JMHO Loc: Utah

A curious administration ally in the campaign against "violent extremism."

A Boston-based hub of terrorism associated with a top Islamic State propagandist and producer of hostage-beheading videos will receive the red carpet treatment at an anti-terrorism conference at the Obama White House this Wednesday.

The so-called Summit on Countering Violent Extremism comes as President Obama seeks formal authorization from Congress to wage war against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL).

The terrorist-friendly Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), which is a known front for Islamist terrorist groups, operates mosques in and around Boston.

Members of the anti-terrorist community are outraged that officials of ISB will participate in discussions of anti-terrorism best practices on Feb. 18.

In a recent Washington Times op-ed, Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov of Americans For Peace and Tolerance, warned that ISB “and its political arm, the Muslim American Society, seen as the go-to groups for civic and law enforcement partnerships, have links to many extremists who are either in jail, in flight from federal authorities, or have been killed during terrorist attacks.” The group also ran a full-page ad about ISB’s participation in the summit in the Washington Times under the headline, “Why is Boston a Hub For ‘VIOLENT EXTREMISM?'”

Social media guru Ahmad Abousamra, who is now the chief propagandist for the Islamic State, used to regularly worship at ISB’s Cambridge mosque. His father was a member of the board of directors of ISB. The FBI suspects Abousamra is in charge of Islamic State’s slick English-language propaganda campaign that produces videos of beheadings and various atrocities. The campaign has succeeded in recruiting at least 300 American jihadists and thousands of volunteers from other Western nations.

Long before the Islamic State arrived on the world scene, the Islamic Society of Boston had already long been a hotbed of terrorist activity, according to DiscoverTheNetworks.

ISB was founded by Hamas and Hezbollah supporter Abdurahman Alamoudi, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in prison on terrorism-related charges. ISB’s Cambridge mosque is run by the Muslim American Society, which federal prosecutors say is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi benefactors helped to fund a sister mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC), in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood.

Boston marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev worshiped at ISB’s Cambridge mosque, as did Tarek Mehanna. Mehanna received terrorist training in Yemen and intended to use automatic weapons to inflict mass casualties in a suburban shopping mall near Boston. In 2012 Mahenna received a 17-year prison term for conspiring to aid al-Qaeda. Oussama Ziade, a benefactor of the Boston mosque, was indicted in 2009 for accepting money from al-Qaeda fundraiser Yassin Kadi.

Jacobs and Feoktistov throw some light on other ISB mosque congregants.

Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a founding trustee of the ISB. He has urged the elimination of Jews and the murder of homosexuals. An INTERPOL arrest warrant is pending. Aafia Siddiqui, also known as “Lady al Qaeda,” who is serving 86 years in prison for attempted murder after she opened fire on FBI agents, also attended an ISB mosque.

Hafiz Masood, a Muslim American Society religious leader deported for immigration offenses, reportedly raised funds and recruited members in Boston for his brother’s terrorist group, which was responsible the massacre in Mumbai, India. ISB congregant Rezwan Ferdaus, is now serving a 17-year prison term after plotting to fly remote-controlled airplane bombs into the U.S. Capitol.

ISB Iman Abdullah Faaruuq gave the Massachusetts attorney general’s office a $50,000 grant in 2010 for Muslim “sensitivity training” for the police.

“Under the program’s guidelines, law enforcement officers are barred from studying radical Islamist ideology as a motive for the violent extremism that the president’s program is supposed to counter,” Jacobs and Feoktistov note. “Imam Faaruuq was later found on tape urging Boston Muslims to ‘pick up the gun and the sword to defend Aafia ‘Lady al Qaeda’ Siddiqui,’ who was then on trial.”

The Obama White House announced the upcoming summit last month. It will “highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris.”

The summit is supposed to build on the strategy the White House released in August 2011, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States,” which it called the first national strategy to prevent violent extremism domestically. The U.S. is at war only with al-Qaeda and not Islamism, according to the paper.

The politically correct, largely content-free document is essentially useless, reducing all terrorist acts in the U.S. to “violent extremism.” Even those organizations it singles out — “neo-Nazis and anti-Semitic hate groups” — it refuses to describe properly, calling them merely “misguided groups.” Normal Americans would be more likely to opt for the descriptor evil but such a word will never escape the lips of the left-wing relativists of the Obama administration.

Partnering with America’s Islamic enemies is nothing new for the Obama administration. From the beginning President Obama’s foreign policy has been clearing the way for the rise of the Islamic Caliphate throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt and overthrew Muammar Qaddafi in Libya which paved the way for the Islamist takeover of that country. Obama refused to support a popular uprising against the theocratic totalitarians of Iran and allowed the opposition to be crushed by the mullahs.

Obama consistently makes excuses for Muslim atrocities as the nation was reminded in his recent National Prayer Breakfast speech in which he had to reach back a millennium to the Christian Crusades of medieval times in order to bash Western civilization.

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. …So this is not unique to one group or one religion.”

Obama supports Islamist movements all over the world. By inviting Islamist groups like ISB to the White House he’s only being consistent.

By Matthew Vadum

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Partners might be a bit much.

Obama may just be following orders.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

The Real Truth About the War in Ukraine
This video covers a lot of details our MSM ignores.
Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fWkfpGCAAuw

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

May be orders you say??? Here is his crew:
Obama’s Executive Cabinet members:
In order of succession to the Presidency:

Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden CFR/88
X Speaker of the House (Not in cabinet) Nancy Pelosi
Now JohnBoehner
Department of State
Secretary Hillary Rodham BB/CFR/RS/TC –
See Hillary’s speaches at CFR meeting on Youtube


Department of the Treasury
Secretary Timothy F. Geithner BB/CFR/TC/09
NOW: Jacob “Jack” Lew CFR

Department of Defense
Secretary Leon E. Panetta CFR


Chuck Hagel CFR

Department of Justice
Attorney General Eric H. Holder CFR

Newbees:
Ashton Carter CFR/92
Jeh Charles Johnson CFR

Pentagon Senior Counsel CFR

Director, CIA/ DHS Secretary
Jeh Charles Johnson CFR

Sylvia Mathews Burwell CFR/11


More positions filled with CFR:


Department of Commerce
Secretary John E. Bryson CFR/TC/88

Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric K. Shinseki CFR


Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet A. Napolitano CFR
Florida Representative and DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. CFR

United States Ambassador to the United Nations
Ambassador Susan Rice CFR
White House Chief of Staff
Bill Daley CFR
Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack CFR
Source: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm#d
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRA-Elist.html - Initial List of Council on Foreign Relations Members

Hillary Clinton Frankly Reveals the CFR Is Running the USA ...
Hillary Clinton spills the beans at the inauguration of the new office for Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, D.C. Some have said it was simply a slip of the tongue but whatever the perception is Clinton frankly revealed who's running the show in these United States. The CFR is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Why we get different rhetoric from each political party; but what really happens, once in office?

Now for some CFR facts:

The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today, CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.
Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.
The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.
Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.
The CFR's Shroud of Secrecy - On its web page, the CFR boasts that its magazine, Foreign Affairs, "is acclaimed for its analysis of recent international developments and for its forecasts of emerging trends." It's not much of a challenge to do so, though, when you play a part in determining what those emerging trends will be.
So are they predicting trends or creating them? The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who has earnestly reflected on the matter.
The CFR fancies itself to represent a diverse range cultural and political interests, but its members are predominantly wealthy males, and their policies reflect their elitist biases. The CFR attempts to maintain the charade of diversity via its Non-Attribution Rule, which allows members to engage in "a free, frank, and open exchange of ideas" without fear of having any of their statements attributed in public. The flip side of this, obviously, is a dark cloud of secrecy which envelopes the CFR's activities.
CFR meetings are usually held in secret and are restricted to members and very select guests. All members are free to express themselves at meetings unrestrained, because the Non-Attribution Rule guarantees that "others will not attribute or characterize their statements in public media forums or knowingly transmit them to persons who will," according to the Council on Foreign Relations' 1992 Annual Report.
The report goes on to forbid any meeting participant "to publish a speaker's statement in attributed form in any newspaper; to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker's platform, or in a classroom; or to go beyond a memo of limited circulation."
The end result is that the only information the public has on the CFR is the information they release for public consumption, which should send up red flags for anyone who understands the immense effect that CFR directives have on America's foreign policy. The public knows what the CFR wants the public to know about the CFR, and nothing more. There is one hole in the fog of secrecy, however: a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, written by an "insider" named Dr. Carroll Quigley, mentor of Bill Clinton.
Google: “Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral, Commission, Bilderberg Group”________________________________________

JMHO Loc: Utah

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Must own stock in YouTube.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

You must have stock in; CBS,CNN,ABC,NBC,FOX and PBS. After all; that is what you rely on to get the news.


:hunf: :hunf: :hunf:

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

How America screws up world without ever letting people know what happens By John Chuckman
http://republicbroadcasting.org/category/news/
Brian Williams, American television network anchor caught telling his audience a fantasy version of his experience on a foreign assignment, has unintentionally provided us with a near perfect allegory and tale of caution about American journalism and the role it plays in politics and foreign affairs.
I am not referring to the fact that a number of prominent Americans have done exactly the same thing Williams did making false public claims of risky deeds, this Münchausen-like condition being surprisingly common among American politicians. Hillary Clinton, in her 2008 nomination campaign, claimed she came under fire in Tuzla, Boznia in 1996, when her plane landed. Actual video of the harrowing event showed her being greeted peacefully by a young child with a welcoming poem. John Kerry, in his quick four-month “grab some glory for a future political career” stint in Vietnam made exaggerated claims of risk and bravery and certainly decency when indeed most of his activities involved shooting at peasant farmers working their fields from his heavily-armed patrol boat on a river, ferrying the odd cutthroat assassin for the CIA’s ghastly Operation Phoenix project, and killing a man, likely Viet Cong, who was lying on the ground badly wounded by the boat’s heavy machine gun fire. Rich men’s sons do get medals for rather hard to understand achievements.
The awful truth is, given the state of American journalism, stunts like that of Williams, despite their symbolism, are virtually without concrete importance. American network anchors like Williams are expected to have good looks, good voices, and sincere, home-townish demeanors while reading scripts. Beyond that, they have almost no connection with what most people understand as journalism. There is the odd effort by large American networks to make their handsome talking heads seem to be at the center of events, the most hilarious of which in my memory was CBS’s Dan Rather garbed in Afghan-style robes crawling around on the ground somewhere pretending to be secretly reporting something or other about Afghanistan, his soundman, lighting technician, cameraman, and make-up artist never making an appearance. Such absurdities lend theatrical flair to American news and probably help frustrated journalists stuck with million-dollar, talking-head jobs feel slightly useful, and you might say they are therapeutic, but they have nothing whatever to do with journalism.
Journalism, as it is taught in schools, is about discovering, or at least suggesting, through a series of well-defined techniques what is actually happening in events of interest and reporting the findings in a non-biased, almost scientific, way, but, remarkably, this is something which virtually never happens in American journalism. Truthfulness and journalistic principles simply have no place in the intensely politically-charged atmosphere of America where no event and no utterance is without political dimensions.
Actually, this has been the case for a very long time, but it just hasn’t always been so starkly clear as it is now. The same Dan Rather mentioned above, rising star reporter back in 1963, shortly after the Kennedy assassination, told an audience of millions he had seen the legendary Zapruder film – an amateur 8mm film taken by a man named Zapruder which unintentionally recorded Kennedy’s death. Rather, in almost halting words and with eyes often turned downward suggesting the immensity of what he claimed to have seen, described to millions how the film showed Kennedy slumping forward after being hit in the back by a shot from the “sniper’s nest” with Governor John Connally then hit while turned around towards the President, coat open, widely exposing his white-shirted breast, and with a third shot causing the President “to move violently forward” as his head explodes.
Except for the count of three shots striking the car’s occupants, Rather’s description was close to a complete fabrication, but the public didn’t know that until 1975, twelve years later, when the film was first broadcast. (There was actually at least one more on-target, non-lethal shot plus a missed shot hitting a street curb, but even Rather’s three shots, given before security officials had sorted out their story line, was ignored by the feebly-dishonest Warren Commission when it later told us there were only two shots plus a miss.)
Even in the film’s almost-certainly doctored state – after all, it had been purchased immediately after the assassination, and held for years, by Life Magazine, a known cooperating resource for the CIA in its day – the film shows Kennedy in distress from a neck wound as he emerges from behind an expressway sign, almost certainly having been shot from the front owing to his body position and the motions of his hands. Connally does turn but his coat is not open exposing his shirt front, and, judging by the time interval involved, is hit by a separate bullet (something he himself maintained in all testimony). The film then shows Kennedy hurled backward as his head explodes, absolute proof by the laws of physics of a shot from the front.
American major news broadcasts and newspapers all have become hybrids of infotainment, leak-planting, suggestion-planting, disinformation, and other manipulative operations. Many of them, such as The New York Times or NBC, maintain a seemingly unassailable appearance of authority and majesty, but it is entirely a show much like a grand march being played as a Louis XIV sauntered into a room, at least when it comes to any important issue in foreign affairs and even most controversial matters in domestic affairs, as with the Kennedy assassination or a thousand other examples from election fraud to corporate bribery. Massive corporate media consolidation (six massive corporations supply virtually all the news Americans receive), the dropping of most foreign correspondent and investigative journalism efforts owing to high costs, the constant and ready compliance of the few remaining owners of news media to adhere to the government line no matter how far-fetched, plus America’s now non-stop interference into the affairs of other people, have made American television and newspapers into a kind of Bryan Williams Media Wonderland where no reported item of consequence can be accepted at face value.
The owners of America’s news media have every reason to comply with government wishes. Failure to do so would immediately cut them off from access to government officials and from the kind of juicy leaks that make journalists here and there look like they are doing their jobs. It would also be costly in the advertising department where the sale of expensive ads to other huge corporations is what pays the bills. And it would simply not be in keeping with the interests of the very people who own massive corporate news outlets. After all, it was an American, A. J. Leibling, who told us with precise accuracy, “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one.”
Americans, the broad mass of them, simply do not know what is happening in Ukraine or in Syria or in Palestine or in a score of other places under assault by America’s establishment, its de facto, ongoing, non-elected government. Those place names are mentioned of course, and regularly, and various interviews are conducted, and maps and charts are shown, but the careful listener or reader will see that none of what is offered is genuinely informative, all of it serving to build one pre-determined idea of events, many of the words resembling the kind of one-liners politicians repeat over and over in America’s literally content-free political campaigns. We see many bits and pieces of seeming information, but they are all just pieces taken from the same jig-saw puzzle, capable only of being assembled in one way.
Americans also have very little idea of the nature of the men who are the actors in these various places, America’s press and networks virtually never granting or soliciting the insights of foreign leaders and representatives not already toeing the American line. Thoughtful foreign leaders generally are only seen through brief images and highly-colored descriptions.
Americans also are rarely informed of the consequences of their government’s acts, informed in hard facts and numbers such as the number of deaths and injuries and the extent of destruction. America’s press has covered up countless facts such as the number of Iraqis killed in the First Gulf War, the number of Iraqi children who perished under an American embargo so feverishly championed by Madeline Albright, or the number of Iraqis killed and crippled by the George Bush’s “I’ll go one better than Pappy” invasion. They never saw pictures of women and children torn up by cluster bombs unless they deliberately searched them out on the Internet. When Americans are given numbers, such as deaths and refugees, as in the American-induced Syrian conflict, it is only because the numbers are said to be the Syrian government’s responsibility, with no reference to the gangs of foreign mercenaries and thugs paid and armed by America or its associates in the region.
For Ukraine, any numbers and facts Americans receive are shaped to fit the construct of an aggrandizing Russia, led by a new Czar intent on upsetting the balance of Europe, opposing a now free and democratic government in Kiev. You can almost imagine the smiles and snickers of the good old boys gathered in planning meetings at Langley a few years ago when they realized how their scheme could both give them Ukraine and discredit Putin, the only reasonable actor in the whole dirty business. No images of Ukrainian militias and thugs displaying swastikas and other neo-Nazi symbols, no discussion of repressive measures taken by the new crowd at Kiev against Russian-speakers, no discussion of a country starting a war on its own people who stood up for their rights, and no discussion of an incompetent Ukrainian military shooting down a plane-load of civilians.
I don’t know whether Brian Williams just became so comfortable over his years of work broadcasting fantasies that he grew easy about adding a personal tall tale or whether he may suffer from some unfortunate disability, but his ridiculous affair does provide us reason to focus on contemporary American journalism’s real function, which is anything but journalism. I think it likely the reason corporate news executives were in a flap over the affair, having handed Williams a 6-month suspension, is not scrupulous concern for truth – there simply is no such thing in such organizations – but fear of having one of the chief presenters of so many other misrepresentations made a laughing-stock.

JMHO Loc: Utah

No, I have stock in common sense...not conspiracy crap. I don't buy into every wacko conspiracy theory that comes along, like you do. :D

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

American major news broadcasts and newspapers all have become hybrids of infotainment, leak-planting, suggestion-planting, disinformation, and other manipulative operations. Many of them, such as The New York Times or NBC, maintain a seemingly unassailable appearance of authority and majesty, but it is entirely a show much like a grand march being played as a Louis XIV sauntered into a room, at least when it comes to any important issue in foreign affairs and even most controversial matters in domestic affairs, as with the Kennedy assassination or a thousand other examples from election fraud to corporate bribery. Massive corporate media consolidation (six massive corporations supply virtually all the news Americans receive), the dropping of most foreign correspondent and investigative journalism efforts owing to high costs, the constant and ready compliance of the few remaining owners of news media to adhere to the government line no matter how far-fetched, plus America’s now non-stop interference into the affairs of other people, have made American television and newspapers into a kind of Bryan Williams Media Wonderland where no reported item of consequence can be accepted at face value.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

I don’t know whether Brian Williams just became so comfortable over his years of work broadcasting fantasies that he grew easy about adding a personal tall tale or whether he may suffer from some unfortunate disability, but his ridiculous affair does provide us reason to focus on contemporary American journalism’s real function, which is anything but journalism. I think it likely the reason corporate news executives were in a flap over the affair, having handed Williams a 6-month suspension, is not scrupulous concern for truth – there simply is no such thing in such organizations – but fear of having one of the chief presenters of so many other misrepresentations made a laughing-stock.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

The awful truth is, given the state of American journalism, stunts like that of Williams, despite their symbolism, are virtually without concrete importance. American network anchors like Williams are expected to have good looks, good voices, and sincere, home-townish demeanors while reading scripts. Beyond that, they have almost no connection with what most people understand as journalism. There is the odd effort by large American networks to make their handsome talking heads seem to be at the center of events, the most hilarious of which in my memory was CBS’s Dan Rather garbed in Afghan-style robes crawling around on the ground somewhere pretending to be secretly reporting something or other about Afghanistan, his soundman, lighting technician, cameraman, and make-up artist never making an appearance. Such absurdities lend theatrical flair to American news and probably help frustrated journalists stuck with million-dollar, talking-head jobs feel slightly useful, and you might say they are therapeutic, but they have nothing whatever to do with journalism.

JMHO Loc: Utah

And, your YouTube conspiracy videos are telling the truth...the whole truth??? Huh? Most of it is opinion.

I get most of my news each morning from: Fox News, Drudge Report, FrontPageMag.com, JihadWatch.org, National Review, Breitbart News, The Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Townhall, NewsMax, Human Events, Hugh Hewitt, World News Daily, and a few other conservative sites.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

jhmo - Yep; that is why you regurgitate Bilderberger CFR indoctrination. That is why free America is no longer free America. $18 Trillion of unpayable "debt" to parasites.

JMHO Loc: Utah

That's your opinion, as warped as it is...full of far-fetched and exaggerated conspiracies. I bet you're so paranoid that you have sleeping problems at night?