Obama a supply-sider now? Extending Bush tax cuts?
The Democratic Party’s Communist Dream
The Communist Manifesto
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[12]
The U.S. Constitution? Or Obama’s Communist Manifesto? :: WHICH ONE, AMERICA? You MUST Choose!
The Tea Party Movement is against increases in Federal Government spending, subsidies, regulations and higher taxes.
The Tea Party Movement is for limited government and immigration, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and a strong national defense.
The Tea Party Movement wants comprehensive tax reform–either a one rate flat income tax or a national retail sales consumption tax–the FairTax, preferably the latter.
Until this happens the Bush tax rates should be made permanent with no estate and gift taxes.
As a minimum the Bush tax rates should be made permanent including those on personal and corporate income, capital gains and interest, and estate and gift taxes.
If the Democrats want another extension of unemployment benefits then the they must agree to the three lower rate brackets for all Americans.
Otherwise let the Democratic Party and President will be responsible for the large tax increase in the middle of a recession with over 30 million Americans seeking a full time job.
If you want to “stimulate” the economy and avoid the Great Recession becoming the Obama Depression, cut the existing tax bracket rates and have three tax bracket instead of the current six brackets.
The Republican Party should replace the current six rates of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% with three new lower rates of 10%, 20%, and 30%.
For single taxpayers the 10% bracket would be for taxable income up to the first $100,000.
For single taxpayers the 20% bracket would be for income from $100,000 to $25o,000.
For single taxpayers the 30% bracket would be for income exceeding $250,000.
For married taxpayers the 10% bracketwould be for taxable income up to the first $200,000 taxpayers.
For married taxpayers the 20% bracket would be for income up from $200,000 to $500,000.
Formarried taxpayers the 30% bracket would be for income exceeding $500,000.
The Democratic Party and President Obama wants to replace the current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% with five new higher tax brackets of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%.
Sell three lower tax brackets to the American people.
Which do you think the American people will want?
Certainly not higher tax rates and taxes when 30,000,000 Americans are looking for full-time jobs!
The Tea Party Movement wants balanced or surplus budgets which means cutting Federal expenditures by at least $1,000 billion per year. This requires the closing of ten Federal Departments, several agencies and over a thousand programs.
Stop subsidizing alternative energy such as ethanol, unemployment, and illegal immigration.
Permanently shut-down the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Resources, Interior, Labor and Transportation.
The Obama/Republican deal extending existing tax rates by two years does not do any of the above.
Instead the proposed bad deal would increase Federal Government expenditures and subsidies by at least another $200 billion or more per year.
This is a complete sellout of the Tea Party Movement.
The Republican Party establishment better get with the program or else face defeat in the next election like they did in 2006 and 2008!
Either the Republican establishment leadership walks away from this sellout of the Tea Party movement or the Tea Party Movement will demand new leadership or a third party to replace both the Democratic and Republican progressive parties.
Any Republican who votes for the Obama/Republican so-called deal will be replaced when they come up for election.
The time has come for the Republican establishment to show leadership and not appeasement to the big government interventionists–progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party.
Kill The Deal!
Otherwise replace the Republican leadership in the House and Senate.
Remember what happened to the last Republican President who said “read my lips no new taxes” and then reneged on his promise.
This will happen to every Republican who votes for this deal.
Kill Obama’s Bad Deal!
The proposed bad deal is a trap.
If Republicans vote for this bad deal, Obama will blame another failed so-called stimulus bill on the Republicans and say he tried tax cuts and they did not work.
Only Marxists, progressives and the Democratic Party want and expect the tax rates to rise in 2011 to pay for the growing scope and size of government.
Larry Kudlow, Republican and radio/television commentor, is profound wrong when he repeatedly says that the extension of existing tax rates is a tax cut. This is the same nonsense that cutting the rate of growth in government spending is a spending cut.
Both are an attempt to deceive the American people.
The American people want a permanent extension to the existing rates and/or real tax reform such as the flat tax or the FairTax.
The American people want real spending cuts exceeding $1,000 billion per year and not more subsidies for ethanol and alternative energy.
The American people are tired of being robbed and held hostage by the progress radical socialists of the Demoratic Party.
Kill Obama’s Bad Deal.
The Tea Party movement will be taking names of those Republicans who voted for this economic and political bad deal.
Run, do not walk, away from the so-called Obama/Republican proposed tax bill to extend current tax rates for two years.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Goldberg are right and Kudlow, Krauthammer, Bennett, and the Republican establishment and ruling class are wrong both economically and politically.
The Tea Party movement agrees with Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Goldberg.
Mark Levin – We Need Leaders, We Need Leaders That Know What There Doing
Time for the Republican party to stop playing defense and go on the offense.
Time for the FairTax.
The FairTax: It’s Time
Stop the sellout of the Tea Party Movement!
Kill the Bad Deal.
Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Live 1969)
The Big Chill Funeral Alex
One or both political parties are slowly committing suicide.
May they rest in peace.
Background Articles and Videos
December 13, 2010
The Lesson of the Tax Deal and the Deficit: Teach Your Kids Chinese
“…Of course, federal budget accounting is odd, to say the least. An extension of existing tax rates is not any new stimulus, but it counts as new deficit, since the current rates were supposed to expire at the end of 2010 and then rise to levels in effect before the 2001 and 2003 cuts. Since the federal government is now borrowing about forty cents to support every dollar of federal spending, the failure to raise tax rates (or cut spending) does lead to additional deficit spending in the future. Both Republicans and Democrats were quick to say that what they did this week was necessary because the economy is so weak, and in the end, the deal will help fix that. Since both Republicans and Democrats routinely vote to increase spending and cut taxes when the economy is strong, the only common denominator is that in good times or bad, the deficit increases.
Republicans have been arguing that they have won the ideological battle over tax rates, since the Obama administration accepted in the end that it is a bad idea to raise tax rates in a weak economy and that lower tax rates are stimulative. On the other hand, the Democrats won an ideological battle, too, since the Republicans have argued that the prior stimulus bill passed in February 2009 was an expensive failure (it was) but are now accepting that a new stimulus package is needed.
The compromise reached this week will have about $300 billion in what could be called new stimulus out of the trillion in total cost over two years, all to be financed with new debt. Extending tax rates and unemployment insurance already in place does not count as new stimulus.
Will that new stimulus money do the trick for the economy in the next year or two, when $862 billion did not do much the last two years? …”
Voters Put Spending Cuts Ahead of Deficit Reduction
“First things first. Despite official Washington’s increasing fixation on the federal budget deficit, most voters think cutting federal spending is a bigger priority.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think reducing federal government spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Thirty-four percent (34%) put reducing the deficit first. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
It’s telling to note that while 65% of Mainstream voters believe cutting spending is more important, 72% of the Political Class say the primary emphasis should be on deficit reduction.
Most voters are still not convinced, even with a new Republican majority in the House, that Congress will actually cut government spending substantially over the next year. GOP voters are among the most doubtful.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters, in fact, are pessimistic about what Congress will accomplish in terms of government spending. …”
“…Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans and 50% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties say cutting spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Democrats are more narrowly divided on the question.
Most conservatives and moderates say spending cuts should come first, but most liberals say deficit reduction is paramount.
Voters have consistently said in surveys for years that increased government spending hurts the economy, while decreased spending has a positive effect on the economy. But they expect government spending to rise during the Obama years.
Americans overwhelmingly anticipate that the federal government will have to dramatically cut spending like France and Britain are doing now, and a sizable number suggest that even Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid may have to be on the cutting block. …”
“…As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class. …”
“I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed.”
Part 1 Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Destroying the Economy
Part 2 Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Destroying the Economy
Rush Limbaugh’s Letter to President Obama
Rush Limbaugh on Greta (1 of 5): Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose
Rush Limbaugh on Greta (2 of 5): Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose
Rush Limbaugh on Greta (3 of 5): Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose
Rush Limbaugh on Greta (4 of 5): Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose
Rush Limbaugh on Greta (5 of 5): Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose
Rush Limbaugh on Illegal Immigration
Rush Limbaugh: Global Warming is a hoax.
Rush Limbaugh speaks about “climate change” 1/8/10
Part 1: Rush Limbaugh on H.R. 2454: The Cap & Tax Travesty
Part 2: Rush Limbaugh on H.R. 2454: The Cap & Tax Travesty
Rush Limbaugh – Today Show (Part 1 of 3)
Rush Limbaugh – Today Show (Part 2 of 3)
Rush Limbaugh – Today Show (Part 3 of 3)
Rush Limbaugh: Barbara Walters’ 10 Most Fascinating People
Rush Limbaugh on Hannity (1 of 4): Still Wants Obama to Fail
Rush Limbaugh on Hannity (2 of 4): Still Wants Obama to Fail
Rush Limbaugh on Hannity (3 of 4): Still Wants Obama to Fail
Rush Limbaugh on Hannity (4 of 4): Still Wants Obama to Fail
Limbaugh Rails Against McCain
Rush Limbaugh: Anatomy of a Smear
“Most people’s historical perspective begins with the day of their birth.”
“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”
~Quran, 9:123
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
~Winston Churchill
American Airlines flight number 11 left gate B32 and took off from Boston’s Logan International airport at 7:59 a.m bound for Los Angeles.
At about 8:46:40 local time, all 92 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11 were killed as it crashed into the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.
Then at 9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 bound from Boston’s Logan International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport crashes into the South Tower (Tower 2) killing 65 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers.
Shortly thereafter at 9:35 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon killing all 64 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers aboard as well as 125 in the Pentagon.
The only aircraft that did not reach its intended target, the United States Capital building in Washington D.C., was United Airlines Flight 93 bound from Newark International Airport to San Francisco International Airport.
Four Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists hijacked the plane about forty minutes into the flight. However, several passengers tried to take back the aircraft from the terrorists.
All 44 passengers and crew including the 4 Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorists died at about 10:03 a.m.when the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
Several hundred people choose to jump to their deaths from both towers to escape from the intense fire and choking smoke in both buildings captured in the “Falling Man” photo and recounted in the 9/11 The Falling Man documentary on YouTube and “The Falling Man” online article in Esquire Magazine:
Credit: The Falling Man, a photograph by Richard Drew for the Associated Press.
9/11 The Falling Man
The Falling Man
By Tom Junod
“…They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors — the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. …”
People watching the burning towers from surrounding streets were horrified at what they were witnessing as hundreds from all sides of the two towers jumped to their certain deaths to escape the flames and smoke.
After burning for fifty-six minutes the South Tower of the World Trade Center fell at 9:58.
Thirty minutes later the North Tower fell.
Less than two hours from the time the two jet passenger airliners crashed into World Trade Center towers, both buildings had collapsed.
Killed that day were nearly three thousand people from over 70 countries that were in and around the buildings that were destroyed or damaged including over three hundred New York City fireman and policemen who responded to the explosions and fires in the buildings.
Al-Qaeda’s Islamic Wahhabi jihad or struggle by the sword arrived with a vengeance in the United States on September 11, 2001.
Al-Qaeda is a radical network of militants who call for a global jihad or armed struggle with those not of the Islamic faith, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.
Most Al-Qaeda jihadists are from the Sunni branch of Islam and from the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect established in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to establish a new Islamic Caliphate or leader for the Muslim community or Ummah under Sharia or Islamic law. However, Muslims differ as to the interpretation of Sharia or Islamic law.
The two main branches of Islam are Sunni and Shia. The largest branch of Islam is Sunni who comprise between 87% to 90% of all Muslems worldwide according to the Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The smaller Shia branch of Islam comprises between 10% and 13% of the all Muslims worldwide and who are are primarily located in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and India. Arabs are primarily Sunni and Iranians or Persians are primarily Shia. There are both Sunni and Shia jihadists who use suicide bombers to attack infidels or those of another religious faith mainly Christians, Jews and Hindus.
However, neither Arabs nor Iranians are the largest populations of Muslims. The countries with the largest Muslim populations include Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. In 2010 the world’s population is nearly 7 billion of which nearly 1.6 billion are Muslims or over 22% of the world’s population. There are over 50 countries with a Muslim majority and 57 countries comprising the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) .
The United States with a population of 310 million has a relatively small Muslim population of about 3 million or roughly 1% of the total population of the United States in 2010. The Al-qaeda attackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia with a Muslim population of about 25 million or less than 2% of the world’s Muslim population.
The nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists were religious fanatics of the Sunni Islam Wahhabi sect, including fifteen Saudi nationals. The Al-Qaeda jihadists had hijacked four commercial airline passenger jets in a coordinated attack on the American people and the United States of America.
The death toll from the Islamic Wahhabi jihad attack on America on September 11, 2001 was 2,995 including the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorist hijackers. There were more deaths on September 11, 2001, than the 2350 deaths, mostly members of the United States Navy and Army, from the surprise Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the United States Navy Pacific fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Nearly nine years later a so-called “moderate” Muslem cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants to build a thirteen story Islamic community center and mosque less than three blocks from ground zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.
The planned site for the Islamic community center and mosque is 45-51 Park Place, called Park 51, is two and half block north and 560 feet from the northern boundary of the World Trade Center site at Vesey street.
Few Americans dispute the property owners’ right to construct such a building provided all city, state and Federal laws are complied with including local zoning laws and receipt of the necessary building permits.
Few Americans dispute the rights of all Americans to practice their religious faith.
Few Americans oppose the exercise of free speech.
The vast majority of Americans, however, consider the proposed community center and mosque to be an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.
Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.
In fact the Islamic religion considers such an action to be mischief-making or a fitna, a deliberate provocation against the infidels, those not of the Islamic faith including Christians and Jews.
The site of the World Trade Center and the immediate surrounding area is considered hallowed ground for it is the final resting place or cemetery for many of those who died on September 11, 2001 and whose remains were never found.
The American people demand that this Islamic community center and mosque be moved to another location in New York City.
Otherwise, those behind the building of such an insulting affront to the American people will only receive the rightful indignation and shunning they justly deserve and will soon be exposed for who and what they are–stealth jihadists.
Extreme jidahists can be Sunni or Shia and overt militarist jihadists like those of September 11, 2010 or covert stealth jihadists that want to replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with a theocracy.
Stealth jihadists speak of toleration when speaking to infidels or non-believers in Islam
When the jihadists speak to their fellow Muslims, they speak of Islamic global supremacy and return of the Caliphate under Sharia or Islamic law.
Religious toleration has it limits even in the United States. Toleration should be a two-way street. Toleration does not extend to evil. Toleration is not a suicide pact. Yet Saudi Arabia has zero toleration or an absolute ban for any church, temple or synagogue being built in Saudi Arabia and bans all non-believers in Islam from the city of Mecca.
Sharia is a direct and immediate threat to liberty of the American people. The jihadists seek to replace American law and the United States Constitution with Sharia or Islamic law.
Sharia or Islamic law should be banned from the United States and those immigrants advocating it should be deported to their country of origin.
Saudi Arabia funds Islamic community centers and mosques throughout the United States where both militarist and stealth jihadists are cultivated and supported. The majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have come from extreme Islamic jihadists, from both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and with support and encouragement of local mosques and their Imam.
Authors, journalists, politicians and television and talk radio show hosts such as Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Andrew C. McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage are among those who expose the threat posed by the militarist and stealth jihadists. However, those commenting upon the threat posed by the jihadists are quickly labeled by the jihadists, their supporters and mainstream media as engaging in hate speech and accused of being racists and Islamophobes, having prejudice or bias against those of the Islam faith or Moslems. This is especially true when the Quran and actual speeches and words of the jihadists are quoted or made available for viewing on the Internet at such sites as YouTube.
The American people will remember September 11, 2001 and never forget the fallen. The American people will honor their memories by stopping the ground zero mosque and the militant and stealth jihadists of the sword whether they be Sunni or Shia. The American people will defend their country and their liberty.
Imam Rauf Exposed, Elimination of Israel, Terrorist Supporting, N’ Word
Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque
Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”
“…At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. …”
Leader of Ground Zero Mosque Refuses To Disclose Source Of Funding
Ground Zero Mosque 9/11 Liars for Islam, Muhammad said you can lie: Taqiyya
Radical Islam: Saudi Wahhabism responsible for worldwide terror
Robert Spencer on Hannity exposes Imam Rauf on Ground Zero Mosque
Robert Spencer Jihad Watch
Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda]
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)
Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)
]
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)
Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)
Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque
Andy McCarthy – The Grand Jihad (5.24.10)
Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy
Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”
First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?
Michael Savage Gets Pissed Off About Jihadists and Terrorism
annity 05/04/2010 w/ Mark Levin
September 11 Attacks
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.
The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[4] In addition, there is at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse.[5]
The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism. It invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. The United States also enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.
The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[6] …”
American Airlines Flight 11
American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport. It was hijacked by five al-Qaedan terrorists and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer. Mohamed Atta, a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls. Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 local time; the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, plus an unconfirmed number of people in the buildings impact zone. Many people in the streets witnessed the collision, and the Naudet brothers captured the impact on video, as did Pavel Hlava. Mark Burnback and Wolfgang Staehle had a webcam set up that captured the impact through a series of photographs. Before the hijacking was confirmed, news agencies began to report on the incident and speculated that the crash had been an accident. The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims (see section Aftermath below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37am EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, and 125 in the building were killed. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims, arranged according to the year of birth, ranging from 1930 (age 71) to 1998 (age 3). Flight 77′s cuts directly through the park. …”
“… United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport, in California. On the morning of September 11, 2001, the flight was hijacked by five al-Qaeda-associated Islamist terrorists, and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks. Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes, before air traffic controllers noticed at 08:51. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.
The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which had struck the top of the North Tower eighteen minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse, 56 minutes later, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims (see chapter Aftermath, below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”
“…United Airlines Flight 93 was a United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport in Newark, NJ to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA that was hijacked on September 11, 2001. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots and took control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result of this knowledge, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft.
The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including the four hijackers. Many witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting on the event within an hour. The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified. Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers’ intended target, thought to be either the White House or the United States Capitol. A permanent memorial is planned for construction on the crash site, with dedication scheduled for 2011, though it has been the subject of criticism.
Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 (the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175), United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its intended target. …”
“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.
Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.
Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[10]
Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[11] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. …”
“…Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)“.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
A wide range of opinions exist about the exact meaning of jihad. Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[4] The differences of opinion are the result of different interpretation of the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the ahadith (singular: hadith). For example, the prominent orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that, in the Qur’an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that “one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct”.[6]
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as “holy war”.[7] Muslim authors tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[8] In technical literature, the term “holy war” is often used to describe jihad.[9] However, scholars of Islamic studies often stress that both words are not synonymous.[10]
Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).
Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the “greater jihad”, Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadith, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur’an and other writings.[31][32]
In contrast, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that “internal Jihad” is important[33] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider “Jihad of the heart/soul” to be more important than “Jihad by the sword”.[34] Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.”[35]
Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[36]
Jihad of the heart(jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
Jihad by the tongue(jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue.
Jihad by the hand(jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
Jihad by the sword(jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[37]
“…Most Americans continue to be puzzled by the Saudis. 15 or the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudia Arabian. Not Taliban. Not Libyan. Not Palestinian. Why? They don’t like our military presence in the country, our culture, our policies, in general they just don’t like us and want us dead. What’s more they’re increasingly unhappy with the ruling Al Saud Family, who a decade ago cut a deal with us for military protection. The Key to understanding the vicious attack on America is in understanding “Wahhabism.”
Wahhabi Clerics control education in Saudi Arabia. They teach that all who do not believe exactly as they do are “enemies.” They also teach holy war against enemies (Die fighting a jihad and you die a martyr with special rewards afterlife.)
The Saudi hijackers were Wahhabi. When they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon they believed they were doing a holy act and ensuring martyrdom. This twisted thinking is a perversion of Islam. The Wahhabis use their wealth to export their twisted message. They target the poor and illiterate with the promise of an education, only to teach religious INTOLERANCE, the oppression of women and terrorist warfare.
The Al Saud Family is worried about civil war. It has been Osama Bin Ladens main objective has ben to terrorize the U.S. out of Saudia Arabia and then incite the Saudi people to help him seize the kingdom and it’s vast oil reserves.
The Al Saud Family regularly pays off the Wahhabi Clerics and Islamic charities simply to avoid civil war. A lot of the money has been funnelled to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network.
If Islamic terrorists were to seize control of Saudia Arabia and its 260 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, they would be ten times more powerful than Iran or Iraq.
While Kuwait is the only Arab Democracy in the Middle East, the Islamic Fundamentalist Party is the fastest growing party there. The Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Islamic extremism is rapidly growing. …”
A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population
ANALYSIS October 7, 2009
Executve Summary
“..A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion.
While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories1 in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater.
More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.
Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.
These are some of the key findings of Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The report offers the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population, including sectarian identity.
Previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.2 But these commonly quoted estimates often have appeared without citations to specific sources or explanations of how the figures were generated.
The Pew Forum report is based on the best available data for 232 countries and territories. Pew Forum researchers, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centers around the world, acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at these figures – the largest project of its kind to date. (See Methodology for more detail.)
The Pew Forum’s estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world’s Muslim population.3 Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate. …”
by Daniel Pipes
April 22, 2003
updated Nov 22, 2009
“…Islam is widely touted as “the fastest growing religion in the United States,” so how does one explain that The World Almanac and Book of Facts has these figures for Muslims in the United States:
1997 edition (p. 644) says 5.1 million
2003 edition (p. 635) says 2.8 million
No, the population did not actually decrease; to understand this reduction in the estimate, see my October 2001 analysis, “How Many U.S. Muslims?” In it, I report on two recent surveys, by the American Religious Identification Survey 2001 and Tom Smith of the University of Chicago, which found the number of U.S. Muslims to be under two million. So, it appears that the almanac’s editors stopped accepting the overblown Islamist estimates as accurate and instead relied on scholarly and reliable work. A good round estimate is that Muslims make up just under 1 percent of the U.S. population. (April 22, 2003) …”
“…Islam
Islam (a word that literally means “surrender to the will of God”) arose in Arabia with what Muslims believe are a series of revelations to the Prophet Mohammed from the one and only God, the God of Abraham and of Jesus. These revelations, conveyed by the angel Gabriel, are recorded in the Qur’an. Muslims believe that these revelations, given to the greatest and last of a chain of prophets stretching from Abraham through Jesus, complete God’s message to humanity. The Hadith, which recount Mohammed’s sayings and deeds as recorded by his contemporaries, are another fundamental source. A third key element is the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Islam is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shia. Soon after the Prophet’s death, the question of choosing a new leader, or caliph, for the Muslim community, or Ummah, arose. Initially, his successors could be drawn from the Prophet’s contemporaries, but with time, this was no longer possible. Those who became the Shia held that any leader of the Ummah must be a direct descendant of the Prophet; those who became the Sunni argued that lineal descent was not required if the candidate met other standards of faith and knowledge. After bloody struggles, the Sunni became (and remain) the majority sect. (The Shia are dominant in Iran.) The Caliphate-the institutionalized leadership of the Ummah-thus was a Sunni institution that continued until 1924, first under Arab and eventually under Ottoman Turkish control.
Many Muslims look back at the century after the revelations to the Prophet Mohammed as a golden age. Its memory is strongest among the Arabs. What happened then-the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe within less than a century-seemed, and seems, miraculous.6 Nostalgia for Islam’s past glory remains a powerful force.
Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two.
To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life. Periodically, the Islamic world has seen surges of what, for want of a better term, is often labeled “fundamentalism.”7 Denouncing waywardness among the faithful, some clerics have appealed for a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. One scholar from the fourteenth century from whom Bin Ladin selectively quotes, Ibn Taimiyyah, condemned both corrupt rulers and the clerics who failed to criticize them. He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.8
The extreme Islamist version of history blames the decline from Islam’s golden age on the rulers and people who turned away from the true path of their religion, thereby leaving Islam vulnerable to encroaching foreign powers eager to steal their land, wealth, and even their souls.
Bin Ladin’s Worldview
Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.9 He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since “the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.”10 For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his “Caliphate” as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world.
Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood11 executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”12
Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan.All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.13
Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?”
Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.
Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”15 …”
“…We keep hearing that the only issue at hand is whether building the Ground Zero Mosque is legal or not. We keep hearing that opposing this mosque is un-American and makes us just like the enemy. In short, those who oppose a mosque are bigots.
This is, of course, a tactic employed by the left to narrow the debate, a tactic used to deny the very existence of Jihad. It’s also a way of smearing those who want to know more about the ideology of Imam Rauf and to find out if this mosque is terror-financed.
Questions: If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is revealed as an Islamist supremacist and the financing as dirty money, would it make a difference to those who support the building of the mosque?
If it makes no difference that Rauf is an Islamist who wants America to become Sharia compliant, then you are enabling Salafist Islam, an ideology that is, at the core, dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization.
If it does make a difference then we should exercise due diligence and investigate Rauf and the already murky financing behind the mosque? …”
“…Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”) is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.
Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur’an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with ‘aql, or “reason”. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.
Introduction (or reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15].
…”
Pearl Harbor
“…Pearl Harbor, or Pu’uloa, is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval base. It is also the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II. …”
“…Aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy began an attack on the U.S. The Americans had deciphered Japan’s code earlier and knew about a planned attack before it actually occurred. However, due to difficulty in deciphering intercepted messages, the Americans failed to discover Japan’s target location before the attack occurred.[6] Under the command of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the attack was devastating in loss of life and damage to the U.S. fleet. At 06:05 on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes composed mainly of dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters.[7] The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona. The first shots fired were from the destroyer Ward on a midget submarine that surfaced outside of Pearl Harbor; Ward sank the midget sub at approximately 06:55, about an hour before the assault on Pearl Harbor. Japan would lose 29 out of the 350 planes they attacked with. …”
“…In Pearl Harbor were 96 vessels, the bulk of the United States Pacific Fleet. Eight battleships of the Fleet were there, but the aircraft carriers were all at sea. The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Army forces in Hawaii, including the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, were under the command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short, Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. On the several airfields were a total of about 390 Navy and Army planes of all types, of which less than 300 were available for combat or observation purposes.
The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor and on the airfields of Oahu began at 0755 on December 7, 1941 and ended shortly before 1000. Quickly recovering from the initial shock of surprise, the Americans fought back vigorously with antiaircraft fire. Devastation of the airfields was so quick and thorough that only a few American planes were able to participate in the counterattack. The Japanese were successful in accomplishing their principal mission, which was to cripple the Pacific Fleet. They sunk three battleships, caused another to capsize, and severely damaged the other four.
All together the Japanese sank or severely damaged 18 ships, including the 8 battleships, three light cruisers, and three destroyers. On the airfields the Japanese destroyed 161 American planes (Army 74, Navy 87) and seriously damaged 102 (Army 71, Navy 31).
The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,896 casualties of which 2,117 were deaths (Navy 2,008, Marines 109) and 779 wounded (Navy 710, Marines 69). The Army (as of midnight, 10 December) lost 228 killed or died of wounds, 113 seriously wounded and 346 slightly wounded. In addition, at least 57 civilians were killed and nearly as many seriously injured.
The Japanese lost 29 planes over Oahu, one large submarine (on 10 December), and all five of the midget submarines. Their personnel losses (according to Japanese sources) were 55 airmen, nine crewmen on the midget submarines, and an unknown number on the large submarines. The Japanese carrier task force sailed away undetected and unscathed.
On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country.
Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere. …”
“…Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.[1] It is often referred to as a “sect”[1] or “branch”[2] of Islam, though both its supporters and its opponents[3] reject such designations. It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through the funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth.[4]
The primary doctrine of Wahhabi is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God.[5] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned medieval interpretations of Islam, claiming to rely on the Qur’an and the Hadith.[5] He preached against a “perceived moral decline and political weakness” in the Arabian Peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation.[5]
The term “Wahhabi” (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab.[2] It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called “unitarians” (Muwahiddun).[6]
The terms “Wahhabi”, “Salafi” (and also sometimes Ahle Hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called “a particular orientation within Salafism”, [2] an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. [7][8] …”
Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?
Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah
“…The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.
Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.
Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.
The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”
In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.
Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.
The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however. …”
Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals
The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
“…Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.
“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that “the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!”
Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”
As the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” has turned into a political debating ground, it’s also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:
Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of Ground Zero.
Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.
As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred. …”
The Arizona Law VS The Existing Fed Law – Arizona Law is Easier on Immigrants
Rush Limbaugh: Arizona Immigration Law Has Lot’s of Support – 73%
Mexican President Calderon Asks Congress to Pass Immigration Reform
Mark Levin Radio May 19th 2010 Barrack Obama Felipe Calderon In The Rose Garden
Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter commenting on Felipe Calderon
Background Articles and Videos
Calderon trashes AZ immigration law on White House lawn
Rick Moran
“…Such blatant interference in the internal affairs of another country would usually be met with outrage from the left if the US was guilty of it.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon began his state visit to the White House this morning with a shot at the Arizona immigration law and a plea for continental solidarity against organized crime.Calderon drew applause from the crowd gathered on the South Lawn at the arrival ceremony when he said too many Mexican immigrants are “still living here in the shadows with such laws as the Arizona law that is placing our people to face discrimination.” In his remarks, President Obama hailed the “Mexican-American families [who] have been here for centuries.” He said immigrants “strengthen our American family.” He appealed to Calderon to work with him to “ensure that our common border is secure, modern and efficient, including immigration that is orderly and safe.”
The arrogance of the Mexican government is truly astonishing – as if the US exists solely to benefit Mexico and their citizens. It will be this way until the US government decides that controlling the border is more important than bailing out the Mexican government whose desperate people flee here because their own corrupt, socialist economy can’t possibly create enough jobs to employ them all….”
Glenn Beck: John Birch Society Makes Sense. Interviewed JBS spokesman Sam Antonio
JBS Founder, Robert Welch Predicts the Destruction of America with Remarkable Accuracy!
The John Birch Society vs. The Communists
Robert Welch Explains Purpose of Vietnam War
Goldwater, the John Birch Society and Me
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
“…In the early months of 1962, there was restiveness in certain political quarters of the right. The concern was primarily the growing strength of the Soviet Union, and the reiteration by its leaders of their designs on the free world. Some of the actors keenly concerned felt that Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona was a natural leader in the days ahead.
But it seemed inconceivable that an antiestablishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal–the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for president–was the John Birch Society.
The society had been founded in 1958 by an earnest and capable entrepreneur named Robert Welch, a candy man, who brought together little clusters of American conservatives, most of them businessmen. He demanded two undistracted days in exchange for his willingness to give his seminar on the Communist menace to the United States, which he believed was more thoroughgoing and far-reaching than anyone else in America could have conceived. His influence was near-hypnotic, and his ideas wild. He said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the government of the United States was “under operational control of the Communist party.” It was, he said in the summer of 1961, “50-70 percent” Communist-controlled. …”
“…Moving on, Baroody brought up the John Birch Society. It was quickly obvious that this was the subject Goldwater wished counsel on.
Kirk, unimpeded by his little professorial stutter, greeted the subject with fervor. It was his opinion, he said emphatically, that Robert Welch was a man disconnected from reality. How could anyone reason, as Welch had done in “The Politician,” that President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists? This mischievous unreality was a great weight on the back of responsible conservative political thinking. The John Birch Society should be renounced by Goldwater and by everyone else–Kirk turned his eyes on me–with any influence on the conservative movement.
But that, Goldwater said, is the problem. Consider this, he exaggerated: “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society. Russell, I’m not talking about Commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks, I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs. Any of you know who Frank Cullen Brophy is?”
I raised my hand. “I spent a lot of time with him. He was going to contribute capital to help found National Review. He didn’t.” Brophy was a prominent Arizona banker. …”
“…Time was given to the John Birch Society lasting through lunch, and the subject came up again the next morning. We resolved that conservative leaders should do something about the John Birch Society. An allocation of responsibilities crystallized.
Goldwater would seek out an opportunity to dissociate himself from the “findings” of the Society’s leader, without, however, casting any aspersions on the Society itself. I, in National Review and in my other writing, would continue to expose Welch and his thinking to scorn and derision. “You know how to do that,” said Jay Hall.
I volunteered to go further. Unless Welch himself disowned his operative fallacy, National Review would oppose any support for the society.
“How would you define the Birch fallacy?” Jay Hall asked.
“The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”
“I like that,” Goldwater said.
What would Russell Kirk do? He was straightforward. “Me? I’ll just say, if anybody gets around to asking me, that the guy is loony and should be put away.”
“Put away in Alaska?” I asked, mock-seriously. The wisecrack traced to Robert Welch’s expressed conviction, a year or so earlier, that the state of Alaska was being prepared to house anyone who doubted his doctrine that fluoridated water was a Communist-backed plot to weaken the minds of the American public.”
“…The John Birch Society is a radical right-wing,[1][2] Americentric political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, and personal freedom.[3]
It was founded in 1958 by Robert W. Welch Jr. in Indianapolis, Indiana, and it was named after John Birch—a United States military intelligence officer and Baptist missionary in World War II—who was killed in 1945 by supporters of the Communist Party of China.[4] Birch’s parents joined the society as life members.[5] Currently headquartered in Grand Chute, Wisconsin,[6] the society has local chapters in all 50 states. It owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the journal The New American.[7]
The society says it is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-socialist and anti-communist. It seeks to limit the powers of government and defends the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, which it sees as based on Christian principles. It opposes collectivism, including wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, socialism, communism, and fascism. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed president, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right (he defined New Right as “Viguerie and post-Viguerie”).[8]
The society opposed aspects of the civil rights movement in the 1960s because of its concerns that the movement had communists in important positions. The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society is against “one world government”, and has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. The society argues that there is a devaluing of the U.S. Constitution in favor of political and economic globalization, and that this trend is not an accident. It cites the existence of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.[9]
Values
The society upholds an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which it identifies with fundamentalist Christian principles, seeks to limit governmental powers, and opposes wealth redistribution, and economic interventionism. It not only opposes practices it terms collectivism, Totalitarianism, and communism, but socialism and fascism as well, which it asserts is infiltrating US governmental administration. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed president, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right.[9]
The society opposed aspects of the 1960s civil rights movement because it claimed the movement had communists in important positions. In the latter half of 1965, the JBS produced a flyer titled “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?,” which was used as a newspaper advertisement.[10][11] In the piece, one of the answers was: “For the civil rights movement in the United States, with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps towards the appearance of a civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than forty years.”[12] The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped individual states’ rights to enact laws regarding civil rights. The society opposes “one world government”, and has an immigration reduction view on immigration reform. It opposes the United Nations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and other free trade agreements. They argue the U.S. Constitution has been devalued to favor of political and economic globalization, and that such alleged trend is not accidental. It cites the existence of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as evidence of a push towards a North American Union.[13] Stuart A. Wright has said that their political racism however was no different from both Republicans and Democratic politicians of the time.[14]
Characterizations
It has been described as “ultraconservative”,[15] “far right”,[16] and “extremist”.[17] The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the society as a “‘Patriot’ Group”.[18] Other sources consider the society as part of the patriot movement.[19][20]
History
Origins
The society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana, on December 9, 1958, by a group of 12 led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. Welch named the new organization after John Birch, an American Baptist missionary and U.S. military intelligence officer who was killed by communist forces in China in August 1945, shortly after the conclusion of World War II. Welch claimed that Birch was an unknown but dedicated anti-communist,[6] and the first American casualty, Welch contended, of the Cold War.
One of the founding members[21][22][23] was Fred Koch,[24] founder of Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in America.[25] Another was Revilo P. Oliver, a University of Illinois professor who later severed his relationship with the society and helped found the National Alliance. A transcript of Welch’s two-day presentation at the founding meeting was published as The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, and became a cornerstone of its beliefs, with each new member receiving a copy.[9] According to Welch, “both the U.S. and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country’s sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, managed by a ‘one-world socialist government.’”[26][27] Welch saw collectivism as the main threat to Western Civilization, and liberals as “secret communist traitors” who provided cover for the gradual process of collectivism, with the ultimate goal of replacing the nations of western civilization with a one-world socialist government. “There are many stages of welfarism, socialism, and collectivism in general,” he wrote, “but Communism is the ultimate state of them all, and they all lead inevitably in that direction.”[27]
The society’s activities include distribution of literature, pamphlets, magazines, videos and other educational material while sponsoring a Speaker’s Bureau, which invites “speakers who are keenly aware of the motivations that drive political policy”.[28] One of the first public activities of the society was a “Get US Out!” (of membership in the UN) campaign, which claimed in 1959 that the “Real nature of [the] UN is to build a One World Government.”[29] In 1960, Welch advised JBS members to: “Join your local P.T.A. at the beginning of the school year, get your conservative friends to do likewise, and go to work to take it over.”[30]One Man’s Opinion, a magazine launched by Welch in 1956, was renamed American Opinion, and became the society’s official publication. The society publishes the biweekly journal The New American.[8]
1960s
By March 1961 the society had 60,000 to 100,000 members and, according to Welch, “a staff of 28 people in the Home Office; about 30 Coordinators (or Major Coordinators) in the field, who are fully paid as to salary and expenses; and about 100 Coordinators (or Section Leaders as they are called in some areas), who work on a volunteer basis as to all or part of their salary, or expenses, or both.” According to Political Research Associates (a progressive research group that investigates the far right), the society “pioneered grassroots lobbying, combining educational meetings, petition drives and letter-writing campaigns.[27] One early campaign against the second summit between the United States and the Soviet Union generated over 600,000 postcards and letters, according to the society. A June 1964 society campaign to oppose Xerox corporate sponsorship of TV programs favorable to the UN produced 51,279 letters from 12,785 individuals.”[27]
In the 1960s Welch insisted that the Johnson administration’s fight against communism in Vietnam was part of a communist plot aimed at taking over the United States. Welch demanded that the United States get out of Vietnam, thus aligning the Society with the far left.[31] The society opposed water fluoridation, which it called “mass medicine”[32] and saw as a communist plot to poison Americans.[33]
The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. Indeed, it was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch’s conspiracy theories. As Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, “I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism… I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today’s world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas.”[34][35]
Former Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson—a leading Mormon—spoke in favor of the John Birch Society, but in January 1963 the LDS church issued a statement distancing itself from the Society.[36] Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and various religious groups criticized the group’s acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas.[37][38][39] Welch rejected these accusations by his detractors: “All we are interested in here is opposing the advance of the Communists, and eventually destroying the whole Communist conspiracy, so that Jews and Christians alike, and Mohammedans and Buddhists, can again have a decent world in which to live.”[40]
In 1964 Welch favored Barry Goldwater over Richard Nixon for the Republican presidential nomination, but the membership split, with two-thirds supporting Goldwater and one-third supporting Nixon. A number of Birch members and their allies were Goldwater supporters in 1964[41] and some were delegates at the 1964 Republican National Convention. The JBS played no known role in the fall election campaign.
In April 1966, a New York Times article on New Jersey and the society voiced—in part—a concern for “the increasing tempo of radical right attacks on local government, libraries, school boards, parent-teacher associations, mental health programs, the Republican Party and, most recently, the ecumenical movement.”[42] It then characterized the society as “by far the most successful and ‘respectable’ radical right organization in the country. It operates alone or in support of other extremist organizations whose major preoccupation, like that of the Birchers, is the internal Communist conspiracy in the United States.”
Eisenhower issue
Welch wrote in a widely circulated statement, The Politician, “Could Eisenhower really be simply a smart politician, entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists? The answer is yes.” He went on. “With regard to … Eisenhower, it is difficult to avoid raising the question of deliberate treason.”[43]
The controversial paragraph was removed before final publication of The Politician.[44]
The sensationalism of Welch’s charges against Eisenhower prompted several conservatives and Republicans, most prominently Goldwater and the intellectuals of William F. Buckley’s circle, to renounce outright or quietly shun the group. Buckley, an early friend and admirer of Welch, regarded his accusations against Eisenhower as “paranoid and idiotic libels” and attempted unsuccessfully to purge Welch from the Birch Society.[45] From then on Buckley, who was editor of National Review, became the leading intellectual spokesman and organizer of the anti-Bircher conservatives.[46] In fact, Buckley’s biographer John B. Judis wrote that “Buckley was beginning to worry that with the John Birch Society growing so rapidly, the right-wing upsurge in the country would take an ugly, even Fascist turn rather than leading toward the kind of conservatism National Review had promoted.”[46]
1970s
The society was at the center of an important free-speech law case in the 1970s, after American Opinion accused a Chicago lawyer representing the family of a young man killed by a police officer of being part of a Communist conspiracy to merge all police agencies in the country into one large force. The resulting libel suit, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that a state may allow a private figure such as Gertz to recover actual damages from a media defendant without proving malice, but that a public figure does have to prove actual malice, according to the standard laid out in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in order to recover presumed damages or punitive damages.[47] The court ordered a retrial in which Gertz prevailed.
Key society causes of the 1970s included opposition to both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and to the establishment of diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China. The society claimed in 1973 that the regime of Mao Zedong had murdered 64 million Chinese as of that year and that it was the primary supplier of illicit heroin into the United States. This led to bumper stickers showing a pair of scissors cutting a hypodermic needle in half accompanied by the slogan “Cut The Red China Connection.” According to the Voice of America, the society also was opposed to transferring control of the Panama Canal from American to Panamanian sovereignty.[48]
The society was organized into local chapters during this period. Ernest Brosang, a New Jersey regional coordinator, claimed that it was virtually impossible for opponents of the society to penetrate its policy-making levels, thereby protecting it from “anti-American” takeover attempts. Its activities included the distribution of literature critical of civil rights legislation, warnings over the influence of the United Nations, and the release of petitions to impeach U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. To spread their message, members held showings of documentary films and operated initiatives such as “Let Freedom Ring”, a nation-wide network of recorded telephone messages.
After Welch
By the time of Welch’s death in 1985, the society’s membership and influence had dramatically declined, but the UN’s role in the Gulf War and President George H.W. Bush’s call for a ‘New World Order’ appeared to many society members to validate their claims about a “One World Government” conspiracy.
The society continues to press for an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations. As evidence of the effectiveness of JBS efforts, the society points to the Utah State Legislature’s failed resolution calling for U.S. withdrawal, as well as the actions of several other states where the Society’s membership has been active. The society repeatedly opposed overseas war-making, although it is strongly supportive of the American military. It has issued calls to “Bring Our Troops Home” in every conflict since its founding, including Vietnam. The society also has a national speakers’ committee called American Opinion Speakers Bureau (AOSB) and an anti-tax committee called TRIM (Tax Reform IMmediately).[49]
The second head of the Society was Congressman Larry McDonald from Georgia, who was killed on September 1, 1983, when the Soviets shot down KAL 007. The only congressman killed by the Soviets during the Cold War, he was on the way to the 30th year commemoration of the U.S.-S. Korea Mutual Defense Treaty in Seoul.
2009–present
The Society has been active in supporting the auditing[50] of, and aims to eventually dismantle, the Federal Reserve System. The JBS believes that the U.S. Constitution gave only Congress the ability to coin money, and did not intend for it to delegate this power to a banking monopoly, or to transform it into a fiat currency not backed by gold or silver.
The JBS was a co-sponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, ending its decades-long exile from the mainstream conservative movement.[citation needed] …”
Beck: Obama Is Like Woodrow Wilson, a Follower of ‘Mein Kampf Light’ Progressivism
Background Articles and Videos
‘Sedition’ Is Constitutional
ByJohn Griffing
“…This history reveals that, apart from cases where incitement can be shown, using the word “sedition” against political enemies is out of place in a free country. Any American may oppose government policies without advocating the violent overthrow of the entire political system. Those who capriciously bandy about terms like “sedition” are knowingly committing an act of slander, since the charge of sedition requires the intent to upset law and order, a motivation nowhere present in the political movement collectively referred to as the “tea party.”
There are the occasional nuts on both ends of the political spectrum, but to tar half of America with such a firebrand word is to engage in willful deception and intimidation — especially in cases like that of alleged offender Glenn Beck, who is on record promoting nonviolence.
Bottom line: If debates cannot be won based on the strength of arguments, and it becomes necessary to engage in threats and ad hominem attacks, then the debate has already been lost by whoever resorts to these lowbrow devices. Maybe Cass Sunstein should spend some time examining the “falsehoods” emanating from members of his own party, like Nancy Pelosi’s decision to stop just short of calling conservative Americans Nazis. It is remarkable that we live in a time when the Speaker of the House can impugn her own constituents with the crudest label known to man and escape serious consequences.
The Obama administration and its journalistic allies must not be allowed to succeed in their goal of silencing free speech for short-term political gain. American freedom is too precious to allow it to be molested by those who would stoop to such dangerous name-calling.”