EDITORIAL

Obama’s Anti-Cop Jihad

The Protests were Organized for one Specific Purpose – Dead Cops

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies. Continue reading


Is the American media and Political Class finally Waking Up to the threat of Qatar?

Over the past two days, several news reports have emerged that suggest the media and, yes, even some politicians in Washington, have begun to appreciate the threat posed by the small Gulf State of Qatar.

On December 9, a bipartisan group of 24 members of Congress wrote a letter to the Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David S. Cohen, that stated in part:

“We are concerned about the ties between Qatar and Hamas, and we commend you on your speech before the Center for a New American Security, where you stated that, ‘Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas,’ and that press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also ‘supporting extremist groups operating in Syria,’ further adding to the instability of the region. As you noted in your speech, there are private fundraising networks in Qatar that solicit donations for terrorists. Qatar, in your words, is ‘a permissive terrorist financing environment.’”

It urged Treasury to focus on terrorist financing from Qatar and another Muslim Brotherhood-dominated country, Turkey. They made it clear that anti-terrorism officials in Treasury should do everything possible in their power to end Qatari and Turkish financing of jihadi groups. These groups have destabilized the Middle East and North Africa, and are a significant factor in America’s rapidly deteriorating relations with Russia.

On December 10, The Daily Beast published an article that, for the mainstream press, called Qatar out pretty straight: as they put it, they’re “the world’s most two-faced nation.”

Two-faced indeed. Qatar simultaneously hosts, and pays for the campuses of, Georgetown (where they help train American diplomats), Carnegie Mellon (which is in partnership with the Department of Defense), and Cornell, yet also hosts the Nazi-rooted Muslim Brotherhood. They try to pass themselves off as “progressives,” but have been implicated in funding the genocidal armies of ISIS. Qatar’s capital, Doha, is home to two large American military bases and CENTCOM for the region, yet 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a guest of their Minister of Religious Affairs from 1992-1996.

How do they get away with this behavior? Surely, a lack of public awareness about the tiny country is one reason. Most Americans have never heard of Qatar, and even fewer know how to pronounce its name – “cutter,” or depending on the Arabic accent, “gutter.” And yes, anonymity is an asset to any criminal, especially a criminal regime.

But while anonymity only goes so far, a vast ocean of money goes much further. Qatar is, per capita, the richest country in the world (~$93,000 in 2013). With the globe’s third largest natural gas reserves (behind Russia and Iran), the less than 300,000 Qatari citizens have cash to burn.

And, since we’re on the topic of burning, Qatar’s foreign policy seems to be that of burning down their neighbors’ countries (unfortunately, with American backing). The Arab Spring, which a) caused widespread death and destruction in Egypt b) left Syria in an unending civil war, and c) still has Libya in a state of utter chaos, further complicated by a Qatari proxy war against Egypt and the UAE… all these Islamist insurrections were and are backed by the Qatari government; specifically, by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders who reside there and the sympathizing Al-Thani royal family. More than any other nation, it is Qatar who is seeking to re-establish an Islamic Caliphate. To accomplish this, they don’t much care if the world, and infidel, are lit on fire.

The other side of Islamist gangs, which is rarely given enough coverage in the media, is the organized crime aspect of these stateless, revolutionary entities. Whether it’s Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in Iraq, AQIM across North Africa, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, Islamist terrorist organizations double as cartels. Narcotics, human trafficking, racketeering, and the usual terrorizing of local populations are their trademarks.

It should come as a surprise to no one that tiny, corrupt, and fabulously wealthy Qatar has at one time or another financed all of the above terrorist groups.

Do you think that the Al-Thanis do this out of the goodness of their Islamist hearts? Or is it more realistic to think that, just maybe, they are recipients of ill-gotten billions resulting from organized crime?

To explain the Qatari way of “diplomacy” to yourself, try this thought experiment. A man in a very expensive suit hands you five checkbooks. He gives you a mission: make as many friends as possible, who, should his reputation ever be questioned in public, will come to his defense. To accomplish this, you are permitted write checks up to $10 million and hand them out freely. Considering how much political coverage and favors can be purchased from American politicians and media for relatively less, it’s no wonder Qatar has so many “friends.”

In fact, Qatar’s “friends” comprise a veritable “Who’s Who” of the American (and even international) establishment. During the month of October, the Qatar Awareness Campaign, an ad hoc Coalition of concerned journalists, activists, publishers, and researchers published a letter each weekday, identifying American interests and individuals compromised by Qatari money and/or who toe the Qatari line. Many of the figures named might surprise you: Michael Bloomberg, ExxonMobil, Al Gore, John McCain, The Boeing Company, Miramax, the Chamber of Commerce, CNN, Harvard University, Bill and Hillary Clinton, FIFA, to name just a few.

Do you see now why it has taken so long for the political and media figures to finally peep up, even just a little? Hint: they’re bought off, paid for… and you – the American citizen – don’t have a blank checkbook like the terror masters in Doha.

Maybe, just maybe, the tide is beginning to turn. If the American public, and the global public, understood that the U.S. government had as one of its closest allies a narco-terror slave state, the politicians would be forced to act, if merely to save face. Terrorism in the United States is still a crime, and those who support it are therefore guilty under penalty of law.

Recently, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced he was resigning from his position as the civilian head of the Pentagon. Among the most prominent reasons given for his departure was the continuing debacle in the Middle East.  It was also reported that he never established a good relationship with Obama’s inner circle. In this respect, Hagel’s frustrations were certainly in no small part tied to Qatar; for it was the Qatari royal family, the Al-Thanis, who bankrolled and strategically coordinated the Arab Spring, and who remain so intimate with the administration as to accept and shelter the Taliban 5 for the deserter Bowe Bergdahl. (That infamous deal, it is worth mentioning, was finalized while the former Qatari Emir was visiting with Obama at West Point, attending the graduation of his son.)

Hagel, if pressed, may indeed admit that Obama’s alliance with Qatar and the Al-Thanis was the ultimate driver behind his resignation. Might we soon get some truth from the only Republican in Obama’s cabinet?

Secretary Hagel, your country needs you to speak up NOW!


Hollywood’s Jihad

Is it Inquisition time in Hollywood, or is it something else?

In the midst of the Hamas siege of Israel, while the IDF was courageously protecting Israeli citizens from rockets hurled by the barbarians in Gaza, some Spanish personalities in supposedly Jewish-run Hollywood caused quite a raucous. In an open letter, the Latin trio of Penelope Cruz, husband Javier Bardem, and director Pedro Almodovar condemned Israel for daring to cripple the terrorist organization. (Note: for the record, the letter was signed by many other Spaniards in Hollywood.)

The signatories of the letter, “condemn the bombing by land, sea and air against the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip… Gaza is living through horror these days, besieged and attacked by land, sea and air. Palestinians’ homes are being destroyed, they are being denied water, electricity [and] free movement to their hospitals, schools and fields while the international community does nothing.”

Moreover, the letter had the audacity to call the IDF operation “genocide.”

These words, which infer that Israel is culpable of a Holocaust of their own making, has, expectedly, led to a backlash by some producers and stars. Cruz and Bardem have come under fire by Ryan Kavanaugh, CEO of Relativity Media, who stated to The Hollywood Reporter, “As the grandson of Holocaust survivors, I know that anyone calling what’s going on in Israel ‘genocide’ vs. self-defense is either ignorant and shouldn’t be commenting or is truly anti-Semitic.” In his own open letter, the outspoken and conservative Jon Voight admonished Cruz and Bardem to “hang their heads in shame.”

Yet the wrath of Hollywood seems to have conspicuously missed the other Spaniard, director Pedro Almodovar. Who is Almodovar, and what makes him the most curious of the three?

Casting Call: Wanted. A Film Director, Master Jihadis, and a Mujer Progresista.

A Gay Progressive. But Who Cares About That?

Almodovar has made a career directing films with progressive themes, most with additional LGBT themes. An Academy Award-winning director, he is celebrated within the organized LGBT movement. As the website LGBT History Month puts it, “His movies are known for their progressive themes including transgenderism, homosexuality and feminism and also for their racy sexuality, irony and wit.”

In the United States, moviegoers are more familiar with the stars he helped discover; among them are Penelope Cruz and Antonio Banderas, who have become household names of modern American cinema.

However, being an activist for LGBT equality does not explain Almodovar’s venom towards Israel. Although they are not performed in Israel, the Jewish state recognizes same-sex unions granted from other countries. Homosexual acts have been legal in Israel since 1988. This month, Israeli Interior Minister Gidon Sa’ar extended the right of return citizenship rights to (Jewish and non-Jewish) same-sex spouses. As Middle Eastern countries go, none is more progressive than Israel.

What to make of Jon Voight’s criticism? Voight is undisputed Hollywood royalty. A legendary actor, he is the father of Angelina Jolie and likely soon-to-be father-in-law of Brad Pitt, two actors known to be more progressive in their politics. Though Voight and Almodovar are on opposite sides of the political spectrum, the traditional right-left, conservative-liberal divide does not explain the director’s politics.

For it is not his support for LGBT issues, nor his progressive bent that define his worldview, but his proximity with al Qaeda, their sponsors and enablers, and to the world’s foremost strategic jihadi.

The Master of Jihad

When most Americans think jihad and Islamic terrorism, some names immediately come to mind. Among them, Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (9/11 mastermind), and Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC bombing) may be the most common. More dedicated students of jihad may also know the names Ayman al-Zawahiri (current head of al Qaeda), Mullah Omar (head of Taliban) and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (leader of the Islamic State, formerly ISIS). These exotic names have been repeated ad nauseam by media and government personalities, and thus they have lodged their way into the American psyche.

Precisely because it is mentioned so infrequently, precious few Americans know the name Abu Musab al-Suri. A red head with green eyes, this guru of modern jihad does not necessarily look the part of stereotypical Islamist. Looks, however, deceive. He has been termed “the most articulate exponent of the modern jihad and its most sophisticated strategies.” A 2008 book on him, published by Columbia University Press, is entitled Architect of Global Jihad: The Life of Al Qaeda Strategist Abu Mus’ab Al-Suri. A prolific writer, his 1600-page treatise on jihadi warfare, The Global Islamic Resistance Call includes doctrinal, political, educational, and behavioral methods for terror, and is considered by U.S. Joint Forces Command as a terrorist “masterwork.”

A darling of bin Laden, it’s fair to say that if Al Qaeda were a typical American corporation, Abu Musab al-Suri would be the Chief Strategy Officer.[1]

Born in Aleppo in 1958, his given name is Mustafa bin Abd al-Qadir Setmarian Naser. After falling under the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, he took the name “al-Suri,” which means “the Syrian.” Well before the Syrian civil war commenced in 2011, al-Suri was arguably the most detailed exponent of specific military measures that would be effective in undermining the Assad regime; one book he authored is actually called Jihad in Syria. A foe of Hafez al-Assad, who conducted a violent crackdown on the Syrian Brotherhood, al-Suri had to flee Syria for Europe in 1980. In more recent times, Abu Musab al-Suri was the namesake of one of most infamous terrorists throughout the American occupation of Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed, 2006).

While living in Spain in the 1980s, al-Suri married a Spanish woman by the name of Elena Morena. This gave him a Spanish passport, and makes him a citizen of the European Union. As a leading member of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, al-Suri did in Spain what the Muslim Brothers do everywhere – begin recruiting. Indeed, one of al-Suri’s unique contributions to modern jihad was to encourage individual Muslims to independently recruit soldiers (i.e., terrorists) for Islamic war against the kafir. His partner in the new Al Qaeda Spain enterprise was another Syrian from Aleppo, Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, aka Abu Dahbah.

Al-Suri and Abu Dahbah, described by a Spanish judge as “the leader of al Qaeda in Spain,” have plenty of terrorist bona fides, including connections to 9/11 and other attacks. Al-Suri was Osama bin Laden’s top aide, and the second most wanted man by U.S. intelligence behind only his boss. Abu Dahbah was the Spanish contact of the al Qaeda Hamburg cell, which planned 9/11. He also recruited for his own cell in Spain, the Soldiers of Allah.

Abu Musab al-Suri

Abu Musab al-Suri

In 2004, ten bombs ripped through four passenger trains departing from Alcalá de Henares station in Madrid. The attacks left 191 dead and injured thousands more. Abu Dahbah and al-Suri were both subsequently implicated by Spanish authorities. One of Abu Dahbah’s Soldiers of Allah Jamal Zougam, physically detonated the bombs using a remote cell phone detonator. Al Suri was described by the mastermind of, or inspiration for, the attacks, which were of the same character that he explicated in his writings. (He specifically urged that that transportation infrastructure be targeted because it involved a high “economic cost.”)

Like al-Suri, Abu Dahbah took a Spanish wife. An actress, her name was MarisaMartínAyuso. A Christian before converting to Islam, in her youth Ayuso had been a “progressive woman.” In 1986, Ayuso married Abu Dahbah, the future Spanish contact for the 9/11 attacks.

“Una Mujer Progresista”

Now that the characters in this real-life Hollywood mystery have been cast, the plot will resume.

Ayuso, the Spanish actress, was in the films of Pedro Almodovar. This fact is confirmed by her husband, and reported in multiple articles in the Spanish-language press. (See: here, here, and here.) She was even known as a “Chica Almodovar” (Almodovar girl). Curiously, a comprehensive internet search by this author did not yield any credits with her name.

To be explicit for the sake of clarity, Almodovar directed the woman who married the head of al Qaeda in Spain, Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, aka Abu Dahbah. Almodovar may have directed her after she married Abu Dahbah and converted to Islam; the inability to find any film credits which mention her name leaves this an open question.

Maria Ayuso, former "Chica Almodovar" and wife of Abu Dahbah

Maria Ayuso, former “Chica Almodovar” and wife of Abu Dahbah

Now, this all may seem surreally serendipitous: that an anti-Israel Spanish film director happened to work with the wife of the head of al Qaeda in Spain… the “Almodovar girl,” whose husband was partners in jihad with Osama bin Laden’s “top aide,” Abu Musab al-Suri. After all, at some point in her life, she was, by all accounts “a progressive woman.” Progressives in America aren’t exactly known for their love of Israel, either.

Let us now revisit the 2004 Madrid bombing and the political fallout of al Qaeda’s careful operation to sway the Spanish election.

Director of a new Cordoba Project?

The attacks of March 11, 2004 on the Madrid trains not only rocked Spain, but also Spanish politics. The Spanish elections, three days later on March 14, saw the defeat of the conservative People’s Party (PP) and the ascension of the leftist Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE). Prior to the attacks, the PP was ahead in the polls and the favorite to win the elections – afterward, the PSOE gained the upper hand. Both parties and their respective press organs allege conspiracies. A chief conspirator in the attack, the man who supplied the explosives, claimed “I am the victim of a coup they have tried to hide behind a bunch of Muslims.” The coup he was referring to was the PSOE’s victory in the Spanish elections.

As in America, Spain has its own cinema celebs who can’t keep away from the nation’s politics. The PSOE, much like the Democrat Party in the United States, has the backing of the progressives in Spanish film, including the director Pedro Almodovar and the actor he helped discover, Antonio Banderes. Both Almodovar and Banderes are long-time supporters of the PSOE. See, for example, this 1996 PSEO election commercial staring Banderes; or this article from 2000, in which Banderes is quoted: “I remain a leftists… I will vote for the PSOE.”

Almodovar “applauded” the PSOE victory in 2004, on the heels of the Madrid attacks. A year later, in 2005, demonstrations in Spain were held to protest Spanish involvement in the invasion of Iraq. One article explains of the protests, “The three main speakers at the end of the march were Pedro Almodóvar, his leading actress in Hable con ella, Leonor Watling, and veteran director and actor Fernando Fernán Gómez.” He further went on to support the PSOE in 2008.

Once elected to lead Spain, what policies did the PSOE follow, under the direction of Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, with respect to Islam? If you were charitable, you might say he cozied up to the Islamists. Zapatero…

  • Withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq.
  • Proposed the “Alliance of Civilizations,” an initiative aimed at reconciling the Western and Islamic worlds. Zapatero’s co-sponsor was the Hitlerian Islamist of Turkey, Recep Erdogan, who, like Almodovar, recently accused Israel Third Reich-like behavior.
  • Heavily restricted tobacco consumption in public, under the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco is haram (forbidden) in Islam, and Turkey under Erdogan has also severely restricted tobacco consumption under the same WHO protocols. IMPORTANT: Turkey additionally operated under the Bloomberg Global Tobacco Control Initiative. (Bloomberg LLP holds an annual business conference in Doha, Qatar. Keep this in mind.)
  • Urged that Turkey and Morocco, two Islamic-dominated countries, join the European Union.

In February 2014, Zapatero’s successor to Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, reaffirmed the PSOE’s support for Turkey’s admission into the EU. This, despite the ongoing Islamification of formerly secular Turkey, and the violent crackdown by Erdogan of anti-AKP protesters.

Almodovar, Miramax, and the Al Thanis of Qatar

Transatlantic progressive politics, moviemaking, and Islamic terror have a way of hanging together it seems. One of the early distributors of Almodovar’s films in the United States was Miramax Films. Founded by the Weinstein brothers, Harvey and Bob, in 1979, Miramax was eventually purchased by The Walt Disney Company in 1993. Before the sale to Disney, however, they distributed two of Almodovar’s movies in the early 1990s, Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, and High Heels.

A few more data points on the Weinsteins, Miramax, and Almodovar that suggest more than a passing association with the cast of characters above:

  • In 1982, Almodovar directed the comedy Labyrinth of Passions. The plot centered around a nymphomaniac and a “gay Islamic terrorist.”
  • In 1998, Bob and Harvey Weinstein won the GLAAD Excellence in Media Award. The award is “presented to public figures in media and entertainment who, through their work, have increased the visibility and understanding of the LGBT community.” GLAAD – the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation – awarded Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education “Outstanding Film” in 2005.
  • In 2010, Disney sold Miramax to Filmyard Holdings, a joint investment group which included the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA), private equity company Colony Capital, and construction company Tutor-Saliba Corporation. Based out of Doha, Qatar, the Qatar Investment Authority is the sovereign wealth fund run by the Gulf state of Qatar. QIA was the largest shareholder.
  • Also in 2010, Harvey Weinstein, through the Weinstein Company, produced Miral, a movie about a Palestinian orphan. The film was criticized by many as pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel, and the journalist Daniel Greenfield called it a “terrorist propaganda flick.”
  • In January 2013, Ron Tutor of Tutor-Saliba sold his stake in Miramax to the Qatar Investment Authority, leaving Miramax in the hands of Colony and Qatar exclusively.
  • In December 2013, Miramax announced a 20 year deal with The Weinstein Company for “a multi-year co-production and co-distribution deal covering movies, TV and stage for titles in the Miramax library.” This reunites the Weinsteins with their company, and unites them in one corporate entity with Qatar.
  • Although not directly tied to Miramax anymore, this August Disney held a special “Disney on Ice” event at the first summer festival in Doha, Qatar.

Qatar is a plainly despicable country, profiting from the worst imaginable types of human suffering and misery. Ruled by the Al Thani family, a hereditary monarchy, this author has documented again and again that Qatar is a modern day slave state with extensive ties to al Qaeda and the genocidal Islamic State. Note that the Qatari Ministry of Electricity and Water had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, on payroll before the attacks; and further, it was Qatar who handed over KSM to the CIA, inexplicably knowing his exact location…

Though not commonly known, Islamist terrorist groups are eager participants in the narcotics traffic, especially heroin from Afghanistan and cocaine from South America. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Boko Haram, two North African based Islamist groups, are drug smugglers. The state of Qatar provided the seed money for Boko Haram, and recently documents prove that they are actively working with the Qataris. Boko Haram and the Islamic State, two clients of Qatari financing and military support, kidnap and sell men, women, and children into slavery, whether it be forced prostitution or labor ganging.

Finally, Boko Haram and al Qaeda have been conclusively linked to the Indian crime boss, Dawood Ibrahim, currently residing in Pakistan under the protection of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI). Interestingly, Dawood is known to be active in Bollywood (Indian Hollywood), producing movies and personally recruiting the actors he prefers.

A Point on the Alleged “Homophobia” of Jihad

If there’s one thing the right and left in the United States can agree on when it comes to LGBT culture, it’s that the fanatical Islamists hate homosexuals. This is drummed into the heads of Americans every time Iran hangs gay men (or, as they call them, “sodomites”), which they do, brutally, with some frequency.

A few examples will show that such generalizations are incorrect, and that the jihad is not, let’s say, the Russian state.

  • In July, an Egyptian cleric authored a fatwa (legal declaration) that permitted “anal jihad.” This is just what it sounds like, because the men fighting to kill the infidel are far away from their wives. (I’m no Imam, so don’t ask me about the reasoning.)
  • In France, an Algerian born Salafist (i.e., radical) Imam is openly gay, and even marries gay couples.
  • The cultures of the Middle East do not conform to western norms of sexuality. This is nothing new. Going back to the early 20th century, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), the British intelligence officer who united the Arabs in jihad against the Turks, is widely considered to have been gay.
  • Christopher Stevens, the ambassador who was murdered in Benghazi by jihadis while running Libyan arms to Syrian rebels (who are now in Iraq and known as the Islamic State), was also gay.

The reason for citing and explaining the above is not to insinuate that there is a huge conspiracy of gay Muslim terrorists. There isn’t. Instead, it is to prove that “gay” and “Islamist” are not mutually exclusive, as so many seem to want to believe. This is not merely the author’s opinion, but an accurate reading of recent and historical statements, actions, and events within the Salafist and jihadi movements. Being uncomfortable with the peculiar proclivities within jihadi ranks is not an excuse for ignorance.

THE END

It is impossible to say whether Pedro Almodovar feels any sympathy al Qaeda and the worldwide movement to establish a caliphate. His implicit support for Hamas, however, and his denigration of Israel, do make him an apologist for terrorism; Hamas is designated by the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization.

Working with the wife of an al Qaeda terrorist does not make someone guilty of a crime. Yet, it is hard to dismiss the PSOE’s pro-Islamist stance, whether be an initiative between Erdogan and Zapatero, welcoming Turkey into the E.U., or withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq – a move that now seems calculated to benefit the likes of the Islamic State.  It was precisely Maria Ayuso’s husband who recruited the terrorists whose deadly attacks put the PSOE in power, to the surprise of Spanish citizens. At around the same time he was directing this “Chica Almodovar,” he happened to make a comedy about a gay Islamic terrorist.

Entering into a business partnership with the Qatar Investment Authority is also not illegal (although it should be), and the Weinsteins should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. But it is hard to ignore that Qatar is the primary sponsor of al Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State, and operates a slave empire with links to underworld mafia boss, Dawood Ibrahim. It may be purely coincidental that Miramax distributes some of Almodovar’s best known films, and that Harvey Weinstein produced a pro-Palestinian propaganda movie. None of these are necessarily smoking guns.

And it may again be only coincidence that GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance for Anti-Defamation, has given Almodovar and the Weinstein brothers awards for their work making LGBT-themed movies. In Hollywood, allegedly dominated by Jewish (i.e. pro-Israel) interests, it is perplexing that the Weinsteins and Almodovar remain celebrated, despite hostility toward Israel.

Yet on the balance, when the evidence is weighed and considered, it is difficult to believe that Almodovar and the Weinsteins are totally unaware of who they are working with. This would require the sensory ability of Helen Keller.

Means? Check. Motive? Check. Opportunity? Check.

Is Hollywood, like the crazies like to say, run by a Jewish cabal? Or has it become anti-Semitic.

Post Script

Pedro Almodovar no longer supports the Spanish Socialist Party, the PSOE. He now believes that Spain’s only hope is the M15 movement, or the Indignados. They are a kind of Spanish Occupy Wall Street, chaotic and largely youthful protestors who cannot find work and see little hope for a better future.

Abu Musab al-Suri was captured in Quetta, Pakistan in 2005. The Pakistani authorities turned him over to Syria, where he is currently imprisoned.

[1] Abu Musab al-Suri is known to have personally met Osama bin Laden and bin Laden’s mentor, Abdullah Azzam, who originated the idea that martyrdom is a personal responsibility of all Muslims. His relationship with al Qaeda was so intimate that he named one of his sons Osama.


Martial Sharia: Obama’s Politically Correct Military

Of all scandals of the Obama administration, perhaps none is both as culturally threatening and ignored as the ongoing purge of career military officers.  Even more than American society, the military has fallen prey to a severe case of political correctness.  Why is this so?

“You have to remember, the military is a captive audience.  This is why politicians use it for social experiments,” explains Gerry, a Ret. Chief Warrant Officer.  “It’s nothing new.  Think back to Truman’s forced integration of the armed forces.  That was probably good for the country.”  Racially integrating the military accelerated the trend into broader society.

Today, a similar approach is being taken regarding women and gays in combat.  In the view of many officers, this has led to a degradation of the traditional military culture.  Many complaints filed by women accusing their commanding officers of sexual harassment are without merit.  “I’ll give you an example.  In the course of a training exercise, the commanding officer pulled a female soldier back by her belt.  It was done for training and safety reasons, but she filed a complaint.  It was dismissed only when two witnesses came forward and explained what actually happened.  The administration is making a big deal about sexual harassment in the military.  Unfortunately, frivolous complaints like this are more common than the public is led to believe,” says Gerry.

Since the Carter administration, the military has been forced to operate on a quota system that favors women and minorities.  This means that as a matter of policy, the best qualified men are skipped over for a promotion because a certain number of women must be promoted first.  Ditto racial minorities.  Affirmative action is a politically contentious issue in civilian life, where most of the time people’s lives do depend urgently on the qualifications of the person next to them.  Yet in forgoing gender- and colorblindness, it is no exaggeration to say that politically-mandated social engineering routinely and unnecessarily risks lives of American servicemen.

The administration, in the last two years, has taken a sharp turn in favor of LGBT rights.  In effect, this has translated into the censorship of the Christian view of marriage within the military, chilling the religious freedom cherished by American service personnel for generations.  Phillip Monk was a 19-year veteran in the Air Force.  His Commanding Officer, Colleen McGee, is a lesbian.  While attempting to convey that it was against policy to use the position of authority to promote religious beliefs, McGee attempted to force Monk to admit that the traditional view of marriage was a discriminatory.  Monk, an evangelical Christian, politely refused to answer the question.  For this, he was relieved of duties and is now being pressed with charges under the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

Has the country reached a point where soldiers must take the official line that the Bible’s definition of marriage is discriminatory?  Is it so important to force gay marriage on the country that lifelong professional soldiers are summarily dismissed for daring to dissent?  Apparently so.  But this incident is part of a much broader effort by the Obama administration to separate Christian views from the military.

  • An Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible from his desk, because it might make some “uncomfortable.”  What makes such a display in “uncomfortable” in particular is left undefined.
  • Another Air Force Lt. Col., a Chaplain, was censored for authoring an essay entitled “No Atheists in Foxholes.”  A cranky critic called it an “anti-secular diatribe.”
  • In last two years, the administration has evidently ordered the purge of Christian terms in the military.  For example: Army soldiers were directed to remove etchings of Bible verses from their rifles with a Dremel tool; a video tribute to First Sergeants was forcibly removed because it used the word “God,” which might offend atheists or Muslims (?); and, the Air Force recently removed “God” from a logo.

Writing at the American Thinker, Professor Fay Voshell compares the treatment of Christians in the military today to Islamic Dhimmitude; that is, the official second-class citizen status given to Christians and Jews under Islam.  Writes Voshell, “Generally in such countries, the dhimmitude of Christians and other religiously devout non-Muslims includes, among other things, denial of the right to openly practice their religion, to share their faith with others, to attempt to convert or persuade others to become Christian, to hand out religious literature and to construct houses of worship.  It also means many professions and opportunities for advancement will be closed to Christians, with only the lowest positions in society open to them.”  Dhimmitude indeed.

Recall the case of Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, brought to my attention by Gerry.  A highly rated armor officer, LTC Dooley was asked to teach a course on radical Islam at the Joint Forces Staff College within the National Defense University.  For his presentation of facts, he was targeted by American Islamic groups, several with links to the criminal Muslim Brotherhood, and unceremoniously dismissed from his teaching appointment.  From there, he was issued a negative officer evaluation by a Lt. General, ending his career.  His curriculum having been labeled “academically irresponsible,” the reputation of the Islamists had been saved.

Gerry taught a similar course to Dooley’s on Muslim culture in the Middle East, and how to interact with the press in the region.  He shared with me some of the slides used in his presentation to soldiers who were heading into combat in Iraq, formerly classified but no longer in use.  “These are very similar to what got LTC Dooley fired.”  What were some of the things mentioned in the slides?

  • Muslim culture coalesced in the early 7th century and has remained static for the last 500 years
  • Muslim press outlets focus on myths and sensibilities
  • Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, and Al-Arabiya present clearly biased coverage

These points are historically and culturally accurate.  The presentation also reviewed several instances of Muslim outrage at alleged Western disrespect of Islam, such as the infamous Danish cartoons, and the since-debunked flushing of a Koran (as reported by Newsweek).  This was, after all, not a course on comparative anthropology, but a practical primer for soldiers deploying into a war zone and dealing with the enemy and a hostile, often manipulative foreign press.

Paging through the presentation, it becomes clear that LTC Dooley was a victim of the Islamic-inspired political correctness which has permeated the American military, and threatens to destroy its traditionally Judeo-Christian culture.  Furthermore, by sanitizing the information presented to soldiers so that it could not possibly offend Muslims, the Obama administration is in fact endangering the lives of the very people who protect the nation from foreign terrorists.

In addition to the persecution of Christians and the censorship of anyone who might “offend” a Muslim, the chilling of free speech in the military under Obama extends to the President himself, as well as his administration.  In today’s military, criticism of any of the administration’s policies can lead to a dishonorable discharge.  Don’t approve of Obamacare?  Don’t approve of the “green” policies?  Don’t see the wisdom of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood across North Africa and the Middle East?  Any vocal criticism along these lines, however slight, is grounds for immediate discharge.  Apparently political loyalty, above all else, is important to this commander-in-chief.

A previous story reported on the purge of high ranking brass, including many Generals.  But the policies as described above have led to a purge of a very significant number of lower ranking officers.  Captains and Colonels, who more than their superiors actively run the military (as oppose to acting as political intermediaries), are disappearing en masse.  Even more alarmingly, Senior NCOs are being forced out because they refuse to comply with Obama’s strict political correctness.

“Civilians have to understand something about the military.  The NCOs are the heart and soul of it.  They are what make America’s armed forces different from the rest of the world’s, and always have.  Now their very existence is under threat by a president who would rather push a political agenda than maintain a strong military with high morale,” explained Rurik, a Vietnam veteran who is now a published military historian.  “Stalin decapitated his military in the Great Purge of 1937-38.  He had 80% of the senior officers killed.  But it also extended into the lower ranks,” he added, ominously.

It is clear that the Obama administration has taken political correctness so far within the military that is rivalingsharia in its control over free thought.  Coupled with revised rules of engagement that place an enormous burden on the soldier, this may explain why the Obama administration has utterly lost the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  In Iraq, Iran recently responded to the Obama plan to attack Syria by threatening to attack the American embassy in Baghdad.  In Afghanistan, President Karzai is reduced to negotiating with his mortal enemy, the Taliban, even as the administration encourages such talks.  Moreover, Obama’s silencing of active duty Christians pales in comparison to treatment of Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood, who he has supported diplomatically and through intervention.  The rebels that the administration is arming in Syria have been found culpable of several instances of genocide against local Christians.

What’s shaping up is an unmitigated disaster for the administration and the Democrat Party with Christians, and with western minds in general.  Eagerly looking to fill the leadership gap is Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Authoring a derisive op-ed in the New York Times, he chided Obama for disregarding international law, and strongly opposed any military intervention that would benefit the murderous rebels.  It’s no secret that Russia has emerged from Communism with a renewed Christian faith.  For example, the Basic (Orthodox) Church Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights is meant to guide legislation in Russia.  For many Christian Americans who see their faith under assault, that Russia has taken a pro-active stance must be heartening.  For American Jews, who see Israel alone in a region that Obama has helped to ignite into chaos, the stabilizing force of Russia must be reassuring.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a highly trained, professional military with longstanding traditions to complement a free society.  In any society, the military is the vanguard that ultimately keeps rule by preventing the conquering by a foreign culture.  The values that they cherish, the ideals that they uphold, both reflect and inform the values of the society protected by them.  Loyal first to the Constitution, then to the Commander-in-Chief, the United States Armed Forces are intended to be an institution as far removed from daily politics as can be realistically expected.  They stand as our most powerful bulwark against tyranny, protecting the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans every day. An active assault on these traditions, and large scale purging of officers who refuse to silence their beliefs, is tantamount to declaring war on the very institution that wages war on our behalf.  It’s a not-so-subtle form of national suicide.

There is a story out of Little Rock about a teacher who removed all the desks in her classroom on the first day of school.  When the students arrived, she told them that they could have their desks back when they told her how they earned the right to sit a desk in school.  The children answered: Grades?  No.  Behavior?  No.  Finally, after several periods passed, the children gave up.  Just then, 27 Veterans entered, each carrying a desk.  Said the teacher, convinced that her lesson would be understood by the entire desk-deprived class, “You didn’t earn the right to sit at these desks.  These heroes did it for you.”

The information in this article comes from numerous public sources, as well as interviews with two retired officers: a Chief Warrant Officer, Gerry, who specialized in information analysis; and a Vietnam veteran, Rurik, turned military historian.  Both maintain extensive relationships with active military individuals and organizations.  The views expressed above do not necessarily represent the views of those interviewed.


What about that Purge?

One the things that undoubtedly pushed Mosry’s government over the edge was the purge of top Egyptian military officers.  In August of last year, it was reported that he had forced the resignation of Defense Minister, the Army Chief of Staff and “other senior generals.”  It’s impossible to rule a country when your own country’s military refuses to obey your orders.  The tension between the Ikhwan and the Egyptian military being what it is, Morsy let them go.

Why was it that the Egyptian military was so opposed to Morsy?  As a Muslim Brother, he was committed to ruling Egypt under Sharia (i.e. Islamic) law.  Sharia is a comprehensive system of legal, social, and economic doctrines that is incompatible with any system of secular rule.  The Egyptian military, as brutally as they ruled that ancient land, did so without Sharia.  It was Morsy who infamously proclaimed, “The Koran is our Constitution!  The Prophet is our Leader!  Jihad is our Path!  And death in the name of Allah is our Goal!”  Having said that, and accomplishing in deed his promises, the military turned on him.

Many people overlook the spate of top American military brass that President Obama has, well, trashed.  Following the same path as Morsy, Obama apparently has no need for some military leaders.  Here’s a quick list, courtesy of fellowshipofminds.com:

  • General David Petraeus: Was Director of CIA.  Suspicious exposure of extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell led to resignation on November 9, 2012.  In came the obvious security risk, John Brennan.  That is, if you can believe another former Director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey.  Read the report on Brennan, “[I]t is hard to overstate the danger associated with the President of the United States having as his top advisor in these sensitive portfolios someone so severely compromised with respect to shariah and the threat it poses.”
  • General John R. Allen: Succeeded Petraeus as Commander in Afghanistan.  SecDef Leon Panetta suspended confirmation hearing to become the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO on November 13, 2012, as part of the Petraeus fallout, when it was revealed he was flirting with a Lebanese (reportedly Maronite) woman by the name of Jill Kelley.  It is speculated that the firing had little to do with the salacious emails, but perhaps was a White House power play.
  • Army General Carter Ham: Following the attack on Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, Obama canned AFRICOM Commander General Ham and installed General David Rodriguez.  Apparently, General Ham was ready and willing to act during the Benghazi attack, and was relieved by his “second in command” when he refused to stand down.  A month or so later, he was fired.
  • Rear Admiral Gaouette: Accused of “inappropriate leadership judgment” following the Benghazi attacks, the Admiral was sent home port in Bremerton, Washington on October 27, 2012.

All within two months of Benghazi attacks.

But that’s not all.  There is larger list of brass who have been, umm, disappeared by the Commander-in-Chief:

That’s 10 Generals.  Ten, including a Director of the CIA, Commander of AFRICOM, the Commander of US and ISAF Forces in Afghanistan, and the candidate for Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  Not small beans. A friend in the military informs me of many other Colonels and Navy Captains who have also been relieved or forcibly retired, but stopped short of providing names.

This does recall Morsy’s actions in a very uncomfortable light.  I’m just not sure who copied whom.  For Muslim Brother Mosry, it led to the downfall of his Presidency and arrest by the military.  It’s hard to conceive of such a scenario in what has been the most politically stable nation in the world.  Yet there is a growing awareness among the public, and especially the military, the President Obama is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda – first in Egypt, then in Libya, and now in Syria.

Just yesterday, Syria hacked Marines.com, and urged U.S. Marines to join them in their fight against al Qaeda in Syria.  The article linked contains pictures, allegedly, of U.S. Marines protesting any action in Syria.  The message read, in part, “Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama’s alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.”

Sure, this could be Syrian propaganda.  But it’s worth recording, particularly in the context of military casualties under Obama.  Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, there have been 2,161 deaths in Afghanistan.  According to CNSNews.com, as of January 11, 2013, there were 2,053 deaths, 72% which occurred during Obama’s first term.  Since then, there have been an additional 108 deaths.  That math means that under eight years of Bush’s command, there were 575 deaths in the Afghanistan war, while under Obama – in less than five years – there have been 1,586 deaths.  By any measure, a staggering increase of fatalities.  Many view this tragic trend as an inevitable result of the Obama rules of engagement.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham are two of the leading voices of Republican support for Obama’s intended Syrian invasion.  Yet can you recall any military action these two ever opposed?  They’ve even gone to the right of Obama’s (already) unpopular planned strike: they want to force regime change, effectively empowering al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Why go half-hearted into a terrible idea?

The media, for their part, seem divided.  Many sheepish reporters have been guilt tripped into supporting a strike, given Obama’s and Kerry’s emotional indictments against Assad.  CNN, for example, urges the President to act for “what’s right.”  The Washington Post, on the other hand, featured two op-eds: one, telling Congress to steer clear of any intervention, and another merely recommending that Republicans limit the scope of the engagement (the juvenile argument being that “isolationism” is bad, or something).  (See here, and here.)  (Jennifer Rubin, you’ve always been condescending toward conservatives, but now we’re all “isolationists” for not wanting to unnecessarily kick-off WWIII?)

As an update, Israel has sent home the reservists it called up.  Seems like Israel has left the U.S. sphere of influence, and made peace with not only Iran, but Syria and Russia. The threat of the Ikhwan is that great to the Middle East at this time.  This is in line with Netanyahu’s doublespeak, when he at once publicly aired photos and videos of gas masks being handed out to Israeli citizens, and at the same time told the people that there was a “low probability” of any fallout.

Assad, for his part, has stepped up the rhetoric and warned the United States that any action would likely result in a regional war.  This echoes the thinly veiled warnings of Russia and Iran.  But who would the war be between?  Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Israel (?), Jordan – at least – vs. the United States, France, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  That’s one likely break.

But it’s potentially simpler.  You have the Islamists backed by Pakistan’s ISI and bankrolled by Qatar, with the United States armed forces acting as their spearhead (?!), against the forces of Orthodox Christianity and secularism.  Further simplified, Dawood Ibrahim (and the USA) vs. Aleksandr Dugin and his regional partners.

Now that Obama has purged the brass, what will the remaining brass do?  Do they really want to fight this war on behalf of al Qaeda, their sworn enemies?  I can’t imagine so.  There was hope that maybe the Republican House will bail them out, but don’t look for support from Senators McCain or Graham.  Today, Boehner announced his support.  So where’s that leave us?  If Congress authorizes, then what?

Under the First Amendment, we are allowed to wonder out loud.

Does America’s military might get employed publicly on the side of al Qaeda, for the first time in history?  Or, does Cairo repeat itself in Washington D.C.?

Stay tuned.

Editor’s Note: We have been informed that in addition to top brass, Senior NCOs are also being purged from the ranks.  In the words of a veteran, NCOs are the heart and soul of the American military.  Also, rank and file soldiers are being discharged (less than honorably) for any criticism of Obama’s political policies, including gays and women in the military.  To paraphrase another veteran, Obama is flirting with disaster in Syria, threatening war while there is no clear threat to the United States; and furthermore, at a time when the military has been “hollowed out.”  The consequences of such an action very well may disastrous.  To quote, “We need a measure of sanity before we loose the dogs of war.”


Page 8 of 8« First...45678