The troubling past and frightening future of jihad


Youssef is worthy of your full attention. Militant Islam is coming for you.. you will be forced under the sword to submit- History is clear… followers of this ideology have murdered, raped, pillaged, burned, and enslaved wherever they go. And now, our government is embracing this ideology through the infiltration of our political “class”.. the same stealth Jihad used over and over in country after country. It’s time to work to oust all those politicians who embrace, encourage, or tolerate any element of Sharia.

Yes, Toto, the Recession Is Over

For government employees and those on various benefit programs there is no recession.  In fact, there never was one.  It is only those in the private sector who are taking a pounding.  Government employees in particular, with their high pay, their secure benefits packages and their cushy retirement plans have suffered no economic setback whatever.  In fact, they are rapidly becoming what Karl Marx referred to as the “bourgeoisie.”  During the coming years, as those in the private sector must sell off hard-earned assets including real estate and businesses in order to survive, the government class will gobble up these assets.  The career bureaucrat working his second government job while collecting a pension on his first has no cash flow problem.  In ten years time non-producing government drones, operating under the banner of “labor,” will likely own most of our economy.  But since these “workers” produce no wealth, in order to keep their lucrative little gig rolling they will have no alternative but to tax the private sector more and more.


Bear in mind that government employees pay no taxes.  They do go through the procedure, of course, filing their returns just like everyone else.  But it is only a pretense.  All of the actual wealth is really produced in the private sector, and that is the sole source of tax revenues.  Look at it this way.  If Joe manufactures and sells bread, he is taxed a percentage of his bread (converted for ease of handling into dollars).  But Jack, working for the government, has produced nothing comparable that can be converted into dollars.  His pay, and the “taxes” taken out of it, are in reality only that portion of the value produced by Joe that was confiscated and recycled by government.  It may help to imagine a country where everyone works for the government in jobs exactly like the federal jobs we now see in the USA.  There would be plenty of regulation and paper shuffling, but nothing to eat, build with, or trade.  What is more, no amount of Federal money printing would change that.


This point is essential, so let me offer another way of illustrating it.  Imagine an island nation with a population of only three.  One of the three catches fish and the second cooks them.  But because fishing is so dangerous and because sanitation in food handling is so important, they have designated the third citizen to be their Labor and Health Inspector.  The fisherman and the cook each need to produce in order to eat, and because of their efficiency there is a surplus which provides for the inspector.  So everyone is happy at first.  But soon the inspector becomes dissatisfied.  He must race back and forth between the boat and the kitchen, and he finds his work both unrewarding and exhausting.  He therefore calls a meeting and demands that he be provided an assistant.  The little group deliberates, and comes to the realization that if the fisherman would simply cook the fish after his return from the sea it would be possible to have two inspectors, one for the fishing boat and a second for the processing facility.  Problem solved—or so it would seem.  But now there are two inspectors with no one to supervise them.  So they vote to place the fisherman in charge of their Department of Labor and Health.  Now how much wealth does this little country produce? 


Of course government employees are not aware that they produce nothing and pay no taxes.  Like other employees, they view themselves as essential and imagine that the company, in their case Corporate America, could not go on without them.  They only want what everyone wants.  More!  And as luck would have it, the legislators to whose political campaigns they so generously donate view them in the very same way—and for the same reason.  For these legislators also produce nothing but a growing burden of taxation and regulation which stifles the real engines of production.  Both groups in this cozy symbiosis, government employees and the politicians beholden to them, are dependent on this partnership to keep their starving host in harness.


But who are the people who make up this new and rapidly expanding government class?  For the past 40 years, preference in all government hiring has gone to so called “victim-minorities.”  These are Obama’s people, and it is of them he thinks when he speaks of “spreading the wealth.”  Unfortunately however, there are already too many of them for the amount of tax revenue now available and they are beginning to realize this fact.  In order to gain power, the Left at first found it necessary to be “inclusive” with the status of “victim.”  So virtually every group except white males was brought on board under Affirmative Action.  This explains, for example, why left wing politicians have been so eager to grant amnesty to the illegal aliens who become dependents of the state at such an alarming rate. 


But now, with the nation languishing in a private sector recession that has lasted longer than any since the 1930’s, all these “victims” are suddenly finding that the pie is just a bit too small.  This is why they are so insistent on “taxing the rich” as the only acceptable solution to our national deficit problem.  Spending cuts would mean less government, which they fully understand would translate into fewer government jobs or else to cuts in their compensation.  Not surprisingly, they have also begun to riot and protest on behalf of their “union rights” and to demand higher taxes. 


Meanwhile, the broad left-wing coalition is beginning to fragment.  For example, Asians at first received preference in higher education.  But so many Asians now qualify academically that, under the mantra of “diversity,” their admission to many if not most universities has been restricted.  If you descend from a Japanese family placed by FDR in a concentration camp during WWII, don’t even dream of the same Affirmative Action consideration a Kenyan whose family never set foot on this continent would typically receive.   Your group has been restricted.  Similarly, all women were once considered members of the victim minority.  But now it is not enough to be merely female.  A woman must often have some other claim to victimhood.  Look for the status of “victim” to further contract over coming years as the wealth producing private sector shrinks and government revenues (in real dollars accounting for inflation) contract.


Another demographic fissure is beginning to open along age lines.  With the federal revenue stream shrinking and the number of claimants growing, the elderly who have paid into Social Security and Medicare their entire lives find themselves at odds with the young government class on whose behalf our Congress has looted those retirement programs.  America’s seniors for the most part never pushed for irresponsible tax-and-spend government.  But they did want to be unselfish, or at least to appear so, and they did not see the long-term implications of creating new departments and bureaucracies ad infinitum.  So they went along, until somewhat belatedly they discovered that there is now a fake job in government for nearly every member of the putative under class.  As they began to understand the implications of all this government in terms of what it is costing them and their heirs, they decided they did not like it.  Their rising concern partially explains the tea party movement.  It also accounts for the anomaly that most tea partier’s want fiscal responsibility in government except when it comes to spending on their own sacred entitlements.  However it explains even better the conflict between union thugs such as those we have recently seen in Wisconsin, who are mostly government employees, and the conspicuously aging tea party.  These two groups, you see, are jealous rivals for the same revenue pot.  Only one of them has earned it, while the other merely wants it. 


Obamacare can be seen, in this context, as a plan by the government class to intercept revenues originally guaranteed under law to the retirement class that earned them.  That is why, for example, the new “Affordable Healthcare” law cuts $500 billion from Medicare.  It is also why this law contains “advisory boards” (death panels) to coach the elderly to “do the right thing” when their medical situation becomes too expensive.  Similarly, it is why liberals now talk of comingling private 401 K plans with Social Security.  The elderly, if we are to be perfectly blunt, are like government workers in that they are tax-revenue consumers who do not produce.  That they did once produce, and that they set aside compulsory withholdings in a transparent pyramid scheme for their own retirement, is hardly the point. 


It is all coming to a head now.  Will the American proletariat—that is, the government employees from tenured professor to cop on the beat—ultimately congeal in this scheme to confiscate the wealth of our country under the hand of government until production has entirely dried up?   Or will they recognize in time that their own long-term prosperity is dependent upon the fiscal health of the nation as a whole?  If this were a biological problem I would not be hopeful, because no parasite has ever willingly relinquished its host.  But it is a civics problem, so you, Dorothy, will get to decide.

Jim Wagner

              The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him,

              but because he loves what is behind him.  —  G. K. Chesterton



Federal Govt Attacks.. This is applied Marxism

Sometimes by favoring a narrow constituency, the federal government can cause economic devastation for a company or a state and even encourage companies to manufacture outside the United States. In terms of sheer economic stupidity, the Obama Administration committed an economic felony when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered Boeing to shutter a spanking new $2 billion facility that would have created 1,000 much-needed new jobs in South Carolina.

Last week, the NLRB told Boeing that it could not open the facility it had spent three years creating to build its new Dreamliner series of airplanes. The NLRB did not deem the plant unsafe or harmful to South Carolina workers. The NLRB simply said that it could block Boeing from using the new plant as Boeing’s decision to locate it in South Carolina was in part based on a desire to avoid work stoppages and strikes, and this rationale was harmful to unions and thus an illegal act.

Never before has the federal government told a company it may not relocate within the United States. Never before has the statute used been interpreted to affect a decision on where a product is made. Never before has the Constitutional goal of easing interstate commerce been so trampled by a formal act of the federal government.

This outrageous overreach is unacceptable and will certainly be overturned in time by the federal courts. But the process may take years, and meanwhile a great American company – and one of our nation’s largest exporters – will be hurt irreparably. Imagine the Boeing customers abroad who placed firm orders awaiting their new planes; Airbus must be getting lots of calls and new orders thanks to this decision.

Our federal government has become the enemy of job creators. Look at the facts here: South Carolina’s Dreamliner production line would be in addition to, not instead of, Boeing’s production line in Seattle. Boeing is already facing a backlog of orders for the plane, and this NLRB action, if not reversed soon, will certainly cause it to lose orders for these American-built planes. The NLRB apparently wants the second line to also be produced in the Puget Sound area – also silly if you see what too much concentration of production capacity in one venue can do (witness the Sendai area in Japan). The greatest irony is that if Boeing had put this facility in Canada or even in China the NLRB probably could not have ordered its shutdown (but who knows given their perverse interpretation of the law).

The Obama Administration has been criticized as light on those with any real business experience. If you have not made a payroll or never created a job you can play in the niceties of doing what union fundraisers want. But with all due respect to my father who was a union activist until he died, unions have lost their way. Having successfully changed laws to protect worker safety, overtime and vacation compensation, and even process for termination, unions are pushing our nation over the edge with unaffordable defined benefit pensions and no-fire tenure.

This latest example with the NLRB and Boeing pushes the “union gets everything it wants” envelope further; it is just one more reason why a company would choose not to manufacture in the United States. I suspect even my loyal unionist dad would say he and his fellow WWII veterans might think this controlling government action is beyond the American ideal for which they fought.

Our government is killing American jobs. American companies compete in the real world, and our nation is in real trouble as we isolate ourselves, create trade barriers and handcuff our best companies with absurd policies, excessive litigation costs, high taxes and social engineering.

It is time for common sense. South Carolina Senators should filibuster the Senate until this issue is resolved. Business groups must speak up. Responsible Democrats and Republicans must demand this action be reversed. This march towards national economic suicide must end, and immediate reversal of this act of insanity against Boeing is a good place to start.

Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the U.S. trade association representing some 2,000 consumer electronics companies, is the author of “The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream.

We have Fools running our federal government. The Obama administration can’t help but take over and control private industry.. making it become a union controlled, quasi government captive. This is not the America we want, or need.

Three Convicted in Terror-Related Cases Later Granted U.S. Citizenship by Obama Administration – The 9.12 Project Network

Three Convicted in Terror-Related Cases Later Granted U.S. Citizenship by Obama Administration


Three Convicted in Terror-Related Cases Later Granted U.S. Citizenship by Obama Administration


Friday, April 29, 2011


President Barack Obama, at the White House, discusses his plans to thwart future terrorist attacks on Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2010. His remarks followed a meeting with his national security team. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

( people convicted of crimes as a result of a terrorism-related investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) were later naturalized as U.S. citizens by the Obama administration, according to federal auditors.

The March 2011 audit (released on April 21, 2011) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs, shows that three individuals were among “defendants where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were charged with violating other statutes [not directly related to terrorism], including fraud, immigration, drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges,” referred by DOJ as Category II terrorism-related cases.

The three individuals in question can be found in a DOJ list of unsealed terrorism-related investigations conducted from Sept. 11, 2001 through Mar. 18, 2010. There are 403 defendants on that list of which, according to the GAO, at least 43 percent were aliens–both legal (26 percent) and illegal (17 percent)–at the time they were charged with crimes.

“Prosecuting terror-related targets using Category II offenses and others is often an effective method–and sometimes the only available method–of deterring and disrupting potential terrorist planning and support activities,” explained the DOJ in the document that listed the defendants.

Staff members of GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice team who worked on the audit told in an e-mail that the three individuals were naturalized as U.S. citizens under President Barack Obama.

“One of the individuals was naturalized in late 2009.  The other two were naturalized in 2010,” says the e-mail from the GAO.

In the audit, the GAO analyzed the immigration status of the individuals on the DOJ list using information from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“Based upon our analysis of USCIS and DOJ data, three of the individuals on the DOJ list received U.S. citizenship after their convictions,” stated the GAO audit report. “Two were convicted of unlawful production of an identity document and one was convicted of transferring funds out of the country in violation of U.S. sanctions.”

“An individual applying for naturalization must demonstrate good moral character for a statutory period of time–from 5 years preceding the application up to admission to citizenship,” added the GAO. “This includes not having been convicted of crimes, such as murder, rape, drug trafficking, or other aggravated felonies prior to or during that period, as well as not having been convicted of other crimes during that period, such as certain drug offenses or convictions that led to 180 days or more of prison time.”

However, according to the USCIS, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) says that in determining good moral character, the federal government can look further back than five years, adding that it “may take into consideration as a basis for such determination the applicant’s conduct and acts at any time prior to that period.”

The INA, which allows a person who has been a permanent resident for at least 5 years to apply for naturalization, governs the eligibility requirements to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen, including establishing good moral character, the USCIS stated on its Web site.

The mounting evidence of Obama’s effort to cuddle and embrace enemies of America should make all freedom loving Americans come to their senses and turn their back on the ideology Obama and his minions are feverishly working with to enslave America before their scheme is completely exposed and understood by even the most hardened and supportive Obama partisans.


Under this President and his administration, Easter is a minor holiday-hardly befitting a comment from him or anyone in his administration.  His belief system clearly discounts the historical fact that Easter is the most significant “holy day” among Christians.. the day when the resurection of Christ occured, following his crucifixion.  He’s “moved on” to the beliefs he learned as a child- where he learned Taqiyya and other “arts of war”.

Citizen Warrior: Is it Racist to Criticize Islam?


Become Informed. The cowering mainstream media will suppress Truth in a vain effort to appear “non judgmental” and “open minded”.
But they habitually and consciously hide and avoid the Truth and perpetuate deceit. And the deceit is widespread. Here are just a few stories that get very little “ink” from the main stream press. Their true stories simply put the PC narrative on trial and shed light on the sincere effort by our main stream media to close it’s eyes to the reality and Truth.

Is it racist to criticize Islam?

April 28, 2011

VIEW our latest TV show episodes here (latest on the Ground Zero Mosque) & here (getting Congress to see the threat)

“Is it racist to criticize Islam?”

America’s rich heritage of free speech and public debate is one of the hallmarks of our country’s greatness.

But when it comes to the topic of Islam, rather than engaging in honest debate about such aspects as jihad, sharia law, treatment of “infidels,” or treatment of women, what we frequently see instead is a barrage of personal attacks intended to muzzle any and all debate.

One of the more vile is the false accusation of “racism.” “Citizen Warrior” has posted a powerful rebuttal of this accusation (see below) which we encourage you to read and forward to everyone you know.

Is it Racist to Criticize Islam?


Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist? She was born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands.

She helped produce a film with Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam’s treatment of women. Van Gogh was shot to death by a Muslim in retaliation, and a note was pinned to his chest with a knife — a note that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

Is Wafa Sultan a racist? She was born and raised in Syria, and was trained as a psychiatrist.

On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. The New York Times estimated it was seen at least one million times. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.

Is Brigitte Gabriel a racist? She’s an Arab, born in Lebanon. Gabriel watched her country become an Islamic state. Lebanon was a Christian country and “the jewel of the Middle East” when she was young. But the Muslims in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran, slowly became more militant until they turned the country into a war zone.

She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, the Muslim Brotherhood here in her newly adopted country, going down the same road. She decided to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results you can expect from appeasing orthodox Muslims, so she founded ACT! for America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam’s prime directive.

Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

Is Ibn Warraq a racist? Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire.

Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism.

Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations “Victims of Jihad” conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye’or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng.

Is Tapan Ghosh a racist? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal.

In an article about him, a correspondent wrote, “A life of 25 years of relentless service has strengthened the resolve of Tapan Ghosh to unite Hindu masses to fight against injustice and the oppressive attitude of the authorities in the face of ever-increasing Islamist aggression.”

Ghosh said, “As someone who has suffered enormously from the Islamist onslaught in eastern India, both after the partition of India as well as the partition of erstwhile Pakistan to form Bangladesh, Islamic terrorism has deeply affected my life and the life of millions in the Indian subcontinent. The horrific events of 1971 where nearly 3 million Bengalis, mostly Hindus were exterminated by the Pakistani military regime left an everlasting impression on me. Since then, I have worked relentlessly for the service and upliftment of people reeling under the scourge of radical Islam.”

Is Seyran Ates a racist? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany, Atest is highly critical of an immigrant Muslim society that is often more orthodox than its counterpart in Turkey, and her criticisms have put her at risk.

Her book, “Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution,” was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates stated that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women’s behalf publicly (including in court) due to the threats against her.

Ates is the author of the article, Human Rights Before Religion: Have we forgotten to protect women in our bid to accommodate practices carried out in the name of Islam?