Thursday, October 30, 2014

'Why I Am a Republican' - (VIDEO) Elbert Guillory on Switching to GOP

by Elbert Guillory

Hat tip: Greg Ferris
FINALLY the truth is spoken by a black Senator from Opelousas, Louisiana.

Update: Free at Last PAC announced by Elbert Guillory

Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.

Elbert Guillory


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ambassadors Warn US-Israel Ties Are on the Brink of Collapse - Ari Yashar

by Ari Yashar

Israeli ambassadors and US source reveal Netanyahu-Obama 'loathing' has led 'gloves to not only be removed - but thrown in the trash.'

A media storm over a "crisis in US-Israel relations" was generated following a Tuesday report that a senior official in US President Barack Obama's administration called Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu "chickens**t" - and according to former Israeli ambassadors to America, its just the latest in an unprecedented crisis in relations.

Prof. Itamar Rabinovich, who served as ambassador between 1992 and 1996, told Walla! Wednesday relations have never been this bad before, commenting "the two sides haven't just taken off the gloves - they threw them in the trash."

"Crises between us and the United States in the past mostly stemmed from concentrated pressure on a certain issue: (Dwight) Eisenhower forced (David) Ben-Gurion to retreat from Sinai in 1956, (Gerald) Ford pressed (Yitzhak) Rabin on the issue of Egypt in 1975," recounted Rabinovich.

"However, today there is a combination of a string of disagreements, practically on every meaningful issue in the region, and very awful personal relations between the leaders," he added, noting "it's unprecedented."

While he criticized the Obama administration for its numerous failures in foreign policy, Rabinovich also took Netanyahu to task for not succeeding in maintaining working relations with the American government.

The collapse in ties has great implications according to Rabinovich, who said about Operation Protective Edge "we saw during the last war in Gaza two ostensibly clerical decisions that caused damage to Israel."

Those decisions included "the cancellation of flights to Ben Gurion International Airport and the delay of a Hellfire missile transfer. The 'clerics' in Washington know to read the direction of the wind and make manipulations according to the administration's policy."

That damage has only continued according to Rabinovich, who added "when the defense minister (Moshe Ya'alon) arrives in Washington and the administration leaks that they aren't ready to meet with him, in the end that influences."

"This personal loathing is unprecedented"

Joining Rabinovich's assessment was Danny Ayalon, ambassador to America from 2002 to 2006, who likewise told Walla! the diplomatic schism is unprecedented.

"In terms of the personal relations between the prime minister and the president, which is supremely important, there has never been something like this," stated Ayalon.

"What we are seeing between Netanyahu and Obama - personal loathing, scorn, ugly leaks of one against the other - these are things we never knew in the past," added the former ambassador.

Ayalon noted that the situation is odd given that intelligence and security cooperation continues between the two countries, "but between the leaders there's a complete lack of confidence. That's a problem because there are times when the confidence between leaders is the most important thing."

An unnamed senior minister in Jerusalem told the Hebrew-language paper "there have been very serious disagreements throughout the years, but there was never the kind of disgust between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel as there is today between Netanyahu and Obama."

"Obama has abandoned allies for Iran"

Michael Doran, who served as a Middle East expert on the National Security Council under former US President George W. Bush, also spoke to Walla! about the recent events.

"The crisis in Israel-United States relations must been seen in a wider context," said Doran. "Obama lost the confidence of all the traditional American allies in the region."

"Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey: all of them are experiencing historic difficulties in their relations with Washington. Why? Because Obama abandoned the defense of the traditional system of alliances in favor of relations with an enemy in defending Iran," said Doran.

The regional expert continued: "if the Obama administration had obligated itself to stopping the Iranian nuclear program, it would have used its allies in the same way (Iranian President Hassan) Rouhani is using extremists in Tehran. Obama could have told the Iranians 'listen, there's a crazy guy in Jerusalem who I have no control over, so you should reach a deal, and quickly.'"

"Instead of that, he is doing the complete opposite. He is ignoring Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Iranians read his weakness and are manipulating it," warned Doran.

The assessment comes a day after American and Arab officials revealed to the Wall Street Journal that Obama's administration is cozying up to Iran and its terror proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, through such means as secretive communication channels and providing intelligence information.

As ties with America have continued to go southward, Israel has constantly been looking eastward and building new alliances, seen in strong military ties with India, and budding relations with Japan and China.

Ari Yashar


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Senior Obama admin official calls Netanyahu a 'chickens**t' - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

The Obama administration is publicly insulting and provoking our former best ally in the Middle East, provoking an unmistakable crisis in our relationship with Israel. An unnamed senior administration official, speaking with a reliable friend of the administration, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, used insulting language intended to offend and embarrass Netanyahu.
The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.
This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors, and is yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it's ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.
Goldberg of course blames Israel:
The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu, and in particular, to the behavior of his cabinet. Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.
Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary sees it differently:
…where Goldberg and the talkative administration members are wrong is their belief that this is all Netanyahu’s fault. Their attacks on him are not only plainly false but are motivated by a desire to find an excuse that will be used to justify a drastic turn in U.S. foreign policy against Israel.
The administration critique of Netanyahu as a coward stems from its disgust with his failure to make peace with the Palestinians as well as their impatience with his criticisms of their zeal for a deal with Iran even if it means allowing the Islamist regime to become a threshold nuclear power. But this is about more than policy. The prickly Netanyahu is well known to be a tough guy to like personally even if you are one of his allies. But President Obama and his foreign-policy team aren’t just annoyed by the prime minister. They’ve come to view him as public enemy No. 1, using language about him and giving assessments of his policies that are far harsher than they have ever used against even avowed enemies of the United States, let alone one of its closest allies.
So rather than merely chide him for caution they call him a coward and taunt him for being reluctant to make war on Hamas and even to launch a strike on Iran. They don’t merely castigate him as a small-time politician without vision; they accuse him of putting his political survival above the interests of his nation.
It’s quite an indictment but once you get beyond the personal dislike of the individual on the part of the president, Secretary of State Kerry, and any other “senior officials” that speak without attribution on the subject of Israel’s prime minister, all you have is a thin veil of invective covering up six years of Obama administration failures in the Middle East that have the region more dangerous for both Israel and the United States. For all of his personal failings, it is not Netanyahu—a man who actually served as a combat soldier under fire in his country’s most elite commando unit—who is a coward or a small-minded failure. It is Obama and Kerry who have fecklessly sabotaged a special relationship, an act whose consequences have already led to disaster and bloodshed and may yet bring worse in their final two years of power.
It was, after all, Obama (and in the last two years, Kerry) who has spent his time in office picking pointless fights with Israel over issues like settlements and Jerusalem. They were pointless not because there aren’t genuine disagreements between the two countries on the ideal terms for peace. But rather because the Palestinians have never, despite the administration’s best efforts to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their favor, seized the chance for peace. No matter how much Obama praises Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and slights Netanyahu, the former has never been willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. They also chose to launch a peace process in spite of the fact that the Palestinians remain divided between Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas-ruled Gaza, a situation that makes it impossible for the PA to make peace even if it wanted to do so. The result of their heedless push for negotiations that were bound to fail was another round of violence this summer and the possibility of another terrorist intifada in the West Bank.
The notion of attacking Netanyahu as a coward is absurd. Netanyahu served with Israeli Special Forces (and his brother was killed in the daring raid on Entebbe). Powerline reminds us of this classic juxtaposition of the youths of the leaders of Israel and the United States:

President Obama has never, ever in his life demonstrated anything close to physical courage. For that matter, it is hard to come up with an example of political or moral courage from the man notorious for throwing former friends under the bus. A man notable for his lack of guts should choose his anonymous spokesman’s epithets more carefully.

Thomas Lifson


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Only a Republican Senate Will Stop Iran - Shoula Romano Horing

by Shoula Romano Horing

On November 4th, American voters will be facing a monumental and high-stakes moment in which they will decide whether control of the U.S. Senate will continue to be in Democratic Party hands or be turned over to the Republicans.  

American voters should be warned that the continuance of a Democratic-controlled Senate led by Harry Reid, will guarantee that Iran will end up being the first Islamist Jihadist state with a nuclear weapon. Only a Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representative will be able to stop President Obama from capitulating to the Iranians and signing a bad deal which will allow the country to become a threshold nuclear state. 

A bill proposed by fellow Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and Republican Mark Kirk, which threatens additional sanctions harsher than those originally imposed on Iran in 2011 if no final agreement to dismantle their nuclear enrichment program is reached by the November 24 deadline, failed to even come to a vote on the Senate floor last winter. The resolution, which at the time had the votes to pass with 43 Republicans and 16 Democrats cosponsoring it, was blocked by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the request of the White House.

While only two Republicans did not support the bill, many of the senators from the Democratic Party were against it. Only if the Republicans take control of the Senate is it likely that Obama will find himself presented with a new sanctions bill whether or not he signs a final agreement with Iran.  

The blocking of this legislation by the White House is appalling when one remembers that Iran only came to the negotiating table in large measure because of the original crippling economic sanctions drafted by Senators Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez in 2011 which was reluctantly signed into law by Barack Obama. Those sanctions reduced Iran’s oil exports and cut it off from the global, dollar dominated financial system. Consequently, Iran’s currency lost three quarters of its value and inflation and unemployment rose greatly. As senior Treasury Department officials told Reuters in an interview “Iran’s economy today is about 25 percent smaller than it would have been if we had not imposed the oil and financial sanctions.” 

On October 19, the New York Times reported that Obama is planning on bypassing the Congress by not bringing a future final agreement to a Congressional vote which will include suspending the enforcement of the sanctions passed in 2011. Such a plan is worrisome because it implies that the agreement the U.S. is pushing so hard for, is a bad one. Otherwise, why not bring it to the Congress which could then simply vote to rescind the sanctions or ratify the treaty after a full congressional hearing, disclosure, and debate?

The Los Angeles Times on October 20, reported that conservative Iranian lawmaker Javad Qoddoushi said that he had been briefed by Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and a nuclear negotiator, who stated that the Obama administration has sweetened its offer again in the ongoing negotiations, saying that it might accept Iran operating 4000 centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, up from the previous 1300. This news came a week after we learned that the Obama administration has agreed to let the Iranians disconnect their remaining operating centrifuges, rather than dismantle or destroy them as Obama originally promised.

These U.S. concessions are the latest in a long line. In November 2013, the U.S. and five other world powers signed the Geneva Interim Agreement in which they tacitly endorsed the Iranians “right” to enrich and gave them sanctions relief worth more than $7 billion just for willing to engage in talks. Then after six months of negotiations in which the Iranians conceded nothing, the U.S. extended the negotiations another six months despite the fact that Iran has still not implemented all the nuclear transparency measures it had agreed to carry out in the Interim Agreement. 

The only way now to pressure Iran to agree to dismantle their nuclear program is if the Iranians fear that the new elected Congress will be determined to override any possible Obama veto and shut down their economy again with much more crippling sanctions.

Voting for a Republican Senate majority this November will give a message to Iran that the American public does not support Obama’s agenda of appeasement and that the Republicans, with the support of few righteous Democrats, have the public mandate to take the fight to Obama and undermine any possible weak or bad  final agreement. As the leading Republican critic of the negotiations, Senator Mark Kirk, said “Congress will not permit the president to unilaterally unravel Iran sanctions that passed the Senate in a 99 to 0 vote”.

Shoula Romano Horing is an attorney. Her blog is


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Illegal Voters Tipping Election Scales? - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens is so prevalent throughout the nation that it gave us Obamacare, according to a disturbing new study.

And if illegal voting by non-citizens, who tend to support Democratic Party candidates and who heavily supported President Obama, could tip the scales in the 2008 congressional elections, it can do so again in congressional elections next week and in the presidential contest in 2016. In 2008 one report estimated that as many as 2.7 million non-citizens were registered to vote nationwide.

The academic report, to be published in the December issue of Electoral Studies, continues the ongoing demolition of the Left’s narrative that voter fraud is a figment of paranoid Republicans’ imagination. Democrats cling religiously to their mantra that voter fraud doesn’t exist or is of little consequence because they have difficulty competing electorally without vote fraud. Fraud helps Democrats eke out victories in close races, which helps to explain their vehement opposition to commonsense electoral integrity measures like purging dead people from voter rolls or requiring photo ID for voting.

The findings of Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two political science professors at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., confirm that voter fraud is commonplace and widespread, something that honest, as opposed to engaged or left-wing, scholars have known for years.

“In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections,” the authors write.

The academics got their data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) which contains what they term a “large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) [that] provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010.” Using CCES data from 2008, they tried “to match respondents to voter files so … [they] could verify whether they actually voted.”

Although non-citizen participation “is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration,” they write. This new study “examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants,” a first in voting studies, they claim.

The authors found that non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates and that non-citizen voting probably changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the partisan makeup of Congress.

“We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections,” according to Richman and Earnest.

“Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress,” the authors write.

In other words, non-citizen voters likely started America down the path to ruin by providing critical votes in Congress to promote President Obama’s catastrophic policy agenda.

Although “[m]ost non-citizens do not register, let alone vote … enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races,” Richman and Earnest wrote in a recent oped in the Washington Post.

North of 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples reported being registered to vote. “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” they write.

Non-citizens favored Democrats in 2008 and Obama won upward of 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample. The authors write:

“[W]e find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections … Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.”

The authors’ paper is consistent with other credible reports of non-citizen voting. For example, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R) unveiled a study in 2011 showing that almost 5,000 illegal aliens cast votes in the U.S. Senate election in that state in 2010.

Non-citizen voting, for better or worse, has been part of the American experience for a long time.

In the late 1700s and first half of the 1800s various states allowed non-citizens to vote. In some states individuals who intended to become U.S. citizens were allowed to vote but historically the alien suffrage movement has failed to get much of a foothold. By the mid and late 1800s states had largely outlawed voting by non-citizens. It has long been a crime for non-citizens to vote in national elections.

Non-citizens are allowed to vote in some elections in a handful of jurisdictions across the country. For example, Takoma Park, Md., a Washington, D.C. suburb burdened with an aging hippy population, has allowed non-citizens –including illegal aliens– to vote in local elections since 1992. But similar enclaves of Sixties radicals permitting non-citizen voting tend to have small populations and are few and far between.

Some left-wingers say that election fraud is justifiable because in a sense it compensates the poor for having little political power. Radical activists laid the foundation for illegal voting by non-citizens at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Marxist academics and activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were the architects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 which opened the door to an explosion of voter fraud across America. The NVRA, also called the Motor-Voter law, forces states to register to vote anyone applying to renew a driver’s license or obtain welfare or unemployment compensation benefits. State employees are now forbidden by law from asking would-be registrants for proof of U.S. citizenship.

The NVRA also compelled states to allow mail-in voter registration, which made it easy for left-wing activists to enter false names on the voter rolls without any kind of contact with a government official. States were also under orders not to purge important Democratic constituencies such as the dead and criminals from voter rolls for a minimum of eight years.

It is unclear how much fraud takes place as a result of mail-in voting. Such fraud, which takes place during the registration stage and the voting stage, has barely been examined by scholars.

But the Motor-Voter law, notes journalist John Fund, has “fueled an explosion of phantom voters.”

And that’s exactly what it was intended to do.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians: Stop the Children's Intifada! - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The exploitation of children in the fight against Israel has attracted little attention from the international community and the media. Human rights groups and the UN have chosen to turn a blind eye to this human rights abuse. Instead of condemning it, these groups are busy denouncing Israel for targeting minors.
This strategy works out well for Hamas and Fatah, who can always blame Israel for "deliberately targeting" Palestinian children — an allegation the media in the West often endorses without asking questions.
Even more worrying is that the Palestinian groups often reward the families, who then become less motivated to stop their children from risking their lives.
Adult activists who encourage and send children to take part in violence should be held accountable, not only by Israel but by their own people. If these adults want an intifada, they should be the first to go out and confront Israeli policemen and soldiers.

Hamas, Fatah and other Palestinian groups are using children from east Jerusalem and the West Bank in what appears to be a new intifada against Israel.

Nearly half of the Palestinians arrested by Jerusalem Police over the past few months are minors. Some of them are as young as nine.

These children are being sent to throw stones and firebombs, and launch fireworks at policemen and IDF soldiers, as well as at Israeli civilians and vehicles, including buses and the light rail in Jerusalem.

Masked Palestinian youths hurl rocks at a Jewish kindergarten near the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, Sept. 2014.
The exploitation of children in the fight against Israel has attracted little attention from the international community and media. Human rights groups and United Nations institutions have chosen to turn a blind eye to these human rights abuses.

Instead of condemning those who exploit the children and dispatch them to confront policemen and soldiers, these groups and institutions are busy denouncing Israel for targeting minors.

Most of the children's attacks occur after school, so they are not deprived of education. But sadly, some of the Palestinian minors get killed or wounded in clashes with Israeli security forces.

Orwa Hammad, a 14-year-old Palestinian-American boy from the village of Silwad near Ramallah, was shot dead by IDF soldiers last week. The IDF says he was spotted preparing to hurl a firebomb at Israeli vehicles.

Earlier, 13-year-old Bahaa Bader was shot dead by IDF soldiers in the village of Beit Likya, also in the Ramallah area. An IDF spokesman said soldiers responded with live fire when residents threw firebombs at them as they were exiting the village.

Last month, 16-year-old Mohammed Sinokort from the Wadi al-Joz neighborhood of Jerusalem was killed during a stone-throwing incident.

This is not the first time that Palestinian groups use children in the struggle against Israel. During the first intifada, which erupted in 1987, children and women were often at the forefront in clashes with Israeli security personnel.

This strategy works out well for Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Fatah. At the end of the day, they can always blame Israel for "deliberately" targeting Palestinian children and women -- an allegation that the mainstream media in the West often endorses without asking questions.

Moreover, the Palestinian groups know that the children who are being sent to confront Israeli soldiers and policemen will not be held accountable.

Most of the minors detained by the Jerusalem Police for their involvement in the violence are released to house arrest. In cases where the children are aged nine to 13, they are referred to social welfare authorities without being detained.

The majority of these children are going out to throw stones and firebombs at Israelis because they are come from poor families or are lacking in good education and other economic and social privileges. But many of them come from middle-class families and do not live in refugee camps.

These children are victims of a campaign of indoctrination and incitement that is being waged by various Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Fatah. It is a campaign that is being waged through the media, mosques, educational institutions and the fiery rhetoric of leaders and activists.

What is even more worrying is that the Palestinian groups often reward the families of the children by hiring lawyers and paying fines imposed on them by Israeli courts. As a result, the families are less motivated to stop their children from risking their lives.

There are also reports that Fatah and Hamas activists in Jerusalem have been paying children small sums of money to throw stones and firebombs at Israelis and block roads in several Arab neighborhoods.

Hamas and Fatah had long discovered that children are one of the most effective tools in the fight against Israel -- especially because of the damage Israel sustains in the court of international public opinion.

Thus far, it appears that the Palestinian groups have been successful in their effort to depict Israel as a country that deliberately targets Palestinian minors whose only crime is that they "resisted occupation."

Dressing children in military uniforms and allowing them to carry rifles and pistols during rallies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is one way of encouraging them to put their lives at risk. But of course Hamas, Fatah and other Palestinian factions do not see anything wrong with this practice.

The adult activists who send and encourage children to take part in violence should be held accountable, not only by Israeli authorities, but also by their own people and international human rights organizations. If these adults want an intifada, they should be the first to go out and confront Israeli policemen and soldiers.

The time has come for the international community and media to pay attention to their disturbing conduct and demand that Palestinian groups stop hiding behind children.

Khaled Abu Toameh


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

When Leftist Race Hatred Meets Islamism - Arnold Ahlert

by Arnold Ahlert

BN-FF082_NYOFFI_WN_20141024180755Apparently the hatchet-wielding maniac who assaulted two New York City policemen in Queens had ambitions in addition to his twisted jihadist sympathies. Attacker Zale Thompson’s father told the New York Post that killing white people was also on would-be murderer’s agenda.

“He wanted white people to pay for all that slavery and all that racism,” said father Ralph Thompson. “I think he committed suicide — and he was taking one of y’all with him.” Asked if “one of y’all” referred to whites, Thompson answered in the affirmative. “He just said, ‘They have to pay for all their unfairness,’” the father explained. “Unfairness for the way they treat black people.”

Zale Thompson assaulted three white and one light-skinned Hispanic police officers while they posed for a photograph on Jamaica Avenue in Queens. White officers Kenneth Healey, 25, and Joseph Meeker, 24, were struck by the hatchet. Meeker was cut on the arm, and rookie cop Healey was struck on the back of his skull, nearly killing him. The other two officers on the scene shot Thompson dead. Sadly, innocent bystander LaToya Jones, 29, was also shot and might be paralyzed.

Thompson’s 2013 comment on Google+ revealed the animus to which his father referred. “It’s ok for white people to draw pictures of a white jesus, and then colonize Africa, and enslave the negro in America, wipe out the native American, and invade the middle east,” he wrote. “They call black people racist for rejecting the oppression they suffered from whites. Listen, when black people have colonized the entire continent of Europe, enslaved its people, and sold them into bondage to foreign lands, then you can call them racist.”

Additional comments were uncovered by the SITE Intelligence Group, an entity that monitors extremist activity. On Facebook and YouTube, Thompson characterized  Christians as “aggressive and violent” and chastised the “Christianized Negro” for adhering to the faith “his slave master gave him.” He was apparently the commenter named Zale Thompson who also offered his opinion on a YouTube video entitled, “Uprise of the Khilafah (Caliphate) World Wide”:
If you’re looking for “perfect” muslims who never make any mistakes in their Jihad, then you will be looking in vain! If the Zionists and the Crusaders had never invaded and colonized the Islamic lands after WW1, then there would be no need for Jihad! Which is better, to sit around and do nothing, or to Jihad fisabeelallah (for allah’s sake)!
There were additional comments on his Facebook page, one that that featured a man dressed as a Muslim warrior taken from the cover of a book entitled “Golden Age of the Moor,” and contained Arabic writing from the Quran that spoke to following “the straight path” through Allah.

They were equally incendiary. “The solution is to fight. Armed struggle. Simple,” he wrote, before advocating all-out guerrilla warfare on the streets of America. “America’s military is strong abroad, but they have never faced an internal mass revolt. … They are weaker at home. We are scattered and decentralized, we can use this as an advantage. They will not be able to defeat our people if we use guerilla warfare. Attack their weak flanks… If you get wounded who cares. If you die who cares. Eventually they will surrender and then the war will be over.”

After Thompson was identified as the attacker last Friday, the page was taken down.

If Thompson’s rant sounds familiar, perhaps it’s because it is a virtual echo of two Islamic extremist statements published on September 16 and 21. The first statement, entitled “To 2.6M Muslims in USA: A Call to Arms to Defend Islam and Avenge the Slaughter of Muslims” called for the killing of law enforcement officials. “Knocking off a police, military or any other law-enforcement officer sends a chilling message to the so-called ‘civilians’ and fills their hearts with consternation,” it declares.

The second statement is by ISIS spokesman Aub Mohammad al-Adnani. “Strike their police, security and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents,” he urges. “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him or poison him.”

Police have been searching back as far as five years to determine if anyone Thompson communicated with was a threat. A law enforcement source explained why. “This guy spent every waking moment on the Internet,” the source stated. Subsequent reports revealed much of that Internet time was spent watching ISIS beheading videos, along with propaganda and recruitment videos from terrorist groups ISIS, al Qaeda and al-Shabaab.

Thompson had no criminal record in New York, but was arrested six times in the city of Oxnard, CA, and pleaded guilty for leaving the scene of an accident in 2003. That was the same year Thompson was involuntarily discharged after serving two years in the Navy, possibly because of drug use, according to investigation leader Chief Robert K. Boyce. He spent the last decade “adrift” according to the New York Times, and after he was evicted from his East New York, Brooklyn apartment in January, he alternated crashing with his mother and father, who lived a short distance from each other in Queens.

Unsurprisingly, his attack was supported by head of the local New Black Panther Party (NBPP) where Thompson attended meetings. Queens chapter leader Frank Sha Francois referred to Thompson as “a crusader seeking justice,” and he warned of additional attacks that are likely to arise. “It probably won’t be the last [attack on police] because you have a lot of frustrated people out here,” he told the Post. He revealed that Thompson wasn’t an official member of the group, but nonetheless attended meetings where they talked about “police brutality” cases that have yet to be officially designated as police brutality cases.

“I don’t condone violence, but something needs to be done,” Francois said. “We need to have some type of deterrent and real oversight to deter the police from violating the laws and to know they are not above the laws.” He added that he didn’t agree with Thompson’s methods. “I tell people that to go up against law enforcement in this country is suicide,” Francois explained. “Our main way to deal with it is to rally and boycotting.”

Not exactly. When racial animosity was fomented by the usual suspects after Trayvon Martin was killed, the NBPP put a $10,000 bounty on the head of George Zimmerman, with NBPP party leader Mikhail Muhammad warning that he should be “fearful for his life.”

Family and friends described Thompson as an all-around hater, in sympathy with jihadists, and directing his animus towards cops in particular and white people in general. That animus aligns itself with the racist and conspiratorial theory of “white privilege” and its laundry list of perceived grievances, all based on the wearisome victimist mentality cultivated among black Americans by the American left for more than a half-century. Hence a hater becomes a crusader with only the method for expressing that hatred — wielding an ax, for example — at issue. And as the ongoing mayhem in Ferguson, MO so amply indicates, it is a victimist mentality unresponsive to logic and lawfulness, or waiting for the facts to emerge before reaching conclusions about what “really” happened.

That’s because the unbroken narrative of “unfairness” justifies anything and everything.

It is a narrative egged on by an Obama administration that has granted an unseemly and wholly unwarranted level of credence to racial arsonists like Al Sharpton, with both Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama attending Sharpton’s annual National Action Network galas, and heaping praise on the tax-evading, hoax-perpetrating rabble-rouser.

Couple this reality with the administration’s flaccid and largely incoherent response to ISIS—a response necessitated by the president’s premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011, based on the campaign-fueled lie that “the tide of war is receding”—and the nation is facing a perfect storm. One of the administration’s own making, and one that facilitates the cultivation of domestic jihadists and racist thugs. The longer ISIS remains a threat, the greater the chance of more “lone wolves” being enchanted by its resiliency. The more this administration gins up racial animosity in a pathetic attempt to get out the minority vote in the short term, and keep black Americans on the Democrat plantation over the long haul, the more likely “crusading” cop-killer, jihadist wannabes will take their best shot.

Thompson “Googled the words ‘jihad against police,’ ” said the Post’s law enforcement source. ISIS is extremely well-versed on how to “hit a lot of different kinds of people’s buttons,” explained David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center of Terrorism and Homeland Security at Duke University. “I didn’t know it would get that serious,” said Thompson’s father. “I didn’t know he was going to carry on a mission on his own.” Thompson was hardly alone. He had plenty of enablers, both foreign and domestic.

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to, and He may be reached at


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Al-Aqsa is not a Pawn - Dr. Reuven Berko

by Dr. Reuven Berko

The use of the Al-Aqsa mosque as a ploy to incite violence in Jerusalem is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini used it back in 1929, and succeeded in inciting mass riots and the murder of Jews in Hebron. In 2000, Palestine Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat used the same trick to incite the Second Intifada. 

Despite the fact that over the years such riots have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Jews and Arabs alike, they have done little to promote the Palestinian cause.

The "Al-Aqsa trick," which has most recently been employed by Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- who complained before the U.N. that Israel was instigating a religious war -- is based on the desire to provoke war between Judaism and Islam. This trick's proponents believe that since all Muslims hold the Al-Aqsa mosque dear, they would immediately stop butchering each other and rally to its rescue.

This ploy is a regular motif for the Islamic Movement as well. It uses it to incite a religious war, raise millions in donations, and excel in the service of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and the Islamic State group. 

However, the very sanctity of the mosque to all Muslims renders the Palestinian's false claim to Jerusalem as their capital null and void. None of Islam's holy cities has been made into a capital city. Instead, Muslims the world over are busy killing each other and burning down mosques and churches. The Palestinians, for their part, are busy complaining to the media that despite their best efforts, the Arab-Muslim world is indifferent to their problem. 

Both Mashaal and Abbas seek to incite violence in Jerusalem as leverage in their own internal competition, especially given the triviality of the Palestinian cause compared to the truly burning issues in the Middle East. The Palestinian public is becoming more radical and the two are busy with the question of who is more militant, rather than how to promote a realistic solution.

This dynamic is reminiscent of several Israeli politicians, who trampled all over the defense establishment in their race to make radical statements about the need to "seize" control of the Gaza Strip during Operation Protective Edge. 

The populist call to change the status quo in Jerusalem and on Temple Mount, which is the secret of the legitimacy lent to Israeli sovereignty in the capital, contains the same pattern of ego and lacks any political vision; and it is promoted by those willing to sacrifice national interests and Israel's international image and legitimate rule in Jerusalem, for the sake of a few more votes.

The status quo in Jerusalem has been in place since its liberation in 1967, including Jews' right to visit Temple Mount. Jewish religious leaders are divided over the question of whether there is an actual need for Jews to pray on Temple Mount, and in any case, after 2,000 years of absence, this is hardly a pressing matter.

The regional Islamic chaos further illustrates Israel's need to stay out of the crosshairs of radical Islamists, as they go about killing each other. It is the Palestinian provocation, assisted by some Israeli politicians, which seeks to draw the fire in our direction.

Everyone knows the integrity of the Al-Aqsa mosque is assured, as Israel has every interest to see to it. Many Muslims understand that if the mosque were under their control, rival Sunni and Shiite groups would either defile it to spite each other, or simply blow it up. Israel's responsible policies in the capital, especially its vigilance in maintaining freedom of worship for all three monotheistic religions, has proved time and again that it is worthy of its jurisdiction over the united city.

Jerusalem has overcome bigger riots. The majority of Jerusalem's Arab residents suffers from terrorism rather than support it, and it is no coincidence that vandals are targeting the Jerusalem light rail, which links the city's east and west together, both literally and figuratively.

Those hurling stones and Molotov cocktails in Jerusalem serve as a reminder to us all: Before Israel left Bethlehem and Beit Jala, rioters used to fire their AK-47s at Jerusalem's Har Gilo and Har Homa neighborhoods, just as they used to fire at Jewish homes prior to 1967. Those throwing Molotov cocktails at homes in the Armon Hanatziv neighborhood today, will fire Qassam and RPG rockets at them tomorrow. Just wait and see.

Dr. Reuven Berko


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egypt begins Gaza border evacuation to create security buffer - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Egyptian army on Wednesday began work to establish a buffer zone along the border with the Gaza Strip following last week’s terror attack that killed 31 Egyptian soldiers in Sinai.

Egyptian media outlets and military officials have accused the terrorists, whose identity remains unknown, of being linked to radical elements inside the Gaza Strip. Some Egyptians have even suggested that the terrorists may have come to Sinai through smuggling tunnels along the border with the Gaza Strip.

The 10-kilometer long buffer zone is 500 meters wide, Egyptian security officials said. They said that the buffer zone is part of a massive crackdown ordered by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Sisi in the aftermath of the Sinai terror attack.

The buffer zone will require the Egyptian authorities to evict 1,100 families from their homes.

Sources in Sinai said that dozens of families began leaving their homes already on Tuesday night after being warned by the Egyptian army. They added that among those evicted are Palestinian and Bedouin families.

Also Wednesday, the Egyptian army demolished a number of houses close to the border with the Gaza Strip.

An Egyptian security official said that the authorities have offered to compensate the families who lost their homes with 1,200 Egyptian Pounds ($160) per meter. He said that altogether, some 680 houses will be demolished in pave the way for the creation of the security zone.

Hamas, meanwhile, expressed deep concern over the building of the buffer zone, saying it would tighten the blockade on the Gaza Strip. Hamas officials have strongly denied any connection to the Sinai attack.

Khaled Abu Toameh


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ottawa Police Services Reach Out to Islamist Groups After Attack - IPT News

by IPT News

Just after last week's terrorist attacks in Ottawa, the city's police chief Charles Bordeleau reached out to various Muslim leaders and organizations with questionable ties to radical organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, according to a report produced by the Canadian website Point De Bascule.

Sikhander Hashmi, the imam at the Kanata Muslim Association (KMA), acknowledged that Bordeleau contacted him to reassure the Muslim community in case of "backlash" from the terrorist attack. This perceived "backlash" remains to be seen. More significantly, the Ottawa Police Service overlooks connections between Hahsmi's organization and the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure in Ottawa. That includes money it transferred to the Hamas-linked IRFAN-Canada in 2010, according to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

IRFAN-Canada lost its charity status in 2011 following a CRA audit that exposed the organization as an "integral part" in Hamas' international fundraising infrastructure. The donations in question were sent between 2005 and 2009. Canadian authorities designated IRFAN-Canada as a terrorist organization earlier this year after determining the charity served as a front for Hamas, transferring close to $15 million to the terrorist organization.

The KMA also transferred money to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an organization linked to the Pakistani Jammat-e-Islami.

Moreover, Chief Bordeleau previously met with other controversial Muslim leaders in Ottawa. In January 2013, he met with Jalil Marhnouj, vice president of the Assunnah Muslims Association and other leaders affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood network in Canada. The Assunnah Muslims Association transferred $29,880 to IRFAN.

Despite the Canadian government's acknowledged link between the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) and Hamas, the Ottawa Police Service maintains an extensive relationship with the controversial group. The NCCM, formerly known as CAIR-CAN, has trained Ottawa Police officers since February 2002, according to a Senate Committee testimony provided by a former Ottawa police chief. The NCCM is a recognized affiliate of CAIR, which has been identified by the FBI as part of a Hamas-support network in the United States.

Click here for the full Point De Bascule.

IPT News


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It