Indeed, this is something you don't see every day

Walt [and Ed.! Ed.] wish to thank the Patriot Post for a never-ending supply of excellent memes. If you have been on some other planet for the last week, read "Wannabe flydubai hijacker planned to crash plane into Israeli tower in 9/11-like attack", New York Post 5/10/26.

UPDATED: Lest we forget...

That was 25 years ago. Today there are Islamists -- followers of the Religion of Peace💣-- in positions of influence and power across the entire United States of America. 

Some are mayors of big cities (see photo below). Some are Congresspersons. Five Muslims served in hte 119th Congress, all in the House of Representatives, and all Democrats. Notable among them are such patriotic Americans as "Squad" members Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

There are currently no Muslim state governors. However, Ghazala Hashmi serves as the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, making her the first Muslima ever to be elected to statewide office. At present there are no Muslim US senators, but Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for the Senate in Michigan. If he wins, he will become the first Muslim senator in American history.

We are now just seven (count `em, 7) weeks away from the mid-term elections at which American voters -- hey! I'm talkin' to you! -- will have the opportunity to decide if they want more... or fewer... followers of the Prophet to guide the destinies of the nation. The franchise is there for you. Use it! And choose wisely!

Further reading (added 13/9/26): "Mamdani Lays Wreath At Tomb Of The Unknown Hijacker", from the Babylon Bee, of course!

Everything happened at once, Part 3

21 years ago today

Yes, I am well aware that this is the 21st anniversary of 9/11. And I know the topic of who dunnit and what happened after that has been done to death. But I think it's worth revisiting as Americans ask themselves which is the right party to entrust with national security in these ever more troubled times.

Recommended reading: The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina, by New York Times columnist Frank Rich, Penguin Press, 2006. As you would expect, considering who Mr Rich worked for, the book is an attack on President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the Republican Party. 

But... in revealing how the American people were suckered into supporting an unprovoked war on Iraq (and later Afghanistan), Mr Rich reveals how Deep State, which is non-partisan, co-opted his newspaper and the rest of the lickspittle media. 21 years later, the same mass media are conspiring, at the behest of Deep State and the WTF giants who fund them, to gull you into believing that you should overlook the disastrous failures of the Biden administration and leave them in control of Congress. "Don't worry folks, everything's gonna be OK. Trust us (again)!"

When the Islamic extremists -- the jihadis -- attacked the US of A on 9/11, Americans almost unanimously rallied behind its new, untested president. The papers, notably but not only the NYT and WAPO, and the TV networks, particularly CNN, organized the cheerleading, which went on 24/7 until years after the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq had been passed.

That there was no basis whatever for the claims that the Iraqis had, or were about to have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda, was ignored or suppressed, just as all those stories about the nefarious dealings of Son Hunter are being suppressed today. 

One is reminded of the story of the famous American painter, Frederic Remington, who was sent by William Randolph Hearst, the master of yellow journalism, to cover the incipient Spanish-American war. When he reported from Havana that there was nothing going on, Mr Hearst allegedly replied, "You furnish the pictures. I'll furnish the war."

So it was after 9/11. The priority of the Deep State behind Dubya was not to vanquish Al-Qaeda but to consolidate its own power at any cost. It was a mission that could be accomplished only by a propaganda presidency in which reality was steadily replaced by a scenario of the White House's own invention. Thus it was that America was led for a second time to intervene in the Muslim civil wars, and attack a small and impotent country which had never attacked it.

The Republicans and the lickspittle media intimidated the Democrats into incoherence and impotence, and turned the presidential election of 2004 into an irrelevant referendum on macho imagery and same-sex marriage. Mr Rich's book shows, with a day-by-day timeline, how the institutions that should have exposed these fictions -- the mainstream news media -- were too often left powerless by the administration's relentless attack machine and their own unquestioning political correctness. 

Nothing has changed. If anything, the situation has worsened. The Biden administration controls the media. Deep State controls the administration. Are Americans going to be fooled again?!

One final thought. Among the political leaders who rallied behind the Bush War effor was none other than Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.  During the run-up to the last election campaign, Demented Joe claimed that despite voting to authorize military force against Iraq in 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from "the moment" it began. That's a lie. Read "Biden's Record on Iraq War", FactCheck.org (a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center), 10/9/19. What follows are excerpted from the article.

Biden never outright opposed military action in Iraq in the immediate days after the start of the invasion, as he claimed. He now admits his recent comments went too far. During the second Democratic primary debate on July 31, Biden said his “bad judgment” in voting to authorize President George W. Bush to use military force against Iraq in 2002 was “trusting the president saying he was only doing this to get inspectors in and get the U.N. to agree to put inspectors in.” 

In a speech days before the 2002 vote, Bush did say approving the resolution “does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable,” but he also laid out in detail why military action “may” be needed. And on the day the war broke out, Biden acknowledged, “We voted to give him the authority to wage that war. We should step back and be supportive.” 

It wasn’t until Nov. 27, 2005, that Biden acknowledged on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that his 2002 vote authorizing force in Iraq was “a mistake.” “It was a mistake,” Biden said. “It was a mistake to assume the president would use the authority we gave him properly. … We gave the president the authority to unite the world to isolate Saddam. And the fact of the matter is, we went too soon. We went without sufficient force. And we went without a plan.”

Right now, the Democrats and their propaganda machine are manufacturing -- just as in 2001 -- "threats to national security", which they are trying to lay at the feet of President Trump. Don't listen to them. Listen to me! The greatest threat to the safety, security and well-being of America and Americans does not come from within Mar-a-Lago, but from within the White House. Keep that in mind when you vote in November.

UPDATED: "A threat to national security!" - Deep State's excuse for doing whatever it likes, regardless of the Constitution or other laws

9/11 changed everything. Right? Everybody knows that. Until 9/11, America, having won WWII single-handed, was thought by its people to be impregnable. [= can't have children? Ed.] The idea of enemies, especially backward barbarians [= people with beards. Ed.] attacking and killing Americans on their own soil was inconceivable [= can't have children? Ed.]

Then 9/11 happened and the United States of America became what I call the Paranoid States of America. I am not alone in thinking that Americans panic easily. The late great George Carlin said those exact words in a bit about "germs", which he performed years before the Great Dempanic. 

But this is not about the threat to the nation's wellbeing posed by the Wuhan flu or monkeypox or whatever health crisis comes along tomorrow. This is about how the Deep State used 9/11 to take control of the administration and take away Americans' freedoms, all in the name of "national security".

What follows is excerpted from The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth in Bush's America, by Frank Rich (Penguin 2006). Talking about the Great Anthrax Scare -- remember that? -- which began just three weeks after 9/11, Mr Rich writes:

Bush said little about it, delegating the problem to ineffectual Cabinet members like [Tommy] Thompson, the secretaryof health and human services, and the attorney general, John Ashcroft.... They were Keystone Kops in the costumes of bureaucrats, ready at any time to slip on a banana peel....

Ashcroft often shook as if he'd just seen not only great Caesar's ghost, but perhaps John Mitchell's as well. In his disregard for the law, Ashcroft often did seem determined to emulate the Watergate-era attorney general, though on a grander scale.

It wasn't enough for Congress to enhance his antiterrorist legal arsenal legitimately by passing the USA Patriot Act before most of those on the Hill had taken the time or the trouble to read it; the attorney general changed other rules without consulting senators or congressmen of either party at all.

He abridged by decree the Freedom of Information Act, an esssential check on government misbehavior during peace and war alike, and discreetly slipped into the Federal Register a new directive allowing eavesdropping on conversaqtions between some lawyers and clients.

If the administration was really proud of grabbing "emergency" powers at wartime, why was it doing so in the dead of night? Ashcroft refused repeated requests to explain himself before congressional committees. At one House briefing where he did show up, he told congressmen they could call an 800 number if they had any questions about what his department was up to.

Remind you of anyone? Sounds to me like Merrick Garland, answering for the FBI raid on President's Trump's Florida home! Getting back to what Mr Ashcroft did, supposedly to protect national security, Mr Rich continues:

Ashcroft's Justice Department seemed to be squandering time and resources on wild goose chases that pumped up arrest numbers without making any progress on tracking down terrorists.... But Ashcreoft had been zealous and then some about warning of other terrorism attacks while the anthrax threat was proceeding under his nose. 

The first alert of a probable new attack was issued two weeks after 9/11. On the first month anniversary of 9/11, the attorney general and the FBI warned again that new attacks by terrorists either in America or overseas might happen in the "next several days." Bush endorsed this alert, but neither he nor anyone in the government explained how serious the threat was or what form it might take or when it might happen.

Before you say "So what? That's ancient history... and Bush was a Republican," please consider that the DOJ and other organs of the Deep State never gave back the far-reaching and unconstitutional powers they arrogated [excellent word -- look it up. Ed] to themselves in the aftermath of 9/11.

The Deep State and their bought-and-paid-for media say now that President Trump's keeping certain unspecified "top secret documents" mixed in with other papers at Mar-a-Lago represents a "threat to national security". I would like to know from whence comes that threat?!

Who is threatening the Paranoid States of America, now that Saddam Hussein has been killed, along with Obama Bin Laden and their successors. Who hates America and Americans enough to wage jihad against the Land of the Somewhat Free? 

OK, it's the Islamic extremists, right, the ones who pulled off 9/11 but haven't really done anything horrible on American soil since. Is the DOJ seriously suggesting that Mr Trump is somehow colluding with the mad mullahs and will reveal to them our plans to start the Gulf Wars again?

If not the Arabs, then how about the Russians? The Dumbocrats already tried without success to portray Messrs Trump and Putin as co-conspirators against Democracy with a capital D. It didn't work. China, then? Couldn't be. China only does business with Hunter Biden and Mr. Big.

So I repeat... where is the threat to national security? If, anywhere in the three dozen boxes of papers which have now been taken away from the Trump residence, there is one single iota, jot or tittle of evidence proving that President Trump was planning to sell out or otherwise harm the US of A, I'd like to see it. 

UPDATE ADDED 28/8/22: A federal judge in Florida told the Justice Department on Saturday to provide her with more specific information about the classified records removed from President Donald Trump's Florida estate. and said it was her "preliminary intent" to appoint a special master in the case, as requested by the former president's lawyers, who complained that the Feds didn't disclose enough information about exactly what was seized when the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago on August 8th.

FURTHER READING: "Unsealed Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit reveals the government has no case against Trump", by Kevin Brock, The Hill, 28/2/22. 

Kamala Harris: 1/6 "worse than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor"

Kamala Harris, the Indo-Jamaican Vice-President of the Excited States of America, kicked off the Brandon administration's remarks on the first anniversary of the January 6, 2021 Capitol "riot" by comparing it to the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault," she said. "Dates that occupy not only a place in our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. December 7th, 1941. September 11, 2001. And January 6th, 2021."

Here, in chronological order, are pictures of the events of those three dates. Which is the worst? You be the judge!

December 7, 1941

September 11, 2001

January 6, 2021

I mean... really?! Isn't all this never-Trump hysteria a bit much?! 1000s of Americans died during the attacks by foreigners on Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers. The only person who died a year ago, during a demonstration by outraged American citizens, was one female protester, shot by a cop.

The Dumbocrats couldn't actually organize a Reichstag fire, but they can sure organize the lickspittle media to turn the legitimate protest of the stolen election into one! As I said... too much!!!

Dr. Ron Paul: Twenty years on, we’ve learned nothing from 9/11

Ed. here. What follows is Dr Ron Paul's column from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prospertity, reposted with permission. Thank you, Dr Paul, for your clear and constant warning abouot the dangers of big government and the folly of meddling in foreign affairs which are none of our business.

Nothing upset the Washington Beltway elites more than when in a 2007 presidential debate I pointed out the truth about the 9/11 attacks: they attacked us because we’ve been in the Middle East, sanctioning and bombing the civilian population, for decades. The 9/11 attackers were not motivated to commit suicide terrorism on the Twin Towers and Pentagon because they dislike our freedoms, as then-President Bush claimed. That was a self-serving lie.

They hated – and hate – us because we kill them for no reason. Day after day. Year after year. Right up until just a few days ago, when President Biden slaughtered Zemari Ahmadi and nine members of his family - including seven children - in Afghanistan. The Administration bragged about taking out a top ISIS target. But they lied. Ahmadi was just an aid worker, working for a California-based organization, bringing water to suffering Afghan village residents.

This horror has been repeated thousands of times, over and over, for decades. Does Washington believe these people are subhuman? That they somehow don’t care about their relatives being killed? That they don’t react as we would react if a foreign power slaughtered our families?

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously suggested in an interview that killing half a million Iraqi children with sanctions designed to remove Saddam Hussein from power was “worth it.” It was an admission that the lives of innocents mean nothing to the Washington elite, even as they paint their murderous interventions as some kind of “humanitarian liberation.” The slogan of the US foreign policy establishment really should be, “No Lives Matter.”

The Washington foreign policy elites – Republicans and Democrats – are deeply corrupt and act contrary to US national interests. They pretend that decades of indiscriminate bombing overseas are beneficial to the victims and keep us safer as well. That is how they are able, year after year, to convince Congress to hand over a trillion dollars – money taken directly and indirectly from average Americans. They use fear and lies for their own profit. And they call themselves patriots.

The Washington establishment lied to us because they did not want us to stop for a second and try to understand the motive for the 9/11 attacks. Police detectives are not apologists for killers when they try to look for a motive for the crime. But the Washington elite did not want us to think about why people might be motivated to suicide attack. That might endanger their 100-year gravy train.

What was the real message of 9/11 to Americans? Give up your freedoms for the false promise of security. It’s OK for the government to spy on all of us. It’s OK for the TSA to abuse us for the “privilege” of traveling in our own country. We must continue to bomb people overseas. Don’t worry it’s only temporary.

So, twenty years on what have we learned from 9/11? Absolutely nothing. And we all know what the philosopher George Santayana said about those incapable of learning from history. I desperately hope that somehow the United States will adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy, which would actually protect us from another attack. I truly wish Americans would demand that their leaders learn from history. The only way to make us safe is to end the reign of the Washington killing machine.

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

VIDEOS: Biden and Bush warn: Real enemies aren't Muslims, but "extremists at home"

Ed. here. The anniversary of 9/11 saw lots of speeches, including those made by ex-President Dubya, who started America's meddling in the Muslim civil war, and the incumbent, who ended it (or so we are to believe). 

Although Mr Biden is a Dumbocrat, and Mr Bush a RINO [Is he still registered as a Republican? Ed.], they found a common theme. The dastardly attack, perpetrated by devout followers of the Prophet, abetted by Saudi citizens residing in the US of A, shouldn't be blamed on Islamic extremists or Muslims generally. On no. They are all followers of the Religion of Peace, dontcha know.

Here's a clip, excerpted (but not manipulated) from the official video released by the White House today. Listen to this, Americans, so you'll know where your freely and fairly elected President stands.

   

Former President Bushleague doesn't speak directly of Islamophobia or of the Religion of Peace. Instead, he warns us against "violent extremists at home", who (he says) are different from "violent extremists abroad" -- not  really the same as the crazed Muslims who took those jets for a one-way ride with a sudden stop. 

 

What sort of "extremists at home" do you suppose Dubya has in mind? Antifa? BLM? Surely not the peaceful protesters who occupied the Capitol on January 6th, one of whom was killed by police -- the only one who died in an event which the Democraps and lickspittle media keep telling us was worse than 9/11.

Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Bush made his views clear. He reaffirmed his belief that Americans should continue to welcome refugees and immigrants into the United States. "At a time when nativism could have stirred hatred and violence against people perceived as outsiders, I saw Americans reaffirm their welcome to immigrants and refugees. that is the nation I know," is what he said.

But let's be charitable to the two presidents. They are both in their seventies, and obviously cognitively challenged. One is suffereing from senile dementia. The other is an imbecile. If you find anything wrong with what these two men are saying, don't complain to us. You know what to do, next time you get the chance.

Biden reveals Afghanistan exit strategy

Readers with longer memories than those of the lickspittle media may recall that when President Trump announced his plan to bring American forces home from Afghanistan by May 2021, the fiercest critics of his plan were two presidential wannabes: Sleepy Joe Biden and Hellery Clinton. Both of them were strong supporters of the US invasion of that country following 9/11, for which followers of the Prophet Mohammed were blamed.

You would have thought that once the Taliban was (supposedly) defeated, its leader killed, and democracy restored, there would have been no need for the US of A to continue to occupy that shithole, wasting 1000s of American lives and billions of US dollars on... may we be frank... a mission which was none of America's business in the first place. That argument was put forward by such voices of reason as Dr Ron Paul and (ahem) yr obdt servant. To no avail. 

Osama Bin Laden was killed ten years and a fortnight ago, not in Afghanistan but in Abbotabad, in neighbouring Pakistan. The Prez was the Commander-in-Chief at the time, Sleepy Joe was the 2IC and Mrs Bill Clinton was Secretary of State. We can all remember the photo of Hellery and the Prez and assorted hangers-on watching the report on the Clinton News Network.

Some folks thought the end of the adventure nigh. So it was, but not for American troops, only Canadians who wrapped up their combat role in 2011, and withdrew the last of their "training personnel" in 2014.

You might think that when the Canucks -- not known for suicidal tendencies -- pulled out, the Americans would see the handwriting on the wall and start packing. But noooooo... In 2014 the Prez still had another two years in office, and the well-known brave warrior John Kerry was Secretary of State. They saw fit to stay the course, lest the flickering candle of democracy be snuffed out again. It wasn't until President Trump got elected (in the last free and fair presidential election) that talk of a "drawdown" even began.

On the campaign trail in 2020, Sleepy Joe opposed President Trump's plans for withdrawal, saying that to bring our brave boys (and girls and in-betweens) home in May was to risk letting the Taliban retake control, yada yada yada. 

But everything would be different four months later, see? So President Biteme's plan, announced a few days ago, is to complete the withdrawal by September 11th. Geddit? The 20th anniversary of 9/11? Geddit now? 

You would expect that Hellery Clinton, having by now gotten over the humiliation of not being chosen by the Democrats for the task of defenestrating Trump, would be supportive of the alleged President's new plan, and all his other plans. You would be wrong. 

Apparently the Taliban, not content with finally forcing the Americans to leave Afghanistan, have taken to attacking other Afghans,just as they did before the US invasion. Mrs Clinton told her network, "This is what we call a wicked problem. There are consequences both foreseen and unintended of staying and of leaving."

Asked about Sleepy Joe's decision, Mrs Clinton said, "Our government has to focus on two huge consequences", notably the resumption of activities by extremist groups and a subsequent outpouring of refugees from Afghanistan. She said the potential collapse of the Afghan government and a possible takeover by the Taliban could result in a new Muslim civil war. (OK, she didn't include the word "Muslim", but we know who's fighting who, right?)

 Mrs Bill also said it was important to protect the "many thousands of Afghans" who had worked with the US and NATO during the "conflict". She advocates the creation of a large visa programme to provide for any refugees who get out of the shithole alive, provided they are allowed to settle no closer than 1000 miles to Chappaqua NY.

So, campers, circle the date on your calendars. 9/11/21.  (Non-American readers please substitute 11/9/21.) It's the first real date President Biteme has given for the achievement of any of his many plans. Let's see if the withdrawal from Afghanistan really happens... Hellery Clinton notwithstanding.

Let us not forget

Yes, I know what day this is. It's the 19th anniversary of the dastardly, scurrilous, infamous attack on America, which was now call simply "9/11".

On this solemn anniversary, let us not forget who did this. The attackers, who came to the USA to learn to fly just well enough to crash into their targets, were Islamic terrorists -- nationals of Saudi Arabia for the most part -- Muslim jihadis bent on killing as many "infidels" as possible. They are now in Paradise, presumably, being serviced by 72 virgins. But there are hundreds of thousands of them still out there.

The threat of Islamic terrorist attacks is higher today than it was 19 years ago, if for no other reason than that Western politicians (Hello, Angela Merkel! Hello, Justin Trudeau! Hello, Barack Hussein Obama!) have stupidly welcomed millions of Muslims into their countries. See "Merkel reveals she has no regrets over 2015 migrant influx, claims she would let 1 million into Germany again", rt.com 28/8/20.

But surely (I hear you say) they can't all be fanatics. In reply I say, is there any such thing as a moderate Muslim? Those who follow the news from Europe can read every day stories about gangs of Muslim immigrants, "refugees" and asylum-seekers raising hell in the countries that took them in. See, for example, "Sweden's right seizes on crime to warn of 'second pandemic'", ft.com 30/8/20.

But (I hear you say) that's Europe, not America (or, by extension, Canada). Foolish Norte Americanos, take a look around you! Mosques are springing up everywhere, even in the small communities of "flyover country". Parts or all of large American and Canadian cities are majority Muslim, at risk of turning into the no-go zones which already exist in Sweden, France and the Disunited Kingdom.

Right now we are preoccupied with the nonsense of BLM and "anti-Black racism", but when all the pandering is over and the police defunded, who will protect us when the jihad comes to our streets? And who (let me ask you) would you rather have in the White House when the next wave of Islamic terrorist attacks begins?

UPDATED: Pensacola shooter was Saudi airman! 6 others detained

Cazart!!!

The gunman who opened fire inside a classroom at the US Naval Air Station at Pensacola FL this morning, killing three people and injuring seven others, was reportedly a Saudi aviation student. The suspect has not yet been identified by authorities, nor will they admit that the mass murder was an act of Islamist terrorism. But according to the Clinton News Network (!), the shooter was a member of the Saudi military who was in the United States for training.

The suspect fired a handgun in the attack, which played out over two floors in a classroom building at a base whose main function is training. The FBI has taken over investigation into the shooting. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis confirmed that the suspect was a Saudi national attending training at the base as part of a long-standing Navy program open to US allies, of which the medieval Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one, apparently.

The motive for the violence was still under investigation. With his usual facility for ignoring the obvious, the Gov told the meeja, "There is obviously going to be a lot of questions about this individual being a foreign national, being a part of the Saudi Air Force and then to be here training on our soil. The government of Saudi Arabia needs to make things better for these victims. They are going to owe a debt here, given that this was one of their individuals."

Innocent question: Wasn't Pensacola "the cradle of aviation", where the 9/11 attackers (most of whom were Saudis) learned to fly planes into big buildings? Yet more of them are being allowed into the Paranoid States of America to learn the same things... for the same purpose??? Just askin'....

UPDATE ADDED 7/12/19: Late yesterday, Fox News reported that six (count `em, 6) Saudi nationals were detained for questioning Friday near the naval air station which was the site of the shootings. The FBI, which is leading the investigation into the shooting declined to reveal the identity of the shooter in the early stages of the investigation, but an unnamed US official told Fox News the gunman was an aviation student from Saudi Arabia named Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani. Ah yes, another "Mohammed" but of course his religion -- Muslims used to be called "Mohammedans" -- has nothing to do with his motives.

As the picture shows, the late Mohammed was a student in a US Navy training program for foreign military personnel. That program is aimed at "immersing international students in our US Navy training and culture" to help "build partnership capacity for both the present and for the years ahead," Commander Bill Gibson, the officer in charge, said in 2017. "These relationships are truly a win-win for everyone involved." Well, maybe not for those who were killed by Mohammed yesterday.

9/11: Let's not forget who did this

"Some people did something" -- the infamous words of Ilhan Omar (Democrat - MN) downplaying the atrocity committed 18 years ago, when over 3000 innocent people died at the hands of... lest we forget... Islamic terrorists.

On this day, 9/11, 18 years ago, 19 Islamic terrorists, members of Al-Qaeda, in addition to killing thousands of people in just a couple of hours, caused billions in dollars of economic damage. In the words of Nicholas Haros Jr., speaking at today's memorial service in New York, "Your relatives and friends were attacked. Our constitutional freedoms were attacked, and our nation's founding on Judeo-Christian principles were attacked. That's what some people did!" The speaker went on to call on Rep. Omar and the other members of the "Squad" to show some respect in honouring those who lost their lives.

The conspirators behind the dastardly attack have kept their lives. The death penalty trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, and his four partners in orchestrating the deadliest attack ever carried out on American soil, is still pending. Pre-trial hearings resumed this past Monday. And it's all to ensure that Mr Mohammed and his co-conspirators -- Walid Muhammad Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi -- fanatical Muslims, the lot of them -- will receive "justice".

What justice is there, Walt asks, for the 3000+ dead and the families and friends left to mourn them. Is it just that the public revulsion over the 9/11 atrocity, and the great public anger at Islamic terrorists should be used by Ilhan Omar and her fellow Democrats and sympathizers with Islamism, to justify the foundation of the Council on American–Islamic Relations, "a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group", and the sanitization of 9/11? "Some people did something..." Let us not forget who did what, and why. It was Islamic terrorists, of whom 1000s are still out there -- not just in the Middle East and Europe but in America -- and they did it because they want to kill us. Let us not forget.

Further reading: "DID WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM 9/11? Or are we still sleeping?", by (((Dan Greenfield))), on FrontPageMag, 11/9/19.

Getting out of the Muslim civil wars - about time!

I don't understand the reaction of American civilians, Republican and Democrat alike, to Still-President Trump's announcement this week that he intends to bring US troops home from Syria and Afghanistan. Daniel McAdams, writing on Ron Paul's website, says that "Washington heads are exploding", and so it would seem, but why? Is the Paranoid States of America a nation of warmongers? Do Americans really believe that the best defence against Islamic terrorism is to hammer the jihadis in their own sandpit? Does no-one see any merit in getting out of the Muslim civil war that is really none of our business? As Mr Trump says, "Are we going to stay there forever?"

Mr McAdams writes: The warmongering Left has joined forces with the neocons to demand that President Trump reverse course in his recent decision to pull US troops from Syria. Neocons claim that ISIS will increase with the US absence, but it was the very US intervention in the region - that they supported - that led to the rise of extremist and terrorist groups.

Indeed. It was interventionism -- the insane desire to be the world's policeman and bring the so-called "pax Americana" to a war-weary world -- that got the USA into the Gulf Wars. Shortly after 9/11, US troops stormed into Afghanistan, which had littlel if anything to do with the attack. Since then, America has lost more than 2400 soldiers and spent nearly a trillion dollars in its longest war ever. And with what result? The Islamists control about half of that shithole, the rest being controlled (in theory) by a feckless government that can't keep its notional army from killing the Westerners who are there to "help" them. Does that make any sense?

I can understand the displeasure of the American military with the President's decision. Secretary of Defense James Mattis departed in a huff [a minute-and-a-huff? Ed.]. He is emblematic of the super-macho militaristic types that have held the highest ranks in the American armed forces ever since World War II. They are the philosophical heirs of Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, William Westmoreland, and [That's enough generals. Ed.] who delight in sending American kids overseas to kill... and be killed... because there's no fighting to be done at home, but if there's no fighting, there won't be any need for the billions in defence spending, and many brass hats will be out of their jobs.

And what is the result? "Pax Americana" is a myth! Ever since its troops landed in Korea as part of the Disunited Nations' "police action", America has been at war -- declared or otherwise -- with someone, somewhere, every single hour of every single day. What has that cost the nation, in treasure, in lives, and the foregone benefits of peace? With President Trump, I ask: Is this going to continue forever?

In the summer of 2017, the President announced that he was adding about 1000 more troops to those already in Afghanistan to bolster the "training and advising" mission, which we are supposed to believe doesn't involve any fighting, just teaching the Islamists how to fight. But, Mr Trump said, doing so went against his instinct. Since then, security conditions in Afghanistan have not improved, according to the latest government watchdog report.

And then there's Syria. US forces were sent to that shithole to Syria to work with local Syrian and Kurdish "partners" on the ground to help defeat ISIS. Now, the President says, that mission has been largely accomplished, and in terms of the amount of territory controlled, that would appear to be the case.

Of course the jihadis haven't been exterminated. They've simply gone to ground, or gone elsewhere. 1000s of them have migrated to Europe and, yes, America, disguised as "refugees" and asylum-seekers. So the fight against them should continue, wherever they may be found... but not in the sandpit. Leave the mopping up to the Turks, the Kurds and other Muslims. "Keep at it, Mohammeds, and lots of luck to you. We're done with you!" That's what I would like to hear all of the lawmakers in Washington say. I can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Encore en France - "Allahu akbar!"

Associated Press reports that the sleepy town of La Seyne-sur-Mer, in the rather lovely department of Var, in southeastern France, is the latest place to have its sleep disturbed by shouts of "Allahu akbar!".

A woman [not exactly as pictured. Ed.] shouted the slogan, in Arabic -- not in French or English, as reported by AP -- when she slashed at shoppers in a supermarket, wounding two of them with a box cutter.

The attacker has now been detained, AP sez, but the district prosecutor has been coy about the details of the "incident" and what charges, if any, the Muslim woman -- for such she was -- might face.

Lest you think that a boxcutter isn't much of a weapon, don't forget that the 9/11 terrorists -- every one a devout follower of the prophet -- were armed with boxcutters when they hijacked the airliners that they caused to crash into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

For reasons of political correctness -- and reluctance to admit that Islamic terrorists pose a threat to the people of France every day and everywhere -- the authorities are still reluctant to make the connection between such attacks and ISIS, but the similarity to previous Islamic terror attacks, in France and elsewhere, is painfully obvious.

Nigel Farage, former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) criticized AP for erroneously reporting that the attacker shouted "God is great" (but in French, bien sûr), in quote marks no less, in a social media bulletin breaking the news, when in fact she shouted "Allahu Akbar". "This," he said "is why people don't trust mainstream media anymore."

Further reading: "83% of French back expulsion of 'most dangerous' foreigners", WWW 2/4/18.

Diversity does NOT make us strong, sez Ann Coulter

I don't know about you, dear reader, but I am sick, sore and tired of having pro-diversity propaganda shoved down my throat by the lamestream media 24/7. Fifty years ago the aim of all progressive and right-thinking people was "integration". It didn't take long for people to realize that "integration" lasts from the moment the first black family moves into the neighbourhood until the last white family moves out. So, in much the same way as "global warming" morphed into "climate change", yesterday's push for integration became today's shove towards "diversity", the more the better. Because diversity makes us strong. Right? Well, I call BS on that!

"Diversity is a strength" is a big black crock of bullshit, a Big Lie of which Joseph Goebbels would be proud. That's not just my opinion, but that of Ann Coulter, expressed very forcefully in Adios America! (Regnery Publishing, 2015), which I am just now getting around to reading. [My keyboard won't make the upside-down !. Ed.] Here, by way of my strong recommendation, is an excerpt.

The companion lie to the "America is a nation of immigrants" lie is "diversity is a strength." Praising diversity is simply part of the PC dogma, a mantra constantly being pounded into our heads. Repeat after me: Diversity is a strength. Diversity is a strength. Diversity is a strength. It's like the shrieking radios permanently attached to bright people's ears in the Kurt Vonnegut story "Harrison Bergeron", to prevent them from using their superior intelligence. Contrary to everything you've heard, never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a disaster.

Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations. Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also review the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the "beautiful mosaic" -- in Third World disasters like Afghanistan, Rwanda, and South Central LA. If diversity is their strength, I'd hate to see what their weakness is. The fact that we have to be incessantly told how wonderful diversity is only proves that it's not....

In response to the wanton slaughter of thirteen American troops at Fort Hood by a disgruntled second-generation Muslim immigrant, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, Army Chief of Staff General George Case went on Meet the Press and said, "Our diversity, not only in our army but in our country, is a strength." Then a few years later, after two Chechen immigrants bombed the Boston Marathon, former CIA director Michael Hayden told a Fox News Sunday panel, "We welcome these kinds of folks coming to the United States." Really? The kind that launch murderous attacks on Americans? Do people even listen to themselves when they spout these bromides, or is it just background music? Saying he was speaking "as the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency," Hayden added, "Immigration to this country contributes to our national security." The 9/11 attackes must have been fantastic for national security!

Hayden also made the strange announcement that America is "required to look like the world." Is that in the CIA charter? I know it's in the Democratic Party's platform and also in the wedding vows of John Kerry and Teresa Heinz. This wasn't some nut from the ACLU. It was a former government official -- the head of the CIA. At least it becomes less of a mystery why no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming.

A few days later on MSNBC, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff of California responded to Muslim immigrants' bombing the Boston Marathon by saying, "The American-Muslim community is a source of great strength to us...our strength in America has always been our diversity." Do these people have a silicone chip in their brains that makes them say that? How about a rousing chorus of: "Four legs good, two legs bad!" This is the sort of brainwashing Americans are relentlessly subjected to, day after day, from every major news outlet. The good news is, even after years of wall-to-wall propaganda, Americans still aren't sold on the idea.

Thus endeth the excerpt. Buy or borrow Adios America!, and read the truth the government and the lamestream media won't trust us with.

VIDEO: Libertarian film producer Aaron Russo explains how 9/11, the war on terror and globalization all fit together to enslave us

Aaron Russo was an American entertainment businessman, film producer and director, and political activist. He was best known for producing such movies as Trading Places, Wise Guys, and The Rose. More importantly, later in life he became a staunch libertarian, and created a number of political documentaries including Mad as Hell and America: Freedom to Fascism. On 14 February 2004 (his 61st birthday), Mr Russo gave his full endorsement to the Free State Project, an agreement among 20,000 participants to move to New Hampshire for "Liberty in Our Lifetime."

In January of 2004, Mr Russo declared his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, initially as an independent but then as a Libertarian. At the Libertarian National Convention in May of that year, he lost the nomination on the third ballot. Click here to watch his speeches and other appearances at the convention on C-SPAN.

In 2007, Aaron Russo created the political grassroots organization, Restore the Republic, to fulfill the political ambitions laid out in America: Freedom to Fascism. Shortly before his death from bladder cancer, later that year, he gave an in-depth interview to Alex Jones, to "try and get the word out to the public about what's happening to America -– and give them an opportunity to try to change things."

This short video (10:40) is a montage of clips from the interview, in which Mr Russo shares some amazing insider knowledge given to him by a member of the Rockefeller family who told him -- prior to 9/11 -- of plans to stage terror attacks and start an unwinnable "war on terror", invade foreign nations, and kickstart a high-tech police state control grid that would track the populations' every move with implantable RFID microchips. You will hear him talk about the Council on Foreign Relations, globalization, the plan for a world currency, and even women's lib -- all part of a plot by (((certain people))) to enslave us to the New World Order.




A vote of thanks -- while we can still vote! -- to Agent 6 for putting us on the track to this must-see item.

Further viewing: Click here to see Reflections And Warnings - An Interview With Aaron Russo, the full film (1:35:45) of the interview PLUS behind the scenes footage, an exclusive interview with Mr Russo about his life, and radio interviews from the Alex Jones Show.

UPDATED: Muslims on wrong end of London terrorist attack... this time

When the mojo wire spat out the first reports of another van attack in London, I immediately started composing a headline incorporating the phrase "Allahu akbar!", which is what Islamic terrorists yell as they massacre innocent "infidels". But then came video from the scene which turned out to be... wait for it... the sidewalk in front of the once-notorious Finsbury Park Mosque. The mosque was associated with Islamic extremism for several years after 9/11, but was shut down and reorganized. AP says it has not been associated with radical views for more than a decade.

If you're looking for Muslims, for any reason, a mosque is where you'll find them, especially after evening prayers during Ramadan, as they get set to break the fast. Shortly after midnight (BST), a van plowed into the crowd gathered in front of the mosque, some of whom were trying to assist someone who had been taken ill. That person later died. A number of people who were hit by the van were injured, some seriously, but so far there have been no deaths attributable to the "incident".

Mohammed Kozbar, chairman of the Finsbury Park Mosque, says the van crash was a "cowardly attack" and urged Muslims going to mosques to be vigilant. Harun Khan of the Muslim Council of Britain said a "white man in a van intentionally plowed into a group of worshippers who were already tending to someone who had been taken ill." Then he uttered the inevitable appeal to sympathy for followers of the Prophet: "It appears from eyewitness accounts that the perpetrator was motivated by Islamophobia."

British Prime Minister Theresa May was quick to jump on the bandwagon, condemning the "sickening" attack while lauding the bravery of those who detained the driver. "Hatred and evil of this kind will never succeed," she said, raising the question of what kind of hatred would succeed. Perhaps the attacker should have emulated other terrorists and used a bomb, or at least a gun?

Mrs May said police were on the scene within one minute of the crash, and had declared it a terrorist attack within eight minutes. This statement was apparently meant to addressing criticism from some that authorities were slow to respond to the Manchester massacre and the London bridge attack, and, together with the lamestream media, took too long to describe the "incidents" as the terror attacks which they were. See "The word our 'leaders' just won't say", WWW 4/6/17.

Inspector Knacker of the Yard said the van driver was detained by the crowd until police arrived. Sky News reported that the mosque's imam prevented the crowd from beating the attacker. ​He was arrested and, as the Brits say, is helping police with their enquiries. His name, ethnicity and religion have not yet been released, which makes me wonder if he really is "a white man". Suppose he is a fanatic of another Muslim sect, which would mean... just a thought... that the Muslim civil war is now being fought in Europe as well as the Middle East. See "British cops refuse to name London Bridge jihadis", WWW 5/6/17. You can bet that if he really is a white man -- a Polish Catholic, perhaps -- bent on revenge, as the liberal media are already suggesting, he'd be named right sharpish!

UPDATE: Noooooo... not part of the Muslim civil war, as it turns out, but a "revenge attack". London police have arrested 47-year-old Darren Osborne, a father of four who was living in Cardiff, Wales. He is to be charged with attempted murder and the "commission, preparation or instigation" of terrorism.

VIDEOS: Hellery's 9/11 "medical episode"

Wow! Just yesterday Walt posted "Does Hillary Clinton have Parkinson's Disease?", the best of many videos asking "What's wrong with her, anyway?!" I thought we'd be able to give the subject a rest for at least 24 hours, but just a few minutes ago, La Clinton had what a "law enforcement official" [Does that mean a cop? Ed.] described as a "medical episode".

She left the 9/11 anniversary ceremony in New York City about 90 minutes after it got under way because she was "feeling overheated". A bystander captured the scene on his cellphone as she was helped into her van. Notice the similarity to pictures in the earlier video of aides holding her upright by the arms.



Mrs Bill Clinton was taken to her daughter's apartment, elsewhere in the Big Apple, to recover from... errr... whatever it was. The lamestream media have not (as yet) used the word "seizure" but you can draw your own conclusions. Waiting media scrummers weren't allowed to get close enough to the presidential wannabe to scare her by sticking microphones in her face -- again, see earlier video -- but can be heard asking her if she's still alive. Her response? "It's a beautiful day in New York City."



A spokesthingy for the Hillary 2016 campaign later issued a statement saying, "During the ceremony, she felt overheated so departed to go to her daughter's apartment, and is feeling much better." End of statement. Nothing here to see, folks.

Never forget 9/11

As we pause tomorrow to mark the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let's not forget who did this.

The criminals who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Islamic terrorists. Most of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia -- not Iraq, but Saudi Arabia. They learned to fly -- or aim the planes, at least -- in the USA, unnoticed by American "security" agencies. They owed allegiance to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi.

Saudi diplomats and members of the Saudi royal family were flown out of Washington, by arrangement with the government of Bush II, even before the dust settled. So who did Dubya, egged on by Cheney and Rumsfeld, decide to make war on? Not their good friends the Saudis. Not Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in the north of Afghanistan or Pakistan. The target for retaliation became none other than Saddam Hussein. He was picked because the Americans knew where he was. Besides, Dubya had an Oedipal fixation on finishing the job his father started, thus proving that he was more of a man.

On 11 September 2003, Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times:

Our leaders have used goofball logic and lousy assumptions to trap the country in a cockeyed replay of the Crusades that could drain our treasury and strain our military for generations, without making us any safer from terrorists and maybe putting us more at risk....

Iraq never threatened US security. Bush officials cynically attacked a villainous country because they knew it was easier than finding the real 9/11 villain, who had no country.... By pretending Iraq was crawling with Al-Qaeda, they've created an Iraq crawling with Al-Qaeda.

The first paragraph turned out to be a considerable understatement. The last sentence was bang on except that the Islamic extremists changed their name from Al-Qaeda to the grander-sounding "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria", the so-called "Caliphate". But make no mistake. They are the same Islamic extremists, the same jihadis, bent on exterminating us "Crusaders", wherever they may find us, including in our homelands. The Bush War (continued half-heartedly by Obama) changed nothing, except to make things worse.

Further reading: "Why the '9/11 Truth' movement endures 15 years later", by Matt Kwong, CBC News, 10/9/16.

Why Trump and Clinton are wrong on ISIS

I want to endorse Donald Trump for President. Really I do. But I am yet to be convinced that he has the answers -- good answers -- to America's problems at home and abroad. Yesterday he made an important speech on foreign policy, on his vision for the US role in the world. His answer to the threat posed by Islamist terrorism seems to be to "crush" ISIS.

To destroy ISIS.... That's clearer and stronger than la Clinton's non-answer, which seems to be to continue the Obama policy of merely "degrading ISIL", which has failed in the Middle East and has actually made matters worse in Europe and North America, where "homegrown, radicalized Islamists" have mounted attack after attack on whatever hapless "infidels" happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What both Ms Clinton and Mr Trump either don't understand or deliberately ignore is the reason given by the "lone wolves" for blowing themselves up or driving trucks into crowds of merrymakers. What they say in their videos is that they're protesting against American meddling in the Muslim civil war being fought out in the Arab world. (Note that there's no Islamic terrorism in such large Muslim countries as Iran, Malaysia and Indonesia -- only in the Arab states.)

The solution seems simple enough. Get out of the Middle East, leave the Arabs to duke it out amongst themselves, and they'll leave us and US alone!

Ron Paul has been saying that for years. So have I. And so has Gwynne Dyer, whose book After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007) I've mentioned before. See "Who really 'founded' ISIS?", WWW 14/8/16. Here are some wise words from the chapter headed "The Terrorist Bandwagon".

The United States has never been more disliked in the Arab world, and Arab regimes associated with it have a grave public relations problem at home, but there is no sign of a popular revolution brewing against even the most vulnerable regimes.

Terrorist attacks in Western countries will doubtless continue in a minor key, probably carried out for the most part by young Muslims already living in those countries who have been radicalized by the invasion of Iraq.... The invasion of Afghanistan had less effect on Muslim opinion in Western countries, since there seemed some logical justification for it, whereas the lack of such a justification for invading Iraq left many in the Muslim diaspora convinced that there really was a concerted Western assault on Islam itself.

The withdrawal of Western troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan would remove the main cause of this radicalization in Muslim communities in Western countries...and the likelihood of further attacks would then tend to diminish over time.

As for genuinely international Islamist terrorism against Western countries that is planned and controlled from within the Muslim world, apart from 9/11 it has never been a significant phenomenon, and 9/11 increasingly looks like a one-off. Not only would it be much harder to carry out such an operation today in the face of much-improved security measures, but the strategic motive for doing so has dwindled drastically, since it would be very difficult to sucker the United States or other Western countries into invading Muslim countries again once the troops are out.

Mr Dyer wrote that in 2007. And in that last sentence is the essence of what's wrong with Mr Trump's just-proclaimed policy. To respond to the jihadist wannabe outrages in Europe and the USA by sending the Marines into the Middle East sandpit is would be to do exactly what ISIS wants, in order to destabilize and overthrow the governments (horrible though they may be) of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc. Walt's advice to The Donald (and Hellery): don't get suckered in again!

VIDEO: Guess who agrees with Donald Trump about banning Muslims?

Before you click on the "play video" button to get the answer to Walt's headline question, consider this suggestion from Catherine Crier, a former Dallas District Attorney and judge. In the aftermath of 9/11 she wrote:

Following the terror attacks, you would think the INS would be examining its records. Not closely enough. The Florida flight school where Mohammed Atta trained finally got the proper paperwork and permission from the INS to train Atta and his cohort... six months after September 11.... People are calling for the deportation of those who are here illegally. It seems that the rational place to start would be those young males from nations we know are harboring terrorists. However, political correctness and discrimination have laws are thwarting this logical approach.

Ms Crier wrote that (in The Case Against Lawyers, Broadway Books, New York) in 2002. 2002! Donald Trump was still on his first wife then, 14 years away from making his own modest suggestion of a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA in the wake of the San Bernardino massacre.

But hey, Mr Trump's idea is just a product of his racism and paranoia. That's what the lamestream media would have you believe. Only in America (they say) would swuch a divisive and fascistic notion be entertained even for a moment. No other people (they say) would even consider anything like that, no matter how clear the connection between Islamic extremism and the terrorist attacks which now occur with alarming regularity, all over the world.

The Canadians, for example, would recoil in horror from such blatantly racist and Islamophobic measures, no matter how grave the risk of further attacks. After all, the Canadians are the world's most polite, most tolerant, most multicult-loving people. Hell, they "celebrate diversity" every day. That's what the lamestream media on both sides of the world's longest quasi-defended border keep telling us.

But hold on there. Maybe the real Canadians -- outside of Toronto and Ottawa -- are just about as concerned about Islamic terrorism as their cousins south of the border. Listen to this report of the results of a poll conducted for Canada's Global TV network on the subject of measures to ensure national security.



Now that you've watched it, let me draw your attention to what you didn't see or hear. You heard the intro by news anchor Donna Freisen. [Many are cold, but few are freezin. Ed.] But unless you saw this on tonight's Global National, you didn't hear the extro, in which she mentioned, as a kind of throwaway, that Ipsos had asked the pollees what they thought of The Donald's call for a ban on people coming from "countries affected by terrorism". Ms Freisen said if you wanted to know how they answered, you'd find the complete poll results on the Global News website.

Ed. went to the website and, not without difficulty, hunted up the page from which this video was taken. Here's the text -- the entire text -- that accompanies the video. "Eric Sorensen breaks down the results of an Ipsos poll for Global News that shows some Canadians are willing to give up some freedoms for the sake of security."

That's it, that's all. No poll numbers, no information on how the poll was conducted, and no answer to the question: how many Canadians agree with Donald Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the USA (or Canada)? Ed. had to dig down deeper into the Global news site to find the answer. Here it is.

"Half of Canadians support travel ban to protect Canada from terrorism: poll"

That's right, gentle reader. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Canucks polled by Ipsos strongly or somewhat supported banning people from "all countries compromised by terrorism" as a means to ensure national security. The article quotes Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Public Affairs, as saying he was somewhat surprised by the response. "But given the events over the space of the last year, in places like Nice (France) and other places, there continues to be this generic concern about people coming into the country, who may have interest in doing us harm."

Hm. Wonder why that part of the story wasn't mentioned on Global National. Limitations of time, perhaps. Wonder why there was no link in the web page with the report by Eric Sorensen. Hmmm. Political correctness, perhaps?