WE WILL NEVER KNOW HOW MANY MUSLIMS JOE BIDEN HAS SPIRITED INTO THE COUNTRY AND QUICKLY 'LOST'. JUST AS HE HAS BEEN DOING WITH THE MEXICANS. LEADING THEM OVER THE BORDER AND SCATTERING THEM ALL OVER AMERICA WITHOUT VETTING THEM.
JOE BIDEN IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA SINCE THE LAST CLOWN IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
'We Have Won!'
Terrorist mass murderer Nidal Hasan urges the Taliban to implement Sharia law.
“We Have Won!!! All-Praises be to All-Mighty Allah! Congratulations on your victory over those who hate for the Laws of All-Mighty God to be supreme on the land. I pray to Allah that He helps you implement Shariah Law fully, correctly, and fairly.”
That was Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Hasan, in a letter to his attorney retired U.S. Army Col. John Galligan, directing his remarks to the Taliban. Hasan’s most significant word is “We.”
Hasan was a major in the U.S. Army Major but described himself as a “soldier of Allah.” In 2009, Hasan was communicating with al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about killing American soldiers, then shipping out for Afghanistan. On November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas, Hasan gunned down 13 unarmed American soldiers and wounded more than 30 others. The soldier of Allah saw himself as a combatant for the Taliban, but those in charge at the time didn’t see it that way.
For the composite character president David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama, it was only “workplace violence,” not even gun violence. As Col. Galligan told Fox News this week, “workplace violence” is not even a punishable offence in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). True to form, Hasan was charged with mass murder, but not terrorism. According to Galligan, “the government could have elected to proceed along that line but chose not to.”
The composite character president, formerly known as Barry Soetoro, called the killings “incomprehensible,” adding that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts.” For Hasan, it was fully comprehensible, and he certain believed Islam justified his actions.
Vice president Joe Biden said, “Jill and I join the President and Michelle in expressing our sympathies to the families of the brave soldiers who fell today. We are all praying for those who were wounded and hoping for their full and speedy recovery. Our thoughts and prayers are also with the entire Fort Hood community as they deal with this senseless tragedy.” For Nidal Hasan, the attack made perfect sense.
The American soldiers were heading for Afghanistan, and the “soldier of Allan” sided with the Taliban. So he gunned down the U.S. soldiers before they shipped out. For Biden the American soldiers only “fell,” as though it was some sort of accident. The mass murder was only a “senseless tragedy,” not a deliberate atrocity, or even a crime. As vice president, Biden would have access to the best information, but he mentioned not a single American victim by name, not even Pvt. Francheska Velez, who was pregnant and died crying “my baby!”
Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford took seven bullets from Hasan and complained that the shooter, wounded by a civilian police officer, got better medical treatment that he did. In 2014, the composite character president declined to meet with Sgt. Lunsford.
Hasan was sentenced to death in 2013, but the sentence was not carried out. From his cell at Fort Leavenworth, Hasan now shows solidarity with the terrorist bombers who killed 13 Americans. In his delayed response to the atrocity, Joe Biden mumbled something about his late son Beau but mentioned not a single American victim by name. As with Communist China, Biden appears to believe the Taliban are “not bad folks,” and worthy of partnership.
Biden’s military has been sharing intelligence with the Taliban, and under commander-in-chief Biden, the U.S. military gave the Taliban a list of Americans still trapped in Afghanistan. Biden also hired the Taliban for security at the airport, akin to hiring the Einsatzgruppen to aid refugees fleeing the Nazis. The Taliban proceeded to let ISIS-K, a Taliban faction, through a check point and they detonated the bomb that claimed 13 American lives. That could have been prevented, and so could Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood massacre.
The FBI knew Hasan was communicating with al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about killing Americans. As congressional hearings made clear, bureau bosses dropped the surveillance. Despite the communications with al-Awlaki, the FBI claimed Hasan acted alone and was not part of a broader terrorist plot.
Thirteen Americans died but their murderer lives on and cheers on the Taliban. This is what happens when a death sentence is not swiftly executed. Should another Fort Hood terrorist attack occur, soldiers would be advised to take care of business on the spot.
In 2009, the murder of 13 Americans did not prompt an investigation for other jihadists in the ranks. For the composite character and his vice president, their domestic political opposition posed the true threat.
In similar style, Joe Biden’s FBI, DOJ and military now target “white supremacists,” “right-wing extremists,” and so forth, code for anyone less than worshipful of Joe Biden and the composite character. As Americans might recall, he traded one American deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, for five hard-core Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. Released with the others in 2014, Khairullah Khairkhwa proceeded to reunite the Taliban and help them capture power in Afghanistan.
Under commander-in-chief Joe Biden and his leftist handlers, racist and Marxist indoctrination is dividing the ranks and prompting outstanding officers such as Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier to leave the military. With the 20th anniversary of 9/11 at hand, Americans remain more vulnerable than ever.
FUCKING MUSLIM APES!
HOW MANY HAS JOE BIDEN INVITED IN OUR UNDEFENDED BORDERS?
Taliban Celebrate After Beheading Afghan Soldier
Disturbing video out of Afghanistan this week showed Taliban fighters holding the severed head of an Afghan soldier in celebration of a gruesome execution.
The 30-second video, shared to an online chat room, showed Taliban fighters chanting “Mujahideen” while holding the soldier’s severed head by the hair, according to Daily Mail.
Six of the men were holding rifles and another was clutching on to two bloodied knives.
It is believed the man on the ground was an Afghan soldier due to the color of his dark green uniform – similar to that given to the national army by the US.
They then start shouting praise for the Taliban’s supreme leader Hibatullah Akhundzada.
The video ends with the group stating they must shoot the Afghan soldiers because ‘he has to look shot’.
The Arabic term “Mujahideen” refers to Muslims who fight on behalf of Islam. The gruesome video erupted online shortly after Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said the Taliban has grown into a kinder, gentler regime dedicated to the people of Afghanistan.
We are the people of Afghanistan. Many of us were doing the jihad, the resistance, against then Soviet union and now the 20 year occupation by the US and allies.
Now, we are focusing on lifting the lives of our people, the construction of Afghanistan, creating jobs for our people, building a welfare state.
If I compare it to the past, we had a domestic war, fighting. But now we are focusing more on our economic activities, on creating jobs, expanding education, other needs of the people.
Violence is not the official policy. If everyone wants to have a demonstration they should get permission from the minister interior and state the demonstration will take place.
Just this past week, President Joe Biden’s administration referred to the Taliban as “businesslike and professional.”
“The Taliban have been cooperative in facilitating the departure of American citizens and lawful permanent residents on charter flights from HKIA. They have shown flexibility, and they have been businesslike and professional in our dealings with them in this effort,” National Security Council (NSC) Spokesperson Emily Horne said.
This past August, activist and former Afghan judge Najla Ayoubi alleged that the Taliban burned a woman for her bad cooking. “They are forcing people to give them food and cook them food. A woman was put on fire because she was accused of bad cooking for Taliban fighters,” Ayoubi told Sky News.
Last week, Taliban special forces fired their weapons in the air to forcefully disperse a women’s rights protest in Kabul.
What are the 27 Things that the Taliban of Afghanistan Really Want?
It is possible to waste many hours, if not days, reading the world press and listening to pundits go on and on about what it is precisely that the Taliban wants.
You will not find the answer listening to those fast-talking, talk show hosts on either Fox News or CNN.
That is because few from these media organizations have taken the time to do the appropriate research that answers the question, “What do the Taliban want?”
The answer is simple. They want a society of Sunni Muslims ruled according to the principles of Shariah law.
In order to understand Shariah law, from an academic point of view, one has to have read the Quran in Arabic, as well as understand the history of the many sayings of Muhammad (the Hadith in Arabic). One must know how the Quran and these sayings have been interpreted by Muslim judges and jurisprudence for at least the last thousand years, and recognize how the five major Islamic legal systems (four Sunni and one Shia) have ordered and ruled the daily lives of Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia.
It is a tall order and few Western scholars are up to the mark. But there have been a few who have managed to distill this legal tradition down to its 27 basic principles.
In 2009 researcher Sam Solomon, at the request of British Parliamentarian, the Right Honorable Lord M. Pearson of Rannoch, created a simple chart comparing and contrasting Shariah law with that of British law.
It is an easy read with a ponderous title, “A Comparison Table of Shari’ah Law and English Law prepared by Sam Solomon and Kathryn Wakeling of CCFON for the Debate on 4th June 2009 Regarding the Oral Question Posed by The Right Honourable Lord M. Pearson of Rannoch.”
Here is a direct link to the full document which can be accessed online. It takes no more than a half-hour to read it carefully and the rest is, as some scholars would say, commentary.
The twenty-seven principles outlined in this paper cover issues such as the legal basis upon which a court system is established, the system of governance, the nature of law, the scope of the law, access to justice, the purpose of the court system, the relationships between religion and the state, categories of crimes and punishments, the nature of treason, and that beloved topic of the woke establishment, gender rights and obligations.
Here are some of the most dramatic contrasts between the two legal systems, quoted from the document, comparing Shariah principles and practice with those underlying the British tradition (and in most cases Anglo American common law).
According to Islamic courts:
Inheritance must be apportioned as per Islamic jurisprudence based on the Qu’ran and the Sunnah in which a male’s portion is double that of a female’s, and none is to be given to an unbeliever (kaffir) even if she or he would otherwise be the most legitimately entitled.
In the Anglo legal tradition:
The deceased estate is divided in accordance with the last valid will of the deceased; otherwise in accordance with statutory rules that do not discriminate on grounds of sex or religion.
In the Shariah legal tradition:
Polygamy is expected. Men may marry up to 4 free women with no limit on the number of concubines or sex slaves.
In the Anglo tradition:
Polygamy is the crime of bigamy. The ownership of slaves is a crime. Sexual activity with a person who does not consent involves either rape or sexual assault…
In the Shariah tradition:
Women need written permission to travel and/or a male relative to accompany them.
In the Anglo tradition:
All citizens are free to come and go as they please unless arrested, imprisoned or excluded from private or Government property.
In the Islamic Shariah legal system the following punishments are indicated for the associated crimes:
- Adultery: 100 lashes and capital punishment (stoning or beheading by the sword or being hanged or shot)
- False allegation of adultery: 80 lashes, loss of the right of being an upright witness
- Alcohol consumption of liquor: minimum 80 lashes-may vary but never less than 40
- Theft; chopping off the right hand from the wrist
- Apostasy: capital punishment
In the Anglo version of this legal tradition.
Life imprisonment is the most serious punishment that is meted out and then only for the most serous crimes such as murder and rape. No corporal punishment is permissible. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman and degrading punishment …Adultery and the consumption of alcohol may be regarded as sins but they are not crimes. At most they may be grounds for divorce. Apostasy may be regarded as a sin by the religion against which a person has turned but it is not a crime.
(One must point out that in the U.S., capital punishment is still legal.)
The authority from which Shariah emerges is “revealed by Allah, revealed to Muhammad via the Quran and Sunnah…applied by the Shariah courts.”
The most integrated and complete functioning of a modern Shariah system has been that of Saudi Arabia where these 27 principles have been in place and practice since the 1920s when the Saudis conquered most of Arabia and gave it their tribal name.
Not all Muslim countries implement all aspects of Muslim law. Some like formerly British-occupied Egypt and French-occupied Tunisia have been influenced by European legal models, largely resulting from their pre-independence colonization, where for example Britain tried to modify Shariah by imposing aspects of British common law.
This is not just theory. Today Shariah law is alive and well in the Islamic world and perhaps in its most pristine form in Saudi Arabia, exemplified in this most recent excerpt from the website of the House of Saud itself:
Saudi Royals to abolish public flogging but keep amputation for theft
April 24, 2020
The Saudi Royal Family are planning to abolish flogging as a form of punishment, as part of an effort to improve the Kingdom’s image and human rights record.
When the directive from the Gulf kingdom’s Supreme Court is introduced flogging will be replaced by other non-corporal punishments, possibly imprisonment or fines.
The decision comes as the latest in a series of changes to “outdated” laws introduced since Mohammed bin Salman’s rise to power. Reforming the Saudi Royal Family’s reputation is considered a key factor in attracting investment and tourism, and has become even more of an uphill task since the Khashoggi assassination.
The Saudi Royal Family have landed in the headlines a number of times for flogging their subjects, most recently in 2015 when young blogger Raif Badawi was subjected to a public flogging.
He was sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes in weekly public whippings, but a global outrage put a stop to his sentence part way through.
Some other punishments meted out by the Saudis are viewed as human rights concerns and may also be jeopardised, however at this stage hand amputations as a punishment for theft is likely to be kept and is described as a fair punishment under Islamic law.
While Saudi Arabia, which is now threatened by an ever-emboldened Shariah-based theocracy of the Shia variety from Iran, it is trying to show the West that it is “evolving.” You can be sure that the Taliban in Afghanistan will be establishing a Shariah-based state that makes the Saudis look soft by comparison.
As recently as August 19, 2021, The Hindu (a major Indian newspaper) quoted a Taliban leader that the movement is dedicated to imposing Shariah law and does not believe in democracy. Full stop.
None of this is news. It is well documented and after having read Solomon’s report you can go to any good university library and read up on the details of Shariah law and its application in the Islamic world.
As we contemplate the failure of the West after 9/11 to label its enemy as Jihad in the service of Shariah, we must listen carefully to the now victorious Taliban for the goal of the Taliban today is the same as it was twenty years ago; not only the creation of an Islamic state in Afghanistan but a world dominated by Shariah. Jihad is their means towards that end and it will not stop at their national borders.
That is the real meaning of 9/11. Most Americans have yet to wake up to this simple fact.
Image: Library of Congress, via Picryl // no known restrictions
Jihad Through Michael Scheuer’s Eyes
Are there really Muslim masses worldwide yearning to breath free?
CIA analyst Michael Scheuer emphasized the “overwhelming centrality of religion in all of [Osama] bin Laden’s activities” in his 2002 book Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. Twenty bloody, trauma-filled years after Al Qaeda’s devastating September 11, 2001, attacks, Scheuer’s writing remains as relevant as ever, however much policymakers have often failed to heed his advice.
In the years since 9/11, Scheuer, the former leader of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, has become known as an anti-Israel, conspiracy-mongering crank, but what he wrote in 2002 as “Anonymous” is highly thought-provoking. Bin Laden in his statements and behavior contradicted the “media’s portrait of him as a more-or-less blood-crazed ‘terrorist,’” Scheuer noted. He chillingly, yet with uncritical admiration, outlined how Bin Laden exhibited sterner, more substantial character:
Osama bin Laden appears to be a genuinely pious Muslim; a devoted family man; a talented, focused, and patient insurgent commander; a frank and eloquent speaker; a successful businessman; and an individual of conviction, intellectual honesty, compassion, humility, and physical bravery.
Controversially, Scheuer analogized Bin Laden to hallowed Western civilization figures such as America’s Founding Fathers, while wanting “not to say bin Laden and his al Qaeda colleagues were correct or deserve sympathy.” Yet his “philosophy and actions have embodied many of the same sentiments that permeate the underpinnings of concepts on which the United States itself is established.” Bin Laden’s statements, for example, mirrored Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, a “timeless exposition of America’s profoundly conservative and religious mind.”
Bin Laden manifested for Scheuer the declaration’s conservative message that only a “long train of abuses” could justify resort to violent change. This terrorist “has been a worthy enemy, one who turned to war only after years of peaceful and law-abiding agitation” in Saudi Arabia, Scheuer argued. Therefore, Bin Laden “deserves no less thoughtful consideration than that of the American revolutionaries we revere as heroes.”
Scheuer elaborated that bin Laden is leading a “worldwide, religiously inspired, and professionally guided Islamist insurgency.” Jihadists such as Osama believe “that their struggle is an integral part of Islam’s more than 1,400-year historical continuum in which the central feature is the defense of Islam against Christian aggression,” Scheuer argued. Today the “Islamic world, at all societal levels, is fed up with what it views as a U.S.-led Western/Christian attack on the Muslim world’s religion, people, dignity, and economic resources.”
Contrary to recurring attempts to dismiss jihadists such as bin Laden as extremist ignoramuses, Scheuer noted that “bin Laden has a substantial knowledge of Islamic history.” “Bin Laden’s intentions and goals are grounded in his reading of the Koran, the Prophet’s sayings and practices, and the interpretations of classical and contemporary Islamic scholars and jurists,” Scheuer wrote. In such teachings the “Koran sanctions a defensive jihad, calling on each Muslim to defend the attacked and making this aid a religious duty and an individual responsibility.”
Such doctrine explains why bin Laden has not “ever claimed to be a religious jurist or scholar,” even as Islam apologists have often attempted to dismiss bin Laden’s legitimacy by noting that he has no formal theological training, Scheuer observed. Yet bin Laden “has often described himself as a simple Muslim who is ready and waiting to be directed by the jihad’s rightful leaders.” He has given “not one hint that…he wants to be the Muslim world’s leader, the next caliph,” but “believed that by inciting a defensive jihad he was doing no more than fulfilling his personal duty as a Muslim.”
Although Scheuer provides key insight into bin Laden’s thinking, Scheuer fails to question the Islamic understanding of jihad’s legitimacy. In the book’s glossary he stipulated that in Islam the “greater jihad is the individual’s struggle against evil and temptation; the lesser jihad is the armed defense of Islam against aggression.” Such a definition sounds like the Judeo-Christian understanding of just war, yet ignores that Islam has also justified centuries of offensive jihad to subjugate non-Muslims, while “defensive” jihad is hardly less supremacist in nature.
Scheuer, for example, accurately observed that the “tenets of Islam strictly guide all aspects of Muslim life, personal, political and sacred.” Accordingly, the “legitimacy of the Muslim leader—be he president, king, prime minister, or military dictator—depends on his steadfastness in hewing to the Sharia.” Heresies by countries such as Saudi Arabia, which sought non-Muslim military aid in 1990 against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, prompted bin Laden’s call for “defensive” insurrection against Western-aligned regimes such as the Saudi kingdom.
Other jihadist tenets in Scheuer’s book are equally absurd and terrifying. For instance, the
Philippines has received steady attention from bin Laden since 1996, at least, in part, because the insurgency there is the only Muslim one that is directly fighting the ascendance of what al-Qaeda would classify as a crusading Catholic power.
Piety dominates jihadist behavior in ways small and large, Scheuer noted, as in the case of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) and the Islamic Group (IG), led by the “blind sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, in Egypt:
Many EIJ members initially belonged to the IG but formed their own organization in part because of their unwillingness to accept Shaykh Rahman as their leader. The dissenters believed that the Koran forbid leadership being given to a blind man.
Blind Islamic faith has horrifying results in warfare, Scheuer analyzed. For example, the “taking of booty—in terms of material assets and slaves—has long been an integral component of the conduct of jihad.” Jihadist bloodshed would also not be discriminatory, he elaborated:
Bin Laden and his followers…are learned in the history of the Crusades—where the slaughter of captured soldiers and non-combatants by Catholic fighters and Muslim mujahedin was commonplace—and are the products of the century of total war, where civilians and economic infrastructure have…been primary targets.
As substantiated on several occasions in subsequent years, Scheuer warned about the link between jihadist atrocities and seemingly benign Islamic nongovernmental organizations (NGOS) operating in Western societies. These NGOs
are almost always legally registered, certifiably involved in humanitarian and charitable activities, and affiliated with legitimate religious organizations. The use of Islamic NGOs as conduits for funds and contraband, and as curtains behind which to hide illicit activities, is an excellent example of how bin Laden and other Islamists have manipulated the West’s legal system for their benefit.
Logically, Scheuer wanted “to undermine the tenet of U.S. foreign policy that decrees that poverty and unemployment cause terrorism.” Contrary to this thesis debunked numerous times in the years since 2002, Al Qaeda’s leaders were “well educated, and drawn from the Islamic world’s urban middle- and upper-middle classes,” he noted. Rather than societal losers, “bin Laden’s senior lieutenants are a talented and experienced group; there is no lack of military, political, theological, scientific, technical, or propaganda know-how in the inner circle.”
Given such capable, conscientious jihadists, the “clash of civilizations—Islam versus what-passes-for Christendom—appears to be as inevitable as it will be bloody,” Scheuer accurately predicted. While bin Laden and other jihadists seemed foolhardy to challenge mighty Western powers such as the United States, Islamic history nevertheless offered inspiration. “With little more than their beliefs to gird them, the Prophet Muhammed and a small number of devoted followers started a movement that brought the most powerful empires of the day crashing to the ground,” Scheuer observed.
Scheuer’s book reads like prophecy after years in which Western commentators and policymakers have claimed that jihadists such as bin Laden have “hijacked” a pacific Islamic faith. As Scheuer omitted to specify, a moral chasm exists between Western defenders such as Jefferson of the universal rights of a humanity made in God’s image and those who brutally seek global sharia supremacy. Nevertheless, Scheuer correctly recognized an equivalent zeal motivating America’s Founding Fathers and jihadists’ dark ambitions.
This ignorance of Islam’s many decidedly illiberal doctrines would disastrously affect various American-led military campaigns to promote democracy in Muslim-majority countries following 9/11. As a forthcoming article will explore, Scheuer presciently examined how Al Qaeda’s base country of Afghanistan exposed the myth of Muslim masses worldwide yearning to breath free.
BE PREPARED! WATCH:
Chris Hedges | Undercurrent of REVOLUTION
Chris Hedges | NAFTA Was CRIMINAL!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-104JMiZes&list=WL&index=5
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration, which is mostly a replica of the Obama administration, “gifted” the Afghan radical Islamist Taliban that enabled al-Qaeda training-camps, whose “graduates” attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, at least $85 billion worth of weapons and piles of cash.
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration, which is mostly a replica of the Obama administration, “gifted” the Afghan radical Islamist Taliban that enabled al-Qaeda training-camps, whose “graduates” attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, at least $85 billion worth of weapons and piles of cash.
As Breitbart News reported, Biden has brought more than 48,000 Afghans to the U.S. over a 21-day period — indicating that the administration is flying about 2,300 Afghans every day into Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania and Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
HERE'S HOW 'PEACEFUL' YOUR MUSLIMS ARE:
9/11: A Visual History of 20 Years of War
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/11/9-11-a-visual-history-of-20-years-of-war/
THE SAUDI INVADERS: FUNDERS OF EVERY PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY SINCE GEORGE W BUSH, WAR MONGER FOR THE SAUDIS
FBI Docs: Saudis were in contact with 9/11 hijackers
Joe Biden Marks 20th Anniversary of 9/11 Criticizing ‘Dark Forces’ in America Against ‘Peaceful Religion’ of Islam
8,843
Twitter/@POTUS
10 Sep 20210
1:48
President Joe Biden marked the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by criticizing Americans for the anti-Muslim anger that occurred in the United States after the attacks took place.
“We also witnessed the dark forces of human nature. Fear and anger. Resentment and violence against Muslim-Americans — true and faithful followers of a peaceful religion,” Biden said in a prerecorded video published for the occasion.
The president said that the principle of “unity” in the country was endangered by the attacks but ultimately prevailed.
“We also saw something all too rare, a true sense of national unity,” he recalled. “Unity and resilience – the capacity to recover and repair in the face of trauma, unity in service.”
Biden released his pre-recorded video, as the White House confirmed Friday he had no plans to address the nation on the 20th anniversary of the attacks.
He began by recalling a friend of his who lost their son in the attacks in New York City and sympathized with the families who lost loved ones in the attacks.
“America and the world commemorate you and your loved ones, the pieces of your soul,” he said.
Biden also recognized the fallen first responders and members of the military who lost their lives in subsequent years.
“It’s so hard, whether it’s the first year or the 20th,” he said.
Biden concluded by citing one of his favorite poets, Ernest Hemingway.
“We find strength in its broken places, as Hemingway wrote. We find light in the darkness, we find purpose to repair, renew, and rebuild,” he said.
Biden Uses 9/11 Atrocity to Demand
Uniform Support for Diversity
315
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
11 Sep 20211,002
8:01
President Joe Biden declared Friday that “unity is our greatest strength,” apparently contradicting years of prior claims that “diversity is our strength.”
But Biden used his “unity is our greatest strength” claim to demand that Americans unify behind the progressives’ unpopular pro-diversity policies that actually helped the Islamic illegal migrants to strike the twin towers on 9/11.
Like an arsonist demanding he be put in complete charge of the town’s fire stations, Biden used his September 10 speech to reframe the 9/11 sneak attack by Islamic migrants.
The White House’s reframing of 9/11 is a progressive-led culture war — “the battle for the soul of America” — against mainstream Americans’ opposition to the immigration and diversity that helped destroy the buildings.
Biden said:
We also witnessed the darker forces of human nature: Fear and anger, resentment and violence against Muslim Americans, [who are] true and faithful followers of a peaceful religion.
We saw our national unity bend. We learned that unity is the one thing that must never break. Unity is what makes us who we are, America at its best.
To me, that’s the central lesson of September 11. It is that at our most vulnerable, the push and pull of all that makes us human, in the battle for the soul of America, unity is our greatest strength.
Biden’s demand for elite-directed unity is the flip side of elite-imposed diversity.
Progressives have used unpopular immigration to impose damaging chaos and divisive diversity on Americans’ free, cooperative, varied, and competitive society. So now the progressives are demanding more political power to repair the civic chaos, poverty, and inequalities that they helped to create or fuel. As Biden said:
… in the battle for the soul of America, unity is our greatest strength. We are unique in the history of the world because we’re the only nation based on an idea — an idea that everyone is created equal, and should be treated equally throughout their lives. That is the task before us.
Biden’s deputies have put that diversify-and-rule process into overdrive during 2021.
He has allowed roughly 800,000 illegal migrants to rush across the southern border, reversed Trump’s modest reforms of legal migration, and invited at least 95,000 Muslims from fundamentalist Afghanistan — including old men “married” to young girls — into Americans’ laws, workplaces, and communities. The 2021 inflow of immigrants will add up to roughly one immigrant for every two births in the United States.
Vice President Kamala Harris pushed a harder-edged version of the unify-for-diversity demand during her 9/11 speech in Pennsylvania. She spoke where Flight 93 crashed as the 40 American passengers tried to recapture the aircraft from the immigrant Islamic terrorists:
We saw after 9/11 how fear can be used to sow division in our nation as Sikh and Muslim Americans were targeted because of how they looked or how they worshiped. But we also saw what happens when so many Americans in the spirit of our nation, stand in solidarity with all people and their fellow Americans, with those who experience violence and discrimination.
Throughout her speech, Harris declined to identify the terrorists or the nature of their diversity. Instead, she used the passive voice to obscure the identity and purpose of the jihadis — while using direct and clear language to target Americans who oppose enforced diversity:
We were reminded also that unity is imperative in America. It is essential to our shared prosperity, to our national security, and to our standing in the world. And by unity, I don’t mean uniformity. We had differences of opinion in 2001, as we do in 2021. And I believe that in America our diversity is our strength.
The calls by Biden and Harris call for unity followed many thousands of occasions when progressives and Democrats insisted to the nation of like-minded Americans that civic differences are good because “diversity is our strength.”
“Our diversity is our strength. … Our diversity is the source of America’s constant renewal – the reason we’ve been able to remake ourselves over and over,” said Biden’s 2020 campaign platform for Latino voters.
“I always say, ‘Our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power,’” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on August 26. “Our diversity is our strength, our unity is our power,” she said on March 12.
“You remind us, as always, that diversity is our strength,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on August 9.
“America’s diversity is our strength,” President Barack Obama said in 2010.
The progressives’ ideological demand for enforced diversity is fueled by their bitter opposition to a small-government society. In a small-government society, like-minded Americans cooperate to set their own rules about culture, speech, right and wrong, sexual relations, competition, and government priorities.
But progressives want to have the power to redefine popular culture — about what makes a good childhood, or a happy marriage, about what behavior is virtuous or just a vice — because they rank their university-class priorities and economic interests above those needed by ordinary Americans.
So they use their power in civil rights law, immigration, universities, and the media to fracture, stigmatize, and shatter the cultural ideas preferred by ordinary Americans.
For example, progressives have tried to rewrite Americans’ history from a story of free settlers making their own nation in the Wilderness into their preferred claim that the United States is really a perpetual “Nation of (government-delivered, diversity-imposing) Immigrants.”
In contrast, President Donald Trump pushed a vision of Americans united around common Americans’ ideals, ideals that disregard the Democrats’ push for government-imposed variety, enforced diversity, and mandatory identity politics.
In his 2020 State of the Union speech, for example, Trump declared:
The American Nation was carved out of the vast frontier by the toughest, strongest, fiercest, and most determined men and women ever to walk the face of the Earth. Our ancestors braved the unknown; tamed the wilderness; settled the Wild West; lifted millions from poverty, disease, and hunger; vanquished tyranny and fascism; ushered the world to new heights of science and medicine; laid down the railroads, dug out canals, raised up the skyscrapers – and, ladies and gentlemen, our ancestors built the most exceptional Republic ever to exist in all of human history. And we are making it greater than ever before!
The progressive backlash to Trump’s speech was posted by Vox.com: “Trump just gave Americans a lesson in white history: In his State of the Union, Trump erased Native Americans, the enslaved, and non-white immigrants in the founding of America.”
In his 2021 farewell speech, Trump declared a message of unity, not diversity:
The key to national greatness lies in sustaining and instilling our shared national identity. That means focusing on what we have in common: the heritage that we all share.
…
As long as the American people hold in their hearts deep and devoted love of country, then there is nothing that this nation cannot achieve. Our communities will flourish. Our people will be prosperous. Our traditions will be cherished. Our faith will be strong. And our future will be brighter than ever before.
“No nation can long thrive that loses faith in its own values, history, and heroes, for these are the very sources of our unity and our vitality,” he said.
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration, which is mostly a replica of the Obama administration, “gifted” the Afghan radical Islamist Taliban that enabled al-Qaeda training-camps, whose “graduates” attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, at least $85 billion worth of weapons and piles of cash.
As Breitbart News reported, Biden has brought more than 48,000 Afghans to the U.S. over a 21-day period — indicating that the administration is flying about 2,300 Afghans every day into Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania and Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
Robert Spencer Deconstructs Islam
“A thorough review of the historical records provides startling indications that much, if not all, of what we know about Muhammad is legend, not historical fact,” writes Robert Spencer in his new edition of Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins. Therein this bestselling author, scholar, and world-renowned “Islamophobe” details numerous factual, fatal objections to the received faith-based narrative of Islam’s founding by a prophet named Muhammad.
Spencer surveys the historical record of various of various societies like the Byzantine Empire that bore the brunt of Arab invasions in the Middle East and North Africa following Muhammad’s supposed death in 632. The surprising documentary result:
No one who interacted with those who conquered the Middle East in the middle of the seventh century ever seems to have gotten the impression that a prophet named Muhammad, whose followers burst from Arabia bearing a new holy book and a new creed, was behind the conquests.
Spencer notes that “this silence is extremely strange. Islam, in its canonical texts, is an unapologetically supremacist religion.” Tellingly, “coins minted in the 650s and possibly as late as the 670s” by early Islamic caliphs like the Damascus-based Umayyads make no “reference to Muhammad as Allah’s prophet or to any other distinctive element of Islam.” Some of these coins even feature crosses, but “it is hard to imagine that such a coin would have been minted at all had the dogmatic Islamic abhorrence of the cross been in place at the time.”
Muhammad’s normative biography raises grave doubts for Spencer, based as it is largely on the hadith, or canonical narratives about Muhammad’s words and actions. Spencer observes that Islamic orthodoxy holds that the hadith passed from Muhammad’s lifetime to the ninth century in an uncorrupted oral tradition before Islamic scholars verified and transcribed hadith. “Seldom, if ever, has such a feat of memory been documented,” Spencer skeptically comments.
While theologically the short Quran’s sparse content is Islam’s primary document, “functionally, if not officially, the Hadith are the primary authority in Islam,” Spencer notes. This particularly results from the doctrine in Quran 33:21 and other verses that Muslims should emulate Muhammad, whose biography the hadith minutely chronicles in “dizzyingly voluminous collections.” Additionally, to a large extent, even the “Muslim holy book—not just its Arabic neologisms and turns of phrase -- would be incomprehensible without the Hadith,” Spencer analyzes, which “detail the occasions for the revelation of every passage in the Qur’an.”
The resulting potential for hadith fraud surrounding a holy lawgiver Muhammad is enormous, Spencer observes. Thus, “with Muhammad held up as an exemplar, the Hadith became political weapons in the hands of warring factions within the Islamic world. And as is always the case with weapons in wartime, they began to be manufactured wholesale.” “The consequence of all this was inevitable: utter confusion,” Spencer concludes; the “Hadith is riddled with contradictions.”
Parallel problems plague the Sira or Islamic biography of Muhammad that canonically supplements the hadith in Islamic Sunna or tradition. All accounts of Muhammad ultimately derive from a biography written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 833 almost exactly two centuries after Muhammad, a historian who in turn edited portions of a Muhammad history compiled by Ibn Ishaq, who died in 773. As Spencer notes, “there is simply no alternative to Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham if one wishes to record what the earliest available Islamic sources say about Muhammad.”
This evidentiary record is obviously deficient, Spencer assesses. “Material that circulated orally for as many as 125 years, amid an environment in which forgery of such material was rampant, is extremely unlikely to have maintained any significant degree of historical reliability.” Yet “if Ibn Hisham is not a historically trustworthy source, what is left of the life of Muhammad?” Spencer questions.
Moreover, Muhammad’s orthodox biography is hardly flattering. “The Muhammad of Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham is not a peaceful teacher of the love of God and the brotherhood of man but rather a warlord who fought numerous battles and ordered the assassination of his enemies,” Spencer reviews. Muhammad is “more of a cutthroat than a holy man.”
Muhammad’s biography is not holy writ by any standard, yet his supposed revelation, the Quran, is no better. “For Muslims, the Qur’an is a perfect copy of the perfect, eternal book -- the Mother of the Book (umm al-kitab) -- that has existed forever with Allah in Paradise,” Spencer observes. “This perfect and miraculous book is, however, decidedly imperfect, as even some Muslims have begun to note publicly,” he caveats.
“The Qur’an is, like the Hadith, riddled with contradictions,” Spencer writes, as the example of alcohol across several Quran verses demonstrates. “Alcohol started out as permitted, and then containing some benefit but also leading the believer into sin, with the sin outweighing the benefit, and finally alcohol is the work of Satan,” he notes. This suggests that the Quran was “written by committee, the product of the combination of numerous divergent traditions.”
Even more critically, the “earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an do not contain most diacritical marks,” Spencer notes. He insightfully explains:
Many Arabic letters are identical to one another in appearance except for their diacritical marks -- that is, the dots that appear above or below the character. In fact, twenty-two of the twenty-eight letters in the Arabic alphabet depend entirely on diacritical marks to distinguish them from at least one other letter.
Early Quran manuscripts are not even “consistent in the sets of identical letters they choose to distinguish from one another,” Spencer observes. “The implications of this confusion are enormous,” he correctly concludes. “It is entirely possible that what is taken for one word in that canonical text may originally have been another word altogether.”
Diacritical marks are even more essential for the Qur’an “insists on its Arabic character so often that Islamic theologians have quite understandably understood Arabic to be part of the Qur’an’s very essence,” Spencer notes. In reality, the “Qur’an contains numerous indications of a non-Arabic derivation, or at very least considerable non-Arabic influence.” As the Islamic scholar Christoph Luxenberg, many of the Quran’s notable “oddities become clear when the text is reread in light of the Syriac language and other possible substrata,” Spencer observes. “Many words in this self-proclaimed clear Arabic book are neither clear nor Arabic,” he summarizes.
Reviewing Islam’s canonical farrago, Spencer surmises that the “realm of political theology, then, offers the most plausible explanation for the creation of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an.” “Every empire of the day was anchored in a political theology. The Romans conquered many nations and unified them by means of the worship of the Greco-Roman gods. This Greco-Roman paganism was later supplanted by Christianity,” Spencer notes. Similarly, the “Arab empire controlled, and needed to unify, huge expanses of territory in which different religions predominated.”
Spencer’s analysis easily “explains why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion.” Likewise, Muhammad “had to be a warrior prophet, for the new empire was aggressively expansionistic.” This clearly found “theological justification” in “Muhammad’s teachings and example.”
Spencer has provided indispensable insight on Islam. As Islamic scholar Volker Popp noted in the book preface, the “material culture of an Islamic past is never judged on its own merits, but only by its usefulness for validating the Islamic myth.” Yet Spencer realized “it was time to get back to real scholarship unhampered by political correctness and the corruption of Saudi money,” stated his colleague Ibn Warraq.
There is a “long scholarly tradition of inquiry into the historical Jesus,” Ibn Warraq noted, but equivalent investigations into Muhammad are far more fraught. “Some of the bold scholars who have investigated the history of early Islam have even received death threats. As a result, some publish under pseudonyms, including scholars of the first rank” like Warraq and Luxenberg, Spencer noted. May more brave individuals follow in his footsteps in uninhibited examination of Islam.
Image: Bombardier Books
The Democrats Funding Islamist Terrorists
At 8:45 A.M. on September 11, I was on the phone with the editor at the European Wall Street Journal. We were discussing the op-ed about financing terrorism I had written for the paper, which was to run the next day. The TV’s regular morning chatter in the background suddenly changed, and an anxious voice announced that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We hung up and I rushed to my window, which has a clear view of downtown Manhattan and the World Trade Center. At first, I saw smoke rising in the distance; before long a thick, black cloud had engulfed the Twin Towers. Later the sky turned black, and the buildings disappeared altogether. I called the editor back—it was still possible to get a connection to Europe—and after describing the horrors outside my window, I suggested a new lead for the op-ed; I knew instinctively that this was no accident, but a terror attack.
This is how my op-ed titled Evil’s Unwitting Helper appeared on the morning of September 12, 2001. I wrote that “terrorism does not happen in a political vacuum. The policies pursued by Western nations impact directly on both the means available to terrorists and the motivations driving their evil agendas. It is imperative that we assess what has gone wrong and begin to set those policies right."
This is when the idea for writing my book: Funding Evil, How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, which demanded to stop those who make terrorists’ activities possible—the paymasters, so that horror like September 11 never happen again.
It took some time for the U.S. government to confirmed that al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations have been raising money through charitable organizations, fundraisers in mosques, illegal and sometimes legal businesses, from used-cars sales to honey manufacturing to mining, to drug-trafficking, arms, and people smuggling, to mention but a few. They often are also the beneficiaries of states that provide money, arms, training camps, and safe haven. Since radical Islamists terrorists’ goal is to harm America, in 2001, the idea that any U.S. administration would fund such groups seemed preposterous
But years of investigations into radical Islamist terrorist financing offered many examples of different U.S. administrations’ -- mostly Democrats’ -- complicity. Funding Palestinian terrorist groups began in 1993, with the Clinton administration legitimizing and funding Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO -- an umbrella group – including Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state, in place of Israel), which until then were on the FBI’s most-wanted list.
The alleged reason for the funding was Arafat’s promise to stop the PLO’s terrorist activities. This promise, which he and the PLO have been repeatedly violating, gifted the Palestinian terrorist with land in Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, which the Palestinians have used ever since not to create a functioning state, but to lunch attacks against Israel. Despite this, the U.S., joined by the U.N., the European Union and nations, Arab states, the World Bank, and other international organizations never stopped sending billions of dollars to the Palestinians who killed Americans and continue their terrorism against Israel.
In May 2011, after the radical Muslim Brotherhood won the Egyptian election, President Obama stated that the participation of Egypt’s “religious” parties would create “the best foundation for lasting stability in Egypt… democratic political order.” Obama promised $1 billion “to support Egypt’s democratic revolution.”
But the Muslim Brotherhood’s creed is anything but democratic. They, like the Taliban, and the Mullahs in Iran, rule by enforcing sharia. Despite the growing opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood’s government oppression of civil rights and devastation of the country’s economy, the U.S. seemed determined to assist the Brotherhood. On March 3, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Morsi and gifted him $250 million in U.S. aid, and an additional $250 million for “climate projects” from the World Bank.
Muslim Brotherhood logo with the word "prepare" in Arabic
On April 30, 2013, in Cairo, Morsi was given the opportunity to flaunt the latest “advances” “in Egypt’s process of democratic transition,” to a Congressional delegation, headed by Chairperson of Intelligence Committee Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA). Instead of calling his bluff, the delegation reiterated the “strength and depth of Egyptian-American relations.” The Americans further ensured Muslim Brother Morsi that the U.S. will not let him down, because “Egypt’s stability is key to the stability of the region.”
In 2015, the Obama administration, as part of its negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was supposed to stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, gave at least $150 billion to Tehran, of which at least $1.8 billion was in cash. Then-secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged that some of the money “will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”
Two weeks ago, the Biden administration, which is mostly a replica of the Obama administration, “gifted” the Afghan radical Islamist Taliban that enabled al-Qaeda training-camps, whose “graduates” attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, at least $85 billion worth of weapons and piles of cash.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that Democrat-led administrations are bent on funding U.S. enemies.
Joe Tries to Deflect
I have no doubt that Joe Biden set September 11, the 20th anniversary of the worst attack on American soil, for his botched bug out from Afghanistan thinking it would be a triumphant conclusion to twenty years of war in Afghanistan.
Doesn’t look like that plan was worth following.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who should have been evacuated first are now hostage to murderous barbarians there.
Doesn’t look like that plan was worth following.
Billions of dollars of military equipment were left behind to be used by these same enemies of western civilization.
Doesn’t look like the plan was worth following.
China eyes for itself the well-fortified and equipped Bagram airbase which it will likely use to manage the exploitation of Afghan’s rich rare earth deposits which are essential to modern living. Instead of a grateful nation applauding a move most wanted -- an end to the war there -- the way in which it was done, including the terrible timing for an anticipated boost to his popularity, instead has caused support for Biden to tank.
I highly recommend a new book by Toby Harnden if you want to see how we got there: First Casualty. Harnden’s a wonderful chronicler of military history, and this book is exceptional. It focuses on the eight-member CIA team Alpha. They were the first Americans to be dropped behind Afghan lines after 9/11. They had U.S. air support and help from Green Berets, Afghan allies, and the British Special Boat Service. Operating as insurgents they defeated the much larger Taliban force. That force faked a surrender and hundreds of them were imprisoned in Qala-i-Janga where two Alpha Team members, Mike Spann and David Tyson (the latter a skilled linguist who had spent years studying in Uzbekistan) interrogated the prisoners, one of whom, it turned out, was Marin County Californian John Phillip Walker Lindh, who following a troubled family dissolution, declared himself on the side of the Jihadists.
Spann, as you may recall, was murdered by the inmates. Tyson shot the killers and against difficult odds, made it out of there. Spann is dead with a young family left behind. Lindh, on the other hand, cut a plea deal that the government offered to avoid defending his claims of a tortured confession. He served some time in U.S. prison and was released on May 23, 2019, before the end of his 20-year sentence. He still seems to adhere to the jihadi cause.
Harnden’s narrative recounts how once the astonishingly successful Alpha team left Afghanistan, the U.S. military took over, and instead of the insurgent tactics which served us so well, the military operated as occupiers and poured troops and munitions into the country. It built fortified bases and its mission was no longer checking the activities of the jihadists. It turned to a fantastical notion conceived by its civilian leaders of converting this backward, fractious group of tribes (which Harden exquisitely details) into a modern democracy. In Harnden’s words, “early success became a long, drawn-out failure.” It’s also worth noting that both the British and U.S. operatives on the ground there were successful in certain significant parts because they had free (or freer) rein from the constraints of the bureaucrats in the various government agencies of both countries.
The horror of 9/11 in which thousands lost their lives at the hands of jihadists is gradually being erased by the same nitwit culture that tied our hands in waging battle against such evil and turned our military into some sort of therapeutic social work task force. On the anniversary of 9/11, Rutgers University and San Francisco State University featured speakers with terrorist affiliations.
College students interviewed by Campus Reform indicated that we should omit the “gruesome details” and “avoid placing blame.” for the events of that day.
Students also told Campus Reform that they agree that teachers shouldn’t mention or promote American exceptionalism in lessons about 9/11.
“We don't need more nationalism in this country... we need more healthcare,” one student said. “I think they should focus on America's faults, not how amazing we are and how we need to be superior, because we're not.”
“In terms of propagating this idea that our nation is the best no matter what... I would agree that that should be avoided,” another student said.
Students didn’t seem to agree with the idea of American exceptionalism.
“It’s rooted in a lot of colonist and imperialist notions of how we should treat other people,” one student said.
Another student said, “I think it's a dangerous mindset to teach young people that because I think that's the reason why a lot of people grow up to be extremists and really nationalistic.”
No better example of the educational rot could you look for than this.
In Fairfax County, Virginia the daughter of the leader of the mosque to which some of the 9/11 hijackers belonged sits on the school board and opposed a resolution honoring the victims. The President himself issued an absurd statement referring to the Taliban as “businesslike and professional” at the very moment the Taliban were searching house to house, beating and killing those who were our allies. He added 
insult to his countrymen to this absurdity:
“‘We also witnessed the dark forces of human nature. Fear and anger. Resentment and violence against Muslim-Americans -- true and faithful followers of a peaceful religion,’ Biden said in a prerecorded video published for the occasion."
Like the now thoroughly discounted Trump Collusion with Russia, the evidence of Islamophobia is evidence-free poppycock.
Looking over the Taliban leadership we are reminded that President Obama handed them over in exchange for another misguided American idiot, Bowe Bergdahl, a military deserter.
Four of the five Taliban members released from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration in 2014 in exchange for admitted US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are part of the Islamic fundamentalist group’s new hardline government in Afghanistan, according to local media reports.
The four members of the so-called “Taliban Five” who have joined the new government are Acting Director of Intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq, Acting Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs Norullah Noori, Deputy Defense Minister Mohammad Fazl, and Acting Minister of Information and Culture Khairullah Khairkhah. The fifth member of the Taliban Five, Mohammad Nabi Omari, was appointed governor of eastern Khost province last month.
Afghan outlet TOLOnews published a list Tuesday of members of the new “caretaker” government, which features several familiar faces who helped run the war-torn country between 1996 and 2001 -- when the Taliban were forced from power by US-led NATO forces following the 9/11 attacks.
Wasiq, Fazl and Khairkhah all held positions in the former Taliban government -- Wasiq as a deputy intelligence chief, Fazl as army chief of staff and Khairkhah as interior minister.
I don’t mean to suggest that everything done in that 20-year period was a failure. I agree with the editors of the Wall Street Journal who observe there were some notable successes even in the face of unwarranted criticisms.
Start with the fact that America hasn’t been struck with a comparable attack on the homeland since 9/11. As the 9/11 commission report noted, the jihadists had been at war with us for years, but we had refused to recognize it. There was every reason at the time to believe that our lack of vigilance had made us vulnerable to more such attacks, especially when the anthrax envelopes from an unknown source began arriving in mailboxes a week later.
The Bush Administration mobilized public support for an extraordinary response that went well beyond toppling the Taliban. U.S. intelligence was revamped so the FBI and CIA actually talked to one another. Terrorists were killed or, better, captured and interrogated to gain information that could prevent the next attack. The al Qaeda network that planned the 9/11 attacks was largely broken up.
The supposed excesses of U.S. surveillance are vastly overstated. The privacy of Americans hasn’t been threatened, while the Patriot Act has provided the feds with tools to break up domestic terror cells. The biggest intelligence failure concerned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The worst surveillance violation of recent decades had nothing to do with terrorism. It was the FBI’s 2016 spying on the Trump campaign and lying to the FISA court.
It’s also dogma to deride the prison at Guantanamo, but the alternative was handling hundreds of enemy combatants in civilian courts under rules that made extended interrogation far more difficult. The hindsight brigade forgets how much we didn’t know at the time about the jihadist threat, its relation to state sponsors, and where they might strike next.
The Department of Defense’s strategy for overwhelming force and a big footprint, however, did fail us for twenty years and the bug out only made more obvious the military brass’s incompetence to adapt to new circumstances. Even its lies are so weak and transparent they cannot overcome minimal scrutiny. After the devastating videos of desperate people on the tarmac and at the gates of Kabul airport we were told by Major General William Taylor that one of our drone airstrike targets was “known to be an imminent ISIS-L threat” and that there had been “secondary explosions” that “indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material” that “was going to be used in a high profile attack.” Obviously, the idea was to allay any thought that since we had left, we were defenseless against jihadist activities there. At the time, it occurred to skeptics like myself that it was odd that we weren’t told who this “imminent ISIS-L threat” was. That Taylor fantasy was pricked by the New York Times:
Times reporting has identified the driver as Zemari Ahmadi, a longtime worker for a U.S. aid group. The evidence, including extensive interviews with family members, co-workers and witnesses, suggests that his travels that day actually involved transporting colleagues to and from work. And an analysis of video feeds showed that what the military may have seen was Mr. Ahmadi and a colleague loading canisters of water into his trunk to bring home to his family.
We’re not in Afghanistan any longer. We seem to have destroyed any meaningful on-the-ground intelligence and no amount of bluster and errant drone strikes can hide that.
Nor is it easy to dismiss that we are being more hamstrung by government fiat than the now back in power Taliban are. It’s hard to argue with the poster I’ve dubbed “The Great Iggy”:
The Taliban are back in power but it's us who have to be humiliated to get on a plane, have to wonder if what we're typing in our own homes will be used by our government to harm us, are publicly shamed if we even suggest Islam might have even a tiny bit to do with jihad, are practically forced to repeat the prog doggerel about Islam being a religion of peace, are routinely called the Taliban and domestic terrorists by people who at the same time perversely defend Islam and condemn us even though Islam is in opposition to almost everything they claim to believe in.
And to top it off, George W Bush, the neo-cons and the Cheney family, all of whom we more or less supported back then have not only either turned their backs on us when we tried to defend ourselves from the progs or have outright attacked us and sided with the progs, but they set in motion much of the above that now plague our country.
Aside from the easy-to-discount blather from the White House and Departments of State and Defense to spackle over the cost of the incompetent bug out, the President tried to deflect from the disastrous coverage by issuing a clearly unconstitutional vaccine mandate for federal workers and employers of over 100 people. As Mark Wauck chronicles, the likelihood of the obviously unconstitutional mandate passing judicial muster is small. It’s another displacement tactic -- like “look, a squirrel!” Biden is, in effect, saying the Taliban aren’t the problem, those unvaccinated Americans are. He says that at the same time as he admits without much vetting or vaccination thousands of Afghans and over our wide-open borders hundreds of thousands of unvaccinated people from countries all over the world.
Cartoon courtesy of Michael Ramirez
Joe Biden Responds to Criticism on 9/11: ‘I’m a Big Boy’
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
11 Sep 2021461
1:42
President Joe Biden responded to widespread criticism of his exit from Afghanistan after visiting the 9/11 memorial for Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
“I get it, a lot more direct attacks on me … I’m a big boy, I’ve been doing this a long time,” Biden said to reporters during his visit.
The president appeared keenly aware of his plummeting polling numbers after his disastrous exit from Afghanistan that led to the deaths of 13 service members.
Biden reminded the media that 77 percent of Americans supported the idea, even though they did not agree with the way that he did it.
“It’s hard to explain to anybody, how else could we get out,” he said, arguing that it would have been a difficult effort no matter what he did.
He repeated that his agenda was still popular, despite his poor job approval ratings.
“As down as my numbers have dropped, you’ve seen that my package is overwhelmingly popular,” he said.
Biden called for a return to unity in the country, praising a speech by former President George Bush earlier in the day about the character of America and the threat of domestic terrorism.
When reporters asked how to return the country to a feeling of unity, Biden suggested he could do it.
“By being honest when I make a mistake, by being straightforward, telling people exactly what I want to do, letting them know that there’s no hiding the ball,” he said.
Biden also appeared aware that Trump had talked about entering the boxing ring with him and made the sign of the cross.
“I should be so lucky,” he said.
At 9/11 ceremony, Biden beclowns himself in public
At 9/11's ceremonies, presented as pictures on the news, many former presidents were featured.
At Ground Zero, Democratic presidents were the story. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama stood dignified together for the ceremony as befits the solemn occasion.
Joe Biden, though, who was with them, presented a very weird exception.
He had been scheduled to speak at the event -- and then curiously, he wasn't.
He stood at attention with them, but that didn't stop him from embarrassing himself. Unlike the other two presidents standing together at ground zero, Biden couldn't maintain himself in public.
Start with this, according to CBS, which considered it a detail important enough to report:
Before the event began, a jet flew overhead in an eerie echo of the attacks, drawing a glance from Mr. Biden toward the sky.
Really? Biden looked up and around while everyone else was standing still? The former presidents were able to stand still for the occasion, but Biden somehow was not. He was looking around as if he were a ten-year-old kid, which doesn't transmit the word 'presidential.' In a way, he was looking at his watch.
There was other bizarre Biden behavior that showed additional tone-deaf idiocy.
There was this, which I screen-shotted from a shareable VOA video with AP pool footage:
In that screen shot, he was doing that cheesy thing politicians like to do, which is to wink, point, and pretend to recognize someone in the crowd, which looks very funny on any solemn occasion. One wonders if he does it at funerals, too.
Here's a truly embarrassing photo taken by the pros at Getty Images with no accompanying video -- Biden pulling down his mask and gape-mouthed shouting to someone out there as Obama looks on with disapproval. This, at the 9/11 ceremony which requires some presidential decorum. Unlike Obama or Clinton, Biden's yelling like he's in a stadium. We don't have the copyright to the photo, so won't use even the Twitter embed. But Getty's captured image in that photo is worth looking at as it is more than a little telling.
And it's made him a figure of fun.
Biden showed that he was unable to present a picture of presidential dignity, as well as unable to read a room, even for a short, solemn, anniversary marking a well-known occasion, where presumably, he could fake it.
And if there was any question of about his declining faculties, all he had to do was open his mouth -- because there was a lot of stuff like this:
At 9/11 memorial event, Biden rants incoherently about boxing Trump, Florida, and Robert E. Lee pic.twitter.com/ukJSuKZzOy
— Jewish Deplorable (@TrumpJew2) September 12, 2021
The F Biden signs are getting to him. https://t.co/t4jlaQ1NFC
— Shaun Christian Hansen (@HOFbarrybonds25) September 12, 2021
These are lunatic ravings of someone with incoherent, half-formed thoughts, all of them inappropriate for the occasion besides being inchoate in themselves.
All of these seem to be a sign he's going off his rocker. His faculties are obviously failing him and he can't be trusted in public. That certainly would explain why he never made that planned speech at least as well as earlier speculation that it was all about his Afghanistan failures.
He's just losing it, embarrassing himself even in the simplest settings, where all he's supposed to do is show up. On this occasion, commemorating 9/11, he was wretched.
Image: Screen shot from VOA video with AP press pool footage, via shareable YouTube
THERE WERE ONLY 8 SAUDIS WHO INVADED 9/11. BIDEN HAS IMPORTED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS ALONE. MORE TO COME!
9/11: A Visual History of 20 Years of War
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/11/9-11-a-visual-history-of-20-years-of-war/
Washington Post: Joe Biden Brings Afghans ‘Flagged for Suspected Associations with Terrorists’ to U.S.
Andreas Rentz/Getty Images
10 Sep 20210
President Joe Biden’s administration has brought Afghans to the United States who were later “flagged for suspected associations with terrorists,” the Washington Post reports.
According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) vetting records reviewed by the Post, the Biden administration has flagged a total of 44 Afghans as “potential national security risks” after they were brought to the U.S.
A total of 13 of those Afghans are in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody as they undergo more vetting, which includes interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
About 15 of those Afghans have been flagged as “security concerns” and since been turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to be sent back to third safe countries. Some of those 15 Afghans, though, have been released back into the U.S.
The Post reports:
The DHS lists show several Afghans were flagged for suspected associations with terrorists, or whose phones and electronic devices contained information that raised concern among the CBP officers who screen them upon arrival in the United States. CBP and its National Targeting Center are checking Afghan passengers as they land at the two designated arrival sites, Dulles International Airport in Virginia and Philadelphia International Airport. [Emphasis added]
This week, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas acknowledged that there have been Afghans who failed the federal agencies’ vetting standards but would not give a specific number.
As Breitbart News reported, Biden has brought more than 48,000 Afghans to the U.S. over a 21-day period — indicating that the administration is flying about 2,300 Afghans every day into Philadelphia International Airport in Pennsylvania and Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
Already, the population of Afghans brought to the U.S. by Biden in less than a month is more than four times the population of Jackson, Wyoming.
National Public Radio (NPR) reported days ago that Afghans are arriving in the U.S. sometimes with “no paperwork” to prove their identities or with “just scraps of paper.” Likewise, the Associated Press reported that Afghans have been caught lying about their identities or destroying their passports to conceal their true identities.
Meanwhile, the Post previously reported that the Biden administration has brought Afghans to the U.S. who were later “flagged for security concerns.” Likewise, administration officials told CNN that Afghans are arriving in the U.S. who do not have any “documents whatsoever.”
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby has said he does not know the number of Afghans who have sought resettlement in the U.S. but subsequently were found to have been on terrorist watch lists.
Pentagon officials have told Defense One that “up to 100 of the 7,000 Afghans evacuated as prospective recipients” of Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) seeking permanent resettlement in the U.S. have been “flagged” as “potential matches to intelligence agency watch lists.”
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Report: Biden’s DHS May Give Work Permits to Afghans Before Vetting Them
CRISTINA QUICLER/AFP via Getty Images
10 Sep 20210
3:23
President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may issue work permits to the tens of thousands of Afghans arriving weekly to the United States before completing their vetting.
As part of Biden’s massive resettlement operation out of Afghanistan, he is hoping to resettle about 95,000 Afghans in total across the U.S. over the next 12 months. Already, more than 48,000 Afghans have been flown to the U.S. for permanent resettlement.
The overwhelming majority of Afghans arriving in the U.S. every day do not qualify for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) or even refugee status. Instead, Afghans are arriving in the hopes of getting “humanitarian parole” and are allowed to land in the U.S. without having completed their immigration processing.
Robert Law with the Center for Immigration Studies writes this week that sources inside the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency have said that top DHS officials are reviewing plans to issue work permits to Afghans before their vetting process is completed.
“Multiple [USCIS] sources tell me that agency leadership (i.e., Biden political appointees) are on the verge of ordering adjudicators to issue work permits first and ‘resolve’ vetting issues later,” Law writes:
No comments:
Post a Comment